Welcome, and I'm going to try. It's not easy. We saw it at the session on the central banks to move into the world of economics with Professor Thayer and Ambassador Fin. But given the very dramatic and tragic political events, of course, all the minds are concentrated on these issues. But we have to also remember that at the end of the day, the two arenas, politics and economics, are linked. And a well-functioning world economy is another way to create hope, employment, jobs, and also ease tensions, which in the end will help the cause of peace. I find it necessary to say that because I don't want the same thing to happen to this session as what happened to the central bank session. We have two of really the world's greatest specialists of trade issues. Roza Thayer and Ambassador Fin. And the session title says from the point of view of middle powers, because Korea and Canada can be defined as middle powers, maybe Turkey too. But I think we will both panelists and myself, we do want to get into also the broader issues of the world economy and trade in the world trading system. And as you know, the negotiations on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership work successfully concluded, which doesn't mean that it's all over because it needs to be ratified, not least by the US Congress. And it will be very difficult if you get stuck there. And the TTIP trade partnership between Europe and the United States and other North American countries is not yet at that stage. It will take more time. But if these two things get put into place, I believe the framework, not only for trade, but for regulation, industrial policies will be organized in a way by default through these two treaties. I think the issue of China, of course, is very much there because it doesn't participate in either of these two negotiations. And then, of course, the issue of the rest of the world, of the smaller countries that are outside these two frameworks, is an important one for the legitimacy of the whole system and the future role of the WTO. So I think we will touch on these issues in greater depth. But I'll start with Professor Thao. Can you give us your views on where we're at with the TPP? I know it's gotten concluded. If you can say a few words on its content, there's been a lot of debate between the political left and the more business-oriented center right on the TPP. You know, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has actually taken position against it the way it was negotiated. Not very strongly, but still it seemed was, in a way, led to that by this debate. So let's start by that and by the Pacific side of things. May I cover a little bit of multilateral negotiation and then move to the mega-regionals, like the TPP? Let me start with my several observations on the recent development in the area of trade. Let me begin with the WTO's Doha round. As you all know, last year we tried very hard to ratify the agreement we made in Bali, so-called trade facilitation agreements. But the ratification by member states are quite slow, so it's not making any dynamism out of that. And also, we are supposed to prepare some work program to deliver something for remaining deep Doha round issues by the upcoming MC-10, which will be held in Nairobi next month. But that work program seemed to be incomplete, so we cannot expect much achievement from the next Nairobi MC-10 meeting either. In other words, the multilateral trading system is really in real trouble. And maybe it's now on a kind of critical crossroads. So in response to that, I think many parts of the world, they are moving for more bilateral FTAs so far, but very recently, many countries are participating in a larger kind of scale we call mega-regional trade agreements. And in Asia Pacific, TPP, and also RCEP, or China, Japan, Korea, FTA, many things are taking place. And also between Europe and the EU, Europe and the United States, they're negotiating for TTIP negotiations. But up until now, no major mega-RTA has been concluded until recently. But last month, as you already mentioned, TPP negotiations are completed. So given the very gloomy picture of the global world trading system, I welcome the news that the TPP negotiations have been completed. However, if you look at the overall participants, even though they have 12 different countries, they miss the major other more dynamic economies in East Asia. For example, Indonesia was not part of them. Thailand, the Philippines, and of course Korea is not part of them either. And China is not part of them either. So if you look at ASEAN, 10 countries, some people already suggest that TPP is dividing ASEAN into two. So some people are complaining. But since because of that fact, the gains from TPP, economic gains, could be limited. So in other words, sooner or later, after they finish the ratification of the TPP remands by the members, maybe they should open the door to additional members. Maybe Korea will try to join TPP with other countries. Maybe. Can I ask you, why has Korea not been part of the TPP? Just very briefly, because it's an interesting thing. I mean, Korea is one of the most dynamic economies in the world. Based on policy priority at that time, 2012, I was serving trade minister at that time. We didn't really consider that very seriously because Japan was not participating. We are still doing implementation of KOROS FTA, which is a big event. And also, we just began the negotiation with China. But anyway, we see TPP positively. But since we have already had bilateral FTA with already 10 participating TPP participating countries, 10. So only exception was Japan and Mexico. So we are not in a very hurry kind of situation. So that's why. But we want to join in the future. In any case, so we hope that TPP can be expanded. It's too early to say that because they didn't finish the ratification either. And let me say one more thing about the background. You know, G20 meeting was held in Anataliya, Turkey last week. If you look at the declaration, there are two paragraphs on trade. But most in a rhetoric kind of situation, not much serious or substantial statement was made in G20 meeting. However, there's one noticeable agreement. Leaders agree that trade ministers of G20 countries will meet regularly. And also, they allow them to establish some kind of working groups, supporting working groups for trade. In other words, we discussed this in the morning. G20 is a more non-binding kind of organization. But still, we have a very high level communication mechanism specifically on trade. So far, G20 issues are dominated by finance, more finance ministers. But I think it's a welcome news so that we can communicate with Geneva and also G20 participating countries. Let me just stop here. Thank you very much. That's those very good comments and very much to the point. Let me just share with you that I was in Geneva yesterday. And everybody was talking about, anybody I talked to was talking about Ambassador Jonathan and his very strong support for good trade policies at the WTO and worldwide. So anyway, really, I did hear it from so many people yesterday. And it was good because we're good old friends. Tell me, Jonathan, from your point of view, how do you see the whole trade scene? But before that, maybe, and say if you agree or not, or if I'm exaggerating, that trade is now much more about regulation than it is about tariffs. I think tariffs are still there. There are a topic in many sectors. But a lot of the trade negotiations are about how regulation can be harmonized regionally among countries worldwide. And a lot of the debate is about the power of the corporations versus the power of wider society in regulation as well as in arbitration mechanisms, I think. So I hope you will say a few words on that. Let me also add one more thing. It is very important for world growth that the trade engine works. And it has slowed down. I mean, part of the, now whether it's a cause or an effect or both, one can debate, of course. But we see for the first time in decades that world trade growth is actually has trouble keeping up even with the low GDP growth that we're having. So there's something special going on which we need to address. Jonathan? At Camel, you've added a whole bunch of questions into a short introduction. So let me see if I can address as many of them as possible in a short time. You're quite right to note that attention has shifted from the border to beyond the border. And the analogy is often used of a sea full of tariffs. And for the vast majority of the time since the creation of the post-war trading system under what was then the GATT, we've been lowering and draining that sea of the tariffs as barriers to the free flow of goods. Only when the water has become low enough have we seen just how massive the souls and rocks of non-tariff barriers are that still impede the free flow of goods. So you're quite right to say attention is shifting because the tariff in most all industrial commodities is increasingly irrelevant as a competitive factor. We still have some peaks. Agriculture is a glaring exception because we all have farmers with loud voices as Korea can attest to. But overall, you're right. We're looking now and the challenge of the trading system is to smooth the way, in effect, from the producer directly to the consumer and all the barriers along the way, not just at the border but throughout the stream of commerce. That's one dimension. What has changed, I think, more fundamentally, however, and the economists have led us through the analysis, is the advent of supply chains. In effect, the latest numbers from UNCTAD tell us that pretty close to 50% of all trade in the world is between affiliated entities. Now, that doesn't mean multinationals. It means, in effect, the constellation of firms working around a large firm. They're suppliers who are reliable, who have the long-term contracts to provide the inputs or the intermediate goods. So you're witnessing a constellation of trade, if I can put it that way, around large enterprises. That doesn't mean northern multinationals at all because we're also seeing a remarkable growth in the presence and trade share of multinational enterprises from more advanced emerging economies as