So, we had three very interesting presentations, and now it's time for questions, discussions, comments, suggestions. We take a few and then the panel will reply. Alright, so as a natural resource and environmental economist, listening through all three presentations is like my environment part of my brain just keeps going up. So, I will start with ethnic inequality. If you observe global use, you realize that, for example, in many developing countries, the nomadic people are usually at the north of the country where they have the poorest quality land. So, they live in less favorable agricultural land and that in itself is inequality, right? So, to fix that structurally, how would you account for those geographical people are poor just because of where they are placed and in the US to the same thing with the Native Americans, right? They are also found on poor agricultural lands. So, basically, agriculture will not be the thing they can do. So, basically, national policies to address inequality on the ethnic part may have to look at how to improve geographical things, maybe improving infrastructure in those areas, I don't know, because those areas lack water and stuff like that. Also, the Human Development Indicator Index. I find that very exciting, like the whole presentation, all three of you, was very exciting. But I think the idea of the assumption of a long and healthy life life is a very strong assumption to include in the Human Development Indicator. My research has shown that developing countries are disproportionately affected by environmentally related issues. For example, health risks that are associated with water pollution, air pollution, force for users like charcoal and firewood. We see a lot of mortality from there. The World Bank actually estimated that about 24 percent of global debt can be linked to the environment. So, basically, we can have, let's say a country is supposed to have a life expectancy for 65 years, but the quality of that life expectancy reduces which in turn affect the Human Development Indicator. So, how do you intend to account for the quality of life expectancy in that given the disproportionate effect from the environment? And also, my issue again was that when you were presenting, you talked about the fact that we might need social safety net to reduce poverty for old people, right? But when we look at developing countries, that still come back to the point that a lot of people live in poverty because of where they live. I grew up in Ghana, right? You have poor quality water, no toilet facility and all of that. So, even if you have a safety net, the government distributes like $500 a month. You still have things from your environment that literally cuts down the money because you have a physical money, but the experience money you get is low because infrastructure in where you live is less developed. And most people, most old people in developing countries live in the villages. So, they don't experience the infrastructure development in the urban centers. So, basically, there is something to consider as well. Yeah, those are my questions. Thanks. And also, thank you for having a LNOB session in a quality conference because actually, we do get a lot of opposition between the two. And I don't think that's true. So, it was great to have the session. A clarification question for Martha, if you look at plus 80 in some of your graphs, I was just wondering what is the relevance of that threshold for developing countries, actually, when we see that they are... I was actually looking at the numbers and it's ridiculously low for Africa, for instance, and I don't know how that would look for it if you increment it. And for Hereto, thank you so much. It was very interesting for us because we have been thinking a lot about these issues. And I have two questions. One is more... Have you tried to look at how this correlates with, let's say, municipal level poverty rates? Because you do have a lot of spatial mapping of poverty. And it would be interesting to have a look at the two. But also, what does this tell us? What would an HDI, I don't know, municipal level indicator tell us? And how would you then link it to policymaking? Because you said that the HDI is used to classify countries. Now, how does this then impact the action? And on inequality, because you said that you were looking into expanding it to inequality. Is it the HDI corrected by inequality? Or are they specific inequality indicators? And in that case, would you be looking at inequality within, let's say, municipal boundaries or what type of indicator? Thanks. Yeah, thank you for a fabulous session. I'll just follow up on where Anna was talking about, the local level municipal. There are a lot of census data available for download from EPUMS. And so one of the things one could do a little bit is, and you've got provincial poverty things. So one could think about some of the local area estimation things on the census data to generate more local level indicators. That was just a thought on the first paper. Wonderful paper. I was thinking about the equivalent scales a little bit. Because you use the OECD and OECD adjusted or something, right? Which are that doesn't exhaust the scope of equivalent scales, but yet they make a difference. They're not that far apart that they make a difference. So I was interested in that because other equivalent scales would be much more different to that, like a per capita, for example. And then you told us how the single person household was crucial, actually. So it seems as though these household dynamics are quite important. And I was wondering whether it wouldn't be worthwhile pushing that a little bit. And maybe your equivalent scales give you some sort of framework, at least some sense of what's important there. And then, of course, you're using the relative poverty line. And I was wondering about any sensitivity test for some sort of deprivation approach. To certain developing countries, that would be quite important, I think. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Thank you. I mean, first of all, thank you very much for some very interesting presentations. Some of it is extremely exciting in terms of thinking about what's going to happen and so on. And it's obviously great to see that the Human Development Report Office actually managed to survive. And that's great that this kind of work is now inserted into it, that's for sure. One thing that I'm kind of particularly pondering about, I was wondering whether you might want to comment on that. And it relates a little bit to what has already been said by Murray. Some work that has been ongoing has been trying to establish to which extent when we are estimating poverty, we are getting it wrong when we are using censuses and households, surveys and so on that are, by definition, outdated when we are doing our analysis and whether that actually matters. And the work we have so far been able to come up with is that it actually suggests that it does matter a lot because basically when you try to use the satellite images and so on and then try to make estimates of poverty, then it shows up that it has actually significantly changed as compared to when you use the census data. And I was kind of wondering, and that maybe adds, it's a little bit along the lines of what we're sort of asking, why do you jump straight into the HDR, I mean, sorry, Human Development Index? I mean, why not, for example, start with a poverty where you have quite a developed kind of set of estimations and so on? And you would actually then also be able to get kind of into an area which is sitting very crucially in relation to the SDG-1. So I'm just sort of thinking about this and I'm not having a very clear, but these are some thoughts that come to mind. And if I may just sort of add that I think it's extremely fascinating to be thinking about these tools because, I mean, from some of my own experience, I mean, we've been trying to take what are established as poor areas at a very low disaggregated level in individual countries and then actually trying to understand, are they actually going to be harder hit by climate change as compared to richer areas? And I just want to make one statement. That's still an active area of research. We still don't know. I mean, that doesn't mean that the poor areas are not in areas which are today worse off. I mean, that is completely agreed, but it's not an established fact yet that those areas will be the ones that will be warmer, et cetera, et cetera, when we look into the future. That's still an open question. And what that tells me is that, I mean, trying to get that right is extremely important for policy, right? Because you want to somehow with the evidence to be ahead of the policymaking process. So if you can be ahead of that process, then you might actually be able to be very effective when you as a researcher come up to the policymaker while we established this three years ago and then you can start feeding it in. So I don't know whether this makes sense, but I hope it. Well, I have also a few questions, quick question, first to Rachel. I was wondering, I mean, probably you have followed the question about the referendum of the new constitution in Chile, no? And one of the hot topics that probably produced the result of rejection of the constitution was precisely this multinational definition of the country, that generated rejection on the non-indigenous population. And yeah, so it's like, to what's your opinion? So to what extent these kind of multinational definitions of the state is a good idea, could help to integrate the, or better improve the living conditions of in this case, indigenous people, or on the opposite, could create more divisive lines within a country, and maybe at the end could be have a negative effect. Maybe depends on the proportion of the indigenous population over the total, maybe it's very different, no? Chile from Bolivia in that case, because it's a small minority, but yeah, what that your opinion. And the second one, because I think you mentioned at the moment that some programs were not very effective, in terms of reducing horizontal inequalities. I was remembering one case a long time ago, or that can produce negative effects in some cases. It's the case of Malaysia. And I remember being, I was there, and since I'm also very interested in these ethnic things, I bought in the library two books, almost randomly about ethnicity, and it could be, they were both on ethnicity in Malaysia, and it looked like they were talking about two different countries. Why? One was written by a Chinese person, and the other one by Malaysian. And of course, one uses the perspective of this new economic policies, how the problem is called, is an affirmative action program that is improving the living conditions of the majority, but disadvantaged population. And on the other hand, the view of someone that became my ethnicity, because we