This is Jeff Deist, and you're listening to the Human Action Podcast. This is the Human Action Podcast, and we're joined today by our friend, Dr. Sean Rittenauer, a professor of economics at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. It's been almost a hundred years since Mises literally wrote the book on socialism, where he explains why central planning can't work, why socialism isn't moral or ethical or inevitable, but in fact destructive of civilization and everything good that civilization produces. This book from 1922 is titled Socialism and Economic and Sociological Analysis. It's the book you need to read or be reading if you want to counter your socialist friends or the nonsense you hear coming out of Washington, D.C. You can find it at Mises.org by searching for socialism and read it for free in PDF format. Or go to Mises.org slash socialism, the book that's Mises.org slash socialism, the book and enter the special code HAPOD for Human Action Podcast to get a discount on it. So stay tuned for a discussion of socialism. Well, good morning, Dr. Sean Rittenauer, and thank you for joining us today. Oh, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Well, you know, you and I, when we were kids growing up under Reagan, could you know, could we ever have imagined that Americans would be talking about socialism this openly, at least certain Democrats in Congress would be talking about socialism this openly just a couple of decades later? It seemed like such a golden time, relative to now almost. Oh, I know. It's as if, well, we've completely forgot history and we've taken leave of our senses. It's amazing to me. Yeah. And the other thing that's amazing is that Mises wrote this book a hundred years ago and so much of it reads perfectly fine today, perfectly descriptive today.  Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.  There's so much in that in this book that is relevant for, you know, political discussions that are going on right now. Well, I want to give our listeners a little bit of the backdrop in which Mises writes this book. He finishes it in 22. So this is the famous interwar period and a prolific period for Mises. He produces nation, state and economy in 1919, socialism in 22, liberalism in 1927, and of course, national economy a few years later in 1940. This is a prolific interwar period for him. And we have to recall that he is coming out of having been a first lieutenant in the Austro-Hungarian Army in World War One. He was an artillery officer, and he wasn't particularly young. As a matter of fact, when he went off as a first lieutenant in 1914, he was already over 30 years of age. He had already produced a major work in the theory of money and credit. This isn't a 17 year old kid going off to war. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I think that just his age made the effects of the war a little bit even more prescient to him. Well, and I know he talks about during his darkest moments in the war and typical people of his generation, he doesn't talk about it a lot. Right. But but he talks about dark moments in the war and he tells himself, he promises himself that he is going to write a book on, among other things, socialism and what it really means. So I think that's it's so interesting that he that he was able to follow through with that. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think it was pretty clear that at the time when he wrote the book, he thought he was sort of standing against the tide, both with regard to academics, the academia and the masses in general. I mean, the aftermath of World War One saw significant uprisings in socialist ideology, socialist even revolution in Europe. And so this wasn't this this wasn't merely an academic exercise for Mises. And of course, he's writing this book where in an era where Marx and Engels are really coming into sway in Europe. I mean, these are not remote ideas at the time. Oh, yeah. And and, you know, people who we now, you know, we'd be shocked to think that they were sympathetic to socialism, but people like Lionel Robbins and Hayek even were attracted to to socialist ideology.  One thing I note about it, if you just look at the table of contents, the sweep of the book, this is not an economics book per se. Of course, it's famous for his his refutation of the of socialism in terms of the calculation issue. But this is a book that is about history. It's about politics. It's about sociology. And I'm struck by this, the temerity of someone who would write such a book because he really came up as an economist at a time where that wasn't so much seen as a stand alone discipline to which one remain cloistered. I mean, he's he's writing a sweeping book, and that was just a lot more common back then. Economics hadn't become this specialized discipline yet. Right. I mean, it had become, you know, the main issues that economists would look at had become a little more focused. But it was it was standard practice for even economic thinkers to put economics in the broader sociological context. I mean, I do think it's it's interesting that the the subtitle of the English edition was an economic and sociological analysis. And that's definitely what he was trying to do. He was trying to bring, as he said, history to bear, political philosophy to bear, sociology to bear, as well as economics on the issue of the nature and consequences of socialism. Do you think of an economist wrote a book like this today that he or she would be attacked and told to stay in their lane and and stick to economics? Well, especially by people that disagreed with them, for sure. You say, look, you're not an expert on these other issues.  But why is that? How did that happen? What it seems to me as a layperson that economists today don't talk enough to other fields and disciplines and that they're a little bit stuck in their own space and that they ought to be talking more about sociology or history or or politics? Yeah, well, I think a couple of reasons. I think I think I do think on the one hand, the sort of the nature of specialization can lend one to being overly narrow. And that's what's happened in all academic branches. On the other hand, I think, too, I think that the nature of the development of economics as a profession becoming more focused on abstract modeling has made economists more inclined to sort of stay in their their intellectual ivory tower, so to speak. Because these other areas, it's hard, it's hard to model a lot of these other, you know, these other issues that come from history or political philosophy or what have you. Sociology, it's hard to fit it in a nice maximization model in some ways. I think that that has a role to play. And then, and then quite frankly, I think that a lot of professional economists are just are really consumed with economic modeling day in, day out. They don't they interpret everything, their entire experience within the realm of economics. And I remember one of the maxims that I was taught by one of my professors at Auburn was, you know, if you're going to be a good economist, you have to have a life outside of economics. And I think that it's it's imperative if you're going to if you're going to be wise about economic theory and economic policy, you have to have it has to touch the real world. And of course, I think Austrians are very suited to do that because they build their economic analysis on realistic human action. Well, of course, Mises was uniquely suited to do that. I think he's coming out of the monarchy, the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He's seeing World War One. He's seeing the birth almost of a new Europe and the new patchwork quilt of small countries. Austria shrinks to a tiny country relative to its its past.  He's working for the Vietnamese government or the Vietnamese government. He's involved in fiscal policy, he's involved in all kinds of things. That's right. Right. He was he was also at the time of writing this book, hosting his private seminar already. So he was becoming I mean, like personally engaged with the great intellects of his day as well. Well, so as he dives into this book, let's just talk a little bit about the the milieu. In other words, the environment, Marxism, socialism really on the rise. And there was this sort of at that point, an existing argument that, look, people wouldn't dislike work so much, they wouldn't be so alienated from it if they shared more of their products of their own labor. And so Mises replies to this by saying, socialism is almost a non-economic system. And this is really the genesis of Part One, which is called liberalism and socialism. He really gets into a lot of history and getting at the root of what socialism really is as a counter force to liberalism. Yeah, that's that's right. I mean, he's very clear by distinguishing between liberalism or the free society with socialism, and he begins at the inside. I mean, looking back, it's like exactly the right place to start, which is you distinguish the two based on the nature of ownership and the ownership of goods. And what type of ownership does the does a system possess? And socialism, he defines it as a system where the state owns all the material factors of production. The free society or liberalism would be where we have private ownership of the means of production. And then the the the consequences of in many ways, the consequences of the rest of the book flows from that distinction. And he's foreshadowing or making a nascent argument that he developed more in liberalism about five years later. I mean, we can clearly see the framework for that. He's stressing property, for example. Absolutely. And I think it's interesting that he builds specifically on Manger's exposition of the interrelationship of goods that you and Joe Salerno talked about a couple of a few weeks ago, looking at Manger's principles, where he talks about the, you know, he sees that the economy, if you will, is not a monolithic thing. It's a network of exchange relationships, shall we say, between the producers of consumer goods and then producers of various stage higher order goods. And it's it's this understanding that also fuels his his understanding of the weakness of socialism as an economic system. Well, I want to get back to your definition real quick, that Mises provides a definition for socialism. That's a little different than a Rothbardian or Hopian definition. In other words, they they took it a little farther than I think Mises would have. You know, I think that's probably true. I think Mises was it's interesting. You know, Mises did write this book that is very broad in terms of its connection with these other disciplines. But at the same time, he's very careful to wanted to define the socialism in economic terms and and focuses very narrowly on issues of ownership and property. Right. But he points out he takes pains, actually, to point out that, you know, the idea of having a social safety net or something is not socialism per se in the Misesian sets. That's that's right. Yes, exactly right. The things that, for instance, if you look at, say, Hoppa's social theory of socialism and capitalism, he develops these types of socialism and certain types of socialism. I think Mises may have just