well. So supply chains change the nature of trade. And it points you towards the increasing importance of looking at trade together with investment. Take your typical auto manufacturer that has global capacity. While the United States might prefer it all as sold to the world from Detroit and Japan might prefer it all comes from Tokyo, we know that the manufacturers set up manufacturing in various reasons. And when they look at the regions they're going to try and assess, well, is my next plant going to be in Thailand or the Philippines to serve Southeast Asia? And they're gonna look at what are their access to inputs in addition to labor force, taxation, normal corporate factors. They're going to assess the trade relationship because as Pascal and me once put it, we're in a world of made in the world. You will have seen the Asian Development Bank study that dissected an iPod when it arrives in North America. It shows up as a $200 Chinese import. You dismantle it. 37% of the value is actually German, another 20% Japanese, another 20% Korean, and Chinese value added is 4%. We don't measure the import content of componentry. So our whole negotiating approach is quite distorted and not taking account of supply chains. The other significant result of that is what the Swedish Board of Trade has coined as the serviceification of trade. We haven't really come to grips with the reality that for every sale of a piece of hard, tangible goods, there are a number of affiliated services. You needed a transporter to get your goods to market. You probably needed a lawyer and an accountant to have your sales contract organized well. A number of intermediaries. Your economy is benefiting much more than just the value of the good when you sell it. Your service providers are actually benefiting as well. Former Chief Economist of the WTO, Patrick Lo, did a study on the sale of a loaf of bread in Hong Kong. 70% of the final price paid by the consumer for that loaf of bread goes to services. Not to the wheat, not to the packaging, but rather the transportation. You said what the percent? 70. 70. 70. So what that suggests is national interest and business interests are, could you please get us a set of rules that better facilitates our ability to invest, attract and use local suppliers and connect our sale of goods with the obtaining of services. The WTO framework for negotiations that we've had in the Doha Development Round since 2002 is an effective framework that we inherited from the Uruguay Round that was first developed in the mid 1980s and is a leftover agenda. We haven't had fresh thinking in Geneva as to how to approach the realities of how business is done today pretty well for 30 years. That's an underlying motivation for a TPP type negotiation that says among like-minded who sort of get it on supply chains, who are competing for that next automobile plant on either side of the Pacific, can we modernize the rules in a manner that facilitates trade among us. In some ways the TPP is to the WTO Doha Round today, what NAFTA was to the Uruguay Round, a catalyst, a demonstration to the rest of the world that there is a path forward that can be done, largely building on existing rules. So there's no incompatibility and I would discourage people from framing it as regionalism versus multilateralism. We leapfrog each other, they reinforce each other and these new regional agreements can and should show the way. I'll finish up on this just by suggesting that in some ways TPP if you go through the text may be one of the last of the familiar type of trade agreements. The kinds of rules, the table of contents would look very familiar to a trade expert. There is some incremental improvement on some of the rules on non-tariff barriers and standard. There is obviously a significant step forward on investment but it's largely anchored in familiar existing disciplines. TTIP, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, if successful may be the first significant agreement of a new generation because by both sides' commitment they do want to deal with regulatory convergence and standards so that you can have goods move and people move and services move under the principle of tested once and accepted everywhere. Will they succeed? It's a different kind of negotiation. It doesn't belong to the trade experts anymore. It belongs to all those domestic ministries and agencies and laboratories whose mandate has nothing to do with trade. They're told your job is to make sure people are safe or that products are safe. Bringing them to a trade table is a new and difficult experiment. It's aggravated further by the advent of what people shorthand as what are called private standards. We have, for example, thanks to public awareness growing and unfortunate tragedies such as the textile factory or assembly building in Bangladesh, Rana Plaza. We have consumers demanding a certification of fair labor conditions and the manufacturer of this or that good. Well, is there any agreed international standard at the International Labor Organization? No. Is there any trade related government certified standard? No. Are there a dozen different NGO and industry driven standards? Yes. Does that actually facilitate trade to have that multiplicity of private standards? No. So we're gonna have to come to grips with that even as between the United States and Europe. One final point, if I may, just to springboard into a more provocative area having listened to this morning's panels and started with John Lipsky's observations. I'm often fond of saying we as bureaucrats, even if ambassadors are actually, if you know the laws of physics, we're actually inert objects because we don't move unless there's an external force applied to us. Who are the external forces, the people doing business? And what is it that business wants? They want to make the pie bigger, both for themselves and they realize, I think, those who are carrying corporate responsibility that by doing so they're creating jobs, they're contributing to the growth of a middle class in emerging markets and so on. Trade alone doesn't do that. All the free trade in the world is not gonna give you sustainable economic growth, particularly in emerging markets unless it's accompanied by an investment in the kind of enabling environment one needs to do business. That starts with goods, all the monetary policy and the financial sector that works, but it means regulatory transparency and predictability that is responsive to how people do business. The real challenge, if we get beyond some of these arcane issues, is to connect what we're trying to do in a trade agenda with what the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN family and bilateral donors are trying to do to create and build domestic capacity and structural reform to make trade the enhancer and the magnifier of growth that it can be. Full circle back to your initial observation. There's a big debate as you noted between economists who would say the slowdown in trade is actually cyclical, let's face it, Europe is sluggish in its recovery, China is deliberately trying to shift to domestic demand. Those who say, well actually it's structural because of what I described earlier. If you're investing and you're actually better off using local suppliers than bringing in your foreign components, you're not doing as much trade, but you're doing just as much business, you're creating just as many jobs and maybe it's actually better that we're seeing growth and investment even if at the expense of exports as a contribution to GDP. Thank you very much Jonathan. I think you managed in, I don't know, 10 minutes or whatever to cover a lot of ground and I think this is the critical ground. But since there's jet lag and after lunch kind of tiredness among many of the participants, I'm going to try to be extra provocative and really try to say a few questions that will hopefully fire everybody up in the controversial nature of some of these issues. And I'm not on one side or another, I'm just trying to get the discussion going. But I repeat, it's significant that Hillary Clinton, whom we just heard was strengthening her candidacy is very, one never knows, but has a very good chance of becoming the next president of the United States, is taking saying no to the TPP. It could be a campaign issue then whatever, but I think it's significant and there's some dynamic behind it. Let me just say a few things and then ask Professor Thao to react. For example, you mentioned regulatory convergence and certainty in some sense, okay? And of course, I fully agree. I mean, if you want to invest, you cannot have a situation where the country you've invested in, all of a sudden two years later decides to change the whole regulatory system. That will be a constraint on international investment and God knows we need international investment to spur growth. It was one of the big conclusion of the Australia G20 that a pro-growth investment push is very important. In infrastructure where we have huge needs, again the regulatory framework will be extremely important. And yet, Joe Stiglitz for example, latched on to the issue of smoking. And if a country had decided to become more health conscious and take a stronger stand against smoking and tries to change the regulatory framework, will it be hampered by the fact that the US Tobacco Company said, hey, this is violating regulatory consistency and regulatory foresight. I'm just, you know, how does one react to that? I think the TPP actually moved in a certain direction on that and dropped some of the so-called objectionable parts that seem to be under discussion, although one never quite knows because the discussions are not public. The other point I want to raise, and it's very much, I think, in line with the spirit of this conference, Thierry has always said, Thierry de Montréal, you know, we must somehow get to global economic governance, global governance and also economic governance. But trade is the only, usually the only tool one has to have some kind of influence on another country, short of invading it. There's a trade agreement and the WTO, in some sense, through its adjudication mechanism, legal mechanism that were followed, in some ways was the most successful