It's my great pleasure to introduce the Marianne Rothbard Memorial Lecture sponsored by Elio Beltrao. The speaker, Per Byland, is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship and Records Johnston Professor of Free Enterprise in the School of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. He was previously the John E. Bohr Center Research Professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship in the Handcamer School of Business at Baylor University. He also is an Associated Scholar, I'm happy to say, of the Mises Institute. Professor Byland received a PhD in Applied Economics at the University of Missouri, where his dissertation advisor was Peter Klein, but he has gone on the flourish in any case. He received an MA in Political Science at Lund University in Sweden in both a master's and a bachelor's degree from Genkoping International Business School in Sweden. Professor Byland has published articles in several refereed journals, and he just informed me two days ago. He got an article accepted to a top journal in entrepreneurship, Unequality and Entrepreneurship in the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. He's also the author of two books, both published in 2016, The Problem of Production, The Theory of the Firm, and The Seen, the Unseen and the Unrealized, How Regulations Affect Our Everyday Lives from Lexington. He's an Associate Editor of the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy and the Editor of the Austrian Economics Book Series published by Agenda Publishing. This evening will be the topic, will be Economic Action Beyond the Extent of the Market. Professor Byland. Thank you so much, Joe, for inviting me and for organizing this conference. And thank you, Lou, for founding and running this magnificent institute for 35 years. This is awesome. So this is quite an honor to give the Marie Rothbard lecture. I'm definitely not qualified, but I looked through some of Rothbard's writings again, and I realized that this title actually sucks for my talk, because it doesn't speak Marie Rothbard in any sense, really, except that the content might, but the title does not. So if you look at Manny Kahneman's stage, for instance, it has a lot about production in there and I even have a book on the problem of production. So obviously there should be production in the title, and I completely missed that. So I should probably change it to production beyond the extent of the market, and I'll talk about a problem and a solution to production. So I'm going to tell an Austrian story, but I'm going to do that using not very Austrian thinkers in economics. I suppose one of them can sort of count as an Austrian. One of them definitely not. So I'm going to divide this into two phases. One is the problem, and the other is the solution. Well, kind of, yeah. So we'll see if you agree with me or if you want to throw tomatoes or something. We'll see what happens. So first the problem. And as you can tell, this is Adam Smith and David Ricardo, old time classical economics. One is supposedly the founder of economics as a science and so forth. The issue is the division of labor or specialization under the division of labor in the market economy. And this is something that Rothbard has written about too, and he was not a huge fan of Adam Smith, I might add. And I've come to think that the division of labor is actually very, very limited, has very limited applicability on how we understand the economy. Mises talked quite a bit about the division of labor and felt that the division of labor explains quite a bit. And I think it can, but it doesn't necessarily in the way that Adam Smith uses the term. So I'm going to go through a little bit about how Adam Smith uses it, what is wrong with it, and then attempt a solution to it using those fellows on the right, on the previous slide, Karl Marx and Joseph Schumpeter. So we start by looking at what is the division of labor. Well, Adam Smith talked about how it is the power of exchanging that makes us engage in the division of labor and specialize in different trades. So simply because we start trading with each other, we find our roles in the economy. And this also means that we can only divide as far as we can actually react on each other and trade with others. We cannot simply step outside of this marketplace and do something else on our own because then we're not part of the market, that sort of thing. So what this means is that when the market is very, very small, we do not have people who specialize into trades and professions. You don't have any reason whatsoever. That's the starting point for Adam Smith's discussion. He also noticed that this is not a uniform structure across the marketplace, but rather it depends on where you are in the marketplace. So in other words, some things can happen in a town where there's greater density of people, where there are more people close to you geographically speaking and economically speaking, whereas in the rural area in agriculture, say, there are fewer people, which means you cannot specialize as far. That's his discussion about this. Well, Smith assumes low-skilled workers. He assumes that workers are basically homogeneous and everything is manual labor. He doesn't say this explicitly, but that's what he means when he starts the wealth of nations talking about this. And the argument for specialization under divisional labor should apply if you add Ricardo's comparative advantage or the law of association, as Smith has called it as well, where people are a little bit different and we seek to do what we're better at. That makes probably a better story or a more intuitive story to this. So even if we are heterogeneous in what skills we have and what our abilities, we still, or rather that would be a stronger reason for us to specialize. Of course, this also means that there are greater frictions and we cannot simply substitute one worker for another if there are actually difference in their abilities. So the way he describes this or explains how the division of labor works is through talking about the pin factory. And a couple of speakers have already mentioned both the division of labor and the pin factory in previous sessions at this conference. But what he notes in his famous example is that, well, one pin maker, if he does all these operations himself, he can make one pin a day, maybe 10, but definitely not 20. But on the other hand, you have here at the bottom, if you have 10 people doing different operations and you shift the good when it's sort of semi-finished between them and they specialize, then 10 workers, still these homogeneous bunch of manual workers can produce up to 48,000 pins in a day. That's quite a bit of a change going from unskilled labor doing what then 10 people would do a maximum of maybe 200 to the same 10 people doing 48,000. That's more than a little bit of a change, right? This indicates the great power of specializing under the division of labor. But this example actually doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And I don't say this because, as some claim that this example was stolen by Adam Smith and they messed up the numbers and all this stuff. Even if we accept the numbers, this doesn't make any sense because the pin factory does not actually constitute a market. Pin factory is a factory. It's sort of obvious, right? So it doesn't have an invisible hand. It doesn't have people choosing different operations in this process. Rather what they do is they get employment and they are assigned certain tasks within this process that already exists, right? So it's not really a market phenomenon where people notice that, wait a minute, we're all making pins, that's fun. How about if we trade a little bit and we specialize? That's not how the pin factory happens, right? So there's something really weird going on here with this example. Still, that is how he explains it. And we also have the case that specialization in production is everywhere and it's gone really, really far, right? I don't think any of us, and I don't mean this because most of you are libertarians, but I don't think any of us would survive if they dropped us alone in the forest somewhere, right? We all depend on our specialized skills and on everybody else in society. So if we have this everywhere, where did it come from? So the question then is, of course, if we have specialized market production, which does not happen within the factory, where does it come from? So if you think of this process, let me see, this is pretty cool, right? I'm not Roger Garrison, but I'm getting there. So if you see this, let's go back, let's show it once more. So it took me a lot of time to actually make this work. So if we think of a production process then, we have intermediate goods throughout this process and different operations that we add to the inputs in each stage, and then we have a final good at the very end. So in this case, they're producing something very fantastic, which is a widget. And the input to this process is W, the first sixth of the output. And then in each step, and the steps are actually in between here, this is the input to the first sub-process, this is the output of the first sub-process. So this is just the good, the sort of changing hands. So it goes from W to WI to WID and so forth to the full widgets, right? Now if you turn this around, this is really cool, I think so. Okay, so if you turn this around, you can tell that the workers are in between each stage of this product, and you can see now that this is very much what Menge was talking about, right? Where you have production goods, or goods of higher order, and then you have consumers at the very end consuming the end product. Now, that was just one process, right? In the market it looks like this. There are plenty of processes in parallel happening at the same time, and they might be exactly the same, or they might be a little bit different, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm going to tell you right now. But you can see that these are the same stages. This is the exact same production process. We're creating a lot of widgets. The market is huge, and they're all just waiting to get their hands on these widgets. Now, the problem here is, it doesn't really matter whether we have redundancy, whether we have all these processes next to each other, or if we just have one. Because if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't really matter if we have the pin factory or the market. So that's the first question we need to answer. And one way of looking at this, okay, this process, how do we actually set the boundaries here? Well, that depends on the abilities and the skills of each of the workers. And with Adam Smith, that doesn't really matter all that much, because they're all unskilled and uninformed, and there are tomatons basically, as Mises would refer to them probably. But if they're not, if we use the Ricardian idea that we have a little bit different abilities, there would be some sort of tug-of-war between these workers. So these deliverables between each stage would change, or maybe not over time, but they would change in the beginning. And it would depend on who is the more efficient worker and where exactly do you stop and I begin. That sort of thing, right? There would also be uncertainty bearing, simply because we don't actually get any revenue until we sell the final product. So the whole process depends on its completion and the final sale. And that's when we get the revenue to cover all the costs throughout this process, right? So say in this case that the first worker, he gets his hands on $10 worth of, or 10 gold coins, I should say. It's a Rothbard lecture after all. Of inputs, he starts working on it. He sells to the next guy for 20. The next guy works on it, sells to 30 and so forth. But this means that all of them have all paid out $10 each out of their pockets before they actually get paid, right? But if they complete it, then that works. But they will all bear the uncertainty of engaging in this process if there is one, right? Which means they will also face the problem of incompleteness. If this guy fails or drops out or something like that, then nothing is going to happen. These guys are probably going to have to continue paying off their debt or whatever, but we're not going to get to the point where we have any revenue at all. So this guy is gone. That means we don't get the revenue, which means we also do not get the price tags for these steps. We actually don't get anything at all if we apply a calculation