very much Kunal for inviting me to come and discuss Professor Tante Ogalevi's lecture. And I have to say I really enjoyed your lecture. It's a very powerful argument that you make, taking into consideration the contributory social insurance and the non-contributory social insurance system. And I cannot but agree with the kind of analysis and the kind of conclusion that you come up with regard to the universalism. But I think where I'd probably differ or have differences is probably in the process of reaching that goal of universalism, as you very rightly pointed out in one of your last slides that one of the basic or the fundamental issues that we'll be facing is the fiscal space. How are we actually going to generate resources to reach that kind of universalism? Having said that, I think the way I'm going to structure my comments are based on two major points actually. I'll basically argue saying that we don't need to look at such a narrow definition of contributory social insurance and non-contributory social insurance and need to go beyond that. And here I will bring in the ICSC definitions that we have developed as part of the ILO. And then go on to build saying that today what exists is actually a much more innovative and broader dimension of strategies to actually have a social protection. But before I do that, I think one of the points I do want to raise which was there in Professor Levy's lecture was he referred to Kanbur. And I think Professor Ravi Kanbur also has, ends up with a similar problem with this kind, with a similar dichotomy that you see here of CSI and NCI, is that Professor Kanbur is looking in his argumentation on the Indian legal system and that Indian legal system is actually confined to that of the manufacturing sector with regard to who falls within the formal and who falls within the informal. And that's all actually defined by the Indian factories act. That is, if you're less than 10 workers, then you're part of the organized sector. If you're more than 10 workers and if you have electric city, then you are part of the formal sector. Now what firms do is exactly very similar to what was presented here. Firms will try to see that they do not exceed the number of 10. And then you stay within the limits. And it doesn't matter whether you're paying taxes, whether it's indirect or a direct tax, it doesn't matter whether you have employees for whom you pay social contributions. Again, it doesn't matter whether you're paying any value added tax or not, you just fall within the informal sector. And as a result, what you see very clearly within the Indian case is also that formal sector employment never increases. It stays stable or reduces, but informal sector is actually increasing. So I do feel that this is very important to point out and contextualize it. Because actually, Bismarck is a bad guy, surely, I agree. I cannot but agree. Actually, we have moved beyond Bismarck as far as the entire social protection debate is concerned. And also the way we look at a number of these schemes. So if you look at the informal employment, the way we define it as part of the ICSE is it comprises of total number of jobs and the definition of informal jobs actually relies on employers, own account workers, member of producer, cooperators, contributing family workers, employees, and others not classified. This is just to put it down so that you very clearly see. And then we go about saying these are own account workers and the way it's defined is in the informal nature of the jobs, which is on the production unit and they're not registered or do not have complete set of accounts. And then we basically classify them as being part of the formal sector, informal sector, and households. And what you have is formal jobs in formal sectors. And then you have informal jobs within the household and the informal sector. And finally, you have contributing family workers who are considered to be informal jobs by definition. And the final one is employees. Now this needs additional criteria. And what we have as part of the additional criteria is the 2003 ICSE status, which goes about looking at national labor legislation's income taxation, whether you're registered as part of it, social protection and entitlement to certain benefits or not. And there are also certain operational definitions that are there within the national context, which have very clear strong preferences based on the countries that you're talking about, where you have employers contribution, access to paid annual leave, and access to paid sick leave. Now one of the arguments that I do have here to put forth is that, why do we take a very narrow definition when we want to get into the discussion about informality, formality? You could have a much broader definition. These are the different criteria that I used. Why does one pick on something as narrow as social protection? Because if you do pick on one particular aspect of this definition, you're going to find this kind of a shift that is happening between the formal and the informal sector. Like the registration in India, being part of the Indian Factory Act, is one minute component of this entire thing. So I think what I'd like to say is that, let's try to broaden it. And probably the broadening would solve certain problems for us with regard to how we look at many of these schemes and how do we reach actually the universalism. Having said that, this is a report that came out of the ILO last year, which was done in collaboration with Vigo. And what it basically goes about showing that is informal employment, the way informality happens, is not just one driver, that of social protection or lack of social protection. I think there are a number of drivers. I think one of the major drivers is economic growth. Whether you have economic growth, which actually has the potential to create a number of formal jobs and so that you sort of reduce informality. The second is what is the kind of productivity that you are able to generate? The minute you have much more high productive segments within it, there's a larger potential for many of these enterprises to register, to pay out social contributions and to do a number of other things. The third is the kind of a regulatory framework that is there. I think one of the fundamental problems that you see country after country. I think this is not just in Latin America, you can see it in Africa, you can see it in Asia. It's the kind of sort of regulatory framework that exists. You have a number of laws which are not applicable for many of the workers. So you have within the legal mechanisms, problems which actually brings out this kind of a dichotomy that comes in and then firms surely use this kind of a loophole to actually go formal or informal. The fourth issue is the enforcement system. I think the issue of compliance has been talked about for more than a number of decades and I think that's where we haven't fixed. And what you see increasingly probably Latin America's only one part of the world where it's slightly better than in Asia and Africa, where compliance system and enforcement systems have actually been improved. And labor and spectrates have been improved, but in other parts of the world they are further quite weak. So I think that's one issue that needs to be tackled. And then you have the lack of transparency and accountability of public institutions and lack of work awards and representation. Like you have a lot of alternative forms of organizations that have come in today which try to fight for the rights of the informal workers. But still they are minuscule compared to the kind of problems that the sector is actually facing. And I think where we have workers' voice, we have seen that workers do get their rights. They have rights with regard to whether it is minimum wages, whether it's social protection, or getting any other kind of benefits. There's some very good examples that actually exist. Now, what I tried to do, I think Professor Sallavi does show some of the figures. But I also tried looking at what is the kind of picture that exists in Latin America with regard to informal employment. And what we see very clearly is probably Mexico is in our plier here, where you see informal employment reduced by only 1.1%. In almost all other countries during the period 2005 to 2015, you find informal employment declining. Now, part of the reason why informal employment actually declines during this period is economic growth. Because this is a period of international boom. You have improvement in the terms of trade. You have remittances. You have a lot of foreign cash flows coming into the economy. So you very clearly see that it all has an impact on the informal employment. But I think apart from that, growth itself cannot actually reduce informal employment. I think you need multiple interventions there. And I think what many of the economies in Latin America have done during this period is basically they have simplified a number of systems for accountability for tax declarations and for payments. So I think that has in some sense helped in improving the formalization process within the country, within the countries in the Latin American region. And reducing formality. The second thing that they have done is they have tried to link tax to, tax incentives to social contributions. This is something Professor Levy did touch upon. But what I would like to say is that you have very clearly countries like Uruguay and Argentina there, which have actually brought in single tax regimes, which is the monocontributo, where you again go about providing certain incentives to certain groups of small holders, which can actually get benefit to the system and get the registration process. I think what is very fundamental here is to try to see how do you actually get many of these workers within the formal system and then get them within the social contribution system. At the same time, many of these countries also have tried to extend social protection to a number of workers who are actually often excluded, something that was referred to. And these are the own account workers, workers in micro entrepreneurs, rural workers, and domestic workers. So I think there have been a number of efforts that have been taking place with regard to how the formalization process actually goes on. Now, we at the ILO very clearly see this extension of social protection as a two-way process. We do have a very clear social protection floor that we sort of been pushing. And what we've been trying to do is we need to extend formal employment to all workers within the economy. At the same time, we have been trying to say that let's try to push for a social protection floor. And this is where our concept of universalism actually seems end. And our entire argument is built on a two-way thing, saying that we have to build a nationally sustainable and defined social protection floor. But we also have to ensure that there are high levels of protection, which is in line with the Convention 102. And