And I don't, a pessimist around a plague, I don't know, that just seems out of character for me, but it's been strange to begin to be the one that's not trying to push out for the radical scenarios, but instead saying, hey, wait a minute, let's think this through about just how much power the incumbent entities possess. And how unwilling, demonstrably unwilling they are to relinquish that power. And part of the chat, like Mika says, it's two crises, the virus and the economic collapse. And one of the thoughts that I didn't show right now is I'm trying to figure out one of the key questions for, for how to move what to do, you know, policy decisions during the crisis. And one of them is balancing the health hit with the economic hit. And Bo had mentioned earlier that Sweden is taking a really unorthodox approach here. They're doing the herd immunity approach, and they're, they're telling people over 70 to completely isolate. And then they're closing large gatherings and all that. But the other ways they're like, hey, y'all go kind of walk around and catch this. We need to get through it by getting more people who have had it and are sort of post Corona. And so far I'm not hearing of devastating results in Sweden, although they could hit at any moment because exponential change, exponential change goes quickly. Right. Cover story on the post today about how there's actually a significant number of young people in China are showing who had gone through COVID have showing little or no antibodies that antibodies become more prevalent post COVID as you get older. So basically the exact people that they're talking about walking around and getting and getting sick aren't keeping the antibodies. And are just becoming transmission vectors, which means they would become transmission vectors again, more, et cetera.  And, you know, in terms of a social or physical distancing approach as Taiwan's an example of a country where is, you know, a very different ratio of public knowledge about you and privacy and and and they have very little or relatively, I think they're tightening their physical distancing and and they have, they're doing spectacularly well with how they're handling this, thanks to some people we know as well. I'll chime in briefly just from the chat. I fully agree that some, well, I've got an answer to the question of how many of these changes are temporary and are we at the, you know, are we going to see massive transformation of everything or how it was? I do agree that the health crisis and economic crisis are too separate, but tightly interrelated crises. But I do think that there is another crisis that is, you know, to some degree out there, but in many ways, particularly with work from home and quarantine, it's also quite hidden. And that's the mental health crisis. And I don't want to say crisis as it's like, I actually was on a call at six a.m. this morning about exactly this. And there were people from Asia and Europe and including people of the people who led the call are experts in societal trauma. And what they typically do is work with communities who have been through civil war, that sort of thing. So their perspective was really quite helpful.  She used to head up what's called Heads Together, which was the UK mental health, it is the UK mental health with Prince William and Princess Catherine. Now she has global for United, globally united for mental health. But the point I want to make is that it's not that COVID doesn't cause a mental health crisis. We've had mental health crises, whether it's anxiety, depression, isolation, loneliness, dysfunctional relationships.  I mean, there's just so much precariousness and so much sense of have to keep up that COVID, it basically is it exacerbates all of this. It's like the tinder was there. The kindling was there. You add COVID, the whole thing explodes. And I look at this and I'm actually leading a seminar on Friday.  I'm not a, I'm not a therapist or anything like that. I've been in mental health treatment since the age of 11. And from so I have a personal story to share. But for me, it's more a matter of looking around and particularly I have this like thesis of like, it's almost like the more you've done in the world, the greater the anxiety feels right now. It's like, you got to keep up. But how do I do it when all of the way or so many of the ways that I used to define my worth or my value or how other people saw me have started to not banish, but have started to crack. So I share this because I also think that. And this was the call, another call I had earlier this morning. It's been an early morning, but I think, you know, we don't talk about mental health very much in the business world or in organizations. It's like stigma. It's like, we just don't go there. Your personal life for personal life. And that's somehow deemed party of personal life. I actually think that the best businesses are those who understand what not only understand the mental health components, but recognize that if you have a team with strong mental health that really feel understanding, I'd understand how to cope with it, understand, you know, how to get through uncertainty that your your business strategy, your KPIs, like whatever metrics you want to use, your business is going to be more successful, but we're sort of cutting ourselves off at the knees by separating these two things and assuming that somehow mental health, I don't know, it'll take care of itself or something. So went on a little bit, but those are some early thoughts for the crisis. And again, the word crisis, I don't want to sound dramatic, but maybe in the time of a pandemic, being a bit dramatic is OK. Just a really quick comment that in many ways ties what I was talking about to what April was talking about even more firmly. And that is when I about kind of been four years ago, because it was just turn 50. I was in Sarajevo, Bosnia and doing a set of scenarios on the future of Bosnia for the US Agency for International Development. And what was like many scenario projects, you bring a bunch of people who are who have interests, who are locals, who a variety of experts of different different kinds and most of them were fairly young. The few that were older in their in their 40s, 50s, 60s had a very, very different interpretation of the world because they had gone through the Civil War. And it's you know, the some some of the stuff that I that we've been talking about that we see around us just really resonates with what the conversations that I had with those folks of this that experiencing the trauma and having that be woven into not just their their worldviews, but into their sense of self. You know, they can they can and will always identify as people who live through the Civil War and never want to live through another one. And that's that was like the almost every single person in had that refrain of do not want this again, even as some of the younger folks were like sort of jokingly saying, well, if we can't get this or that, we'll just fight for it. And, you know, like eyes wide, no, we do not want that. And just that kind of trauma just this resonates for me right now. And I also think I mean, both my parents were older and they lived through the Depression. So I think it's that same kind of you always self-identify back to the Depression and it impacts your view of scarcity and abundant and savings and money and security and frugalness and giving versus keeping. Yeah, and adding to this, I think you're absolutely right.  But and so from a societal perspective, regenerationally, I mean, I do think it's way too early to know. But I worry a lot about young people who are entering, you know, their their working years are entering. They're going to grow up in a world in which the jobs they thought they were going to get are going to disappear to some degree. The fragility of life becomes really, really clear, much more acute than we would have seen before. But I'm also reminded of the fact and I know that we talked about this on prior X calls that even before covid, what is it? Forty six percent of Americans wouldn't be able to come up with four hundred dollars in an emergency. Now, if that's not precariousness already, I don't know what is. And now we've just seen, you know, six point six million unemployment filing or ten million in two weeks, but seven million in one week. Like, OK, and, you know, if you if and not to say that if you have good mental health, that somehow these problems go away. But your ability to cope. And this is why I've been doing a lot of work on, you know, just your I'm not a neuroscientist, but, you know, the sympathetic parasympathetic nerve like fight, fight, fight, fight freeze is where our brains typically go for stuff like this as opposed to how do we make sure that we can just keep our brains calm so that we can make compose a reasonable decision that we can look fully at what's going on, because if we have a society in which that many people have their brains effectively hijacked by the wiring, we have a much bigger problem than just a health pandemic and an economic problem. Well, the thing that haunts me about what you just said, which is so impactful and the whole $400 I don't have for a crisis. Look at the entire medical system across the United States at every every single hospital is so bootstrapped by a scarce budget that, you know, all these scarcity that we're seeing across the entire health system is because systemically we've been running that thing at maximum scale and minimal margins and it kind of is what it is. And then and then you take personal accountability for for health and the ability to get health insurance ability to get healthy food of healthy.  