view, right? Other than that, it costs $10 with the ultimate input for this process. So even though these guys can produce the value of whatever is left here, the bid in this case, it's nothing. If we can go back, then it's worth $10 in this case because we could still sell it as a W, but it's probably screwed up and then it's not even worth $10. That's not a good business. That's failure, right? So there's this all or nothing problem within this process since they're all seriously interdependent. They all need to contribute their part or it all fails. So they all need to do whatever it is they contribute to this process so that the consumer gets what the consumer wants and actually pays for the product and then all of the workers get paid. Simple production process, really, but here we're really talking about in the market, right? It's decentralized, so these guys, they get together and they assume different roles in this production process. So what you can see, then, is that there are major problems if there is not redundancy. So what about that other picture where this happens in the market as Adam Smith actually talks about? Well, we have the same three issues. Let's look at them if we have production processes next to each other and we have all these people involved even though they are specialized to their stages. What happens? Well, in terms of the vertical tug-of-war, there's really an incentive to standardize across these processes because if you have a tug-of-war and you say you take over a little bit of the guy who sells the inputs to you, well, that means that what you do is no longer compatible with the other processes, which means your process is now, again, a unique process, which means you're subject to the same problems as in the previous case where there is only one, which seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. Because otherwise you can buy your inputs from all of these other producers of the previous stage. You can sell to all the producers of the next stage, whereas if you specialize differently, you bear all the cost of that movement. So the incentive is definitely for standardization, not differentiation. You need to do like everybody else or otherwise bear the cost of it and probably fail you. So what about uncertainty bearing? Well, since there are plenty of processes going on at the same time, we can see that there is demand for this unless we assume that we suddenly start 10 processes at the exact same time, which seems a little weird. We have already observed demand for these processes. So we know that some other processes produce the exact same good. Customers have acted to buy it and they were able and willing to pay a certain price for it. So we can sort of guess that we're going to get this type of revenue for this product. Whereas if we are the first ones, we are the only ones, we don't actually know this until we complete it and make the sale. So with observed demand, we're really less of a problem. We still need to do our parts, but we know that the end result will probably be able to sell. So what about incompleteness? Well, if we do this, use this same example again, if this guy drops out, this guy is in no big trouble anymore. This guy is also not in big trouble because this guy only buys inputs from any of these three or these two. Screw that guy who dropped out. It's his problem, right? If it was only this single process, they would all fail. Now they would have this little problem with they lose this production capability of this guy, but they're all the same in Adam Smith's world anyway. So they lose one sixth, since this is one of six guys on this stage, of the output. It might be the case that all of them lose one sixth of their revenue, but they're not all going to fail. There's quite a difference between losing some of your revenue and completely failing and standing there with costs, right? So what we have is price coordination trying to fix this problem, maybe producing incentives for others to enter as well. But even if this is a closed system with only these however many workers we have, they would still try to adjust as much as possible and they would all try to get as much money as possible out of it, which means it would adjust between these processes as well, since they are trading in standard intermediate goods. Then the question is where the hectic specialization and the division of labor in the market come from? Because obviously it can exist and it can emerge if we have all these parallel processes, especially if we have many, many, many of them at once. Then we don't have all these problems but starting the first one seems to be a huge problem. As we saw before, if there's only one process, then all of these who are engaged in this process face all these huge problems and these huge costs of actually entering in this type of production. So what do we do? Well, we could lobby government I suppose to enforce people to start producing widgets but that's not really the solution that Adam Smith was talking about I think or that he had in mind. So how do we solve this? Well, if we look at this Smithian system of production first of all he talks about how the division of labor generates a proportional productivity increase. I'm not sure how going from 200 to 48,000 is a proportional increase with the same number of workers but maybe you can solve that math problem for me. I'm an Austrian after all. But it's supposed to be a proportional increase in productivity. Just to show you that I'm not actually lying to you, he does talk about proportionality in the productive powers of a market under specialization under the division of labor. He also says that this is a gradual process and it's facilitated by population size which makes sense if you already have these production processes then add more people to all of these stages of course they can share the burden and so forth right? Not a huge problem. If we have redundancy in production whether or not it is a specialized process then we can talk between each other and we can say there you do that and I do that and we'll just trade and exchange the intermediate good in between us and then we sell it to the final consumer. Maybe we'll just don't bother with payment until we sell it and then we share the proceeds and whatnot. So we having a larger population means that we can split into different trades. And then of course he says that the division of labor is not the effect of any human wisdom but rather it's something that we just stumble upon I suppose and suddenly we're specialized or something like that I think Mises would definitely disagree with this saying that this is something we rationally would understand and that's why we engage in specialization. Sounds like I'm a farmer and you're a farmer and we go whoops we're specialized. It's rather the case that we go oh wait you're good at that I'm good at this let's let's share the burden and you do that and I do what I'm best at right? And of course it is a slow and gradual process it talks about how it goes very slowly and it should move faster if we have a population that increases in size very quickly so if we all have a billion children we should have a lot of specialization pretty soon and of course that has the proportional increase from 200 to 48,000 with each generation so I suppose that means have children. Okay so what it talks about is really how society goes through an automatic process of development from self sustainability where everybody does everything themselves to where we have this specialized economy as we see every day when we go to the grocery store and what not and we also have this passive adoption of the cost savings involved because that's what we're really talking about with production when we have those 10 workers producing pens and they can produce up to 200 and then they split the work and they produce 48,000 it's just a cost savings and his argument is that simply because we do not shift between different tasks we save time and we also learn those specialized tasks because we do them over and over and over again even if we do not have special skill or ability we're going to learn that after a while no matter what even if you're completely stupid I suppose you will get better at it and the more specialized you get these really really simple tasks can be automated using machinery so with more people then slowly and passively evolve into society with more specialized trades and we get better off with more prosperity and no one knows how that happens so what this means is that if redundancy is required as it seems to be the case as we said before then the division of labor must be limited by the extent of the market which is also what Adam Smith claims what is said about the great town for instance and in the great town you can have different services and different specializations not simply possible in a rural area because you do not have this mass of population in the same geographical small area Durkheim talks about this as well in his book which is much more recent where he talks about the density which is the ability to act and react upon each other economically so if I produce something and then I can sell it to you I can develop a demand for that and buy it from you and so forth and the closer we are economically speaking the more we can react on each other and the further we can reach economically simply because there are more people whom we can trade directly with now new production though as we talked about from the beginning with this single process with all these problems it doesn't have to be cost saving because cost saving compared to what if we're producing something new we're not saving costs in that production because it's the first time we're producing it there is no cost for this it's also not redundant it can't be unless we have a beneficent government say coordinating this on a national level forcing everybody into producing widgets which would be interesting to see I suppose okay and also that we have that incompleteness suggests a real problem in any production where there is a lack of this type of redundancy that we see in the market and the market works because of this redundancy that all of these people are producing similar things and we traded in these standardized goods that are part of the whole production apparatus but this also means that we cannot really adopt this new production passively where does it come from that we suddenly have a new round about production process that didn't exist before and it's workers spontaneously adopted positions in this production process and then we produce something beautiful at the very end well this doesn't just happen where does it come from so we do have a problem we in redundancy if we have plenty of people then we can take the tasks that are involved such as in pin making because obviously in pin making you need to do certain things you need to have the metal you need to pull it out and you need to cut it off and you need to sharpen one end and you need to put the head on the other end and everything that Adam Smith talks about all of these are already separate tasks that's not really a big problem and we can see those tasks we're already doing those tasks if I'm doing all of them and you're doing all of them you can say well why don't you do the first half of them or every task with an odd number in this series in this process we can do that but this also means that creating a new process is a sort of collective action problem because all of these workers in the new process need to get together and split these tasks in between them even if this is a type of production that already exists we want to establish it in a different way so you want to split up the tasks a little more in the pin factory then we need to get together first and talk about okay how do we actually split these operations between us it doesn't happen just by itself and incompleteness can be a problem as well now we can share the workload simply continue to doing exactly the same thing doing all these operations ourselves and all of us do it but that's exactly what Adam Smith talked about how 10 workers can produce up to 200 pins we don't get to the 48,000 because that means we're doing it differently and doing it differently means that we get this serial interdependence just like here in this process whether or not it's a completely new process or we're just taking one stage and we're replacing it with some sort of innovation now of course such division of tasks that Adam Smith is talking about is really