have a foreign origin, we are not considered citizens in this country, even if we are here for several generations. And the case of improving some things sometimes implies worsening other, maybe in this case improving one ethnic minority. The majority implies generating maybe some alienation of other groups that even if they are affluent groups, they still can be discriminated in many states. And probably maybe this would relate also with Marta. I was thinking also some trade-offs when you look at, you think in terms of age, and probably it's because a big part of what resource to find is in some countries having weak social protection for the elderly. But I was thinking also in some cases, it could be that improving the social protection of the elderly since has to be funded in some way could be increasing the burden for the young generations. And usually at both extremes is where to find highest poverty, because you have higher poverty among children that typically is because they live in households, relatively young households with nothing, et cetera. So to what extent do you think there is also, maybe it's more in rich countries where the social protection is bigger and the proportion of the older population is bigger that increasing the social protection of one group implies maybe increasing the burden for the younger generation. So now we are open around, maybe we go this order. Thank you. I don't think we have a lot of time, so I'm gonna try to, and I speak slowly, so things, I can answer more things in the coffee, but it's very important to maybe to come back to the origin of the human development index. So we know it's a very imperfect index, so we try to use some complementary things. But the idea is that it's like the entry point is the door of the house of human development. And therefore this allow us to start thinking about this question and then develop the tools to answer those questions. And I think this is what is in a way inspiring our work. So why human development index and not starting with poverty? Because it gives us the opportunity to capture the attention of people and if we can get it right, if we can provide something that we know is not perfect, has problems, but helps us to go one step ahead, then I think it would allow us to open a door that we think it's very important to open. So there are many ways in which this can be used and I'm not gonna go into details, but I think the key topic is that the world is changing fast and we have a lot of information about that at a geophysical level. So there are models, there are observations, there are models that give us information about what is expected to happen in the future and we are really lagging behind, measuring what is happening with social variables at a distributed level. So even for the SDGs, for very basic indicators, we are lagging behind. So this is a way of generating a new generation of data that we know is not perfect, but that would allow us to start saying thing and looking at the interactions with the geophysical variables. So that is what is inspiring us and we are planning to use more census data because in some cases it allow us to give very good training data for these models, but also to be able to address what happens with countries that haven't had a good census in decades. So we can generate data for that. And what's next? Many types of inequalities, just territorial inequality, just looking at these syndicators is straightforward to jump into that. But also we can do inequalities for different variables, income inequality, we can capture it through this type of analysis and certainly poverty. So I take advantage of what you need to say in October 17th, we are going to be launching a new report on multi-dimensional poverty. So we plan to cover also those aspects, but for us this is just the entry point. Okay, so I don't know your names, I'm sorry, but your question, Angela, thank you, Angela. So yes, I think you pointed to the importance of infrastructure particularly, and that has been an omission from my presentation, my fault, infrastructure and services to different things that are very important. My omission I think is due to the fact that this is one report in a series that has focused on different aspects of inequality in the past. And in this case, we were asked to work on population aging and older people, and this was new. So what I have emphasized in the presentation, what's more new, which is some pension systems, for example, and social protection. But in the report, we do refer a lot to services especially and infrastructure. I've mentioned that older persons face spatial and social barriers that preclude their participation and a way to overcome these spatial barriers is obviously through the right infrastructure and services. So it's addressed, and I'm sorry, I didn't mention it. One thing though, let's talk about social protection, and I repeat what Ocampus said yesterday. No social safety, and that's pretty social protection. It's a different thing. Then there was a question about the 80 plus, numerical relevance. Obviously the percentage of people who are 80 and older is still small in developing countries. The proportion is growing, but let's go again to the relative versus absolute. The absolute number of people who are 80 and over in developing countries is very large. And again, it's going to be growing. So I think it's relevant to pinpoint. This is not the main finding in our report. It's just one that I happen to highlight here. But it's important, I think, to highlight that these are people who are in need of special attention because a very blatant deficiency when it comes to aging and older persons is long-term care. And these are the populations that are most affected by the lack of formal long-term care programs, for example, as an example. From Murray, the equivalent scales, yes, you picked on the... So I think if I know correctly, the three main equivalent scales, you start the square root scale, which is not only OECD, it's increasingly used everywhere. This OECD modified scale, which the OECD is no longer using anymore. And then the per capita scale, which I skipped in purpose because I think the World Bank is still using it in many cases. I think it's less accurate than realistic to assume that no matter the size of the households, the costs are proportional to the number of people in the households. But if you wanna know, yes, the estimates differ even more if you use the per capita equivalent scale. So, yes, it's true. And then I think there was a question related to that on the living arrangements. Yes, we're going to prepare another report on that because we realize that that's a separate problem and we are going to elaborate. And then on the relative poverty line versus the absolute poverty, I don't know if it was Finn or you, but we were going to compare globally people. So for developed countries, the absolute poverty line as used around the world is not very relevant. The numbers would have been very small. That's why we use a relative poverty line. We look at absolute poverty too. The findings are a little bit different when it comes to absolute poverty. The older persons are maybe less disadvantaged, but there there's also the fact that the poorer die earlier. So there's a selection effect that happens by which the people who are poorest may have disappeared by the time they reach the age of 70. That's just one factor. Finn, I don't think there was a rest for me. And then Carlos on the trade offs, right? Oh, okay. I was anticipating. Empirically, because that's a question that we thought maybe as there is no evidence of this happening. There is no evidence of expenditure on young people or children being reduced because more resources have to be devoted to older persons. There is none. And I think it's because we often think, I think it was to where Rachel was saying, we think of like this is not like a limited box and there's an equation that is made to see what you spend. There's all these politics involved and there's all these constituencies that will defend educational expenditure. And it's unlikely that countries will reduce educational expenditure just because they can't afford it because I know there's lots of older people now. I think that two are decided through separate processes. So there's no evidence of this happening anywhere. Thanks for the question. So first for Angela's question. I mean, I think it raises first a great point that we need to think also about the source of the ethnic inequality. So is it, do we see ethnic inequality because of active discrimination and exclusion and repression and that's certainly a case in many places or is it coming more out of just, it happens to be that certain groups live in areas that are more remote and they have less access to services and markets. And I think that's certainly something that needs to be figured, taken into account when you think about what sort of policy would work. And certainly a part of the story is bringing state services to remote populations. That's certainly a part of the story in a lot of countries. So in point, very well taken. And then I guess the other question for me, Carlos, and I should have highlighted in the presentation that I mean, I have some work on group-based inequality and we've been hearing all about Carlos's work on the weed and on inequality generally, but he also works a lot on group-based inequality. And so we have several sets of work at wider on group-based inequality. But on the questions, I mean, I guess I don't know of Chile really, really well. I mean, I'm sympathetic in one sense to the value of inclusion when you've had historic exclusion, that I think there's some real symbolic value to signaling inclusion on the basis on which people have been excluded. On the other hand, I think it's really concerning the implications of sort of incentivizing ethnic identification and distributional conflict along ethnic lines. I think that's a real challenge. And maybe that's not so much a question with the Constitution. So I suppose with the Constitution, I would favor more the inclusion approach, but when you think about other policies, I think this risk of incentivizing ethnic distributional debate is really problematic. On Malaysia, we have a world expert on Malaysia in the audience. I would refer the specific questions about Malaysia to him, but certainly I think as the Malaysia case illustrates, I mean, any kind of discussion about this stuff gets very polarizing very quickly and it really incentivizes that polarization to be along ethnic lines, which is why the ethnically targeted policies get so tricky. But on the other hand, it's when you have ethnic inequality because of legacies of discrimination, then it's hard to get around addressing them directly. So that's a messy answer to a good question. Okay, thank you very much. So we ran out of time. So that's a big applause for the presenters.