we have much more advanced social security standards. So what we try to basically argue is that you need universalism, but how do you go about reaching that? And for us, it's the formalization process. And at the same time, bringing in the social protection floor. Here, what we have is basically, again, a two-track approach. We have two recommendations, recommendation 202 on the social protection floor and the recommendation 202 on social protection floor and recommendation 204 on facilitating the formalization of the informal economy. Now, when we talk about formalizing the informal economy, what we are basically trying to say is that you need to have different kinds of mechanisms so that workers can actually register. Now, this registration process, number one, it's been simplified, but what it also means is that any firm irrespective of where you are needs to be registered. You need to have tax registration and tax accounts. And we also go about saying that you should register with the social insurance system. Now, the second way of formalizing the entire process is through the independent status, which is to extend social protection coverage to all workers irrespective of what your status is. Now, when you do something like that, you don't fall into this kind of a dichotomous distinction or segmentation that exists saying that which part of the K-value is. And there's no problem then as to the problem doesn't arise whether you need to push from the formal to the informal sector. And I think the facilitation process would only help not only to improve the economic performance and economic growth, but you could also very clearly see that you can then generate finances to have this fiscal space so that you can have a basic social protection floor being set up. One of the problems of removing all the social insurance systems that are there and moving towards a kind of a universalism like either the universal basic income or a universal social protection is that the lack of space leads to the question of what is the level at which you want to define it. And it also gets into the question saying that you're actually trying to see that all the responsibilities falling onto the state and not to the employer. And our idea is to see how can we build different mechanisms within this so that each one of the different stakeholders and different actors in the economy can actually get benefit. Now as a result of it you very clearly see that in many countries over the past decade you have health and pension coverage that actually has been improved. And finally I want to just end with this particular slide which basically shows that actually I have been working on this issue for a very long time and it has been very systematically trying to build going beyond the contributory non-contributory social system and trying to see how different groups of workers can be built within could be brought in. So what we try to basically argue is that you can adapt how contributions are determined. You can have either a flat or a broad contribution basis. You can have certain kind of a mandatory systems that can be built in. You can also simplify the entire system. You can also facilitate contributions through various mechanisms. Technology can be used in a very significant way with regard to it. And finally what is very important and this is a question that gets raised saying that many of the informal firms cannot pay the minimum wages or cannot make the social contribution.  I think we have mechanisms here. A number of countries have implemented is that you have subsidized schemes which allow, which basically the government comes in to support some of these firms so that they can make these payments and over a period of time many of these firms actually become productive and they can actually join class of formal economy. So I think I can go on talking about this but I think I'll stop here in the interest of time and the discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Uma. That was very nice and very succinct comments. I wanted to start off by saying that two takeaways I got from the lecture and also what Uma's comments were. The first takeaway is that if I look at Latin America from where I am in South Asia or Southern Africa and I think I'm an informal worker in Southern Africa, South Asia, I don't have any kind of non-contribute social insurance. I sort of look at Latin America and say, wow, that's pretty impressive. If I were in Latin America, the same informal worker I would be better off. What you're showing is well-intentioned programs like what you see Latin America or non-contribute social insurance have this purpose outcome where actually the workers are no better in the sense of being in informality for large parts of their working life and that's a very important argument because you might say that those sort of non-contribute social insurance programs are what we need for the workers that we see in Southern Africa and South Asia where they have nothing practically. But if that whole thing leads to a situation where they are in formality for quite a bit of their working life even though they make the transitions as we see Latin America, that's not a very good outcome. So that's a very important point. I think it's worth thinking about that a bit more in the Q&A. The second takeaway I feel is that when you think of informality, often we hear and this is particularly from the randomized, our city revolution is that give workers a bit more training, more education and that's the big problem, the supply side of informality. But what you're only showing is that the demand side is equally important. I mean the amazing here, the amazing story of Mexico with Progresor, the huge increase that happened in the poor and the human capital and yet the perversiveness of informality tells us that demand side is a very important thing that we need to worry about. So that's something I think it's important for us to think a bit more on the demand side and how we should think about general criminal effects of certain policies which might lead to a situation where increasing human capital per se among the poor is not going to take us away from a world of informality. So I think those are two important takeaways from my point of view. So what I wanna do is now I wanna have four, three to four questions. I wanted to say, I told this to Santiago at the beginning that I wanna take the question from students first because I know there are quite a few of you here. So let's start with a few questions from students and I'm pretty sure that I will get some and then we'll have questions from everybody else here. So shall we have three to four short questions which Santiago can respond to and if you have any also comments to them or that also would be very nice too. So let's try and I'm gonna try and spot you because it's not that easy with the lights on me but I'll try and spot you. So there's one there and there's one more here. Can I see any more and there's one here. So let's go in that order. Okay, thank you very much. Professor Levy for your presentation. It was interesting. So correct me if I'm wrong. Your point is that some social programs are actually increasing precarious jobs under the form of increased informal employment. We have workers shifting from supposedly productive formal jobs to non-productive informal jobs. So my question would be, are these formal jobs really productive? I would be interested to know the characteristics of the jobs in which for example, after the introduction of the social programs, workers shift from these formal jobs to informal jobs and the characteristics of the jobs in which workers stay of the formal jobs in which workers stays even after the introduction of the social programs. So maybe the main issue here is about the type of formal jobs that are not really productive or that do not pay really well the employees and that gives them an incentive to shift toward informal jobs. Okay, thank you very much for that very nice question. There's one more thing somewhere in the middle there, yeah. Thank you very much. The lecture was really, really interesting. I'm a PhD student at the University of Geneva and I had a question. So you really nicely outlined this cycle of how we get to this problem that you're describing. But I thought that within that cycle, to me it seemed like the biggest problem was that the social protection, the social insurance systems they have at the moment don't work. They don't provide what people pay for and that's why they go to informality. So my big issue with this was if we're talking about going to universality, if the protection we currently have doesn't even work for the people that it applies to now, why talk about kind of making a system in theory universal when in practice it doesn't really provide anything. And then to piggyback kind of onto what the first question was saying, I saw this then as an issue where people that could be in the formal economy decide to do the same job that they would do formally, informally because informally they don't have to pay things, they otherwise have to pay and wouldn't get anything for. So I wouldn't then see how this informality would make the job worse because it's the same job. They just decide not to be registered. Thank you. And there was a question and I think it's here, right? Yeah, go ahead. So it's a short question. So could you share us one takeaway and how could we transition from these dual models into one single universal model? Because I think that the problem here that we're discussing is political implications and the social on grays that might arise if we try to do it with the people that have already gone into one specific system. And especially when that system is extremely unequal, which is the case of Mexico. Thank you. Great, three very good questions, Santiago. So first, thank you to Uma for her comments and perhaps we'll come back to the comments but and thank you for the three questions. They're all extremely difficult and first a comment on Kunal, which I think is related to your question. My understanding is that the notion that people are informal because they don't have sufficient human capital doesn't square with the empirical evidence. It just doesn't square with the empirical evidence. What you have seen is that the people can increase their years of schooling, continue in informal employment or shift back between formal and informal employment. And I didn't show it here, but you can show the rates of informal employment for people with high school degrees, with people with university degrees, with people with senior high, and the same patterns also occur. So it has more to do, not so much with the human capital of the people, but with incentives, the overall environment, not only the taxes and subsidies that come from the implicit social insurance system, but also things that I didn't touch on that Uma did touch on that have to do with registration cost and enforcement and the way the authorities work. The