Also, Corey Doctorow wrote a really great thread just a couple of days ago. I'll find the link and put it in the chat about private equities effect on lots of industries, including health care. And basically private equity people went in, basically bought themselves health care systems and then gutted them, just gutted them, basically made them rent their own buildings back, took away their assets, sold things off, consolidated, did whatever they could basically basically the pieces they screed against private equity. And I think there's a few good players in private equity in the whole bunch of just take advantage of everybody and like pillage being taken down. We're being taken down by the cult of efficiency. Well, the cult of capitalism, you might actually say. Yeah, absolutely. And and and, you know, hedge fund and private equity owners, the people who run these things are sort of gods in the worlds of finance. These are these are major entities in the worlds of finance. And so his I loved his takedown. I'll go go find it and put in here. And then I want to pass the mic to Ishta because we happen to have a human who fits the demographic. April was talking about a moment ago on the call, just like personally. So what do you think, Ishta? Hi, hello, I've met some of you before. But yeah, I really resonate with everything April was saying, honestly, because I I think that there is I just written this in the chat. So adding to this whole concept of productivity, I've grown up believing that my worth is dependent on as of all of us. Which is my work is dependent on what I'm doing, where I'm going, what my career path is. The last two years, I've already been struggling with this transition of not knowing what of doing things unconventionally and not being employed, but experimenting and taking things slow. But I feel like now, because the two years have geared me for this, it almost feels like if I don't act now, I have lost the head start. I have lost I become less relevant and it just feels there's so much for more. But yet I keep getting reminders through emails and Instagram of how maybe even with all of this preparation, I'm not functioning from a space of sensing and being present, but functioning still from a place of knowing, oh, I was prepared for this. Oh, I know what to do now. And so I keep getting reminded to stop and it's really difficult to pull because I feel like if I stop now, then I lose out. And you said like if we don't act now, can you just go a little deeper into that? What do you mean if we don't act now because acting could be anything? Yeah, yeah, basically how I think for me, it's about being part of the shift that is happening, but almost leading it. I think I feel a pressure to like be at the forefront. And I don't I don't even know how to do that. So it's a little bit like it's a it's an absurd place to be almost. Yeah, that's lovely. This is a great theater of the absurd. Go ahead, Jamai. And I just it's struck me is that it's the the weird intersection of fear of missing out with with great power comes great responsibility. You know, it's like it's not just a fear of missing out. It's a fear of not doing enough. It's the Spidey rule. Yeah, that I could have done more.  Mika, please. Yeah. So just on this theme, I came across and I'll find it and put it in the chat. A really interesting piece by Greg Bloom, who was part of a whole crisis response network two or three years ago, when the that triplet of hurricanes were bearing down first on Houston. And then I think they thought it was going to hit Miami. And then the third one hit Puerto Rico. And he created something called Irma response, which was like a big slack channel for all kinds of people trying to figure out like, what can we do to help? What can we do to help? And that experience, as well as the Puerto Rico experience, then led this community to reevaluate and they've produced a set of response, you know, like I said, of principles for equitable crisis response. And the core idea is, you know, that impulse, which is, you know, I've got to do something if they're flipping it on their head and saying, no, no, the first thing is you should stop and not rush to do something. There are a few people who do have to rush to do something, right? Doctors, nurses, you know, the first responders. But a lot of us types probably don't have to rush to do something, but have that impulse and that really need to actually listen to the people who are in, you know, like right facing the brunt of the problem. What's different? And then Greg goes on to say. But that was in the case of, you know, like hurricanes and earthquakes and so on are these things that kind of hit one place. And then there's the need to, you know, save people and then provide relief and recovery. This is not that, not nearly. So it's not like we really know, based on past experience, what it's like to have this kind of rolling wave hit. And and, you know, we don't even know if we're at the apex of it yet or, you know, extremely confusing. But I go with him.  And there's a series of things that are happening right now where people are experimenting and some of those are going to stick because we're going to be we're going to be secluded long enough that habits will form and then people will be like, hey, this is better than that. Was one of my big hopes is that people will experiment some with unschooling or with self-directed education and we'll look back on to the compulsory education system as more of the prison system that it is. And so then what? And I think that there's a moment to actually sort of groove new habits and maybe make them play out bigger. I'm going to share my screen again for a second, because before coronavirus, I had a I had a thought in my brain that I actually wanted each does opinion on, and I was going to martial wrecks, young fellows and other sorts of people. But I was curating this 2020 market generational tipping point looking at Greta Thunberg, AOC in the squad, Jacinda Ardern, you know, all kinds of people and the Sunshine Movement, Nerdfighteria, Hank and John Green. Don't know if you guys know about Nerdfighteria, the school strikes and in a weird way, Greta Thunberg just got her wishes, right?  But guess what? Something faster just made us go into that. So you can't ignore the the gender component of that as well. Yeah, because because Greta's yeah. You know, Greta will be just in the right entirely. Totally agree. And then maybe there's not just a generational tipping point, but a gender tipping point. That would be really interesting as well. Anybody thoughts? I don't believe in generational anything. No generational models work for you. OK, I think it's the same generation that produced, you know, Ted Nugent and Al Gore. What what generation was that? I think we lean on these labels a little bit too much. In other words, 2020 may be a tipping point, but I don't know that I would make this as much of a generational like the young versus the old. We're all going through something. And I just I haven't found the the the labeling of generations to be all that satisfactory for me. Anyone else attitudes and generations in such a I'm just curious in terms of generational differences around who has funny. The phrase that people often use is like, who has the most at stake? I don't like that one, but this sense of what today's today's show and the very like abundantly clear reality that current system structures, organizations, attitudes, whatever. And this this sense of, yeah, we kind of know we're interdependent, but we're not behaving that way. Or like, yeah, fine, it should be more we less me, but we're not really behaving that way for the most part. Moving forward, will the real catalysts for change? Will the people who are like, no, this is we are we are going. This is going to be a train wreck unless we actually step up. Will there be a generational difference there? I mean, I look at this and say, I really see younger cohorts. Like this is a moment in which that there is a generational shift. There are younger and younger people getting into position positions, whether those are formal or informal, of greater power. And this sense of like, enough is enough. And the one thing I'll also add, I'm guessing some of you have heard this. There is a new term that's being coined now called Generation C for kids born during the era of coronavirus or those that grow up from coronavirus onwards, because they will be shaped by this. And I share this, you know, Jerry and I have four friends, four friends who have given birth since lockdown. And that alone is just wild to think about. That's that's impressive. We're running out of birthday cards in the stash. And we don't have any birthday card. We can't get any cards. I mean, baby cards, not birthday cards. Literally birthday. Baby cards. Yeah. Somebody was funny and it ties back together. I guess the homeschooling people were observing it. All the babies born, but all the babies, the first children because anybody that's homeschooling, they don't do that. Homeschooling being a very good form of birth control. But we were also we were also joking that, you know, I guess you guys have heard like in China, when they now have stats like both divorces and marriages just shot through the roots. So you look at it and you're like, yeah, I'm not I'm not. Am I am I living the life that I really wanted to be living? Right. And you're in quarantine and it's a really good chance to decide that it's time to end or it's time to make things official. But this whole thing about homeschooling, where it's like, if you don't have kids, you're not having any now when you look when you look around. And if you do have kids, you're probably not having any more either. So I don't know. I mean, this is a good you sort of look at this. And if you were on the fence about kids and then you look at homeschooling and you go, I'm just I'm not sure how this all looks anyway. Dave, I'm curious, actually, real quick, your kids and give I mean, I look at them as just being some of the coolest, like they get they're much more attuned to, I think, where the future is heading and immersing themselves in it. How are they doing during like, what are they up to? Are they working from home? Are they your your son who I don't actually know. Was he in South America? Is he like home? He's he's home. He's standing here trying to talk to me right this very minute. And I think they're very good too. But we're talking about on the beach as well, though. All right. OK. Hey, here you go. He got his retreat in Chile. He was out. He finished biking in Ecuador and then went to a retreat in Chile and got back like a day before they closed all the borders. And I think he's been spending his days playing chess online. And I don't know that he was planning on coming back. Was it did his trip go to plan or was did he have to come back because of the he was he came back a few weeks earlier. He was going to go hiking in Patagonia and stuff and got it. So I didn't he didn't get it. He didn't get to