You're welcome back to the breakfast on Plus TV Africa. Our first major conversation this morning is still about the topic of reintegration of repentant Boko Haram members. Now, the National Chairman of the Arowa Consultative Forum, Aldo Albi, has released a statement regarding this, basically criticizing the government for attempting to reintegrate these repentant Boko Haram members into society. They say what they need is a fair trial. Let's invite Public Affairs Analyst, Mr Amit Buhari, to discuss this. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Good morning, everyone. It's good to be here. Alright, let's first get your initial reaction to the concept of the Nigerian army now saying they are accepting, surrendered or repentant Boko Haram terrorists into society rather than, you know, go ahead to do what many Nigerians expect of them, which is ensuring that these people are prosecuted. Thank you for having me. With regards to the issue that concerns the repentant Boko Haram members, you know, it's very hard for some of us to hear that they're going to be forgiving and reintroduced into the system as normal people. There's no doubt in my mind that they're not going to be normal people at this stage, but also it's important for us to realize that these are people that the nation has failed. When Boko Haram started its campaign massacring people in the northeast, they didn't just massacre people at different times. They stole people, people who have been neglected by the system, by the government, who couldn't be protected by the police. And these people were not just stolen, but they were stolen and then reintroduced to a new ideology. In other words, they were polluted to become murders, keyless, and what have you. People were stolen, families were stolen, and brothers were made to rape sisters. Brothers were made to rape mothers. Sons were made to actually kill fathers. And these are the kind of people that they turned into become, they radicalized them. So, yes, they have committed heinous crimes. Yes, on the other hand, the government, the system has also failed in trying to protect them from these criminals called Boko Haram. So in my opinion, it's very important for us to always look at it from both sides and understand that just the way it happened in Liberia, Sierra Leone, where young children were picked up and actually stolen by people who had some crazy agenda, taking these young children to different places and making them become monsters is exactly what has happened in the northeast. You know, I remember there was a story of a young girl who was rescued by the Nigerian Army and she actually found that we are running back to the den of the Boko Haram people. In other words, her mindset has changed. But at the same time, are we going to now say we have failed to protect them at the same time? Now that we have rescued them, what we're not trying to do to them is to kill them? I don't think so. But Mr. Buari, the challenge here, I believe, is being able to distinguish between who is a Boko Haram fighter and who is a victim or an abductee, someone who has been taken by Boko Haram. I cannot show you that. So what you're saying now that these hundreds, these thousands, you know, that we see in the news every other week that the government claims to have surrendered and repented are all people who were simply taken from their villages and made to carry out these crimes are not necessarily terrorists. And how do you differentiate between both? To be honest, I cannot differentiate between both. But at the same time, I want us to be mindful of the fact that we have failed as a country, as a government, as a system to protect the lives of these people from being stolen by what I would like to call criminals, Boko Haram criminals. Now we have found a way to get them back. And the first thing we're thinking of doing is kill them. In my opinion, I think we must be careful. I think we must be apologetic for actually not safeguarding these people. I know a lot of girls that were stolen like at the early stages of this Boko Haram mayhem and they could have children that are like 12 year olds now. Those children, I'm not sure you can hold weapons and have become, you know, like Boko Haram. And I'm saying when we get to rescue these people, are we trying to kill them because we failed them in the first place? I want us to have a rethink. I'm not protecting anybody here.  But I'm just saying that they are brothers and sisters of ours who have also been stolen for years, who are actually part of this Boko Haram members. And I'm ensuring that those are the information that the military know that makes them feel reluctant sometimes to just go out on everybody because they do know that there are some innocent people that have been compelled to be part of this unfortunate scenario that we couldn't stop from happening.  And then the government agrees that, okay, yes, we failed you. So let's forgive you and bring you home. Nearly all of them want to save their lives right now. Nearly all of them will say that. But at the same time, what I think we should be doing as a country, right, is put a mechanism in place that can help reorientate these people and remove them from that ideology. I'm not saying you should release them to the streets. I'm saying you're still going to have to lock them up and see how you can reorientate them and bring their minds back to what we think normal people should be thinking at this stage. But for us to gather them all up together after we have failed to protect them from being stolen and say we want to kill them, I have some concerns about that. So, Mr. Buhari, this issue is very dicey, the way I see it. It is very dicey. It is. But I want us to begin first with this question.  He was radicalized in the first place. I believe that he can be radicalized. This is a mental doctor or psychologist question. I wouldn't know how far they can go. We're trying to get these people back to their senses, but I think it's possible. If you can go left, you definitely can go right. So, Buhari, in Sena climbs, we can argue that they have all the infrastructure in place regarding people who went to school for these sort of things, who learnt about psychosocial supports and things like this.  Do you think we have the resources and facilities to do so? I don't know. I'm not in the army. I'm not with the government. I wouldn't know where they are put in place, but I also want to remind us that the government has failed. It has failed the people of those areas. It has failed the citizens of this country. And so it must stand firm to making sure that they protect these people, not because they have killed people. No, not because they have killed people, but because we have failed as a government, as a system, as a country to protect them from getting stolen. I know a lot of cheap old girls who have been rescued, who still have their mindsets back to the camps because they have found lovers or comfort or friends. The reason why some of these boys actually walk into the Boko Haram dense to surrender themselves to be part of the Boko Haram is because they find even better solace there where they have been given food or taken care of or have a sense of belonging alone. And they go to those places, which means we must wake up as a country and start thinking of other places where this could actually happen and make sure we do not fail our citizens anymore. So is it the name that is the challenge here? Because would it be better to call them victims instead of calling them Boko Haram terrorists? If the government says that we're rehabilitating ex-Boko Haram former Boko Haram repentant Boko Haram terrorists, it makes very little sense. So would it be better from your analysis to call them victims and people who necessarily aren't terrorists, but people who the government had failed and they are victims of this system? You know, it's very, very hard. Like my friend here said, she said it's dicey. It is indeed dicey. I thought about this. The first thing that crossed my mind was what are we even talking about?   He has killed like a thousand or two people. But at that point, he's surrendering. You pick him up and he becomes a prisoner of war. And then from there, you can push forward to try him and making sure you know what is where he really stands and how you want to proceed with him. So what I am saying here is we must take a pause. I know emotions are running. I know there are sentiments running. But at the same time, we must also question ourselves and ask ourselves how did these people get here in the first place? What lapses on our parts occurred that made them become what they have become? And so we should know where exactly to point our fingers at a time like this. I need to do the government. Okay. So Mr. Buhari, this issue really is something I want us to take step by step because there's just a lot that is shrouded in mystery right now. I want us to maybe try this analogy if it will make us understand it better. When you go to universities and even out in the real world, there are lots of people who get peer pressured into courtism. They were from good homes. They are good people. They never wanted to be courtists, but they were forced, threatened or pressured into it.  