whole environment is what in the general equilibrium of the economy finally decides whether firms decide to have salaried contracts or non-salaried contracts, and whether firms decide to break the law or not break the law. If enforcement is very strict, the likelihood that firms are gonna break the law is less. If enforcement is loose, the likelihood that firms are gonna break the law. But it's also not independent on the quality of the benefits. If the benefits are high relative to the cost of the benefits, the incentives to break the law are not so strong. But if the benefits are really low compared to the costs of the benefits, the incentives to break the law are very high. So it's extremely difficult to generalize because it's very much context-specific and country-specific. Costa Rica and Mexico have exactly, almost exactly the same years of schooling, the population of Costa Rica and the population of Mexico. But the informality rate of Costa Rica is about 30% lower than the informality rate of Mexico. And so it's very difficult to explain otherwise. So how can you then promote the formalization process? I don't like to think about that way because it's a bit of a circular reasoning because it depends exactly what is it that we're using to define informality. So I would separate the problem into two separate problems. What is it that we want people to have? Do we want people to have health insurance? Yes or no? Yes. Do we want people to have health insurance depending on the type of job that they have? Hard to make that argument. I always make the analogy with education. You fund the education from general revenues irrespective of what people's job is. Why don't we do the same with health? If we then have health treated exactly the same way as education, from the point of view of health, formality and informality are irrelevant. They're not useful categories of analysis. Whenever we discuss education, we never think about formality and informality when we discuss education. But we discuss it when we think about health because it has to do with this dichotomy. Now your question. Yes, the benefits are low and this is the beta that I had in the presentation there which says that workers don't value the benefits of this and the example is people are contributing to the pension, they're not gonna get a pension. So I don't think very highly of the pension system if I contribute but I'm not gonna get a pension at the end and I don't think very highly of the health system if I go to the clinic and they tell me that there are no medicines and they cannot treat me for my illness. So the quality is a serious issue. What makes me think that going to a universal system would improve the quality? The answer is nothing. What you need to do is at the same time that you are doing the changes to go to say universal health insurance, you have to do a lot of additional and complimentary work to ensure that the providers of health services have the right incentives to improve the quality. And one of the big problems in Latin America is that the quality of the services that are provided by the public institutions is fairly low and it has to do with corruption, it has to do with the wrong incentives, it has to do with the fact that the systems are not designed to produce quality. So I went very, very, very quickly here through something that is a much more difficult and time intensive and complex process which is changing the incentives of the public sector to provide quality services. We have the same indication, the quality of education in Latin America is also not that good. So this is a systemic problem in the public sector and just changing the taxes and the subsidies would not fix that problem. You have to do something much more than that. You have to do things on accountability, things on corruption, things in other dimensions that I did not discuss. And so that ties up a little bit with your question. My view is that Latin America is caught up in a very bad equilibrium. In which people are no willing to pay taxes because they think that the services that they get in return are not worth the taxes that they're paying. But because the taxes with the exception of Brazil and Argentina are in general are so very low, there's not enough money to provide services. So you're caught in a low equilibrium trap of low taxation, low quality of services. And the question is how could you move to a high equilibrium trap of high quality of services, high taxation? And the political economy of that transition is very difficult because it's a question of trust, it's a question of how do you break the vicious circle in which the citizen says, all right, okay, I'm willing to pay a little bit more, but you government show me that you're not gonna cheat. And the government says, look, I cannot provide you more services because there's not enough money to deliver the services. I didn't discuss at all the political economy of breaking away from this because I'm one step before. I'm at the conceptual stage in which I'm trying to argue the current equilibrium is very bad. If we agree on that, then the next step, okay, what is the transition path out of that? And just one word on the transition path. I think we have to tackle it bit by bit. We talk about social protection and it's kind of a very big thing. Where would I begin? With what matters most to most people in the immediate way, their health. So move gradually to universal health insurance. What does that mean? It means don't make health insurance something that has to be provided and financed by the employer. Through a wage tax, but have health insurance, something provided and financed by the government through general revenues in the same way that education has done. Then you have a different path for daycare, a different path for pensions, a different path for unemployment insurance. Break the problem in pieces and do a transition path for each of the pieces. Begin with probably what's most important to most people, again, which I think is health. Thank you. Let's take three more questions now to, and again, short questions as you had in the first round. That'll be very nice.  And this time I'm welcoming a question to anybody actually, not just the students, yeah. Sorry, let's just take two more questions. So you have one question there. There's one, I think, at the back. Yep, and then one more question. Tony, yes. So let's go again in that disorder. So please go ahead. So Santiago, if you were delivering this lecture to the Trump administration, instead of this convert, what would they say? Because universal health insurance in the States, it's not there either. So what do you expect their reaction to be? So we're moving from one, that's the same continent, really. Okay, so one question, I think that's current, right? Yeah, go ahead. Yes, thank you very much for the very interesting lecture. I was wondering what your view is on the abolishment of the Prospera program. Recently in Mexico, and how this fits into what you have been supporting to get to more universal health insurance and general universal social protection. Okay, nice question. Thanks, Tony. Tony Addison from WIDA. One question is fiscal resilience, which you've raised. If we move towards a more ambitious program, we know that Latin America is subject to a roller coaster of macro crises. So how can we embed this in a macroeconomic framework that sustains it? Secondly, there's some powerful forces operating on formal employment, including automation, which may, some economists argue, reduce the formal job opportunities. What does this imply for the scheme that you've put forward? And thirdly, we have a lot of bright young people in the audience who are all thirsting for research topics. So what would you advise the up and coming generation of development economists to work on? Sorry, I threw in three questions there. Okay, but they were pretty quiet, quite a brief question. So we could do a fourth question, actually. If there is a fourth question, anybody? Yeah, all right, there's one there. Hello. Thanks, both presenters. It was really interesting. What I wanted to ask you is something that has been mentioned about the demand side. How important it is, the economic structure of the Latin American countries when it comes to creating formal jobs. For sure, social protection systems are important and this trade-off between informality when it comes to contributions. But what's the capacity during the last 15 years? Umashou that growth actually led to formalization. For sure, specific policies are needed, but I think I was expecting a little bit more about demand side and how to create actual former jobs. Thank you. Oops, sorry. Joe Kudson from the Health Financing Team in WHO. One question on the generalizability of the approach or the thinking on this that occurred to me as you were talking is in Latin America, I think while the informal sector may be larger, or the size of the informal workforce may be larger in the aggregate than the formal, it's still probably, I don't know, in the 30s or 40s percent. I don't know exactly what it is. But what might be the implications, and maybe this is just one of the research questions, where that formal sector is not much larger than civil servants, which might be the case in some African countries, but even there in many, I think in many Francophone countries, they have made what I think we see as the unfortunate choice to set up a separate health scheme for just them, which is a way to really magnify the inequalities in the distribution of public spending. But what might be the implications in terms of thinking of this schema and how to move from informal to formal when that formal sector is really very small? In a sense, does scale matter in thinking about these issues? Do you have quite a bit? No, very interesting questions. I mean, the first one is hard for me to tell what people in the administration that President Trump would respond to this. I mean, there's a view, the underlying, paradigm that guides all the discussion what Uma was saying, what I was saying, is a view in which the intervention of the state is needed to assure the provision of some social services, among which are health insurance, some version of a pension, and perhaps some other social services, like daycare or something else. If the paradigm view, the underlying view, is one in which unabated individualism is what should prevail, and the state should do no more than collect taxes for the military, the police, and perhaps infrastructure, then this whole discussion is basically relevant, because it basically says social protection is not an area in which the state should intervene. My view is that it should, and that what we should be debating about is how to do it best, not whether we should or we should not do it, particularly in the context of Latin America that are such unequal societies, and in which social cohesion is central for these, and unless you have a broad and effective social protection, that