I gather this will be one of those lectures that you won't have to know for the final exam, but I hope you find it interesting. The best way I have of introducing myself is to mention to you that I did notice that downstairs there is a Mises Institute book for sale called Economic Controversies, and it consists of more than 50 essays by the late great Murray Rothbard. It includes an introduction, and the first sentence of that introduction reads, it was nearly 40 years ago that Murray Rothbard changed my life. Now that introduction is written by me. I was in fact asked by a rep of the Mises Institute about 10 years ago if I would contribute an introduction to that book, and of course I was greatly honored to do so. You can imagine if he changed my life nearly 40 years ago, that's of course by now nearly 50 years ago. The only thing I can clarify is that while I did meet Murray Rothbard briefly a couple of times, he changed my life through his books, and the nearly 40 years ago occurrence was that I picked up a copy of Man, Economy, and State, and that was my first exposure to Austrian economics, my first exposure to the writings of Murray Rothbard, and then because that was the early 70s, there was no Mises Institute for me to attend. Nothing like the wonderful series of lectures and courses you're taking now, but luckily there was a bricks and mortar bookshop in downtown Manhattan called The Less Affair Bookshop. I visited it virtually every weekend and browsed and bought a couple of copies of books there and read through Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Haslett, the whole slew of people, so I became typically sort of one of those self-taught in Austrian economics. And I'm very grateful for that and that hopefully will allow you to appreciate the fact that my roots are in this place at the Mises Institute. The last I was here was about 10 years ago delivering a talk, and I do have to say that the place is even better than it was before. I don't know whether to give that credit to Jeff Deist. More than likely what's really happened is that a whole generation of people have grown up with Austrian economics, and that's why you had such a human having, such a rich assortment of lectures from so many brilliant people. I've been sitting here all day enjoying them. Unfortunately, I've got to go back to New York City tomorrow, but I'd love to be. I would love to have stayed another couple of days and listened to all these wonderful talks. Well, I'm going to build on them, I hope, a little bit and say further only that I had a kind of an odd career. I left the academy and went to Wall Street, but then I spent more than a quarter or a century covering the data for Barron's financial weekly during a column. And in fact, I was book review editor and I was privileged to invite a few Mises people to write book reviews for Barron's. But I covered the data, that was my job. And I wrote a book called Econo Spinning, it was published in 2006. How to read between the lines when the media manipulate the numbers that's still in print. Another book that I think is really good on the data is Bob Murphy's book, Contra Krugman. Bob is one of those Austrian economists who I think certainly knows the data, much of the data, at least as well as I do. And I want to recommend to people to you that you may want to take a deep dive, read those two books, take a deep dive into government data. And indeed, of course, statistics, the root of that word is the state. And indeed, so you're really looking at the sinfulness of government data. It's an interesting question to ask, would there be data? Would there be a market for data if there were only a free market? And if the government weren't involved in all in the economy, which is the way things should be, aside from if there is a government, aside from just enforcing contracts and enforcing other violations of the zero regression principle. But if there were not only a free market, would there be data? Would there be a market for data? I think there would. I think the data would be better than it is today, even think there might be price indexes. The only story I guess I could tell on Murray Rothbard, much as I think he was of course the man who changed my life, is that he was a little hypocritical about price indexes. In his book, Man Economy and State, he talks about the impossibility of price indexes. And in a sense, he's right. The difficulty, it's more of an art than a science. And yet, I did notice, and I think it's in his writings as well, I did notice that when he was lecturing on economic history, he had no compunction about using price indexes when they became useful. And so that's in a way how you might approach economic data. Some of it is useful.  I'm emphasizing that story because one of my big concerns as a free market person who came from a left wing background, shockingly enough, when I was the age of most of you, I was a democratic socialist having risen from the depravity of being a card carrying, not a card carrying communist. My mommy was a commie. She was the card carrying communist. But I was a pretty enthusiastic Stalinist at the age of seven. I grew up at the age of 10 or 11.  And that's my brief story. But why is it helpful? Well, it's helpful because one of my obsessions is to lecture the left on how capitalism really is on the side of the little guy. My brief answer to many people who ask me, why are you pro-free market? Why are you a libertarian? I like to say because I care about the well-being of the broad masses of people. That's why I'm a libertarian. Because when we talk about a lot of sort of rarefied things, all of many of which are very important, there is this sort of gut level reaction on the part of the left that, oh, well, you're talking about economics for smart people. You're talking about the economics for the few and not for the many. You, innovative, smart people have a lot of fun under capitalism. But how about the ordinary person? How does that person cope under capitalism? Well, I believe that primarily if you could towed up the benefits and other aspects of free market capitalism, you could sort of subjectively declare that its main attribute is that it brings equality. It lifts the living standards of the broad masses of people. That's really its principal magic. And that, I think, is a message that we should tell to them in all kinds of possible ways that we can. But my concern as somebody who knows the numbers has been that there's been a resurgence of this idea that labor is getting shafted. Now, I happen to believe that labor is getting shafted by government. A couple of those ways have been mentioned already by the previous speakers. But two that I would mention very briefly is the rise of restrictive licensure. I'm all for certifying lawyers. But I don't believe in restrictive licensure. I believe that most of us could practice real estate and divorce law. If we worked for a law firm for a few months, we'd learn the ropes. We don't have to go to college in law school to do it. But even more perniciously, about 5% of jobs were under a restrictive licensure of one sort or another about 50 years ago. And now it's up to about 25%. Now, I believe that what that does is it really does inhibit the mobility of labor. Because we're talking about, of course, the focus is usually on being a manicurist, being an assistant to a funeral director. The kind of jobs that ordinary people can get, much more difficult to get, much more costly to acquire because you have to meet all kinds of state requirements. The other one, more subtly, which the progressives missed, is the weird fact that so much migration goes to areas of the country where housing is cheap. That's not where the high paying jobs are, but that's where the housing is cheap. And where the housing is cheap is where government is usually less involved in the housing market. But in the high wage areas, San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, in the high wage areas, housing is prohibitively expensive.  And I do think that you find from the official numbers some gap in equality, widening inequality of wages between the higher paid and the lower paid. And I think that those two factors have a lot to do with it, both of them having to do with government intervention in the marketplace. So that's the best way those progressives can help equality. But by and large, there hasn't been that much change in the way that labor is paid in the aggregate. And I wanna walk you through a few myths about it and try to expose them and explain how they work. While I'm calling it the dirty data of a labor compensation myth, I'll start with a quote from what? From the Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders, presidential campaign, that's Breanna Gray. She said, well, the share of the ghost of labor has gotten less and less and less. What else does she say? While corporate profits have soared, the share of national income, the ghost of labor has declined and it's near as lowest point in almost 70 years. That's a government working paper. And then this is even the Cable Institute, a libertarian think tank, mentions significant declines in the labor share of income. And he thinks that the remedy should be worker representation on corporate boards. The Cato Institute is, of course, a libertarian think tank. And the ghost of Carl Marx is what David Henderson refers to. David Henderson is a very good free market economist. And yet he's written an essay called The Decline of Labor Share of Income. Then in a course he taught, he told the students that although I'm no Marxist, I did find this a little concerning. Well, I'm gonna mention some really established academicians who've written peer-reviewed papers who push the same story. Labor is getting shafted. I'm gonna explain what they say and why it is a violation of Econ 101. But I wanna start with something that we see on Twitter a lot. And I'll walk you through the chart. You see it on Twitter, you see it from the Economic Policy Institute, Leftwing Institute, and it really has not been challenged. This is the official story. The red line tracks the real output per hour of all persons. That's inflation adjusted. And this is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, directly from them. And the blue line tracks real compensation per hour. That too is inflation adjusted. The outrageous fact is that from late 1940s to the early 1970s, the two tracked each other. But then real compensation per hour greatly lagged real output per hour of all persons. You can see the red line rising, the blue line lagging. And I will tell you the funny thing is that I've seen a number of free market people who connect this with Nixon's lifting of the gold window. A closing the gold window, I should say. That in the early 70s, up until the early 70s, the Bretton Woods Agreement obligated the US government to redeem in gold any foreigners holding dollars. And then Nixon abrogated that. Now that might have caused a lot of problems. But what's interesting is that I've seen libertarians swear by this chart and declare that it's all because Nixon closed the gold window. So nobody doubts that it must be true. After all, both those series are inflation adjusted and they both come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And look at what happened. Suddenly, labor was not being paid, it's output per hour in real terms. Well, now let me tell the unofficial story. The red line tracks output per hour of all persons in nominal dollars and the, is that the red line? Yeah, the red line, yeah. And the blue line tracks compensation per hour in nominal dollars. Now, that's also from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What have I done? Very little. All I did was take out the