identified as interventionism that Mises was very much a state, a de facto state ownership. And by that, he meant ultimate control of factors of production. Whereas later writers like Rothbard and Hoppa would have maybe expanded the definition a little bit and talk about, you know, tendencies towards socialism or socialistic type of arrangements that perhaps weren't as full blown as what Mises was talking about. But let's get to his his idea of private ownership versus collective or state or communal ownership or something. America in 2019, in Sean Rittenauer's view, we have all kinds of partial diminutions of property rights, whether that's regulations or taxes or whatever it might be. Do you see this as making America a semi-socialist country? Or would you side more with Mises that, no, we're talking about, at least in an abstract or theoretical concept, a country where the state truly owns outright the factors of production? Yeah, that's a good, I would say it kind of depends on the day that you ask me. Some days, it just feels more socialistic than others. I think that there's value in Mises's definition because what can happen is, I mean, if we define socialism as any sort of broad sweeping interventionist policy, we can lose some of the force of our critique by sort of finding a socialist under every bush. And so I think we need to be careful about that. On the other hand, I do think that any type of intervention, when the state intervenes, the state is controlling how people can use their property. And so in that sense, every intervention is tending toward socialism, I would say, even if the rulers that are trying to do this will say absolutely not. We don't want to own all the means of production. But when you start controlling how people can use their means of production and what means that you can use and what's off limits and what's not, that just definitely pushes us towards socialism. So I think it kind of just depends, for my money, it depends on the context. I mean, I don't see how anybody could look at, say, the government school system and not today and not see it pretty socialist. And so there are different areas of our lives that I think are definitely more socialist than others. Right. Of course, there's also a semantic or a conceptual difference. Libertarians have always called public school socialist. That's right. And I'm sure Ronald Reagan in 1980 would have scoffed at that. But so what this book is perhaps most famous for in Austro-libertarian circles is that Mises demolishes the idea that planned economies can somehow coherently allocate resources. So he's not making a moral or really even an ideological critique of socialism so much as he's saying it can't work. And here we have the famous socialist calculation issue. So give us the broad strokes of the argument that Mises makes in this book. Yeah. Well, I think you're right. This is a very important argument in some sense, the core argument for the entire book. And he essentially reproduces a large part of his 1920 article on economic calculation in the socialist Commonwealth. And it's core because so many of his other arguments related to socialism's desirability or lack thereof hinge on this just fact that it's impractical. And so he roots this argument in his analysis of human action. And here again, I think you find the what should one say, the beginnings of Mises's, shall we say, praxeology at work, his praxeological framework, beginning the analysis with rational human action, purposeful behavior. And he notes that all action involves a choice of achieving some end. But when we do that, when we choose to do anything, we necessarily are leaving some other end unfulfilled because we can't do everything. And one thing that comes through this book again and again is just the fact of scarcity. We can't quote the Rolling Stones. We can't always get what we want. And so we have to make choices. And such a choice to achieve some ends and leave others unfulfilled requires evaluation. We have to we value things. We have to we decide we're going to do what we most prefer and not do what we prefer less. Then he makes a jump then and says, OK, this is what humans do all the time. When we're trying to decide how to produce goods or provide goods and commodities and services in a complex market division of labor, which is the type of society that is a growing, flourishing society, it becomes complicated making decisions. What should we do and what should we not do? And this type of productive activity in a complex market division of labor requires careful consideration about what should we produce? What's the best way we should produce it in order that we're not wasting scarce resources? He uses the example of if we want to produce more electricity, should we use a waterfall or should we extend coal mining? How are we going to make that decision? And he stresses that we need to make objective decisions about production. And the only way we can do that rationally is we have to have some type of unit, some magnitude that we can use to compare. Like we use feet and inches to compare people height. And we can say, well, this person is taller because this person is six foot tall. This person, the other person is five foot tall. We can make an objective comparison because we know we have units. We have feet and inches and those are objective. Well, what do we have? What does the economic decision maker have? Well, he notes we have money prices. Market prices become our unit of comparison. We can compare the expected selling price of a house with the sum of all the prices of the factors it takes to produce that house. And we can then, on the basis of that comparison, say, yes, we want to produce this house or we don't. Or we can say, yes, we want to produce the house, but we want to use wooden 2x4s instead of metal studs to produce the house. So we can make these kind of comparisons if we have market prices. And so market prices are what people use, what economic decision makers use to calculate expected profit and loss. And if we don't have that, then it's just pure guesswork. If we don't have that, then we're stuck. And so that is precisely what socialism doesn't have because in socialism, where all means of production are owned by the state, they must be controlled by one will, either the economic czar or the central planning board. But with no private ownership, there's no real exchange of land or labor or capital goods. And so there are no true prices for any of these factors. And so there's no actual economic calculation that can take place. Now, the central planner could arbitrarily assign numbers to these things and call them prices, but those prices don't represent, they're not the products of the subjective values of people actually in society, they're just arbitrary numbers. And so the socialist central planner has no way to rationally decide how to produce a good and what goods to produce. So the central planner can't do calculations in kind. They just own all this stuff centrally. That's exactly correct. But I want to recognize that we're talking about two different things here, prices and values. So MISA says exchange is the foundation of the economy. And when we compare things, would I rather have this or that? These comparisons necessarily involve acts of valuation, but we can't measure acts of valuation. We can just sort of have prices. And so it's not just the ownership, it's the actual money prices that give us the ability to calculate. It's not just our values, it's having a price attached to things. That's exactly right. That's why he notes that if we're going to have a system where we can engage in economic calculation, we do have to have the private ownership of the means of production, but we also have to have a general medium of exchange. In other words, these goods, these land and labor, the different capital goods and consumer goods all need to be traded against a common medium of exchange money so that the prices of all these goods, the exchange ratios for all these goods are enumerated in the same unit. And that's what allows for the actual rational calculation. So what's the socialist response to this? I saw a Twitter exchange a couple of days ago where someone was saying, look at Walmart, they're so big, they have the equivalent of the GDP of a country. And within Walmart, they apply centralized planning. And so if Walmart could do it, why couldn't a country do it? So this was sort of the line of attack of someone from the left saying, well, wait a minute. You know, centralized planning happens all the time. It happens in gigantic firms, for example. Yeah, I think that that's an argument where they're sort of mistaking the rational planning on the part of an organization with the planning that would be necessary for an actual nation. I mean, to say that, well, Walmart, quote unquote, Walmart nation is so big, well, yeah, it's big. In some sense, that's precisely Mises' point. The only way that they could exist is that they have, they're able to use market prices for all the factors that they employ, all the labor, all the land, all of the goods that they buy at wholesale, they know what the prices of these things are. And they have expected prices based on their forecast of demand in their various stores. So they know, or they think they have a good idea of how they can price these goods. And if they price them incorrectly, they know fairly quickly that this is not working, so they're going to make adjustments. I mean that, to me, I mean that completely misses the point. Walmart doesn't have to decide what's the best, Walmart doesn't have to decide what's the best way to make a dress shirt that they're going to use. They just have to know that this is the kind of dress shirt that we want and this is the price we have to pay the manufacturer for the dress shirt and this is the price that we can charge our customer. They don't have to plan how the shirt's made and that's just one good. I mean, imagine all, think about all the consumer goods that they sell. They don't have to plan how many of that's made because they're not, they're only dealing with one, basically one or two types of transactions and all of the other planning for all the previous stages it takes to get to that point has already been done in a decentralized market. So I guess to me, I mean just on the face of it, that argument seems, it misses the point. Well, I'd like to add here, anybody who's familiar with the concept of transfer pricing in tax law, big companies generally subdivide themselves into separate legal entities. They have subsidiary corporations. And for all we know, Walmart, each store might be a separate corporation. We don't know. But I will say this, having worked in transfer pricing in tax and big four accounting firms, companies care very much about assigning dollar costs to everything they've got in their inventory, everything they use in parts, everything that moves intercompany. Now, the tax man gets involved when they say, you know, gee, you ought to apply a markup to this and have some income between your various companies that's taxable. But apart from that, I would say that big companies absolutely assign or apply money prices in their own internal dealings with