not gonna be there. But if your philosophical viewpoint is that that's not something that the state should mingle, then they would say, look, this is only relevant, I forget it, you know, don't even go to slide two, stop. Stop in slide one. So the question back there, perhaps just to put it in context, the program Progresa, that I've been involved for the last 20 years or so, that Kunal mentioned at the beginning, this new administration has actually decided to stop the program. So it is difficult for me to give an interpretation, except to try to cast it in a perception that the program was pursuing objectives different from what it was actually pursuing. If you think, ah, the objective of Progresa was to diminish poverty, and two decades later, poverty is still there, therefore the program failed. You say, yeah, time to abolish the program. If you think, no, the objective of Progresa was not, quote, unquote, to abolish poverty. The objective of Progresa was to invest in the human capital of the poor, and it is in those terms that the program should be judged, but that in fact to abolish poverty, you have to do more things than just a single program, you think, which is my argument at the end, you have to think about the general equilibrium of the economy. My interpretation might be flawed, is that the first viewpoint was a viewpoint taken by the government in this decision to stop the program, and it flows from the lack of precision in separating the objectives of individual programs and looking at the general equilibrium of all the programs and the way they interact and judging the outcomes from the general equilibrium of all the programs. So it brings the point that I was making painfully to the forefront in a very immediate way. Tony's question on fiscal resilience. So you put your finger where the real issue is. Behind this discussion of asymmetric and segmented social protection is a fiscal issue. Is the inability of Latin American states to generate sufficient revenue through taxation to fund a broad social protection scheme that is universal in its scope? And its over-reliance on taxes on wages that can be easily enforced that then is behind this particular problem. It's not everything but it's an important part of the conversation. So without tackling the underlying political economy which comes back to your question of taxation in the region, you're not gonna have this official fiscal fortitude to embark on this. What you certainly don't want to do is fund the universal system of social insurance from revenues from commodities. We've learned that lesson. And what you certainly don't wanna do is to fund it from oil that goes up and down or copper that goes up and down or silver or soybeans or bananas or whatever that goes up and down. If you wanna have a permanent solid social protection universal network, you have to have permanent solid taxes that collect substantial more revenue than it is today. And it goes back to the political economy question which in my view, if there was a second lecture maybe for somebody of number 24, they should talk about the taxation side of all this. I didn't tell it because there was no time but that's kind of the complimentary part. Automation. Automation just makes more urgent the call for universality because indeed, the notion that salary jobs are gonna be continuing is actually questionable in the face in which the logical change is actually making the boss worker relationship more fluid. And it's not obvious who's a salaried worker and who's not. There's gonna be a gray line in the middle more graduations in there. And therefore all the more reason to delink access to health insurance and to some basic pension and acre from your status in the labor market because automation is gonna erode the basis of the wage relationship. So it just brings more urgency to the issue here. And research questions for the, think about the watch. Think about the general equilibrium of the social protection systems. Huge amount of research over the last two decades on impact evaluation of individual programs. Lots of progress, lots of learning. We understand a lot better how these individual programs work. We need to think about the various pieces of the program modeling them in a mixed, technically difficult, but simulation models. I think in a way we're a little bit trapped by the rigorous impact evaluation. I'm all for it, but it should not be just a, Nakamisa, the force that you know, that straps you into not going into other areas of research and other techniques that can bring some light to some issues that require a kind of a different technique. And Joe's question on, if you start from economies that have a small formal sector, in a way it's easier. Think of an economy that has 50% of the labor force in the formal sector and 50% of the informal sector. So the health benefits of 50% of the workers are paid with the wage tax, and the health benefits of 50% of the workers are paid from general taxation. You want to move to universal system from general taxation, you've got to replace the health benefits that are being paid with the wage tax of 50% of the labor force. If that's only 10% of the labor force, that's easier than if it is 50% of the labor force. That's easier than if it is 50% of the labor force. So I always say in economies in which the formal sector is very, very small, they should go immediately to universal systems. And then if we really think about it, the word formal in that economy would no longer be relevant. There might be illegal behavior with regard to taxation, illegal behavior with regards to registration, but nothing to do with people's access to health insurance or people's access to a basic pension, some basic benefits. If you're close, San Diego's been fascinating to listen to your lecture and Ooma's comments and also the question and answer, the question was really, really nice. And I'm going to ask Professor Lou John-Reed, our con to make the closing remarks. Before I do that, I want to say three quick things. First is that I know that San Diego's lecture is so rich, so immensely insightful that you might want to think, okay, how can I actually listen to it again? We are going to make the lecture perhaps in the next few days or weeks. It will be available on our website on the YouTube, our YouTube channel, so you can listen to it again because a lot of things that you might want to listen to in this lecture. Secondly, we have this brief, a policy brief that we have from San Diego's provided to us. You should take it with you if you haven't done that already, it's got a summary of this lecture. And the final thing is we're going to publish the paper that is the basis of the lecture fairly soon because we have San Diego's asked wonderfully what is the final version which is pretty much ready to go and we will have the working paper version fairly soon. And so you can check our website, hopefully it'll be there very, very shortly.


Welcome to lecture 34. We will continue our discussion where we stop in the last lecture. In this lecture, we will briefly review the application of FE modeling for analysis of rotating machines. As an example, we will take permanent magnet machines for the purpose. Next, we will see how in a typical electrical equipment or machine, various engineering fields like thermal, structural fluid, etc. are coupled to electromagnetic fields. Circuits are also coupled to electric and magnetic fields. And in this course, we will study FE formulation for voltage and current-fed devices. To start with, we will study FE formulation for voltage-fed devices. And for current-fed device in the corresponding formulation, we will see in a later lecture. Any rotating machine in general can be modeled by this equivalent circuit. You have terminal voltage and induced voltage and the current flowing. Depending upon whether it is motor or generator, the direction of current will be decided. Now, the way it is shown, current is shown, this is like a motoring operation. So, now you have here, now we are discussing here surface mounted permanent magnet machines. That is on the rotor surface, you have permanent magnets mounted. So, what I assume is those who are listening to this course, they have some background in these machines and they know some basic operational and design or construction details of these machines and then they will appreciate what is being said here. So, here, now this is a motoring operation and then you have the current and induced voltage waveforms as shown here. So, to produce constant torque, current should be fed into machine as shown in this figure because now here induced voltage is of trapezoidal form. So, to have constant torque, which is proportional to product of induced EMF and the current, then you have to have current which is rectangular pulse and that can be easily controlled by using power electronic converter. So, as long as you maintain this constancy of induced EMF and constancy of current in this figure, then you will get constant torque. So, as induced EMF opposes the flow of current, terminal voltage V t is varied to maintain the required phase current. So, how actually the power basically gets applied is moment the rotating machine starts rotating, you have induced EMF, is it not? That induced EMF is going to oppose this current that is flowing in and if to maintain this current constant V t has to be adjusted by the source. So, that even current is maintained constant. Effectively, this source is going to supply additional e into i power, is it not? Because when the speed was 0, e is 0. When there is some speed, the corresponding induced voltage is there and e into i is the opposition to the source effectively. So, the source has to basically supply power e into i, i being constant here, is it not? And that e into i power is basically converted into mechanical torque at the shaft. So, the power transferred from electrical to the mechanical system is e into i. Now, this was the motoring operation. Same thing is true for generating mode with some changes. Now, here again the same equivalent circuit is there. So, current direction is kept same, but actually you know when it is acting at generator, the current will actually reverse. The current actually will go from e to V terminal. That is the reason that you know this in the current direction is actually shown opposite. That is why the. The sign of current is changed when compared to the previous slide. But if you reverse the current here, representing the actual generating operation, this current again will come like this as in the previous slide and then you know same logic applies. Now, here again you know to produce constant torque, phase current should be as shown in the figure and in phase with the induced EMF. The induced EMF feeds the current to the terminal voltage and to vary the terminal voltage, mechanical system must vary the speed to and then the corresponding power transferred from mechanical to the electrical system is again e into i. So, the