Hi, good morning and welcome to today's products in focus. So most global equity markets have been rebounded overnight following the $100 billion injection that the Chinese government have made into those markets and that's helping to push most other global equity markets modestly higher this morning. Probably getting some decent momentum on the US 30 and the UK 100. January 30 not so much incidentally above. We'll come back to that in a second. So looking at the potential support bounced off 17.361 and is trading above 17.561 with the next potential resistance at 17.747. Technic indicator is relatively neutral and we do have the FOMC tonight at 7 p.m. We should give us some extra indications as to the strength of the US economy. What Janet Yellen thinks about the strength of the US economy and also the likelihood of a potential rate hike in September. Now they probably won't specifically reference that but the markets will engage based on her rhetoric and the words that she utilizes in that statement. So that should be pretty interesting. Very important announcement. It's at 7 p.m. UK time tonight. So looking at the UK 100 real strong day yesterday as a bullish engulfing pattern. It's not really followed through that strongly this morning but 65.89 is the potential resistance slash support. It's not through there yet. Almost got a bullish cross on the MACD. Another technical relative of neutral from a purely charting perspective obviously has had quite a savage last couple of days. If we fail to break above 65.89 with any conviction though, this looks vulnerable to move down to 64.15. So it really depends how the UK market reacts to the prospect of a strong FOMC tonight if we get that because obviously US economy still drives a lot of stuff but China is getting bigger and bigger and bigger in the financial markets and obviously it's not had a biggest impact as if the Dow would come off 8% or whatever but still it's still a major part of the global economy now, not the second biggest economy after all. So I think that's still going to be bubbling under the surface unless not obviously mentioned what's still happening over in Greece. So moving on to Japan 25. So it only ends at 1.23.62. We had a decent bounce yesterday almost a bullish engulfing pattern. Looks to be those dual moving averages are providing a little bit of short term resistance. As ever for Japan 25, potential support is at 20.87 with 28.68 in longer term potential resistance. Now wouldn't be that massive of a surprise if we began to see a little bit of dollar strength creep in as we get towards the FOMC as traders begin to take bullish bets that it will be positive but obviously they don't know until it comes out. Certainly 20,087 looks to be a decent potential support level to be aware of. So if we have a look there at dollar yen, dollar yen is training above both moving averages. 1.24.42 remains potential resistance. We do have a potential sell signal on the slow stochastic and a crossover, a negative crossover in the MACD. So there is pressure on dollar yen but I think the fundamentals will support. If everything all goes completely badly in some of those other global markets people will buy the yen. People have been buying gold as well incidentally but they will buy the yen. But the US dollar has been gaining that extra little bit of momentum because of the FOMC. When we look at your dollar you see it. Cable's been going great guns because we had great UK GDP yesterday. So it kind of feels that maybe 1.24.42 isn't going to be broken that easily but it all depends on the macroeconomic data. So moving on to Crude Oil West Texas, I managed to rebound slightly yesterday. Nothing really much has changed here in regards to all the fundamental factors that are impacting West Texas. So 45.85 is the potential support to be aware of. We are in the middle of two ranges right now pretty much. So we've got 89.40 and 45.85. So gold. Gold would be sensitive tonight. Tonight's FOMC, if it comes out particularly hawkish, if it comes out dovish, gold might get a bit of a lift. It does look to be like a potential symmetrical triangle formation that is forming here. It's not yet really hit all the factors that needs to have that. Usually it's a continuation factor but I think gold's going to be driven by uncertainty and or macro data from the US giving us a bit of an idea as to the next interest rate rise. So looking at your dollar. So your dollar reversed course a little bit yesterday. Failing to break through potential resistance at one spot 11 which is also coincides with that 55 period SMA. We might start bouncing in between the two moving averages but they will eventually flatten out and they'll have to break one direction or the other. But one spot 11 looks to be the potential pivot. Other technicals still pretty neutral to be honest. And then finishing up with GBP USD again also late in around one spot 56. Longer term potential resistance one spot that is in 43. Decent day yesterday following that as expected GDP but it was a good GDP figure and we had a revision up from the previous month as well. So UK economy getting some healthy green shoots beginning to appear. And if we begin to tail off we do have the support of the two moving averages right here and one spot 54, 24 as potential support as well. So I come with data-wise. Obviously it's all about the FOMC tonight. Don't forget about that. Twitter came out with results last night. They were pretty rubbish as well. Incidentally the lowest increase in new users since they went public. You've got the housing index at three. You've got crude elementary to 330 but as I said it's all about that FOMC statement at seven. Then tomorrow you've got employment data from Germany, employment data from the Eurozone, CPI from Germany, GDP from the US. So actually tomorrow's got loads and loads of data. So tonight's going to be important and tomorrow. And as ever keep you on the chart for them. I can see updates from some other CMC Markets clients on there which are great. Jasper Lawyer UK analysts is posting content on there. Make sure you keep an eye on insights and join me again tomorrow to find out what happens next.


How to make over $100,000 a year on Upwork. Hey, you've heard the stories. People are making big money on Upwork, right? And you want to be part of that. Well, I can tell you, I've hired a lot of people on Upwork over the years. It used to be called Elance. And I'm trying to remember if it was called anything else before that. I think it was called Odesk or something like that. But the point is, people are making a lot of money and you want to be part of it. And you're on the right video because I'm going to show you what you need to do. Let's keep going. You know, it's interesting. So many people think quitting my job and just working on my own wherever I want. Man, that's my dream. And it can be done. It can be done fairly simply, but you do have to work hard. Now, what's interesting is that it's pretty common for people to make 100 grand a year plus on Upwork now. It's become a portal of a lot of different jobs. It's a great place to get hired. It's a great place to hire people. I know I've hired a lot of people there and I've had a great deal of satisfaction with who I've hired there. Now, what I want to do before I get into the ways you can make a lot of money is I'd like to share with you a few stories if you don't mind of different people who have made money on Upwork. Let's see here. These are examples. This person here, Gagan Pre-K, total earnings from Upwork, over $100,000. They completed 93 jobs. Now, you can actually go to Upwork and you can look at people's profiles and see how many jobs they did and how much money they earned. This person here that I just read to you, a professional website developer and designer with over 10 years of experience in India and then they have their profile right there. Dimitri C, total earnings from Upwork, over $200,000. They only completed eight jobs. Work description, professional website developer and senior programmer. Location is Yashkar Ola Russia and then they have their profile there. Marcus H, total earnings from Upwork, over $200,000. Only completed five jobs, work experience, experience software engineer with over 17 years of experience. They're located in Lipsig, Germany. Troy W. H, total earnings over $100,000.  Jobs completed 655, but keep in mind the work description is voice over professional with own home studio and they're in Irmo, United States. Joanna, check out Joanna. Total earnings over $100,000, only 18 jobs. And she is a creative director, Belmondo.tv with over 17 years of design experience in San Rafael, United States. We've got Mark D. S, total earnings from Upwork, over $100,000, 129 jobs. And the work description is WordPress, Speed Optimization and Wiz and they're in court, Elizabeth, South Africa. And we'll look at one more here. How about Ron Z, total earnings from Upwork? Are you ready for this? $100,000, $100,000, let me say that one more time. $100,000,000 jobs completed 602. Work description is professional web developers specializing in high quality WordPress development and they're in Los Angeles, in the United States. So I could go on and on and on on these but the bottom line is that a lot of money can be made on Upwork. And rather than me telling you you can make a lot of money, I showed you examples that came directly from Upwork so you can see it. So when I give you this information you're gonna know that it actually works. Now, if you're ready to build your career on Upwork let's get right into it. Number one is gonna be know your capabilities and where you can shine. Know your capabilities and where you can shine. So what this means is you have certain talents right now. Everybody does, everybody has some talents. You can improve on them but there's certain things that you're really, really good at. And if you're really, really good at those things and you double down on those that's where the money's gonna be made. You wanna evaluate yourself. I wouldn't suggest you quitting your full-time job right now not until you get this dialed in but once you get this dialed