inflation adjustment from both of those series. All I did was restore them to nominal dollars. No longer an inflation adjusted, just how do they fare in nominal dollars? Now, maybe you don't have to be an Austrian to recognize that business sells its goods and values its goods in nominal dollars. Business pays its wages in nominal dollars and indeed, as any sort of macroeconomist's worth is, sort would say, a nominal versus a nominal equals a real. Nomal divided by nominal equals a real. You're lining up nominal dollars year by year by year and they are in real terms reflect each other. And again, to repeat, wages are paid in nominal dollars, output is sold in nominal dollars and suddenly those two lines are tracking each other. If you calculate them in terms of percentage rises, you'll find that since the 1970s, the percentage rise of labor compensation in nominal dollars has tracked the percentage rise of labor output in nominal dollars. So that's all I did. And when I ran this chart a couple of times on Twitter, it looked like I was some kind of liar or magician. There were left-wingers who decided to block me from now on. How could I possibly do such an outrageous thing as to take away their candy? What they seemingly believed. Well, now, what is the story behind this? Why do you get the two tracking each other if you simply take out the inflation adjustment from both series? What you find is that these numbers have been kept, so to speak, according to two sets of books. The labor compensation number has been deflated by this consumer price index that the BLS also publishes, Bureau of Labor. The non-farm business sector output has been deflated by something called the implicit price deflator. And you find that up until the early 1970s, those two price indexes were approximately tracking each other. But then you find that the CPI took off and the implicit price deflator remained relatively sluggish. And as you may know, in order to inflation adjust a number, you divide that number compensation by the CPI. You divide output by the implicit price deflator. And so it's all in the fact that, which might be a story in itself if you believe these price indexes, that something happened to the prices that were charged for consumer goods and something else happened to the value in real terms of the output of industry. All of that is interesting, potentially. But if you're going to make a point about labor being shafted, about how labor is not being paid according to its productivity, isn't it much simpler to line up the nominal dollars with the nominal dollars and then see what you get? Again, because goods are sold in nominal dollars and people are paid in nominal dollars.  It's rock-ribbed fact labor is getting shafted, it's not being paid, it's productivity. All because of a simple error of measurement that I would submit is pretty palpable on the part. By the way, the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't really, the nominal number, I had to tease it out. It's easy enough to get, but it's not really readily accessible, the current dollar numbers. But the inflation adjusted numbers are easily accessible. Now, I should even say, by the way, that one of my confirming sources is a guy who was a very high up at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, they put out the National Income Accounts. One of my advantages as a columnist is I got to know these people who covered the government numbers. And this guy, he's now a consultant in different respects and he said, look, it really is a bit of a joke. They think that starting in the early 1970s, labor was not getting its value of its productivity and it lagged and lagged and lagged. So why don't they ask themselves, well, where did all that income go? Profits must have gone through the roof. Profits must have tripled and quadrupled, is what the guy honestly says to me. And of course, you don't find that at all in the aggregate. I won't show you those numbers, but you might be curious to know, my God, the exploitation rate has been off the charts and how could that possibly have happened? Well, it didn't happen. It didn't happen if you look at the nominal numbers. Well, now I want to get into something a little bit more subtle that really arises from the quote that I began with and it begins with the idea of a ratio of labor share. And I believe it's potentially a legitimate calculation, labor share, as long as you accept the broad aggregate numbers of the Bureau of Economic Analysis which keeps the GDP numbers and keeps the broad macro numbers. Labor share is calculated first with enumerator being a measure of labor compensation, including benefits. Now, I saw Paul Krugman cite labor compensation excluding benefits, but benefits are pension contributions, benefits are medical care insurance. And obviously, if you have a job and they're contributing to your 401k or if they have you in a regular pension plan or if they also are paying for your medical insurance, that's something that would be out of pocket. And then most people, certainly including Krugman and certainly including there's another editorial writer at the New York Times who takes out compensation. You'd have to ask them, don't you find benefits are valuable to you? Because if you didn't get these benefits as calculated, then obviously you'd have to spend money out of your wages and salaries on them. So, but most of these calculations except when Krugman runs them are a measure of labor compensation, including benefits. But then there's the denominator. The denominator is a measure of income and output and that's where the problem arises. But now let me get to a quote from, there's something odd that there is a descent from one mainstream economist. I began with quotes from different sources and I'm gonna get to some others saying that labor is not, labor's share is in the, has been declining for the last 20, 30 years. That labor, so somehow or other laborer used to get a certain share of income and now it's getting far less. But the interesting thing is that the only dissenting source that I've come across is a assistant chief economist at the Bureau of Economic Analysis which generates the numbers. He's written a paper in which he has concluded that labor's share does remain within its historical range. I've written him, I've corresponded with him, but what's very clear is that while he doesn't mind publishing this paper, he also doesn't mind that it doesn't get a lot of attention because he doesn't wanna do battle with so many, I would think, that's my best guess, is that he doesn't really want to contradict so many established sources that look at this decline in labor's share and start creating all kinds of crazy ideas about it with respect to, for example, monopsony which was mentioned in the earlier talk. That there's this huge monopsynistic cartel on the part of the capitalist and that's why labor's share is in the pits. They're building all kinds of theories about it based upon, as I'm about to explain to you, based upon bogus numbers that make the same kind of simple, fallacious mistake that the previous set of numbers also made. Now, what do we mean by historical range? He said historical range and that the past 75 years since World War II, which is a reasonable cut-off point for reasonable reasons, with quarterly data starting in 1947, that's the historical range and there's something interesting about that which I'll get to in a moment, but we're looking at the last 75 years and that starts in the late 1940s. Well, what do I have here? Well, I'm gonna start then with the Wall Street Journal since that's not a daily newspaper that's known for its hostility toward capitalism but it did run a major article by this journalist named Peter Kiernan and he wrote in a piece called Despite Tight Labor Market, Labor's Forces Income is Squeezed, Worker's Slice of the Pie has been shrinking confounding economists. Their Slice of the Pie has been shrinking and this is the chart that he ran, although I've simplified it a bit. This chart is labor compensation, that's again wages, all of labor, actually includes government labor. All of labor, including wages and salaries and as well benefits and I've done it as a 40 quarter moving average in order to smooth out the bumps and that's a percentage of gross domestic income. Gross domestic income, remember that and what it shows in consistent with what he has said is that labor share was, it's 40 quarter or 10 year moving average was at 53% and then now it's down to only 52%, it was rising here and then it fell and now I've drawn a red line at 53.02 and showing that it's at pretty much at a 75 year low and that's what he has run and that's what you find in his Wall Street Journal article but now again notice that the denominator is gross domestic income. Now we're gonna do a little Econ 101, now notice something else. This is the same data except the denominator is net domestic income. Labor compensation is a percentage of net domestic income and it now looks noticeably different and I'll of course explain the difference between gross and that domestic income in a moment but examine it and now recognize one thing that labor compensation is now 63.16% of net domestic income and it's a higher number than any number through 1970. It's equal to a higher than any number through 1970 and what we're going to find by looking at other examples is something really rather odd and somewhat embarrassing to progressives. If you think this is a valid measure and it is approximately correct, then what is it telling us? It's actually telling us that over the last 10 to 20 years as conventionally measured, labor compensation as a percentage of net domestic income is about where it was in the 1950s and 1960s, actually a little bit higher. It tells us further that labor compensation into the 70s and 80s, 90s rose and then fell back to the levels of the 50s and 60s. Now why is this extremely embarrassing to progressives? Because they are constantly telling us that the 1950s and 60s are the decades we've got to return to. That's when unions in the private sector represented about one third of the labor force and now it's down to six percent. That's when the bogeyman of competition from abroad, cheap labor from abroad, was practically nonexistent. That was when they were no longer, and now of course they claim that it's the rise of the high tech firms. That's another reason for it. The high tech firms didn't exist. All of the factors that they mentioned that are at fault were not a problem or were working well in the 50s and 60s. And yet the stark fact is that if you take labor share measures seriously, you find that for some strange reason when the bad stuff happened in the 80s, Ronald Reagan takes over and breaks the power of the unions and labor unionization goes into a tailspin. And that's when labor compensation is higher. That's when it's rising. Global competition begins in the 80s and into the 90s, and that's when labor compensation is at its highest. The world turns upside down if you track labor compensation according to this measure. Now, I will now want to explain to you why this measure is the valid one. Now, what is the difference between gross domestic income and net domestic income? Well, net domestic income by the way is the income side of gross domestic product. It is gross domestic product except measured on the income side rather than the product side. And net domestic income is simply minus depreciation. We were given a lecture on capital theory earlier today and depreciation was mentioned. And now let me get to the Bureau of Economic Analysis definition of depreciation because I think it will make sense for Austrians. The Bureau of Economic Analysis in their handbook says that the consumption