limited by the nature of those tasks because if they are already simple tasks like in the pin factory we can say well why don't you just cut the thread why don't you put the head on why don't you sharpen the other end of it fairly easy but if it's a different task how do we how do we split for instance making dough out of flour how do we split that into several different operations is it one operation or is it plenty we need to stop there right following Adam Smith we can't go further because that is seems to be at least one operation or one task of course only raises the question what about innovation where does that come from how do we implement innovation in this market and can we at all get to new products or do we need to just stop in 1776 it says we are on the height of civilization no more right well obviously we didn't so something happened we're producing things today that we're producing in 1776 so something happened you might have heard of the iPhone for instance I don't think Adam Smith had one so things have happened right and here he talks about exactly that again showing to you that I'm not lying and he's talking about agriculture and how agriculture does not admit of so many subdivisions of labor nor of so complete a separation from another as a manufacturer okay so what he actually says is that well a farmer and someone who is caring for the cows and what not well those are already specific tests we can't separate them anymore we can't do division of labor of these tasks obviously we have already but that's what he says you can't do that and then he says that in manufacturers this is a lot easier well why is it easier within the factory does that mean simply that if we put a farm on the factory floor that it's going to be easier to engage in specialization under the division of labor what is he talking about here he seems to be talking about two different things and I'll get to that later on but somehow he thinks that these are exactly the same okay so we can get to the farmer, the miller, the baker Adam Smith is talking about I can be a farmer have my piece of land and I can grow wheat and I can harvest the wheat and then I can smash it up and make flour out of it and I can bake this is a hypothetical example I can make a loaf of bread I can do that well then I can have a dozen kids and they grow up and then I say okay you three you are farmers you three why don't you make flour and then you three you bake bread and then the rest of you eat it or something like that that's easy to see how we can get there because these are very very separate types of operations at least it seems so after the fact but these are still even if we would oh we need to do this all of us we still shift from one to the other throughout this process it's a lot harder to get to database programming as a specialization or as I saw was a thing obviously pet therapy how do we divide labor into getting into pet therapists that's not as easy because I don't think so anyway I don't think it was a specialization that existed from the beginning oh I'm really good at pet therapies I'll do that part that's not what happened I'm pretty sure I haven't checked empirically I should I admit but still okay so what about the division of labor within a stage say this guy for instance well within a stage if we want to split it up it has exactly the same problems as introducing a new production process we have exactly the same problems so we require some sort of collective action to identify who does what and when and what exactly is the deliverable from the first sub-stage to the second sub-stage and so forth we will have serial interdependence simply because we need to be compatible with what we're doing what I'm producing needs to work in your production process because you're going to use that as an input if I suddenly change it then you're screwed and then I'm screwed because I can't sell it to you and there's no market to sell it in either because we're the only ones doing it so we're subject to incompleteness if anyone screws up or changes the idea or says I'll take the day off or something then none of us will be able to do anything which of course is a huge problem so I'll look at this where is Roger? is this okay? okay so if we look at this process again right it's really the Hayekian triangle right where we go from from a virgin land basically adding labor producing capital extending this into a process of different stages and then finally we offer this valuable final good to consumers but of course we want to be able to extend this into more roundabout production and that's where we have the problem like we talked about just a minute ago where we replace one stage with something else how do we actually do that so here we have the process again and this guy produces Wijje from Wijje that's his task now if we add more people to this just like in Adam Smith's example these can do exactly the same thing that's fine but what we have here is really an opportunity just like Adam Smith says that they can specialize and we can engage in a division of labor between these five people producing this stage so if we split this up just to show how they can do this then they can do it this way so this guy does the first fifth say then this guy uses that first fifth and produces the second fifth and so forth or they can do it this way so these two create the first third then these two take over and create the next third and then there is one single guy putting it all together perhaps that's one way of doing it they can of course do it this way which is they can do exactly the same things they're just more people doing it that's really no big deal the big deal is the other two examples alright in this example if you remember let's go back this is the input Wijje this is the output of this sub-process Wijje what they need to maintain whatever they do is that they together are compatible both the input traded in the market the Wijje and the output traded in the market whatever they do in between doesn't really matter right but what matters is that they can sell to other producers of what they produce and that they can use what is available made available by other producers in previous stages if they're incompatible in any way say they start using something different then they're not going to find a supplier if they produce something that is they find to be really cool but that doesn't really fit with the rest of the production process then they're also incompatible they can't find another producer to sell to so they will face incompatibility and incompatibility is failure now for all but the last example whether they do exactly the same things which is really not a problem that's just sharing the workload and completeness is a concern because they are completely dependent on each other for the simple reason that there is no market to turn to if one of them fails so they are completely dependent on each other and of course as we create new specializations there can't be a market it's impossible because we are the first ones we're breaking new ground so if we summarize the problem then in order to specialize actors must bear the uncertainty of acting in a non-market setting rather than in the market, in the market it's easy you can just trade with whomever you like because they're standardized intermediate products if you're acting in a non-market you have serial interdependence and you risk being incompatible with the market even if you coordinate action you suffer these consequences you coordinate a bunch of people splitting the tasks in a certain way but should one fail well sorry, tough luck you all fail that's what is going to happen now this means that there is a sort of deadlock for non-trivial specialization so people will tend towards market standardization because that's the least cost option unless there is some sort of either hierarchy or someone can go in and say you do this, you do that and I will hold you accountable and the more specialized the market is, the harder it is for people to engage in this sort of extra specialization so what this actually means is that this is more or less a prohibition of innovation, you can't actually implement innovation in this market or add a new type of production within the production structure that doesn't exist already so this is sort of a chicken or egg problem, you need to get into the circle somehow but how which takes us to the solution right and we know these guys and they say the solution kind of and that's more this guy's fault than this guy so what is the solution well we will engage in the division of labor if the gains of specialization is greater than the cost of uncertainty that's sort of the simple calculus of this and the cost of uncertainty here would be the interdependence, the incompleteness and so forth there are really two kinds of specialization that can go on in the market here and one is the simple division of tasks which is what Adam Smith is talking about where oh I'm doing these 10 operations and then I found these other guys doing the exact same 10 operations why don't you do the first part and I'll do the next one and so forth that doesn't really mean that we have a big problem the other kind is innovation which is either advanced task splitting or adding advanced machinery or something like that or creating a new type of production process adding a new product or something like that Smith's division of labor story is completely based on the first one it's a really trivial one and of course with trivial specialization under the division of labor then there's going to be a gradual slow population based increase in growth we're going to primarily divide labor between already known operations the deliverables are already known there's no knowledge problem if you will all of this stuff there's no real problem with incompatibility because we're already doing all this all this stuff and it's not really hard to reverse to what we did before so if I was the farmer and you were the miller and someone else was the baker and then someone leaves town or something like that well it's easy for me to go back to okay I'll just do the milling as well because that's the process that I did before before we engaged in specialization it's no big deal really it's going to be more costly but it's not going to be the end of the world okay so we get back to the extent of the market and how trading and population is what drives this process and it's really a picture that looks much like this and this wall around this I think it is a city but I'm not sure the wall is really the extent of the market there's no trading going on with whatever is outside of those walls what happens is we reallocate stuff between the houses we can add some floors maybe to some of these buildings but we do not go outside the extent of the market we could push the wall a little bit when needed but it's not going to be a radical change anyway we might gain an inch or two here or there but it's going to be a very gradual slow process just like Adam Smith is talking about now with the second option with advanced task splitting and innovation it's very different because here we have new goods and services we have new types of production new production process new types of capital that we innovate and that we produce we have new solutions not simply taking a task and splitting it up and one example that has been used is my own work university professor that's one perfectly specialized trade apparently what that means is that what I do is so integrated that I can't really split it up so I teach students and I do research on the same thing and I copy their tests and whatever it is I do I can't engage in more specialization we can't divide this up we can't see people doing research and others doing teaching which seems a little odd but even if we accept this then isn't it the case that more specialization in the university which by the way has probably not undergone specialization since like 1420 isn't it the case that we would replace what is done today with something different we do it in a different way not simply just split the tasks of course we would have a different process a different type of production process when we're teaching students not simply adding more people and saying why don't you teach the first half of the lecture and you do the second half that doesn't make any sense we probably add internet or whatever it is I'm not an entrepreneur so I can't do that I don't even understand it but obviously we're going to replace what we're doing with