each other. Oh, for sure. Yeah, absolutely. And again, they can do that if there is, shall we say an outside market where these goods are traded. And that's another point, by the way, that Mises makes in socialism, that, you know, there can be, as he calls it, sort of oasis of socialism in a broader global market division of labor. And these socialist, individual socialist countries, isolated socialist countries, can exist and sort of get along for some period of time as long as they can look outside their country and see what are the global market prices for various goods. And they can sort of use those as benchmarks to calculate for and to try to make economic decisions based on those types of, on those types of, on those types of prices. Sure. And we know actually as a fact that the former Soviet Union, when they were making trepents or zills, they took a look at Ford's and Chevy's and figured out how much Ford and Chevy were spending on everything and charging for everything when they decided how to build their own factories. Exactly. Exactly. So, you know, it's interesting, though, that Mises brings up John Stuart Mill in all this conversation. And Mill had this kind of strange distinction. He said, well, you know, ownership and appropriation of things, who owns things and who gets things, the distribution of them, that's not really part of economics. Economics is just production. But all these questions about distributing and appropriating stuff, which of course socialism attempts to do, that's really not for economists. And they shouldn't talk about that sort of thing. And these are questions we can deal with politically or even morally or even from a utilitarian perspective. I thought that was interesting that because Mill continues to be seen not by Mises, but he continues to be seen by a lot of people as sort of an early exemplar free markets and someone who believed in liberty to an extent. Yeah, I mean, I think Mill's a classic case of someone, depending on where you look in his work, he seems like almost like a classical liberal.  And Mises makes that point at the end of, I believe, liberalism makes that point. But yeah, I mean, Mises is again, Mises rooting his analysis in reality, and then building on mangers in relationship between the higher and lower goods draws out the fact that, look, it's not like we produce wealth and then the wealth is redistributed. The production and exchange process that goes on the market, production and income formation happens together. He distinguishes between the free market formation of income to the socialist alleged distribution of income. And he notes that in a free market, the income is not distributed. Income is formed as people provide productive services or provide goods that can be used for production. And, or of course, providing consumer goods to consumers, that income is formed by giving people what they want. Well, socialism has as completely, as it severs the organic link, shall we say, between production and income distribution, and Mises would have none of it. Well, there's so many things that relate to this central argument in the book, the socialist calculation debate. And oftentimes they relate because, again, of when Mises was writing this, wasn't just an economics book and he's writing against a backdrop of rising collectivism. But that said, Sean, some of them seem a little strange 100 years later. For example, towards the beginning of the book, he goes into this discursion of sorts about the social order and the family.  And that chapter reads a bit odd today. I wonder if we could resurrect him, if he would say, well, I wish I hadn't written that, or I wonder if he would say, oh, I 100% agree with that. Give us your take on when Mises gets a little far afield from what we're used to. Yeah, I think it is interesting. It makes for fascinating reading, I will say. I do think that, again, he's writing in the context where socialist, for instance, we're making certain arguments in favor of so-called free love and that that is sort of the be all and end all of freedom. And we're making the case that a socialist order is necessary for us to be truly free from a whole host of things, including sort of traditional sexual mores. And Mises was trying to make the case that, well, actually, again, he's almost saying, look, you guys are engaging in romantic fantasy, because in reality, there's always going to be, I don't know what should one say, certain perspectives on the relationship between men and women, which will cause, you sort of drive women to always want to pursue marriage. And many are very interesting when he was talking about how, in his mind, and this is contrary to what we normally think of in his mind, women, sometimes are consumed with sex, because in some sense, they can't get away from it. In other words, that they want, as he puts it, to the desire to be, in some sense, under the protection of a man. But then if they engage in sexual relations, then, of course, they have offspring, and the man can do his thing and walk away, but the woman can't. And so there's just fundamental biological differences that sort of leads women to want to engage in not just romantic relationships, want to engage in marriage. That, of course, Mises thinks is more socially stable than the socialist call for free love. But he also makes the point, however, in classical liberal societies, where we move past the idea that wives are owned by their husbands, that wives cannot own property, that wives are somehow trapped in horrible relationships and they can't get out. He said, no, it's the classical liberal view of marriage that, in some sense, elevates the dignity of the woman more than socialism ever could or would. But isn't this so interesting, though? Marx and Engels thought that they were going to liberate the family, and in fact, it's Western capitalism, which has liberated individuals, including women, far more. And now, one thing I think Mises says that would not be popular today is he talks about property fills an important social function. And again, part of the suite for this book is the social order, not just the economic order. So if property fills a social function, so does marriage. And I think that would be pretty contentious, certainly with a lot of feminists today. They would say, well, this is just a patriarchal thing. But again, he's writing this in 1922 or finishing it, publishing it in 1922. And also, again, it's interesting that in his personal life, he actually advanced a lot of female academics in ways that perhaps his male peers weren't doing at the time. Absolutely. I mean, you couldn't look at the number of female participants in his private seminars, etc. Yeah, that must have been an amazing thing to witness back then. And it was almost a bit of a bold thing for a woman to attend an economic seminar and have an interest in that at that, you know, 100 years ago. But I want to get into the two big meaty portions of the book beyond the socialist calculation debate. And that's where he attacks basically two ideas. One is that socialism is inevitable. And two is that socialism is moral, that it operates on an ethically higher plane regardless of whether it actually produces the results it says it will produce. So in his section on the alleged inevitability of socialism, he gets into, really, he gets pretty deep into class theory. And he gives us a pretty in-depth critique of that. And of course, Hoppe would do that later as well. Again, this is pretty far afield for an economist. I mean, in some sense, he just recognized that if you're going to provide, say, a full critique of socialism, you have to get into these areas because so much of socialist policy and advocacy was based not purely on economic practitability, but also on these broader political and social issues, such as the class struggle. I mean, the whole point of Marx is trying to supposedly scientifically show why socialism is inevitable. And Marx sees that the class war and the class struggle is the, in sense, the engine that pushes the dialect of history along. And so Mises has to get into the nature of a so-called class struggle. And is there even one that is pushing history along? Well, and he asked the important question, but why do humans cooperate? And that is an important question. And the answer is, division of labor makes them more productive and better off. And this is something that Marx and Engels just simply refuse to contemplate. Absolutely.  Mises doesn't like to entertain romantic notions of how we wish things were. He wants to provide analysis that helps us live in the world that we actually live in. And so he notes that the true nature of society is cooperation. It's community in action. People coming together and by participating in the division of labor help each other out. And so society develops, as Mises explains, as the market division of labor develops. And he makes a really important point that once we understand that the division of labor is the essence of society, then there is no more sort of antithesis between the individual and society, right? That the individuals perceive the participating in the division of labor as beneficial to them. And then as they participate, they form society. They have an interest that this society then would flourish. But here we are 100 years later, and we're still enthralled with this idea of class struggle, that everything is about one group against the other and oppressor and oppressed. And of course, we have a hard time making the case which we know to be absolutely true, the case that markets are actually cooperative and communitarian, and centralized planning is the opposite. It creates a cabal of ruthless leaders and leaves everyone outside that leadership worse off. But again, we still have to fight these age-old ideas that Mises fought. Absolutely, because it's in people's political interests, to foment class distinctions, just like it was in Marx and Engels' interest to foment class distinctions and class interests, class consciousness, as they would call it. Again, like you started off, we started a discussion saying it's hard to imagine back in the 80s, or back in the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 80s, it's hard to imagine how open people are advocating socialism today. To me, it's hard to, my entire life, I heard again and again in my schooling and in society is, can we all get along? Can we all get along? We're all, there's a fundamental similarity amongst human beings, and let's focus on that. And within, man, the last 10, 15 years, it's identity politics and class politics. And it's amazing how rapidly the worm has turned on this. Well, the other thing he mentions in this analysis of this sort of bureaucratic overclass that's necessitated, by the way, by central planning, is the concept of moral hazard. And this sort of pre-shadows what would later become a debate among some Austrians about the Massessian versus Hayekian knowledge problem. In other words, and it relates to the socialist calculation issue, is it a knowledge problem or is it a property ownership problem? And when he discusses moral hazard, we get sort of an inkling of the idea that, no, there's, in socialism, there's no incentive to avoid losses. There's no skin in the game. And so it's not just calculation. It's also this idea of ownership that compels and impels people to act better than they will under socialism. In other words, people respond to incentives. I mean, this isn't rocket science. Absolutely. When he gets to, you know, a later part of the book, especially he, he goes through a number of various policies advocated by a variety of socialists. And he notes a number of places where the policy itself actually promotes the very thing that the policy is supposed to ameliorate in the case, for instance, of social insurance, or in the case of unemployment insurance. The idea that the person who has unemployment insurance is able to bring about the condition of being unemployed or at the very least can extend his period of unemployment if he wants to by not accepting a job. And when we have the ability, again, it gets back to when you, when we have the ability to live off of the income, not that we have earned through production, but we live off somebody else's income, then we have adulterers, the incentives we have to be productive or not be productive. Well, when he gets into this idea of not just the inevitability, but the moral or ethical arguments for socialism, he takes another little discursion and he goes off into Christianity quite a bit. Let's talk about that. His conception of Christian socialism is coming very much from Germany, having grown up in the former Austro-Hungarian empire. And he goes on at length about, well, Christ's teachings are really not about the material world they're about to hear after and so that not only are they compatible with socialism, they may even require it.  