of fixed capital or depreciation is the charge for the using up of private and government fixed capital located in the United States. It is the decline in the value of the stock of fixed assets due to wear and tear, obsolescence, accidental damage, and aging. Now, let's get to another interesting concept called national income. The Bureau of Economic Analysis defines national income as the sum of all incomes, net of the consumption of fixed capital earned in production, earned in production. Now, what are we really saying? What we're really saying is that any measure of income, if you are gonna do macro measures, I know that Austrians book this, but if you're gonna do any kind of measure for any sector, why do you want to subtract the allowance for depreciation? Because if you don't make an allowance for depreciation, as we were told earlier today, the economy will ultimately sink into oblivion. You have to make an allowance to shore up the depreciation of capital. The income that's left after that allowance is the only income that's really available. And interestingly enough, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Conventional Measures make an allowance for this by making a distinction between gross and net, gross domestic product and net domestic product, gross domestic product and net domestic income. Now, again, what I showed you was that if you take net domestic income in your denominator, you're gonna get a very different result for labor share. And let me go over that a little bit more. Gross domestic product equals gross domestic income, net domestic product equals net domestic income. And they are the same measures, although they're measured in different concepts, so they're the same. And then what does the Bureau of Economic Analysis say about net domestic product? It may be viewed as an estimate of sustainable product, which is a rough measure of the level of consumption that can be maintained while leading capital assets intact. It's the, you're leading capital assets intact because you are making an allowance for the depreciation of capital that you're shoring up. And now what is the other, why do I get a difference when I put net domestic income into the denominator versus gross domestic income, something else that's gone on in the U.S. economy, which I think is valid, depreciation has been taking an increasing bite out of gross domestic income. So that, again, the net result is that here's net domestic income is declined as a share of gross domestic income. Now, why is that? Yeah, that's because there's been increase in investment in equipment and software as a percentage of private sector capital investment. This is a nominal dollars. And we are looking, in the 50s and 60s, there was an emphasis on the building of structures and they depreciate very slowly. Over the last 30 years, there's been a huge tilt toward investment in equipment and software. Those are also capital goods I would maintain and they depreciate very quickly. And so that is the reason why if you are going to use an historical measure of labor share, you have to use a net figure rather than a gross figure. Because the net figure is the true measure of the income and product available and the net figure has declined so that if you do the math, if the net is lower and lower, then the percentage becomes very different if the denominator, if the numerator rather is the same. Hopefully you grasp that math. Well, what else do I have here to present to you? Yeah, well, again, this is the same guy, actually his name is Bringer and Bridgeman. He says, recent net labor shares within its historical range, whereas gross share is at its lowest level. I removed depreciation since paying for it only returns the economy to the production possibilities of the previous period. Using net production thus only includes output which can be used for current consumption or expanding future production. But the experts still stick to GDP. Now here is a quote from a peer reviewed paper from a group of five economists with huge prestige and they write, the fall of labor share of GDP in the United States and many other countries in recent decades is well documented, but it's causes remain uncertain. They then go on to say that it's all because of the rise of superstar firms. They are quoting, they're using gross domestic product as their measure. They are right, it's well documented. But what these superstar economists have apparently missed is that gross domestic product is no longer a continuous measure for labor share to be put into the denominator. And again, that's because of the new nature of investment and the fact that depreciation is taking an increasing bite out of it. I could send them this chart and their whole thesis about superstar firms would fall apart. This is labor compensation as a share of net domestic product. Again, it tells the same story. Take net domestic product rather than gross domestic product and you're gonna get the same result which is that we are about where we were in the 50s and 60s. So if you're talking about the rise of superstar firms, how comes it that we're doing about as well as we did in the 50s and 60s when there were no none of these superstar firms which of course are Amazon and Google and all these other firms that they clearly think is a problem. They don't, their story falls apart once you use a simple measure. Now let me see how much time I have. I'll cover one other subtle part of this. Yeah, this is a narrower measure and this is for non-financial corporations. And the measure of non-financial corporations is actually the best measure to use for corporations and it's a measure that is run by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as the BEA. The Bureau of Labor Statistics will run a measure that looks like this. Labor compensation is a percentage of gross value added. Why do I take non-financial corporations? Because financial corporations used to be about 5% of the corporate sector and they're now about 13% to 14%. As an Austrian, I happen to think that while there's been some good things reflected in the fact that financial corporations are more important than ever, there's lots of reasons to find that to be a problem. For example, there would be no need for foreign currency trading by financial corporations. It's a big source of revenue if there was simply just one currency in the world rather than all the Balkanized currencies. There's lots of reasons to think that these financial corporations are a little bit of a distortion but they make a higher rate of profit and we could have a separate listing for them but what they do is that they distort the number. It's fairly well-recognized but the non-financial corporations that are still about 87% of the corporate sector are still pretty much a good core measure. And indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics runs data for them in terms of productivity. They themselves think that it's a good core measure and they run a labor compensation number and the difficulty that I have is that anybody who wants to contradict me about what's actually happened to labor compensation can cite directly Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers because the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not publish any numbers netting out depreciation and they only publish gross numbers and so how can I possibly argue with an August organization like them? So what they run is, for example, labor compensation as a percentage of gross value added, that's similar to the gross domestic product of these non-financial corporations. Gross value added of the non-financial corporations and they do indeed show a precipitous decline in labor share but then if you take labor compensation as a percentage of net value added and the only way to get that number by the way is to go to the BEA's website where they have depreciation figures for the net non-financial corporations and there you find this pretty much the same story. The compensation is now again comparable to what it was in the 50s and 60s and then you also find, as a matter of fact, Benjamin Bridgman of the BEA does another figure which is kind of interesting, labor compensation for non-financial corporations as a percentage of net value added minus production taxes. Bridgman points out there are actually taxes of corporations paid by virtue of producing. This is not corporate income taxes. This is just the taxes that are imposed on the first dollar of production. So if you subtract those out, then you get another figure for the actual amount of income that could be distributed between labor and profits and labor compensation and you find an actually firmer result which is again that over the last 10 to 20 years we've been where we were in the 50s and 60s and let's see what else I have, minus production taxes, okay, what else do we find? All right, now I've anticipated this point but I think it's worth going over. Rounding up the usual suspects. This is in the New York Times. Economists have offered various explanations for why workers are not doing better, the steady weakening of labor unions, the ability of American companies to find cheaper labor abroad or automate further, piddling productivity growth and the rise of superstar companies that are extremely efficient with a relatively small labor force. Well, do I have, I think I have another quote, your Wall Street Journal. Economists cite a number of possible explanations for the change. One is that workers' ability to negotiate wage increases is weakened, union representation has fallen, China's entry and all the rest of it. Now again, all of these explanations become absurd once you actually look at a proper measurement of the trend in labor share. They become absurd because if you ask, well, what was happening to labor share when none of these were operating or when they were operating in reverse when unions were strong, you find that labor share is doing about as well if not somewhat better than it did in the 1950s and 60s. And what else do I have? Yeah, yeah, this is for nine, I guess this is my final chart, the glory days of corporate profits. This is another, this is the flip side of that anomaly. This is again, it's for non-financial corporations because they're a decent series, a relatively constant series. This is a pre-tax profits as a percentage of the actual net value and the real income of non-financial corporations. Well, notice that the profits were highest in the 50s and 60s, that the profits fell in the 70s and 80s and we're now risen a bit, but we're now lower than, we're still lower than we were in the 50s and 60s. That's actually the story of corporate profits because again, you might want to look on the flip side of all this, we began by talking about a labor's shafted because they're not getting that productivity. We talked about how labor's shafted because they're not getting their share and we should be finding that the corporate profits have gone through the roof as a share of the income of the non-financial corporations and we don't find that to be the case at all. I'll tell you something else interesting about this chart, we find that corporate profits tended to be low in the high inflation 1970s and early 80s. Corporate profits as a share of income tended to be low and they were highest in the low inflation 1950s and 60s but that's another story altogether. Well, I'm finishing early and if any of you want to ask some questions we'll make some comments, I'd be grateful. Hopefully I've walked you through a few of the numbers. What I've tried to show you is that if you have your head screwed on right, you read the Austrians, you try to make sense of the numbers, you talk to people who actually run the numbers, you can find some of the most appalling mistakes that the mainstream will make and there's another more complicated mistake that's being made with respect to labor share. What you do find is that while there's one lone voice at the Bureau of Economic Analysis that has blown the whistle on all this, it's difficult to contradict the Bureau of Labor Statistics but this is really just an exercise in economic 101 measurement which shows that a whole lot of presumably sophisticated economists cannot get it right and that the zeal with which they pounce, that the attitude they take which is that I guess that government must do something because labor is being shafted, the mistakes that they can make in the process really do somewhat shock you, I trust because these are fairly elementary mistakes. Any questions? So do you have any like reading recommendations that can like direct us or like resources on how to interpret certain types of data and like aggregate measures? Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, as a matter of fact, I mean, the only, as I mentioned to you the only good titles that I can recommend, I'm gonna try to think of some others but the good titles I can recommend are my book The Count of Spinning, which is still in print and Bob Murphy's because Bob Murphy really does a dive into the data because Krugman covered the data and Murphy covers them very well also and I mean, the odd part of it is that if you, as I say in this particular case, I've been quoting from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Handbook and I should say the Bureau of Economic Analysis is the agency that's part of the Commerce Department and they cover the broad aggregate numbers and they have their own price measure. Then there's the Bureau of Labor Statistics that covers the unemployment rate and then does productivity and it also issues its CPI. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is a much more sophisticated agency than the Bureau of Labor Statistics and actually if you read their handbook which you'll find online where they explain the data, the quotes that I gave you I think were pretty good, pretty sensible and so I guess the third thing to recommend is reading the Bureau of Economic Analysis Handbook because it does explain the data pretty well. It's got about seven chapters and if you go, because most of these data come from Haver Analytics. They've given me a free subscription to their data and it's very user-friendly but of course you can get the BEA data on BEA Interactive. They have all their data that's on spreadsheets and of course then a lot of people use Fred. So I guess those are three titles. Anyway, anybody else? Yeah, yeah. Hi, I was born in 1995 and so I'm largely ignorant of history before them besides what I've read in books so I'm largely ignorant. Did you ever hear World War II? No, yes, but I'm largely ignorant of like economics history. So you know, if you read a standard history book he mostly is- The Great Depression, have you heard of that? Yes, yes, I've heard of the Great Depression. Nevertheless, I'm ignorant of any charts that correspond to- Well yeah, so that's the next thing. A lot of the- I was born in 1944, it's true and this data starts in 1947, I was only three years old then. But that, and I wasn't tracking it then, I was Stalinist at the time, you know. But of course you can actually of course look at history through this data, but go ahead, what was it called? Yes, my question is what is your interpretation for the drops in corporate profits from roughly 65 to 70 and then slightly after 95 to slightly after 2000? Yes, good question. Yeah, I guess I'm not the finesse of most of your excellent question. The only thing I have noticed again is that the profits were low during the high inflation years. You're asking me about 95 and 2000. Why they've risen a bit? I really don't know enough about it. The only thing I can say is that what's interesting to me, I post this a lot on Twitter because a lot of the left-wing Robert Reich, for example, he's got a million and a half followers on Twitter and he says profits are at a 75-year high and I'm just posting pre-tax profits as a percentage of the net income of these non-financial corporations. They're not at any kind of 75-year high. Profits are actually recently, not even that much higher than they were about 10, 15 years ago. But again, my lame answer to your question is only to say that what's interesting to me is that high price inflation is not good for corporate profits. The high inflation years were the 1970s and early 80s. And you can see the corporate profits fell, the low inflation seems to be better. And so I believe that what's going to happen, that even this slight bump up is probably not gonna last. And that really what seems to happen, certainly happened then and could, and seems to happen, will happen probably in the future, is that obviously price inflation also affects costs and the costs start to bite. And I think that that probably is gonna happen. The preliminary data indicates seemingly the third quarter profits, this just takes you through the, I'm sorry, second quarter, this takes you through the first quarter of 2022, just the first quarter and it bliped down a little bit. It's probably gonna blip down even further. They have to pay for oil, they have to pay for their labor, they've gotta pay for higher debt costs. So it puts them in a squeeze. It may have been higher debt, but so I'm only answering a small part of your question. And now that you know this history, I invite you to answer the next part of your question and write me an email with your answer. What happened in the 90s? Yeah, yeah. Well, you wanna say that in the microphone? Oh, the dot com, yeah. Oh, just I imagine the second drop that he knows would be the dot com bubble. Oh yeah, you're talking about, yeah, the, you know, one, yeah, yeah, that period. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah, I should, I probably should have put in some recession bars because you're right, yeah. During recessions, of course, profits really suffer. You know, the profits are much more volatile than wages. Capital investment is much more volatile. And indeed, so you have helped me out with that. Thank you very much. Yeah, any other questions or comments? Yeah. Yeah, when it comes to the economists like Robert Reich and Richard Wolff, do you see them as being malicious with the way they present data or as just being ignorant? Malicious. Well, no, I think, okay, now, come on. First of all, why are you generalizing about the two of them? Maybe one is malicious and the other is ignorant. And really, okay, Richard Wolff is both malicious and ignorant. Now, why do you mention, I debated Richard Wolff on socialism and it's gotten nearly 5.2 million views on YouTube and the commensurate number of podcasts downloads. And I owe it all to Richard Wolff, I think. I debated two other socials and that got about 100,000 views. But with Richard Wolff, it takes off. I think I'm co-tell riding on Richard Wolff. But interestingly enough, a week after our debate, give me a very long-winded answer, a week after our debate, he delivered a lecture in downtown Manhattan and for 10 minutes he talked about the debate he had had with a libertarian. And I have a video of that that I post because it was available in the video. I post those 10 minutes and I offer a free lifetime subscription to the soul form debates for anybody who can verify a single thing that he recalls. A week after the debate, he invented a completely fictitious narrative about what I had said and what he had said. And okay, that could be denial, maybe that's not viciousness. But I was told by a guy in the same term, I was told by a progressive socialist who used to be in the department with Richard Wolff at UMass that everybody hated him, nobody was talking to him, he's a vicious guy. And so that's the real evidence. But Robert Reich actually, so he's both ignorant and vicious. But Robert Reich really, I've seen him appear and I bridle every time somebody insults him for his height. I think it reflects well on him that he's four for 10 and then he got this far as he did in life. I think anybody who talks like that is vicious. And so I would defend this guy completely on that basis. And I've heard him speak, he's a little bit smug.  He doesn't look anything up. But he's clearly just sort of like a religious fanatic. He believes that if he thinks it's right, then it must be right. And every once in a while he's writing an article or something like that, but most of the time he quotes nothing, he cites numbers and quotes nothing. Really, the most baffling thing is that he does have 1.5 million followers and that people seem to believe what he writes. So I probably should get over the habit of running a chart that contradicts what he just said. I do that a lot on Twitter. Just to show that these are the actual numbers. But it's OK.  He's a kind of a true believer. I'm reading the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Hite. And Jonathan Hite makes the argument. And I don't know, Michael Mallis highly recommended that book. And Jonathan Hite basically talks about how we have the mind. We're like a person on an elephant. We've got a mind, but really the elephant is telling us what to think. All of our intuitions and all of our presumptions. And then we use our mind to rationalize our prejudices, rationalize our assumptions and presumptions. And I want to say to Jonathan Hite, that's true, except it's not true of libertarians. And the reason why it's not true of libertarians is that we're stuck with a relatively tragic sense of life. We're stuck with it because we know there's nobody on a white horse. There is no government that can cure prejudice. We know that capitalism punishes bigotry. We know that, but we're not going to deny that there still will be bigotry. And then usually if there's a lot of bigotry, it comes primarily from the government. So there's really no solution. We have to reconcile ourselves to a lot of relatively unhappy conclusions. There are happy things that we believe in. We do see that a libertarian world could be a decent society, could be a good world, but it will be a highly imperfect world. There will still be awful things happening in society. Whereas the progressives, the progressives really think that if we just get government to behave better and act better, then most things can be solved. There won't be any bigotry because they'll pass a law against it. There won't be any shootings because they'll take away all the guns, all of those things. So how did I get into that? Yeah, that's because Robert Reich is really like that person in Jonathan Heidt's book, and I guess the followers are like that person as well. Our only hope is that maybe if you use your mind, you can cope with the world a little bit better and recognize that libertarianism and the free market is the only answer. And then as I emphasize today, that the happy fact is that capitalism not only brings freedom, it brings prosperity. And then every once in a while, when I get excited, I say, my God, maybe that's a good reason to believe in God. Maybe capitalism would bring liberty, freedom, and not prosperity. Then what would we do? We'd be kind of a dilemma. But it brings both. That I believe could be empirically and conceptually justified, and that's a relatively happy conclusion. And hopefully, if we preach this to the followers of Robert Reich, I don't expect him to learn anything at this point, but preach that to his followers. Maybe some of them will listen, and that's my long-winded answer to your question. And are there any other questions? We've got about five minutes to go, yeah, I guess. No. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.