power flow is just reversed here. So, the induced EMF can be is generally sinusoidal in case of permanent magnet synchronous machines and that can be achieved by generally using distributed winding in space and but it can be also achieved by using concentrated winding with means such as you know pole shaping. Whereas, in case of brushless DC machines, you generally have trapezoidally distributed EMF in the space and that is generally achieved by using concentrated winding. So, sinusoidal induced EMF machines when fed with sinusoidal current excitation produce constant torque and similarly trapezoidal induced EMF machines with square wave excitation as we have seen in the previous slide produce constant torque. And machine torque ripple can be predicted from induced voltage waveform similarly from the clogging torque of the machine. So, this the importance of this analysis is that is why it is clear now that basically if we can know the induced EMF waveforms, we can predict the machine performance parameters accordingly. And in such FEM analysis, generally what is done is even though we may have motor, it is generally simulated as generator to extract induced EMF waveform. This is for convenience only. So, now we will continue our discussion further and now we will see a new topic coupled field systems. Now, in the second lecture, I had explained you this particular diagram also wherein coupled fields in case of transformers are explained. So, now in any electromagnetic device be it transformer, motor, generator you have so many physical field for example, in case of transformer you have magnetic field coupled with electric field, thermal field, fluid field, acoustic and then circuits. So, and then there are coupling parameters between any of these two systems and so any of these systems and then for example, between magnetic field and thermal field, the coupling parameters are AD and hysteresis losses basically they are produced due to alternating magnetic field that produces temperature rise and temperature rise in turn may change permeability and conductivity and that would change the magnetic field. So, these are the coupling parameters. Similarly, you can see the coupling parameters written for the other sets of coupled fields here. So, in this course now what we are going to do is we are only going to see coupled circuit field computation. We are not going to see thermal and mechanical fields coupled to you know electromagnetic fields. But for more discussion on this how to couple for example, thermal and mechanical fields you can see this reference here and many other good books and papers on the subject some of which are mentioned in this reference. Right. So, now we will start our discussion on coupled circuit field computations. First we will see voltage field coupled circuit field analysis which is quite common most of the devices. In fact, all our devices and equipments are typically voltage fed because there is some voltage source feeding our transformers, motors, generators. Right. So, the governing field equation is this which we are now quite familiar with is del square i equal to minus mu j. Right. Now, this j is now written as Ni by s, s being the area and s typically is in this case coil area. Right. To which the current is flowing. So, Ni ampere turns divided by the area. So, the functional for the above equation is this also we have seen and we are quite familiar with now. So, this is the functional. Instead of earlier we had j A dv. Now, we have Ni by s A dv and this dv will become ds when we actually do 2D approximation. Right. Then this will become dx dy. Now, after applying the FEM procedure this first term will become this. So, del square, del A square will basically will get reduced to this. Right. And this as we have seen over each element we will have 9 terms and then this over all the elements then this energy will get summed up. Right. So, this is one energy term. The second energy term is on account of source j which is in fact Ni by s. So, here it is again summation i goes from 1 to 3 Ni A i dx dy and here this is this leads to 3 terms corresponding to 3 nodes of a triangular element. Right. We have seen that earlier j gets a portion to j delta by 3 to the 3 nodes. Now, also remember that this is the functional when it gets minimized with respect to variable A i's. This one A i from here and one A i from here will go in the process of minimization. Right. And that is the reason that you will be left with only Ni s delta by 3 corresponding to this term. Right. Because integral Ni dx dy is nothing but delta by 3 into this constant N by s. Right. And this i is the variable which needs to be determined. So, that comes in the matrix equation as i. So, B E capital B at the element level is N s by N by s delta by 3. Right. That and then when you form global matrix equation then that will become B. So, basically then this becomes C A minus B i equal to 0 and these are these are global level matrices. Right. And this is local. Now, this C into A C basically we have seen del Ni dot del nj will give the corresponding C the coefficient matrix for element and I already explained you 9 terms will get out of these two summations and that will form the element coefficient matrix. And when you actually sum up all the elements that will lead to global coefficient matrix capital C. And A of course is the unknown magnetic vector potentials at all the nodes in the domain. And of course, this formula will have to use it whenever we are left with determining integral Ni dx dy. So, using the same thing we in fact can derive this as delta by 3. So, now what is new here is the circuit equation. Now, this device here is some device which is you know meshed and this is the corresponding finite element mesh that is represented here that is fed by this external circuit with this voltage of U. Right. So, these are external and L external and this device is represented by here induced voltage right at this terminal. So, the this voltage is the corresponding field parameter in this circuit equation. So, that is that is nothing but this that induced voltage at the terminals of the device is nothing but this. So, this is basically n d psi by dt. And n d psi by dt the d by dt basically is replaced by j omega. So, j omega n psi is the corresponding terminal voltage induced voltage at this device right. And then we are basically writing a KVL for this loop. So, external source voltage is equal to the corresponding terminal induced voltage at the device plus R external into i j omega L external into i j omega L into i. Now, here remember this U and U i psi they are in the curly brackets meaning that they are the column vector right. And then we what do we do we basically replace this term by this term. And again we have invoked here the theory that we saw in lecture 24. And in fact in the previous topic also we have invoked this. Basically what we are doing is we are calculating we know the flux passing through any two point is given by in case of two dimensional case it is given by a 2 minus a 1 into L right. So, now here so that is what you see here a into L right. Now, here what we are doing we are assuming that we are modeling the both sides of the coil. So, you know it is like suppose this is a coil current going in here and current coming out here. So, dot and cos and dot. So, when we are taking you know a this is what is what are we doing here we are taking average of a integral a ds upon s. So, average of a we are calculating over say this coil there are so many there could be so many elements here. So, we are actually averaging a was element wise and then corresponding coil wise and dividing it by total area s of this coil and suppose this is this is plus a because this current is say cross. So, say let us say this is minus a at that point because direction of a is nothing but direction of current right. So, suppose this we take as current as negative. So, this will be some minus a this is dot. So, this will be some plus a. So, the difference of these two a's will basically represent a flux passing to this area and corresponding voltage induced in this coil that is what is being done here. So, when you actually do this integral a ds and then this integration will be over this entire now coil area. Both coil sides. So, there will be plus a here minus a here. So, plus a minus of minus a will give you the total flux linked by this coil right. So, that is when we are doing this integral a ds over s we are considering this whole area of the coil both parts being considered. So, that will give you total magnetic potential difference between these two points and that into l will give you the flux and into n will give you the flux linkage right and then into j omega. And then here of course, remembering that l will be eventually taken as 1 because we are going to do per meter depth calculation. So, this l will be 1 going further. Now, we actually this a we substitute by our well known expression integral ni ai right as a and into ds is dx dy. So, that is what we have done and then this replaces to this integral ni dx dy will replace will be get replaced by the matrix g dash where g is nothing but n n by s delta by 3 1 1 1 again by the same logic that integral ni dx dy means ni raise to it is really ni raise to 1 l is 1 and by this formula again as we have got it here n by s delta e by 3. So, you will get n by s delta by 3 corresponding to this n by s and delta by 3 will be this integral right this on left hand side you have 1 by 1 because only one voltage. So, this is 1 by 1 right and then this these two terms as it is. So, now, we are ready to combine both field and circuit equations. So, now, first the equation that is seen here first we will see that the circuit equation j omega g dash into a plus r external j omega l external into i is equal to u. So, these are the circuit equation and then you have this field equation c into a minus b i equal to 0 c into a minus b i equal to 0. So, now, we have got combined set of equations you do field and circuit right and now you can see here b b and g incidentally here they are equal because l is equal to 1. So, you have to remember that in the expression for this b there was no l. So, it was simply n by s delta by 3 but in the expression of g you have because there is a l here and since l is 1 this gets reduced to because l is 1 here. So, that is why g becomes equal to e but if you take for example 5 meter depth if you are doing calculations for 5 meter depth then of course, g and b will not be equal because then g will get multiplied by 5 right and then since it is l is equal to 1 in this case g and b matrices they become equal right. So, now, we will when we use this equation for coding for a particular problem then we can get various analysis done particularly in case of transformers and rotating machines excited by external circuits. Here we will see how do we do short circuit analysis of a single phase transformers. So, we will see this in the next lecture. Thank you.