finish the rest of his ayahuasca cycle, which is a big sacrifice, I think. So and then his brother, you know, and there's some pretty different. So once at the retreat and, you know, Chile and his brothers working for Uber and tried to move out to New York to do his project out there and then spent like four days. Everything closed down. He just came back. So there everybody's here in the group. And I was just going to make an argument for Mika. I do think there is something to the generational stuff, at least in the superficial level of communications channels, because they're different, right? Like, I don't use Instagram and they don't use email that, you know, we kind of overlap on Facebook a little bit. But, you know, they tolerate that for me. And, you know, and things like, OK, Boomer, I think really are indicative. Maybe that may not be an important thing, but it is an indicative thing. And, you know, like they had to explain to me why OK was kind of rude, you know, it was just it was too, you know, OK, it was the way it's interpreted. You know, so now if you like my kids will never say OK, they'll say KKK or some version of that in text messaging, you know, dismissive, you know, and or the or or red versus blue messages on your on your on your iPhone SMS screen, like I still don't remember which one's which of which one's better. But they're different, you know, green versus blue. Yeah, green versus blue. Sorry. I'm curious, David, do you consider if you if you say thank you and somebody says no problem, is that insulting? Not to me, it wouldn't be. But yeah, is that something that people are sensitive to? Yeah, a generation strongly and that's strongly generationally connected to. So while I will say on this generational point and then stop is I'm more interested in groups of people organizing to get power to change things. And yes, people like Greta Thunberg are and the Sunrise Movement are tapping a willingness to take more radical, make more radical demands, take more radical action than, say, the indivisible movement, which is predominantly people who are in their fifties and sixties and who have a little more faith that if you just put pressure on your congressmen that you're going to get changed to happen. But I think a lot of both of those things are in flux. And a lot of my 50 and 60 year old friends in indivisible are we're already going down to Washington to get arrested this past fall. And if things do not improve after November, I think we're going to see a upswing in Americans of both generations being willing to take more radical, disruptive steps to change the status quo. From your lips to God's ears, as they say, Susan.  Did you want to jump in? You're still muted. Hold on. Let me unmute you. Oh, I'm unable to unmute you. There we go. Go. I was just going to say something about and encourage the thought that that those that it doesn't mean that they're not different and that they don't have different expectations. But it has I think it has as much to do with experience as it does with.  It's their experience of the world and how they have and everything else. I mean, years not too long ago in the advertising industry knows this not too long ago, well, several decades ago now, there was a book that came out about how the middle class economically speaking around the world had more in common, right? Then so there's so many factors here. And I do think that we over I think we overuse the generational labels and we have we set up expectations and then we're surprised when they don't work and outside. Well, they're people and, you know, look at what experience they had. So yeah, it's it's hard because these are. Should we just call them cohorts because kind of generations maybe is too loaded because I do see I do see people taking it too far. But I do think that, you know, people who grew up in a set of circumstances and experienced different things have a general collective, not everybody, but general collective sort of feeling about things. And so there's a book titled Generation Jones, which splits the baby boomer boomers and says that there's a group of late boomers. They call Generation Jones, who were jonesing for what the baby boomers got. And the premise to baby boomers was, hey, the war is over. Prosperity is here. Go crazy.  And what they got was OPEC and oil strikes and oil shortages. Watergate and Vietnam. Yeah, that was my sister and I have this conversation all the time. So so so Generation Jones feels very differently about the deal. They were dealt than boomers did. And it's it's experience. And now we, you know, anybody born today assumes the internet. It was always here and has no ability, like unless they're really creative and like read a lot of fiction or whatever to imagine a world before you could just message anybody or set up a video and have multiple people online or like pay something with your device in your hand or whatever, like these are just givens. And I think that creates a different set. And one of the things one of the things that made me create that thought does 2020 maybe create a generational tipping point was that I think that some of these new generations of young people are being extraordinarily effective, more effective than previous generations of young people, partly because of the empowerment of the inner tubes, but partly because they're just pissed. They're like, they're done. They're baked. They see this this thing coming at them. They see nobody reacting. Everybody mired in politics. Everybody stuck and they're like, OK, we need to take up more responsibility than before. And previous generations of kids were like, what's Beyonce doing? Go ahead, Brad. This whole generational question is kind of. Exciting and bizarre for me all at once. My dad was born in nineteen, nineteen. He fought more work to. He had me in his late forties in nineteen sixty three. I'm one of four brothers and five sisters from a mass of mixed marriages and adoptions and all that kind of good stuff. So I graduated high school in eighty one in Cocoa Beach, Florida, under the threat of nuclear armageddon in any second, because Reagan was our president, you know. And so I always lived in the space of existential threat, just kind of hardwired into me. And then I worked at Kennedy Space Center eight and a half years and I learned about single points of failure and how to write code to launch space shuttles. I was a grand one sequencer programmer, but I got married in eighty six. I had my son, Noah, in eighty nine. I had my daughter Abigail in ninety two. I took them to New York City Post Divorce December of two thousand. Their ages, you know, nine and eleven before the World Trade Center happened. And then that event marked their lives. Noah was now thirty and a graphic artist living in Orlando. My daughter Abby is an adjunct professor at University of North Florida, teaching English, but their lives forever impacted by that in the endless wars. Then I got remarried in 2007. We had Audrey in 2008 and had our twin girls in 2010. So I'm seeing this as a very similar life event to the nine eleven event that will forever impact them. And it's hitting an exactly the same time frame of what no one had the experience for nine eleven. They're now experiencing this at ten and eleven, right? If you stop having kids, will we stop having disasters? I have to now I can have another litter, because apparently I have one kid every decade. So, you know, we're open. Yeah, you're not the one who carries them, Brad. No, that's very true. Very true. And two wives, two marriages. But the weird thing is, is that how these these events just totally impact the worldview. And what happened with Noah and Abby, my older ones, is a complete disdain and distrust of all things government, all things, you know, the kind of respect for the American, you know, they were not fans of Bush and not fans of everything that happened and, you know, all that. So they're the systems of authority, the systems of control. They've always been suspicious of. They will never sign up to work really hard and become an assistant manager. And someday you're just going to work on up that corporate ladder and get. No, that's not in them at all. And now the young ones that were doing homeschooling week, week five. They live in a world of instantaneous communication, instantaneous, you know, their values are so pure, so focused, so unrelenting into what's right and what's wrong, and I live in Southern California. So that, you know, that kind of excuse my politics, perhaps, but it's astonishing just being a witness of history seeing all this, you know. Love that. Thank you, Brad. That that's, I feel like I just heard like the beginning of roots. And it's like, you know, going, going back and generational facts. And these things are, are, you know, collective trauma and they will scar us for a while and, and, and partly just to go back to an early conversation that Bo brought up, like partly total lockdown and economic near collapse is very different from partial lockdown and an attempt to achieve herd immunity and, and the people who are in this scenario are going to live through it very differently from the people who live through it. There's other scenario and these are all policy decisions being, you know, being called and the countries are not homogeneous. We're, we're not like them. They're not like us, but, but one of the, one of the excuses I usually don't like when, when people are evaluating some new system, like traffic calming is like, oh, it's great that that works there, but because those people are like that, but it'll never work here. Right. I hate that. Um, and then, and then the angle that I bring to this also is trust. And, you know, in countries like Sweden, there's still a bit of vestige of trust in the government and, and like understanding that they're helping do this, here we've had government after government who's given us very good reasons to not trust the government anymore. And so people's skepticism is like moderately well founded. Some of it's really disastrous, disastrous and has been driven by people who want to undermine trust in government intentionally, which has been like, we've weaponized trust and we've, we've, you know, the far right has intentionally undermined science, journalism and trust in one another on purpose because government is not the, the fixed government is the problem as Reagan told us. So, so I've got, I've got two haunting thoughts that I brought to today's call and I'll just share them and we can, we can deposit them on a shelf somewhere. Um, the first haunting thought is a thought that I've had, I've been living with for easily 30 years and, and the way the world works is completely non-sustainable and it's simply a matter of time before all the systems of control collapse on top of each other because we're just stretching things too weirdly. And, and awkwardly to, to, towards an arc of power that is again non-sustainable. So I've been waiting for this kind of situation for a while in the back of my mind and metaphysically and spiritually and financially just trying to be ready for when it hits because I just expected it. Um, so I'll just put that out there. The second thing is my mom was 89 and she passed away two years ago and I was the executive of her will. She wasn't very wealthy. She had pockets of money across 12 different institutions and it took me 18 months to navigate through that maze of pain just to reconcile all that. I cannot fathom losing 6,000 people a day and just, just what that does to families, what that does to culture, what that does to experience and knowledge and, and, and, but just the massive financial consequence and, and the, the, the lasting, I mean, holy cow. There's a lot of stuff that's coming our way right now. Um, Susan, go ahead. Thank you, Brian.  