I want to understand where you're coming from. Are you then saying that the punishment for a crime of a courtes who had killed people and done evil should be different because he was forced into courtism or peer pressured into courtism from someone who from the get go was your quote and unquote bad boy who really wanted to be a courtes? Is that what we're saying? And when we look at it and compare it to the Buhari situation, are we also saying that people because they were forced, they were kidnapped, they were abducted from their homes and were forced into terrorism and have gone ahead to actually kill people and commit crimes? Then that sentence should be lower because they were forced into it. Please help me understand, Mr. Buhari. That's not what I'm saying. And it's very important for us to know that courtism that you described as it is in most Nigerian schools and this situation are two different things. These are people that were kidnapped, taken to camps, radicalized. I'm telling you, we have gotten stories from people who have returned that very clearly, you see how they were made to eat themselves first. Buhari, my question, I want you to understand my question. The question is about will. Buhari, the question is about will. You're saying that these people were kidnapped, so they never wanted to be part of Boko Haram in the first place, right? They never wanted to. So are you saying that because they never willed to be part of Boko Haram, even if they have committed crimes that are punishable by law, crimes like murder, then they should be pardoned? Is that what you're saying? If you heard me correctly, I never used in all of the talks that we've had in the last 15 minutes, I didn't use the word pardoned. I am saying we should be mindful. We should realize that as a people we have failed them and that we should have them tried. Like I said, try. I think we should have them tried. However, we should also realize that as much as emotions are running high, these people are victims of circumstances, not all of them, most of them, which is where I expect the agencies to do a thorough job to ensure that there are some people who in all honesty were picked, were stolen as a result of the failure of a government who was not able to be there to protect them. And that's what I'm saying. All right, Mr. Buhari, before we bring in our second guest, I think we have Nika Gule also joining us. There is a challenge that I also want to point out, and that is once again, the way that this has been explained. It seems like some level of arrogance from the Nigerian government with regards to the way they simply say that they're rehabilitating and pardoning former Bokoram terrorists. It doesn't in any way sit well with the Nigerian people and there's nobody really who has been able to bring up your angle from the Nigerian government to make people maybe understand it better. That's one. It's important, sorry to interrupt, but it's important that we should always remember. Yeah, just let me throw this in. How do you explain this or your narrative or your perspective to a victim's family, to a person who has lost eight family members who were brutally murdered, killed in their sleep by these same terrorists, regardless of how they got into the terrorist organization? But how do you explain this to the thousands of families who are currently living in IDP camps because they've lost all they have, including their loved ones, to these same terrorists? What would be the best way to say to them that these people who committed these crimes, regardless of how they got in, are being forgiven maybe or rehabilitated by the government? You know, in 2018, I was running for office of the president and I think that made some name for myself and I got invited to Rwanda by President Paul Kagame and one of the reasons where Paul Kagame invited me and some other young people across Africa was because he wanted to kind of mentor us and let us see, understand some of the concerns Africans are going through. And at that time, one of the places that he made us visit was the memorial ground in Kigali. And at that time, we saw mass graves of about 200 people here, 1,000 people there, and an institution that was designed by the government to see how they can reconcile the people. There were people who smashed people's children's heads on trees, on walls, and they were still alive and their families were still alive. And what they did was the families were made to interface with those people who actually committed those crimes and asked those people to ask for forgiveness and pleaded with them. Now, the government knew very well that if it wanted to lock people or kill people, it was going to kill nearly everybody in Rwanda. But at the same time, they knew that some people actually got involved in all of those crimes because they were foolishly radicalized to be part of those things. The point I'm making is, as a people, if we do not put closure to these things, we will never be able to forge ahead. There are some Boko Haram members that have escaped. The real ones have escaped. They're going to regroup. They're going to come back. What we're trying to do is to have a system that we design that will make some of these people resist any kind of future radicalization. We need to talk to our citizens and in all fairness to this situation, I can imagine what the people in IDP camps are going through.  I'm not saying they should be forgiven. I'm saying they have to go through a process of radicalization so that we can see how much and how easily we can integrate them into the system because if we continue like this, it's going to be a vicious cycle. Let me remind us that one of the reasons why Boko Haram tried from the beginning was because the early Boko Haram members that were captured, what they did to them was they actually shot them in open light. At that time, they were killing people. They were still actually trying to create a stance for themselves. It's the same thing going on in the southeast. I believe that the southeasterners have got a reason. They have what you call it. There's something they're driving at. They want to express themselves. And I'm saying to all of forces, the only thing that we can do right now for the southeasterners is to stop and listen to them. And then we can now weigh options and tell them all the things that you have asked for. I'm not practicable. And these are the disadvantages. These are the disadvantages. I want you to look at them and reason with us. I am assuring you that once somebody is able to sit down with all sides of the divide, people will start thinking normally. But we cannot stay on one side and talk over the people and feel superior. It won't work. Yeah, absolutely. And there is the body language that we've always mentioned of the current administration. And some of these things that you've mentioned don't seem to be in existence with the current administration's body language. Communication, yes. And anybody can argue that victims of Boko Haram, thousands of them across the country, can also feel aggrieved that the people who killed my family have now been forgiven and we want to start our own terrorist organization. And they legitimately, you can now argue 10 years later that the government failed these people and that's the reason they're killing other people today. There's some sense in that argument. Absolutely. All right. Mr. Buhari, Mr. Buhari, just a minute. Let's bring in our second guest who's a public affairs analyst, Mr. Nika Gule. Mr. Agule, good morning. Thank you for joining us. Good morning. Sorry for the network, guys. This shows how we are screening Agule, you know. All right. I imagine it has seamless. We have this conversation. All right, Mr. Agule, let's go straight into it. The Arawa Consultative Forum's national chairman, Mr. Aljobe, has responded to the recent activities of the Nigerian Army, which is reintegrating terrorists into society, saying they have repented and have or would be go through a process of radicalization. So I'm going to read out a quote from Ogbe, Mr. Ogbe now. He said, is I am sorry enough to bring relief to Nigerians and the thousands of dead and the maimed? Ogbe also asked, what of those victims bombed in churches, in mosques, in schools and markets? What of all the men and women in uniform murdered by them? He says, who can counter thousands of widows and orphans they have created? He says, what do we do with them? Do we embrace them and trust them? We seriously doubt. How do you respond to this, Mr. Agule? I very much agree with the views of the SCF chairman and I totally align with his views. Before I go forward, let me say two things. The first thing is that it will take ISWAP to come and defeat Boko Haram. It's not a good testament on the performance of our armed forces. We have an armed forces made up of three services, backed up with a, they were fighting Boko Haram. So what I'm saying is that it has to take ISWAP to come and do the job for the performance of our armed forces. I mean, they've tried to protect us, but it doesn't sound well that it has to take a ragtag band of terrorists to come and defeat Boko Haram for us. The Nigerian government, the current Nigerian government has not shown fairness in dealing with issues of insecurity in the country. Seems we have challenges with the connection from Nica Gule. We would talk about reintegrating Boko Haram, the government forces and this with the situation ruthlessly. Are you with me? Yes. Yes. Hello. Go ahead, Mr. Agule. We're going to struggle for it. Go ahead. So what I'm saying is that the current Nigerian government is not showing that it is fair in dealing with insecurity across the nation. Whereas the likes of Boko Haram, they know us, are being treated with what will look like kid growth. Government ruthlessly deals with insecurity elsewhere in the country. I can give you an example. In Benwood state, earlier in the year, a group of bandits murdered security for the mother members of the Nigerian army. And the government, this present government, they went to concede a local government. They burned, they arrested those who were responsible. Even the governor of Benwood, they handed them over to the government for persecution. Those people, as we speak, are in detention. The same thing is happening in the east, where the ESA members are being tackled by the security. So in the Boko's case is there, we know what has happened there. Mr. Agule, it's unfortunate that we're struggling to hear from you. But let's bring in Mr. Boko Haram now to continue this conversation. Mr. Boko Haram, can you hear us? We can reconnect with Nica Gule and Clara. Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, so we read through audio-based statements and we understand where he's coming from, as well as your perspective, especially since you went ahead to Rwanda to visit the country. Rwanda had one of the worst cases of what you call the genocide, the Rwandan genocide. It was very terrible, a very dark time in the history of Rwanda. So I can also understand your perspective coming from there to see how it's not one of the most peaceful countries.  