Hello and let's talk about the minimum support price for the MSP. So the MSP has been very much in the news over the past few days as the farmers have made it one of their key demands. Now the important thing to note here is what the farmers mean by the MSP and what the government means are two very different things. The farmers of course seeking a much more higher MSP based on very scientific calculations whereas the government has been talking about just keeping the status quo. Now it's important to remember that many farmers across India do not get MSP and this in fact has been used by some of the supporters of the government to say that it's not really that big a deal and therefore the reforms are okay. However what we do know is that the MSP has a lot of benefits both direct and indirect for both farmers who get it and those who do not get it and the larger ecosystem as well and all this could be destroyed if corporates are allowed to have a bigger say in agriculture. We talked to senior journalist Orindya Chakravarty on some of these issues. Thank you so much Orindya for joining us. The farmers protest has entered its third week and the government has been negotiating or claims it has been negotiating of course but offering in fact very little concrete steps considering what the farmers have been asking us. Ranand Mullah was pointing out they have been saying amendment, amendment, amendment. We have been saying repeal, repeal, repeal. But one key aspect like we talked about last week remains the MSP. It's one of the central issues and farmers leaders have pointed out the other day we were talking to Vijay Krishnan recently we were talking to Sainath both of them pointing out that the MSP is of course part of the issue but the larger demand is that they want a complete withdrawal of the laws because just a guarantee of the MSP alone does not necessarily work. But in this context I also wanted to maybe talk to you a bit about how the MSP actually does work because there has been of course a lot of say questions around the MSP people saying of course that you know this is maybe not that modern in the system we should go for a more privatized system where there's choice you know this sort of regulated system is not really the way ahead. So maybe at the level of maybe an explainer at a very basic level why is the MSP so central? So you know one of the arguments that is constantly made Prashant is that the MSP I think the Shanta Kumar committee, the BJP's Shanta Kumar had done a report for the FCI which came out and he calculated that about 6% of paddy and wheat farmers in India end up getting MSP and even there only 25% or a quarter of their produce is actually picked up at MSP which is what the government announces as a support price. Harish Damodaran recently in Indian Express calculated and showed that that is not correct it's an underestimate. So he suggested that maybe about 15 to 20% of agricultural producers do get MSP, do get advantage of MSP in some sort of the other and then there are other products like milk and cotton etc cotton which is picked up at MSP and milk where there is a some sort of a guaranteed minimum threshold that farmers cooperative farmers get and even the cooperatives of cooperatives that is a de facto government supported system that we see Amul, Mother Dairy and stuff like that. So Harish Damodaran argues that about 25% of people who work within the larger process of cultivation and poultry and dairy farming get MSP. So the government's argument has been that well you know even if that's the case then 75% don't get it. So what's the big problem if we remove MSP? Only the cream the rich farmers have been getting MSP and they are the people who are worried about it. They are the people who have vested interests and that is why they want this MSP system because they corner all the subsidies that the government gives to the agricultural sector and they don't want that to go away. If these laws are changed then you know what will happen is that corporate sector will enter, people will compete, there will be no monopoly. Right now there's a Mandi monopoly, there would be no monopoly and they would fight and the farmer would sit at his you know in his farm on his perch, smoking his beady, lying back and maybe because of the entire privatization system obviously he would no longer need beady, he'll be smoking high quality cigarettes because you know they lack so much money but of course this is not a I don't smoke let me tell you. We don't endorse it officially. And I cannot vouch for the bearded gentleman you're seeing on the screen right now but let me tell you that the point here remains that the picture that is painted is of course that these buyers will come and say buy from me I'll buy, I'll buy, please sell it to me here take as much as you want.  We know that is what perhaps everyone's waiting for in the first place and this entire fairy tale is even more a fairy tale Prashant because agriculture is not like factory production, it's as simple as that. So if you let's say you run a factory which makes I don't know maybe table lamps and then you get to know that another factory has opened up of table lamps and you say that okay now this is a problem so I'll have to push down my prices because suddenly there's a supply going to increase. So let's not produce as many as we produced last season, let's reduce the supply so that we can hold our prices and retain the same revenue even with the same amount of supply, a lower amount of supply and a farmer can't do that. A farmer's response is always to the previous season even if the government says you know big corporates will come in they'll have these AI and computer linkages across the world they will know which part of Burkina Faso is short of maize and they'll tell the farmer in Sasaram to grow maize and sell it. These are all pipe dreams first of all however the bigger point is the farmer will still have to commit to something at the beginning of the season at the beginning of the sowing season right and then you wait for weeks for the crop to grow and when by the time you grow it's only then that you realize whether there's a shortage or a glut it's only then you realize what the demand is for products. This is very different from manufacturing where if you produce table lamps you can sell them next year just hire a go down and keep it there farmers do not have access to that so given that this entire thing of market forces demand and supply matching is poppycock right it is absolute these are white lies I don't think anyone believes them those who say all this are essentially apologists for big corporates let us be very clear about them they're liars I'm sorry to make these big statements because they know it's not true it's not true anywhere in the world it doesn't happen right now the point is that secondly the entire process of once the farmer is committed and we know what happens the only crops where despite a shortage of production or a glut of production farmers can still get some sort of stable prices our wheat and rice which the government procures right so therefore any other crop even all seeds and cotton even cotton we know that even in cotton what happens is that the government doesn't procure enough farmers are left with huge amounts of produce and they of the crop and they sit around they just say and do distrussage there was a time before the you know boom years what would happen is these Chinese traders would be all over Gujarat picking a buying cotton and you would say wow privatization has completely given up the need for government to procure but as soon as that boom was over when that 2008 collapse happened that is all gone it happens in some years when the demand pushes up and there's a shortfall in some other part of the world and Chinese traders come and buy it but otherwise that demand it has been shrinking and unless the government buys these products no one else is going to when there is a glut where there's overproduction we know what that does to vegetables exactly right and the funny thing is that when that happens and we say oh my god look at these middlemen they're making all the money and that is why APMC and MSP all this should be stopped we talk about all this when they we talk about onions and tomatoes as if the government has been procuring onions and tomatoes exactly as if it has been announcing MSP for onions and tomatoes right right right absolutely so we see images of tomato being thrown on the roads we see news clippings because a pharma organizations are pretty smart they also call up news agencies and say we're able to throw tomatoes please send a camera crew and they protest in that fashion exactly so it's only MSP which protects them absolutely now as I think we've discussed this in the past as well Prashant and I'm going to just quickly go through that as well and you know when I say quickly it's usually then okay let's say the 75 percent of farmers do not get MSP right cotton and paddy farmers do not get it sorry all all farmers we know that about 35 50 percent of the produce 40 to 50 percent of the produce is picked up but a large part of that produce might be you know owned by or being sold by large farmers not necessarily representative numbers there but let's say that 75 percent don't get it they still protect it by the MSP and this is where it is a crucial thing to understand and you know I have a friend who comes from Madhya Pradesh from Madhya Pradesh and his family is an Arthya family they're big traders and one of the reasons so I asked him that how does the system work why what is your problem with MSP so he said that we don't have any fields but the point is MSP is our insurance because we pay close to MSP to even the small farmer so if we are let's say getting 1000 rupees we'll end up paying 850 our margin is 150 which then includes cost of storage transport the financing because we will be holding till the government procures right a lot of times we know that things being produced in Bihar are being bought by traders and taken to Punjab Haryana where the Mandis have a decent procurement system absolutely right that is where it is picked up so the fact that the government ensures a minimum support right is that even if prices fall even Arthyas can pay a steady exploitative but steady amount to small farmers this is something that is not I'm sure everyone knows but it's not talked about because the Arthyas are exploitative but as in all pre-capitalist exploitative relationships there is a community tie right they're not confronting each other as independent impersonal entities right and those community ties have to be reproduced over the time if you let a farmer die then the chances are that that you will die in the end right because your entire catchment area will go so as it would be wrong to call it feudal therefore I'm calling it non-capitalist relations all right there are those community ties which ensure and endure which is why often farmers commit suicide when banks or microfinance entities come to take back their money it's not always that it's a local Mahajan who's asking for the money right it's often it's an institutional framework which comes an impersonal institutional framework which comes to take the money back and because they've not been able to access MSP because if they could access MSP if they could