in you'll be able to. And figure out what you're really, really good at and concentrate on that and go after jobs. Go after jobs that match the skills you already have. Number two is understand the market and know what your clients want. The first thing that I hear a lot of people say is I don't know what to charge. I have no idea what to charge. How much do I charge? And all that's out there for you. It's all there for you. All you gotta do is study the market. All you gotta do is go into Upwork. Look at different jobs that are similar to the ones that you wanna do and see what they're charging. Now, that doesn't mean you have to charge what everybody else is charging. If you're exceptional at something, if you're a whole lot better than everybody else certainly you can charge more money. Don't be afraid to do that. The big problem I see is confidence level. A lot of freelancers don't think they're worth the money when in fact they probably are. They just, they're scared because they haven't been paid that before. You know, once you've been paid $200 an hour or $500 an hour you're like, well I must be worth it then. Now you have the confidence. So all you gotta do is go out and get some jobs and you'll gain that confidence and you can up your rates. Now certainly there are certain things that only pay X number of dollars. Okay, if you're doing data entry you can only do data entry so well. Okay, and you're only gonna get X number of dollars for that and that's gonna be a lower paying thing. But if you have something that takes a lot of expertise, a lot of skill and it can generate money or a lot of benefits to a business or an individual then of course you can charge a lot more money. The number three is getting ready to hustle. You gotta work, man. You gotta work. Making $100,000 or more on Upwork is gonna take some work. You've gotta understand what people want but you gotta be willing to hustle. You gotta be willing to respond to people quickly. You know, when they contact you or they have questions, know what they want, have good answers and answer quickly. I know at this point I didn't talk to somebody working on my website and it's been a week and a half and they still haven't given me the list of things they're gonna do. Can you bet that I'm not going to hire this person? No, I'm not gonna hire him. Number four, focus on quality over quantity. If you wanna make good money, you gotta do really good things, okay? If you think about it and you're a musician and you can play 200 songs but you're not really good at any of them, you'll probably never become a star, okay? But if you're a musician and you're phenomenal at two or three songs and you have a hit song and you just perform that song amazing, you sing amazing, you're gonna get paid a whole lot more than that guy who can play 300 songs from memorization but none of them very well. Number five, constantly improve your skills. It's so easy to say, gee, I'm good at this and I've learned it and this is what I do from now on but that's not the end of it. You have to constantly improve your skills, especially if you're working online because things change, software's change, technology's change. You have to be on top of all this stuff so that you get paid top dollar. Number six, don't be afraid to say no. In the beginning, you're gonna wanna make money and you're gonna think to yourself, well, the more jobs I do, the more money I'm gonna make. That's not always the case. If it's a low paying job and it's a lot of work, that may be one you'll wanna say no to. You ultimately have to make that decision on every single job but ultimately you'd like to have a lot of high quality jobs that pay high. So if you have some low quality jobs and you're working on those jobs, understand you've said yes to that so you're gonna be saying no to maybe a high paying job when it comes along.  You have to leave some of your time free so you can look for more jobs and find jobs that are gonna pay you more money. Number seven, showcase your work. Let people see it, put together a nice portfolio. The one thing I don't see people really going after is testimonials after the sale, after the work's been performed. Testimonials are amazing. I know I use a lot of them in my marketing for my companies but people wanna see that other people are happy. If you could get some video testimonials on your site where people are actually talking, that's pretty amazing because I think a lot of times when you have a picture in some words that somebody says, yeah, maybe they said it, maybe they didn't say it. Maybe that's not even a picture of a client. I don't know, but if there's a real human talking and they're saying your name and they're saying I got good results, this guy built me a great website. This person really improved our sales. This person built a sales funnel for us. If you've got that going for you, that's a whole lot more believable. So you really wanna showcase your work and let people know what you can do and let them see examples of people and things that you've done. It doesn't work like I'm gonna start off in January and by December I'll make $100,000. Now it might, but for the most part you've gotta build into it. You've got to get more and more jobs. You've got to get more and more reviews. And in the beginning, you're not gonna have any jobs. You're not gonna have any jobs. Now, I said a couple minutes ago, don't take too low of paying jobs, but if you have no jobs whatsoever, you've gotta get some in the beginning. You've gotta get some jobs in the beginning. So here's what I tell everybody when they go on to Upwork or anything like that, if you've got no ratings and no jobs, it's gonna be hard for you to get hired. So you've gotta get ratings, you gotta get jobs. How do you go about that? You find a job and this is just a number example. Let's say the job pays 500 bucks. You may contact that person and say, hey, I see you got a job that's 500 bucks. I normally charge 700 or 800 for that job. However, I need to get some testimonials because I'm new on Upwork, be honest with them. And I'll do your job for 200 bucks. I'll do your job for 300 bucks. Now you may say, well, JR, that's way lower than what I would normally charge. I know that, but you don't have any clients yet, right? So if you do some jobs like that, they're way lower than what you normally charge. First off, you're probably gonna get a good recommendation because you didn't hardly charge them anything. You gave them a really good deal.  So you can start getting a lot of jobs, a lot of reviews, a lot of testimonials.  Maybe the next time it's gonna be 350 or 400. Then maybe the next time it's gonna be 480 to the point where you actually meet those amounts out there that people are asking.  But you've gotta put in the work.  Too many people say, I wanna make more, and when I make more, then I'm gonna do more. Doesn't work that way. I see people do that on the jobs all the time. They'll say, they don't pay me to do that. They don't pay me to do that. That's true, they don't pay you to do that. So what you need to do is more than what your job is so that they feel like they need to pay you more. You say, well, I won't do that. Yes, they will. Yes, they will. I've been in jobs for years. And if you put in more effort, you work harder and you get better results, they realize that you're quality, okay? They realize that you need to be paid more. Now, in the job marketplace, working on a job, there are some companies that will never give you a raise. I get that. But in something like Upwork, where you're doing really good quality work, a lot of people always want that high quality person. Remember, your reviews are everything. Keep your clients happy. You've gotta, gotta keep your clients happy. If you have a few bad reviews that can really, really hurt your rating, you don't want that. Communicate with them upfront. What you will do, what you won't do. And that's another thing why people get bad reviews is they don't communicate with them. They may say, I'm gonna do a logo for you. And the person who is hiring you to do the logo, thanks good, I need about 10 different designs and I wanna be able to redo them at least three times before I see what I want. You may be thinking, I'm gonna do three logos for this person, then get one revision. If you don't communicate what you're thinking and they don't communicate what they're thinking, you're gonna have a problem and you could end up with a bad review. So it's really important to be very clear on any job that you bid, you write out exactly what you're gonna do for them and then over deliver just a little bit. Do a little bit more than what you say you're gonna do but make sure you let them know what you're gonna do because if it doesn't match up, if what you wanna do doesn't match what they want, they want a whole lot more than that, you don't wanna take that job because it's only gonna mean a bad review for you and it's only gonna cost you money. I hope this helps you, I hope this helps you make some money online, I know it will if you do it. I really appreciate you listening. I do have a course below and you can grab that course, it's regularly a $97 course, you can grab it absolutely free, just click and learn for a limited time. Also, what else do I need you to do? I think I need you to subscribe. Yeah, you need to hit that subscribe button down there and then once you do that, you need to ring the bell, turn on all bell notifications so you're notified every single time I do a new video. I really appreciate you watching this video. I thank you so much. Comments below, have you worked on Upwork? Have you worked on any of these other sites? Put that below, what kind of money you make and what do you charge and what's your experience been? If you need help with it, put that in the comments below too. Thank you so much for watching this video and I'll see you in the next one. Hey, thanks for watching my video. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel and click that little bell right here so you can be notified every time I do a new video. Also, click on one of those videos there. Keep watching on my channel.