But how do I base last statements, you know, in this press release he put out, was that if Nigerians continue to accept this terrorist, that our action is punishable by, he calls it, by more insurrection and more anarchy. Do you disagree with that? Well, he has a point. At the same time, we must look at the situation in the Niger Delta. I listened to Gule just speak about the internet in Nigeria is the worst in the world, but it's not true. It happens anywhere. You can have internet connectivity. I also listen to him say things like people were handed over to the Nigerian government and they are still in detention. The truth of the matter is if they had been killed by now, Amnesty International would have come to say, why didn't you try there? Why didn't they go through the right processes? I think we must support ourselves as a people, as a government. We must actually stand with ourselves. The more we tear ourselves apart, the more nothing will hold. You know, I've weighed all of this from every angle and I think the biggest problem we have in our countries, our inability to communicate with the people. I think people just want, and is that that people are so lazy or people are too proud to speak very carefully and gently to the people that they have promised and sworn to protect and say, this is how I think we want to go about this and listen to what the polls from the people. Yes, we have issues around the country, but if you look at it critically, they didn't just start today. Boko Haram, for example, is going to close to 20 years now. And before now, I've been telling to everybody that wants to listen, the northern part of this country has never been peaceful. From the times when you've been traveling by public transport and you realize that your taxi driver is parking on the side of the road and you're asking why he's parking and he's telling you that he has not noticed any car come from the opposite direction in the last 40 minutes. And so you wait and then when you get to that position, you now see that they were actually robbed. So we've always had this bandit. The reason why they're now kidnapping people and taking them to the forest and demanding for ransom is because largely most of us are actually adopting the whole cashless policy system. And so there's no cash with us. They pick us up, they take us to the bushes. So it's important that we take a pause and say, what is the true plan? Because even if the administration is not there, the next one comes, the whole everything that you've seen is still going to be the same. And as far as I'm concerned, as much as the economy is not straightening out, as much as poverty is increasing, as much as inflation is increasing, you're still going to keep having these kinds of pockets of people crossing mayhem. And as much as you are unable to stop them, they grow, they blossom. I keep telling people, I said the situation of Boko Haram 10 years and now isn't the same anymore. In big cities around the country, churches were bombed, mosques were bombed, mommy markets in barracks were bombed. Places like the UN office in Abuja was bombed. Travelling from a town to another town could take you five, seven hours on a one hour journey simply because there were numerous checkpoints. We are making some progress. However, there are other challenges that are erupting and we must find what the root causes are to those challenges. And it still boils down to the family units. Nobody is talking to the family unit, especially in Northern Nigeria, where a lot of people who do not have money or who do not have resources to take care of a wife and a child are heading up going to marry four children. When we talk about this, everybody gets angry. But we need the backing, the strong backing from the system to say, yes, this kind of makes sense. And we're going to see how it's going to stop. So many issues and all boils down to the family unit system. That is the root cause of all of the things we're talking about. Besides the family, I'm at Buhari, religion, I believe has also played a huge role in some of all these things. And we've gotten to see that there's more people in those regions who are more attached to their religion than they are to humanity and they are to governance in any way. It's very dangerous for us to say, it's very dangerous for us to say religion, because when you not dissect the religion itself, you will not find all of those ideologies that these people have pushed forward. But I don't know if you would agree that those ideologies still come from a religious perspective, somehow, some way. It may not be general. Absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong that some people are deciding to design the religion. It depends on the religion you're talking about. I don't know what religion you're talking about. But it depends on the religion you're talking about. Most of these people have actually decided to present it the way it will comfort them, which is why we must at every turn remind them that this is not the religion. What you are doing is selfish, it's for your own interest, and it's unacceptable. This is my point. This is my point. Yes, and I've said it earlier, that yes, it is not necessarily what the religion teaches, but the conversation still comes from a religious perspective. It is only turned in a totally different direction to suit what they are trying to achieve. So it's still coming somehow from religion. It may not be exactly what the religion teaches. It might be completely different from what the religion teaches, but it's still coming from a religious perspective. Now that's the point that I was trying to make. I mentioned earlier the body language of the government and something that you also said that doesn't seem to anybody who wants to, maybe because of pride, doesn't want to actually pull the Nigerian people together and have conversations with the Nigerian people to let them know the reasons for some of their decisions. The question I want to ask next is, when you take these decisions, look at the pictures that have been flashing on the screen. These are supposedly repentant terrorists drinking soft drinks and they have been given parts of groceries. When you make moves like that, it should anger a couple of certain amount of people. But if the government is not doing what it can to, first of all, of course, read those areas of poverty to change the narrative in those areas to fix some of the lack that exists in those areas. When you said earlier that the government has failed these people, is the government in any way showing that it is starting to be different with regards to governance in those areas? Well, I'm happy to an extent with the current governor of Boronau State. I was with him like three days ago and at that point, I posed this question to him and we did have a deep talk. This has been my views for a while now, but when I sat down and talked with him, I think it was a three-minute talk, but the truth of the matter is he's actually confused as well, just the same way I am confused and I'm sure many people are confused and we're thinking what is the best way to handle these kinds of situations because they probably were still real poor. Or should I say the people that have been in the IDP camps nearly eight, ten years, what measures are we adopted to see that we are actually even talking to them to see how they can think normally because there are some of them in the IDP camps, especially those around Boronau, who are saying, I'm suffering the IDP camp, I'm not eating properly, I'm being maltreated, the women have been raped in the IDP camps by some security personnel. In the IDP camps, there are people who have become godfathers who actually maltreat other people in the IDP camps. So when you look at those things, you now see that the system is still failing them while in the IDP camps. Some of them escaped from the IDP camps to find solace with the supposedly killers who have put them in that situation. There's so much that is going wrong. And I want us to point our fingers to the right quarters and say, what are you doing to fix those problems? Because if we do not do the right things, they're going to persist. All right, let's bring in Mr. Agule back into the conversation. Mr. Agule, welcome back. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Anna, Anna, can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead with your train of thought. Yes, I want to disagree totally with Mr. Buwari because he's from Nigeria and me. I'm a full-blooded Nigerian. I've been an analyst on post-TV for many occasions in the UK. The network is always steady. And in Nigeria, all the times I have come on the network is not steady. I don't allow it is not at all equal to be accepting mediocrity and saying it happens everywhere else in the world. Now, back to the point I was saying, Mr. Buwari is talking about the Japanese who were arrested from Koshisha have not been killed. If they have been killed, amnesty we're talking about. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that here we're talking about giving amnesty or integrating Boko Haram terrorists. People are these people. But in Koshisha local government of Benoist, when banning their killed the Nigerian army personnel, this same government that is treating Boko Haram with kid gloves, went to Koshisha with power. They bought place. They bought their food. They bought their houses at 10 percent. And then they arrested the people who currently detention. Even the government of Benoist handed over traditional rulers to the military to be protected. We in the same country might not be in a country where some terrorists have been treated like kings. And then some be treated with brutal force. If we are not running a country like this, there will be no country. And I want Mr. Buwari to know about that. It is for that reason that I'm fully aligned with the statement by Mr. Aoudou, the ACF, that these Boko Haram terrorists were brought to justice. How about Mr. Agoule? Mr. Agoule, do you understand? Let me show to the guys that they were actually, they were actually taking into into terrorism without their own agreement. Yeah, so that's what I wanted to bring in. Do you understand Amit Buwari's point that some of these persons weren't necessarily or originally terrorists. They were kidnapped and forced into these actions. Do you agree that for people like that, they maybe should be treated different? So we have the case of the chief of the case. Because the chief of the case was taking away from the Asgore force without their own solutions. Any time they have paid, they escape. They escape from the terrorists and return home. If these people were taking conflicted by force, they had opportunities to return home. They had opportunities to give themselves up to the military. They didn't do that. So what Mr. Buwari said to happen in court, let them come to court. And they are definitely called to be that they were truly constricted without their own agreement into terrorism. All right, Mr. Agoule. Mr. Agoule, that's a good place to live it for now. Obviously, this is a conversation that we'll continue to have until we find and come to a place of understanding. Thank you very much, public affairs analyst Mr. Agoule for your time. Politician Mr. Amit Buwari, thank you too for joining us. Okay, so we'll take a break here to return to discuss the Petroleum Industry Bill. Our oil expert, Mr. Balazaka, is on standby.