Hi everyone, happy Wednesday Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with a quick one box break of 2017 18 upper deck the cup hockey One box random number block break number seven from a fresh case So works just like our number of blocks right here zero gets any and all redemptions in this one box Even if it's a one-of-one redemption one will still get any live one-of-ones. There's any cards that are not numbered There'll be randomized. They'll be collected together as one lot and randomized in one lot All redemptions still go to zero. Okay, right So all any non numbered cards will go as one lot to one person to break if any So a lot of great stuff in here as you know by now You know what to expect the quality from the cup hockey big. Thanks to these folks for getting into the action So this is break seven the next break is almost sold out too We can add that to the schedule and keep going on that and probably finish this case one box at the time All right, so let's roll it Let's randomize it two and a six eight times for each list one two three four and Eighth and final time after eight. We've got William down to Chris Any big mixers being any mixers being ripped today all of them Kyle all of them will be ripped today Eight times for the numbers one two three we're seven seven and I said eight red eighth and final time Eight I click the button after eight times seven down to eight So William with seven Matt with four Chris with two six Sean with five Chris with zero so you'll get any and all redemption this one box are about to pull out of a fresh case Matt you'll still get live one of ones Chris with three Matt with nine Matt at once again with one and Chris with eight Let's order these numerically. I suppose you could trade if you'd like While I figure out which box we're gonna do so let's pop this open Let's mark these boxes three five And six Now I'm gonna select a die We're gonna roll it and we'll just one two three four five six so whatever the dice says that's the box will do Easy So we'll save these for next time. I'm sure we'll do I'm sure we'll get through that entire case tonight So keep it going on jasmine case breaks calm no trades, right? Not even a whisper of a trade. So trade window closed trade window closed and let's print and Rip they were under the time clock Nick and I both put our eyes. Oh The other we looked under that never mind. Okay. We didn't look everywhere now forgive my My lack of hockey name knowledge and if there's a big hit you got to let me know there's a book right there too All right. Good luck everyone. We've got 201 out of 249 Jonathan Druin. So that's Matt with number one Canadians player Here's the Break log. Here's the other here. It is the final print out right there on a Wednesday the 12th We're in the middle of the month already. That's crazy We've got Vince done RPA some nice color in there 179 out of 249 So that's goes to nine Matt Buckler with the number nine. I don't know if he's good or not, but RPA there you go That's the book. So should we do? Should we save the book for last? There's the book right there. Here's the rest We got Vincent Trucek 18 out of 99 in Shryman's autograph Center for the Panthers Chris Maxwell with number eight. We've got quads one out of ten all stars Jamie, let's see if I can get these names. Jamie Ben Jason Speza Tyler Seguin and Alexander Rudolov Close enough. There you go Number one Matt Buckler and the last one here is Patrick Lyon a So one sixty No 180 out of 249 there you go 180 you can see it right there nice Chris Maxwell with number zero and The book let's see what this book is going to be all about It's going to be autographed Monumental rookie patch Alex DeBrin cat. Nice. Are you numbered? Yes, it's hand numbered five out of six. Wow. Look at that patch Five out of six number five is Shawn Matic One spot one book. That's awesome. There you go. Is he good? I've heard of him There you go. Nice one just one off a train whistle, but nice little bell right there, too Thanks very much everybody. That's it We've got another one box break in the store almost sold out get into that I'm Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm. I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye. Bye


What's going on everybody? Welcome back to another video. Today I'm going to show you how you can find and work with recruiters on LinkedIn. Working with recruiters is one of the fastest ways to land a job in tech and LinkedIn is a fantastic platform to work with recruiters. Now in LinkedIn there's two different ways that you can get connected with a recruiter. The first is that they reach out to you and the second is you reach out to them. So let's jump over to my screen and I'm going to show you how to do both. All right so we are looking at my actual LinkedIn page here and I'm going to show you the first way which is having recruiters reach out to you. This is by far the simplest and the easiest way to work with a recruiter where they're basically going to reach out to us. So what we're going to do is come right over here to open two. We're going to click on this and if we scroll down we have a few different options. We have finding a job, providing services, and hiring. Now what we're going to be doing is trying to find a job. So let's click on that and then it's going to ask us quite a bit of information. The first thing that you want is to add a job title. Now for us it'd be things like data analyst, maybe a healthcare analyst because I work in healthcare so I'll say healthcare analyst and then you could add others like a business analyst, marketing analyst, financial analyst and the list goes on.  Now if you do select remote you still need to put in a location. Now your location actually does matter even if you are remote. The reason being is that sometimes there are laws for the state or for the country that their company can't comply with and so they won't be able to hire in certain areas so they need to know where you live or if you're on site like right up here they need to know that you're actually in the location that they're hiring for. After that we can scroll down. We're going to put our start date whether we can start immediately or we're just flexible and casually looking. Then we can select full-time, part-time, contract, internship, or temporary. For us it's most likely going to be full-time or contract and then lastly and this is an important one you can decide who can see this and so you can either show everybody which is going to include people who you work with potentially your manager that you currently have or you can just show recruiters. Now for me I've almost always done recruiters only so that people who I'm currently working with don't go and tell my boss or my manager that hey Alex is looking for another job. After that all you're going to do is click save and then you'll be good to go. Now that is a fantastic step in the right direction but you really still need to work on your profile just a little bit. The way that a recruiter is going to find you and reach out to you is by searching specific keywords. So maybe for me they're looking for someone who's in the Charleston area who is a data analyst and no sequel. Now when they actually find my profile they're going to come and visit my profile before they actually send me a message. So there are a few things that I want you to have on here. You definitely need a profile picture. This one's very old I definitely should update this I just haven't but there's a few other things that you need. You definitely need to have at least a few posts in here. You don't have to be a content creator or anything like that but just have something to fill up this area with some posts that with achievements or you know something interesting. Then you should have an about section just a little bit about who you are and what you're looking for and then lastly experience and education. Now if you don't have experience you don't need to add it but you definitely at least need your education in there and probably the most important part of this entire thing is your skills section. When recruiters are hitting off those keywords a lot of times it's for skills and so you need to come in here and add in your skills. Now I have a bunch in here and some of them are repetitive things like Python and Microsoft SQL Server. If I scroll down I know for a fact I have other types of SQL in here. Here we go like Transac SQL PostgreSQL MySQL and so whichever one they're searching for I should come up in the results. So it's just a friendly tip you definitely want to have your whole profile set up. My very last tip for your profile is I can come over here to this more and you're going to click on it and you can build a resume. Here you can actually upload your resume that recruiters can see before they actually ask you to send it to them. So like I said it's kind of the more passive way you're just going to wait for recruiters to reach out to you but if you want to actively be applying you want to actively be reaching out to recruiters I'm going to show you how to do that as well. So let's go over to this job section and let's see what we can find. So let's go to data analyst and let's scroll down and see what we find. It could be any company never heard of this one but this is a senior data analyst role at JoBot. Never heard of it but let's go ahead and click on it and let's say this was a job I wanted to apply for. So they have this data analyst job I'm going to apply for it but then I'm going to go one step further and I'm going to reach out to a recruiter who works at the company. So all we have to do to find a recruiter that works at JoBot which maybe you've heard of it I have not. We're going to go over to people and then what we can do is we can actually filter on these employees so we can choose where they live and let's say I want to reach out to someone who lives in the US like me and then I can scroll over and we can choose recruiting so we have right here.  So there's a bunch of other filters that you can look at but then we scroll down and all of these people are going to be recruiters at this company so what I would do if I was really serious about this position is I would reach out to two or maybe three of them and send them a message so what we're going to do so we're just going to come right over here here's Denise we're going to shoot her a message and our message is basically going to be hey I saw this position open at your company I'm extremely interested I love what your company does I'd love to learn more about the position and your company. In the description I'll put something that you can just copy and paste for these types of messages they'll be really short and to the point as well as very polite so we're not going to actually message Denise but this is exactly how you can find them and again you can filter this down even further you can message a lot of recruiters or just one recruiter. Now here's what I will say about reaching out to recruiters is that typically you're only going to get about a 10 to 20 percent response rate on all the messages that you send. This is kind of a numbers game so it's kind of a game of persistence this is something that I have a lot of personal experience with I've done this for many years and it really works but just don't expect every single recruiter that you reach out to to actually message you back. Now that's how you can work with a recruiter on LinkedIn but I'm going to show you just one kind of bonus tip which is how you can find a recruiter in your area and reach out to them. So I'm going to come here to Google and all I'm going to type is I'm looking for a certain area and I'm looking for technical recruiters. Now I don't live in a huge metropolitan area anymore but before I used to live in Dallas I lived there for over five years and that's where I got my first data analyst job so I'm going to search there for technical recruiters.  Now as you can see just at a glance these are technical recruiters and I'm going to go ahead and contact them you can kind of do some more research see what jobs they have open but I'm just going to send them my name my email my phone number that I'm a candidate and then my resume right here so that they can then see if I'm a good fit for them. You may even go as far as reaching out to them by calling their office number and just saying hey my name is Alex I'm a data analyst I'm looking for a job you know here are my credentials and then see if you can work with a recruiter at this company. This is what's called cold emailing or cold calling this is not the most optimal way to do it although this is an avenue that you can go down I just found that LinkedIn works a lot better it's a lot more streamlined process and so that's typically what I stay with. So those are the exact steps that I take to work with recruiters on LinkedIn. I wish you the absolute best of luck in your job hunt if you like this video be sure to like and subscribe below and I'll see you in the next video