Felly i ni'n amliwedd ar ôl y dyfodol inclanc gymwyl ar yr acio gyda Bee'r Rhaidon y byddarrion voila yn cynnig. Fe ywrechtr gilydd yr adeiladau lleion o'r listau yng Nghymru a gwleidio cydaethol. Felly mae'r ll menthau llan. Ymddangos ar hyn oedd holl o'r lluniau hwn, mae roi llan hwn o gyd yn gallu gallu lluniau hwn. Mae hwn o'r lluniau llan hwn o'r lluniau hwnnw. Mae'n gwybod nhw wedi'i lluniau llan hwnnw. Mae'n oed yn cyfnod ar gyfnod yn ymweld sy'n cyfnod. Mae'r cyfnodau yn cyfnod yn rhoi, a'r cyflod yn ymweld. Mae'n oed yn ei gweithio, ac mae'n gydig iawn yn gyflod yn cyffredinol. Mae'r cyfnod yn ymweld yn y pryd yma, yn ymweld yn y cael ychydig i'u cyflod. Mae'r cyflod yn cyfnod yn cyfnod, gan nhw'n gyflod yma. Mae'r cyfnod ar gyfer yma yma yn cyfnod, yma'r cyflod yn cyfnod yn cyfnod yn cyfnod yma. ym mhwy o'r fath, yna'n ddwy'r ffrif o'r darthysgu, felly mae'n ffrif hwn yn ddwy'n ddwy'n ddweud y pwyllfa'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy. A'r ddwy'n ddwy yn rhaid i ddwyllus'u ddwy. Ond o'r ddwy'n gwybod ar y ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy, rwy'n ddwy i'w fath i'r cyfnodol ar y dyfu'r busys ymwysig ym y ddweud, ond yn fawr cyngor y byddwn yn ddechrau. Yn byddai'r gweithio gan flynyddu o hytio fel gwrdd ma pseudwyr ar draws, mae'n fwylo unigol Rhagor ac yn cael eu gwybod rhyngwch yn wneud ei fyddi iddo, ac yn enrydd o'r arddangos ar ei hyn ein gysylltu'n gyd-faelio'r gwaith. Oes unaeth bod nhw'r ffordd tdweud, ac mae'n hefyd o'n bynnag yw, ond yn gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio yn y ddwyf yn y ddweud o'r rhaglen gan gyrdd. Fy hwnnw rwn i'n dweud, y lle yn y box. Mae'r cyfeirwyr LITB. Ni'n dda i'n fwy o ddechrau'n adrodd o'r ddweud? A fyddwn ni'n dweud yn ddechrau'r adrodd? Dwi'n meddwl i ddigon i ddim yn dweud ddweud o ddweud. Felly, rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i ddim yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Ond rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i ddweud o'r ddweud, o'r ddweud. 59.9 miliwn, rhaid? Yn september 30 2020, y revenue of 100 miliwn, okay? Yn ddyn nhw yw'r nine months ending, revenue of 2019 was 168 million, nine months ending September 265 million. So just either way, you look at it, even if it's just in the 2019 figures, but also the increase in 2020, right? There is this kind of growth of revenue. There is some solid revenue behind this business. And that proves to me that this has got a lot of potential to grow. And if they can continue to grow the revenue, okay, then they could continue to have an impact on the actual stock price as well. So it seems that they've got a decent amount of revenue going on here. And what did they say about this? What is the people involved saying about this? So it says here, these results reflect the growing success of our revamped strategy, which is a focus on optimising product and category mix, very, very important product and category mix, enhancing supply chain management, and driving customer engagement. So essentially, they're optimising the products and category mix. They're actually getting involved in more products and more categories that are better selling products, right? Hansing the supply chain management and driving customer engagement in terms of branding. So we're going into trying to build up the brand for the company. And you can type in light in the box on the App Store. I believe they have an app that you can download. And it's got a lot of downloads. The reviews, some of the reviews aren't great for it, but the revenue is great. And like they say, they're now focused on that customer engagement, building those customers, which you think about that, right? Think about it. What is that good for? It's good for retaining customers. So people who've bought from light in the box before, they've got all these revenue, all these sales, they've got these data from past customers. Well, all they've got to do is engage with those customers to then get them to buy more products, and then they're going to grow revenue from that. And that's not taken into account of the new customers that they can gain through marketing, right? So this is a company that's going to grow. What do they do? They sell products, they sell a range of different products that think about the kind of AliExpress in a way, right? They sell kind of products to consumers. And it's a range of products. It's a Chinese e-commerce website, essentially. And so what to say, we will continue to execute our growth strategy, favour enhance our partnership with key suppliers, and improve customer experience within the regions we operate. We are confident in our sales strategy and solid execution positions as well. So again, this is a company that's going to grow. This has got good revenue. It's got products that people are buying. It's got a lot of data from past customers. This is a great stock. And it's been having a bit of a dip recently. So it was at like 2.5. It's now at 2.24. It's up after hours. Again, if you can get this stock anywhere between $2 and $2.40, I would say he's a really good buying opportunity. And I would just buy a little bit each time incrementally so you can average in your position. But this stock is easier free 4.5X stock in the medium to long term. I would hold this medium to long. But consider this one and that ticker symbol is LITB. I think it's got a lot of potential. I'm going to say thank you everybody for subscribing to the channel. We're almost getting towards that 5,000 subscriber mark. I wanted to get 5,000 by end of January. Looks like we're getting there much earlier than that. So thank you for everybody for all the support. If you like the video, what it does, it means that more people see the video. It just shows up on the search and on the right side. When you watch a video, it shows up there. It shows up on the search results. So every time you like the video, it tells YouTube that you want more people to see the video. So keep liking it and I really appreciate all the support that you've been giving to the channel. The next one I've got for you is Builder Bear. The ticker symbol for this is BBW. And some interesting thoughts on this one here is that their revenue is growing as well. Now this particular company has got a massive brand. Do a little homework assignment. Look at Builder Bear on Facebook. Look at them on Instagram.  And think to yourself, do strong brand brands do well historically? You'll find that obviously they do. This is a strong brand. This is a company that's probably more safe in terms of a penny stock to invest in, in terms of growth. People say penny stocks are risky, right? But you can find these penny stocks that actually, if they've got a strong brand, they've got a strong revenue, they're actually potentially not as risky. So here we've got some revenue. So it says here, reports increase in total revenue and delivers us 9.4 million improvement. Total revenues have increased 6.1% to $74.7 million compared to the fiscal 2019 third quarter. So ended the quarter with $25.8 million in cash. So they've grown the revenue and this is only in the third quarter here. So 74.7 in the third quarter. So they're growing their revenue. They're doing okay. And again, there's revenue behind this company, which again is another solid point. Now it's set at $4.27. I say, if you can get this anything below $4, it's a bargain. If you can get this anywhere between like $4 and $4.20, I think that's where I've started positioning. So consider looking into this stock and thinking like this is a penny stock that you hold medium to long because it's got a lot of potential. I don't think that this will be like a penny stock for long. I think it's good at $10, $12, $15, very easily. Okay. So I've got a lot of confidence in that stock. The next one is Lluvoo Brands and we've talked about this before, but again, let's look at the finance. So Lluvoo Brands is a part of the furniture manufacturing industry. Okay. Well, they've got a range of products there. Lluvoo Brands has 263 total employees and generated $18.38 million in sales USD for the year. So again, company with revenue, company with sales, that tells me that their products have a need. There's customers that want that product. At that point, it's just about scaling that up so that they can build that revenue. So what are they sat at? So they're at 0.13 at the minute. And if you think about the revenue, look, you know, I mean, the PE ratio for a penny stock, that's really good for a penny stock because you're paying a bit more of a premium for the future growth in future years. And there's revenue behind this penny stock, a revenue behind a penny stock that's at 0.13, some really good revenue at that as well for that price. Okay. So I would consider looking at this stock. If I was to say to get in, if you can get this at 0.10, absolute bargain. If you can get this around this price or anything below 0.15, I would see as a buy because I think in the medium to long term, it's going to be worth much, much more than that. I think this is a stock that could easily 10x if they continue to grow their revenue. The next one I've got for you is Galaxy Next Generation. This is more of a bonus one here. So I've talked about this a lot, but just to let you know, obviously, the revenue there is growing for them. So increased revenue 89% to 1.2 million in Q1 there. Okay. So they, they're growing their revenue and they've got good revenue figures. Consider them. And that's at 0.026. Okay. So this is just a burner stock because I didn't want this in the actual free top list because I keep talking about this one, but I like this stock, right? So at 0.026, look into the stock, do some research. They sell educational equipment. If you can get this anywhere below 0.030, I think it's a buy. If you can get this close to 0.020, then I think it's a really good price. So consider that one, put this on your, your radar, so to speak. And my stock thought of the day. So what's my stock thought of the day? So what I would say is swap analysis. Now this is a very business kind of basic business principle, but I think that you can apply this to stocks actually. So you can look at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of a particular business. And obviously the business you're investing in as well. So you can see what their strengths are. What are some of the weaknesses? What are some of the opportunities that they have as a business? And what are some of the potential threats? You know, what obstacles can they face? So for example, medical stocks, they face a lot of kind of regulatory approval threats, right? Because that might be bad for the business if they have to be regulatory approved and that can take a while, right? Where do they need to improve? So it may be the fact they need to just continue growing the revenue and brown brand. Some of the strengths, so like I said, might be strong revenue, might be strong aspects here of the business, strong product portfolio. And then what are the opportunities for the future for the company? Is it got room to move up and grow? And I think if you look at these strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and you look at your stocks and really think about that, I think it's just a good way to kind of add that extra analysis to think about something before you buy the stock. So consider that there, okay? And research into that. So thanks for watching the video. If you found this at all useful, then do leave the video a like. It does help out the channel. And don't forget to subscribe if you're new to the channel and hit that notification bell. Penny stocks are volatile and penny stocks can go up. So you want first hand when I post a new video so you can click on it and get in on the stock if you feel that you agree with me on the stock, get in early because you get to see first hand in the video, okay? So thank you for watching the video and I'll see everybody in the next one.