access procurement they would not be in this trouble absolutely right and this context is it's interesting that like you talked about these relations and community and while we do accept that there is of course definitely exploitation the solution to this exploitation of course would have been for the state to strongly intervene create community networks you know bring farmers together and break whatever exploitative relations are there in that way as opposed to actually abandoning the entire sector to another fresh player which is actually even far more powerful than your local exploitative money lender look at the insidious manner in which it is being done because the point is not that they're just saying that okay we want to end this exploitative relationship we want to break the back of the aratias and the middlemen we want to ensure farmers get full price but MSP doesn't work we think private sector will pay more right let's assume that is their belief because many people don't the people don't there's a large number the majority of those who do economic analysis or economic policy are essentially neoliberal influenced people so they believe in the market it's not as if they're you know chores right some of them are I'm not saying neither of them are not but some of them are but still they believe it so let's say they believe that farmers will get but then tell me one thing why does the government put in those two new laws for contracts which says that the contract will be on predetermined produce and I think quality right standards and also that both parties can dissolve this contract anytime they want right right and the other side other part is that any dispute you can't go to a civil court you can only go to the SDM's tribunal this is essentially allowing the executive to decide there's more in this there is no leeway for the states to do anything because in both the laws it says that the center can direct states to do and follow these laws right implement them center is the right so essentially the federal rights are completely being taken away why are these laws there that you cannot go to court why is there a law which makes it so easy to create contracts for the buyer and you know a farmer are they is this an equal relationship does the government of India really want us to believe that there's an equal relationship between a big corporate with its army or big lawyers and a small farmer and it's a joke if they want so if they were serious about it they would have strengthened the legal protection for farms they would have said there'll be a fine for big corporates if they violate corporate norms right a big corporate will have to pay everything in advance contracts can be changed by farmers but might make it much more difficult for the buyer to change it no all of these have been tweaked to exploit farmers more bring them within exploitative capitalist relationships now again i'm not saying that the pre-capitals of the non-capitalist relationships are not exploitative we'd know they are no one's batting for artyas here but the point is that the artya system has actually been sustained by the state itself the state in short because we know that when there was a shortage right after independence Nehru had supposedly said that one of we should hang these you know trade merchants from the nearest lamp or something there's this apocryphal story which supposedly is true and then this entire system was brought that all produce these to pass through these government regulated markets once so that the government knows how much is being produced and also so that it can ensure that farmers get they can track what farmers are being paid right so that though the level of exploitation can reduce and the government understood that you cannot suddenly overnight change these relationships so the state has to support it with money with its institutional structure to reduce the exploitation right now you're essentially opening it up to increase the exploitation not reduce it absolutely and finally in this context just a quick reflection also on the state of the narrative state of the discourse so to speak around this whole issue what we're basically seeing also is the fact that a series of values and ideas starting from the mid 80s the early 90s that have because so seeped in into our lives into our culture that in the absence of without really looking at some of the realities you were talking about some of the details you're talking about words like choice and freedom and their flexibility all these are so become such a religion for many both in the middle class of course but also the media which is why they keep getting repeated and which helps us create this whole narrative of the government being willing to compromise the government being the almost helpless party in this scenario where they just somehow trying to negotiate with the farmers so that way we're actually quite sad times considering if hundreds and thousands of people being on the borders is not enough to really shake to wake you up and make you see reality then we're really in sad times absolutely Prashant the point is that very clear that the media and again there are both kinds of people here those who have been trained and you know for 35 years you've been trained so even a 45 year old person and it was 10 at that time would have no idea someone who was 15 is 50 today on the the senior most level in news organizations probably most of them are not there at that level so if you're training for 35 years has been this that this is good right there are then it's automatically true that you will say well you know yes there are problems but those problems can be solved but farmers these are rich farmers right they get subsidies we need to stop all this right and why are poor farmers not raising not protesting as if if poor farmers protested in their village you will send a camera crew to cover it exactly as if you've been covering poor farmers every day to know what they do and whether they protest and also when they protest what happens you call them naxalite khalistani anti-national you say these are pakistani and chinese backed choreographed movement so who's going to protest first of all as a poor farmer has time to get away from the act of just about earning a living every single day right and come to you come and protest so these are all a combination of a mindset and deliberate choice i don't think it is just mine it is these people who say there is full there capitalism and the market allows full choice sitting in these so-called private networks which are supposedly emerged out of capitalism and the market they have no choice they cannot sit in the studios and say this is wrong because they do not have the choice to do that if they say it they will not be in the studio the next day and they know it they know they have no choice they know that they are not being allowed to speak on social media their organizations are telling them that you can't so they are very well aware what capital and market does to democracy and choice but they are not going to uh so they know all these things they know these things many people and the sad part is that despite this knowledge they don't question what they've been taught that's the problem absolutely thank you so much for talking to us thanks a lot that's all we have time for today we'll be back on Monday with more news from india and the world until then keep watching news click


Look at this line. And now, look at these three lines. Can you tell which of them matches that first line? And how sure are you? Hold that thought and listen to this story, because most people can get this wrong. Once upon a time, on the eve of a major religious holiday, a seven-year-old boy was observing his grandmother as she poured an extra glass of wine. When the boy asked who the glass was for, she said that it was for the profit. The boy didn't believe her, so his uncle told him to just observe the glass closely. Full of expectation, the boy watched the glass intently, and suddenly he thought he saw the level of wine drop just a bit. In 1951, decades after the incident, our boy became a pioneer in social psychology, determined to rationalize what actually happened that fateful night. Did some of the wine really disappear, or was he made to believe that? To find out the truth, he devised an experiment to investigate whether peer pressure can be strong enough to change our perception, and make us believe in things that are not true.  Each student was introduced to a group of six to eight other students, who were, in fact, actors who already knew what the experiment was about. The group was then gathered in a classroom and shown two cards, the first with one line, the second with three lines on it. Each student was then asked to say aloud which line in the second card matched that first one. The group was seated in such a way that allowed the actors to respond first, leaving the real participant to respond last. For the first two rounds, the fake students, also known as confederates, gave the correct answer, and the innocent student, known as the subject, said whatever he thought to be true. In the third round, the actors began to respond with a clearly wrong answer. For the next 12 rounds, dubbed the critical trials, all the confederates would give the obviously wrong answer. So the innocent student could either ignore the majority or ignore the truth. So what did the experiment tell the researchers? Upon completing 18 rounds with all 123 subjects, the experiment came to the following conclusion. 23% of the students always gave the right answer, 72% conformed to the majority at least once, and 5% completely succumbed to peer pressure and always gave the obviously wrong answer. Ash's work also showed that if just one other acting student responded correctly, the effect of peer pressure decreased substantially. The experiment also showed that the opinions of three peers are enough to influence a student to change his mind. Increasing the number beyond three confederates did not increase the levels of conformity among others. Or put differently, if three people say something obviously wrong and there is no one to disagree with them, many of us agree with the wrong answer and start lying due to our deeply human desire to fit in. Since then, Ash's experiment has been successfully replicated many times and the effect remained significant, especially among women and homogenous peer groups. In 1955, Ash famously said, the tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white, black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct. What do you think? Would you have conformed or stuck to the truth? Do you see the ashes effect in your daily life or in social media? And what can we as adults or educators do to give young people today the strength to stand up and speak the truth? Share your thoughts in the comments below. This and all other Sprouts videos are licensed under Creative Commons. That means teachers from all around the world can use them in classrooms, online courses or to start projects. And today, thousands already do. To learn how it works and download this video without ads or background music, check out our website or read the description below. If you want to support our mission and help change education, visit our Patreon. That's Patreon.com slash Sprouts.