Well, good morning and Lou I want to thank you for buying so many books You are now my number two salesman right behind Paul Krugman. I Think you intended to help I'm quite sure that he didn't Anyway, I do Appreciate everybody's coming out this morning to hear about this But I and I don't want to step on my own book But I do want to give a slight warning that if you're listening to the audible book while you're driving Be careful. It has generated several cases of road rage already So just keep that in mind I've actually been on the road now so to speak on the book tour for six weeks And I've been very much looking forward to this morning Because so far the book has been denounced by the left and the right and Republicans and Democrats and Keynesians and monitors and supply ciders and Wall Street and K Street and the military industrial complex and the neocons and the social cons and the just cons and For all of it for all of you who haven't focused on all of those the just cons are about everybody else left in Washington When the other categories are taken into account But I know there are some people who don't buy All those theories all those ideologies and I think a few of you are here today And I'm very appreciative of the fact of the fact that you came out Now I think it's fair enough that there have been so many brick bats thrown at my book from so many points on the Political compass because I do describe what has evolved over decades This is kind of a revisionist history as ending up in a crony capitalist dystopia in which capitalism is being eroded and undermined and basically disabled and in which political democracy no longer really functions in any Viable sense. It's more or less a money-driven crony interest group K Street driven system So I can understand why there were so many negative Reactions, but I do think when professor Paul Krugman Responded to my book. He went over the top a little bit As you know, he is the self-anointed and self-appointed Tribune of all matters correct all correctness in the economic matters But when he said that my book was the raving of a cranky old man I thought that that was really a little too much.  Actually, you were a cranky young man, too And you apparently, you know never got over it But apparently there are a lot of cranky people in America because the day that his blog Appeared which was about the second or third day after the book was released It shot right up to the top of the list I was amazed right up the Amazon list and there were only a couple of things that stopped it to diet books And something called the walking dead, which I understand is Some kind of horror novel But I was very pleased that he was so willing to help because the very first week When the book came out it ended up number four On the New York Times bestseller list Now I'm not saying that to boast or to give any benefit to the New York Times As a matter of fact the bad side of this is they're still debating whether it was number four in the fiction or the non-fiction category They haven't yet decided and that debate may go on for a while But speaking of fiction that's really what the fundamental purpose of the book was And that is to kind of debunk and expose all the status myths and errors and nostrums and Ideologies which drive governance in America today And in our entire system And naturally it took me a lot of space to do that because There were there was so much to correct and as I got deep into it I had to go farther back in history in order to unravel all of this and get to the bottom So what I would like to do today is maybe Rather than drag you through the whole book because that would take more time than we have Just kick off a few of the key Kind of themes or propositions that I developed in the book And then I really would before we have to get to the book signing and all of that like to take Questions and get some kind of dialogue going here this morning I started with what I call the blackberry panic Because the reason I actually wrote the book was in september 208 I was so outraged when I saw a republican administration panic Inact against the wishes of most of even the republican members of the house and senate tarp support the federal reserve as it got out all of its monetary fire hoses and essentially Flood wall street with massive amounts of money The bailouts of aig and all of the wall street firms and the banks and gm and so forth I thought that that was really a rubicon And that either everything we believe about free markets and fiscal rectitude and all the rest of it Is wrong or the facts that they were adducing Are wrong and so what I've tried to do in the book is lay out and tick off one by one The arguments that were made and then the answers that I think are pretty persuasive That suggests all of this was unnecessary And it started us down a path, which will be very difficult to Reverse Now the biggest event in that period as you remember Is the aig bailout and what I try to show in the book Is that the 180 billion dollars that went to aig was really not necessary That the problem was in the holding company that had written the so-called credit default swap insurance The holding company was actually based in london for that matter It had no liquidity and as a result had aig been forced to go into bankruptcy The credit default swaps that the holding company would have been Total losses the banks who bought that insurance Would have suffered the loss, but if you look at the numbers I've laid out You will see that it was uh, basically Absorbable by the banking system There were 20 large banks Including a lot of big european banks like barclays and sock jen Deutsche bank as well as the big us banks that had bought the credit default swaps But between them they had 20 trillion dollars worth of balance sheet And if you look at the loss exposure on the credit default swaps, it's in the range of 60 billion And so therefore we're talking about less than 1 percent Of the balance sheet of the huge global banks that had bought the cds in order to basically Arbitrage the banking regulations and by that I mean They were buying all kinds of cdos and sub securitized sub prime debt and so forth But when you bought the cds, which was triple a you were able to magically transform Your uh, you know toxic assets your high yielding CDO CDO squared and all the rest of it into triple a credits Therefore you didn't have to put any post under the basal regulations any uh equity on your balance sheet You could harvest the nice income that was yielded By these securities and get essentially an infinite rate of return So it was a good game, but it was a bad bet because the insurance was no good It was written by a holding company that didn't have liquidity The holding company aig was massive it had on its consolidated balance sheet It had hundreds of billions of equity But the thing was that equity was buried in all the insurance subsidiaries And that's the part that was never made clear to the public And so the case was made over and over that we have millions of people who are going to lose their retirement annuities Or we have tens of millions of people that are going to lose their property and casualty coverage and so forth But the truth was all of that insurance was written by these subsidiaries, which were legally separate entities Almost all of them protected by state insurance commissions that had capital standards That had dividend stoppers meaning you couldn't take the cash out You couldn't take the equity out in order to meet margin calls or other payoffs for the cds upstairs So therefore aig was not a contagious economic disease that was going to pollute the entire financial system of the world And take everything down into some in some kind of financial Black hole as a matter of fact if they had put aig into bankruptcy And I think this one is important because it then started the ball rolling Had they put aig into bankruptcy all of the insurance subsidiaries would have been seized Or protected by their Capital standards and their regulatory commissions at the state level for good or ill They're there and the idea that somehow this whole thing was going on wine that hundreds of billions of dollars would be taken out of the subsidiaries and used liquidated that is good assets bonds and stocks and so forth liquidated into the market and creating a huge Further downward spiral. I think was wrong Nevertheless when you did that which was the day after the Lehman failure It was a shocking thing to the whole world aig and I uh spent a lot of years as lucid in the financial world aig up until then was considered the gold standard of the financial system And therefore to see that aig was suddenly without warning in an almost in the equivalent of a nanosecond a few days Suddenly on the verge of collapse and insolvency Was a shock to the system and therefore it opened everyone's Mind so to speak but particularly in washington to the idea that everything's falling apart We've been hit by some Comment from deep space that has polluted our entire financial system With organisms so to speak that are dangerous and we can't understand And so therefore the dominoes fell one after another Once the aig bailout was established as the predicate Pretty soon they were saying things and people were believing things that weren't even remotely true The next thing that happened after aig the shock the utter shock of aig Was the argument was made that the money funds were also unwinding and going into a great collapse Now what I lay out in my book is that at that time There were 3.8 trillion of money funds outstanding So that's a big number and had there been some kind of huge Run on the money market funds that could have been a catastrophic problem. I'll admit to that But when you looked at the numbers what it showed is that half of that huge huge number the 3.8 trillion half of it Consisted of so-called Government funds that had no commercial paper that had no other risky paper in those funds So that when the Lehman failure occurred and one of the big money funds broke the buck I think some of you remember that That had nothing to do with half of that whole industry There was no Lehman paper or any other toxic paper or any other risky commercial paper or so forth in The 1.8 trillion money or government fund part of it Now here's the part that they didn't tell you the other 1.8 trillion was basically in funds that held government paper Bank paper and a small amount of commercial paper Including Lehman and what happened during the crisis is That the prime funds. This is the other 1.8 trillion Had a drain quickly of about 400 billion But what they didn't tell you was that almost all of that drain out of the prime funds Which occurred because people wondered well if You know there's Lehman paper in here. What else is in here? Almost all of it went across the street in the same money market fund families To the government only funds in other words people hit the send button And move massive amounts of money 400 billion dollars roughly to government only funds It didn't go into a black hole. It wasn't a Classic run on the market. It wasn't going to take anything down It was a rational adjustment when investors realized that what they had been told all these years about prime funds That they were money good 100 cents on the dollar was a marketing Exaggeration that wasn't true So therefore if you remember at the time we had all of this notion that this great 3.8 trillion dollar industry Was coming unraveled. It was going to you know, stimulate a contagion That hit the entire financial system Basically it wasn't true. They waived the 400 billion dollar number at congressmen who were