Okay, well, the present moment is upon us to begin, and since this talk is about trading present things for future things, as all action is done in the present, we'll begin now. So up to this point, we've talked a lot about, during the week, in different talks, we've discussed a lot about valuing and the principles behind valuing and imputation of value and so on, and how this leads to an arrangement of production and consumption, and then the principle of appraisement, the pricing of things, and then how this leads to economic calculation, and how the economizing structure of action that we can see from thinking about Caruso can be applied to society at large. And so we have a genuine human society, right? We have a social order that operates on the same principle as each individual person. We're economizing together in this cooperative endeavor. Now the one thing we haven't, and there have been some discussion of the implications of the importance of time in action, especially with business cycle theory, so you've been exposed a little bit to that, right? But this talk is going to be about time itself, the valuing of our action with respect to time. Now it's important that we'll do valuing and then we'll do the pricing, right? So just in the same way that we've been proceeding all along in the development of economic theorizing. So how do we value our action with respect to time? What's the logic behind economizing and valuing things? And then how does this lead to prices? How does this, what manifestations do we have in the market of this valuing process? So first we want to start with a distinction between two different ways in which we value our action with respect to time. This is the crucial point from which the confusion that exists in this area can be dispelled. Now I get to most of this, by the way, from Frank Federer. So if you're interested in reading on time preference and what Federer called time value, this distinction that I'm going to make next, he would be the primary source for this. But you find this sort of thing a little less clearly in Mises and in Rothbard. Okay, so Federer points out that there are two different senses in which we value our action with respect to time. One he calls time value, and one he calls time preference. Time value refers to what I call the temporal aspect of action, or what might be more plainly referred to as the timing of action. So if we think about particular actions that we can take, it's quite obvious that one of the choice parameters that we have is when we take the action, the timing of it. Should we take it today or tomorrow or this morning or this afternoon? And of course for some actions it may not matter with respect to the value that we get from the action when we take it. There may be actions like that. But then there are other actions for which timing affects the value that accrues to us. So to just use a mundane example, my wedding anniversary is November 17. So on November 17, 2015, my wife and I will have been married 32 years.  But to the example, so we'll have a wedding anniversary, we'll celebrate our wedding anniversary right and maybe I get her a bouquet of roses or we do a romantic honeymoon type getaway or something of this sort. But if we do it on November 17 that has a certain value to us that it wouldn't have if we did it on August 1. If I went to her and I said, hey, let's celebrate our anniversary next week. It wouldn't be the same, right? It just has more value depending on when we take it and if heaven forbid I forgot and then said, oh, let's do our anniversary on December 2. The value would be greatly diminished. So it's easy to think of cases like this, right? We understand as soon as we say hopefully we expose this idea, we see that this is so. So naturally when we can economize then our action with respect to its timing, that would be one element then of economizing because we always aim to take an action that gives us a greater value, right? So timing becomes important. This is a temporal, again what I call a temporal aspect of action. Okay, now how does this manifest itself in pricing and appraisement in the market? Well, the different value that we have on the timing of action will be manifest in the market in forward prices. Forward prices occur when parties today, trading partners today, have different expectations of what the price of some good will be at some point in the future, say the price of oil six months from today. So because they have different anticipations of what the future price will be, they can be mutually advantageous trade between them because they have different values of the thing, right? And so people can today, these two parties can today, agree to trade six months in the future at a price they specify today, and that price that they specify today for the trade that they'll do six months from today is called a forward price. And some of you know about financial markets, and there'll be some lectures on financial markets this week as well, Guido Holtzman will do these talks, and he'll talk more about this. We're not going to talk about that because this talk is about the rate of interest and not about forward prices. But I mentioned this because this again is a very important distinction to make. There's a difference between acting in the market on the basis of our expectations of the value of something with respect to its temporal placement. Will oil be worth more six months from today than it is today or a year from today than it is from today, and so on. Now when people trade with respect to that, they're not engaged in setting an interest rate. The price with respect to this element of valuing their action with respect to time is entirely different. Well, I mean, everything's related in the economy, but it's a different kind of price, right? A forward price. Now just one last point about this, forward prices then provide an increase in the efficiency of temporal allocation, just like all prices provide us with a better economic calculation by which we can then economize our actions more fully. So let's say if the forward price for oil, say today, the forward price for trading six months from today increases, well then we have a better economic calculation as to what the traders in this market are anticipating the temporal value of the thing to be, and therefore we can shift the oil from its use today to its use six months from today and gain an economizing move, right? So that's where this all comes in. And again, Guido Holtzmann will speak more to this later in the week. Okay, so now let's turn our attention to our topic, our main topic, which is the interest rate. And here, as we've mentioned already and you're familiar with this, Federer uses the, for the valuing here, he uses the phrase time preference. And time preference refers to the inter-temporal aspect of action as opposed to the temporal, temporal refers to timing, inter-temporal refers to trading present for future, which is not the same thing. They sound kind of similar, but they're actually quite distinct. And so, if we think about the valuing with respect to inter-temporal matters, then we can define time preference. And Federer defines time preference in this fact, in this fashion. It's a preference for a person to have a given satisfaction sooner as opposed to the same satisfaction later. And notice it's defined in terms of value, but given value, a person always prefers to obtain sooner as opposed to later. Now, Mises points out, Federer didn't work this out fully with respect to the integration of this notion into value theory. That was Mises' work later. Mises points out that this idea of time preference is a fundamental praxeological concept of acting. This is not a psychological notion. It's not that we're impatient or that we have physiological needs that we need to satisfy in the present or something like that. Those are all also features of acting. The time preference is something in addition to that, just like preference is, just like preference itself. So Mises puts it this way. He says, because we're finite beings and we always have ends that are unmet because we're incapable of engaging in sufficient production to satisfy all of our ends, because of that, we always prefer more to less. We always prefer more goods to fewer goods. This is just a praxeological necessity of human existence. And so he says, it's the same then is true of us as temporal beings because we're temporal. We always prefer a sooner satisfaction to a later. This is just bound up in the notion of being temporal. And so this is the idea of time preference. Now, if there is time preference in this sense, present satisfaction will always command a premium over the same satisfaction in the future. So we will always prefer the present satisfaction to the equivalent future satisfaction. This will be true then every time we engage in time bound action, every time we give up something in the present to gain something in the future. Then time preference will be in play and we will always discount the future value or place a premium on the present value that we're giving up. So this is the idea. It doesn't matter whether this is a loan contract or someone's giving up present money, the lender, and then being paid back future money from the borrower or a production. Where the saver is investing to buy factors of production, then going through the process of producing and then earning money in the future with the sale of the output. Time preference would enter into those activities. And in fact, all activities for present things are given up for future things. So time preference is ubiquitous in action, just like preference is. Again, you can imagine some sorts of actions where we're not trading present for future things. We're just trading present for present things, okay? So there's no time preference element of that. But for every inter-temporal act, there is. Okay, so this is the distinction we're trying to make, right? The temporal aspects of action, the timing of action, and the forward prices that we mentioned. And then this inter-temporal aspect. And notice if we have an inter-temporal element of action, then we get as a manifestation of this, what Mises like to call the pure rate of interest. So in the market, the appraisement part of valuing, with respect to the inter-temporal dimension of action, is the rate of interest. This is the price, then, for the trading of present money for future money. Okay, now in the next step, let's just provide some overall integration of this basic idea to what we've done so far. So here's the little schematic that shows the logical structure of the arguments that we've made so far, with respect to the prices of consumer goods and producer goods, and now the rate of interest. So on the top part of this schematic, we've already seen the argument earlier in the week that people have preferences for different things, let's say, for apples, for bags of apples. And because their preferences are reversed, some people prefer the bag of apples to the amount of money that is being offered in trade. Some people who have the bag of apples prefer the money to the apples, so they engage in trade, right? There's demand and supply of the consumer goods, say, apples, and then the price of the consumer goods emerges to clear