Messages as packets, networks to bind us and connecting wires are remisterious Don't you evade us, switching through the phases Professor, she the will demystify for us Getting through the loop, use the packet tracer Find the subgroup, waiting along route 802 Collisions, crosstalks, static Addresses can be traumatic Figure naught, we will get automatic Asha Toshin Kavya will explain the network and simplify the topic And create an awesome learning experience for you


What's up everybody? Jayz here for JaspysKageBakes.com. This is our last filler here guys to sell out the diamond dozen guys We're giving away the last eight spots here 2022 Panini Capstone's baseball box break number 53 and actually guys Carl ended up selling it out himself So technically this is all the personal here for Carl. So let's just rip the box here and good luck, buddy I know didn't you just recently go though Joe? Didn't you want to see like the the record be broken? I'll give them their fun man. Honestly, it's great for the fam You know, especially my family kids, you know, so like that obviously it's a physical sport But I mean at least for King games. I've noticed it's just always been fun with the fam But obviously playoff time is just something else But yeah hockey games are awesome man. All right, my brother grew up got me into hot growing up And that's why I love it, you know with football really All good Carl The only thing I had asked was like since he wanted me to like donate the hits that you got from the last Box, did you want me to do the same here? Did you want me to just ship like the autos and relics you get or? What did you want me to do technically? Just wanted to kind of clarify that Jake McCarthy. Okay, no problem. It's all good. I just wanted to make sure buddy Joe Adele auto 1099 and Andre Jackson for the Dodgers to 25 Two LA teams right there Ty Francis peak There you go Awesome possum man All right, well, I don't gotta do more randomizers of course you're already in buddy So we'll end the video off here, but coming up next of course is the diamond doesn't break itself. Thanks


Hi, my name is Kurt Pavia and I'm Learning Technologist with the Libraries at Western. I'm just going to take a minute here to show you the setup for using a discussion forum as a private journal. Now you may ask students to write journal entries as an assignment. When a student submits an assignment as a normal assignment, they only get to see their most recent submission. They don't get to see all the previous submissions that they've had. So another way to do it is to set up a discussion board for the student where they can post their journal entry as a discussion item and then when they go back and post their next journal entry, they can see their previous entries and their whole history and see their journal. But how to keep that private between you and the student? Well, the way to do that is to use groups. So what you do is you go to the people tab first and in the people tab you'll set up a discussion or I'm sorry a group set for private journals. And then from there you'll create a separate group for each student. Now if you want to do that automatically, you can have Canvas create it and you just enter in the number of groups is equal to the number of students and it'll put one student in each group. Boom, it's done. But once this is set up, then you can go to your discussions and you can create your discussion and assign it as a group. And here you can see that the students are all assigned to their own group. And so when they come to it, they're only going to see their own posts. They won't see any other students posts and it's their own little private journal. A couple of notes in here when you do set this up is that you need to allow threaded replies of course and turn on grading that allows you to make it a group discussion and set it to your private journals group. And then you can get the points in there and such and save it. And one other thing I want to point out to you and this might be helpful in your other Canvas assignments with discussions, is that if you go to the course details of your class and you go way to the bottom there's more options. If you click on more options, you'll see there's let students attach files to discussions. That's helpful usually if they need to attach a file. This one here let students edit or delete their own discussion posts. Now that's one that's left up to you to decide. Students could go in there make a post and then just type in something simple and then come back and edit it three days later. Who knows? Usually that's a way to escape deadlines and things, but you can choose to turn that off to where students can't go back and edit their post. That's kind of your own personal decision and you have to look at the pros and cons of that. Anyhow, that's just a way to set up a private journal using discussions. Thanks and I hope you have a good day.


Hello people of the internet, my name is Johnny and welcome back to another news video. Again, we literally had one the other day, but we're back with more news. So quickly, Illumix did release some more products for their store, which is officially out. I'll link it in the description, but we will be taking a look at it in today's video. Just briefly though, because as you've seen in the title, we have some very very exciting news about FNAF AR's actual AR mechanic, because it's getting a big change and it looks amazing. So first off, let's take a quick look at the new products that Illumix revealed yesterday. Okay, so to actually my surprise, Illumix did release posters and mugs along with all the clothes that they have on their store. I really wasn't expecting this, I was just thinking that it was going to be just clothes, but then again, they were hinting towards posters even before the store was probably announced. Like, they've been hinting about this since probably the reveal trailer, because everyone wanted the posters in the trailer. And guess what? Those posters aren't in the store. Nope, instead Illumix did what Illumix does best and they put promotional material on a piece of paper and are selling it for about $25. They recognize these pieces of art. You have the first ever teaser for the game and then they also have the cabin teaser and then they also have the chocolate barney and easter barney skin teaser. I don't know what their obsession is with chocolate barney by the way. The first collection was entirely about him and now they just are selling that teaser for some reason. Not any of the other teasers for the skins like Mangle or Torchica and Frostbear. The mugs are alright, I'll be honest. They're not that bad. I actually do kind of like them. You have the gang outside of the house which is also promotional material for the game. It's actually an image in the game so nothing new there. Same thing with the easter barney and chocolate barney teaser. And then they also have the envelope on the mug for some reason. If you guys don't remember, this is not new. In fact, this is what Illumix sent to you. Not an actual envelope but a PNG of an envelope that had this exact design when you got early access to FNAF AR when it first released in November. Which I did. Small flex there. It was actually very easy. All you had to do was give them your email. And in fact if you want to become a VIP for the official store all you have to do is give them your email again. Apparently when you do this you get special collections and you stay in the loop about future drops and exclusive deals. So I'm guessing they'll probably just send out emails being like hey, you know, we got a new collection coming out soon. Stay tuned and check out our Instagram and Twitter. So now we'll take a look at the actual store. And honestly I mean the layout looks good. I mean it's nothing too groundbreaking. It just looks like a merchandise store which is what it is so that's good. It shows the products per collection which makes sense. You know you start off when you first get onto the site it shows the chocolate bonnie collection because again Alumix loves chocolate bonnie. And then you scroll down and you can check out the let's play collection and the eternal collection. Okay so now let's talk about the actual prices. They're what I was expecting honestly. If you compare them to like YouTuber merchandise they're about the same. So it appears that their most expensive thing on the store so far is the $45 always come back Springtrap hoodie. They also have a $10 gift card that you can buy. I'm guessing for like birthdays and you know holidays for friends and family which does make sense. The posters alright I guess $22 to $25 that's the price range for those three. And then the mugs are $15 to $20. Also on this store you may notice that they have an AR filter enabled next to some products and that is because they actually did release a snapchat filter with the merchandise store. But you can only access the filter by buying their products. I got the filter and I was wondering why it wasn't walking and then I took a closer look at Kieran's post on Instagram. So as you can see it scans your t-shirt and then Freddie will jump scare. I mean to be fair the Freddie looks cool. He's got that red eyes you know he scares you just like in the game. It actually looks really similar to the jumpscare in the game. I'm not sure if it's a complete copy and paste but it does look very similar but it does also look good. I mean you can get it. It just it doesn't do anything without the the shirt so and now we have some really exciting news. I'm not being sarcastic normally I'm like oh yeah for now if I was doing a new thing. But this is actually very exciting because Illumix is finally fulfilling a promise that they made eight months ago. So when Illumix