The Austrian School of Economics was founded in 1871 with the publication of Carl Menger's Principles of Economics. Menger, along with William Stanley Jevons and Leon Valras, developed the Marginalist Revolution in Economic Analysis. Menger dedicated Principles of Economics to his German colleague William Rowscher, the leading figure in the German Historical School, which dominated economic thinking in German language countries. In his book, Menger argued that economic analysis is universally applicable and that the appropriate unit of analysis is man and his choices. These choices, he wrote, are determined by individual subjective preferences and the margin on which decisions are made. The logic of choice, he believed, is the essential building block to the development of a universally valid economic theory. The Historical School, on the other hand, had argued that economic science is incapable of generating universal principles and that scientific research should instead be focused on detailed historical examination. The Historical School thought the English classical economists mistaken in believing in economic laws that transcended time and national boundaries. Menger's Principles of Economics restated the classical political economy view of universal laws and did so using marginal analysis. Rowscher's students, especially Gustav Schmoller, took great exception to Menger's defence of theory and gave the work of Menger and his followers, Ugen von Bomberwerk and Friedrich Weiser, the derogatory name Austrian school, because of their faculty positions at the University of Vienna. The term stuck. Since the 1930s, no economists from the University of Vienna or any other Austrian university have become leading figures in the so-called Austrian School of Economics. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Austrian School moved to Britain and the United States. And scholars associated with this approach to economic science were located primarily at the London School of Economics, 1931 to 1950, New York University, 1944 onwards, Auburn University, 1983 onwards, and George Mason University, 1981 onwards. Many of the ideas of the leading mid-20th century Austrian economists, such as Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, are rooted in the ideas of classical economists, such as Adam Smith and David Hume, or early 20th century figures such as Knut Wichsel, as well as Menger, Bomberwerk and Friedrich von Weiser. This diverse mix of intellectual traditions in economic science is even more obvious in contemporary Austrian school economists, who have been influenced by modern figures in economics. These include Armin Aukean, James Buchanan, Ronald Koes, Harold Demetz, Axel Leonvethude, Douglas North, Manker Olsen, Vernon Smith, Gordon Tulloch, Leyland Jaeger and Oliver Williamson, as well as Israel Kursner and Murray Rothbard. While one could argue that a unique Austrian School of Economics operates within the economic profession today, one could also sensibly argue that the label Austrian no longer possesses any substantive meaning. In this article I concentrate on the main propositions about economics that so-called Austrians believe. The Science of Economics Proposition 1. Only Individuals Choose Man with his purposes and plans is the beginning of all economic analysis. Only individuals make choices. Collective entities do not choose. The primary task of economic analysis is to make economic phenomena intelligible by basing it on individual purposes and plans. The secondary task of economic analysis is to trace out the unintended consequences of individual choices. Proposition 2. The study of the market order is fundamentally about exchange behavior and the institutions within which exchanges take place. The price system and the market economy are best understood as a catalaxie and thus the science that studies the market order falls under the domain of catalactics. These terms derive from the original Greek meanings of the word catalaxie, exchange and bringing a stranger into friendship through exchange. Catalactics focuses analytical attention on the exchange relationships that emerge in the market, the bargaining that characterizes the exchange process and the institutions within which exchange takes place. Proposition 3. The facts of the social sciences are what people believe and think. Unlike the physical sciences, the human sciences begin with the purposes and plans of individuals. Where the purging of purposes and plans in the physical sciences led to advances by overcoming the problem of anthropomorphism. In the human sciences, the elimination of purposes and plans results in purging the science of human action of its subject matter. In the human sciences, the facts of the world are what the actors think and believe. The meaning that individuals place on things, practices, places and people determines how they will orient themselves in making decisions. The goal of the sciences of human action is intelligibility, not prediction. The human sciences can achieve this goal because we are what we study or because we possess knowledge from within, whereas the natural sciences cannot pursue a goal of intelligibility because they rely on knowledge from without. We can understand purposes and plans of other human actors because we ourselves are human actors. The classic thought experiment invoked to convey this essential difference between the sciences of human action and the physical sciences is a Martian observing the data at Grand Central Station in New York. Our Martian could observe that when the little hand on the clock points to eight, there is a bustle of movement as bodies leave these boxes and that when the little hand hits five, there is a bustle of movement as bodies re-enter the boxes and leave. The Martian may even develop a prediction about the little hand and the movement of bodies and boxes. But unless the Martian comes to understand the purposes and plans, the commuting to and from work, his scientific understanding of the data from Grand Central Station would be limited. The sciences of human action are different from the natural sciences and we impoverish the human sciences when we try to force them into the philosophical scientific mould of the natural sciences. Microeconomics Proposition 4 Utility and costs are subjective. All economic phenomena are filtered through the human mind. Since the 1870s, economists have agreed that value is subjective, but following Alfred Marshall, many argued that the cost side of the equation is determined by objective conditions. Marshall insisted that just as both blades of a scissors cut a piece of paper, so subjective value and objective costs determine price. But Marshall failed to appreciate that costs are also subjective because they are themselves determined by the value of alternative uses of scarce resources. Both blades of the scissors do indeed cut the paper, but the blade of supply is determined by individuals' subjective valuations. In deciding courses of action, one must choose. That is, one must pursue one path and not others. The focus on alternatives in choices leads to one of the defining concepts of the economic way of thinking, opportunity costs. The cost of any action is the value of the highest valued alternative for gone in taking that action. Since the foregone action is by definition never taken, when one decides one weighs the expected benefits of an activity against the expected benefits of alternative activities. Proposition 5 The price system economizes on the information that people need to process in making their decisions. Prices summarise the terms of exchange on the market. The price system signals to market participants the relevant information, helping them realise mutual gains from exchange. In Hayek's famous example, when people notice that the price of tin has risen, they do not need to know whether the cause was an increase in demand for tin or a decrease in supply. Either way, the increase in the price of tin leads them to economise on its use. Market prices change quickly when underlying conditions change, which leads people to adjust quickly. Proposition 6 Private property in the means of production is a necessary condition for rational economic calculation. Economists and social thinkers had long recognised that private ownership provides powerful incentives for the efficient allocation of scarce resources. But those sympathetic to socialism believed that socialism could transcend these incentive problems by changing human nature. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that even if the assumed change in human nature took place, socialism would fail because of economic planners' inability to rationally calculate the alternative use of resources. Without private ownership in the means of production, Mises reasoned, there would be no market for the means of production and therefore no money prices for the means of production. And without money prices reflecting the relative scarcities of the means of production, economic planners would be unable to rationally calculate the alternative use of the means of production. Proposition 7 The competitive market is a process of entrepreneurial discovery. Many economists see competition as a state of affairs, but the term competition invokes an activity. If competition were a state of affairs, the entrepreneur would have no role. But because competition is an activity, the entrepreneur has a huge role as the agent of change who prods and pulls markets in new directions. The entrepreneur is alert to unrecognized opportunities for mutual gain. By recognizing opportunities, the entrepreneur earns a profit. The mutual learning from the discovery of gains from exchange moves the market system to a more efficient allocation of resources. Entrepreneurial discovery ensures that a free market moves towards the most efficient use of resources. In addition, the lure of profit continually prods entrepreneurs to seek innovations that increase productive capacity. For the entrepreneur who recognizes the opportunity, today's imperfections represent tomorrow's profit. The price system and the market economy are learning devices that guide individuals to discover mutual gains and use scarce resources efficiently. Macroeconomics Proposition 8 Money is non-neutral. Money is defined as the commonly accepted medium of exchange. If government policy distorts the monetary unit, exchange is distorted as well. The goal of monetary policy should be to minimize these distortions. Any increase in the money supply not offset by an increase in money demand will lead to an increase in prices. But prices do not adjust instantaneously throughout the economy. Some price adjustments occur faster than others, which means that relative prices change. Each of these changes exerts its influence on the pattern of exchange and production. Money, by its nature, thus cannot be neutral. This proposition's importance becomes evident in discussing the costs of inflation. The quantity theory of money stated correctly that printing money does not increase wealth. Thus, if the government doubles the money supply, money holder's apparent gain in ability to buy goods is prevented by the doubling of prices. But while the quantity theory of money represented an important advance in economic thinking, a mechanical interpretation of the quantity theory underestimated the cost of inflationary policy. If prices simply doubled when the government doubled the money supply, then economic actors would anticipate this price adjustment by closely following money supply figures and would adjust their behavior accordingly. The cost of inflation would thus be minimal. But inflation is socially destructive on several levels. First, even anticipated inflation breaches a basic trust between the government and its citizens because government is using inflation to confiscate people's wealth. Second, unanticipated inflation is redistributive as debtors gain at the expense of creditors. Third, because people cannot perfectly anticipate inflation and because the money is added somewhere in the system, say through government purchase of bonds, some prices, the price of bonds, for example, adjust before other prices, which means that inflation distorts the pattern of exchange and production. Since money is the link for almost all transactions in a modern economy, monetary distortions affect those transactions. The goal of monetary policy, therefore, should be to minimize these monetary distortions precisely because money is non-neutral. Proposition nine. The capital structure consists of heterogeneous goods that have multi-specific uses that must be aligned. Right now, people in Detroit, Stuttgart and Tokyo City are designing cars that will not be purchased for a decade. How do they know how to allocate resources to meet that goal? Production is always for an uncertain future demand and the production process requires different stages of investment, ranging from the most remote, mining iron ore, to the most immediate, the car dealership. The values of all producer goods at every stage of production derive from the value consumers place on the product being produced. The production plan aligns various goods into a capital structure that produces the final goods in, ideally, the most efficient manner. If capital goods were homogeneous, if mistakes were made, the resources would be reallocated quickly and with minimal cost toward producing the more desired final product. But capital goods are heterogeneous and multi-specific. An auto plant can make cars, but not computer chips. The intricate alignment of capital to produce various consumer goods is governed by price signals and the careful economic calculations of investors. If the price system is distorted, investors will make mistakes in aligning their capital goods. Once the error is revealed, economic actors will reshuffle their investments, but in the meantime, resources will be lost. Proposition 10. Social institutions often are the result of human action, but not of human design. Many of the most important institutions and practices are not the result of direct design, but are the by-product of actions taken to achieve other goals. A student in the Midwest in January, trying to get to class quickly while avoiding the cold, may cut across the quad rather than walk the long way around. Cutting across the quad in the snow leaves footprints, and as other students follow these, they make the path bigger. Although their goal is merely to get to class quickly and avoid the cold weather, in the process, they create a path in the snow that actually helps students who come later to achieve this goal more easily. The path in the snow story is a simple example of a product of human action, but not of human design. The market economy and its price system are examples of a similar process. People do not intend to create the complex array of exchanges and price signals that constitute a market economy. Their intention is simply to improve their own lot in life, but their behaviour results in the market system. Money, law, language, science and so on are all social phenomenon that can trace their origins not to human design, but rather to people striving to achieve their own betterment and in the process producing an outcome that benefits the public. The implications of these 10 propositions are rather radical. If they hold true, economic theory would be grounded in verbal logic and empirical work focused on historical narratives. With regard to public policy, severe doubt would be raised about the ability of government officials to intervene optimally within the economic system, let alone to rationally manage the economy. Perhaps economists should adopt the doctor's creed. First, do no harm. The market economy develops out of people's natural inclination to better their situation and in so doing to discover the mutually beneficial exchanges that will accomplish that goal. Adam Smith first systematised this message in the wealth of nations. In the 20th century, economists of the Austrian School of Economics were the most uncompromising proponents of this message, not because of a prior ideological commitment, but because of the logic of their arguments.