There, I keep thinking if I click on the microphone, you know, it will, that's not how it works anymore. You have this whole menu. Anyway, um, the, uh, I was just going to just comment on, um, what Brad said. Um, but the thing is, I'm, I'm, I'm struck also by how things repeat. So, um, and the cycles repeat, uh, maybe the, uh, Hindus are right. Anyway, it's just, uh, but it is, that was a throwaway comment. Um, but it's striking that I grew up like you, but I grew up, uh, before you and in, and, uh, but my parents went through the depression and World War II and the depression. My father was an oaky, you know, in Oklahoma where, uh, they lost their farm. They lost three farms. They lost everything. Right. And when I was in college and my father wanted to build a new house and I said to my mother, being of that age and having thinking we should be doing good things in the world. And why did we need another new house? And she said, Susan, you did not grow up without anything. You have no idea what you're talking about. We thought, well, that's probably true. And I didn't. Um, so I think it's this marking. I think marking is a useful thing. It's being marked by, um, collective experiences that we all have. And, and those may be more profound. Um, I think, I think, I don't know. And I, I go back to, yeah, I go back to history and look what happened in 1920, 1921, 22, 23, right after the. What happened to the Roman Empire? What happened to England? I mean, I thought a long time ago we were, we were next because nobody can sustain that. And I will, uh, here's a useful book. We haven't had a book yet. Have we, have we had books yet? No. Nice. The logic of collective. Yeah. Okay. By a man named Manco Olson. And I just happened to have this on my bookshelf. I happened to be sitting here waiting for my internet to come up. So I pulled it off and started to read it. And I thought, oh, well, we knew all this. We knew all this. We knew, we knew that, that you can't just keep doing it like this. Um, and there's some useful things about how people were thinking about, this is about public goods and the theory of groups. It just makes me sad. I'll put a link to that node in the chat. Thank you. And so things, when, when things collapse, generally they're, they're going great. And everybody's really happy. And then they collapse very quickly. The collapse happens usually all of a sudden. Also another observation is that the winners in history think constantly they're about to lose until they win. And even when they've won, usually it's by a hair's breadth and they're always fighting off whoever they think their, their, you know, opponent is.  And you can sort of look at any, any country in any lineage. So it's hard to predict which of the things is going to tip collapse.  And I just published a bunch of videos that say, don't mis underestimate Donald Trump.  And he's still president and that's still going on. So, and I'm really worried about the November election, you know, in 15 different ways we could go deeper into. Just watch House of Cards. It tells how he's going to win the next election. It's all good. I don't, I don't envy the, the writers or show runners of House of Cards for an instant, like reality is so much stranger than you could script into a show like that anymore. Right. Um, so, so, so, and, and, and just to throw a dark side onto this, there, you know, millenarians and, and other sorts of people are trying to tip the world into disaster because they figure the second coming is going to happen and then they'll be raptured and everything will be okay then. Like your secretary of state. Yes. Oh my God. And I went to a website that's basically deeply religiously conservative and their, their bench of administration backers, their golden circle of backers was half the secretaries of, of the cabinet.  I, I'll, I'll find that page. I did a triple take. I just couldn't, I was like, wait, wait, what? So anyway, anybody's thoughts on collapse? This being a cheerful conversation. In the immortal words of Alfred the Butler, some men just want to watch the world burn. Yeah. Yeah, we're going to collapse. It's one thing that's really interesting is that the stock market is in a weird wonderland right now because we've gone through these huge debt cycles, which we, in 0809, we push it off the bank's balance sheets over to junk bonds and onto governments. And it's really, liminally weird right now to look at how, I think because you can't, this, the virus thing makes it more of a natural disaster. So all the authorities are cooperating right now and hold, putting fingers in the dyke, but this debt is not going away. And it just got bigger after 0809. And it feels to me like we're in this liminal time before the real storm. We didn't have to be even really good. Absolutely. No, I totally agree. This is Old Testament stuff. Can I complain about economics for a minute? Oh, you got to explain this stuff to me, man. It's like, it seems to me like all these things that we were told were absolute truths and economics aren't right. I mean, like, where's all the inflation that comes from all our deficit spending? What happened to all the unemployment from raising the minimum wage? There's been several of these kind of cornerstone components of economics and public policy that we've tested recently, empirically. And they didn't play out the way the economists said it, they weren't going to play out. And so I had this feeling that we're in pre-Kopernican economics. It's like all this, we've had, we had this massive system set up that explains how the economy works.  Tolemac economics. And we just haven't, and nobody, is anybody coming to terms with this? I mean, I just find it so frustrating. You know that team building exercise where everybody, you stand in a circle and you twist your left and then everybody sits on each other's knees? That's what all this economic theory is. It only works so long as everybody believes that it works.  It's a sustained illusion. But also, if you can create a mechanism and get everybody to jump on board the merry-go-round and then be the first one to jump off, and that was sort of my, that's my take on the subprime crisis, is that people like John Paulson basically invented instruments that were so difficult to understand that intentional obfuscation, intentional obscurity, made people go like, I don't get it. And then once a few people were in there and getting extraordinary returns because the math in these instruments was flawed, everybody else had to jump on board. And once everybody was on board, you couldn't fight it. So if you read the big short or watch the big short, you realize that the six people that Michael Lewis interviews, all of them would never ever want to go through that experience again because everybody hated them. Everybody on their portfolio was screaming at them like, what are you doing? You're shorting the market. This is the biggest bull market. This is the biggest phenomenon ever.  Paulson makes $3 billion from the collapse, right? And the moment the coin drop for me was a Michael Lewis essay called, It's the Economy Dumkopf, where he goes to a little pension fund in Northern Germany, interviews them, and they went under because they were up to here with CDOs and CDSs. And the last line in the article is, but those were all rated AAA, right? That means no risk. And so there's a whole series of things that had to happen for that to work. But we're sort of in a moment now where modern monetary theory, MMT, has been a very dominant thing for a long time. And everybody's like, oh, debt doesn't matter. So you can just print money. And that works until it doesn't. And Lassim Taleb says, for the Turkey, everything is awesome until it isn't. Yeah, so I have a couple points that the Reagan Thatcher era, although that neoclassical economics really was a bunch of politics, a bunch of stuff, masquerading to give power to capitalists. And it worked fantastic. Neoclassic and neoliberal. Do you say neoclassic? Did you mean neoliberal? Neoclassical, I thought. Yeah, both, both actually. It worked really wonderfully for a few people.  I'm sorry. Absolutely. No, I think that's what it means. I said for the capitalists, I said for the capitalists to make. Yeah, not for everybody. I said for the capitalists. And that's what's happened. We've got income distribution. It's just crazy. It's just crazy. And the other thing, so as far as modern monetary theory, inflation, and all of that stuff, that, again, is the effects of the political ideologies masquerading as economic theories.  