released the trailer for FNAFAR everyone was super excited because the characters were actually interacting with the objects inside of the house. You know you have Foxy, Bonnie and Balloon Boy outside the window and it actually looks like they're outside the window. You have plush trap just sitting on the chair and it looked like he was actually sitting in the chair and then the coolest part was Freddie chasing you down the hallway. Everyone was so excited to be chased by Freddie down the hallway. They couldn't wait. The game came out and instead you stand in one place spin around in circles and shock the characters when they get close to you. Finally after so long after so so long occlusion is coming to FNAFAR and if you don't know what that means I didn't either so I'm going to explain it. Finally I have a video that I'm going to show you that does a much better job at explaining it so here you go. Your content though often looks like it's pasted on the screen rather than in the world. What if ARCore could supercharge your camera bringing the world into your phone by giving you color and depth at every pixel that it sees. We've squeezed all of our software magic into the new ARCore depth API so with just a single moving camera we can give you 3D understanding of the world on over 200 million android phones. This means that we can start properly occluding objects like our 3D Tiger. So instead of and I'm going to show another video as I talk about this instead of Pikachu just running around on the sidewalk and it appearing that Pikachu is floating over those people in front of them Pikachu will now go behind the bushes and behind those people's legs as he moves around which is amazing. Seeing that tiger go from just in front of the bush kind of floating on it to actually being behind it and seeing it peek through the leaves that is incredible and so if Lumix can successfully pull that off with FNAF AR it could be so much better. So much better. But remember when they said that they're using like features that can detect the distance between walls and that they were going to put that in the game and then the game came out and they never did. It's going to be like that. Finally now this feature is kind of out for the app. For some reason it's only out on certain devices. I don't know what those devices are so I can't really give you any insight on that. It's not on mine. I checked. I checked the app store and I checked the actual in-game settings and I don't have it but I'm sure they're going to properly release it maybe soon. Maybe this month because if it's out on some devices I would expect that it's getting near to completion. In fact lots of people on the reddit have submitted videos of it walking in game with Springtrap and with Shadow Bonnie and it does look really cool. Like Shadow Bonnie emerging from the bush and from the trees. It looks really cool. Plus Trap. The character that everyone has been waiting for. He was in the first original teaser he was in the first trailer well that's kind of hard to say because the Lumix put out like 10 million different trailers for the game. He was in I think the third trailer the actual launch trailer for the game and he's still not in the FN game. So where is he? Well the Lumix did say that they wanted to wait until they had a really good mechanic for him and I think this could be it because when you think about it it makes sense. In FNAF4 in his minigame or you know help wanted if you want to think about that Plus Trap hides in rooms. You know he dips into one room he runs across the hallway and he dips into another room. Make it so that you're in a hallway with doors and Plus Trap can run to those doors and hide in that room. That's going to be great. That's really going to be great right. As he gets closer you use the flashlight to stop him maybe it can have a counter. I don't know. I mean Mangle has a counter so they already have a timer in game built so they can put it to like I don't know what is it 80 seconds or 60 I really can't remember and then you have to stop him on the X and then when he's on the X you shock him. That would be great. That would be really great. Not only is that utilizing the new technology but it's also very similar to his first ever appearance on the franchise. I think that would be really cool. That would also be really cool. I hope they do that. I hope they don't give him a really lame mechanic because we waited for too long for him to be released and have a really bad mechanic. I hope it's good. Anyways I believe that is it. Let me check. That's everything I have pulled up so we have that to look forward to. Alumix hasn't properly said anything about this new feature even though it has been out for a couple hours well I say out again only on certain devices for some reason so they haven't said anything just yet but hopefully they say something soon. I also don't know how long they've been walking with this new feature for ARCore. If they've been referencing it since like last year again in November they were talking about oh you know it can detect the distance between walls. Hopefully that means they've been working on it for a while so hopefully that means it'll be released soon. I don't really know. I don't think we'll have to wait too long seeing as some devices are getting it right now so hopefully very soon but that's not official yet. Anyways thanks for watching. We have had a lot of news regarding FNAF AR mostly because of the motion dye store which again is out. I'll link it if you want to go buy something. Keep in mind though that the pandemic is affecting shipping times. I saw that on the website so be patient. So yeah that's it. Thanks for watching. See you on the flip side. Bye.


from the CUBE studios in Palo Alto and Boston. It's theCUBE, covering IBM Think. Brought to you by IBM. Hi, everybody, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of IBM 2020. It's the digital IBM 2020, the Think Event Experience. My name is Dave Vellante, and you are watching theCUBE. Steve Canepa is here. He's the global GM of communications or the communications sector for IBM. Steve, how are you doing? Good to have you on. Doing great, Dave. Thanks for having me. Yeah, you're very welcome. I mean, communications is sort of a broad term for the stuff you cover, telco, cable, entertainment, broadcast, publishing, satellite, sports, music, games. I mean, social, wow. You run the gamut. It's exciting times. Pretty big role. Yeah, I'll say you got exciting times. There's so much going on in your space. And of course, this pandemic has really hit the communications industry in so many different ways. Some tailwinds, some headwinds, and it's just crazy out there. What are you seeing and what are you guys doing to support clients? Well, first and importantly, our thoughts go out to everyone as we're all dealing with this around the world. I have the opportunity to work with clients in every geography around the globe and each and every one of them is busily dealing with how they make sure their employees are safe, how they're providing services to their customers. And we're right there alongside them, helping them do that as well.  So we're working with clients to help them get their resources in place so that they can support their businesses, their network platforms, their media services in a way that they can keep the business running. Our telecommunications customers all around the globe had to get their resources and work at home environments. We worked with many of them in deploying real-time services. We also worked with them in deploying call center chatbot capabilities so that they could answer questions from their customers, from other members of the community as they were coming in. So a tremendous opportunity for us to help them respond to what's happening. It's actually quite amazing the response. I mean, you think about telco, you think about telco infrastructure, what comes to mind is it's hardened, it's reliable, it works and all of a sudden you've got all these remote workers. The pace of the pivot has been actually quite astounding. I mean, your thoughts on that. Yeah, and it actually goes hand in glove in what we've been preparing the industry for generally. I mean, there's been this evolution to digital service providers that's been happening in the industry now for a number of years. And in fact, the center point of what we're doing now to help the telcos virtualize and abstract those networks so that there's software-based services platforms that can respond to these kinds of peak load demand issues not that anyone anticipated COVID, but the ability to have a platform that can scale your business and allow you to respond, move services where they need to be moved to be much more agile in the way you work. These are all playing into the ability to respond to the situation. Steve, I want to ask you about something you said in a recent article in Forbes. You said winners in the 5G and edge era will be those who embrace the hybrid multi-cloud approach. Well, first of all, I want to ask you, I mean, 5G can't get here fast enough, but so you're kind of predicting my inference is a 5G and edge era coming this decade. Like I said, it can't happen soon enough, but what are your thoughts on that's coming era? Yeah, in my view, there's three fundamental things that are happening simultaneously. So first, obviously 5G is emerging. It's showing up now. Most service providers around the world are starting to already deploy their private 5G capabilities. We're seeing it show up in evolution form in consumer marketplace. So 5G is here and we'll continue to scale. The second key transformation that's happening is the telco network itself is becoming a hybrid cloud platform. What I mean by that is, just as we saw when video abstracted as a service and it could be deployed on over the top service platforms, enabling things like our interview that we're doing today to happen, that got loaded on top of now open IT platform. The same exact thing is happening in the network domain where the network services, data service, voice service, multimedia services are being put on an open platform architect that allows you to respond. And then the third key thing that's happening in market is this edge phenomenon. And this is all about the ability to move workloads, to move services out closer to where things happen and take advantage of those key 5G features like ultra low latency, increased bandwidth, and of course the ability to slice the network down to dedicate it to a specific application. This opens up a whole new set of services. Yeah, I mean, as I was sort of alluding to before the reliability of telco network and the hallmark of that infrastructure as we move to this more open sort of standardized environment, Steve, I would imagine that one of the technical challenges is maintaining that level of reliability and predictability, well, at the same time being able to support remote workers, et cetera, low latency workloads, can you comment on that? Yeah, so a couple of key points there. One is, as you may know, IBM acquired Red Hat a little over a year ago. Red Hat has created an open platform for the telcos to modernize their core infrastructure. And the power of that is we can seize this enormous upstream community now and that community can help accelerate the great pace of transformation is happening, bring innovation in. That's really powerful. The second is once we go through an open platform, software-based platform, we can infuse automation, extreme levels of automation and AI for intelligent predictive capabilities. So now think about the network becoming a living, breathing, responding platform where it's based on software so we can deploy services and functions and we can automate those services and functions.  