Welcome to this lecture on digital communication using GNU radio. My name is Kumar Appaya and I belong to the department of electrical engineering at IIT Bombay. In this lecture we are going to see how noise and related ideas can be brought into GNU radio. In particular we will see the noise source in GNU radio and various properties that it has in particular how it behaves when you have real noise or complex noise. We will then also introduce the concept of matched filtering as a way by which we can average out the noise to minimize its impact for various kinds of pulses and this will go into making your receiver efficient. So in this lecture we are going to inspect the impact of matched filtering from a noise perspective. One key idea is that if you take any pulse that is used for signaling for example in this case we are taking a partial ramp signal and let us say that this ramp is used to send data. Now unfortunately the ramp is going to get affected by noise and you are going to have this wavy pulse at the receiver. Now if everything were good and you wanted to find out what data was sent you can ideally just look at this particular point because that has the highest amplitude. But for some reason if the noise is very high in that particular point and takes you to another value you may make a mistake. You are also making an error by not taking into account all of these possible values. So the key idea is for us to take all of these values into consideration in order to determine which particular amplitude was sent. Let's say that you send a ramp from 0 to 1, a ramp with a different amplitude from 0 to 2 and so on. So you have to find out which exact value was sent by looking at the whole duration over here. So the key idea is that you have to take the weighted average of the noisy samples. Now why should you take the weighted average and not the average? The reason is because over here the amplitude of the ramp is very high and even if there is noise the noise is not going to carry the signal or carry the value far down or far away from the desired value. But over here if you look at the points near 0 the noise could cause a huge shift. For example let us say that the amplitudes we have are 0, 1, 2, 3 and over here it will be 0, 1, 2, 3 in very close succession and the noise may end up carrying you to the wrong amplitude and make you make more errors. So in some sense these all these measurements which you can see over here are measurements of the actual value except that they have different SNRs and it turns out that if you look at the matched filter theory they say that the matched filter that is that filter which you have to choose or that combination of these values that you have to choose is basically weighted in such a way that you give these low SNR points a smaller weightage and a higher SNR points a higher weightage. Therefore from the perspective of maximizing the signal to noise ratio by combining all these optimally what should you do? It turns out that you have to essentially weight these values exactly by the amplitude of the ramp. So you are going to multiply this value by this particular amplitude this by this this by this and add all of them up which basically translates to multiplying the ramp or rather the noisy ramp by the clean ramp and then performing the averaging. That is the optimal weight is the amplitude itself. This is why matched filter theory also tells you that this particular approach gives you the best SNR maximizing solution where that takes into account all the values with appropriate SNRs. An exercise you can think of is that if you take a rectangular pulse which we will do soon then you can weight all the points as they are meaning all the points equally because every point has in equal SNR. Now the other point which we will look at is that the other point that we have to consider is that we want to implement matched filtering which is effectively correlation as a convolution. How do we do that? So let's stick with our S of t if this is our S of t if we essentially want to perform convolution we consider S of t minus tau and multiply it out. Unfortunately S of t minus tau will be the flip rectangle that is it will be flip triangle rather the ramp essentially going from up to down instead. But if we look at S of tau minus t instead that is the exact you know signal that we want is essentially if you take this as S of tau this S of tau minus t which means it is shifted by t along this axis and if you choose t as 0 this S of tau that's exactly what you have over here and if you now look at this particular overlap you can see that this is the convolution of S of t with S of minus t sampled at 0. In other words you are taking S of t flipping it, convolving it and taking it at 0 offset of course in a causal implementation there may be other delays but this is the way by which you can visualize that the correlation can be implemented as convolution by just taking S of t flipping it and using it for convolution with S of t. We will now inspect this briefly in GNU radio. Let us now put together a very simple example of match filtering just to send some bit of let's say pulse amplitude modulated data and recover it by using match filtering in the presence of noise. So before we go ahead let us just look at how this can be done and how we can actually make a particular pulse and then get the data back from that particular pulse. I am going to first use a bit of some numpy functions. So I am going to just do control f for command f and I am going to say import and for convenience we will just double click this and say import numpy as np so that we don't have to keep typing numpy dot numpy dot all the while. Now for simplicity let me take a vector source so control f for command f we take vector source yes we have a vector source I will do a real simulation so we will just say float I need to get my pulse over here so I am going to take a fairly long pulse so that we can visualize things easily and I want to use the pulse in multiple locations. So I am not going to use this particular I am not going to hard code the pulse within the vector source I am going to do control f for command f and say variable and I am just going to double click and call it my pulse that is my variable name and the pulse I am going to use is a ramp so I am going to create a ramp by just adding numbers in a sequence in numpy so np dot a range and maybe let's take the ramp from 0 to 1 in let's say 400 samples so let's say 400 samples and I want to take it from 0 to close to 1 so I will say by 400 in fact should be 399 but let's because np dot a range gives you the numbers from 0 through 399 but I think that's ok maybe if you want we can ok let us stick with this now just to have an intuition 32k is the sample rate that means each sample is separated by 1 by 32,000 seconds 400 by 32,000 seconds implies that this particular ramp is going to last about 400 by 32,000 seconds that works out to I think 4 by 320 seconds that works out I think 1 by 80th of a second we will just confirm now let us just put my pulse over here as the variable name we will add a throttle control f for command f we will grab a throttle double click this should be a float next we will grab a time sink control for command f and if you type time you get a QTGUI time sink we double click this call it float for now let us live with this this is just to visualize our pulse and verify that it is correct if I execute this flow graph I get this kind of pulse let us just make things more convenient so I am going to double click this time sink and I am going to make it have a grid and I am going to make it out of scale ok and we can actually make this let us say yeah this is fine actually so we can make this a multiple of this you know 400 to just have it static say 1 2 0 0 is the number of points now you can see that you have these now the question is what is the gap between or what is the gap between this so this is 0 and we have over here 12.5 milliseconds 12.5 milliseconds now if you do the maths 400 upon 32000 is 4 upon 320 there is 1 upon 80 1 upon 80 that is 1000 upon 80 milliseconds and 1000 upon 80 milliseconds you can verify will be 12.5 milliseconds so this is actually like sending 1111 but we want to send some data that we will do momentarily and it goes from 0 to 1 comes down goes from 0 to 1 comes down and so on this is good so now when we want to do something like matched filtering we want to essentially convolve this pulse with it's a it's flipped version in this case notice that I have chosen the ramp specifically because this is an unsymmetric pulse if you have a symmetric pulse like a sink or a root trace cosine or a rectangular pulse you can just convolve with itself but now you have a pulse which is non-symmetric so let us actually do conduct an exercise let us now just perform let's take some data and then perform this so I am going to remove this vector source I am going to control F for command F type random get a random source our random source we will say the random source takes 0 1 2 3 so four possible values okay now we need to just we can just take these 0 1 2 3 values as our float as well so I am just going to take an int to float so control F for command F I am going to type int to float grab this block connect it over here now I need to essentially put this pulse or put this pulse for this data and I have chosen 400 specifically I have not let me maybe make that a variable m so that we don't have any issues I'll call this capital M I'll call this capital M and I'll say control F for command F I'll say variable and double click this call this variable M and make it 400 so now we need to essentially put zeros and then convolve of zeros in between these samples and convolve it with this particular variable to do that we will use the interpolating FIR filter so control F for command F I type interpolating I'll grab the interpolating FIR filter double click the interpreting FIR filter we'll go with float to float we'll call the interpolation amount 400 and the taps we will basically make it exactly my pulse now what will this result in this will result in a successive sequence of ramps each multiplied by either zero or one or two or four one after the other now this number of points may actually be may you may need to increase this but let's just run it and check yeah so you can see that it is working but let us increase the number of points okay let's make this about let's say 12,000 we'll make it 12,000 if you make it 12,000 and let me just stop you can see what is happening you have let's say a zero then you have a two and then you have a one and a two and maybe another one and then a three and so on let's actually try to look at what the gap between successive peaks is over here over here this is I think 225 milliseconds this is 237.5 that's again 12.5 milliseconds so the gap between these is 12.5 milliseconds which is consistent with the way you have designed your pulse your pulse was designed to be 251 you know 12.5 milliseconds so each successive modulated data ramp is 12.5 milliseconds long now the challenge for us is to get back this data okay now to get back this data we need to do the reverse operation we need a decimating FIR filter and the decimating FIR filter will essentially take this output and we will try to get back our random source points so it's to control F for command F type decimating grab the decimating FIR filter double-click it you want float to float we want a decimation factor of M actually actually I should have typed M in your interpreting also we will do that and I will call it now here is something which we have to be careful about when we want to do a decimating we were decimating filter let's keep the decimation at one we are not going to do any decimation let us now put the tabs as my pulse colon colon minus one colon colon minus one is python notation for reversing a sequence so what does this do this takes into account the fact that your pulse is being reversed because the