something different so what this suggests is then that this new different thing where you have this problem with incompatibility and incompleteness it's an island of non-calculable chaos and that's Mario Rothbard's words and in this island we have to rely on imaginative entrepreneurship can't be anything else it can't be workers spontaneously specializing into doing different tasks you do that task, I'll do that task and so forth because this is some untreaded ground this is new things we don't know what exactly is going to happen here we have to figure this out someone needs to have the idea and imagine how this is going to happen and then we need to figure this out somehow now funny thing is a competitor in socialism, capitalism and democracy defined entrepreneurship in this way it says that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or more generally an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way imagine that that seems to fit perfectly with my presentation if this is how we see entrepreneurship then we can sort of see a possible way forward right? but this type of entrepreneurship necessarily happens outside the walls of this city because we're not doing exactly what we did before we're doing something new and of course this cannot happen passively this is not something that workers simply adopt by themselves we need someone to figure the whole thing out and then tell people what to do or help people discover how to do it and organize this new process so it can't simply emerge that's impossible we can recognize this too because this is very different this is not simply trading in standardized intermediate goods in the market this is outside of the market's production possibilities frontier simply because this novel is original it's new it's disruptive it causes change to the existing market as well because it leads the way and shows completely different way of doing things and thereby it becomes a driving force of the market economy itself simply because it leads by example if it's successful others are going to probably try to copy this which means that they will incorporate this sort of island outside of the extent of the market so what this creates then is this type of productive action through entrepreneurship is an island of specialization because this is a new type of specialization that has been implemented or realized by this imaginative entrepreneur or entrepreneurial group that could be a collective action right now this island of specialization of course is it has all these problems that we talked about before within completeness it needs to be coordinated all of these tasks are interdependent one fails then all of them fail this requires uncertainty bearing it requires upfront financing as well because you need to cover the actual expenses and any entrepreneur knows that the last thing you probably get is the revenue if you can get it sooner then that's a good thing but usually you have to cover your costs first which really sucks that's why it's so hard right since it happens outside of the extent of the market it also means that it's automatically encapsulated it's integrated for the simple reason that we're all interdependent within this new little island so we can think of this as a firm we can identify this fairly easily because this is not just standardized market production this is something very different this is a different animal it doesn't fit with everything else so funny thing when Smith says which we talked about before that in agriculture you can specialize a little bit but within the manufacturer you can specialize a lot further what is this then is it an argument for specialization in the trivial sense or is it an argument about the difference between these two senses we can't really tell because he's trying to exemplify the trivial specialization using the manufacturer which seems to be very different right the pin factory seems to be it could be anyway an innovation it doesn't necessarily be it isn't necessarily one of those well the funny thing here is that Carl Marx actually suggests an answer to this type of problem he says that specialization in the market and in firms differ not only in degree but also in kind the division of labor within the manufacturer is very different from the division of labor within the market now if there is a real difference then we can start to make sense of Adam Smith's example of course Marx he went on saying that oh yeah division of labor hence exploitation taking off like that but the economic analysis seems to actually fit and here is Marx again from capital where he says that the division of labor in manufacture demands that a division of labor in society at large should previously have attained a certain degree of development inversely the former division reacts upon and multiplies the latter so what it means is it takes whatever production structure already exists in the market and it goes further in some sense can't really say in what sense of course but the division of labor within the firm or the manufacturer is very different it's a different kind and it goes further than what is already going on in the market so the solution then to Smith's limitation how do we get outside of the extent of the market or how do we get economic growth that happens faster than population growth it's Marx's identification of what happens in the manufacturer is a different kind of division of labor and it's Schumpeter's entrepreneur as an innovator or firm creator which here would be the same thing right so the economic firm in this sense is necessarily entrepreneurial there is really no difference this is basically an identity so what the firm does is breaks free from the extent of the market it challenges the status quo of production as it happens in the market what entrepreneurship then does is simply creates value through new and more intensively specialized production it is novel it happens outside of simple market trade, it can still use inputs from the market of course probably should if it's within a production structure then it should produce what other stages use as inputs but this also means that the extent of the market is not fixed or very very gradually expanding but rather that the whole thing is just expanding really quickly depending on how much innovation we have which has important implications for economic analysis and this is what I think where the Austrian school is very different from other schools of economics for the simple reason that we do not see the market or probably should not see the market as having a fixed extent or one that is increasing so slowly that we don't have to care about it whether if the market is expanding quickly and rapidly then it's not a matter of simply allocating resources between different processes that are underway right now, it's about figuring out what the heck is going to happen in a couple of days, in a couple of weeks or a year from now because the whole market is going to be different so allocation of resources happens within this expanding extent which is a very different problem from saying within these fixed boundaries we're going to reallocate resources towards new ends which is sort of a cursinary and arbitrage story with imaginative entrepreneurship in a sort of shumpeterian way this is a very different problem and I think we need to recognize this and I think Mises did, I think Rossbar did as well but it's not always obvious that the market extent is expanding of course a shameless plug for my own book which is a good ending this is what I discuss in my book, The Problem of Production trying to figure out how all these pieces fit together, not necessarily as a critique of Adam Smith but as a way of producing theory that explains how the market expands and where growth comes from and how entrepreneurship fits in this whole picture thank you


My name is Doriel Alick, I'm from Tonga. My name is Hello, my family name is Baclo Santo. I'm from Baclo Santo, so my name is Baclo Santo. My background is Mobile Force, I'm an engineer, so I'm a National Support Unit. I'm a training officer. I'm an infantry patrol commander. I grew up in Santo school. And after Santo is, I was passed by a school in Matevulu. And then after Matevulu, I stayed in my house. I went to the local tourism. And after that, I had to train in Mobile Force. I think that I'm important to all the people who come from SEA. And to help you, please have a discipline in your own. When you start the discipline in your own, you think of the long one. But you don't think about the long one. You depend on other people to support you. Yeah, we got another friend from Pasifika. So most of them are from PNG, they're from Fulavna, and they're from Malaysia. They're from Fiji, they're from PNG, and they're from Tonga. Because I'm 18 months long, I think they're going to help me be quiet. You know the site, the land deed outfield, the administration site, Fulavna and Fulavna are from Fulavna, Fulavna is the training force. After the training, I think it's a very good place. After the training, I think it motivates me to do more. It's a good place to do more. I think it's a good place to do more. I've always been there, I've always been there, I always have been there.


Paratroopers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, along with soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, conducted an air assault and night raid from Chinook and Black Hawk helicopters onto an objective February 2013. The objective was in a mock village designed to provide soldiers with a realistic training environment that emulates conditions found in Iraq and Afghanistan. They met heavy resistance from enemy role players throughout the village and surrounding areas, but quickly captured and occupied the town. The mission was one of many air assaults and airborne operations making up a joint operational access exercise. The Joax tested the readiness of the Division and the Falcon Brigade to act alongside coalition allies in response to emergencies around the world. For Fort Bragg, North Carolina, I'm Army Sergeant Joseph Gunther.


Do you spend a lot of time in a text editor, or are you a writer, or a scripter, or a programmer, or whatever it happens to be? If you spend a lot of time at a text editor typing, you owe it to yourself to learn VIM. And VIM is not that hard.  So to get started learning VIM, the very first thing you need to do is make sure VIM is installed on your system. So I'm on an arch-based Linux distribution. So I could install VIM using Pacman, sudo pacman dash capital S VIM. Or if you wanted to, you could install Neo VIM, which is a more modern version of VIM.  And it's a VIM emulation that is very good as far as like 99.9% of everything that is in VIM is also in Emacs Evil mode. So you could also do this in Emacs as well. Once you have VIM or Neo VIM installed, you can open a terminal and run the command VIM tutor. And this is a little help guide. This is basically your very first VIM lesson. The VIM tutor is this document that you could go through in about 20 to 30 minutes and it's going to cover all of your basic VIM motion commands, basic key bindings, basic editing commands. So it's a pretty straightforward document to go through. You can just read it line by line. It's going to tell you some commands to enter, just hit those commands. But honestly, this VIM tutor document, it's kind of plain looking for one thing. It's not a programming document. It's not written in a programming language. There's no syntax highlighting. So for me, I think I'm going to play in a different file. I think what I'm going to do for purposes of this video, we're just going to play with my bash RC. So I'm going to type VIM dot bash RC here in my home directory. And this is my bash config. Now the very first thing you need to learn when you're using VIM is how to open a document with VIM and how to quit out of VIM. Well, opening a document in VIM is easy. When you're in the terminal, type VIM and then the path to some document that you want to edit. Or if you're creating a new document, the path to a new document you want to create, right? That's easy. But now that you've got this document open, how do you quit? Well, you type colon q to quit. So colon is the command mode within VIM. Anytime you type colon, it expects you to then give it a command such as q for quit. You could actually type the full word quit, but q is a shorthand for quit. If I do that, it quits me out of VIM. If I up arrow here in the terminal and go back to VIM dot bash RC, I'm back in this document. Now if you want to save changes to a document, say I've edited a few lines of this document. Well, to save those changes, you want to do colon w for right. Again, you could do colon in the full word right, but colon w is the shorthand for right. If you want to save and quit, you could do a colon wq for right and then quit.  