the market, right? So this is the standard argument that you've seen developed earlier in the week. And then, because there is a price for the apples or whatever this consumer good is, there would be a marginal revenue product that's imputed to the factors of production that produce the apples. So there would be an apple orchard, and the apple orchard would have a certain marginal revenue product. It's generating a certain revenue stream from the apple production, right? And so there'd be a demand then that the entrepreneurs would have to, let's say, lease the apple orchard to obtain that marginal revenue product, that production, and then sell the output to the consumer. And then there would be an owner of the apple orchard who would lease the apple orchard, and then the price would emerge, right? So there would be rental prices for the factors of production. Now, the rental prices of the factors of production have one more element to them, and this is the inter-temporal dimension. And this depends whether or not there's an inter-temporal element of the pricing of the factors of production. Depends upon whether or not the entrepreneur pays in advance. So if the apple orchard owner gets his payment from the entrepreneur in advance of the harvesting of the apples and the sale of the apples, then the entrepreneur is lending money upfront, right? He's sacrificing present money in order to obtain future money, and the apple orchard owner is receiving the loan, if you will. He's receiving the present money upfront. So that investment would have to command a rate of interest. Of course, the entrepreneur could form a contract with the apple orchard owner for the apple orchard owner to be paid the marginal revenue product upon the sale of the apples in the future, in other words, in which case there would be no discounting of the rental price. So that just depends, right? So this is the pure rate of interest that would enter into the rental price of the factors of production if money is being advanced to the owners of the factors of production. If workers are being paid their wages in advance of the sale of the output, if other capital goods producers are being paid like a Michelin produces tires and they sell the tires to Honda, if Michelin is paid upfront, then the payment that they get would be discounted, the discounted marginal revenue product of the value of the tires to the car. If they wait until the car is sold to be paid, well, then they get the full marginal revenue product, right? So that's the integration point of the time preference element with the prices of other things. And then the capital value, the capital value of the orchard, the apple orchard to go back to my example here, the price of buying the orchard outright would then be the stream of all the future discounted marginal revenue products that could be earned from owning the apple orchard. And so that's where we get capital value in our schematic, that's our explanation of where capital value comes from. Now, we're not so concerned with these elements. Again, Guido Holtzmann will talk more about these because these are the basis of financial markets. We wanna look more at the bottom line schematic. And here, notice what we're arguing is different people would have different rates of time preference. Some would be more eager to have present satisfaction and some are less eager to have present satisfaction. And so they can engage in mutually advantageous trade. The low time preference individuals can lend to the high time preference individuals at a mutually agreeable interest rate. And then as trade, as these different persons come into markets and begin to interact with each other, the interest rate will adjust to clear the market. So again, this is just a standard analysis that we would have. But you'll notice the one point we wanna stress is it, and you know this just by your own experience, just your own superficial sort of common experience with lending and borrowing. Lending and borrowing is done in money. It's not done in kind. People don't make contracts to lend and borrow in apples or in factories or in apple orchards or dress shoes or right, we lend and borrow in money. And that's very important to this whole analysis. It clears up all sorts of difficulties in this area of time preference theory. Okay, so we can picture this, we call this the time market, where all the lending of present money and the borrowing of present money takes place. So as we, our terminology is we have some people with higher time preference rates. These people are more eager to have their present satisfactions gratified. And then there are other people with lower time preference who are less eager to have present gratification. And the high time preference people are willing to pay premiums that the low time preference people are willing to accept. The borrowers are willing to pay premiums that the lenders are willing to accept. And this premium is the rate of interest, the extra money that's paid when the principle of the loan is paid back. Okay, so that rate of interest is set by the time preference, the underlying time preferences of people so that the market for the exchange of present money for future money clears. That's how the interest rate comes about. That's what the interest rate is. And we'll talk in the second part of the talk, we'll talk about the critics of this view, right? So here we're just sort of laying out what this view is. Okay, now let's dwell just a little bit on this point about money. Why is this trade of present, why is the inter-temporal trade done with money instead of goods? So now we need to hearken back to this distinction we made before about the difference between time value, the timing of action and the temporal aspect and the inter-temporal. If people engaged in inter-temporal trade of apples with apples or with dress shoes or with oil or something else, then there would necessarily be a mixture in the price between the timing element and the inter-temporal, the time preference element. So if people lent and borrowed an oil, then they would have to worry both about what will be the actual market price of oil six months from now when I pay the loan back and what is my inter-temporal time preference discount of the future value of the thing, right? Those two things would be mixed together, right, in their trade. Now with money, those two things are not mixed together. With money, we can isolate, if you will, are the time preference element from the timing element. And this happens perhaps the most distinct way that I can put this is as follows. Money, as you've learned already, is the unit in which economic calculation is conducted. And this unit of money is equally serviceable across all goods, right? At any point in the present, I can use any particular unit of money to make my exchange. It's interchangeably useful. It doesn't matter if I spend it on apples or on men's dress shoes or on gasoline or anything else. I'm holding the medium of exchange and every unit of it is equally serviceable with every other unit. This is also true inter-temporally. That's the point. It's also true inter-temporally. That money has a value as a medium of exchange and the unit of it today to people has exactly the same interchangeably useful aspect to it. Whether they're going to trade it inter-temporally or whether they trade it in the present for goods in the present. And so the unit of money does not have a timing element in it. It doesn't have a time value in it. It is the unit in which economic calculation is done even if the calculation is inter-temporal. So this is what Federer was getting at. This is his insight. And so he explains exactly why it is that all inter-temporal trade is done in money and not in goods, not in kind. So now we've isolated the time preference element in the rate of interest and there's no timing aspect here in the rate of interest at all. This is Federer's position. Okay, now the next thing we need to do before we turn to the issue of the critics of this argument of the pure time preference theory is make one more distinction in the time market between credit markets and the capital structure. So I alluded to this before when people lend the present money in exchange for the anticipation of getting money in the future paid back to them, they can do this in a credit transaction, in a loan contract, or they can do it through production. In other words, through the capital structure. And notice, if all of the things are the same with respect to these different alternatives of just lending to somebody or investing in inputs in order to get output, if the riskiness of the different projects and so on are roughly the same, then it wouldn't matter what a person invested in as a saver, it would command the same interest premium, it would command the same rate of return. As long as the other aspects of the investable projects were considered by the saver investor to be the same. We'll talk in a minute about what happens if they're different, but if they're considered to be the same, then arbitrage would equate the rate of return on investing in the capital structure, investing in production processes, or just lending people money, lending a consumer money on a mortgage and the consumer pays back, or lending on credit card purchases and then the funds are paid back and so on. So there's one sense in which we get a uniform pure rate of interest across all lending of present money to be paid back for future money. Notice that there are important implications of this. One implication of this, and this bears upon the critics of this view, is that production is not necessary to generate interest. It's interesting credit markets. There's no production there.  