international organization because it really, there was international law under the WTO, much more than under, say, the IMF. But on the other hand, who is profiting from all, I mean, who is going to profit from the TTIP? And we think that a larger market creates more competition, normally, as economists. Makes, seems to make sense. But there's, at the same time, there's something in global technology and globalization that seems to create greater size, giants. If I'm not mistaken, the last merger among the two biggest beer manufacturers, I mean, beer is a fairly harmless product, I would say, but anyway, we're not talking pharmaceuticals here. But, you know, 60% of something like that of all beer or more than 65% of all beer sold in the world will be sold by one multinational enterprise. Now, if we remember our microeconomics textbooks, that's not very good for competition. So I'm just kind of saying, you know, can we really stand behind the trade agreements as freer trade, more harmonized regulation, as progress in international governance, or should we worry about the strong corporate interests and lobbyists that are behind the scenes and negotiations? Who protects the consumers, the citizens, the, every one of us as individuals, against a framework that may in the end work, maybe in favor of some more investment and maybe more growth, but a distribution of the results of that growth that accrues to the most powerful and to the wealthiest? What's that? Well, you cannot, you don't have to go that far. I mean, the benefits of trade liberalization, Korea has many, many different FTAs, including very big FTAs with the United States and EU, but our consumers are complaining because we are not getting much benefits. The reason is we have a distribution sector is not very competitive. We have many different layers so that each layer will take the kind of premium or whatever the economy profits, so we are not getting any benefits. So when you mention the giant companies emerging together or even in the domestic economy, you have that kind of system, that's why we want to emphasize competition policy, but the competition policy based on consumer side is not very much being processed. They only talk about who is gaining from the producer's point of view, and also we don't have any global competition policy which will govern this kind of merge or things like that. Maybe United States want to apply that domestic anti-monopoly law to other cases, but in any case, the regulatory convergence, you said that, but it'll be awfully difficult. If you talk about the tobacco, but let's talk about the regulatory standard for safety of the parts of the automobile. We have two different standards, European standard, US standard, so Korean companies is having difficulties in making these parts for this company, for this part for that reason, but if you want to merge this standard together, merge to which standard? It's a huge task. That's why Ambassador Fried mentioned that regulatory harmonization, regulatory convergence is a very important issue, but can we get there? It's another issue. It's even more difficult to have, but they're more difficult than having a trade agreement. That's my initial comment to your issue. Candidate Clinton's stand, any? Well, if you apply very simple political economy, you have a clear answer. Right now, you don't have to welcome this TPP. I mean, by saying that this has some problems which can invite more support for campaign. And President Obama, who was a candidate running campaign around 2008, 2007, he mentioned that the Korea US FTA has a fundamental flaws, so they can get all the votes from Detroit. So right now, Mr. Clinton just said that we have some problems. It's much better politically than truly support the TPP. That's how I understand. Well, I was going to recall that Bill Clinton, in coming to office, asked, did not support the NAFTA until there was added a certain set of understandings on labor and on the environment and side agreements when he subsequently became a great champion for free trade both regionally and multilaterally. So there may be some parallel there. Look, again, in a different way, I'm trying to say the same thing. We tend, in light of the WTO's success, in dispute settlement, in enforcing a code of rules within a limited universe to put too much weight on the WTO as the solution to everything. You take tobacco, where the issue has to do with public health measures versus the trademark of intellectual property that tobacco manufacturers put on their boxes of cigarettes. That's really at its root not an issue that trade negotiators really sorted out. That's the intellectual property community at the World Intellectual Property Organization and your international framework for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. What's the relationship between the free flow of goods and free competition between producers, at least, that the WTO sets out on the one hand, the internationally agreed codes of intellectual property at WIPO and whatever the World Health Organization and someone else has to say about tobacco and public health. And maybe, in the future, a warning on a beer label, which you said is harmless. I would hope not. This has to do with, in effect, communication both at the national and international level between those dealing with which organization has jurisdiction over what. All of our food safety is not set out as a result of trade people saying all food should flow freely. The food and agriculture organization that wonderfully named Codex Alimentarius, the International Organization of Epizuotics actually sets out the standards of what kind of beef is safe, when do you have the right to close the border to BSE, and so on. Those standards, in effect, then are incorporated back into a WTO context. So for Mr. Stiglitz and some of the activists who quote him, their aim is not very good because they want to target the WTO whereas really what they're debating is whether these international organizations and the domestic regulators relating to them are using sound science or not. Some would argue, to heck with science, it's whatever my social choice is. I don't like GMOs, whether they're safe or unsafe. Others would say, come on, the only international basis for dealing with these kinds of things is what the best science has to say. And if you have a choice of measures to meet what science says, choose the one that's less trade restrictive as long as you can be assured it achieves the same result. Finally, vis-a-vis the multinational, so let me fully endorse what Tyho says. Again, the WTO originally, or the GATT before it, was designed to smooth frictions at the border and to put the foreign producer on a level playing field, so-called national treatment, with the domestic competitor. That's all. It didn't make any decision about big or small. And it said among foreign producers, if you're also a member, most favored nation treatment, all your foreign competitors should be treated alike. Once you're into the market, you're talking about conditions of competition for the consumer. That's never been the purview of trade disciplines. That belongs to competition and antitrust law. Many of us, Canada included, sought to add competition to the universe of rules that might come under a WTO umbrella at the start of the Doha round or even before. Aung Tad, for many decades before, wanted to have the world talk about restrictive business practices. We've only gotten as far as soft law, an informal but very large network anchored at the OECD, called the International Competition Network, which now has about 70 antitrust and competition agencies developed and developing, with an exchange of best practices, with a model competition law that is now being implemented in more and more countries, but nobody's quite ready to turn that into treaty form. So a large merger is still gonna have to apply and go through much to the delight of the lawyers, 19 or 20 or 40 different merger applications and reviews. So all of which is to say, I think the questions you pose are perfectly legitimate and do have to do with social choice and do have to do with public choice, but also have to do with the global governance questions we've been talking about all day, which go well beyond the WTO. How do we align that very circumscribed universe that we designed the trading system to deal with with the other international efforts that we've made fairly successful to standardize and to protect and to promote the consumer and the safety and the social interests? Thank you very much. I think we'll try to get some questions or comments from the floor. Maybe add one more. I like to add one more thing. It seems like in many areas, economic globalization is facing new barriers in a sense. There's been progress. There was tremendous progress on trade in terms of the euro zone by the creation of the euro. And I think, I can't remember who said it was, I think it was, I can't remember now in the session this morning about, it was an incredible achievement, but we're reaching new barriers. I mean, if you want to go further with globalization, there has to be more harmonization and competition regulation. Otherwise we're stuck. If we want to have monetary cooperation succeed, it has to acquire new instruments to succeed. And I think that's why we're really at a very crucial moment where in fact, if we don't go forward, we may actually be pushed backward, I believe. But anyway, any questions? And I'll take maybe a few. And if not, I may even ask some friends to make a few statements. I see John there, for example. Want to entice him to ask or make a comment. The microphone. One on the right does welcome. Yes. Thank you. Just to clarify, especially what Jonathan was saying, on TTIP, the idea exactly is to harmonize standards, right, between the US and Europe with the notion that that would be extremely powerful in terms of promoting a global harmonization of the standards that are included. I know there's a big discussion of the scope of what would, what will be covered in TTIP, for example, would that include financial sector or not include financial sector, et cetera. What I was left wondering clearly, your assessment on not just