So Steve, definitely we had a, I think a decent understanding of the Red Hat and the strategy around open shift and the container approach, hybrid, multi-cloud. What I didn't realize is that there was specificity around the telco industry. Can you talk more specifically about what IBM is doing in that regard? Yeah, no, it's a great question. Red Hat has a very significant presence in 120 telcos around the globe. And so not only they're Red Hat Linux, which is kind of a de facto standard in the marketplace, but they're open stack architecture. Now we're moving out to the open shift architecture. And as part of that, the relationship with an enormous upstream community of talent that's building on those platforms. And so we're able to really infuse into Red Hat the kind of requirements that are necessary for their software platform to serve as the platform, the open platform for the telcos as we go forward. So it has been an incredible synergy. I think of it as kind of two puzzle pieces that fit together incredibly well. At IBM we've had the longstanding relationship with all the service providers around the world in helping them transform their business. And now with Red Hat we have the opportunity to really integrate what we're doing from an automation and AI standpoint with all the power of that Red Hat platform. So where do you see the edge fitting in to this hybrid multi-cloud approach? Is it sort of an extension of cloud? Is it a new cloud? You know, we are envisioning this seamless experience between on-prem cloud, multi-cloud and edge. Yeah, I think of it in a kind of simple Venn diagram where you have this virtualized open software-based telco network on one side and you have the edge on the other. And in the middle you have this kind of combination where you do edge in partnership with the telcos. And the idea here is that all industry are going to want to provide a next generation of insights to their customers and to their partners. The ability to move those workloads. So think about a manufacturing shop for us, an example. You know, we've already had IoT centers, hundreds if not thousands of them. Now we can infuse video cameras and take, you know, a huge amount of data through the enhanced bandwidth of 5G and bring that down to an edge platform and analyze that video data in real time, whether employees are in safe zones, maybe with COVID now, even whether or not keeping the proper social distancing and looking at actually looking at everything that's coming off of that platform or manufacturing line, looking at the equipment itself and adding AI to that so that we can analyze it in real time. Edge allows us to take advantage of those 5G attributes and to put it wherever that workload should run, whether it's on the plant floor itself as in proximity to where that equipment is or back in the central office location within a network of a telco. Well, this is huge for the telcos because for years, you know, as I keep talking about their hard network, but their cost per bit has been coming down.  This is going to change the way in which telcos are able to compete, is it not? It's a great point, yes. If you think about the last generation of evolution, you know, when we went to 4G and a smartphone came out, think about the Apple App Store as an example. Folks started not going to the telcos anymore for those services. They went to that OTT capability to get those applications. Now, think about in this edge world as we essentially are creating platforms for innovation, for businesses in all industries, and they can now innovate on those platforms and create an incredible value in their business. And the telcos now can add beyond just the transport capabilities of 5G, but artificial intelligence, automation, they can expose certain data capabilities that can make those applications smarter, understanding proximity data, that can be applied to things like logistics or pricing or as I said, operations like in manufacturing. So a tremendous new set of value. In fact, most analysts say a trillion dollar value is going to be created here. And the opportunity I see is that the open network platform becomes a way for the service providers to not only capture value for themselves, but to accelerate the value for businesses in all industries. Well, I think we're going to see some huge moves in the chessboard, more M&A. It's going to be a very exciting time. And of course, 5G is at the heart of it, Steve. I wonder if you could give us IBM's point of view in terms of where we are with 5G. I mean, sometimes I see it pop up on my phone and I'm like, come on, that's not real 5G quite yet recently. We heard recently that Apple might somewhat delay, you know, it's new phones, there may be 5Gs involved in that, but it's going to take some time for that infrastructure to roll out. But what's your point of view on sort of that timeframe and the business impact that we can all expect? Yeah, no, it's a good question and we will see it roll out over time. Some things are starting to roll out.  I mean, you have environments where you could create 5G infrastructure in a private model today. And then of course, consumer models are going to roll out as cities continue to get deployed by the various service providers. But I think the important point, which is what we've spoken about so far, is that as we start to create this platform capability around the edge, and we start to transform those network themselves inside the telcos to platform, we can start to capture those values today in a 4G world. And as 5G comes along, you just essentially evolve into the capabilities that that brings, especially with regards to latency and bandwidth. Now some applications where slicing will be really important. Think about a medical operation where a doctor is consulting on the surgery in a remote location. Now, if I know for sure that bandwidth is going to be there, that doctor no longer has to be in the same location as that robotic as an example. So the ability to have dedicated bandwidth, which will come with 5G will be an important attribute that gets added. I mean, the possibilities are really mind boggling. I mean, you mentioned stadiums. And of course, hopefully at some point, we'll be able to go to football games again. But I mean, you know, the last decade was all about how big can you make the screen in the stadium and versus this screen, right? This is where a lot of the action is going to be now. Replays and just the whole experience of ordering goods and services. And then of course, hardened environment, like oil rigs, et cetera. So really, we're not just going to return to the last decade, we've been talking about a lot here. Last question. Go ahead, please. I'm just going to say, yeah, one of the, an example that I like to mention, just because it kind of brings us all together, think about first response. Now we're in the midst of a COVID thing, but soon in California again, unfortunately we'll probably get close to fire season. Think in a 5G edge world, what that might look like. So the minute that fire starts in some location in California, drones are in the air, sending video down to an edge platform that's being analyzed to understand where that fire is going. And importantly, everything that's in its path and how to best battle it. Sensors coming in from IoT centers in the area, feeding in data, our weather company app, feeding in real-time weather statistics, windpads, temperature changes that are going to influence the way that that fire performed. And now with announcement we made with Samsung just recently, with our edge platform, the ability to have those first responders have sensors on them, Samsung devices that are measuring their vital signs. And with the predictive models that are being built, we'll know whether that first responder's in distress or about to be in distress. The ability to scale our inbound communications capability digitally, so that tap pots can handle this enormous increase in the amount of folks calling in to get information on what's happening in real-time. And of course with the AI in that edge platform, moving all of that physical equipment, the asset, humans, the first responders in the optimal position at all time in order to get that fire out as soon as possible. I think it's a good example of how we can see these capabilities come together in a 5G and Edge world and allow us to get enormous value, saving lives, saving property, responding to an incident like that. It's a great example of how you're going to put innovation into action because you touched all points. Imagine the amount of data now that's being created and that example that you just gave, I mean, it's just going exponential, applying artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, and then the other phrase you use is real-time. We're talking about real-time or near real-time decisions actually being made potentially oftentimes by the machines or in combination with humans so that these actions can be taken. And of course it's all occurring on an infrastructure that's sort of an expanding definition of cloud, not just on-prem, not just hybrid, not just multi-cloud, but now the Edge. It's really going to be an exciting 10 years. You got it exactly right. And importantly, using that example, once that fire is put out, that Edge platform can wind back down to where it was before the incident occurred, but all the intelligence that was gained during that can be taken to the next incident as it happens. So this agility becomes really powerful because we get the cumulative learning that happens in these models going forward. Amazing, so where can people go to get some more information on IBM's Edge approach? Yeah, if you go to ibm.com, you'll see information on both on IBM Edge solutions that we're putting forward into Marketplace and what we're doing specifically with the telecommunications service providers to help them transform their networks to take advantage of this incredible opportunity. Well, Steve, thanks so much for your time. Really a great discussion.  My pleasure, thank you. And thank you, everybody. This is theCUBE's continuous coverage of IBM Sync 2020, the digital event experience. My name is Dave Vellante, keep it right there, but right back, right after this short break.


What can trade us know that TicMill shards it with me, Patrick Munley. I want to draw attention to the Euro, looking at the four hour time frame and tracking this potential fifth wave completion pattern and took long positions on the test of the 127 rejection there, took profits and now I'm looking for a re-entry of alongside here as we've tested back into the ideal 127, 161 extension of the Wave 4 consolidation to complete the pattern. So what I've been looking for now will be a break of trend line resistance here. So if we can get a close back through the pivot here, the 118 set long positions targeting a three-way correction ideally up into the Wave 4 high, 1773. It's always trade the plan to manage your risk.