lined up like sheet in these meetings In order to get the votes on tarp and to get the sanction for what the fed was doing But in the end of the day less than 60 billion of that 3.8 trillion actually left the money fund industry It just moved from column a to column b and even the 60 billion that left Mainly went into treasury paper and into bank cds So again, that was the second big event and the whole scary story told at the time Was that as the money market funds unraveled the commercial paper industry would collapse Pretty soon, uh payrolls couldn't be met ATMs would go dark all the rest of that Again, that wasn't true Now the third thing they said at the time Was that the banking system on main street would be the next to fall in other words We were going to have Runs on the entire banking system and my argument which I lay out pretty well I think in the book is that the runs were entirely in the canyons of wall street In the wholesale funding markets and by that I mean the repo market the unsecured commercial paper The last gambling houses standing were basically Goldman Morgan Stanley because by then a Lehman was gone Bear Stearns was gone America Bank America was picking up Merrill Lynch and so forth And so the point was made or the argument was made that this was going to spread in some kind of crescendo To the entire main street banking system Well again, you have to look at the facts and when I did the analysis and went through all the facts What I found was that at that moment in time that week of september 15 208 The banking system had something like 12 trillion of assets But if you sort it through class by class you find out that less than a hundred billion Of securitized mortgages the so-called toxic paper CDOs CDO squared the mortgage backed securities of one type or another was In the main street banking system Most of that paper was actually on the balance sheet of wall street banks Or in hedge funds or had been distributed out to institutional investors around the world And so again the idea that we were going to have huge retail runs on the banking system Just doesn't hold up the facts aren't there and and as I try to lay it out it wouldn't have happened So overall a huge mistake I think was made and that was kind of a rubicon in terms of where we're going With a banking a federal reserve system That's totally out of control with a fiscal situation that really is getting more desperate by the day With the rules of free free markets more or less set aside all of it, I think You know turned in a very bad direction In those moments or weeks during the blackberry panic Now Bernanke did say at the time and this is what I think put the fear into the whole system That we were on the verge of the great depression 2.0 That I take on in my book and I demonstrate it wasn't even remotely In front of the country That the us economy and 208 Had already off-shored most of its industrial economy We were no longer an exporter like we were in 1930 31 and 32 when we did have the great collapse And as a result our economy was structured differently and would not have plunged into a downward spiral That couldn't be stopped 90 percent of personal income was coming from transfer payments Or government salaries or the private service industry in the united states That was not going to plunge into a huge process of inventory liquidation Because as a matter of fact the fact showed that in the first nine months it went in the opposite direction transfer payments went up Automatically government salaries obviously were not cut The layoffs were significant in the private service industry, but it didn't collapse like manufacturing and tradeable goods An industrial economy does When you have a huge decline Like we had in 1930 so I have some facts in the book again Which compare what happened in the early thirties with what happened in 208 and it's rather startling in the Early thirties we were a massive predator export power a huge industrial manufacturing economy So that when the post 29 collapse came The economy had inventories massive inventories, which you have in manufacturing Equal to about 35 percent of GDP Inventories were liquidated over the next three years to the tune of about 50 percent of the starting point And therefore there was a massive hunk taken out of the economy about 17 percent of gdp As a result of the industrial export economy and ag economy at that time, which was also a big exporter liquidating in response to the collapse that occurred worldwide Not just as a result of 1929 And so that started a process in which everything declined dramatically Personal consumption spending back then in the 3032 time frame dropped by 20 percent As a result of wages Collapsing and activity collapsing in the industrial economy Well, you can go through all of it and you compare to what happened in 208 and you can see that it was totally a false alarm In 208 obviously the Hoover veils that happened 80 years ago were in china They weren't here the great export power in the industrial system of the world was in china not the united states So when our economy went into adjustment after the uh leemann crisis Inventory liquidation amounted to two percent of gdp not 17 percent a huge difference Difference uh the decline in personal consumption spending in real terms in the first nine months was about two percent Not 20 percent and you can go through all the different numbers which were laid out in my book And the point is Bernanke was looking in a rear view mirror at what happened in 1930 32 Assumed uh inappropriately that it was going to happen this time And then pulled out all the stops spread the panic as the great scholar Of the great depression all around washington. He was given credit unfortunately for being a Scholar of the great depression. In fact, I try to lay out in the book that he wasn't he simply Xeroxed Milton Friedman's erroneous theory Of how it all came about and so Again when you overlay that onto the panic that was going on in the canyons of wall street Great depression 2.0 around lurking around the corner The meltdown that was going on in wall street that would have burned itself out on its own in my view Spreading to the rest of the economy and the main street banking system and so forth You got a scenario that was totally inaccurate in terms of what the facts of life were But it lives with us indefinitely because people still believe That somehow the system is so exposed to systemic risk So these outbreaks of contagion that we no longer can Observe any of the old rules the old rules about free markets and the right to succeed or fail And that uh losses need to be absorbed privately as well as gains The idea that uh We ought to basically pay our bills in this country fiscally has been lost as well Because the job of the government has now been Become to prop up the entire financial system Because of these systemic weaknesses and so forth that allegedly Were revealed in the blackberry panic of 208 So I spent a fair amount of time on that in the book and I wanted to talk about it as kind of an opening Way to to get at the book today because I think That's where everything went in the wrong direction and we now have uh A process going on in washington where both parties have become reconciled To the necessity of all this And therefore I think we no longer have any kind of honest competition of ideas Left in the system what we have is crony capitalism What we have is some kind of Temporizing process if you look at the solution that came out of that whole crisis dodd prank You realize that that's an exercise in pure Regulatory petty foggery. Uh, it is not going to change anything. It'll keep the lawyers and the accountants In the consultant busy for years to come But it doesn't address what went wrong at the central bank. It doesn't address what really happened In the blackberry panic of 208 So, uh, those are a few thoughts that I wanted to launch here this morning There's a lot more obviously in the book But uh, why don't I stop at that and try to respond to questions that may Relate to what I've just said or anything else that goes back to the 1930s. Thank you Okay over here Who's a Yeah, well, I think that is a really good point and I mean it's the essence of what what went wrong in 208 They said that the bankruptcy law wasn't adequate to handle the aig Crisis it certainly was I have another whole section in the book about gm The idea that gm couldn't get a diploma that gm couldn't have gone into bankruptcy The normal way is so much urban myth urban legend And I point out in the book that in the quarter that they filed, you know, they're 10 q the quarter before the bailout in the fall of 208 GM had 150 billion dollars worth of assets on their balance sheet Now some of them were worth less than 100 cents on the dollar But in that were massively valuable assets including all their plants their distribution system their brands their foreign subsidiaries Which some of them were highly valuable in brazil china and so forth In the point of a bankruptcy is in bankruptcy you get to prime all the other liabilities that have a claim on those assets So there were 150 billion liabilities, but those were unfunded pension They would go to the back of the line and ultimately to the pension benefit guarantee corporation There was 50 billion dollars worth of bank loans in debt. They would have gone to the back of the line There was 30 or 40 billion dollars worth of unfunded medical a retiree medical benefits They would have gone to the back of the line So the point that I try to lay out in the book is the argument that gm couldn't get a dip loan That would be secured by all of those assets Was really incredible It wasn't true and yet it was the excuse that frankly polson made to bail out gm In december 208 Now as a result of that essentially what happened is we turned A big industry in the united states into a political food fight As to where the automotive production is going to occur Either south of the mason vixen line or north In other words, there wasn't going to be a shortage of cars There there was enormous excess capacity particularly in the transplant auto assembly plants in alabama and tennessee and tuckey and mississippi and south dakota and south carolina georgia and so forth the issue was were those Cars demanded by the economy once the economy settled down Were they going to be produced in these new efficient transplant operations Where the weighted average cost Fully loaded cost i should say Of employees was about 60 000 a year or were they going to be made in the broken down run down uw Plants in ohio michigan and wisconsin That paid a hundred thousand a year that's all it was about And if you go through all the facts and i've laid them out pretty well i think in the book Essentially, what the bailout did was move 40 000 jobs From the transplant auto belt in the south and also which happened to be red states In the electoral college And moved them to the blue states And the auto plants that were rescued In ohio michigan and a few other places in the rust belt now that's what that's what happened And when you have the power of government when you have the power of the state being used to move Jobs in this manner For no justifiable reason except who has the most political clout And in this case from right to work states to union states It's just another indication of how far we've drifted from a workable system now what i worry is that since they were able to Overcome the bankruptcy predicate and that's what should have happened to gm and chrysler In that crisis Where are we going to be when you have the next crisis and the next crisis and the next crisis the precedents are all