Now say I make some changes and then try to do a colon q without saving. Well, I'm going to get a warning that I haven't saved the document. But if you want to quit without saving the document, say you made some changes, but then you changed your mind. It's like, ah, I don't want those changes saved. Let me quit without saving. Well you can do a colon q exclamation point and that will quit without saving any changes. So let me get back into my bash RC. Let's go over some of the basics with VIM. The very first thing you need to know is that VIM is a modal text editor. By modal, I mean it has modes. By default, when you open a document in VIM, it is in normal mode. And the reason it's called normal mode is this is the mode you're going to be in most of the time. Normal mode allows you to move around the document with your motion keys. The basic motion keys are H, J, K, L. So H is lift, J is down. So if I start typing J, I go down, K is up, L is right. And just to verify, I'll also do H to go back, lift. So H, J, K, L, again that is lift down, upright. Now your arrow keys do also work when you're in normal mode. So you could use the arrow keys to just, you know, move up and down and left and right. That works just fine. Too many VIM purists will tell you not to use your arrow keys when you're using VIM because it kind of, you know, confuses you a little bit, which it does on a standard keyboard because H, J, K, L are those four arrow motion keys, right? But they're in a straight line across. On your standard 110 key keyboard, your arrow keys are typically in like a T-shaped or upside down T, right? So you have the up arrow key above the down arrow key and then left and right out to the side. You know, it's a very different kind of layout on the keyboard. Your arrow keys compared to H, J, K, L and mentally it will confuse you if you try to go between the two. Luckily, I don't have this problem because I'm using these split keyboards from ZSA for the most part on all of my machines and I have these set up to where my arrow keys are set up with left, down, up, right, all in a straight line. So it's very easy for me to either use H, J, K, L or I just move my hand down two lines and the arrow keys are also set up in the same order as H, J, K, L. So mentally it's, I don't have to learn two different sets of arrow motions, right? They're very similar. But if you're learning them on a standard keyboard, try to avoid using the arrow keys for a while because, again, you really need to get used to H, J, K, L. So as I said, normal mode, you're typically in normal mode. When you're in normal mode, you're not editing text. Now if you want to get into insert mode, which is the mode where you can then start typing on a keyboard and add text, hit I for insert mode and now you could start typing something. And to get back into normal mode, all you have to do is hit escape on the keyboard and now you're back in normal mode. So H, J, K, L will work as motion keys, right? Where if you were in insert mode, H, J, K, L would actually type the characters H, J, K, L on the point of the cursor. Now I didn't actually want to add that new line to my config because this is my actual bash RC, my bash config file. So I'm going to type you on the keyboard to undo. So anytime you're in normal mode, you to undo. If I do control R, that is a redo and you will use these constantly when you're making changes in a document using them. So remember, you to undo control R to redo. So let me you a couple of times to make sure that I haven't made any changes here. I'm back at the oldest change. You can see here at the bottom echo area already at the oldest change. So we have normal mode, which you begin in. You have I for insert mode, escape gets you back into normal mode. There's also visual mode. And there's a couple of different visual modes you need to know. You need to know shift V for visual line mode. Now that I'm in visual line mode when I go down with a J, I'm selecting the entire line. You can see I'm highlighting these entire lines to copy or delete or whatever it is I'm doing to these lines, manipulating the text of these lines in some way. Let me escape to get out of that. So that was visual line mode. There's also control V, which is visual block mode. Now this, instead of selecting the whole line, it just selects whatever I select with the cursor point. So if I go over a little bit. So if I actually use L to go over right, you can see I'm selecting a block of text. I'm not selecting the whole lines. I'm just selecting that highlighted area.  You need to know normal mode, insert mode. And then you have the visual line mode, visual block mode. And then, of course, colon is its own mode as well as command mode, where you enter commands such as colon, q to quit colon, w to write colon, w, q for write and quit. While HJKL are nice for moving around by character, most of the time you're wanting to move around in much bigger chunks than single characters. Well, there's a couple of things you can do to quickly move around a document. The first thing you can do is you can always do gg to get to the top of the document, right? You could also do capital G, shift G, to get to the bottom of the document, the last line of the document. You see, I'm on line 256. If I want to go back to line one, gg, if I want to go back to the last line 256, capital G, and if I have a line number in mind, an exact line number I want to go to, for example, 10 capital G, that takes me to line 10. If I wanted to go to line 50, capital G takes me to line 50. You can also use the HJKL motions in conjunction with numbers to move, for example, up and down by a specific number. So for example, maybe I want to go up 10 lines. I could do 10k and I just moved up 10 lines, right? If I do 10j, I move back down 10 lines to where I was previously. And of course, I could also do something like 20l to move over 20 characters to the right. 20h would move me back to the left 20 characters. So let me gg to get to the top of the document. Let's move down to this line here. Now there's a couple of other very nifty motions you'll use all the time. You'll use the zero and the dollar sign on the keyboard in normal mode. What dollar sign is, dollar sign takes you to the end of the line, right? Dollar sign, end of the line, zero takes you to the beginning of the line. Dollar sign takes you to the end, zero takes you back to the beginning. Now zero and dollar sign are useful for the most part, but sometimes you'll have weird lines. For example, I'm going to add some blank characters to the beginning and the end of this line. Now if I do zero to go to the beginning of the line, that's great. But now I'm on that blank space and maybe every line starts with, I don't know, two spaces, four spaces. You'll often encounter this in certain programming documents and you don't want to go to that space. You really wanted to go to where the actual line really starts, the first non-blank character. Well, you can do this as well. What you can do instead of doing zero to go to that first character, use the carrot symbol to go to the first non-blank character. And similarly, instead of doing the dollar sign to go to the very end of the line, if it's a blank character, what you could do is you could do g underscore to go to the last non-blank character. So in summary, remember, zero is the beginning of the line, dollar signs, the end of the line. Carrot symbol is the first non-blank character. G underscore is the last non-blank character. Give me you to undo those changes. Another thing you can do to move around quickly in Vim is you can use the braces. You can use the opening brace and the closing brace. The closing brace moves you to the next paragraph. The opening brace moves you to the previous paragraph. So if I do the closing brace, we will go down by paragraph. If I do the opening brace, we will go back up by paragraph. If I want to move down by a half page, I can do control D to move down by a half page. You can see my cursor is always in the same spot. I'm moving down by a half page worth of lines there. If I want to go back up by a half page, I can do control U. So control D for down, control U for up. That'll... and if I wanted to go all the way to the top gg or all the way to the bottom, remember capital G, shift G, right? Gg, first line, capital G, last line. Sometimes you want to search for a specific string of characters in a document. You can do that with the slash. Just hit slash and now type the string you want to search for. I want to search for export. And you can see it finds export in several places here. And if I hit enter, it goes to the first instance. And then if I hit in for next, it will go to the next instance of export. In again, will take me to the next export. If I do capital N, it will take me backwards to the previous export. Capital N to the previous export. Now if you know you're going to search for a string backwards, instead of doing the slash name of string, right? You could also do a dollar sign name of string. So let's do dollar sign export. And now what this does when I type in for next, it just begins us going backwards. And if I do capital N, it actually goes reverse. So you have two different ways to search. The slash is the normal way. The dollar sign name of string is the backwards way. Another thing you can do is you can move forwards and backwards by word. You will often do this instead of just using hjkl. Remember h and l move left and right by one character. But if you just want to move forward and backwards by word, you can do w for word. So if I just type w, I move forward to the first character of each word. Now w also includes special characters such as the period and the semicolon, you know, all of those kind of punctuation marks. If I do b for back, I move back by word. I go to the first character of the word, except we're going in reverse. And again, it's going to include special characters such as that semicolon and the period. So w forward, b for back. If you want to go forward and backwards by word, but instead of the first character of the word, you want to be on the last character of the word, you can use e for end of word. So e will go forward by end of word. And g e will go backwards by the last character of each word. And just like w and b included the special characters, e and g e also include the special characters such as the punctuation marks. There are versions of these same commands that do ignore the punctuation marks. So instead of using w, b, e, g e, what you could do is you could use a capitalized version of those. For example, capital W, shift w, will take me to the next word. But when I get to config period here, and I do capital W, it skips the period, right? We're going to ignore those special punctuation marks. So no longer would I stop on semicolon here with the next w, it is skipped to the beginning of the next word just in this case. And capital B does the same thing in reverse. It's going to ignore that semicolon, right? We're going to ignore the period with it as well. Capital E does the same thing. We go to the end of the word, the end of the word is the period on config period, right? So before it would, the regular E, if I hit it on config, it goes to G. And then the next E goes to the period, right? So G, it sees G and period as the end of two separate words where capital E, I hit zero on the keyboard and do capital E, you know, it's going to see the period as the end of the word config period. And to do G, E in reverse and have it also act the same way what you could do, let me go forward a word with capital E. And now let me do G, capital E to go back. And you see when it goes back, it treats the period as the end of this word. If I do G, capital E again, the next time it jumps back to the last character of this word here, bash. So W, B, E, G, E, and then you have capital W, capital B, capital E, G, capital E, depending on whether you want to ignore the special punctuation marks or not. For those of you that are programmers, one of the really cool things Vim does is it really helps you manage keeping track of your parentheses, braces, and brackets. Because if you want to quickly navigate in between a pair of braces or a pair of brackets or a pair of parentheses, all you need to do is I'm on the opening bracket, in this case on this line right here. If I'm in normal mode, all I have to do is hit the percent key and I go to the closing bracket. So basically parentheses will always take you to the matching pair for that parentheses, brace, or bracket. If I hit parentheses again, I go back to the opening bracket. So I can quickly switch between the opening and closing of that pair. And just to verify that this actually works with parentheses, braces, and brackets, I'm going to get into insert mode. And what I'm going to do, let's do opening braces, parentheses, brackets, and then some stuff here. And then let's do closing brackets, parentheses, braces. And then I'll escape to get into normal mode, zero to get at the beginning of the line. If I hit parentheses while I'm on the brace, it will take me to the last brace. But let me do H to move back to a character to the closing parentheses. And now when I do parentheses, it takes me to the opening parentheses. If I hit L on the keyboard to move over right a character, so I'm on the opening brace, I hit percent sign. You can see it takes me to that closing brace. Now let me, you to undo all of that. Let's talk about deleting and copying and pasting, because those are actions you're going to do all the time in normal mode in Vim. Let's first talk about deleting an entire line.  