the difficulties, or for both of you, not just the difficulties, but the likelihood of real progress being made and the likelihood that the corporations and others that you suggested have to get behind these negotiations to make them succeed, not just bureaucrats, your assessment of real progress in the next couple of years. And I have the gentleman over here, the microphone here, we'll take it to a tree and then. Richard Cooper, Harvard University, and I'd really like to comment on a remark by our moderator, Camel, rather than the. I recognize, you know I recognize. Rather than the speakers, he talked about the importance of reducing uncertainty for businesses in order to, he made the absolutely valid point that international investment has joined trade as one of the main economic integrators of the world economy these days, and it's hard to separate those two. And then talked about the uncertainties facing investment. The simple fact is, as we discovered at lunch and in many ways, we live in a world of uncertainty. There's no way of removing the uncertainties for business. There are political uncertainties. Of course, the major uncertainty for business is business itself, innovation by competitors, which you haven't, you're behind on if you're in a particular business. So what we're talking about here is uncertainty created by government regulation, and that leaves to isolate that particular source of uncertainty in a world of uncertainty is suspect. And it leaves the suspicion that business wants to use this device, and I'm talking not only about TPP but TTIP, also there are important differences between those two, I think, that this really is a way to reduce, put pressure on for less regulation. And I think that's what many people are objecting to. And I think we ought to face it straightforwardly. There are regulations, and Minister Bark mentioned auto safety issues, where for historical reasons, everyone's concerned with auto safety, but for historical reasons, they've been different in different countries, and particularly transatlantically, and there's no conceptual reason not to harmonize those. There are all kinds of practical reasons that it'll take time and so forth, but there's no conceptual reason not to harmonize those, but that's fundamentally different from saying we shouldn't have new health and safety regulations, for example, as science advances. The businesses who are selling existing products may not like them, but it seems to me we should not even hint at creating a regime in which such new regulations are not possible or are rejected. And I think that's the objection to what's the technical term, ISDN, anyway, the arbitration clauses in that, and we have a few cases unhappily where businesses have gone around national regulations. One was in Canada, one in Australia. We have a few cases, they each have their own technical details, where businesses have essentially overruled local decisions by invoking the ISDN clause and asking for arbitration and compensation. And I think that's a potentially serious problem which a trade specialist, and I'm constitutionally a free trader, need to recognize in any democratic society. Thank you very much, Professor Kubert. I think these were really excellent and comments that illuminated even more, I think what both of you said. Anybody else? Yes? Thanks very much. Sean and Clarem, I want to, in one sense, misuse the panel because it relates to this larger issue of global governance which we've referred to four or five times in the context of a putative objective of increasing the range, the spread and the depth of globalization. And I think there may be an underlying challenge in this whole regard that I think it's worthwhile getting one's head around. The first thing is that we have a curious situation which we're all aware of where democratic accountability to the extent that it exists exists at national levels but the vast majority of challenges that we talk about in these particular contexts require collective action at transnational levels. We can't solve them at domestic levels and hence globalization becomes a convenient catch word for this larger space and we have developed a whole series of instruments to enable us to address those issues on a larger scale. The second thing is that the moment that we liberalized capital flows, perhaps unintentionally, we liberalized the location of manufacturing employment and subsequently services delivery because the moment you can invest anywhere, then self-evidently you're going to invest in the locations where you can earn the highest return on capital and under those circumstances, jobs move in a whole variety of different areas as a consequence of the fact that capital moves and that has social and political costs once again in national environments and as a consequence, you get a whole series of protectionist responses based on perfectly rational circumstances. The third issue around all of this is that and perhaps the quickest way of dealing with it is simply to use the cliche of the global village. If one thinks of how a village functions, broadly speaking, the range of the society and the range of the economy are commensurate with one another. So all the polity has to do is to balance the workings of the economy and the village in such a way that everyone in the society is happy. The truth is, however, globally, when you extrapolate that metaphor, it fails and it fails because we have created a highly integrated global economy preeminently as a consequence of technological capability, integrated financial systems and long supply chains, but of course the society that constitutes the global population is hugely fractured. They have different interests, different values, different mindsets, different perspectives and our polity, the instruments that we employ for purposes of global governance is completely inadequate to the task of squaring the circle between the workings of a global economy and a domestic, sorry, and a fractured society. So how does one think to advance the prospects of economic globalization in circumstances where these levels of asymmetry are already widespread and manifest, I think, on multiple levels? Thank you very much. One last very quick, please. We're running out of time. Carl Kaiser, Harvard University. Ambassador Fried said this is the new one. The TTIP is something totally new, very different. And precisely because of that, it will have resistance as we have never encountered it before because coordination or harmonization of regulation goes straight into the heart of politics, culture. And when you look at the reaction in Europe, the opponents have been very successful in forging very strange coalitions but very effective coalitions. For example, there was a big rally in Berlin the other day, almost 200,000 people, in which a group managed to get all kinds of people that have nothing to do with trade, to oppose and to get together, anti-establishment, all kinds of strange people who joined. So in other words, we are in a different area. The trade negotiators have to become more political. The politicians have to leave the area of just arranging technical questions. They have to face the very central questions of politics. And I feel they're not doing very well at the moment. One, and two, we need a lot of time and we should not be too impatient because it's a new arrangement. It needs much more time to deal with the political questions as we have never seen them before. Thank you very much. I think I'll go in the reverse order and what I suggest, but whatever you like. I mean, each one of you can take about two, three minutes, about three minutes maybe. But what, I mean, we faced the global governance question. I'm partly the culprit in the sense of having broadened maybe the topic too much. But if there were one or two or three things that you think could be done that are feasible in the whole area of trade as well as regulation, what would they be? What are the next one or two useful steps? Both of you, I start with Jonathan in reverse order. Well, I'm not gonna quite frame it in the way you've put the question because I'm very proud to say that in Canada, 20 years after NAFTA, joining the TPP, every public opinion poll has about 70 to 75% public support and endorsement for free trade. Why? Because the government and business and engaged citizenry, including the academic and public policy community, have patiently and consistently educated the public that your wellbeing actually depends on participating in the global economy. We're a country of only 35 million people and we're still in the top 10, top 15 traders in the world. 40% of our GDP and that's not being a member of the EU flows from imports and exports to our economy. So yes, engagement, education, that virtually everyone's connected, you know? If I'm just sewing together some fabric that I ship down the road and the fellow down the road makes it into a band who then ships it to the next town and it becomes a seat belt and it goes from there to the larger center and enters into a car. He's 10 steps away from being an exporter but he's actually an exporter. So how do you get across that everyone's connected in this supply chain world becomes key? Equally so on standards. There's nobody, including business who's seeking to lower standards anywhere. The predictability is frankly pretty basic concepts of transparency and a rational basis for regulation. That's what we did at the borders, our trade facilitation, that's what these mutual recognition agreements are meant to do. You want to know that the little UE sticker on a toaster made in Europe is just as safe to plug into your socket as a UL sticker in the United States. That doesn't raise fundamental, sovereign social concerns if we walk people through it. You both agree and John implicitly in his question that that's gonna take some time in part because the toaster inspectors are gonna have to spend six months going through every electrical standard to say are they a match? And if not, can we change them and so on? And it's gonna be bottoms up and it's gonna be product by product and sector by sector because the auto people will be at a different table than the chemical people and so on. So