And in fact, he would be, he would be an MMT promoted right now. So I think the death of neoclassical economics is happening right in front of returning to John Maynard Keynes. We really knew what he was doing and was a very smart, beautiful man. But inflation, by the way, the difference right now for us is we are a reserve currency status and is going to fade now. And we will eventually have inflation, but it's okay. It's not going to be. We're going to have to print our way out of this. Mika, do you want to ask a question about April's piece on the sharing economy and take us into that conversation? Yeah, sure. I just thought, especially since this has been such a dismal and April's piece, which offers a different slant on things, if I can summarize quickly, April forgive me, but basically arguing that the original ideas of the sharing economy were genuinely people looking for ways to scale cooperative behavior and also save resources and so on that instead of wasting zip car, being a good example of a fleet that saved lots of people from having to own their own cars. And that then the economy side of the sharing economy ran away with the concept of VCs, et cetera, saw the potential to make huge amounts of money. But now with companies like WeWork, et cetera, deflating badly, maybe this is a moment where the true sharing economy platform co-ops and so on has a shot at revival. I love the idea. I certainly, we are seeing in the rush of altruistic behavior around the crisis this the possibility that new structures that people learn through this moment of rallying to kind of build up the antibodies. Eric Kleinberg likes to say that what we need is not social distancing, we need physical distancing, but we need social solidarity. So is this a moment where we can really force that shift further? Or as Jamey was saying before, when the immediate crisis subsides, the powers that be that thing flips back to, well, we were being altruistic for a little while, but obviously we don't have to be anymore. So I think it's really provocative. It's hopeful to me to think how do we push that to ensure the chances of you being right? Thank you, Mika. And I think, so these were, this was a piece that I just needed to get out on the paper. I've been thinking about it for the last few weeks. And in particular, in my newsfeed every day, it's like sharing economy is doomed. And what they mean by that is Uber is hemorrhaging money, WeWork's going to blow up and Airbnb is in travel and tourism and they're being hammered too. And I'm sitting there going, and those companies are not the sharing economy.  Much of what they do is not. Uber is really not. But here's the thing, I've been in this space for, you know, the better part of a decade. And what happened was that the original intention to the sharing economy, and here we can think about blah, blah car and zip car and couch, like those are the ones that are initially bring up. But I want to be really clear, even back then, we are not talking about a free barter gift economy. We're talking about being able to monetize underutilized resources, but to do so in a way that you can build a more sustainable economy where we're using assets better and we're building community, you know, like I continue to stand by the fact that in its original form, the sharing economy or sharing economy based business model is one of the most powerful, smart, useful models that we have. Full stop. When you look at it from the fact of if it has to meet the metrics of we can save money, we can use resources more sustainably, and we can forge some kind of community. You know, I always like to say it's not that you become best friends with the person you share your car with, but when you're car sharing, you do get to know more about the people and activities around you, right? Yeah, I will stand by that and say that is still one of the most interesting, awesome, useful business models, full stop. The problem is that along the way, we started extending the term sharing economy, what I call in my article and what I've been calling for years, I call it sharewashing, right? Kind of like greenwashing. Along the way, when people are like, oh, this is actually a really good way to do things and oh, like we can make money and oh, well, if we can make some money, why don't we make more money? And oh, if we can make money, well, who gives a rip about community? Oh, you know, in suing, you know, up until 2012-ish, that original vision was very much in place. And then I don't know what it had to do with 2012 or any particular moment in time, but then you saw sharewashing just completely, it just, it took the term beyond all recognition, such that now when we say the sharing economy, what we candidly mean is like the digital economy, the on-demand economy, and sharing, it sounds good. We're all going to choose that term because who doesn't want to be part of the sharing economy? That sounds, it's warm and fuzzy and all the rest. So in my piece, and I think there are two questions that you raise, Mika, one of which, well, neither which do I have the answer for, but the way I'm looking at it. So the title of the piece is, you know, the coronavirus is, it's the end of the sharing economy or a new beginning. And it is very clear that some of the VC-funded juggernauts, well, even before coronavirus, we wondered if their business models were sustainable. And my main question about why they're sustainable is that if you're only going to focus on transactions and just making money, and you're going to forget that people are the essential core of sharing, then you're always going to have a problem. And that's not a problem of COVID. That's a problem of how we're prioritizing, like, in no place is this more evident than in China, where, you know, the Chinese bike sharing, like build it and they will come. Well, not unless you actually build the relationships. And I mean, a lot of this is very, very rexy when we talk about the kind of a rexie sharing economy is likely to always thrive. But the problem is that we've now called so many things sharing economy that we get confused. So one question is, okay, are we actually going to see a hyping off or a real struggle for those transactional sharing? I don't want to call sharing economy. I don't know. I tend to think yes. I find it really interesting, some of you probably know. We know that, like, tourism business is down across the world. But, you know, Airbnb, which was supposed to go public this year. And now people are saying, like, will it survive? And it's like, I think it survives. But they raised $1 billion financing, just financing to get them through the coronavirus, which shows just how badly they've been hit. Now, here's the interesting thing. And I want to keep this short because there's so much I could say about this. But with regards to Airbnb, all of a sudden, you have millions of hosts who are renting multiple properties. They can't pay the rent, they can't pay the mortgage. What's happening? Those properties are now flooding back onto the market as long-term housing for people who live there. All of a sudden, I go, those are the properties that shouldn't have been taken off the market anyway. But at the same time, if you're somebody who is casually sharing their home from time to time, like classic home sharing, you're going to be fine and you're going to get through coronavirus and that supply is still going to be there. So for me, it's even looking, I've often wanted to think of Airbnb as many different companies based on the kind of activity that's happening. And classic home sharing, I think not only survives, but thrives. And this is more related to the community-based sharing economy. Some of this other stuff that was like really triaging markets in ways that were not always helpful for society, I think that could go away. I hope some of that goes away. Now, the bigger question that I have, I don't know, because at the same time, we've seen a rise in mutual aid networks. We've seen an abundance of just community-based sharing of time and helping one another. The bigger question that I have is when the apex of this crisis starts to subside, will we continue those community relationships? Will we continue that sort of mutual aid networks? And so on.  I don't know. I hope so. And I hope that we, my hope is that we continue to see a global sharing economy, but not run by global platforms, but rather run by a network of smaller localized sharing economies, which we're now having this pause to see some of them start to reemerge or start to reemerge, and in some cases start to just spring up organically. Sorry, that was a whole lot. I better stop. I love your vision. I like it very much. I think we should start forming local guilds immediately. Yeah. I've been channeling Kevin Jones in April.  I grew up with that. I keep, I mentioned that here at least three times before. And I think we need to figure out a way to bring the, you know, the money together, the transnational together with the interactional. And I've often thought as a linguist that money is kind of like a lingua franca, right? That we use when we don't have an intact community and we, we don't just sort of automatically kind of share things around the mutual aid societies. The one that I know best is still going, which is the Mennonite mutual aid, and it's been going now for a hundred and some odd years, but it is run by a dedicated group of people and it is known to Mennonites. And I don't know how they keep other people out, but I don't know that you could just sort of, you know, sign up. Maybe you can. Well, and I think some of you on the call know Kevin Jones is actually the person who introduced Jerry and me. So I think that's very funny. Oh yeah. Kevin Jones. So we've both known him since the very beginning. And I like a lot of his work. I will admit I adore Kevin and some of what he's talking about is just like, it's, it's just, I got to get my head inside Kevin's brain. But back to the financing piece, I do think part of what Kevin is talking about, I mean, that we always run into the problem of scale, which I don't like that term, but it is true that we need for things to be able to grow, you know, to their natural to be able to not just sustain themselves, but to also grow to meet the needs of more people and so forth. What's unclear to me right now is, again, kind of this reckoning within the investment and financing space, will there be a collective reckoning that, you know, amongst these different flavors of investing from straight DC and private equity down to, you know, a thousand different shades of impact investing blended capital, blah, blah, blah. Will they start realizing that they that there's a meeting in the middle, or