He's just paying back the interest out of his income. He's not engaged in a production process like an entrepreneur is. So we can clearly have interest without production. And then the other thing to note about this is even in production, we don't have to have interest. This is what I mentioned before. If entrepreneurs and the owners of the factors of production that entrepreneurs are hiring agree on a contract for the payment of wages and so on, that stipulates that the workers will be paid when the goods are sold instead of in advance, then there would be no interest. No interest would accrue to the entrepreneur because he's not acting as a capitalist. He's not saving and investing. So notice interest is only paid for the value that accrues to the borrower for advancing the borrower toward his end in time. It's only accruing for that benefit, for satisfying time preference. Okay, this is the argument of the pure time preference theory. Okay, now just again for clarity, let's talk about the other, what I've called here, components of the market rate of interest. So we have the pure rate of interest. This we've talked about. This is the pure rate of interest, the time preference. This is determined by the time preference alone. But we know just cursory observation of markets that different investable projects actually command different rates of return, different interest rates. Interest rates are higher in credit card lending than on mortgages and so on. Well, that's because there's an element of differential entrepreneurial risk or uncertainty involved in the different lending projects. So even though credit card interest rates are higher than mortgage rates, it's not that they're earning, the investors are earning different pure rates of interest. The credit card lender, the lender into the credit card market is simply earning a risk premium. He's earning the pure rate of interest plus a risk premium because, well, he's not gonna be paid back as often, right? The fall's higher and he's got all the costs of trying to get the money back and so on and so forth. There's also a price premium that can emerge in market rates of interest. So market rates of interest are a complex of different causal factors. There's the pure element, the time preference element. There's riskiness. There's a price premium. We see the price premium by the way working right now in Silicon Valley and in the housing market in San Francisco and so on. The Fed is regenerating the boom process through its monetary inflation. And this creates the canty on effects. It creates a differential movements and asset prices. And so some people have invested in these projects before the process begins and they get an extra premium, right? If you would have invested in San Francisco real estate five years ago, you'd be reaping a greater return, not just a pure rate of interest plus whatever risk is associated with that kind of investment, but you'd be earning this price premium, right? So that's another element. In other words, the pure time preference theory is not saying that interest rates are, every interest rate is completely determined just by time preference. You're saying that time preference is a fundamental element in all interest returns but then there are other elements that are layered on top of time preference. And then there can be unanticipated changes in the PPM. So the purchasing power of money inflation and other price inflation could add another element to interest returns. As long as it's unanticipated people might be investing today in production processes and then inflation occurs and they'll earn a higher nominal return if they don't anticipate it. If by the way, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, if they anticipate that there'll be general price inflation then the entrepreneurs will invest more heavily in inputs today to earn what they perceive as a higher rate of return and they'll bid up input prices today and they won't get any higher return, right? So this has to be unanticipated. Okay, so now let's turn to the critics of this view and to do this we're going to use the pedagogy of Boombavar and he famously set out what he called the interest rate problem. And the interest rate problem Boombavar said is why is the price of a capital good not bid up by investors to equal the full stream of the marginal revenue products to be earned in the future? So everybody agrees, economists agree it's not that prices aren't bid up that high. The prime example of this of course would be land. If land prices were bid up to capture the full stream of the marginal revenue product in the future they'd be almost indefinitely high, right? Because land sites in certain places in the world have been in production for thousands of years and will be in production for thousands of more years. And if you add up all the marginal revenue product and pay that out today to buy the land the price would be astronomically high. Why don't people do that? Well, because they die, right? As we said before, they're temporal, people are temporal. How much would you pay today to get a dollar, 50 years from today? Okay, so not very much, right? Even if you're young. And I would pay nothing. Or almost not, I could transfer this money maybe to my heirs, but aside from that it would have no value to me, right? So that's the interest rate problem. And this is true then of all assets. It's potentially true, at least of all assets. If you calculate the stream of the marginal revenue product that would be generated by a factory over its life the price entrepreneurs will pay today is less than the sum of that stream. That's the interest rate problem. Why is that so in other words? What explains that? Okay, well obviously the pure time preference theory explains that as we've already done, right? By time preference. So people have a preference for present satisfaction. So they're not willing to pay to get future money an equivalent amount of present money. They discount the future. And they discount it more heavily the further into the future the money is to be received. So there's a finite value, even a very long lived assets. Okay, so that's not the only, obviously the only explanation of this. There's also the exploitation theory and I put this in on this order because this is the one that Boombaberg famously smashed. This argues that interest is a surplus value of labor that's extracted by the capitalist in the wage negotiation process. The capitalist is a big and powerful and can rip off the workers by extracting some kind of surplus. Now as Boombaberg pointed out, of course this argument is based on the fallacious labor theory of value. But furthermore, to go beyond that it's also the case that labor is actually paid its full marginal revenue product. It's just that the discount, the surplus is for lending the entrepreneur lending to the worker in advance of the sale of the output. So as I put on the PowerPoint side labor could receive its full marginal revenue product if it were willing to wait until the output were sold to be paid or it could do, there's another alternative, right? It could receive its pay right now and then take that pay and lend it out on interest until the goods are sold and then it would have its full marginal revenue product. So there is no exploitation, right? There is no extraction of the value of things that labor has produced by the capitalist. Now we come to the productivity theory of interest that's a little bit more challenging or at least a little bit more common criticism of the pure time preference theory. So we have a lot of economists who, neoclassical types who hold to this view. And here the argument is that capital, these assets generate a flow of productive services. And this flow of productive services generates at least a real rate of return. And there are various examples of this that are given in the literature. You know, Frank Knight has the example, the Crisconium plants and Irving Fisher has this example that I've given on the PowerPoint of sheep. They're also examples of rice that multiplies and so on. So here we have this idea from Fisher that we have a flock of sheep, 100 sheep. And then just through natural processes it becomes 110 sheep a year later. And so on, right? Every year, like 10% more sheep, that's the idea. And so he says, look, that's interest. That's a 10% real return. How is that not interest, isn't it? Okay, well, the pure time preference theory answered to this is that, no, clearly this is not interest. This is not what we mean by interest when we use that word either in common discourse or in our theory. What this is is physical productivity. This is just physical productivity. By the way, these examples, the Crisconium plant and the rice and the sheep and so on, they're more akin not to assets like factories and what have you, but land, right? The closest analogy we would have in the real world is something like this is land that generates an indefinite physical production every year. But we know that land prices aren't, again, indefinitely large, right? In other words, land prices vary depending upon, despite their physical productivity, they vary depending upon market conditions. And so the rate of return that can be earned on land varies. It just depends upon the value that people place upon the future revenue stream and their time preference. So this is what I've done in this line here. This again is capital value. And remember, this is an indefinite production process. And so those of you who are seeing capital value calculations, you know how this works and the rest of you are just gonna have to take my word for this and do a little extra study to get up to speed on this. But the capital value, the asset value for an indefinite period of time for an asset is its marginal revenue product, whatever it generates every year in revenue, just divided by the interest rate. If you have a time bound asset, you would have to sum all this up over the life of the asset. But if it's indefinitely extended like the sheep herd or land again, then the calculation is simple. It just reduces to this. But you'll notice that the rate of return that's earned on this investment if you're going to buy this asset, depends upon the prices, right? And the prices aren't affixed, even though the physical productivity in this example is fixed. Every year we get 10 more sheep. The market price of that output is not fixed. Neither is the market price of the flock of sheep. It's not fixed, right? Just like the market process price, excuse me, of bushels of wheat produced on land is not fixed. Neither is the price of the land. So as long as we have trade in these things, then the prices will adjust so that the rate of return earned by investing in this project is the pure rate of interest. The same as the rate of return on any investable project. So it works, let's say in my first example, where we have a 10% time preference rate, it does work out the way that the proponents of this example would suggest. You would earn in fact a 10% monetary return then by investing in this flock of sheep. But if the time preference rate were 5%, and investors could spend $100 to get a 10% return every year, but the time preference, the going rate of interest in the market were 5%, then they'd flock to buy this, buy the sheep. They'd bid the price of sheep up and the price would be bid up to $200 so that this investment would command the same rate of return as every other investment, right? So again, productivity alone does not generate rates of interest. Productivity generates marginal revenue product, but the rate of interest is determined by time preference. Okay, so productivity is not, again, a very successful criticism. For a further study, by the way, you can think through, I don't have time to go into these other alternatives, but you can think through the logic of them. Fisher gives us sheep, the case we've taken, hard tack. This is a case where there's no productivity, productivity is zero, the hard tack just stays indefinitely in a fixed supply, and figs that deteriorate, negative productivity. And he would say in the figs case, the rate of interest would be negative. But hopefully you can see right away that actually, if you had a production process where the physical output was negative, you were destroying things in the production process, then you wouldn't invest in it, right? No one would invest in this, right? And so there would be no rate of return at all. So you can work through the logic of the different cases on your own, I think. There's an eclectic theory, this again is a fairly standard neoclassical theory. This is time preferences and productivity of capital jointly determine the interest rate. It's kind of a Marchelian sort of argument. And you may have been exposed already to the critique that Austrians give in the Marchelian analysis. They