filters always perform convolution you want correlation you are essentially reversing the pulse let's say okay we will double click this we will call this M I missed that alright now let us actually just get another QT GUI time sink I am going to double click this first and say this name is interpolated and then I am going to just grab another QT GUI time sink by doing control F and say time and grab another QT GUI time sink we will double click this call it float call it decimated okay it's not yet decimated but still bear with me we will add a grid we will do autoscale say okay now I am going to just take the output of the interpolating affair filter I take it out from the throttle doesn't matter connect it to the QT GUI time sink and we will check what happens okay so as you can see there are these peaks which you get why are these peaks coming the reason these peaks are coming is because this particular pulse is essentially being convolved with the decimating filter and that results in these peaks and notice also there is an interesting happening the time over here timescale is from 0 to 350 while here the timescale is 0 to 30 this is effectively because there is a factor you know there is a factor multiplication because you have decimated that's where you know you're going to decimate that's the reason why this particular thing happens just be aware of this the reason I mean the actual reason is because I've chosen different timescales here I've chosen 12k here chosen 1.024k so maybe if I really wanted to make it somewhat consistent because I'm decimating by a factor of 400 I will have to make this 12,000 by 400 I'm sticking to the number of points over here it doesn't matter now now the key thing is that if I stop this if you look at these values over here maybe let's just make this slightly longer we'll make this also some 3000 and let's run this and I'm going to stop this so the values over here are close to 400 here the value is close to 138 here the value is close to you know 267 you know so the value seem to be close to 0 130 130 or so 266 and close to 400 what is the cause the reason for this is because when you actually perform an overlap of the original pulse with this particular decimating filter you're actually going to get up the value that you're going to get the is actually the integral or this autocorrelation of the function evaluated at zero in other words you're going to get the integral of the square of the signal let's actually just verify that temporarily let me remove this particular connection then let us grab a vector source so control for command F we'll say vector source and in the vector source let us actually put our pulse I'll say float and I'm going to say my pulse and let's see what happens with this correlation so this particular operation is just essentially taking the pulse multiplying by itself and moving it also in time so if I run this I get this kind of thing to make it stable and static I need to double click this I need to basically take care of the length so this is the length of this is about 400 the length of this is about 400 so maybe I'm just going to make this let's say let me try making this 800 yeah so now this is very very stable so now what happens is that this particular peak is actually a value which is around let me zoom in over here or let me maybe zoom in like this it's like 133 or something like that okay why is it 133 what is the significance of this value it turns out that this particular highest value occurs when you overlap the peak of the ramp with itself recall from the slide you're overlapping the ramp with itself which means you're essentially multiplying the ramp samples by themselves and adding them up now therefore what you get is actually the sum square of the my pulse coefficients if you don't believe me let's grab a variable for command F type variable okay now what I'm going to do is I'm going to double click this and just say NP dot sum that adds a vector my pulse star star 2 that basically performs the square of the every element of the vector and this adds them and that it gives you 132.834 if you now look closely at the output you get over here this is going to be close to 132.8 it's because I'm not able to put my finger on the right location you get it so I think it must be close to 132.8 over here yeah it's close to 132.8 at the peak okay so then if you really want to get back the original samples we can just scale it by adding a scale over here I'm just going to scale it by dividing this I'm going to divide by NP dot sum my pulse squared now if I execute this after doing the match filtering I get a nice one now our task is to add noise and recover the original pulse but before we go there notice that there's a slight you know this essentially there is a slight you know there's a one and then it goes down there's a one and then it goes down and so on okay this is because of the periodic convolution that is something we'll have to just handle now let us get rid of before we go further let's also add the decimation I'm going to make the decimation 400 or m if I do this in this case I get a value close to one this is slightly inaccurate because it should be exactly one because we got the exact value over there so one thing we can do is we can try to add a sample delay and see whether that helps okay or we can try to just we can just remove the sample delay over here we can try to add a delay over here say control F for command F and we'll say delay as always we'll grab a delay we can double click this delay make it an integer delay sorry make it a float rather and the delay will make it a variable DELAY now connect this connect this and we'll have a range control F for command F we'll type range we'll add a QT GUI range ID will be delay and it will be a value between let's say one and default value let's say zero they say we'll go between one and M step one this is fine a type should be int by the way now if we execute this flow graph this is close to one but not exactly one if we now take it take this delay over here and keep going it you can see that we're essentially changing the sampling point and as you get get to 400 you get close to one again as you get to zero you get to one so if I set it at one then exactly it matches this it exactly matches this value if there is no delay there is a slight offset now why is this the case the reason is because if you don't add a delay then if you convolve my pulse with itself let's say that you know let's remove this decimation and set it to one if you run this you will see that this particular peak actually starts at one but it is the first point and if you really want to catch that point you have to add a delay of one so if you don't add this delay then the sampling point is slightly off which is why if you add this decimation you have to add a delay if you don't say you know if you see over here you just have to add a delay of one so for now what we'll do is we'll add this delay we'll make the default value as one and then we are set let us now move on to the task of recovering our original data to do that let us get rid of this vector source and let's connect this particular thing over output over here and let us see whether we are able to get our original data back if I now execute this flow graph we will wait a little for the samples to accrue after you wait you have to wait for a period you are able to see that your samples seem to be coming through the values are zero let's stop this middle click and stop values zero this value is one this value is two this value is three so the sample seem to be coming let's actually execute this the reason why it takes time is because you have this is a multirate kind of flow graph because this part is operating much slower because it needs 400 samples and decimates that's why it takes time for you to get the samples okay so let us now actually make it equal to thousand so that we can compare our data directly let's actually also add another let's say input and let us connect the output of the into float directly over here okay so I want to you to able to see that it's actually happening correctly so now if I now execute this flow graph we'll have to wait because it we have to wait for this buffer to get filled up and only then it will display the samples once I get it I will pause now I'm going to just say stop now if you zoom in you are going to see some other effect you're going to see that there is another delay actually the pulses look very very similar the in fact the red pulses the original but and the green pulses you know green pulses the blue pulse is the recovered the samples look pretty okay but there is definitely a delay now what is the cause of this delay now once again your ramp is causal because your ramp is causal if you know convolve the ramp with itself and sample that sampling point is one sample away let us now look back at our presentation so you can see that this particular sample is one one symbol away from the start of the pulse which means that you have to account for this extra delay so to account for this extra delay the secret for you is to just add another delay over here of one so the way we are going to do it is to just add a delay in this link so let's remove this particular this connection over here and move the delay up move this here will make a copy of the delay using control C and control V connect these in this manner just to make it easy for you to discern what is happening will just move these around and now if you execute this flow graph and keep waiting for this particular link to this particular plot to settle you will see that the delay is essentially handled you can see that the delay is gone because we have addressed the causal nature of the matched filter so this addresses that issue now the next thing to do is to see the impact of noise now as you are aware noise actually not directly but noise affects the performance using SNR so the signal to noise ratio is what determines the impact of noise over here the waveform takes values of this form you know it takes values between 0 and 1200 because of the way we have constructed the ramp so let's actually see how noise in you know plays a role and how the match filter handles the noise by means of averaging to do this we will add a noise source in between the interpolating a fair filter and the decimating a fair filter which does the match filtering so we'll take our usual approach of adding a range first controller for commander will say range so we'll take a QT GUI range call it noise STD and we'll say this system 0 and stops at 3 think stops at 3 is fine okay but when we add a noise source let's actually add the noise source over here we'll delete this second toilet for command if we'll say noise okay now what we'll do is we'll actually normalize it to have the pulse energy also so I'm going to actually say this is noise STD times and I'm going to say in P dot s Q R T in P dot sum okay I'm going to take the square root of the energy of the pulse so I'm going to say my pulse square so this essentially will normalize the SNR to the pulse energy so now I will also make it float and I'll grab an ad block controller for command if we'll say add and we'll just make the ad float we'll connect the noise over here and now we are set and let us wait of course the impact of noise will not be visible directly let's actually set the noise to something like this and keep waiting you can see that the noise is affecting your signal significantly and you can see the impact of noise clearly over here because the signal is quite affected so this is a very high amount of noise it's I think we should make the noise step a little better should step by 0.1 so now let's execute the flow graph and make it 0.2 0.2 seems high because of our normalization but it's keeping it at 0.1 and if you keep waiting you will see that the impact of noise essentially shows over here it's still able to average out the noise significantly even though the waveform is hardly discernible over here it's able to average it out and the averaging significantly reduces the impact of noise so the match filter is able to extract out your signal even amidst this kind of high amount of noise let us now just quickly check another pulse let's use the rectangular pulse so I'll say NP dot ones so this is just a rectangular pulse which is you know which is consists of 400 ones so now if you look at your pulse you have these rectangles now if you add some noise you will see that the noise affects you significantly and let's see what happens now on the right side you will see because of the noise there is there are these variations but those variations are still small and you are able to largely discern the signal if you increase the noise which you will see in the right you can hardly make out the signal over here over here however you are able to see the averaging come into play and you're able to discern it somewhat so in this way even in the presence of noise the match filter does a proper weighted averaging of the waveform samples to give you the best possible result and this is the key idea behind the design of the match filter as a correlator so you have seen how the match filter works and the impact of the causal delay in this particular new radio experiment in this lecture you have used new radio in order to simulate the effect of noise and add noise to signals and study the impact of how this noise essentially affects your signals in the concept of match filtering you have seen how match filters can effectively combine the received symbols which are received signal that is affected by noise to get your signals to get your symbols without much symbol error measuring this is something that we will see in the subsequent lectures