there And what happens is they will argue that it's so big And the consequences are so great that we have to basically throw out the rule of law and implement instead kind of discretionary seat of the pants subjectively driven Use of political power and that's exactly what happened in the auto bailout even though the wall street bailout I think was horrible. It shouldn't have happened Those firms that would have gone down could have been reorganized. They'd probably be a lot more prudent operators today But I think the gm case was even worse because it has left the myth which gets repeated over and over And you heard it in the last campaign That the automobile industry was saved that a hunt that a million jobs were on the line heading for You know some kind of economic black holes and that government Broke the rules, but it was necessary in a desperate circumstance To deal with what would have been otherwise an armageddon scenario Now that is really what the received wisdom is today. That's what the current incumbent of the white house was saying on the campaign trail in 212 and none of it is remotely true The auto industry wasn't going to collapse It's a question of where the production was going to occur and yet today We have now revived and reestablished A bailout predicate and interventionist predicate That is far more powerful than anything that existed even in the 1990s or the 1980s Or 1970s when we did some of the earlier smaller bailouts So again, that's why I call our system crony capitalism Because it is based on arbitrary discretionary and panic use of state power To alter outcomes that do not allow the market to work And as a result you get enormous moral hazard, obviously And you get an economic system that becomes less and less productive and flexible over time question over here Right To this world as I would call fascistic system Isn't it possible that as brahman was never let a good crisis go to waste that that was their goal to begin with? Um, well, I um, I think if you When you look at how unlikely all these different uh interventions were you might uh come to that conclusion But I don't think it was intentional. I think it was uh a panic reaction a seat of the pants Series of events one begat the next And as a result, uh, unfortunately precedents have been established And myths have been mythologies have been created That will now drive the system next time uh in next time So I don't think there were people there Saying oh, we have a crisis now we can do what we always wanted to do I don't think so But I do think you had people in power who basically didn't have any real economic principles Didn't really understand, uh, what makes uh capitalism work Why you need free market pricing in the financial markets and in all other markets for that matter And why you can't just constantly throw the state its treasury and the taxpayers in the breach If you expect to have a solvent and viable and sustainable system over time So I think basically, um, the opportunism of our political system caught up With us in uh 208 And unfortunately it was the conservative party that failed In the largest sense of the word because they were supposed to be You know the guardian of fiscal rectitude the republicans uh in a uh, you know competitive democracy like we have Have the job of hard labor on the oars Of fiscal rectitude in telling the public Sometimes there's going to be pain sometimes there's going to be dislocation Sometimes we have to say no, uh, we can't manage Daily economic life through the instruments and uh agencies of the state now That's what the republican party was required to do in 208 They didn't do that because by then they had appointed green spam and after that bernanke They had put, uh, basically canesian Money, uh, you know money, uh, bankers central bankers in charge of our economy They had bought the myth that the fed somehow was making all of this prosperity possible through its deft maneuvering in the financial markets and management of interest rates and and so forth And the whole thing was a gigantic error that created Serial bubbles and when the great bubble finally broke in 207 and 208 They couldn't recognize how they had gotten to that point And you had a wall street guy sitting on the third floor of the treasury Who uh, basically panicked I've said, um That actually if you look at it, it appears that The reason we had the bailouts and tarp and all of that madness Is the occupiers were in control But the occupiers that i'm talking about were the people occupying the third floor of the treasury Who mostly came from goldman sacks Who uh, did not have a large view of public policy But simply a narrow short run view Looking at their blackberries of where the stock price of goldman or the s and p 500 index Or the russell 2000 or any of the other ones were trending down at the moment And uh, it is a Powerful lesson because I am now convinced that washington basically is driven by the stock market They will not do anything by way of reimposing sound policy or reestablishing Fiscal rectitude or changing the mandate of the fed Because there will be such a vicious sell-off in all of these artificially inflated markets so fast That it will scare them into retreat even if they wanted To do something different that's clearly what the lesson of the second tarp vote is the first time they voted it down As you remember in the house The market dropped 600 points That day and it wasn't even that day the market was dropping as you watch the uh, uh, you know time on the voting clock Tick off and so therefore we now have essentially a governance process That is driven by fast money traders and trading robots on wall street And uh, if you think that's a rational system if you think that's, uh, uh, uh, survivable and viable and stable Uh, then you know, you're dreaming about something that couldn't be true in the real world But that's where we are the whole system has now become hostage to You know the uh gambling halls that have been created by the fed and the puts and the easy money and the manipulation of the yield curve and So for it the whole syndrome of uh deformations that stem from a rogue central bank over here Are Yeah, yeah, uh, the question was about the federal reserve and the what we call interest repression or financial repression Obviously, we know that the fed has not repealed the law supply and demand Uh, and we know that the fed is now buying six seven eight billion of Securities mostly government treasury paper, but some uh mortgage backed securities every day That that is fundamentally distorting pricing and undermining price discovery in the financial markets And so therefore none of the interest rates that you see or the price of money are real free market prices They're essentially rigged administered prices set by the fed as a result of the huge presence in the market every day Absorbing this enormous amount of paper Uh, it would not be remotely the case in my judgment today that you would have a five year interest rate on the I mean an interest rate on the five year treasury At 80 basis points or that even the 10 year which is trading at about 1.95 today would be remotely there That isn't a market price. That is a pegged Rigged price set by the fed because of the enormous purchase they're making Something like half of all the flow in the middle part of the yield curve So therefore if you start with the fact that the fed has put the overnight rate at zero the funds rate Put it there or established it there in december 208 and has promised to keep it there until mid 215 Um, and that is then heavily intervening along the rest of the yield curve You have basically a pricing system in the government market and in related Fixed income markets that reflect the intentions And uh the purposes of the fed and not the result of the market Now one of those things is to drive the yield On about eight billion or eight trillion worth of deposits in the united states bank deposits Down to close to zero on a six month CD today. I guess it's something like 40 basis points, uh, or maybe not even that And as a result of that, I believe the fed policy this financial repression the rigging of the yield curve and all interest rates that i've talked about Causes the depositors of america the savers of america to be deprived Of two to three hundred basis points were at the normal interest that would come In a market where prices or interest rates were being set By supply and demand for savings and borrowing in the free market Now if you do the math on that you will see that that adds up to about a 300 to 400 billion dollar transfer From depositors and savers in the banking system To the banks and this is basically how the banks have gotten well all of that then gets uh booked as Net income and retained earnings and their balance sheets get better But it's all come out of the hides of savers in america and depositors That would never happen on the free market And so the the uh simple way to look at it. I think is to ask yourself if you put that's really a fiscal transfer That's not monetary policy. That's a fiscal transfer And if you put that up to a vote in the congress, it wouldn't even get to the floor. I mean it would be It would be laughed out of the committee rooms Because there's no way that the public in america would condone transferring three to four hundred billion a year From savers who want to keep liquid who want to only and put money in safe Accounts and don't want to speculate in the stock market or buy a junk bond fund or the rest of it That wouldn't have a chance Of approval and yet the 12 members of the open of the fed open market committee What I call the monetary pilot bureau of the united states Basically has decided that in its wisdom It is going to make the economy work better grow faster become more prosperous By driving you as a depositor Out the risk curve as they say to use their clinical terms But what they're really saying is we want you to take another dive We've already had three market crashes in the last since the turn of the century But we want you back into the risk assets the russell 2000 high yield bond fund or something Because that will ignite a wealth effect and as soon as we can get everybody thinking they're wealthier Then they'll spend more money and the economy will start working better. I mean it is a terrible doctrine It is a terrible abuse of power that the fed is undertaking And at the heart of it is this huge transfer that goes to your question of wealth arbitrarily From the deposit and savings classes of america to the banking system And it is only a small part to be truthful of the deformations That come from the rogue central bank that we have operating in this country today and frankly Around the world. They're all doing the same thing copying the same policies He do Sustained broken monetary system revolving around the euro To the detriment of the gain of self-interest And yes, uh, this power grab that you just identified here and it's taken to place during tar It shoots you stupidly identified smacks the same erosion Or by the goal is to have the elected government take a fact sheet The monetary capital money interest Here's my question Do you think it's possible that this was a manufacturing financial meltdown? It was attempt by sponsors of Visionaries for the new world order High up in the decision-making chain To facilitate the eventual creation of the single world world currency into one world government I know it's back to conspiracy theory, but one really has to start to wonder What Is this something that is being done Okay, I would say I don't think so Uh either stupidity is contagious Or there is a conspiracy. I would