point out that, I think Professor Salerno mentioned, the cost of production are just prices that are determined by imputation of the value of consumer goods. So right, we have the same problem here, right? In other words, productivity of capital or technical factors of the world cannot be independent, determinate causes of human action. What really happens is we have to proceed these things and then judge them and then choose with respect to them. But they don't somehow force us, they don't determine this, deterministically independent of our will and valuing and choosing, do anything and have any effect in the economy. So productivity, if we take productivity to mean just physical productivity, then this is wrong. It violates the ends means causal chain, means cannot determine the value of things independently but only as aids to the end. And if by productivity of capital, this is meant a value productivity, well then this is the fallacy of the vicious circle, right? Because as we already showed, the value of productive factors in fact depends upon the rate of interest. And so this is just the circuit of reasoning. Okay, what about boom bop work? The boom bop work is a little bit more sophisticated than the eclectic, this eclectic theory but it's a similar defects. What the boom bop work says is that yes, like we had before, like the pure time preference theory, we have time preferences determining demand and supply but not of present money, instead present goods. Present goods traded for future goods. And then the premium of present goods relative to future goods is the rate of interest. This is his argument, slightly different. You know, it appears slightly different. And then he points out something that's entirely different from the pure time preference theory. He says, we know logically, analytically what determines time preferences. This again is like saying, we can have a logical, absolute structure of analytical explanation of what determines people's preferences. See, we as Austrians would reject that notion. We don't know what determines people's preferences. All sorts of different things influence our preferences, right? We don't have any sort of determined theory of why a person has the preferences they have. We start with preferences. We start with preferences as a given because the logic can flow from there inexorably to the outcomes in the market. That we're lost to say anything scientifically about how various influences deterministically impact our preferences. So this is, but this is what boom bop work claims. The value productivity of capital. Notice this, this is what he calls an objective factor. But as we've already pointed out, this objective factor suffers from the vicious circle. If it's value productivity, then the value of the productivity already incorporates an interest rate. And so you're saying the interest rate is necessary to determine the interest rate. This is no good, right? This is not logically acceptable. And the subjective factors again are elements that are just psychological or not praxeological. So maybe they exist, maybe they don't. But this doesn't really give us a logical theory of the interest rate. I'm gonna skip over the weighting theory and move to the modern critics, Dr. Murphy and Dr. Holtzman. And they have both made very pointed criticisms of the way that this theory has been developed, the semantic way in which it's been expressed, I should say, in Mises and Rompart. And it's very poignant criticisms that they make that I think our Federer's development of the theory can clear up. So anyway, Dr. Murphy says, there seems to be a dilemma in the two different ways that time preference is defined in the literature. Sometimes it's defined as a present satisfaction, as we pointed out. And he says, if that's the case, of course, time preference would then ensure a premium of the present. So just the argument we made before. But that, he claims, has no connection to inter-temporal trade, at least not of goods. And then he says, if we define, as Boombaverk does, if we define time preference in terms of present goods, then time preference defined that way ensures that there's a connection to inter-temporal trade, but we're not really sure when we trade goods inter-temporally that there'll be a premium of the present. And he's absolutely right about that. So he's correct in what he says here. But hopefully you see already that Federer's line of argument avoids this dilemma. It avoids the dilemma by pointing out, once again, that inter-temporal trade is always in money. It's never in goods, it's always in money. And money isolates the time preference element. And therefore we don't have this dilemma, we can avoid it. And then the second point that he makes is similar. He says time preference as a satisfaction is neither necessary nor sufficient for the positive premium. This is because again, the marginal utility of a good in the present could exceed the marginal utility of the good in the future or vice versa, right? But again, hopefully you can see right away that this is true of goods. Dr. Murphy's correct, this is true of goods, but it's not true of money. And therefore, if inter-temporal trade is always done in money, then the pure time preference theory is free of this criticism. Now, Dr. Holtzman has a similar kind of argument. It's different in structure, but it's similar in style anyway. He says the pure time preference theory literature contains two contradictory claims. One is that a larger stock of a future good is preferred to a smaller stock of a present good. And that's why time preference is necessary to explain why we take the present. Because more is preferred to less, we would always take the future if future goods were preferred to present goods, right? And then he says the second claim is that a good in the present is a different good than the good in the future. So you find this expression in Mises and sometimes in Rothbard. And then he concludes from this, quite rightly he concludes from this, that if the second claim is true, the first of course is not certain, right? If they're different goods then we're not really certain that future goods were comparing apples and apples with future goods and present goods. So he's quite correct. But again, hopefully you can see right away that this problem is completely avoided once we recognize that inter temporal trade is never in goods, it's always in money. And so again, this problem is avoided. It's simply bypassed, right? By recognizing that the temporal trade is goods. And then he gives one last point that again we can address in the same way. He says time preference is between two options of choice for the same good. And he says this is Mises's view, right? A present good in the future, an option for the exact same good, whatever it is in apple or whatever it is. But he points out that in the same literature, the period of interest is always expressed as the relationship between present goods and future goods. Not necessarily the same goods like inputs and outputs, right? And so again, this seems problematic but again, this criticism I think is bypassed once we recognize that it is the same good. It's money, it's not literally present goods like inputs and outputs. It's present money that's used to buy the inputs and it's future money that's received from the sale of the output. That's what's being traded, the money, not the goods themselves, right, but the money. Okay, at this point I'll desist. Thank you. Thank you.


What's good Josh bulldogs back again with another video somewhere to check out 10 WWE wrestlers who hated their own WrestleMania match now. This is an interesting video I didn't know well I'm sure there's some wrestlers that weren't happy with their WrestleMania match or how it played out But I definitely want to see what these particular wrestlers had to say about their match that they were involved in So this should be a good one appreciate all the love and support you guys have shown on the channel Let's get right into this Performing at WrestleMania should be one of the defining moments of a pre-wrestler's career However over the years a number of wrestlers have admitted publicly that they strongly disliked one of their WrestleMania matches for a specific reason This can be because certain spots Didn't meet the WrestleMania standard join us now as wrestling me looks at 10 I definitely know the Undertaker has talked about in his documentary about certain matches Yeah, that WrestleMania. He just didn't like like the one he had with Roman Reigns He just he did not like that one WWE wrestlers how we played out their WrestleMania match What if it's gonna be on this list well for daily wrestling videos and follow us on Facebook for exclusive layers also Check out our new channel WrestleMania shorts. And if you speak or understand Hindi our new channel WrestleMania Hindi Oh, wow WrestleMania they they didn't all the bags Number 10 Jeff Hardy at WrestleMania 25 25 is Jeff and Matt Hardy collided on the grandest stage the match would be an extreme rules match And it was mostly well received but Jeff Hardy wasn't pleased Jeff took issue with how many spots had to be cut from the Jeff during an appearance on the Broken Skull Sessions podcast this impacted the overall quality of what Jeff and Matt could deliver Confront Vince McMahon regarding having spots cut from the man This was extremely rare for Jeff to confront his boss in this manner Jeff believes that this earned him respect mainly because McMahon was aware that his anger was coming from a genuine place Number nine at the Undertaker WrestleMania 33 33 was It was good to put over Roman Reigns in the main event and sail off into the sunset But the problem was that the match wasn't exactly the quality fans expected from the dead man The match was awkwardly paced and the Undertaker botch several notable spots takers even spoken at length in relation to his thoughts on the match and has since labeled the match as Disgusting the dead man wasn't happy retiring with a match of such poor quality And it's hard for anyone to take issue with the Undertaker. That was supposed to be his retirement match Once he left the hats in the glove. I was like, that's his retirement match It didn't really you know, obviously it wasn't that good of a match or whatnot But you know, that's originally you can tell that's what it was supposed to be They're not wanting this match to be his final time on the grandest stage of WrestleMania The Undertaker was even so ashamed of the matchup that he apologized to Roman Reigns because he felt so bad for being Responsible but you're negatively received match number eight triple H at WrestleMania 32 But triple H's showdown with Roman Reigns at WrestleMania 32 was heavily panned by fans It was lackluster at best and the match failed to have that spark that's needed in a WrestleMania main event Month after WrestleMania 32 the game was asked for his thoughts on the match by the mirror UK And with Triple H being a key part of WWE's management team He had to be extremely careful in what he said triple H clearly had issues with the match And whilst he didn't outright declare that he loathed the match did discuss some of the matches shortcomings It was a challenging situation on a lot of fronts Roman is a unique character