For example, maybe I want to move this line one line down. Well, I would do DD for delete the entire line. DD, delete the entire line. P, paste the line, right? So that's how I move that line, basically one spot down. Really DD and then P. What it does, it swaps the two lines, right? Because if I undo, you can see undo twice. We have this line here that begins with the hashtag. This is a commented line. Then I have an empty line, right? And if I do DDP, I just swap those places. Is all that is. Let me, you to undo. So DD deletes an entire line. YY copies an entire line. Vim doesn't call copy, copy. It calls a copy a yank. So YY just yanked that line. It copied that entire line. So now if I do P, it pasted that line on the next line. You to undo. Now let's imagine that you want to delete everything in this document or copy the entire document. Well, if you want to delete the entire document, let me GG to go to the very first line. We already know DD is delete, right? And we also know capital G takes us to the end of the document, takes us to the last line. Well, what if I do D capital G for delete and then G go to the end of the document? I just deleted this entire document. You to undo. What if I wanted to copy the entire document? You've probably already guessed. Y for yank capital G. And you can see 256 lines yanked. I just copied this entire document.  So if I scroll down, you will see eventually I'm going to begin again. Here's the top of my bash RC again. So now instead of 256 lines, I have 512 lines because I yanked the whole thing, I copied the whole thing, right? And then pasted it again. So let me do to undo. So D capital G delete the whole document. Y capital G copy the whole document. And of course, those only work if you start on the first line of the document. What if I was 10 lines down in the document? Well, first you would need to GG before you do your D capital G or Y capital G, right? So if I wanted to yank the entire document but I wasn't on the first line, I would simply do a GGY capital G, right? So you can see how very quickly you'll get the hang of these commands, these normal mode commands. And it's so powerful, especially once you get the hang of using them all the time. For example, swapping lines. I do that DDP thing so many times where I have two lines and I want to swap them. I want to reverse the order of the lines. For example, maybe these two lines here, DDP, right? I just put those lines in different places. You to undo. And while I'm mostly sticking with the absolute basics of the VIM motions and the VIM key bindings, I'm not going to really dive too deeply into command mode other than colon W for right, colon Q to quit, colon WQ for right and quit. I will show you how to yank an entire document. Instead of having to do GGY capital G to yank the entire document, you could actually do this quite a bit easier in command mode because you could do colon and then you could do percent. Percent in command mode means the entire document and then give it a Y right behind it for yank. And you can see that achieves the same effect, 256 lines yanked. And as you probably guess, if I did a colon and then percent D for delete, that would also achieve the same effect for deleting the entire document. Now let's talk a little bit more about pasting a line. Let me copy this line here. So YY yanks that line, right? It copies that line. I'm going to go up a couple of lines. Now, if I do a P, it's going to paste that copied line on the next line. But what if I want to paste that line on the previous line instead of the next line? Well, it may you undo. And instead of P, if I do shift P, it actually paste on the previous line. So that is how you paste. So typically you're pasting to the next line, but if you ever want to paste on the previous line, capital P paste to the previous line. Also, earlier I mentioned insert mode. I gets me into insert mode. So I could start typing something, right? Well, what happens if you want to get into insert mode but not on the line you're currently on? What if you want to get into insert mode on the next line or the previous line? Well, on the next line, you just hit O. O takes you to the next line and automatically gets you into insert mode. And if let me escape to get back into normal mode and if I do capital O, that gets me into insert mode on the previous line that I was on. So now I could do this is another line. Of course, I misspelled all that. Let me U to undo. So those are very useful insert mode commands. Remember, I always get you into insert mode on that line. O always gets you into insert mode on the next line. Capital O always gets you into insert mode on the previous line. And one other thing, sometimes you want to get into insert mode, but you want to get into insert mode at the very end of the line that you're currently on. Capital A gets you into insert mode at the very end of the line. Escape, let me undo all of that. Now rarely are you wanting to delete or copy an entire document. More often you're deleting or copying entire lines, but much more often you're deleting or copying just words or sometimes even single characters. Let's talk about deleting single characters. X on the keyboard deletes the character you're currently on. So if I hit X right now, I just uncommented this line, right? The hashtag that was under the cursor point is deleted. If I hit X again, that space is gone. If I hit X again, the capital M is gone, right? Let me three U to undo three times because I knew I'd hit X three times, right? Remember, you can always type a number before a command to run that command multiple times. Let's talk about replacing a character. So imagine that instead of my bash config right here, I wanted that word to actually be cache. I wanted this to say my cache config. Well, the cursor is currently on the B. I can do R for replace. If I do R and then do C, it just replaced the B with a C. So R, name of character, is a replace. So if I wanted instead of cache, I wanted this to be my cast config. So I could do RT and it just replaced that H, which was under the cursor with a T. Now let me U to undo a couple of times. If you want to delete a word, type D for delete and W for word. So DW deletes word, right? DW again, deletes word. Now let me two U to undo that.  If I go back a character and hit P, you can see I did copy that word. So let me undo that. So just a quick refresher. DD deletes the entire line. U to undo. DW deletes a word. U to undo. What if I wanted to delete from this character that I'm currently on to the end of the line? You've probably already guessed D for delete, of course. And then remember dollar sign for end of line. So D dollar sign deletes everything to the end of the line. U to undo. What about delete everything from the cursor point to the beginning of the line? Remember zero is the beginning of the line. D zero, right? Deletes everything from the cursor point to the beginning of the line. U to undo. And of course that works with yank as well. If I go to the middle of the line here and I do a Y dollar sign, I just copied everything from the cursor point to the end of the line. If instead I did Y zero, I copied everything from the cursor point to the beginning of the line. One of the things you often want to do when you delete a word, you want to delete a word and replace it with another word. So instead of doing DW to delete it and then I to get into insert mode and then type a new word, just do all of that in one command because there is a command in VM for change. What change does, it deletes whatever characters or section of text you tell it to delete and then it automatically puts you into insert mode so you can type the replacement. So for words, you can do CW for change word. It just deleted that word and now I could do something like capital B-A-S-H for my bash config and then escape to get back into normal mode and just like DD deletes an entire line, YY yanks an entire line, CC changes an entire line, it deletes it, puts you into insert mode so you can then write a new line. Now for me, I'm going to escape to get back into normal mode, you to undo a couple of times and just like we could do D dollar sign, D zero, Y dollar sign, Y zero. You could also do this with change as well. If I go to the first letter of config here and I do a C dollar sign for change everything in this line from the cursor point to the end of the line, you know, it puts me into insert mode and then I could write the rest of the end of this line. Let me U to undo that. If I want to change from the cursor point to the beginning of the line, I would do C zero and it deletes everything from the cursor point to the beginning of the line, puts me into insert mode so I can type a new beginning to this line. Let me U to undo. Now DW, CW, YW, all of those word commands, for example, DW, deletes a word, right? DW would delete that word. Let me U to undo. But sometimes you're not exactly on the first character of the word. If you're not on the first character of the word, say I'm on the second character of the word, DW, deletes the word, but it left the first character because the cursor point was after it. So what you want to do, if you're in the middle of a word and you want to delete the word, you have to DIW for delete inside the word. So basically, if I'm in the middle of a word, DIW is the command to delete the word. So, and if I, same thing with Yank, if I'm in the middle of a word, YIW to Yank that word because if I'm in the middle of the word and I just do YW, it's only going to Yank where the cursor point is to the end of that word. Sometimes you want to delete or you want to Yank a word and you want to include the spaces around it. So in that case, what you would do instead of DIW to delete inside word, you would DIW to delete around the word. So it deletes the word and the spaces around it. You to undo that, you could also do that with Yank. Y-A-W Yanks around the word. And similarly, if I was in the middle of this word, not and I did a C-I-W for change inside the word, I'm changing the word. Let me escape. You to undo. If I was in the middle of the word and I did C-A-W for change around the word, it also will delete the word and the spaces around it and put me into insert mode so I can make the necessary change. For those of you programmers, if you want a really neat thing you can do again with braces, brackets and parentheses, what you could do is you could actually delete everything that is inside a pair of braces or brackets or parentheses. For example, I'm in the middle of these brackets here. This is a line and you can see it's wrapped in brackets. Well, if I delete inside and then the opening bracket, I just deleted everything that was in that pair of brackets. You to undo. If I wanted to delete everything that's in a pair of parentheses, I could again just go anywhere inside this and do D-I and then the opening parentheses and I deleted that text. Also, I deleted the brackets because the brackets were inside the parentheses. You to undo. And one more time, let's try this with the braces. So I'll do D-I and then the opening brace and I deleted everything that was inside the brackets