it will be painstaking but that's a benefit in disguise because we get to educate ourselves and communities. That's a reassurance that your social choices are not at stake. As I tried to say earlier, what we're trying to do on behalf of society is to say you make your choice. Then turn to the experts and science to say how do you best enforce it and if you do it, do it in a nondiscriminatory way. It's not much more complicated than that. On the governance issue more generally, as I tried to say and maybe too quickly at the start, what this is all about is actually set out by very recently the sustainable development goals. What we're talking about by 2030 is that everyone has an economy that grows in a manner that is sustained economically, sustainable socially and sustainable environmentally. And if you dig down, number 17 says trade is a means to an end, not an end in itself. And trade follows investment, as you say, more than the other way around these days. We've been maybe too successful on the capital side. Trade is catching up to that. We're getting investment diversion and investment relocation because the investor will say, oh, you're part of this free trade area, that's a better place to invest. So we are distorting the decisions. We need to connect in effect those who are doing the trade rules with those who are doing the investment rules with, let me finish on this, what I might call the enabling sectors. Any society that wants to move out of agriculture into further along the supply chain, there's certain sectors that are the backbone for everything else that goes on in the economy. You need to generate energy, renewable or traditional. So you have to invest, this is your infrastructure. You need telecommunications and internet, wired or wireless. So there's a massive soft connectivity and infrastructure that's needed. You need the financial sector to actually intermediate and you need transport. And now that might belong in aviation over with the Chicago Convention or the maritime organization for shipping and so on, but you need to look at in a comprehensive way, have I given this economy the tools, not just for multinationals to come in but for my indigenous business to grow into connecting either to my neighborhood or more globally. We don't connect, we don't sit down between the WTO, the Bretton Woods and the panoply of UN agencies and regional organizations to say, let's do a comprehensive diagnostic of what it takes to put this country on a sustainable footing and can we coordinate and sequence in a manner that reassures the population, in a manner that gives the government the capacity to regulate and to listen to social choices domestically in doing so. What's needed is not the UN of everything but at least almost a central table for any recipient country or region. We've made sputtering attempts at that in the past, that needs to be renewed. It used to happen when Kamal was at the World Bank but then Turkey stole him and we've taken step backwards since. First of all, we already have six minutes, you know. Everybody has been a little late. Okay, I want to very brief two points I want to make. One is why people don't expect regulatory harmonization or convergence negotiation will be difficult because if you invite regulators rather than trade negotiators, they will talk to each other. But for what? For their own regulatory system, not for the beneficiaries like consumers or whatever. So the people or business people even don't trust this kind of government regulation anyway. If you, even though you switched the players from trade negotiator to regulators, so we don't give them any confidence in the negotiations. Second one is why so much resistance for against the TTIP or anything else? In our teacher international trade for many, many years, the benefits out of this trade liberalization or regulatory harmonization is quite big. But if you divide this game with the whole population, each person don't get any real feeling about the game. Then it's easy to listen to other people. This will not give you any help and this is not very good for this group, you know, that kind of thing. Then you cannot mobilize even beneficiaries into one voice. So it's really difficult. Ambassador Freed said you have to educate them, give more information, more SNS kind of efforts. That's the only thing we can do, but more and more the per citizen, gain per citizen is so small, it's quite asymmetric with other parties. So that's why we cannot get the convincing regulation negotiations or whatever, that's how we understand. All right, well, thank you very much. We've had really, I think, two panelists who have all their lives. Roy Zetow and Minister Tau and Ambassador Freed really worked, you know, on the broad picture, but also on the nuts and bolts of getting things done. And I think it's good to remember that of course we need the broad picture, we need the slogans, we need, you know, the big phrases, but unless we have real specialists and people who know really what they're talking about work together globally on the various dimensions of which trade and the wider field now of regulation is one, but also other fields. I think the same goes for many of the political things we discussed this morning, the same will go for the migration issue. Unless we have real leaders who are at the same time are people of substance, we won't make much progress. So we've had these two great people of substance, I think, this afternoon. And thank you very much. Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thank you.


Welcome to another episode of Frightfully Forgotten VHS Tales, but before we get started, what are you drinking? Today? I'm drinking Camp Crystal Lake Colch Yeah, what are you drinking? Wolf's Bane Bitter, still Today we're gonna bring to you a little VHS tale about Dragon the Bruce Lee story, which we now have kind of dubbed Dragon the Bullshit story.  I remember watching it Popped it in first of all you taped it on the the the super long-played SLP or whatever and the thing was like like watching it through a snowstorm Fucking green and shitty But I still love the movie loved it And how can you not love this movie as a kid?  Yeah, that's all it's all it's real Yeah Like let's just start from the beginning here like when he's what in Hong Kong or whatever and he fights those sailors This shirt gets all torn open. He's all strong and greasy He jumps on that table and eats that cheese like I'm sure that Yeah What he's fighting the guys all Like this typical Bruce Lee sounds like from the movies like why would you do that in real life? Yeah, you did that for the movies. Yeah for you know charisma, but a real fight No, I don't think so and then you like has to flee to America because of this fight Yeah, he's on that ship with all those other like sweaty Asian guys James D French fries guys limit. That's what they say that restaurant Fighting that restaurant. It's like yeah that happened. Yeah. Yeah Lee picking up Lee picking up and he gets to know fight with all these cooks in the restaurant And of course they all know kung-fu because they're a Yeah, exactly fighting on those beams On these support Meat cleavers. Yeah coming getting closer Balancing on those beams like yeah, right that never happened personally and fight on beams with chefs The set of that movie with it. You heard my brother. Yeah cat walk right? I got a dog right There's all that ice Punches through those giant ice blocks when he fights the guy so he can continue to teach the white white man Long Jack long Jack man. Yeah, that's a wicked fight and that fight took place in real life Like that's like that moment happened But it didn't happen in some weird hidden temple in China town of all these Master guy sitting there When he catches his leg in that his foot in his leg ribs Bruce Lee's all crippled Which apparently in real life he pulled his back really bad once without a commission He wasn't crippled from this fight in like traction for like months long Jack man For sure didn't show up, but the karate championships there. Yeah, challenge him again. I beat them if I'm I beat them again That never happened Man in his room in 60 seconds. Yeah.  He's like he auditioned for kung fu And didn't get the part because his English was not good enough So they gave it to my man David The whole thing about him fighting like that demon Is like internal demons or whatever?  He's all knocking his head against the wall and all that whole thing I guess they're trying to link this kind of Lee curse thing, you know cuz Because I guess you had to kill the demons so it doesn't get to Brandon But it did get to Brandon because Brandon Lee died.  Yeah, it's awesome Jason Scott Jason Scott Lee the the main lead who plays Bruce Lee. He's great.  He had real decent acting chops.  It's all a lie But still a very good still very enjoyable Exactly, so if you haven't seen that definitely check it out, but don't believe anything. Yeah And until next time keep drinking and pick it up


What kind of awareness are you seeing there where organizations, you know, they are like aware of that, hey, there are these kinds of risks or they just wake up only when they are actually attacked.  We're all looking for that. We're all trying to figure that out. But the one thing that was kind of another aha moment for me was as you're dealing with an attack, as you're focused on mitigation and recovery, other organizations, other criminal organizations are more likely to come in and attack you. So we saw that it's six times more likely to experience a secondary attack within three months of the initial attack. So I feel like, you know, if I just got through a big breach, you should give me a chance to rest, but that's not the reality. It's almost like as you're dealing with this crisis, you need to have part of your team focused on the next group trying to break in, because it is constant. And that to me really means we need to relook at our playbooks, we need to rethink, because having been involved in some incidents like that, you get very myopic focused. You're focused on this one crisis. And I think we have to train ourselves to not only focus on the current crisis, but look for the next upcoming attack. Thank you.