rather think stupidity is contagious And as we look at all the central banks of the world, they're all doing the same thing The bank of england is a disgrace. I mean, this is where allegedly sound central banking started And for a while it did uh follow the rules. There was a gold standard. It did work for 200 years But now when you look at the rate that they're spent uh expanding their balance sheet and the doctrine they're following It's the very same thing that we're doing here. The bank of japan has taken it one step further They've they've gone off the deep end. This is pure lunacy. They're going to increase the size of the balance sheet In two they're going to double it in two years It would be the equivalent of the fed printing five trillion dollars worth of new balance sheet Yeah, no, but I I think it's just No, I don't think so. I I I much rather prefer the stupidity Line of reasoning than the conspiracy because when bad ideas get established And they seem to work in the short run. Okay in the short run You know heroin does seem to give people a high it kills them in the long run And what's happening is all the central banks of the world are scrambling to try to prop up economies Prop up banking systems that are on the verge of insolvency all the european banks In france and in the southern tier most of those banks are only there because they're uh They're only still solving because of sovereign support The governments are running out a balance sheet running out of capacity to borrow in honest capital markets And so everything is being pushed into the venue of central banks So we have a world economy roughly 70 or 80 trillion of total gdp As they measure today being run by eight or nine central banks Who are in a race to the bottom all doing the same thing? I would say the people's printing press of china as I call their central bank Has created money even more rapidly over 10 or 15 years than the fed has Pegging their currency to keep their mercantilist export model working and in the process buying dollars In order to keep their currency pegged And taking in to their vaults massive amounts of treasury paper And government or mortgage backed security paper In the process so You can see that in the numbers which are quite startling By the year 2000 went before this really got bad. I mean green span led the charge and pretty soon everybody Was in line But in the year 2000 all of the central banks of the world had combined footings of about Two trillion dollars combined balance sheets Today it is 15 trillion And it's growing by two and a half trillion a year if you look at the quantitative easing of japan The united states the bank of england the ecb And the the growth of the balance sheet in china. That's what's going on So there is no honest pricing left anywhere in the world Money fast money hot money is flowing back and forth chasing currencies chasing trades Chasing momentum until it stops and then it moves in another direction. This is a very dangerous unstable system And I don't think it was created by a conspiracy Because that could be exposed. I think it was created by stupidity and that's hard to uproot. That's the problem Yeah, okay, that could be true. Okay, there's a question over here Well, I think we're going to revert to something we're totally uncharted waters if you would have asked people in 1995 do you think the Central banks of the world could be in this fantastic race to the bottom this massive daily balance sheet expansion You know vacuuming up Most of the sovereign debt and a lot of related if you would have asked people in 1995 Is this likely I don't think one out of a hundred people would I mean experts would have thought it possible So today we're there there is no precedent You can talk about your other country hyper inflations in history But what happened in argentina? You know or what happened in zimbabwe or what happened in weimar republic germany Is such a small limited historically contained episode That it really doesn't tell us a lot about what happens when there are nine Out of control central banks in this fantastic money printing and Spree and balance sheet expansion that's underway So as a result of that, I don't know where the system is going Whether it's going to bitcoins or gold or who knows what I just don't think this system is sustainable much longer That this is really now in the late stages of a highly Dangerous and unstable process And there is going to be some kind of major monetary collapse Disorder breakdown That will require if we're not going to go back to the caves Will require a major reconstitution of the financial system And the banking systems of the world How that gets done? I don't think any of us have a clue we might have ideas Of what should be done and maybe this is a chance to restore sound money and go back to a gold standard Or go back to very narrow limited purpose central banks But when you have a collapse of the magnitude that is indicated by the momentum underway I think it's very hard to predict how it comes out Now people say well, what should we do here? One of the simple ideas that I keep proposing As i've gone around on this Is why don't we at least go back to the central bank that carter glass had in mind in 1914 When the fed was created And basically that was a bankers bank It only operated through a discount window In other words, there was no open market committee It was not legal for the original federal reserve to even buy or own government securities It couldn't target anything not m1 not m2 Not the unemployment rate or the inflation rate or the number of housing starts or the russell 2000 Which is what Bernanke wants to target or the number of jobs created per month Which is what evans one of the other central bank governors wants to target. There was no targeting of anything GDP and economic expansion occurred on the free market and the outcome was what it was That's what people believe before 1920 And the role of the central bank was simply to take Collateral based on commercial paper that represented real economic activity inventory or receivables In the process collection and loan against that At a discount or a penalty rate To banks that wanted to liquefy some of their collateral in order to meet depositor demands Now that kind of expansion or contraction of reserves in the banking system Would be driven by the banking system would be driven by real business activity And not by a pilot bureau of planners Sitting in the eckles building saying we think we need to notch up GDP growth from 3.1 to 3.3 percent next quarter or boost the housing starts You know from a million to a million to None of this would have occurred none of this targeting And therefore central planning of the GDP and all of its elements Would have occurred under the idea of the glass bank the bankers bank The discount window philosophy the discount window Would have been driven by free market interest rates So if there was a lot of speculation and borrowing going on in the market Interest rates would rise The discount window would offer liquidity to banks but at this rising market rate It could even be double digits and at a penalty above that Only on good collateral That uh was uh, you know a version of the central bank if you're going to have one That would have avoided this Uh massive disaster that we're in today Now the reason I bring it up is simply if you want something practical If you want some way to back off This enormous disaster that we're drifting into now At least reviving the idea of what the original Bankers bank model was like Might uh be a starting point for the debate Because it would uh illuminate It would expose the fact that today We basically have a central bank running the economy through the crude tools of the disc of uh interest rate management yield curve management The various puts and all the other things that they're doing Okay, thank you


Hi, everyone. Thank you for attending my talk. I'm going to be presenting Seed on Spaces, a new algebraic concept, and their application to construct publicly cryptosystems. Before we begin, I must apologize that I am not from this community. So please accept my apology if I explain too much detail, things that you find trivial, or skip things that you do not find trivial. And in any case, I'll be happy to take any questions off my head. A moment of legacy. Chimon Seedon was a Hungarian mathematician that died in the time of death in 1941. He was an academic brother of Paul Erdisch. And other than this very short Wikipedia entry, his legacy includes Seedon sets. These are sets of positive integers, such that for any two pairs in the set, if there are sums coincide, then they must be the same pair. In words, if one is given a sum, one can identify the elements which constitute the sum. The questions in this area of study is how large T can be, the size of the set, of course, with respect to the range m. Clearly, all sums fit within the range of 2m, and therefore 2m has to be as large as the number of different sums. And respective constructions do exist way back from Paul Erdisch's time. In this talk, we're going to discuss crypto applications of Seedon spaces that can be seen as a multiplicative and linear algebraic variant of Seedon sets. A few words about how the research of Seedon spaces came about. In the early 2000s, the hot topic in the coding theory community was network coding. This topic discusses information transmission in networks from multiple sources to multiple things. And the surprising result there is that linearly combining packets in intermediate nodes can achieve the capacity of the network. This results in interest in so-called subspace codes. A subspace code is a set of subspaces of the extension field FQ to the n, or the base field FQ, such that any two have low dimensional intersection. They are used for error correction in network coding. This observation ignited an influx of research about subspace codes, which included cyclic subspace codes. These are subspace codes with an additional field structure, meaning that their construction exploits the structure of the extension field, and not just its structure as a vector space. And that's where me and my collaborators show up. They can be constructed from so-called Seedon space, which we haven't seen the definition of yet. This brings us to this paper, where we show that the same Seedon spaces that were used in this research are also applicable to construct a public key critical systems. Without further ado, the Seedon space is a subspace of the extension field over the base field, such that take any two pairs of elements and multiply them if you get the same result of the multiplication, then these pairs must be identical up to a constant multiple from the base field. In other words, given the product, one can determine the elements uniquely up to a multiplication by a scale. Where is the scalar coming from? Since you can always squeeze any scalar lambda non-zero from the base field here and still get the same product. Similar question, what is the largest k, which is the dimension of the Seedon space, with respect to n of a subspace that has this property? Similar counting arguments show that n has to be at least 2k, give or take. And respective construction was given by me and my collaborators a few years ago with n equals 2k. I will only remark that a Seedon space is not something unique. There are plenty of those, and a rough balance here to the domain here. Why should they be applicable to cryptography? Intuitively, for A and B in a Seedon space, B, to factor the product to the constituent elements, one must know V. A different mean, V would result in a different factorization. So the