will they continue to do kind of two pocket thinking, or just squeezing the life out of startups, to the point that again, that's part of how I think we ended up in the predicament that we're in today is that when funding is easy to come by, you don't save, you don't, you don't assume that anything would possibly happen to you. And then when something does, you leave a lot of people in the lurch, as opposed to building an investment thesis and funds and so forth on slower, longer term, much more community-led, but, you know, sustainable economic growth. I don't know. But that's the kind of reckoning I think we need. And I'm not sure that I agree, like the money piece I take your point. I actually look at money much more as currency, which like it just helps things flow from point A to point B as like, it comes from Latin current, right, to flow. But the problem that we run into is, if something is designed to flow and be in motion, the moment you start hoarding it, you break that. So we need money in order to, because not everyone wants the same thing and needs the same thing, but what we've done is started, we've started using money as a proxy for what we value, whereas what we value is actually the well-being of people, which is hard to put a specific price tag on. So we've co-opted those things. Anyway, sorry. I've been describing the money economy lately as a bucket brigade with people behind each bucket holder, like with a whip. And all of a sudden, we've all been forced to put down the buckets, but the next guy needs the bucket and the guy with the open is like, nope, gotta have that bucket. And the system doesn't like to come to a halt and has very little tolerance for stasis like that. Sorry, go ahead, Bo. GDP, by the way, was a number that they initially utilized simply to figure out the war potential of an economy. It never has and never will measure our collective well-being in any way, shape, or form. And so one question we can ask, and I think COVID certainly, I'll post a link in the chat about alternative models of GDP that are being developed. The most interesting one to me, which is called GDPB, letter B, standing for let's not measure, basically GDP doesn't measure well-being, it doesn't measure progress in any way. All it measures is how much people, how much money people spend, period. That's it, on good, bad, or other, right? There's a toxic cleanup that gets counted to GDP. But GDPB, which is being piloted out of MIT, what they're trying to do is figure out all of these digital services and so forth that we all use for free functionally. Well, how much would we be willing to pay for them? Because that value should be captured in GDP and starting looking, it's much more benefit-oriented. And it's, I mean, it doesn't, this was before COVID. But I think that COVID is going to add more fuel to that fire, so like that the metrics we have created to measure what we think is well-being are completely asked backwards. Although the more you look at it, like the national happiness index isn't the perfect metric either. It's more of, I think, a blend of things we value, but that are not just tangible, but largely intangible. Yeah, I'll put that there. Sorry, I've been monopolizing conversation, and I know we're nearly out of time, so apologies. We're coming up on 10 minutes till the end of our call. I love this conversation, love seeing you guys. So this is rockin'. Bill, Mark, anybody who hasn't said that much on the call, you want to jump in? Jump in for a second. To me, this whole process to lockdown has really sort of emphasized the opportunity for contemplation. Well, there was this whole conversation is very good, but obviously we don't really know where it's going. Nobody does. And that rush, there was even extra sense of wanting to do something about it. I agree with the fact that this is the time we shouldn't, we should wait. And politically, I think it's really going to be interesting to watch the fact that our Democrats control the purse at this point in the house.  And so I think that we're going to get a more balanced, whether or not it lasts is anybody's guess. But I think that at that level, they're going to have to, whether it's Trump or any of his McConnell, they're going to have to try and come up with something that addresses what I call human concerns. I'm giving a, I'm giving a mere response to that bill because I wish what you were saying was completely true. The facts on the ground to me read as they're still bailing out the companies, not the people. And the people are going to get little tiny band-aids that aren't going to actually help. But the fact that we've got sort of a rolling process going on, in other words, the fact that they're now talking about a next round, the next round might be a little better, but we're so, we're so far from a response that would actually help people on the ground. And each of these is going to take a long time to get to the people. I don't disagree, but Mike, I guess you're going to have four or five, six rounds of this. This is not going away. No, no. I'm really worried that the way the U.S. has gone about lockdown and some kind of rescue plan is the crappiest of all possible plans. And that our restart back into a working economy is going to be the slowest and worst of all restarts.  Here, everybody's been furloughed. They're all going to have to reapply and maybe get, I don't know how this thing restarts. And in the meantime, the companies are going bankrupt. Jerry, and all I want to say here, I agree with you. This is the shittiest, this is the worst of all possible plans. It's not a, the plan makes complete sense when you look at the structure that it was designed to fit with it. So the problem is this goes back to design for the system that the U.S. has designed. This is the plan you're going to get. It designed our systems and our organizations and our safety nets in a different way, including laws.  But where, I totally want to be where Europe is right now, but this, given the structure that we've built, so the question becomes, do we, how much do we break that structure? But like, I don't know. Mr. Smith, who is not in Washington. I think there's a forced reconciliation that's happening right now before our eyes. All points of view will be reconciled to understand the fallacies of the current way we do business. Full stop. And no matter where you stand on this political spectrum, we will keep making shitty decision after shitty decision after shitty decision and living through the consequences of those things in near real time, happening every 12 hours at this point, given the way Trump does his briefings, until such time, you will either be dead or exhausted and you'll have to agree. Yeah, this shit's broke. We got nothing to lose. We need to build something better. So my fear is before we can reconcile again, from your lips to God's ears from my perspective, I wish what you said were happening.  Everything is command and control and quite fragile. We don't have a lot of redundancy. And April, to your point, the problem is that we could intervene to help individuals, but we haven't. I totally agree with your premise that what we're trying to do is keep alive a dysfunctional system, so we're doing things to feed that system and keep it going. But we could, in fact, intervene to give money directly to humans and help them meet their payments. We could do a rent freeze. We could do a bunch of different things that we're not doing to help individuals. I don't think it's out of the question at all in where we are. And Bo is pointing to Kurzarbeit in Germany, which is exactly set up for this. I mean, lots of countries have done really smart things so that they can tamp down the economy and then bring it back up better. We're not. Now, my friends in Germany right now will tell you that Kurzarbeit is not working for Jack at the moment, but it is a better system. No question. I mean, in quarantine, it's not that Kurzarbeit finds you income that being in quarantine. It's not particularly good at remote war. I mean, it's-but Kurzarbeit as a thing, but keep in mind, you have to build Kurzarbeit ideally not in a crisis time, right? Like, they design this intentionally with longer-term goals in place. They're much a better place. Singaporean government, they designed a system that works much better, but you can't-doing that in a crisis is gonna-you know, it's that sense of, I mean, this is exactly why we want to be planning for crisis management and planning for longer-term goals and periods of non-crisis. You want to get insurance before you need it. You want to, you know, like all this kind of stuff. And I feel like right now, I love this thinking. But my question becomes, are-because we didn't design thoughtfully enough back then, and now we're in a real shit show, are we going to-will this-are we-are we going to have to almost inevitably break this system before we have a chance to redesign it, or are we just gonna keep kicking the can down the road, putting more band-aids on, but finding it incredibly hard, if not impossible, to actually do a redesign? There's another call to be had about risk management, because I want to understand why are we so crappy at evaluating risk and preparing for risk, because we seem to be. But at some of the time, I'd love to pass the mic to Mark, just in case you'd like to throw something in the conversation before we wrap this one. Well, I think in these kind of times when there's breakdowns, there's openings also.  