But now, you got a co-star from Gucci, man? Yeah. What? So what about the $100,000? Does that really matter? Money ain't no money. I'm a street n***a. Got five first degree felonies, lawyer fees, a car. A n***a ain't never had none. You got this, say, roughly 30,000 to play with.  Man, that money going to be gone by next week. Yeah, we on Boss Talk 101. It ain't about music at all. I think High Boy West learned that, though, by coming over here doing interviews with you.  I got a call from South Carolina. I got a call from South Carolina last night. A guy was like, man, I was sleeping on High Boy West till I started. He just called me out the blue. I didn't even know him. I was watching his page the other day. He doing all kind of, you know, TikToks.  And so that's why all the artists got to understand it's not about just rapping. People want to see your personality. So right now, if you didn't know High Boy West music, then, you know, at the end of the day, you watch his personality, then you go look at the music. Yeah. What do you think about him so far now that you've been, you've seen him because you didn't really pay attention to him at first, either, did you? Yeah, I, yeah, I forgot you to adopt it. You ain't playing no game. You was? Before I would call these people and people in white coat DJ Poseidon, who's that yelling to go over there? You know, uh, man, you know, I had my hands around him. He sound Gucci, man. Yeah. So we've been making $100,000 a month. Damn. You know how to do it. That's a bad-ass co-sign. That's why I was like, man, I mean, you know, it's a learning situation. You know, people got to get the right team around them and, you know, the right, uh, structure around them. But now you got a co-sign from Gucci, man? Yeah. What? So that, what about the $100,000? Does that really matter? Money ain't no money. I'm a street n***a. Got five first degree felonies, lawyer fees, a car, a n***a ain't never had none. You got, let's say, roughly, roughly 30,000 to play with.  Man, that money gon' be gone by next week. After you get a co-sign from Gucci, man, like that? It should've been so much money floating in that you wouldn't even have to worry about it to the end of the game. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, because it's an opportunity. Right when he signed to Gucci, man, that's $15,000 a show. $5,000 for a verse, $2,000 for a video. You should make, you send $7,000 for a verse in video, 10 videos a month, that's $70,000 just on a video. It's not including the shows. So, roughly, you should be right at $200,000 a month. Damn. Shows versus videos, not even including the Ash Cap and the Publisher Month. Man, you know, you've been through a lot to know that.  No, they don't.  If I knew my order sign in the month of 10, 17, I'd be on the way back on the plane. I'd be booking shows.  He had, in Chand, and after she walked away, you know, basically she left him when she caught the plane to go to 10, 17, he's on this show. He say, she left him, he didn't get to go. He was a manager, but he didn't get to go. Now, you know, no, Johnny Good, though, like, I explain to Johnny, Johnny right now is my top three artists working, artists in DFW right now. Oh, yeah? Yeah, he working, he got working a lot of people right now. As an artist, but not as a manager.  Why are you saying? Why? Huh? Why? Because...  Yeah, he need to be a manager. He's a executive, he's nice, he help, he be a executive producer. He a manager, he know, there's proper routes to take somebody to the top. But then he got burnt by enchanted. That's a lesson learned. Yeah, she didn't burn him as an artist and manager. She burnt him as a boyfriend. Cool, yeah, I thought, he said that too. But he said if he had to do it over again, he wouldn't change a thing, because he had a controller. Yeah, he had a controller. Right, that's what he said. He had a controller, but at the end of the day, you know, you know, you got to make your prison so filled that the artist understand what you mean to them when you not in their prisons. So there is a way that you can... Do it without... ...deal with a female artist... Yeah. ...without actually sleeping with them. It's hard, like, it's hard. I think that's why I'm going wrong, because I ain't sleeping with them.  So, you know, he might get jealous like, bro, I just need to keep calling late at night. So she stop answering the phone for you. And you know, it's kind of... It's difficult, like, you know what I'm saying? Like a female artist manages a female artist as a male manager, the female artist is difficult, because if that female artist don't understand the game playing and understand the assignment, then it's pointless. But you as a male manager, I think that in business period, you're supposed to know the game. When I say know the game, you're supposed to have a female assistant with you that she don't want to making those calls to those female artists be like, yeah, I learned it.


So we can go ahead and get started. So welcome everybody to our information privilege two point of workshop. Hopefully you watched our information privilege workshop from last semester before attending this session. But if you didn't have a chance to do that. Don't worry I'm sure you will still be able to get a lot of useful things from our session that we have planned today. If you want to go to the next slide Brittany will go ahead and introduce ourselves. I am Brittany Norwood. I go by the pronoun she hers and hers. I'm a commons librarian so you'll often see me at the public services desk or I might be helping you out on chat. And my email is norwoodbr at utk.edu. And my name is Leah Valletta I use she her pronouns as well and I am the GTA in the teaching and learning programs department over in the Hodges library and my email is also listed if you have any questions after today. So today we will be covering how information privilege impacts scholarship and academia and how it impacts your life as a student. How information privilege is tied to information poverty so kind of the other side of the coin there and then how you can address information privilege. And so we're just going to do a quick refresher from last semester's session and I just wanted to add to if anyone has anything that they want to say any comments. Any questions anything like that feel free to throw it into the chat and we would be happy to address it we know that information privilege has a lot of different applications and people's lives so we're always happy to hear people's thoughts. But today we're going to just kind of quickly go over the concept of privilege generally so I know that in our last session. We went a bit deeper into this and we talked about intersectionality and sort of how different aspects of your privilege come together. So we're just going to review with a couple of quotes that we presented in the last session so the first one is about privilege so privilege is the advantages opportunities rights and affordances granted by status and positionality via class gender race culture sexuality occupation institutional affiliation and political perspective, and that's coming from char booth and she's written extensively on information privilege. And we've also got a quote from the activist genia Khan he says privilege isn't about what you've gone through. It's about what you haven't had to go through. We want to go on to the next slide. So, how does that concept of privilege relate to information privilege. So information privilege is the idea that geography, social class and other parts of a person's unique identity will impact their ability to access quality information. Alright, so what does this mean for you as a college student. So, while all students at UT are coming from various backgrounds and various places of information privilege. For example, some students might have grown up without access to the internet so that would be a huge barrier. Some might have come from schools with huge extensive libraries within their high school so everyone's kind of coming to college with different backgrounds and different levels of privilege, but all students at UT are granted some degree of information privilege as students at a big research institution. So before we get into what those privileges are I'm just going to pose a question for you to think about. If anyone wants to wager a guess you're welcome to pop it in the chat. So I'm going to pose the question to you of how much money do you think is spent at UT libraries actually specifically UTK each year on information so this would just be books, database access we're not including building operations and salaries so we'll just let everyone think about that for a couple seconds. So we've got a guess of 2 million that's a good guess. We're going to just have a drum roll for the grand reveal if you want to click the next button Brittany. So it is 12 million approximately we've got the full number here and a breakdown of how of each type of information that we spend money on so 12 million. All I'm saying is a lot of money, and that is just providing access to this information so it is a huge privilege to be a college student here at UT and to be able to access these materials to interact with them to look through them all of that is really great. So why these materials cost so much money would take up an entire workshop of its own so we're not too into that. Feel free to reach out to anyone at the library though if you're curious. But the basics of it is that this information has a lot of value and we're paying a lot of money to be able to provide access to it for people who are part of our community. There is this huge amount of money that spent on materials there are also a lot of other elements at play. So, part of academic privilege is also the fact that your professors are available to answer questions for you that you have sort of experts at your disposal on a variety of topics. Your email address is part of your academic privilege, being able to send an email from a dot edu account kind of will allow you access to certain things that you might miss if you didn't have the same institutional credentials. If you want to go on to the next slide Brittany. Okay, so why are we bringing this up. I just want you to be aware of this privilege so you can properly appreciate it and take advantage of these resources that are available to you while you're here. I definitely do not mean to imply that you know this is some magically granted privilege that you have it's not luck. You're not somehow spoiled by these academic resources that you pay a lot of money to access these resources. And so just think it's important that we have a clear understanding of what you have access to what you're paying for as a student and kind of the opportunities that you have while you're here. And so we thought we'd add in that as a student. I don't have access to these materials but you will lose access after graduation.  And a lot of your database access will not be available to you after graduation, which is just something we want to let students know. Another thing that we just wanted to bring up is, you might be thinking like what about Google Scholar Google Scholar provides tons of access to academic materials for anybody who has an internet connection. You don't have access for access, but a lot of a lot of what you can find on Google Scholar is just letting you know that an article exists and won't necessarily provide you the full text without connecting your Google Scholar account to the library account at the university. I provided a link here just so that you can see we have like a little tutorial on how to do that in case you haven't done that before but that can be really helpful but it's still only granting you that access because you're a student, you would hit paywalls otherwise. And so I will leave you with this question before Brittany goes into the flip side of information privilege is and she's going to get into this a little bit more but if you're given a research assignment at your job after you've left utk. I just asked you to think like, where would you go to find information for that research project. Where would you go to find quality information for that research project or peer reviewed information and how would you know if it was quality information. So on that note, I will pass it over to Brittany and she is going to tell us a little bit more about information poverty. Thank you Leah. That is an excellent introduction. So yeah, now I'm going to start talking about the other side of the coin, so to speak, which is information poverty. Brits defines information poverty as that situation in which individuals and communities within a given context, do not have the requisite skills, abilities or material means to obtain efficient access to information, interpret it, apply it appropriately. So, I know that's a lot that they're at you at once so let's break this down. There are several different aspects information poverty, several different systematic