idea here is Alice choosing a secret Seedon space publishes something that enables the sender to compute products but still keeps V private. The sender will then encrypt its message, A and B, to the ciphertext, A B, without knowing V. Alice would then be able to factor A B to A and B, since she knows V. But Eve will not be able to do that. In what follows, we show that this can be done not only with Bob, not knowing V, but even without knowing that there is any extension field in this key. The question is, which V should Alice use? Which Seedon space? And the answer is literally any, as long as she knows some efficient factorization number. We naturally use the construction that we had in the paper way back, when, which is rather simple omitting something in calities. The construction is as follows. Take any gamma, which does not lie in the intermediate field f u to the k, where n equals 2k. And take the simple construction of all elements of the form u plus u to the q gamma, where u is in the intermediate field. In a nutshell, this works since one in gamma are linearly independent over the intermediate field. And therefore, the product of two elements from this V, which have this form for some u and v in the intermediate field, can be described as a linear combination of one and gamma. The coefficients in this linear combinations are from the intermediate field, and can be rather easily extracted. This gives us an efficient factorization algorithm for products in Vs in CDOM spaces V that were constructed according to our construction. The challenge here, I repeat, is to enable Alice to publish something which enables a sender to compute products in V, but does not expose V. The idea that we use is as follows. Fix some basis V1 through Vk for your CDOM space V and observe that for every two elements A, B in it, they can of course be represented as a linear combination of those V1 through Vk over the base field. However, when we compute the product between these linear combination, move it to vector form, then move it to a matrix form, we see that the so-called multiplication table here arises. This probably doesn't come as a great surprise to many of you that already know that multiplication in finite field is technically the bilinear form. Therefore, our idea here is to publish the multiplication table V of a secret CDOM space without revealing its identity. This happens as follows. The parameters of the system are Q, the base field size Vk, the dimension of the CDOM space, and here would be just 2k. Alice begins by choosing construction for the extension field and a basis. The construction of some CDOM space again will be random and a respective basis. Then Alice will construct the so-called multiplication table of V, which is this basis transpose times itself. This is a K by K matrix over the extension field that's Q to the n. And as such, it can be represented as a linear combination of some matrices times the basis elements beta one through beta. These matrices over here are K by K matrices over FQ. These matrices will be precisely the public key which Alice published. When Bob wants to send something to Alice, it will map its message into two vectors of length K over FQ. And send the bilinear product of these elements by the matrix M. Moving on, when Alice receives this cycle text, she uses the secret basis of the extension field to compute the following linear combination. It equals this expression where you can see that the expression here inside the parenthesis is simply the multiplication table of the secret CDOM space V. As such, this linear combination is simply a product between two elements in the secret CDOM space V. Therefore, these two elements can be extracted from which Alice can extract the precise vectors A1 to BK and B1 to BK, which is Bob's message. Let's think about the hardness of this. If one thing that she sees is the public key, i.e., the matrices M1 to MN, which compose the multiplication table of the CDOM space. Yet she does not know the basis of the CDOM space nor the basis of the extension field which are used in this expression. She also sees the Cypher text, meaning the bilinear product of the message by the matrices in line. Therefore, she needs to solve this by linear set of equations, which has N variables and N equations. This is the reason that we categorize this cryptosystem as a multivariate. Multivariate cryptosystems are normally broken by MinRank attack in either one of two formulations, the kernel formulation and the minor formulation, which we'll discuss briefly. In this paper, we prove that both formulations succeed only with very small probabilities, specifically exponentially small in the size of the plain text. We support these experiments, we support these findings with experiments and discuss several specialized things. I would like to disclaim, we're not claiming any breakthrough in post quantum cryptography here. We have hardness proofs for attacks of this form, which are quite common, but we do not have a hardness proof of the CDOM cryptosystems in general. So Eve sees these matrices that were constructed as such, where this is the multiplication table of the CDOM space. Observe that this multiplication table is simply a rank one matrix over the extension. Therefore, to extract the private key from the public key, Eve needs to find a rank one linear combination of the MIs where the coefficients come from the extension. This will allow her to find the basis of the CDOM space and therefore to break the system. Stated formally, given the public key, one needs to find the beta eyes in the extension field, such the respective rank of this target matrix is one. This is a min rank problem with a few notable differences. Those MIs are over the base field where the coefficients are over the extension. Normally, in mean rank, these are the same field. The solution beta eye should be a basis to an extension field and the resulting VI should spend some CDOM space. It is unclear to us what can be done if this system is solved and the solution does not satisfy these requirements. Nevertheless, we focus on finding any solution not necessarily which satisfies these extra conditions. In its first formulation, the idea is that any vector in the target matrix gives rise to this system of linear equations, linear in the lambda eyes. Since there are K, which is N over two linear equations here and N lambda eyes, if we manage to find meaning to guess two or more such use, we get the system with the potential to pin down the exact solution lambda eye. However, this is not feasible. The kernel here, I remind you, is over the extension field. Therefore, if you choose U at random, the probability that this U in the kernel is exponentially small in the size of the extension field. Therefore, it is unlikely that this guess will work even if you only want to find one and nevertheless, if you need to find two. You might see this cheat and guess a vector in the base field rather than the extension field, which is doomed to fail and this thing over here is a one line proof. In the minor formulation of the min-rank attack, we observe that if the rank of the target matrix is indeed one, it implies that all two by two minors, meaning all determinants of two by two matrices should be zero. This provides setting all the two by two minors to zero provides a quadratic system in the lambda eyes. This system is usually solved via linearization, meaning every pair of lambda eye lambda j is replaced by a single variable z i j. And then we build the resulting coefficient matrix called it omega, which is now over fq. This coefficient matrix corresponds to a linear system about n square variables and n to the fourth equations. We know that the dimension of this kernel is at least one. This is simply since the system is solved, the secret basis solution to the system does give you a solution to the linear system. If the dimension of the kernel here is at most one, we can find it. We'll find a solution, arrange it in a matrix, it will be an n by n matrix. This would be provably a rank one matrix. We're going to find this rank one decomposition and output its elements, the elements of the respective vector as our solution. However, if the dimension of the kernel here happens to be more than one, we're essentially stuck because we are left with another bin rank problem. Once we've found the kernel of omega, inside that kernel, we need to find the respective z, which is a rank one. This is technically the same problem as we began. In most random instances, linearization works in the minor formulation and the dimension of the kernel would indeed be one. In all instances resulting from seed on critical system, we have the dimension of the kernel omega equals two n. To put it more formally, we have verified experimentally for any value of q and every value of k, that the dimension of the kernel is two n. We have been able to partially explain that mathematically and we show that for every q and k, the dimension of the resulting kernel of omega is at least n. Meaning there is no straightforward forward way to solve the minor formulation of min rank problem via linearization. A few words about the proof outline. What we prove is that in the minor formulation of min rank, there are at least n linearly independent vectors in the kernel of omega. What we do in the proof is that we take the multiplication table of the entire secret field fq to the n, which gives rise to these matrices behind. In some sources in the literature, this is called the multiplication tensor of the fq. And up to some changes basis, we show that some vectorization of the i is in the kernel of omega. An interesting fact we observed is that when we doing sort of the secondary attack, meaning we try to find a rank one matrix in the kernel of omega, perhaps this is solvable by linearization. We find once again that the same vectors are also in the kernel. This also happens in your third time that you do this in the fourth time and so on. I find this to be a very interesting phenomenon. We were able to explain that mathematically, but we're not sure exactly what's the bigger picture. Different attacks we implemented. We tried to apply Robin-Base's algorithm on a generic main rank. And as expected, it was exponential. We also applied several Robin-Base's algorithm to find an equivalent seed on space which performed the worst out of all attacks. Our code is available in GitHub if any of you is interested. For future work, all right, two venues, one of them is the attack system, probably by exploiting the structure of seed on space. We really don't know how. Another thing which we weren't very able to do is to analyze the big security of the system. Another venue which we have a few suggestions is to strengthen the system. First of all, to understand where these extra in dimensions in the kernel are coming from. Second is to use a generalization of seed on space. That's called R seed on space. In an R seed on space, you have unique R products instead of unique pairwise products. In other words, a seed on space is a two seed on space. Some constructions are known in the same paper that we have a few years ago. Another thing that will strengthen the system is instead of using one-dimensional multiplication table, we can use a two or three or whatever dimension multiplication table. Meaning instead of publishing VV transposed, we publish UU transposed plus VV transposed, meaning the additions of two different multiplication tables. This would result in an attack which is trialing instead of bilayer and therefore the resulting system will be more difficult. Thank you for your attention and I'll be happy to take any questions.