I'm the okay, please take your seats. We want to start soon. Okay. Good morning welcome to this press conference and book launch about book We at C4 have been producing it's called transforming red plus lessons and new directions My name is Christopher Matius, I'm the team leader for climate change and C4 I have a few of the editors of the book with me and They will give you a brief presentation on Some contents of the book not all of it After which we are going to have a question-and-answer session. There's also there might be question questions coming in online We are trying to capture them and feed them back to the to the audience You have seen probably outside a banner Where you see the cover of the book transforming red plus About 300 pages.  We have a few copies over there and on that table You find an online link to download is it as a PDF And we also hand it to you a press release which also has the has a QR code So the people who are going to introduce the book are you sitting to my left side Professor Arald Engelsen from School of economics and business in the Norwegian University of life science in ours Norway He's the lead editor of the book and he will give you a brief overview and after this we will have my colleague We're unique to see or Nikki to see who's from bargaining in University in Holland or the Netherlands. Sorry and she will report on one of the chapters of the book that she edited so we would get a little bit of an insight of what we have to offer and Then we can discuss so I'd like to give the floor to Arald now Okay, good morning I'm happy to present the result of a few months of very hard work in this book that has come to To life in the form of a hard copy and of course Equal important on the on the web So this book is based on about 10 years of a major research program called the global comparative study of red That is led by seafront partner the most impressive figure and the one to remember is that we have almost 500 publications from That project so it's built on fairly substantial and and very broad-ranging research in this book It's also the fourth in a series of edited volumes where we try to take stock of red and see where are we and where should we go and Our approach has been kind of what we call constructive critique that we are critical To how red is unfolding are critical in the way that we should not have a particular agenda to promote red Or be against red, but we look and ask a very simple question. Does it work at the same time? We have highlighted one of the chapters that that crisis is was leading on The importance of distinguish between red as an objective and red as a framework So we are strong supporters of red as the objective we need to reduce emissions from tropical forests in order to reach The two degree or even more so the one and a half degree On the other hand we have red also being used as an umbrella term for all the actions And those are the actions that are aiming to reach the red objective that we kind of put under close scrutiny in the book What kind of the title is transforming red and we need to transform red to be Transformational and we note that there are a few changes in the Our global environment that has made it we have the Paris Agreement with the national Determined contributions that are at the center stage need to incorporate them into that we have chapters looking into that We have the change in global political climate that you all know without Going further into that is climate in ire see in high offices that makes the gap between what we should do and What is seemingly politically possible to do that gap is is is widening and We have read itself. We have learned a few things about red But less than we hoped so there is also need for some expectations management Four parts of the book first looking at the building blocks particularly finance We look at the national politics and coordination problems Which was sent to because red was supposed to be more than project It was supposed to be a change of national policies and being that type of transformation change a third part assess The impacts has read works or not both at national and the sub national Projects and then we look at four evolving initiatives related to Jurisdictional approaches to the private sector pledges that has been made climate smart agriculture and also forest and landscape restoration If I just were to summarize red a lot has been done compared to the pre-read period talk about One to maybe up to three billion US dollars per year in international funding In on top of that, of course, or maybe not on top Maybe at the really the basis is all the costs that are covered by red Governments and the communities that is normally not accounted for or credited in the debate At the same time result-based payment, which was supposed to be a the key and innovative feature of red has largely been Untested at scale. There's not been sufficient funding and to make a result-based payment system is Extremely complex and there are many issues and it may be subject to some political Gaming in the way that that you are cherry-picking numbers to generate results. We also have a chapter looking at that And on the There's maybe the main success of red I would say has been in In the in form of a number of intermediate outputs and outcomes It has of course gained a lot of prominence on International at COP meetings and at national policy agendas More than 50 countries both have have national red strategies and also include red into their their policies and A number of projects. Let me just go quick in the impacts. Maybe to summarize that the main story there is modest but Overall positive impacts of both policies Some modest meaning that the effects are smaller than we thought than theory suggests and we hoped But they are still on the positive side overall. It seems at least in those areas where work we have avoided this kind of This large and negative effects that one sometimes hear stories about and sometimes fear So we have what what is in development aid literature is known as the micro macro paradox that we see a few Small positive stories on the ground at local level, but they don't aggregate up to really be a game-changer and a shift in in in in the in the overall deforestation trends How do we explain this modest outcome and that is a very very kind of important debate Are we to blame red? Are we to blame say that it has been too little? Or do we say that the kind of using the medical metaphor that the disease has progressed too far? In the way that the economic interests in continued forest conversion are so strong And we have not been able to really address those underlying drivers or a more optimistic you Recovery is possible, but just give the patient a little bit more time To assess that argument in one way you can say that words are cheap and and we have done a bit of The wording and making nice policy documents but towards comprehensive action. We haven't yet fully started on that Just Sum up how can we make red more effective? I think we are seeing the limits of projects of sub-national So what is needed and we call for is big and bold initiatives That that really change the underlying incentives for for That kind of leads to continued forest conversion examples are Brazil's drastic deforestation reduction post 2004 that was due to a number of National policies that changed the basic incentives in terms of stronger enforcement of protected areas Agriculture credits that were changed India's ecological fiscal transfer is another one that has Where you base the transfer to the to the sub-national units based on the forest cover and therefore create a strong incentive for them to conserve them Finally a positive exciting narrative on forest the iron law of climate policy says that if there is a conflict between climate and economic development climate loses, so how can we build this a couple of points About a fifth of the income in forest communities comes from forest So they are important for economic development for livelihoods We have also had some exciting last ten years or so on bio pumps or aerial rivers that forest causing rainfall and transport transporting moisture from the oceans to the interior land and The final is a plea to be brave and assess the impacts impacts assessment Requires a certain bravery because you as a proponent You're not in control of the conclusion and we were kind of surprised how little impact assessment that has been done We need to know more about what works and what not and we still do not have the evidence For example to tell which policies are more effective than others So be brave and dare to assess impacts is one of our conclusions Okay Thank you very much error We go directly to the second presentation and then we take questions Afterwards, so Nikki please the floor is yours. Thank you. I just want to highlight some key messages from the chapter on information and policy change So I lifted this sentence from the book because I think it shows very well what this chapter is about So we we're basically saying well information itself can be a tool for transformational change You know its generation the presentation the use are part of a political process and often a power game So we chose a specific case on information on drivers of Drivers and underlying causes of deforestation because we think this information is very can be very valuable in a policy process For example to identify the key causes to to look at different policy options and their impacts And there's a lot of new information technologies that offer new opportunities but they also come with diverse implications and new risks and You know always having more and better information does not necessarily Guarantee that there's more transparency participation empowerment of certain stakeholders or more accountability So what we what also came out of this 10 years of research is that you know There's a powerful influence of dominant business as usual Actors that have certain interests and they determine what and how information is generated and what is what is visible in the policy arena And what is on the agenda basically and actors of course have also different Capacities and resources to access process and provide information But