in the business and a polarizing character much like a John Cena or somebody like that He's a polarizing character You're in front of a hundred thousand people and you're also coming up at the end of a six and a half hour plus show It was long. I was happy with it. But to be honest, I'm not watched it back yet I'm really funny about watching myself back at this point in time of my career It's hard for me to see the positive sometimes Triple H we know you was tip-toeing around around the situation you we know We know That's all I gotta say Number seven real replay at WrestleMania 36 WrestleMania 36 was a massive disappointment for several reasons The main reason was that due to the COVID-19 pandemic WWE were forced to present their biggest show of the year in front of zero fans at the Center Additionally, some of the match outcomes on the two night event They're a lot to be desired take for instance when Charlotte Flair defeated real replay to win the NXT title This win was completely pointless. Yeah, it's all quick to criticize the booking decision According to Ripley during an appearance on Lillian Garcia's podcast the match badly impacted her confidence It did feel like that though. I definitely like have gone through a stage where I did start losing the confidence in myself because I just wasn't portrayed the same way that I was, you know Um, I started like even now like I'm I'm still slowly like building myself back up from it. Um, my confidence definitely Was like tainted a little bit which sucks because I try and like keep it up and Do my best all the time Um, I don't know if it was just something inside my head that just wasn't like getting the picture But like, I don't know. I just I got a little bit lost after that Unfortunately, she did get lost after that because once she lost that match It's like she was kind of stuck in limbo, but It's crazy what time can do now. She is probably one of the most over women In wwe right now. She's one of the hottest for sure like in a sense of like fan popularity And they got to do it right, bro. If she doesn't win this match What's tough? What's the effing point, bro? Honestly, it's really Real and dominant that make judgment day what it is If it's really them two honestly and really to be honest with you real She is literally in the best situation possible people finds her to be cool And then of course there's people that just loved the way she looked now. So She gotta win. She has to win this weekend. I'm gonna do my previous predictions Uh video so be on the lookout for that, but she gotta win. It's simple as that. She doesn't win against charlotte The story here is pointless. She needs to win Six dean ambrose at rossomania 32 I went wwe announced that dean ambrose would be Yeah, this was lackluster I was a no-holes barred street. I was so excited It's made it a full-on war Sadly the match was incredibly lackluster and it failed to meet anyone's standards According to ambrose lesna shot down every Idea Things that fans had seen a thousand times before The former wwe champion would go on to call less in a lazy Which was a bold yet seemingly justified comment It's clear that ambrose strongly dislikes the match and it's a massive shame as it had so much potential to be a rossomania classic It could have number five. Mick foley at rossomania 20 One of the top matches on the rossomania 20 card saw mick foley team with the rock to take on evolution While the match received good reviews from fans foley wasn't happy with the match quality And he let the fans down by his performance Foley would discuss his thoughts on the match on his podcast and this is what the whole of fame had to say And I go from being this guy who had been the you know the three-time wwe champion And I just become somebody who in my mind doesn't belong out there and I It is what it is if you guys say it was very good, I'll trust you to say it was very good But I can't bring myself to watch that match. I don't think I've ever seen more than 90 seconds of it at the time Wow, I never never even viewed That him being in that match and what he did was bad But you know sometimes you are your toughest critic and I he I'm guessing probably didn't feel like he lived up to the standards that he was supposed to you know Present even though it came off pretty good for people that what was watching there and on television number four Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania 34 Brock was so That he threw his universal title at Vince McMahon backstage This is one of the few people that could ever do something like that disrespectfully to to Vince Because the match no one cared no one cared about that match at all It was it's just no one cared do walk back there and do the shit and fucking walked out at Vince He threw the title at Vince Who can do that?  Yeah, even when Lesnar and Reigns incorporated blood into the match Didn't matter with disdain from the audience And no one care could do was going to influence the crowd's response Number three Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 23 Now this is an interesting one Shawn Michaels's main event match with John Cena at WrestleMania 23 is an all-time classic Great match. I love this match. He was furious with how the match went Following the match hbk walked away without shaking the hand of Cena And this was an off-script outburst from hbk who just couldn't bear to shake Cena's hand Hbk's anger came from the fact that Cena had to forgot to sell his leg throughout the match and for hbk That was the main storytelling element of the main event match According to Dave Meltzer when hbk got backstage He had to scream about how terrible he thought the match was and this opinion was believed to be shared by fellow WWE officials Never knew that I never knew That was the situation because that's a fantastic match. Love that match. I never knew that that was he was upset I never would have known that at WrestleMania 14 WrestleMania 14 saw the ascension of Stone Cold Steve Austin to the top of wwe Austin's match with Shawn Michaels saw Austin pin hbk to win his first wwe title But Austin has gone on record to state that he hasn't personally been a fan of the matchup Speaking on the up-up down-downs 2k 23 live stream the wwe hall of fame revealed So to go out there and have a lackluster match with him and in the biggest show of the year WrestleMania That was a sold-out show and it's a small building compared to nowadays. That was a big deal When Mike Tyson came in me and Mike hit it off and he was over. He brought a lot to it So it was cool being out there with Mike me and Shawn could have had a way better match But he was in a bad place. He was injured. I was just red hot My other stunner on him Mike quick counted me. He didn't give me that slow championship pace to answer your question I hated that match. I love Shawn. I have the utmost respect for him But I don't consider that to be a good match at all. Yeah, because when you watch it back He did quick count him. I don't think he was so he wasn't trying to I don't think so But he just didn't realize any quick counting him or whatnot. So I can give why stone cold would say that And number one the undertaker at WrestleMania 34 The WrestleMania dream match between the Undertaker John Cena finally took place at WrestleMania 34 And going into the match fans fully expected a lengthy match between the two legends Unfortunately, what the fans got was a squash match that was under three minutes in length To say that this was disappointing would be an understatement. Yeah, the dead man was incredibly disappointed Take it trained for a 45 minute war with Cena And it's done to find out that Vince McMahon wanted to book a squash match Take it would discuss this during an interview with chris van vleet saying I didn't know it was going to be short till I got there that day So I've trained for a 45 minute war and all right. Here's redemption.  You know, you're gonna squash him. I'm like, what? I know Vince. He just thought that that was the funniest thing because he knew how hard I'd been training They have it folks His logic was He thought it would be the funniest thing because he knew He knew the Undertaker was gonna do whatever he could to put on a fantastic match with John Cena So instead of giving them at least 20 to 25 minutes, this is a match we had never really seen John Cena hadn't faced the Undertaker at that point For a long time. It was like when he was on Smackdown when John Cena was a heal That was like when the last time he faced the Undertaker What are we talking about? And you telling me The only reason why you don't do it Is because you knew the Undertaker had been training For a long match and you thought it'd be funny for him to go out there and squash him Even though, you know, he'd been training for I don't even know what to say, bro Knowing that that's the reason why we didn't get such a classic match Because Vince thought it would be funny Comment down below. Let me know I don't know. I don't even know what I want y'all to let me know Let me know how y'all feel about Vince McMahon's comments there If those are actually what he said Let me know. Well, Undertaker said that's what we said to him. Let let me know How y'all feel about Vince McMahon's rational thinking Or irrational thinking of turning that match into a joke because he knew the Undertaker had trained for it Let me know how y'all feel about that Yeah, I know how I feel about you can see it on my face. I'm kind of done with the video Appreciate all the love and support Road zone 150k I'm still here to speak to youtube rest in the champion world and you're in the close world heavyweight champion Appreciate y'all kicking me


I'm Carrie McWeaver. I'm the assistant director of the Fairfield University Art Museum and I'm going to talk just a little bit about the logistics of getting the amazing artworks that we have for this exhibition, The Holy Name, Art of the Jezu, Bernini and His Age, the logistics of getting them here to our museum for this exhibition. I'm standing in front of a wooden model for the apps of the Church of the Jezu that was painted by Gaoli or Il Baciccio. This object came from Rome in an enormous crate along with four other objects. When we requested this piece on loan, we weren't sure whether it would fit through the doors of the museum. We don't have a loading dock and there are two doors that the piece had to come through. So for several months we were working with some approximate dimensions and in fact even down to pretty close to the time that the piece was shipped we were working with not exact dimensions. So it was a huge relief to get the work here, to get it installed. We had an amazing crew of carpenters here at the university who built us a model of the model so that we could experiment with getting it through our doors, make ourselves feel a little bit more comfortable about the fact that it would fit and then also created this structure for it to sit on. It was a real team effort. The logistics of getting over 50 pieces from museums across the country and Italy was immense, but we had a lot of help and great collaboration and we're just delighted that everything is here and installed and looking amazing so we hope you can all come and enjoy the exhibition and see these beautiful works.