Hey, what's up YouTube? I'm Zeke and welcome to the dream green show and that's this channel approaches almost 5,000 subscribers Make sure that you subscribe because once I hit 5,000 subscribers I'm gonna do a channel giveaway. So don't miss out on that Make sure you go down and hit the subscribe button and ring the notification button as well So you don't miss out on any future videos or the giveaway in this video I'm gonna show you guys exactly how much I'm gonna make this year by showing you the Dividend tracker that I use in this video that helps me keep track of all of my dividends The X dividend dates that payment and how much I'm gonna get paid every single month from my dividends alone I'm gonna show you exactly what I use in this video So make sure that you stick through all the way through the end so you don't miss out but enough talking Let's get straight into the video All right, we're back. I have my Robin Hood portfolio pulled up I need to buy some stock right quick so I can show you guys how I update my dividend tracker right now on the day My account is at eighteen thousand two hundred and ninety one dollars. I'm up point seven one percent one hundred and twenty nine dollars and Seventeen cents on the day on the week. I'm down $24 and 25 dollars and six cents on the week on the month I'm up five hundred and thirty dollars and sixty one cents up two point Ninety nine percent and over the last three months. I am up three thousand four hundred and seventy eight dollars and two cents up Again of twenty three point four eight percent So the last three months my account has been playing catch up and I'm back out of the negatives and to the green All right, so I'm gonna buy two dividend stocks today So I could update my portfolio the first stop that I'm gonna buy is waste management ticker symbol WM right now on one point two two eight shares worth of WM I'm gonna go ahead and put in a limit order to buy another share of WM bringing me to two shares So let's hit trade buy and Type in one share and it's gonna make it a limit order At a hundred and three dollars and eighty six. Okay, there it goes Hopefully that will get placed when the market opens tomorrow Hit done, and then I'm going to buy one more share of AT&T Tickle symbol T is at thirty dollars and thirty five cent This one has a dividend payment of six point eight percent yield I own twelve shares of AT&T market value three hundred and sixty four dollars and twenty cents Let's purchase one share of AT&T Right quick trade by Okay, there it goes it brought my total number of shares of AT&T to twelve and my total number of shares of WM to two point two something so the tracker that I use is called track your dividends comm so I just purchased WM which have a dividend in yield of two percent and I just purchased AT&T which has the dividend yield of six percent so let's dive into track your dividends comm and In update my portfolio to see exactly how much I'm going to make this year just by Buying these two stocks and we're going to update my portfolio with all of my other dividends But that I bought last week so we can keep track of all that on track your dividends comm if you guys want to check that out The link will be down in the description. It's completely free to sign up for the free version. They do have a pay version that lets you see Statistics on all kinds of things, but it's completely free to sign up I'm about to show you guys the free version if you like it go ahead click that link and sign up Let's dive straight into it. All right guys here We're on track your dividends comm they have I'm on my dashboard right now They have a number of free tools stock analysis stock popularity and a different a lot of tools that you have on here Right now with all of my dividends combined. I have $7,967 worth of dividends just from my dividends is down $1,413 so this does not show my full Robin Hood account where I have Tesla Tesla doesn't have dividends. So I did not plug in Tesla into this. So I have Tesla AMD Google Amazon all of those are not I didn't plug in any stocks that I have on my Robin Hood account in my dividend tracker portfolio on track your dividends comm I just only plugged in my dividends and right now my dividend yield is 4.99% so almost 5% My yield on cost is 4.24% and my annual income if I don't buy any more stocks or update my portfolio my annual income will be $398 okay just from this year alone I will make a free $498 almost $400 and that is just from one year of investing in dividend stocks So we take a look at the free tools we can look at upcoming dividends So this is how much I would get paid in June $21.73 and July get paid $27 and 26 cents $26 $20 October I have a big month of $36 and April I have another big month April of 2021 I have another big dividend of 38 81 and that's if I don't invest anymore into the stock market Down here it shows which ones have confirmed to been paid confirmed confirmed I'm confirmed so it's going to show the date that I'm going to get paid these dividends and which ones are Upcoming this is an easy way if you guys don't want to use a calculator to add up All of your dividends to see how much you're going to get paid each month This site would do it for you and it's completely free if we take another look at another Tool that have to have the future view and let's click on 25 years If I don't add any more money to this account at the end of 2044 I'll be making that extra one thousand three hundred and sixty three dollars every single year and that's if I don't invest any More money into this account. This is just my dividend growth Been added every single year from twenty twenty twenty twenty twenty twenty twenty thirty all the way to 2040 to 2044 on how much money I can earn my portfolio value would be at twenty seven thousand two hundred and sixty nine dollars if I don't invest any more into the stock market It would grow at that rate right there and I'll be making an extra one thousand three hundred and sixty three dollars every single year Just from my dividends, but let's go ahead and update my Portfolio right quick. Also if you guys want to do stock analysis the stock analysis tool is amazing But this is not the free version that paid version is only I think four dollars and ninety nine cents a month or five dollars and Ninety nine cents a month. It's not that expensive compared to some of these other sites So let's go through each one of my stocks and update it so we can see how much the dividend yield the year on cost in the annual income Change just from me updating my portfolio Okay, the first one is AG and see let's hit edit. I Currently on 88 shares of AG and see now With the cost per share being $14 and 22 cents There you go my annual income went up my dividend yield went up and my year on cost. All right, the next one is Clorox I own 2.2 Four shares of Clorox edit. Let's update L. U V. I now have four point 4.5 Two shares of L. U V with the cost per share being thirty four oh Oh four It still have two in our Z. I have one hundred and fifty seven shares of NRZ and My cost per share is now twelve dollars and sixty two cents Took a simple oh relative income. I have an extra share of that at seven and My cost per share is now sixty four 94 Edit Pepsi still have one share SPHD. I know I bought some SPHD the other day I now have 29 shares of SPHD at the average cost of $40 and 72 cents SPYD I have 14 shares of SPYD with the cost of shares being 37 32 AT&T tickle symbol T. I now have 13 shares. So let's plug that in 13 shares with the average cost of AT&T being $33 and fifty five cents waste management WM waste management there we go. We have 2.2 Two shares worth of Waste management and average cost per share is one on 932. Alright, so there we go I updated my dividend portfolio now. I'm sitting at eight thousand six hundred and seventy four dollars down one thousand three hundred and eighty nine Dollars my dividend yield is now four point eight nine percent yield on cost is four point two two percent and now my annual income is above four hundred dollars sitting at four hundred and twenty five Dollars annually. So if I continue to invest every single month and grow my annual income by twenty five dollars every single month By the end of this year, I will see this annual income growth Exponentially, so that's the thing about the stock market if I keep investing keep reinvesting my dividends I will continue to grow my dividends very fast in the near future So this is trackyourdividends.com guys is pretty simple to use It show all your ex dividend dates and how much you're planning to make with ending next year. So if you guys do sign up So if you guys do sign up remember the link is down in the description Just click that it'll take you straight to here and you can sign up to start your free Version of trackyourdividends.com if you like it go ahead and sign up for the paid version and there it goes guys That is the dividend tracker that I use. It's called trackyourdividends.com I'm going to continue to update my portfolio every single week at the end of the week Just so I can see how much money am I growing my portfolio at the end of the week to have my residual income My passive income continue to grow that is my long-term gain. So when I retire I know that my dividends is going to pay for everything that I need to retire If you guys like the video make sure you go down and hit the thumbs up button It really helps this channel out a lot. Make sure you subscribe because the 5,000 Subscriber giveaway is going to happen very very soon. So don't miss out on that But other than that The two things that I use in this video was Robin Hood if you sign up now Just click the link down in the description if you sign up You'll get a free stock and I get a free stock and then the other one is trackyourdividends.com It's completely free if you like that go ahead and check that out. But other than that I'm Zeke bring you the dream green show and I'm out. Peace