and the parentheses including the brackets and the parentheses themselves because I deleted everything inside the braces. I hope that makes sense, but if you're a scripter or a programmer, obviously these kinds of commands, the delete inside, braces, brackets, parentheses, you're going to use these all the time. The last basic Vim motions I want to show you are F and T. So F is go forward till the next character. It's basically find the next character. So if I do FB, it goes forward to the next instance of that character, B. If I do FB again, there's not another B in this line, but what about, how about F? F, F goes to the next F. F, F goes to the next F. F, F goes to that last F and then FF won't do anything from that point. Now let me hit zero on the key. Very similar to F is the T command. So F, what F did, remember, if I do FG, it takes me to the next instance of that character, G. What T does, it takes you to the next instance of G, except instead of putting the cursor point on the G, it puts the cursor point on the character in front of the G. So think of F as find, find the G and take the cursor point to it. Think of T as until with a capital T, until, right? So go till the G, but stop the cursor point right in front of it. So if I do TG, you can see, I actually go to the place right before G. TG again, well, there's not another G. How about TF? Goes to the U and stuff, and that's as far as it'll go. Now also in conjunction with the F and T commands, you can use semicolon and comma to move forward and back by the next instance of those characters. So remember, FF takes me to the F in config, but there's also two other Fs in this line. And what I could do, instead of doing FF again, I could just do the semicolon and it will take me to the next F. Semicolon, again, will take me to the next F. Comma would take me back to the previous F. Comma again would take me back to the previous F. And again, that works with F. It also works with T if I go to the beginning of this line and do TF and then the semicolon, again, will take me to the next F. But remember, T always takes you to the cursor point on the character right before that particular character you were searching for. And the comma, once again, will take me in reverse. That's when you do it in reverse with the T. It's actually the character right after. Because again, it goes in reverse all the way to F, but it's not going to stop on F. It's going to go a character right after it, in this case, because we're going in reverse. So I think we covered really all of the basics as far as your basic motion keys, how to move around a document in them, the basic editing as far as deleting, copying, which is yanking, pasting. We even covered a little bit of command mode, but really, the VIM motion keys, they're not that hard to learn.  There's really not much more to learn. There's still some stuff to learn, but you can get by in VIM just fine if you know exactly what I showed you today on camera. Now, before I go, I need to thank the producers of this episode, Gabe James, Matt Paul, Steve West, Arkotic, Armoredragon, Commander, Angry, Darloff, George Lee, Matthew, Methos, Nate, Erion, Paul, Peace, Archon, Adore, Reality, Four Less, Very Profit, Role, and Soul, As, Three, Ten, Ren, Tools, Delaware, Ward, Gentoo, and Ubuntu, and Willie. These guys, they're my highest-tiered patrons over on Patreon. Without these guys, this quick look at the absolute basics of VIM would not have been possible. The show's also brought to you by each and every one of these fine ladies and gentlemen, all these names you're seeing on the screen. These are all my supporters over on Patreon. I don't have any corporate sponsors. I'm sponsored by you guys. The community, if you like my work, support me on Patreon. Subscribe to DistroTube over on Patreon. Peace, guys.


please welcome Ariel. I'm a scientist. My job is to work with cooks to figure out the science behind food and cooking. But something that we're also interested in with my job is using the knowledge that we produce by doing that to improve the world. So you may have heard about food waste, including just now. But it's a big problem in the world. Each year we waste about 1.3 billion metric tons of edible food. And that happens on every continent and at every link in the food chain from farms to distributors to markets to people's home kitchens and restaurants. So it's a complex problem that's not going to be solved by any one idea. Some parts of it, like cosmetically less desirable fruit and vegetables, can be dealt with by developing alternative markets for this produce, such as fruitifeia in Portugal. And these provide a way for these to be distributed bypassing the inefficiencies of conventional ones, which tend to follow E-regulations that say that a strawberry that looks like that or a curvy cucumber can't actually be sold because it doesn't pack well. But tonight I'd like to tell you a little bit about how our experiments in fermentation have given us some really interesting tools for dealing with food waste. So this is where I work. It's four shipping containers in the back parking lot of Restaurant Noma. We built this lab to have a space to study food practically, not so much to make new dishes but to make new knowledge. And we built a lot of it ourselves, as you can tell, from the wiring job on our thermal controllers. And this is a Noma head of R&D, Lars Williams, looking quite skeptical about my painting abilities. But you may be wondering what I'm doing in a semi-apocalyptic bunker in a parking lot behind a restaurant. And I'm not going to lie, a lot of the scientists I went to grad school with kind of shrug and say, like, hey, you really don't need a PhD to do what you're doing to work with a restaurant, but if it makes you happy, I guess it's your life. But really, I left the academic system to work it mad, not because I wanted to stop doing science, but because I think that some of the most powerful and interesting and innovative new ideas about food are coming out of restaurants, not out of university labs. So, yeah, yeah, yeah.  But more broadly speaking, it lets us combine scientific and restaurant approaches to make more better knowledge about food faster. So, the reason that we have this mold is that one of the big projects that we're working on is fermentation. And fermentation is the transformation of food ingredients by microorganisms, such as bacteria, yeasts, and molds. It occurs spontaneously. A lot of these microorganisms are just like in the air, on our skin, on various other surfaces. So, it's been a part of human gastronomic history since we've been eating fruit or making grain pourages or milking cows. But it also creates complex new flavors in ingredients that we'd otherwise overlook because they're bland on their own or we consider them waste products. Basically, it turns trash into treasure. And in doing some of this studying fermentation, I recently went to Japan where I wanted to visit the grandmothers and guys with gigantic vats of squid sauce out their back sheds and people who've been making miso for 10 generations to learn some of the things about fermentation that wasn't going to learn in books or academic papers. So, here we're grinding some soybeans to make miso. Japan is one of the most food-obsessed cultures on earth. And a lot of extremely delicious things are made out of materials that we might otherwise write off or overlook. So, this is a winter turnip pickle. A lot of the winter Tsukamono or pickles are made of turnips. This one's called Tsuguki. And through a series of saltings and pressings and careful fermentations at different temperatures, the turnips transformed into this incredibly complex, rich, meaty pickle. And the greens are some of the best part. And in this raw state, the greens are sort of more of a throwaway material. And each of these pickles retails for about like $7 or $8 a piece. Okay. This is another turnip pickle called senmai. If you can see it, it's sort of like lots of overlapping slices. And this is a turnip and kelp pickle. Seaweeds are a good example of a plant that grows in lots of different places that a lot of cultures don't even really consider as a food source. But in sort of natural resource, poor areas like Japan, they've recognized its potential and developed it into a really flavorful and highly prized food source. Basically, to make these delicious products, they've taken like an unsexy vegetable and a weed. And by recognizing the inherent potential for flavor in these ingredients, they've developed techniques to realize that potential. And in parallel to that, what we found in Copenhagen is that we can use fermentation to realize the full flavor potential of many different kinds of waste and food scraps. So since it's the evening, we thought you might like to have something to drink. I think that was passed around beforehand. So there's some whiskey in that drink. If you haven't had it yet, it's at the back. In part because our jailhouse bread wine isn't quite ready for prime time yet, but 67% of that drink is pumpkin scraps that we fermented into vinegar. Yeah. So when we're fermenting, basically what we're doing is a sort of micro environmental engineering where we're creating conditions using salt and temperature and oxygen that allow the microbes that we want to grow and flourish and transform food into something delicious. And we're using all different kinds of techniques like making vinegars, doing lactic fermentations, making kombucha, and then doing like protein rich fermentations using that mold that you saw before to make lots of enzymes and then break down a legume or an animal protein.  It's just about rediscovering the ways that these waste and scraps can be delicious. And to be honest, working together, we only stumbled upon waste fermentation as a technique because we were already interested in fermentation because fermentation is delicious. And to be able to get the sort of tangy and umami and other flavors that you get from fermentation using Nordic ingredients, it became necessary to learn about enzymes and molds and spores and fungus and different bacteria and oxygen levels and salinity. But once we had that knowledge and we're using it regularly, it became trivially easy to apply it to the problem of waste fermentation or dealing with food waste. But if we'd approached food waste without having developed that appreciation for flavor to begin with, we wouldn't have been able to just brute force innovation out of nowhere. So some of the stuff we want to do going forward is figuring out some of the more complicated things about fermentation, like how do different temperature profiles affect the enzyme levels in our molded barley that we then use to make a leftover meat or leftover bread soy sauce and how do those enzymes eventually impact flavor? Other questions like that. But what this comes down to is that if we're going to tackle waste in a sustainable way and other food issues in a sustainable way, we have to do it with an eye to flavor. And speaking as a scientist, nobody understands flavor and deliciousness better than cooks do. As a little bit of a circling back at the very first mad here in Copenhagen, this is in 2011, David Chang also gave a speech about doing fermentation at his restaurant. He's an American chef. He has a restaurant called Momofuku in New York. And one of the things that he said about having worked with microbiologists from Harvard is that, oh, well, we need them more than they need us, which is a nice sentiment. But I think it's actually the other way around, because we're standing here in 2015. We have greater technical knowledge of food than we've ever had before. And we also have the patenting of indigenous plants' genomes for the sake of so called technical progress. And bee life about to be wiped off the planet from pesticide use for intensive agriculture. And the making and eating of soil instead of real food, food waste, as we said before. Antibiotics about to become a thing of the past because of the way that we concentrate our plot-based meat growing or meat cultivation. So not to be a fatalist, but if these results are what we get from combining food and science the way that we've always done it, like, yes, we absolutely need cooks as part of the scientific progress. So if there's any takeaway I'd like you to have from this, it's that seeking out knowledge, the impetus for knowledge that sticks and tools that enable it sustainably all comes down to flavor. And so please enjoy your drinks and tip your waitress. Thank you.