Talk a little bit about Mises is again an agnostic Jew and his conception of Christianity and how it shaped his arguments in this book. Yeah, I think, frankly, I think that this section, I would say, I don't know, I can't remember how many pages it covers, but it's the worst part of Mises. Of all, of all, and I've read a lot of Mises and I think Mises is great. I just think he misses it here. His point is that he thinks that primitive Christianity in some sense has no social ethics, that they weren't really interested in laying out social principles of how people should relate to one another because they thought that the second coming of Christ is imminent and the kingdom of God is coming very quickly. And so what need do we have of creating or thinking about principles of social ethics? And then he does make the point because Christianity doesn't have any clear social principles in the New Testament, as he puts it, then it's true that it doesn't explicitly navigate socialism, he would say, but then it also opens a door for socialism because as he puts it, no art of interpretation can find a single passage in the New Testament that can be read as upholding private property.  Now I think it's important that the readers know he quotes Scripture in a couple of places, but he also cites a number of what I would call liberal German theologians and interpreters of these passages. And by liberal, I don't mean classical liberal, I mean theologically liberal. So I think that he is in some sense relying on their interpretations of these passages, and I just don't think he gets it right. I think that there is a case to be made in even in sticking to the New Testament for private property. I lay it out some in my own book. So I just think that it's unfortunate because there are a number of Christians, I know people who will point to this passage in Mises is socialism and say, see, even Mises argues that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism. And that, of course, that conveniently ignores it later. I mean, he modifies his opinion on this over time. Again, this is something that was written in 1922 when, quite frankly, if you think of the Christian leaders in Europe in 1922, a lot of them were somewhat socialist. And so if he takes them at their word, he's responding to them. In some sense, I would say he's not responding to the text of the Scriptures per se. Well, whether you think it caused it or was in spite of it, I mean, the plain truth is that some of the most free market economies came out of the Christian West. Absolutely. It was indisputable. But this is also a man who's just come out of fighting World War I, which was, in many ways, the end of civilization. It certainly had to feel like that during the worst parts of the war. But it's interesting to note that he softens his take a little bit in the second German edition of this book, which is 10 years later. He's a little softer on the question of whether liberalism is opposed to Christianity or whether they could uneasily sort of coexist. That's right. And later works, I think, in a page or two, and even in human action, I think that he seems more open-minded. I think that I think actually my own personal opinion, I think him coming to the United States and interacting with, say, Christian industrialists like J. Howard Pugh, I think actually helped him to broaden his views on this idea. I don't think, by the end of his life, I don't think he would say that Christianity cannot exist side by side with capitalism. I don't think he would say that at the end of his life. But like he said it in 1922. Well, there's also the case, I think atheists and agnostics in general tend to soften and mellow a bit with age. It's very common. Yeah, that's true. That's right. And some don't stay that way. You're right. I mean, people change. So he finishes the book with this section he calls destructionism. Yes. And a couple years ago, our own Tom Di Lorenzo gave a talk here at the Mises Institute on political correctness as Massessian destructionism. It's really an interesting part of the book. It's a really zingy way to end it.  Talk a little bit about the end of the book and what he's getting at here. Yeah, I think what he's really making the point here that socialism is utterly destructive. That there's no way around it. Socialism does not build society. It destroys society by destroying what society is, which is the market division of labor. And also it destroys prosperity by capital consumption. And so the beginning and end of socialist policy, he would say is destruction. Socialism wants to it wants to and it's not just something that happens accidentally. On the one hand, they want to destroy the social order under private property so they can get to the socialist utopia. In some sense, it does get zingy and fiery because I think Mises is wanting to point is just wanting to make it clear that look, this is socialism is not something you want to play with because it's not innocuous. It's not something that we can sort of try. And then if it doesn't work, we're no worse off. No, socialism destroys. And then he goes through the varieties of destructionist policy. He talks about labor legislation. He talks about social security insurance. He talks about trade unionism. He talks about unemployment insurance. He talks about the socialization of industry and nationalization of industry. And he talks about taxation and confiscatory taxation and how rapidly a state will move from taxing to cover the night watchman state to taxation for confiscatory purposes and taxing the productive and hence the wealthy so that we can redistribute income to the unproductive. You know what's interesting though is just five years later, he produces liberalism and some of the glowing things he says in there about democracy almost seem at odds with some of the cautions he's giving here. Well, it could seem that way, but we want to remember that Mises, the virtues of democracy get back to this idea of the need for peace, the need that the market division of labor has for peace in order for it to develop. And that the chief virtue of democracy is that it allows for peaceful transition of power so we don't have continual revolutions and violent up-evil in society. Typical of Mises, he doesn't hinge democracy on some type of ethical principle per se, but he places democracy, sees democracy as something that is it's beneficial in the sense that it promotes peace and then if we have peace then that allows for more commercial activity which allows for the extension of the division of labor and the building of society. So that would fit quite you know the democracy is not something that we the democracy is a means to achieve the end of a flourishing market division of labor, but of course it can be used for evil purposes and that's why I think Mises makes the point that defeating socialism or being able to enjoy prosperity that comes from the market division of labor and society and a free market requires a battle of ideas because in democracy you have people voting for rulers and then rulers voting for making laws and so we have to win the battle of ideas. But when we're talking about ideas we also have to have arguments, we have to have intellectualism, we have to have speech and one of the things he talks about is what socialism doesn't just destroy the economy, it also destroys free inquiry, it destroys our ability to speak out, it destroys our ability to engage in democracy meaningfully if democracy is your thing. Absolutely, it really what should one say, it puts the individual under the thumb of the central planner. He has this really I think interesting section in the middle of the book where he talks about how when the central planner, it's a socialism, we have a central planner that determines who works where that also applies to the cultural activities and scientific activities and art and culture and other areas, intellectual areas become more and more routine because those who don't please the ruler are not allowed to paint, they're not allowed to write literature, they're not allowed to compose music, they're not allowed to pursue scientific inquiry that doesn't please the state. So what you have is a culture that becomes very sort of ossified, very routine, almost just a dead repetition almost of the past. Well, let me leave you with this thought. I think what we can get from this book is we have created an artificial distinction between so-called social or cultural issues and economic issues in our politics. I think Mises's socialism shows us that this is all part of a complete whole and we need to consider them as one instead of making this distinction. Yes, I think that's right. One's economic ideas and policies always occur in the midst of a broader culture and always have impacts that are broader than just what we might say just narrow economic effects and so that's why, again, I think it's so important that economic analysis is, as Mises has done, rooted in reality so that in that sense, economics is not disconnected from the rest of reality, it's part of reality. Well, Dr. Sean Rittenauer at Grove City, we want to thank you for your time and I want to reiterate to our audience, as I did in the introduction, if you go to our website and use the code HAPOD for Human Action Podcast, you can get a discount on your own copy of Socialism by Mises, the copy that we sell. It's an excellent read. I think you will enjoy it and of course, you can go to Mises.org and read it for free in PDF form on our website. So, Sean, thanks again. Oh, thank you very much.