I mean, here in Canada, we have slightly, you know, I think better management of this in spite of the fact that we also have, you know, 10 provinces plus several territories and they're each doing their own thing. But I think it's, the question is, you know, as Jamie was saying earlier, things could get very dystopic, you know, there could be moves towards secession. People look at these maps and they think, well, maybe the civil war should have been lost, you know, because it might have actually in the long run made things better. So we, our conventional ways of thinking break down a little bit and they can either rush back in in either worse ways and get more fascism and so on, or we can get slightly better. And, you know, the hope is in, and I think in the fragment of each generation that I think is kind of on the edge and thinking, you know, I don't really buy this generational thing too strongly. I mean, I think there are obviously patterns and so on. So, you know, that's what that's where I get kind of the hope. Thank you. Love that. So many buckets of issues that are all on the table right now and such good conversations to have. As a side thing, I should probably book a Rex call to talk a little bit about open global mind, which is always been in my head, the project name for what's after the brain, because I was sharing my brain here a little bit. And wouldn't it be cool if we had an open collaborative platform where we could all sort of be curating the things we see, put the issues in front of each other, debate them, set up experiments, wouldn't that be cool? And to me when I share my brain, it's a little unfair because I've been curating this thing for 22 years. I don't know anybody, any other human that has something like that. I know a few humans who have little pieces of different things like that. But anyway, my hope is that a better platform and some repair of discourse because we've been intentionally shredding discourse will help us have this kind of a discussion moving forward collectively beyond this small group. So we'll talk about that. And Mark at Rome, and there's a couple other things that are like Rome. I think plays a role here as well. I'm shocked at how much attention Rome is getting. They've done some good PRs. I don't quite get it, but I'd love to have that conversation. So I'll invite Rex in to when I start holding an open global mind conversations more. But that's coming up. Any other closing thoughts? We are at the end times. Well, Jamey referenced earlier about the questions we don't know about Covirus. I'd like Jamey to do a little quick summary because it's really important to know about that right now. Jamey, unmute. Thou art muted. I apologize. We don't know the actual mortality rate. You have a lot of places that are not reporting deaths as being COVID deaths. Like in New York, it looks like there was a spike in at home deaths, like a 600% jump in at home deaths that are probably COVID, but only hospital cases are counted.  We don't know whether there's a real antibody response and how long it persists.  Actually, don't even know all the mechanisms of transmission. We have some clues. We have some good ideas, but there's just so much that is speculative right now. And at the same time, we're trying to come up with policy around that. It's going to be hard. One thing I'll point out is that there was a, Ross Duthat wrote an article like, you can't trust anybody's opinion now or whatever in the New York Times, and he's kind of a conservative columnist. I'm not crazy about the let's we can't trust anyone. Oh my God, look at all the speculation. I'm kind of a fan of scientific method. I think that scientism is a problem, but I'm a big fan of scientific method, which is, if you do it properly, a very open look at the future that says, hey, here's our best working hypothesis right now. And it sort of checks all the boxes for us now. We know that it might be replaced by a better hypothesis down the road. And we're allegedly open to alternate hypothesis, and we're willing to create experiments to test those hypotheses, et cetera, et cetera. If we can lather rinse, repeat on that, and then deal with the emotional for 20 seconds. Yeah, if we can sort of do that, we might actually get someplace. Go ahead, Jermaine. Oh, no, I will for 20 seconds for the lather rinse repeat. Oh, that's it. I'm sorry. I didn't get that while singing Happy Birthday. Yes. No, you're absolutely right. Where I'm going with it is that they're trying to construct policy, especially policies that are extremely contingent upon one dominant scenario of how the virus evolves or how the situation evolves. That's what is, I think, problematic. And if what you said earlier about, hey, a lot of people are not showing antibodies in particular younger is true, then the herd immunity strategy is screwed. Her herd immunity absolutely depends on people who've been through it, not getting it for a while, and them being reliable to go out and not infect other people, because I think we're shedding coronavirus even after we're symptom free at the end for a while.  So all these things we need to kind of answer and pin down, and everybody should test, we need to test everybody, otherwise we don't know any of the stats are real. We need to test cadavers. We need to know actual presence of coronavirus in the people who were picked up in their flats, in the bodies that are being found on the street in Ecuador.  We need real unbiased sample testing. I'm going to share a thought that's in my brain about fun things that have happened so that we can end on a slightly less dramatic and terrible note. So I have another call to jump onto, but thanks folks. See you next time. Thank you, Jermay. And thank you, everybody else. It's been a treat and let's do more of these. I will send ideas and I will send some more invites for Rex calls. Thank you. Bye, everybody. Bye, guys.


Over 400 women in Alamosha area of Lagos state have received free digital training to scale their business. These form part of the financial literacy and inclusion program organized by the she enabled project in collaboration with Google. Justin Akadoni tells us more. Women in Nigeria are highly interested in coming entrepreneurs but face unique challenges including access to financial and business development services as well as information that are critical to formalizing and growing their businesses. She enabled is a financial and digital inclusion project by the ego foundation which seeks to empower women and girls living in underserved communities in Nigeria. Tulu Aashi Olanio is executive director he speaks alongside others. Designed to support women particularly women at the grassroots to help them in terms of deepening their financial literacy financial knowledge and also deepening their digital knowledge. If we have good education if we have the same training the men do in terms of from primary education teach them teach them digitization teach them digital transformation how to move your business how to scale up and now with what's going on everywhere you need to scale up. We have to create more methods to be able to help them understand why it's necessary to have some certain things in place and how those things can be beneficial to them. So for financial institutions microfinance banks insurance companies the regular cluster they need to be able to change the way they interact documents and how they promote their knowledge or disseminate information so that these people can actually benefit. The she enabled project addresses the United Nations sustainable development goals one three in five targeting unemployed females leaving below two dollars per day. Some of the participants share concerns and opportunities. There are so many challenges out there like one though we are in digital world now so visibility is part of it then secondly at times financial support. Benefits are actually limitless because we are people from different categories of businesses we do different things I don't know when I'll need someone's services so I feel that events like this will help us meet people outside of our own niche. The major problem is the same problem that we have always had right and we need to continually re-emphasize it's that I mean a lot of them feel that it's not needed for them as such because they feel that the home is built around the man. According to global entrepreneurship monitor Nigeria has the highest number of women entrepreneurs in the world. This high level of women's participation in entrepreneurship has been found out to be necessity driven.


For the first time that we see in human history, we're starting to destabilize the very life support system that we depend upon. This is something entirely new, population, economic growth, resource use, telecommunications, transport. They are all shooting up dramatically since the middle of the 20th century. When you look at our own life support system, when you look at greenhouse gases, when you look at global temperature, when you look at the biosphere, extinction rates, they all shoot up also after the Second World War. What scientists are trying to do now is to suss out what the implications of this are and how we need to change to make sure we keep a stable planetary life support system. We call them planetary boundaries. And what we mean is we try to understand the most important few processes that define how the Earth works and try to look at the limits beyond which humans should not push them. When we do this, we find we can actually reduce the Earth to nine processes. And when we analyze the human pressure on those nine, we find that four of them are already being transgressed across the boundaries. We're into high risk danger zones. Two of the most important processes are the climate system. Many people are familiar with that. And what we call biosphere integrity, the ability of life on the planet to continue to provide the functions that support us and the ability to adapt in the future. Both of those are being eroded at a great rate. We know climate. We can see it in Australia. Increase in heat waves. More intense bushfires. More erratic rainfall system and so on. The second thing is the extinction rate we see now, and it's due entirely to human activity, is 100 to 1,000 times greater than the background natural rate of extinction species loss. This will erode our own well-being as ecosystems provide less fewer services. Water is more difficult to clean. We get more pollutants on the landscapes that aren't processed by the natural world and so on. And as this is starting to happen already, we see that it's more difficult. Humans have to spend more time and effort cleaning up what nature used to do. In some parts of the world, humans have to pollinate fruit trees because bees have gone extinct. A huge cost to humanity. Planetary boundaries are reminding us that there are limits to how much of the biosphere we can erode before it comes back to bite us. And that's what's happening now. So when experts look at that from technology, engineering, agronomy, they estimate that we can live, we can prosper with 9 billion people within the planetary boundaries. But we have to innovate, we have to change, we have to be clever. But they say we can do it.