talk to you talk to you ok give me ok let me give you the best one let me give you the best one now guys apparently in my study journalism let me give you the best one now guys, i am here selling i was here in nation media just trying to persist my music to be played in this media and this guys recording this combo they really gave me biggest beat i can't believe it my phone is ringing i just wanted to give you the best one i dont want to give you the best one just give it i just want to give you the best one just give it give it a big kiss


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's casebreaks.com coming at you with 2019 Panini flawless football full-case pick your team number 17 yes we got more I don't think I was gonna arrive here so soon I think we I don't think we were able to get some so soon let alone have it arrived so soon so thanks everyone for buying back into this appreciated Danny last spot mojo New York football Giants good luck to him good luck to everybody now you noticed R&B right there which stands for random number block some teams were pulled out for a random number block randomizer randomizer videos are in separate videos so check that out there the results set that right here and then there's results of that one right there that right here here's the fresh case flawless good luck everyone to a roll call who's here for this break who's watching live like that's in this right who's in this right that's watching right now the chat's quiet you know everyone's just it could be dinner time yeah AJ's just observing RIP XFL says Cody oh that's right Ed's here Riffer has the Niners he's nervous nervously watching Chad is here well good luck hopefully hopefully get some monsters out of here cold cold and car versus not in the break but listening on the way home come on man don't don't chat and drive alright good luck everybody thanks thanks for getting in really appreciate it I think we got another case in the in the store I think I see a couple more cases so there should be more listed after number 18 as well alright we got Daniel Jones leading off the flawless rookie signatures Ruby so that's a just it's a digital card where my pens here it's a digital card but they're selling on the secondary market which is wild that'll go to Danny and the New York football Giants Danny Dime Danny Connell Danny Dimes alright good start two out of three Adam Vinitieri two color patch for the Colts Caleb with that one nice one for the blue horseshoes we got Brett Farve two out of 25 other nice relic in there that goes to Charles and the Packers that's all Charles here 13 out of 25 Layton Vanderech two color patch and Otto for the Dallas Cowboys so the Cowboys are a number block team so here's a good example if you're not if you're new to the number block thing within a break so that goes to number three Dallas three Aaron Pettit there you go Aaron and a three out of three Joe Thomas nice that goes to Matt Medlin and the Browns where the not sure what the lettering is here WG dog dog pound but I don't know where that's on the uniform do they have dog pound on the uniform but Joe Thomas pretty pretty great pretty great offensive lineman it's got rich says dog pounds gotta be dog pound right there you go well Matt Medlin who bought the Browns straight up all aboard the big hit express whoop whoop that is strong 10 out of 10 Earl Thomas is that a catch for Earl Thomas all pro Inc that is for the Seahawks Justin Pattison with the Seahawks straight up rich says it's on the sleeve alright hey a champ is here one out of 23 color patch an autograph champ Bailey Denver Broncos Denver is a number block team so that goes to Denver one that goes to matinee there you go Denver one champ Bailey on my rival team the enemy the Broncos I'm a Raiders guy two out of five Terry Bradshaw nice dual relic and auto for to short got the Steelers straight up in this one it's also a train whistle out of fives and under get the train whistle all aboard the big hit express whoop whoop if I was if I was older I suppose these would be my hated rivals for those days alright what do we got here all sorts of nice stuff what do I do first we'll just go we'll just go around the horn or kind of reverse around the horn two out of three Meekle Harmon laundry tag nice chiefs Chad boom all aboard the big hit express whoop whoop and we've got in the middle here we've got Jerry Rice ten out of ten sapphire that's for Edward Riffer in the chat with the Niners and we've got for the Jaguars that's a number block team so pay attention if you're in the Jaguars number block it's Gardner Minshew Ruby and Otto number to 20 17 out of 20 nice that is Mike Bobby that thing that right Jacksonville seven Mike Bobby vanilla gorilla with the Gardner Minshew and the gems are all naturally my not lab grown in case you're wondering I'm assuming they're not conflict gems that'd be a scandal I did the Jaguars have any intent of getting a quarterback or are they just rolling with Gardner Minshew are they saying that's our guy I guess it remains to be seen all right slider box first I have never seen Minshew in scribe and Otto with Minshew magic or Uncle Rico just yet next blockchain card is gonna be Lamar Jackson that goes to Baltimore zero that's gonna be for Jimmy Connell so Colton saying pretty sure Minshew is a starter as of now oh with Dobbs backing up all right good that's good for the hobby that's good for the hobby Gardner Minshew QB1 juju Smith Schuster 11 out of 20 three-color Jersey Steelers Dejork with the black and yellow and this is a randomized I think so yeah all three different teams Daniel Jones Dwayne Haskins and Kyler Murray eight out of 20 so Giants Danny has a shot at this redskins Dejork has a shot at this and Cardinals Boone has a shot at this set that aside to remind me we got Herman Moore 11 out of 15 flawless penmanship autograph for Aaron Salinas trendsetter with the D town Lions the Motor City Lions cat team mojo 14 out of 15 Keenan Allen that's a catch dual relic and autograph chargers are a number block team on the far right so chargers for James Connell Jimmy there you go and we were talking about this early 2000 Super Bowl there's rich Ganon 11 out of 15 could have been that goes to Gary Gordon who picked up my Raider straight up 24 out 25 David Montgomery Chicago Bears no I don't think I don't know Dobbs is not Minshew's backup in terms of aerospace engineering I think Dobbs is is engineer one on the Jaguars for that one Chicago Bears Chicago for Chicago on the far side here it's another one for Jimmy Cody you're feeling a monster in this one he says here's a nice one three out of ten diamond Joey Bosa shining bright like a diamond for Edward and the Niners yeah Mike Tower I think whenever Jaguars are working on any calculations or intercept solutions and flight out of orbit they'll probably turn to Dobbs on that one here's a nice one though there you go Edward all right the encased cards Nick Bosa they say Joey Bosa Nick Bosa Niners Bosa five out of 20 Michael Strahan legends Ruby that's for Danny and the Giants last Bob Mojo there's Buffalo Blake with the nine out of ten Sapphire Josh Allen nice matches the color of the team that's kind of cool all right and the last one here whoa look at that Kyler Murray Cody Chapman was saying I'm feeling a monster in this briefcase here's a nice one signature gloves piece of the glove 21 out of 25 he's got a nice auto good penmanship what's it's what you want from your QB Chad Boone bought the Arizona Cardinals straight up and is rewarded there you go thanks for taking a shot at that all right ladies and gentlemen got a randomizer to do here so let's flip screens so let's get some new dice it's typing the team names here Daniel Jones New York Giants Washington Redskins Arizona Cardinals Booney saws a shot at this triple too let's roll it let's randomize it six and a four ten times team on top of ten gets it and 10th and final time good luck after ten ghost Arizona it's Booney's day Chad with the Cardinals apologies to the other two teams congrats again to Chad you got the eight out of 20 triple relic Daniel Jones Dwayne Haskins and Kyler Murray another nice flawless break in the books the case is closed on pick your team 17 we'll see you next time for pick your team 18 I'm Joe I'll see you for that one