Hello friend, I'm Chris Fraule, I'm a former Royal Marines commando and I'm the only person I know that has ticked every item off my bucket list. Now if you'd like to achieve all your goals, hit the subscribe button and I'll show you how to smash it out the park. Hello friends, I hope this finds you well, today I was writing some notes for a video I've really been wanting to make for quite some time and that's because it's on one of my favourite topics, throwing yourself out of an aeroplane with a parachute I should add and probably the parachute course is the best course you can do in the British military. Before I go on I just wanted to say some of you may have noticed a teddy bear in the thumbnail for this video. I just wanted to point out that that's purely Royal Marines humour, okay?  And stretch, good. Now if you can't afford dumbbells, improvise, yeah? Maybe children's toy, anything like that, you got it, good, remember, big guns, yeah? So parachuting, so I just set the scene for this parachuting story. I was on HMS Invincible, the aircraft carrier. It was based in Pompey, that's Portsmouth and amongst the ship's crew which varied from about 1200 when we were alongside in Harbour to gosh, about 2600 when we were on operations, when all the aeroplanes were on board and all the mechanics and the pilots and the aircrew were with us, there were, did I say there were 12 of us Marines on this detachment and our job was to protect the weapon systems on board. Now used to spend a lot of time in Pompey dockyard obviously, out of the year I was on Invincible, we were probably alongside there, a good six months of that, if not more, that's in between nipping to Barbados, the states, Germany, Mediterranean, absolutely brilliant year, right?  But one day some of us were sat in the mess deck, that's like your lounge, right? And Nick had come back from doing his doby, so he's washing and he'd been doing his doby at HMS Nelson which is the nearest naval base and he came back on ship, he said lads, lads, I've just met this para over at Nelson while I was doing my doby. And we're obviously interested, what's the para doing in Pompey, I mean you never saw the parachute regiment anywhere around these parts, it's all navy, right? So he said, well, what it is, it's called Collin and his job is to go around all the naval bases, and I'm guessing other military establishments, but to go around all the naval bases to try to entice Royal Naval personnel onto parachute courses.  Nick's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, he said, I've invited him on board, ah, brilliant.  He's got his parasmok, some of us war two, they're pretty, pretty nifty, these parasmoks, right? So he's got his parasmok and it comes down to his knees, which is just what you expect from a para, and yeah, he's all right. We're chatting away and he's like, yeah, I'll get you on courses, lads, don't worry, not a problem, so we're all like, anyway, time moves on, right? Turns out this lad has got a grot in the navy base at HMS Nelson, a grot meaning a room, and I said to him, you know, I just assumed this was part of his work, but he said, no, what it is, I'm shacking up with the girl that runs the bedding store, that's all your blankets and everything, right? It was something like this, or the girl worked in the office for this part of the ship, right? And a naval base being a ship, yeah? And so he said, yeah, I'm shacking up with her and she's like giving me the keys to a room and I'm just dossing in there for the time being, oh okay, you know, again, didn't think anything of it, right? And it comes out later when we're at Joanna's nightclub that night that I'm with a guy called George, surprisingly, he's a Geordie, really nice guy, some of you listening might know him if I say tell, but tell before he joined the Marines, he was in a parrots and he nudged me and he said, Chris, something ain't right. I'm like, George, what are you on about? He said, this, this Colin, I'm like, now I'm in that kind of naive, oblivious, I take people on face value, been mugged enough times for that, right? And so I'm like, I didn't really get George's drift. So George's like challenges this Colin, this CID card. So this Colin gets out a bit of paper. I'm tempted to say it was blue, but I'll be honest, it was a long time ago, I don't really remember, but it was this little card, right? And it wasn't an ID card. I mean, you get a little nifty ID card in the military, right? Even then, I'm not sure. I think we still had the old type of ID cards. It hadn't quite gone to the credit card thing yet, but it was the old kind of laminated ones, right? We didn't even have that. He just had this scrappy bit of paper that had been folded so many times and it had his photo and a stamp. But didn't really, you know, something was obviously suspicious about it, right? So George challenges him.  I was too para and I would know you, right? So the guy like waffles something off and he's stepping backwards. And before you know it, he's off, right? And I just thought, oh, he's just, he, he doesn't like George's attitude. He thinks there's going to be a fight. Didn't think anything of it. Anyway, fast forward. Suddenly the military police are getting involved. So it's like the provost and the, the SIB. Someone refreshed my memory in the comments. It was its special investigation branch. That's like the Navy's CID. And they're all coming on, coming on the HMS Nelson and they're interviewing people, you know, taking them in for police questioning. Turns out Colin wasn't a para at all. Colin had been a recruit in the Paras. So is that older shot? Apologies if I'm not too much up on my para, my para stuff. But he dropped out at something like week four. That's why he still only had this paper ID card because his platoon in training hadn't yet got issued the proper ID, right?  He's using this ID. He's chatting up the girls left, right and Chelsea so he can get himself accommodation. The guy standing on the gate just sees this ID card and he's like, yeah, all right, private in you go, right? And yeah, the lad was a recruit. So I'll tell you, I'll say a couple of things.  There's only two places you hear stories that are that bizarre. One is in the Marines. The other is in Hong Kong. So if you read my memoir Eat and Smoke, you'll know what I'm getting at, right? My first night out in Hong Kong, 40 people or 20 people were crushed to death in the street I was drinking in, right? Mad place, but yeah. So I'll just leave you with a thought. Was what Colin did put your answer in the comments? Was he doing a good thing there? Was that something when he's my, you know, he's old like me, he'll look back at his life and go, yeah, when I was young, right? What I did, he's got my ID card and I went round. Do you get what I'm saying? Or is this what the Americans call stolen valor? And he didn't deserve to wear that, Barry.   But yeah, that's just me, right? So that's it. Thank you for listening. That was the para that never was.


But they're not vintage Kansas. There's no Andrew Wiggins, Josh Jackson, Joel and Bede. I look then at Auburn, I see a team that's been hampered by limited guard play, quite frankly. I mean, in Auburn's SEC tournament loss to Texas A&M, the Troika of Guards that the Tigers leaning on, Zep Jasper, Katie Johnson, and also Wendell Green were combined seven of 34 from the field. They're vulnerable. Then I see Wisconsin as a three seed, a team that lost early in the Big Ten tournament to Michigan State and also lost its last regular season game to Nebraska. And then we have Providence as the four seed, 25 and five, a historical season, first ever Big East regular season title, but they kind of limp into the NCAA tournament. So I look at this region, I look at the, it's the region of vulnerability. And I think if you're going to take one outside the box final four pick, you do it from the Midwest.


Oh, I can't tell you how good it feels to sit back in the saddle after an awesome vacation and get ready to record a Beautiful wheel of mutt now as you know There's a few things that happened last episode and a lot of it's kind of scary actually now Let's start with the good. Okay. I have three eggs to open This is my first recording since the Easter eggs opened and if you remember two episodes ago I got a wheel spin that let me get three large Easter eggs two of them happen to be extravagant And one was large and that's these three eggs right here And as you can see this extravagant egg is a guaranteed 97 overall series redux player So if we get a dupe of a player we already have that would suck but most likely we're gonna get something awesome The game pride egg comes with Carl Nassib guaranteed.  I'm so sorry This is a wild card Wednesday player I think it's a 94 95 plus which is flashbacks heavyweights rising stars veterans So it's gonna be somebody good, but you don't know who and this extravagant egg right here is a 97 plus ultimate legend Guaranteed player. I say we start right here.  Okay. I was kind of hoping for o-line like by tonio 97 left guard a 97 speed 97 overall wide receiver can't complain about that. I'm gonna go with the wild card Wednesday egg next Let's hope it's a heavyweight. It is a heavyweight Tyler be it as I said I'm talking about now wait I'm gonna go throw these in the lineup and then let's see what we're gonna want for our you out Who is my center right now? My center right now is dog water. It's Kevin Maui. That is an amazing poll You can't ask so much more than that takes our team to a 94 overall. Here's the problem with Charlie joiner I love to tell Jones. I love DK. I love Cooper cup I guess joiner is just gonna be wide receiver for and I'll probably put him at slot receiver as well So this full ultimate legend Bryant McKinney 97 left tackle would be sick I think Munoz also has a 97 left tackle that'd be really good to Eric Dickerson with low key be crazy I think there's a Mike all-stop.  