Hello everybody, I'm going to help you out here working through some falling object calculations. There's a little bit of theory we're going to start off with. The first thing we've got to think about is the fact that when an object falls, any object, doesn't matter how heavy it is or what size it is, if there's no air resistance acting on that object, it's going to fall with an acceleration of negative 9.81 meters per second squared. That's the acceleration due to gravity. That number is in your data booklet, so you don't have to memorize it, you can look it up when you need it. The other thing you need to keep in mind is that all this number is, is an acceleration. So you can just replace the A variable, the acceleration variable, in any of our kinematics formulas with this number and then do the calculation as you normally would. And we have a new kinematics formula we're going to be looking at here today that we're going to get a little bit of practice with, with this topic. So let's try a couple of these out. Here's the first one. So I'm dropping a rock on some size 20 students, getting them to work a little bit harder. I drop the rock from rest and it takes 3.5 seconds to hit the ground. How high was the rock dropped from? Now there's a couple of things here we have to kind of start off thinking about. First of all, that phrase drops the rock, or drops the rock from rest is really important. You see when you drop an object, like the diagram is showing here, the initial velocity of that object, how fast it's going when you first let go of it, is 0 meters per second. That's what it means to drop an object, is you let go of it, that moment you let go of it at the very initial part of the movement, it's not moving. So you have to remember when you see a question like this, that when you see the word drops, you have to think that means vi equals 0. And that's a little tricky at first, but as you practice more of those problems, you'll start to remember it. So that's the first variable I have in this question. The next variable I have is the time, says it takes 3.5 seconds to drop. So I'm going to make a little variables list over here. I have initial velocity of 0 meters per second because it was dropped. I have a time of 3.5 seconds. They want to know how high was the rock dropped from. So that variable, how high something was dropped from, is displacement. And that's what I'm going to solve for. And the other variable we have here is the acceleration. Now I know it doesn't say what the acceleration is. When an object falls, it has an acceleration of negative 9.81 meters per second squared. We do have to have that negative sign in there. Let's try out a formula. So the formula we're using here on your datasheet is d equals vi t plus 1 half at squared. And it probably seems more complicated than it really is. So let's try and substitute into it, see what we get. In place of vi, I'm going to put 0 meters per second. Time was 3.5 seconds plus 1 half multiplied by the acceleration. That's negative 9.81 meters per second squared multiplied by the time. So that was 3.5 seconds. And there's a squared on that time. So we're going to make sure that we type that into our calculator. Now 0 times 3.5, that's just going to be 0. So you don't even have to worry about typing that into your calculator if you don't want to. You could just type in the 1 half times negative 9.81 times 3.5 squared. And make sure you only square the 3.5 when you do that. So when I type that through my calculator, I end up getting negative 60 meters. You might be wondering, why do you get a negative number in there? That seems kind of weird. Well, there's a good reason for that. This rock, or whatever object it is, fell downwards. And since displacement is a vector, and it has magnitude and direction, the negative is what the math is doing to tell us that the object will fall down. So it's important to remember that if you have any objects which are going to fall downwards, they should have negative displacements. And we're going to use that idea in the next question. All right, so here's another one we're going to try out. It's another object that's being dropped. So I've already written in here that that means the initial velocity is 0 meters per second. Remember, anytime an object is dropped, it means it starts off from rest at 0 meters per second. And then it gives us how far up in the air it started. So that means the displacement here is going to be, again, negative 150 meters. Why negative? Because that cannonball is going to fall downwards through 150 meters. This is a really, really long drop, I guess, for this cannonball. How long does it take to hit the ground? So I'm going to see if I can find time. And the acceleration is the acceleration due to gravity again, negative 9.81 meters per second squared. I'm going to use the same formula I used in the last problem, d equals vi t plus 1 half at squared. And that forming those on your data sheet, so you don't need to memorize it. But I'm going to use it a little differently. Now I'm going to put in for displacement negative 150 meters. The initial velocity was 0 multiplied by the time. And I don't know what the time is, but that's OK. I'll just put in a t plus 1 half negative 9.81 meters per second squared times the time, which I don't know squared. Now when I start to go through and do my algebra here, the first thing I want you to notice is that 0 multiplied by t. Well, I don't know what t is, but I know that any number multiplied by 0 is 0. So that term just sort of cancels out. And here's what I have left over once I sort of in my brain cancel that term out. And I'll drop the units to make it a little easier to see. Negative 150 equals 1 half times negative 9.81 times t squared. So the next thing I would probably do here is I would multiply together the 1 half and the negative 9.81. So I'm just typing in 0.5 times negative 9.81. And I'll rewrite out what I get. So that's negative 4.905 times t squared. I want to get that t squared by itself. So I'm going to divide by negative 4.905. There we go. So 150 divided by negative 150 divided by negative 4.905 is going to work out to about 30.5 h. Now that's equal to t squared. So to get that t by itself, we're going to square root both sides. And the square rooting will cancel out the power of 2. And will give us an answer of 5.53 seconds. Now, of course, if you're not sure if that's right or not, if you want to check your work, all you have to do is take that in time and substitute it back into your original equation up here. And if you can verify it, if it'll work out to 150 meters, then you know you've done it correctly. All right, now we're going to try one more. This one's pretty tricky in terms of the algebra, but I'm very confident you'll be able to do it with a little bit of practice. So we have another object. Now it's an egg, and it's thrown out of a window. It doesn't say this dropped, though. It says it's thrown downwards out of the window. So I don't know if this means the initial velocity is going to be 0 or not. Gives us the high above the ground the window is. So this egg is going to drop negative 11.2 meters. It takes the egg 0.550 seconds to hit the ground. And I want to find the initial velocity now. So we're going to solve for that other variable in the equation that we haven't solved for yet. And like all these other problems, today the acceleration will be the acceleration due to gravity. All right, well, you know, not too different. We're going to use the same formulas before. And I'm going to substitute into it like I did before as well. We want to put those units in when I do my initial substitution. It's OK if you drop them after that. This kind of helps you recall if you need to do a unit conversion or anything like that. 0.550 seconds squared. All right, now what I'm going to do here is just a little bit of simplification. So nothing to simplify on the left-hand side of the equation. That looks fine. Maybe I'll just write this as 0.55vi. Since that's the way you usually see it in math class, the number first and the variable second. Then in my calculator, what I'm going to do is I'm going to go and multiply together all of this. I'm going to work out what this works out to. So in my calculator, I'm typing in 1 half. Or if you want to write 0.5, that's fine too. Times negative 9.81 multiplied by 0.550 squared. Now that gives me negative 1.38 to round it off. And that is what I'm going to now move over to the other side of my equation. So I've sort of done all my simplifying. Now I'm going to go through and do a little bit of algebra. So I'm going to add to both sides 1.4838, 1.4838. OK, let's see what we get. So that gives me negative 9.7162. And that equals 0.55 times the unknown variable vi. One more step and we're done. I'm going to divide both sides by negative 0.55 and see what we end up with. And I end up getting from my initial velocity a negative number, negative 17.7 meters per second. And I think that makes pretty good sense that it should work out to a negative number since I know that this egg was thrown downwards. I hope this video helps you work out some of these falling objects problems. You're going to see a few more questions like this on your UniB review assignment.