also you know they have different capacities and resources to contribute to policy decisions about red plus And what we also see is that if you're looking at National Forest monitoring systems and what they do beyond the the technical Activities is you know There's a lack of mechanisms to really ensure that there is coordination and data exchange between ministries and sectors But also, you know, what are the roles and responsibilities of different actors, you know Are there mechanisms in place for transparency? Is there timely access to information? But also are there mechanisms in place for stakeholder participation of course for example So We think that we Guidance and also financial support is needed to really move from technical data to actionable information and ultimately also effective red plus interventions and Like I just said these monitoring systems also need to address these participation transparency accountability and coordination to counteract this differences in the capacities and resources and also this Difference in decision-making power and political power of these various stakeholders This will not happen on its own just by having more and and better or sufficient information So I think that's some of the key messages from this this one chapter Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much So this is really a very very short overview of of the book and particular of one of the chapters on drivers As I said before for those that have come a bit late We have a few copies of the book in the back and also there is a flyer where you can find the online Modality to download it in in a QR code So if you are interested in the book and you don't want to carry a lot of weight Then just download it from the from our webpage I'd like to open the floor now for questions and comments from the audience There's one Hello My name is Gert from Planet Amazon. It's a French NGO. We're working closely with indigenous people from Brazil and We know that some NGO and the government and with the help of the German government as well Implementing red project red press project at the moment and there is a Big concern there about the way this project is our dividing community as well And I don't know have you heard about what happened with the surui people in Brazil? So do you have that concern also about? The fact that red project can be something that can divide indigenous communities Is it explaining the book? I want to know if you if you you have studied this this concern Somebody wants to answer this or maybe we also have a few of our other editors in the room if They want to take the the mic here Amy. I'm Amy Duchel from C4 And I was one of the editors of the book I think your question really highlights especially with the surui project really shows the limitations of red plus projects Actually because in that case that project was really not able to Overcome the major drivers of deforestation and degradation in that region And so even with the best intentions the most participation Kind of actually a pretty good project when you think about it relative to many others It still was not able to overcome sort of these bigger Changes that were happening. I think that's what it really emphasizes the importance of these jurisdictional approaches Where you're really you know government-led bigger scale At at subnational and national levels so that that that is a really important lesson I think from that project and the other thing about dividing communities I mean, I think that is a really important issue and it's not only limited to red projects I think any sort of conservation intervention that's a you know affecting local people Will does have the potential to to you know communities are heterogeneous We know that and a lot of the work that we've seen is that those who participate most in Conservation interventions are those who are my They're they're better articulated. They're often wealthier the poor often the women in the communities are not completely engaged in these things So I think you have a very important point about addressing that heterogeneity on the ground in any intervention Thank you very much for that question any other comments or questions, please the lady in the blue You are mentioning the oh, I'm a student from Singapore year-on-year as college I'm you are mentioning how the information the framing of information is a political process And I'm wondering like how did you choose to frame the information for your book like? What kinds of narrative that you hope to kind of tell through the book? Yeah So the question is what kind of narrative we are promoting in a book given that the data Information generation process is a political process Yeah, I think part of it is also bringing together the technical community with the community that is more worried about things like stakeholder participation and accountability and transparency and I Come more from the the technical side is the satellite monitoring and working within this global comparative study on the red plus I work with political economy scientists and it made me realize that you know It's there's really implications to technical decisions that are made and You know, there's this very optimistic view or just let's generate more information That's that's not gonna solve certain problems. That's not necessarily gonna empower More people and I think that's the narrative or the message that we want to get out there It's just be aware that also in if you have an MRV system or a monitoring system is that You know, you have to involve not only the technical experts You have to involve a wider range of stakeholders and really think about, you know, how who is accountable for what? Who has what role but also how are we gonna coordinate this? How do you balance these different powers and different decision-making? Processes I think that's the the message that we want to get out there We are just to add to this we are we are making the case of course that an arrow it has said that That there's very little evidence so far about the performance of red plus unfortunately because not many Actors out there want to do this. They don't know to do is they don't have the funds to do it Or they don't have enough understanding how to do it, right? And so we need more data and at the same time Everybody needs to be aware that data of course are also the function of a political process So you need to look at the data you need the data, but you need to look at them also with with care and with understanding Thanks. Thanks for your comment. I think there was a somebody in the back. Yes Hi, my name is Claire Bass. I work in in UNDP's climate and forest team I just have a question regarding the the if you were able to look at Exciting people talk about red plus and and Not necessarily are talking about the same thing. There are the project level forest carbon project Interventions that are linked to the voluntary carbon market. They're the Supernational jurisdictional approaches that are at the state level and that look at leakage in a very different way than Project level intervention and they are the national work that are doing things that are perhaps very different They're looking at the policy framework. They're looking at the drivers analysis at the national level and building up monitoring systems at a national level And I I think one of the key mistakes have been worked on this for the last 10 years The one of the key lessons is that we've been talking about these three levels of interventions as they were the same thing And they're definitely not and and I think it's very important That the the scientific community contributes to clarifying these differences and and to to really put it out the lessons in a differentiated Manor, I think there's been a lot of progress at a national level. Of course, there's been We're still far beyond the the targets of really addressing drivers as we should But there's been a lot of progress of building up national monitoring systems For instance in more than more than 30 countries have really have a concrete progress And that's different that what's happening that the project level would we have seen over and over that? You know, it's not cost-efficient to build a project level monitoring system And that's an important lesson and we should already Start, you know Talking about these issues after so many all of these years. Okay, I'll stop there I take that mainly to be a good comment And I agree with you. There are these three or maybe four levels if you take the jurisdiction of subnational between the national and the local level and And it's not always easy to to kind of just you say we should experiment at project level and what are the lessons for national level? Because it's a different set of policies that that are relevant at the national level compared to the local level And what we have seen for example is in the tenure chapter tenure and writes that look at a lot of projects Have tried to address the tenure issues, but if you don't have them the national framework in place You you quickly realize their shortcomings of that So in the ideal world These are working in synergies. So so you have national policies enabling and supporting the local action and vice versa But I think your point is generally well taken. I agree So there is one comment here in the front. Is there anybody else who wants to make a comment we Okay, second. Okay, so please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. I'm cock chung from Singapore a quick question on What do you see to be the interaction between rate plus and article 6 especially on it most like for example How are the lessons from rate plus influencing the rules that are being sorted out? In article 6 and how are the discussions in article 6 influencing what sort of reforms that are needed in rate class? I mean, I'm not an expert on the on this negotiation going on here and Are the lessons being implemented? And and ruled and informed Partly, but I think for example in the result-based payment chapter where we kind of call for a clearer rule book on how to set reference Leveless and how to to review the national submissions And I would say that the main constraint when discussing article 6 or other elements of the Paris is is that you are You are into a very kind of sensitive minefield where the political consideration for example countries Submit the reference level and we have some discussions of that that there is at least a strong incentive to inflate those reference levels and Within the UNFCC you don't have a you should have kind of a technical review to see all carbon pools are included But not kind of questioning the methodology for example the reference period that has been used some countries Take the deforestation trend and extrapolate into the future. Is this a reasonable assumption? so I would say in this negotiations going on in this place There there are too many of the of the lessons learned that are kind of too sensitive to really bring into the debate And that's kind of all role as researchers try to push a little bit for that and try to ask some critical questions So that's what we also hope with this book I'm getting science that we need to wrap up. So Julie. I'm sorry. I'm going to Ask you to put your questions later to to us so because the next group is already standing in the doors and So I just would like to say thank you very much for being here. So this is a new book on red plus 16 chapters 62 authors we have been going through a very rigorous quality assessment process with About 50 reviewers looking so at each chapter has been reviewed between six and eight times To make it a really short and crisp and and a good read for everybody who's not in the In a matter so much and wants to have a quick understanding of what's going on where red plus stands and So please grab up a copy of in the back here on the table or find it online in the C4 website Transforming red plus. Thanks for being here. Have a good day. Thank you very much