and structural issues that tie into it. Unfortunately, we don't have the time to go into as much depth that as I would like. So I'm focusing on three of the most common tenants that work together. And although not all of these things have to be present for you to be information poor. They often work together and a type of system to keep people information poor. So, first of all, people who are an information poverty are unable to access information communication technologies for ICTs, or they don't understand how to use the ones available to them. And ICT in its most basic sense is the technology that you use to communicate with others. So it can be your laptop, your phone, it could even be things like the TV or the me or the newspaper. And the information sciences literature though ICT also refers to places where you can go to access information or to share it. So this can also mean that your public library would be considered an ICT and an ability to access that can be considered contributed several factors can contribute to this. So not only is there maybe an economic standpoint to it, everyone can afford a phone or a laptop. There can be a graphic barriers where you live you might not be able to get internet, even if you could. There are other potential barriers in place so it might be the case that a person only has two days off a week, and those days are days in which their local library is closed. So even though they technically have access to a library in their area, they aren't able to use it. You cannot understand how to use the ICTs that are available to them. So, you know, this is the obvious example is, you can have a computer. If you don't know how to use a computer, how to connect it to the internet, and where to go to start your searching for your information, then you're not going to have much luck getting the information you need from that. But there's also a different definition of understanding how to use ICTs. So, most people understand that your public library is a place where you can go to grab the reading materials. Everyone knows that they can also have a lot of good information to help you with your everyday life or problems like how books on how to fill out your taxes or maybe some local city planning documents. If you're wanting to put up solar panels and you're needing to know about the codes. If you don't know that this is a feature that your ICTs have, then you don't fully understand how you can apply them to your everyday life. Secondly, information poverty can be defined as having a scarcity to quality information. And that's combined with having a surplus of low quality information. So, if any of you have ever tried to access articles off campus, or you've run into across an article that we don't have here at the library, you may have seen a screen that looks like this. So, this is called a paywall. And to be considered that a lot of money to access an article. This is one of the cheaper ones that I've seen. And also the 24 hour period to download the article after you bought it is a lot more than I've seen other journals use. So, even though this one, I don't think that this is a fair price. I also know that there's a lot worse out there. Now, part of your privilege of being a part of our library system is if you weren't able to access this, and we didn't own it in our subscriptions, you could go through our Interlibrary Services Program and request it from another library. More than likely, they would be able to get it and send it to you. And you would be fine. You could use this article if you needed to in your project. And if you got it, you realize that if you didn't need it, then you didn't pay the 3750 for it. However, not everyone has that privilege. A lot of people who only have access to the local public libraries might not be able to do this because the library might not do Interlibrary Services Program. Or the libraries that they do share books with might not have access to these journals or might be in a contract where they can't share or digitize these articles and send them to other places. So that can make it significantly harder for people to get access to the information they need, especially if they can't pay the price. And remember, this is for one article. Think about how many sources you use in your typical research paper. That can add up really quickly.  Think about how many articles you've downloaded that after looking into them, you realize, oh, this doesn't fit with my project at all. If that happens to somebody who's having to pay for these articles, that can be a lot more painful, honestly, for what they're needing to work toward. So in addition to having quality information, that's more difficult to access potentially through a paywall or because people don't know where to go to find it, or it could be written using jargon that they're not familiar with. People are also surrounded by a surplus of low quality information. Now, this is what we pretty much deal with in our everyday life. You probably have a few people on social media, you know, who share ever they found on whatever random quarter internet, and they believe it to be true. That is an example of low quality information. It's free or cheap. It's easily accessible. If you Google something, it's probably going to come pretty close to one of the top of the list. And often these are, they can, they play on your emotions, so they can be very upsetting or they can make you enraged or scared. And sometimes these are clickbait articles or they don't accurately depict the nuance of a topic. So while you can't access quality information that you would need to be able to make decisions, you're also being annoyed with misinformation or disinformation. When you combine those together, that can create a really scary situation. And a third concept tied into information poverty is low information literacy. So not only does it mean that perhaps somebody doesn't know how to assess the credibility of what they're looking at. So, you know, they might not know to go through the references or to check for references. They might not know how to fact check what the article has said. They might not know to look at other sources to see if there's a consensus or at least a pattern of similarities. But it can also mean that people can read something or access something and not know how to apply it to their everyday life. So here it's a really overly simplified example of that. Think about a time that you've accessed an article for a paper. You started reading it and you realize the information is flying straight over your head. It's not something that you understand. Since you're a student here at UTK, there's a pretty good chance that that's not going to be too detrimental. You can go forth, find other articles, maybe they can help you build up your skill enough so that you can read that one eventually. It's not always the case that everybody else, obviously, as I've talked before about paywalls, but this situation of having information and not understanding how to apply it or not understanding it. When it comes to low information literacy and how that ties into information poverty, that can mean that this is something that is chronic and it happens systematically. And here is kind of a real life example that was sent to us when we were working on this presentation. As you may or may not be aware, a lot of articles about COVID-19 and the different vaccines that are being developed are being placed behind paywalls. So that's obviously a significant barrier to access for the average person. They come between having to pay for your rent or food or learning about the COVID vaccine. There are other needs that are more pressing than paying for this article. On top of that, there is so much low quality information, including straight up disinformation out there about these vaccines. And if you can't pay for the higher quality trustworthy reliable information, and you only have access to stuff that is really heavily skewed when we are another, then you're not going to be able to make educated informed decisions about what's going to be best for you. And in fact, you may be deceived into making a decision that could be extremely detrimental to your health. So that is one of the big real life consequences of information poverty. So now that I've probably depressed you a little bit, we're going to talk about what you can do to help address information, privilege and poverty. First of all, remember to be aware of your own privilege. Right now, you have access to a ton of information and people who are willing to help stand it. This doesn't mean that you're going to be able to know how to do everything. It doesn't mean that you have to work hard to understand it. But it does mean that you already have a leg up on a lot of other people. You already have privilege. And the more you become aware of this and the more that you understand that you are in a situation that is completely abnormal for a lot of other people. Then the more likely you are going to be aware when you notice some more likely are to be aware that there are some policies and procedures out there that do keep people information poverty. They also keep you an information privilege. Something can do, first of all, is to be mindful of your publishing. So consider where you're publishing. Does this journal charge exorbitant rates for articles? Is it at least partially open access? Will it let you keep ownership of your work? Are you going to be allowed to deposit in a repository? On top of that, consider publishing in an open access journal if that's a possibility for you at all. Because these journals still are often committed to providing high quality reliable information that can be peer reviewed. They try to do so without paywalls, which means that people who are able to access the internet in some way should be able to read them for free. And there are some negatives, of course, to open access. You can read about those yourself, but it's right now a really great opportunity for you. It's a really great option to help mitigate some of this inequity. And lastly, work towards raising awareness and advocating for change. If you notice that there is a policy in place or a system that is keeping important information away from people, talk about it. Ask other people if they notice it. It could be the case that this is something that an organization has always been done. And when you bring it up, the light bulb might click and the person who's in charge of the situation and they say, oh, you're right, let's work on changing this. If that doesn't happen, keep talking to more people. See if you can get enough people on board to start addressing the issue. Because the more people that you have on your side, the more likely you are to be able to come up with actual plans where you can legitimately change things and address these systems. So I want to talk to you now about a real life example of this. In Baltimore. During the pandemic, a lot of students had to start taking classes completely at home over zoom. And many of these students who were from low income families were using the Comcast Internet Assembly plan. And although this plan claimed that it provided students with the internet access they needed to be able to do their classes. Students often found that this was not at all the case for doing zoom or video calls. And they also found out that if there's more than one person in the household, who's having to use the internet so maybe you have a couple of brothers and sisters who are needing to do their classes at the same time as you. Then, none of you might have been able to attend your schoolwork or attend school do your work. So, these students started talking to each other. And they raised the issue with other people in their school and the administrators. And this eventually started to get the attention of some high profile people in their community, including local politicians and public figures who were even more prestigious. And with all of this. All of this and all of this together. They were able to impact Comcast and met base Comcast significantly raised the bandwidth without increasing the price. And while it's still in a perfect solution. The students still believe that they needed more. It ended up making things significantly better for people. So, by, first of all, talking with each other, making other people aware of the issue, and then working together to try and plan things out you can actually make these changes. So, here we have quite a few potential recommended readings we wanted to give you plenty of choices. That way, if you started reading something and it didn't work for you, then maybe you could have a couple other options. And yeah, feel free if you want to look in more into this topic to go through this list. And this is the link to our survey, you want to go ahead and let out feel free. And join us next Monday on March 22 for algorithmic bias 2.0. And then there is the link to our full schedule. Do we have any questions?