That would be really fun a right end like a true right end would be awesome I think do you guys remember Gabba Goosh? You know what I'm gonna talk about it I'm gonna open the pack. Let's just open the pack and see what we get and then we'll talk about it If I get Gabba Goosh, though, oh, if you guys remember Kareem Abdul-Jabbar get Gabba Goosh from a long time We'll want to go. He just got a 98 overall. He might be limited though. Whatever a guaranteed 97 was I'm blocking it. I don't want to see early.  What did I say I wanted a legitimate left end his stats are insane his speed for being six foot nine two seventy It's just stupid, but push jackbeard at right end and I'll put two tall where he should be I also have three AP to spare on defense. I wouldn't mind giving something to two tall Jones You know, I'm actually gonna give him inside stuff I sure how well that'll work our left hand But I do want to try it with the way William Perry has been playing cuz I never I really have just crazy good deline Man, but with how good William Perry's been I'm really excited to see basically two tall Jones do the same thing and now that we're 94 overall We haven't even done a single wheel spin on today's video So let's do our wheel spins and then once we get into the game play I'll talk about the bad stuff you guys should remember from last episode, but we'll see Final season, baby. Let's keep it. Let's keep it going up dude 94 overall is great left guard right guard to be awesome right now preferably left guard backyard ballers overall wheel All right boys. We get one the backyard ballers player, but they must be wait slow down slow down This is yes Yes, I mean, I think the move has to be Randy Moss corner that Randy Moss corner is so good It like it even shouldn't be in the game. I kind of think it shouldn't be in the game It's so good low key. I was a little excited to get 97 because there's the Barry Sanders right outside linebacker But this Randy Moss is so good. Can't say there's nothing to say other than that 98 overall Randy Moss with 97 speed 1996 Excel amazing coverages six foot forward 210 pounds It's kind of hilarious that my corners right now are Randy Moss and Julio Jones I will move a Sante Samuel here in case someone gets really tired. It'll be nice to have a Sante Samuel as a backup They're basically a Sante Samuel matches up pretty well with Randy Moss, but he's five inches shorter That is an absolutely insane start. There's like a one in ten chance. We get 98 so let's get it All right I'm not really sure how we're gonna finesse a left guard But if I can get some coins to spend here or something like that on his wheels, man, I Am I am God reincarnated heavyweight jackpot Alex leather wood 95 overall dude Where's a left guard bro? Dude, I thought heavyweight to be amazing The next best left guard is Jonah Jackson from the Lions 92 overall So it looks like we're going with the right guard. I seriously don't know why but I love running to the left side It's like a random personal preference thing. I have no idea why that's why I prefer My left garden either way leather will be nice and this is a jackpot So I can go with the power-up as well, which will actually take him to a 96 So now ironically right side of my line is stupid stacked. I've got 96 leather wood I've got 95 be it as down the middle and soon to be gold 99 deardorf on the right side Let's take a peek at our boy here and five strength 96 pass 96 run you speak my language buddy I love it. All right boys 94 overall a Awesome looking to new interior offensive lineman as well as a new wide receiver Charlie join here a beautiful new left end A beautiful new corner more can you ask for boys? All right, let's get this challenge wheel and I want to make a mention on the challenge wheel a few episodes ago I added a piece to the challenge wheel, which was I could either open the pack or salvage a player or Upgrade my power-up player. I am going to remove that new rule the new rule about adding to my power-up player I'm taking it out.  I need to earn my power-up. I have played like Shit Anthony bar that is nobody's fault but my own I can't start tacking on rules to make it easier for myself So let's make it happen like an absolute stud. Let's see that challenge.  It's so would your opponent literally nobody wins in that scenario It wasn't like he aided a coin toss and they booted you and somebody randomly gets to win They literally fucked everybody so I'm four and three right now meaning if I were to lose today I'd get booted to the main screen. I don't plan on that happening I plan on just winning my games going to playoffs anyway, but we have no choice But to play perfect boys, so that was the sad news But you know what we're gonna make it work by winning every single game Randall C. Megatron and my cues lion steam team. It's actually a lion steam team. Then why are you in chiefs uniforms? What's going on? I'm on restate Brown right there. Who are you bro little jet touch pass? Maybe oh play action on it. Hey Clay Matthews almost had one. Let's start the boys. Yep. All the best players are for sure in right now Bar up the middle.  He's not gonna run it. He knew that I'm on bar He might throw the little check down big hits. He just barely had that Oh Megatron to we're hitting hard All right, a few different underneath roads. Oh good past deflection We don't get anything for best deflections on the upgrade, but it's a great play from Anthony Barr I'm happy something underneath maybe. Yeah, I kind of figured you might go there. He throws so low every time There's nothing open.  Oh that as soon as he released it met calf under. I like this What are you doing? What are you doing?    I Just sold an excellent opportunity. He's got like the 97 overall Hawkinson PA PA jet sweep, right? Oh Actually runs it. Oh Big hit. Yes a huge hit Sean Taylor somehow just got held up on that block and he just walks in either Cooper cup or Marcus Allen Marcus Allen or wait. Why don't just go Bo Jackson Marcus Allen?  I have never done that before. Okay, whatever. They're both raiders running backs. All right All right, so he takes uh he takes both you throw Cooper. I Want to run the ball so bad at second and ten though. So this is really risky, but I'm gonna do it No block him It's your only responsibility. Luckily boys an animal and took those yards, but that was like really bad.  I'm not gonna take my field goal yet But anything I throw here. It just has to be a touchdown. Yeah Oh We love to see that eight seconds left. That's a touchdown if I'm going for the hat trick It's gonna be Cooper come Seven to seven. Wow. I didn't think that would work.  I believe in ball right now Damn Is he released the same way as Hawkinson I was like, yep, except that's there a waller to pull up my hat trick I would need two more touchdowns with either Cooper cup or Darren waller not the most likely thing in the world I don't drop 28 that often, but hey if we have a slug out here, I'll look for Darren waller my action oh We sacked him it's just Devin white That's fine. You can throw that check down. You can check down to Hawkinson all you want, bro. Oh No shot and this guy used all his luck tokens today. That's insane Probably wants to throw this. Oh, that's a bad ball if he scores on this drive. I will genuinely be tilted Hawkinson might be open Not only is he open, but my dude runs past him and doesn't make the tackle. Oh That is just a bomb. I don't know what that way is, but it works quite well clearly We're back there. Let's go. That's not open this Everybody's ready to guard.  I don't care.    I got everything covered here Everything and at two times. I think actually sacked him and he lost yards third and one in bounds massive play from to tall right there. Oh I was mad close to that The zig is open. He gets nothing. They know it's a pass Crossing concept. Oh, he wants to get out of bounds. I won't let him. I won't let him great play Ramsey turning four I'm out of bounds here. That's fine Go get him one more. Can you ask for boys? What more can you ask for battle the QB is Carson Palmer with a better QBR 97.1 honestly would have been way higher that int it wasn't unlucky because I shouldn't have thrown it If I knew it was shitty Hawkinson I just like forgot in the moment 12 for 22 is 18 for 29 Rushing only at six attempts, but they were six like I was really happy with how they went Carson Palmer with one of the clutches plays I've ever seen to run to the one yard line and get Flattened and hang on to that shit. I'm so proud of him his Hawkinson seven for 86 bow six for 69 They're in wall or three for 90 guber cuff two for 21. Really. It was our defense that won us the game There's me on Anthony bar as the user. Okay, I see the slant. I follow it now I'm thinking I'm thinking he wants to throw the back slant So I stutter for one second to fake him to bait him into throwing the forward one and then I go right back to it That's what this stutter step was open the hips pretend I'm going back maybe he'll throw it and then I go back to the one I want him to throw which is this one. I ball is right in front of him look at this. I Think once Anthony bar gets maxed or almost maxed I'm gonna put him at outside linebacker and I'll move Devin white back to middle lineback because I do love Anthony bar But the only reason I have my middle linebacker right now is to help out one upgrade takes him to 89 and two takes him to 91 I am one two upgrades away from a 95 Anthony bar with that beautiful most feared art and then one two more for the Gold 99 no challenge. We'll complete. I did get three touchdowns. It was not a hat trick I just needed to throw touchdowns to whoever was gonna take it All right y'all four upgrades away from a maxed Anthony bar two games away from the playoffs So if we go at this pace with Anthony bar, we're in we're in shape. All right. I love you boy Say so I just always I'll see you in the next video. Peace


Porn is harmless.  It's a spiritual killer because it's a distortion of God's design for sex and intimacy. Porn is sin and it separates us from God. It's an emotional killer because it damages and destroys our brain's chemistry and how we were designed to enjoy sex.  I believe that God is at the true heart of change. Will power will not change you. Only through God's power and presence in your life can you break free.