Hey guys, so The countdown is here. I'm like so excited Because I'm not too sure if you're gonna see this After we already leave or before I'm not sure, but I Got my outfit. So for the rehearsal dinner, I have like like evening pants You know the the wide-legged evening pants. I actually have had them for about maybe 10 years But I went out and I bought a couple of other things and then I decided I was gonna wear my my really dressy dressy Wide-leg evening pants. They almost look like a gown if you stand with your your feet together, but I did buy a Glit a top a glittery top You know with like a camion underneath it then the outer part is all glitters and all that so I bought that and I've been wearing my shoes Every day for about 20 minutes to an hour to try to break my feet into the high heels and So I've been doing that really slowly. So I got that for the rehearsal dinner and Then because you know, I mean, I don't have a big role to play at all But I'm the stepmother of the groom So I need to I need to be dressing and so for the wedding. I have a it's a chiffon Black with that was a black skirt with like chiffon over it goes to the floor and it's just really pretty It's also an older skirt. It's not anything that I have brand new But so the skirt I've had for a number of years and it just kind of like a little bit of an a-line So it sweeps out at my ankles and then I have a top that has a black almost like a little bit of a Collar and then a solid rhinestone across it rhinestones across the sleeves It's like three-quarters sleep goes a little bit below my elbows. It's very elegant. It's not It's a it's a very elegant look and of course the wedding colors are black and gold So I can wear black to a wedding. I bought a couple of different hair accessories about some pins and stuff like that because I I have I'm gonna probably put my hair up and I'm gonna twist my hair up and then I have those fake buns that you guys have seen me wear over and over again I'm gonna put that in my hair and I'm gonna pin this along With the fake bun and then I bought some jewelry one of these I'm wearing I think I'm gonna wear this for the rehearsal dinner and I'm not sure I'm gonna still go and look for something else Initially, I bought this for the wedding, but I'm not really liking them I think what I really need to do is still and And at the time of this recording I haven't done it is get like some sort of a necklace because it does have the rhinestones across the top But I felt I've got a lot of bear here and I just felt that I need something here So maybe a little bit of a rhinestone Necklace and in all of that. I thought that was really cool. So what I did I'm just gonna come up in my ampties But what I did is because I'm gonna be wearing open-toe shoes And we're we're actually going into a warmer climate the weddings in Atlanta and then we're gonna go on a little mini Vacation to the coast we're gonna go over to Savannah Hilton head and So I wanted to make sure that my feet were sandal ready So every year I do a food a food. I need a food exhalation. Trust me. I do a foot exhalation and This is the second year in a row that I've used this one And the first time I used it I was really really pleased on this one I didn't think my feet got as much of a peel as it has previously But this is yeah I'm not gonna do it again because you know you put this on and then it takes a bit for the peel to start and all That and I don't have time left. So even though I'm home filming this by the time you see it I may may already have been gone. So one thing that and I can't even remember where I got these But these are silicone socks guys have had silicone socks, but this is also the I Think second maybe third time. I've thought silicone socks. They are reusable. You can watch them You when you put them on you put them on clean feet. You can use an oil. You can use some sort of a food Foot you can use any kind of a lotion that you really want and then you slip your feet in here And you just wear these so what I normally do even though they're not super slippery I normally put this on my feet and then I wear socks. So when I've done the foot peel You know, I take care of the foot peel issue after it really peels and I think I'm all done peeling I've actually exfoliated my feet a little bit, you know in the shower I have one of those like gentle callus kind of scrubbers and all that I try to remove as much of the skin gently without pulling tugging or doing it too early as possible and then when I'm ready, I put my feet in this and This and I do this a couple of times because like I said, they are washable. They are reusable But I'll put a little bit of cream in my feet and in my in on my feet and then I stick them in here And then I put my feet in like some just any sports socks I'm telling you my feet are beautiful and then I'm gonna Paul I was gonna go for a pedicure, but I don't think I'm going to I'm just gonna put some polish on my toes I've got a couple of really pretty sully hands and polishes at this point in time that I'm gonna use on my toes Although I am expecting something in the mail if it comes in in time. I'll use I'll use that on my hands but so my fingers I have been polished free for a while but Yeah, I'm gonna be polishing up my fingers and taking care of my feet So, you know pampering your feet, right?  So to me Every year I do a you know, actually twice a year. I do my I do a really good foot Exhiliation I use this peeling mask or another one and I just love Getting my feet baby soft and and yeah, so there are two pairs in this I'll probably try a different brand next time and then I walk around with these silicone socks They are really amazing if I can find the link for them.  So eat so that works just just as nice as these work But I just wanted to share, you know foot treatment, right? We talk skin here. We talk hand here. We talk all that stuff one thing I did get and I Probably not going to be able to use this in time But I'm going to see if I can but this is the science serum. I do have the I I do have I do have two bottles of the science serum You do have to let it dry and then you have to wash it off You know get the eye in the neck and all that you have to wash it off and it does make a difference. It's it to me It's perfect like if you're getting ready to go out somewhere and you wanted that special thing So anyways this pro series tight all-in-one face treatment I thought this was really awesome tightening lifting anti-aging Even skin tone brightening. I have not yet used it It comes in different containers treatment one treatment two treatment three treatment treatment four it has a brush And it's like a silicone type of a brush that you apply it with and Then it has a moisturizer This I do not believe is a wash off. I just received this complimentary from science serum To in exchange for a view so I thought well how perfect so I'm going to use it before I go see how I like it If I like it it's coming in the suitcase with me because I'm going to look really good for the wedding. It's really good for the wedding. So the other thing Oh, I wanted to share with you It's like the hottest thing in the world, right? It's deciding when you go away You don't want to have too much makeup. You don't want to have too little You don't want to be caught with something, you know at home that you need, right? So I was like trying to think of you know my eyeshadows. What what is it that I want to bring? I don't want to bring 50 palettes. I Hate when your battery dies because I don't know if I'm in the same position as I was before but anyway, so I bought this I Don't know how long ago it was but I bought it in coals and It is just a it's it's the Lorac Pro matte and it's just these basic colors And they're just their mattes. There's no glitter. There's no shimmers. There's no nothing So I thought these this would be perfect for my you know all over and then I could go darker and it's cool and Does have some cup of a warm colors But mainly to me it's more of a cool and I can I can do a lot with this palette So I thought that for sure was coming and then it was debating. I Was debating on a few other palettes But I really like the Viziat and I love the Viziat amethyst But I need to either get myself another amethyst palette because some of the colors I've just gone right through but I'm not going to do that because I have this Lizzy this one here and Think I'm going to bring this with me and these are the colors So you can see this has some purples it has some shimmers and again It has some of the darker colors that I can work So for an all-around color palette or an all-around palette for me. I need a matte bone I Need something that I can do, you know, that's skin tone that I can go all over my lids This does not have this a lot of palettes don't have this I have like some pretty palettes, but they just simply don't have that that all-around color This I can I can do because I can use The very first one linen for that color if I want But then I also have been really enjoying this and I really hesitated to try this because I was thinking holy cow, you know Dear or this is expensive. This is actually given to me. I want to say Sheila gave me this I Want to say gosh you must have said I think when I had one time early on I think I want to give away And she sent me this But this is just a tiny tiny. This is the most stinking cute little palette If you can see those colors Oh my gosh, they're so so pretty so in the center in this tiny little thing is The perfect color for me to go all over in the corner is a perfect deep for my outer V The pink is the best pink ever now. I Was watching Marlene Fab and glam's video and she had a little palette It was an essence palette love palette and had pinks in it. I'm gonna go check those out before we go But I have a hard time with pink There it's either more of an orangey pink I it's just have a really hard time with pinks, but this one in this little tiny door palette is the perfect pink I absolutely love that little pink.  So I could get away with this I Think But I won't I'll bring this one and Then I am debating because I know I'm not gonna burn them across your denona the glam palette everyone loves the glam palette I love the glam palette. I think it's beautiful, but this does not have The right pink for me at all. It does not have the right pink for me now the color pop This is stone cold Fox the color pop this palette I Really love this palette now.  It does not have that perfect pink That the a dior palette has it just has this it's a mat. It just has this perfect little pink and All of these mats some of them come close, but none of them is close enough so This palette I Could do everything with it Except I would miss that pink. I like the pink look so Natasha Denona is not coming with me for sure The Viziat liaison may come with me. I'm not sure the Lorac Pro Definitely the little tiny door Dior is so pretty is definitely coming and I'm gonna take the stone cold I think these are the palettes that I will have the most Use for while I'm going to a wedding and Then I'm going on vacation afterwards. So we're gonna go to the coast. We're gonna go over to Hilton Head and And so I really just don't want to have a whole lot of makeup with me You know, I want to be really relaxed So it's bad enough that we have to have dress clothes and then vacation clothes and I got these earrings I think these are so cute. I already showed you these, but I think these are so cute So anyways at one point you'll probably see pictures of you know, the outfit and a little bit of the I'll probably vlog the trip a little bit when I come back. So again, I don't know You know, I've got a couple of wig review videos that are gonna come up I know not all of you are fans of wig review I actually have one that I want to film and I haven't filmed yet. I got a couple of toppers in and I cut them Yeah, so anyways this wig on my head This is Raquel Welch This is unfiltered and this is in shaded hazelnut a little bit It's certainly a darker color for me but I really wanted to try this wig because I thought it would be a great opportunity to try a darker color and Marlene Fab and Glam many of you know Marlene She sent me a couple of different wigs and a couple of reviews coming out or looksies on some of these different colors And she sent me forward to take a look at and to play with and this is one of them I have been really wanting to try a color like this I've been wanting to try a couple of darker colors and The two really dark ones every time I put them on Jake But yeah, I mean, you know get to explore and play So that's it for now. I just kind of wanted to give you a little bit of an update how I'm prepping my feet For my sandals My shoes are really pretty. They're about 10 years old. That's and when I was in Macy's interestingly enough I saw them. They still sell them. They're timeless style and I saw them in a silver I have the black and I said I bet you the silver would look really good with my outfit the rhinestones the long skirt I wondered if it would look better than my black ones So yeah, I've got a bunch of things to return to Macy's and I might take another look at those shoes Then I picked them up. I don't know. But anyways, thank you so much for joining me guys I know it's kind of rambling all about nothing But I just wanted to share all that with you Not that it was a lot, but anyways, hope you have a great week. Bye guys