Hi everyone, Joe for jashbyscasebreaks.com with a full case break of 2023 tops luminaries baseball This is pick your team one just dropped today big. Thanks to this group This group who bought their team straight up here on a Wednesday. Appreciate you Okay, you ended up a double-ass bot mojo before we pulled the remaining team for that random number block There are the results of that we did that in a separate video So it's a serial number break, but applying only to those teams right there Here is the case right over here. I think Pop this case open and there's all the luminaries right there empty box You got a giant tower of luminaries right here. So you have one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve All boxes accounted for one in case auto or autograph relic per box not on average It is a lot of box for one car. I wonder if this has Are these cars just naked or is there a cover on it? There is first one out of the gate is Is a one-of-one Garrett Mitchell The Brewers were one of the teams that were just sitting there. Remember when we were doing that mini promo And the Brewers were just sitting there Forever until Chad grab them Last spot mojo Chad with the Brewers All aboard the Big Head Express It's a good way to start it. All right next one next one is six out of ten It is Albert pools Nice Oldest with seven home runs in a 10 game span back in 2022 Nice, that'll go to the Cardinals Cardinals are a random number block team. We go by that digit right there St. Louis 6 It's gonna be for John. That's right. I was provoked it go to a high school In the Kansas City area Jilos high school third coolest guy out of Kansas City behind you and Mahomes Mahomes Gilo Albert Pujols pretty good company. All right next up is a two out of ten Two out of ten Christian Yelich Nobody wanted the Brewers Until Chad got him later on It kind of does look like that and we got a two out of five JJ Bladet Marlins Logan with the Marlins It's first home run Nice Logan All aboard the Big Head Express 12 out of 15 12 out of 15 Jose Ramirez Number four home run total by third baseman between 2017 and 2022 very specific stat right there But but he can't hit him William with the Guardians Cleveland. This is for you What was the the Yelich? Was six hit Six hit game with the cycle. I feel like Yelich kind of got back on track a little bit last year. Did he not? Maybe I'm making that up. I should have had the best hook through. I think that's in leaf boxing. All right next 12 out of 15. Can anyone guess the auto just by that little sliver right there? Any guesses? Just by that little sliver and then we're halfway through the through the case To tease maybe No, it's Ronald Acuna, Jr. Jorge. Nice. I think he called it before I revealed it Nice patch in there as well Your number one braves career lead-off Homer total Nice. It's pretty good All right onwards. All right next one is 10 out of 15 I like the design of this luminaries this year Kind of leaning into that cosmic space sort of look they've done with some sets It is Fred Lynn Red Sox Nice number one ale average in 1979 Boston Boston's in a random number block team. So that'll go to Boston zero, which will be for John Kevin calling Acuna, but much much too late. We might be lagging behind a little bit But maybe at the time guessed it, right? Do we give him credit for that? I'm not sure Never know with lagging now if it was Rex, we definitely not believe him. Kevin was a bit behind I'll give you credit for it. Kevin. All right Next one can anyone Tell who this player is by their elbow and And and his his bottom his backside and his skin tone Blue Jays for sure, right? Yeah, that's got to be Vladdy. Kevin. There's Rex for the Cunha dude Kevin Jorge not behind guessing that behind It is indeed Vlad Guerrero, Jr. Three out of 15 We know we know that but anywhere Two-color patch and silver ink autograph Toronto is a random number block team a spark of light autograph patch card. That sounds cool That goes to three Toronto three and I think that's Eugene Eugene on the board All it takes is one spot ladies and gentlemen all it takes is one All right.  Kind of a shadow there, so it's sort of hard to see and they're red glove Gilo lights but so should we try to reveal a but right here? No, it's Brian Bale right here that revealed itself four out of ten That's masters of the mound what no hit no home runs allowed in his first 44 and a third innings That will be oh, that's another red sock by the way And that's four out of ten that'll be for John with the number four He's got all the numbers except for three. We got another case in the store boys and girls if you want to get in on it It's not in a serial number thing just yet. So if some people snag some teams We're still at 20 left I'd love to see that get closer to single digits before we even think about some sort of serial number Makes the serial number a little less expensive For don't give up yet plate of the whistle. We still have three boxes left. All right Can someone guess by this person's hand? They're batting glove 9 out of 15. Do we get a little uniform color here? I'm sure what that is Yeah, Matt, I can link that case right now. No no guesses Hey, I was I was gonna say Buxton to it kind of kind of looked like maybe a Minnesota sleeve, but it's a Houston Uniform it's Alex Bregman That's gonna be Steve Locke and the Astros a hit King's honor. That's his career hit total All right, two more to go. Did everyone see don't don't peak don't peak. All right 11th autograph 9 out of 10 it's a rookie you got That right there we got looks like the Detroit script right there It's Riley green nice That would have been funny Danny two hits his first Major League Baseball game that's gonna go to Detroit Detroit's number block team 9 out of 10 Detroit 9 It's gonna be for John All right final one. All right box 12. Good luck everybody 2 out of 15. It's a hitter And someone tell by it looks like he's finishing a swing We like to have fun here folks Can you and tell by just that finish right there? Got a diamond backs logo up there. It is Alec Thomas spark of light autograph Yeah, I was I was thinking Carol But no two out of 15 Once I kind of saw the face I was like, ah But still a solid player that's going to go to John and the diamond backs. There you go ladies gentlemen That's luminaries pretty nice stuff leaning into the sort of the luminaries theme right there Luminance lights Spark of light so on and so forth sort of a space cosmic kind of theme. So there you have it another team in the or another break Loaded up pick your team to 20 teams left check it out. Jasper's case breaks calm. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next one