Imagine waking up a year from now and realizing that you are living the life you've always dreamed of. Every day is filled with joy and purpose. Does this sound too good to be true? Well, it's not when you take the necessary steps. Firstly, let's acknowledge that change isn't easy, and it certainly doesn't happen overnight, but it is possible, Psych2Goers. Are you ready to start right now? Here are five steps you can take to completely transform your life in 365 days. Reflection. Take a moment to identify what's holding you back and ask yourself, which areas of my life am I unhappy with? Is it your relationship, your job, your health? According to psychology professor Stephen C.A.'s, when you're faced with the difficulty of change your motivation may dwindle and your intentions can be forgotten. So to combat this, write down what you want to change or work on. That way you can always look back when you feel yourself straying and be reminded of what motivated you in the first place.  You can even write it down in the comments if you feel comfortable. Go ahead, we'll wait. Oh good, you're back. Once you have identified the root cause, it's easier to take action. Goal Breakdown. By breaking our ambitions down into smaller, more manageable tasks, you can turn even the most daunting goals into a series of achievable steps. Next to your cause for change, write a goal for each area that you wish to achieve. Make sure these goals are specific, realistic, and something that excites you to take action. This will help you avoid feeling overwhelmed and discouraged. Try to be as detailed as possible. For example, instead of saying I want to go to the gym every day, try saying I want to go to the gym for at least one hour every day and I want to be able to lift, twist, squat, and do other elements of fitness that are necessary for independent living. Alice Boy's PhD former clinical psychologist turned writer says that being detailed in your goals will help set a clear path for you to follow and you'll feel less overwhelmed or fearful. It will also make your goals not seem so difficult to achieve. Remember no goal is too small. You've got this. From tasks to habits. The key to achieving your goals is consistency, turning these tasks into routines. Mel Robbins, a motivational speaker and author says that's what it takes to get you what you want. Not big scary leaps once a year but small, irritating moves every single day. Picture your growth as a garden. Just like a garden requires care and attention to thrive, your personal growth requires the same level of dedication and commitment. When you first start your tasks, it may feel overwhelming and difficult. However, as you consistently intend to your garden, you will begin to develop habits that make the process easier and more natural. You'll learn which plants need more water, which areas of the garden receive more sunlight and how to manage challenges like pests and weeds. You'll start to see the fruits of your labor in the form of blooming flowers and bountiful harvests. When you make these tasks a habit, it becomes easier over time and you can watch as your personal garden flourishes and thrives. Embrace failure. Don't fear failure. Fear being in the exact same place next year as you are today. Mel Robbins. Failure is not the opposite of success. It's a part of the journey towards success. Don't let fear of failure hold you back from pursuing your goals. Instead, use failure as an opportunity to learn, grow, and improve. Growth is not linear and there will be setbacks and challenges along the way. Be kind to yourself through this process of transformation and remember that every step you take towards positive change is progress, no matter how small. Pat yourself on the back. The fact that you're here watching this video and wanting to transform your life is an amazing first step to self-growth. Remember to acknowledge and celebrate your progress along the way. Save this video and come back to it in one year to see how far you've come. We'll wait. Oh hi future Psych2Goers. It's good to see you again. Reflect on what you wrote at the start of the year. Have you taken any steps to pursue your passions, learn new skills, or develop healthy habits? Have you faced any challenges and come out stronger on the other side? Time has a way of shaping us into something extraordinary. Look back on the past year with pride and joy knowing that you've taken steps towards becoming the best version of yourself. Growth is a continuous lifelong journey. We hope this video has helped you make it easier for yourself to transform your life for the better. If you enjoyed this video please leave a like and share it with a friend. Having a friend transform their life alongside you makes the process easier when you're faced with challenges. It's also great to have an accountability partner encouraging one another to reach their goals. As always thanks for watching.  Get your very own sigh. The lovable plushie is here to brighten your days. It embodies the spirit of Psych2Go and it serves as a reminder to prioritize your mental well-being. Its green leaf symbolizes growth, renewal, and the importance of self-care. Whether it's for yourself or as a thoughtful gift for a loved one, sigh is ready to be your snuggly friend through all of life's ups and downs. By your side plushie today. Link is listed in the description box.


Now all is what we're going to do is have a bit of a peek in Lucy's ears, the ear If you might actually just siting it down with your legs facing this direction Hello! If you grab let's give her a bit of a cuddle Or a head up against herself and hand over that side So that's good A bit peeking your ear there sweetie Can you see my little touch? Climb there Little tickle of your ear So, I've got my finger braced up against her cheek, so in case she moves too much. We can actually see that it's a very nice looking e-drum there. Have you switched around the other way? She's facing this direction this time. When testing infants who are too young for play audiometry, a different approach is needed to obtain behavioural responses to sound, visual reinforcement audiometry or VRA. OK, so now we're going to set up and do the VRA test. We're going to be basically playing a series of beats through the speaker over there to hear. And whenever she turns towards some of the sounds that we play, a little puppet's going to light up and do a little dance for her. It's really quite fun. And that should encourage her to turn towards sounds every time she hears them. So if we're pairing the sounds together with a stimulus, that'll reinforce her to turn towards those sounds there. In order to do this properly, though, we've got to have her sitting in the right spot in the space here. Otherwise, the sound level won't be quite rightful here. So we need to set her right at the top of the little X there. That's perfect here. In fact, actually, we'll just get this shuffled back a little bit. I'm going to start with a very quiet, sparkly little toy here. Two audiologists worked together during VRA testing. The distractor stays in the room with the child, ensuring that their attention and eye gaze are held directly in front. Good work. You're a very good listener today. Say. The second audiologist, the tester, is often outside the room, observing through a one-way mirror. Good listening. Good work. Five o'clock quick, aren't you? The two audiologists communicate via a radio link. Together, they judge a child's response to sounds presented either free-field via loudspeakers or via headphones or earphones to gain ear-specific information. Sometimes very young babies need to be seen over multiple visits to build up as complete a picture of their hearing as possible. OK, got it. It generally depends on the baby. Good girl, well done.


Welcome back to Live with Express, so just in time for a little Monday Motivation. Now the phrase Kaya Lum means my home, a phrase that unfortunately up to 20 million South Africans cannot say is true. So to change this private property rather, I've recently partnered with some property industry heavyweights like Caxton Media to support the organization called Kaya Lum, an initiative that works tirelessly to hand over title deeds to those who deserve them most. Take a look. Private property and Kaya Lum are striving to make massive changes in communities around South Africa. This morning we are in Paris to hand over 30 title deeds to the community of Ngwati. As private property we're really excited about the Kaya Lum project, I mean it aligns very closely with our core values which is to help South Africans realize their property dream. We've passed the major injustices and we feel very strongly about helping the process of righting those wrongs. We're uniquely positioned as private property as a brand to bring the whole industry together and get behind the sort of great cause. Here at Nakeri Sports Center in Tumachorle, title deeds were handed over to 30 deserving families. By hosting a charity golf day, private property had raised funds to pay for those deeds and Jason Erbach put this into perspective for us. Can you tell me a bit about this community and how will this drive change? So when people own what is rightfully theirs and they can truly call their plots of land their home, we believe that the dynamics of their situation and the country at large will change. By freeing the dead capital that has locked people in this economic straight jacket for far too long, we could begin to see the country's future brighten and securing property rights is a concrete step towards creating a freer and more prosperous society. And what makes the titling ceremony special for you? Well every single titling ceremony is a unique experience and it really is a hot woman and emotional experience to see people that oftentimes have been waiting their entire lives for that very valuable piece of paper to say that this is my property and no one else can take my property away from me. Seeing some of the looks on the people's faces and their smiles and I think they really understood the opportunity of being part of the economy or South Africa potentially handing down homes to their loved ones when they pass on so many benefits to owning your own title deeds so it was a really special time. I'm feeling very great because the title deed is as hard to get. This is my house behind me. I'm very happy to have a title deed. This is going to make a big difference because now I have children and my family if something happened to me I know I have a title deed for them. My kids now they are going to be happy to have the family without crisis. What are some of the plans moving forward into the future for private property and Kaialong? We are getting our internal teams to come up with their own fund raising concepts to support Kaialong so within each department they are going to potentially raise a home per department and challenge one another so that's cool on a macro level but on a macro level as a property portal we have a unique position to challenge the rest of the industry be it a state agent, be it bond originators, be it our other partners to really come to the party and hopefully make a difference because the reality is property is very close to the hearts of South Africans and we feel we have a responsibility to make a difference. Private property is leading the pack in driving the change in the communities around South Africa and by supporting initiatives such as Kaialong change is happening.


Hello and welcome to the International Daily Roundup by People's Dispatch, where we bring you some of the major news developments from across the globe, our headlines. Donald Trump lays down planned lift lockdown in 29 states before May 1. Singapore's migrant workers are the worst hit by the pandemic, reporting 9 out of 10 new infections. Egypt, to be shut down on major national holiday after single highest day rise in COVID-19 cases. On the International Day of Palestinian Prisoners, detainees in Israeli prisons remain vulnerable amid coronavirus outbreak. Colombians protest state negligence amid pandemic. We begin with our daily COVID-19 update. The number of cases has crossed 2,081,000, with close to 139,500 people dying as of 1130 GMT today. Meanwhile, the Office of U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday released the outline of a plan for the phased reopening of the U.S. economy. The plan laid out guidelines on the easing of restrictions placed on public movement in states that have shown a consistent decline for at least 14 days. Every state in the U.S. has reported at least a few hundreds of cases. Even as the U.S. has increased testing rates and there has been some decline in hospitalization in several badly affected regions, no state government is committed to reopening this month. Trump, on the other hand, was quick to declare that 29 states are already eligible to ease restrictions before May 1, even though no details of the states were given. The guidelines come within days of Democratic Party-run states forming regional blocks on the West Coast and the northeast of the U.S. to coordinate plans to reopen bypassing the president. The U.S. is the worst-affected country in the world in the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. It has close to 678,000 reported cases so far, with over 34,000 people dead. Singapore witnessed a largest jump in cases reported in a single day. The more troubling fact is that a huge majority of the new cases are being discovered among migrant workers of the country. According to the city-state's health ministry, Thursday saw 728 new cases of COVID-19, 680 of which were from among migrant workers. Of these, 654 cases came from workers who are living in overcrowded dormitories in different parts of Singapore. Many have raised the issue of the vulnerability of the over 200,000 migrant workers, most of whom are forced to live in dormitory accommodations with unhygienic conditions. The dormitories alone have reportedly close to 2,700 of the more than 4,400 cases reported so far. Authorities have taken to isolating entire dormitories, housing thousands of people, calling them suspected clusters after hundreds of cases were identified from them. A total of 12 of the 43 recognized dormitories have been isolated and continue to report an overwhelming majority of the new cases. Meanwhile, Egypt plans a full-fledged lockdown on an upcoming national holiday after it recorded the biggest single daily rise of COVID-19 cases. According to the country's health ministry on Thursday, 168 new infections were detected, taking the total number of positive cases to 2,673 with 196 deaths so far. Egypt has already imposed a partial lockdown, closing down schools and colleges, preventing mass prayers and cancelling sports activities, it has also imposed a nationwide 10-hour curfew at night. Prime Minister Mustafa Madbouli announced yesterday that the country would shut down all public transport and public spaces on the coming Monday. This was also imposed to avoid large gatherings on the day of Sham NSM, a major spring festival in Egypt. Today, April 17 is the International Day of Palestinian Prisoners. This is marked every year to remember and express solidarity with the thousands of Palestinian men, women and children who are imprisoned in Israeli jails and detention and interrogation centers. Most of the Palestinian prisoners and detainees have been incarcerated for resisting the brutal Israeli occupation. It is estimated that more than 5,000 Palestinians, including 432 administrative detainees, are currently being held in Israeli custody. Of them, 41 are women, 183 are children and 700 are seriously ill. 200 of them have chronic or life-threatening diseases. Prisoners with underlying medical conditions and pre-existing diseases are at an even greater risk of contracting the novel coronavirus. In our in-focus section, we speak to Charlotte Kates, the International Coordinator of Samidun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, on the situation of the Palestinian prisoners amid the pandemic. To start off, we wanted to kind of talk about an issue that's pressing for incarcerated people across the world, which is the fact that the COVID pandemic has put the incarcerated population not only in the Israeli prisons, but across the world in a very vulnerable situation. A lot of human rights organizations and prisoner support groups have been calling for the humanitarian release of prisoners amid the pandemic to contain the spread of the virus. So we're wondering what is the current state? What are the conditions in these prisons? What has been happening with the spread of the virus in Israeli prisons? And what is the resistance of the Palestinian prisoners amid this outbreak? Well, thank you for asking me. Right now, the situation around COVID-19 in Israeli prisons for Palestinian prisoners is one that is very vulnerable and one that is very worrying because just like incarcerated people elsewhere in the world, Palestinian prisoners are incredibly vulnerable should COVID-19 enter the prisons. And especially because of the systematic policy of Israeli medical neglect and negligence directed towards Palestinian prisoners. This isn't simply a situation related to COVID-19. This didn't start with the beginning of this pandemic. For years, Palestinian lives have been at risk and Palestinian lives have been lost due to Israeli medical neglect. Over 200 Palestinian prisoners have lost their lives inside Israeli jails, including over 67 due to confirmed cases of medical negligence and neglect. So this is not something that's just become a concern due to COVID-19. In fact, access to independent doctors, access to independent health care, being given proper tests and treatment, being given medicine instead of simply painkillers when Palestinian prisoners complain about their injuries and illnesses has been a long-term demands of the Palestinian prisoners movements and various hunger strikes and campaigns that have taken place within the prisons. There are hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who are ill, including over 200 that have chronic conditions or who are very sick with cancer and other diseases. This is a population that is incredibly vulnerable to COVID-19. There are prisoners who are as much as 80 years old inside Israeli jails and the Israeli system has refused to release them again and again and again whether on legal, compassionate, humanitarian, or political grounds. These are 5,000 Palestinians who are essentially being held as hostages by the Israeli state because they represent the Palestinian liberation movement because they represent the Palestinian resistance and because they represent the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian people that has been locked away. And so when we look at the situation of COVID-19, what we do see is once again the perpetuation of Israeli negligence and abuse. So far, there has not yet been a case of COVID-19 detected in the prisons, but if it's there, we wouldn't know because they're not testing the prisoners. And the prisoners are demanding access to test kits. They can't, even 140 different items, including sanitation products were withdrawn from the canteen, the prison store where prisoners are actually forced to purchase these goods to clean their cells and areas themselves were withdrawn after the pandemic began because there was demand for them in the Israeli market. And so once again, we have this systematic colonial neglect and abuse of Palestinian prisoners behind Israeli bars. If COVID-19 is spreading within Israeli prisons, we will know that their voices are being silenced and because they do not have, they're not receiving the medical care. They're not receiving testing. They're not receiving treatment. We do know that one Palestinian prisoner, Nur al-Din Sassour, was diagnosed with COVID-19 after being released. He was held in interrogation for approximately two weeks before being released. During that time, he was held in interrogation and he was held in Ulfer Prison, which is one of the largest prisons, housing Palestinian prisoners, including administrative detainees who are held without charge or trial as well as child prisoners. Despite the fact that he interacted with many other Palestinian prisoners during that time, the Israeli prison service has not provided COVID-19 testing for other prisoners, even in Ulfer Prison. We also know that in almost in all of these cases where there has been some kind of exposure documented that there's been an Israeli study of Palestinian prisoners who was later diagnosed with COVID-19, interrogators who were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these are all people that have been in contact with Palestinian prisoners. Israel is still going on night raids and invading homes. They're not testing soldiers.  What we're seeing here is this systematic medical neglect and negligence against the Palestinian population, especially against Palestinian prisoners. And Palestinians have not been silent in response. They have been organizing. They've shut down the sections in several prisons to protest against the situation. They have demanded the return of cleaning products and other sanitation products. They've returned their meals. They're continuing to organize and they're continuing to resist, even at a time when due to the lockdown, what we're seeing is the kind of support that these prisoners would usually be seeing on the Palestinian street instead has to be mobilized online. And so even that is a further element of difficulty that's added to these prisoner situations. And another thing that I wanted to raise about this issue is the fact that Palestinian prisoners are being denied the opportunity to even tell their stories. So because ostensibly of the threat of COVID-19, family visits have been banned, legal visits have been banned, these visits, family visits, for example, even normally take place behind glass. So at the same time when Israel introduced visits behind glass for Israeli criminal prisoners, they banned family visits for Palestinian prisoners. And so Palestinian prisoners are also having only very limited if any access at all to call their lawyers and only certain prisoners are being allowed to have a legal consultation at all. And even then they're only allowed to have one. So if there is a situation with illness developing inside the prison, how will the prisoners even get their story out? How will they be able to demand treatment and accountability? And this is something that's a huge concern first and foremost to anyone around the world who cares for human rights and social justice and human dignity and who supports the Palestinian people's live free of colonization and oppression. But of course to the families of these prisoners, that even that sense of worry, of fear, of not knowing what's happening to their imprisoned loved ones, to their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and cousins and uncles, what is happening to these people, this is another form of collective punishment and collective torture being directed against the Palestinian people. And I also do want to note that these same policies are being directed to child prisoners. So child prisoners are being denied visits from their, from their parents. Child prisoners are being subjected to the same measures as all of the other Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails right now. And finally, communities and neighborhoods across south of Bogota and Colombia have taken to the streets to denounce state negligence amid the pandemic. Residents say that despite the government announcing that it would distribute financial and food aid, they have yet to see it. In response to the protests, the city government has sent the Mobile Anti-Disturbance Squadron or the ESMAD to violently repress the protests. A spokesperson for the city government declared that they would not distribute aid in response to pressure tactics. And the mayor of Bogota, Claudia Lopez, stated that the attack on the population by the ESMAD was in response to theft. Still despite the repression and the risk, the communities of Colombia's cities have continued to use their right to protest to demand that the government take urgent action. According to a report by the National Administrative Department of Statistics, just under 50% of Colombia's workforce is employed in the informal sector. This means that millions of Colombians and their families have been left without a source of income amid the lockdown. Furthermore, the country's public sector has been weakened by decades of neoliberal economic policies which have privatized healthcare and eliminated key social support programs.  That's all we have in this episode of the International Daily Roundup. To know more about these stories, visit our website peoplesdispatch.org or follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Thanks for watching.