My name is Thomas Nail. I'm a professor at the University of Denver. I am not a professional artist. So I bring some different gifts to share today. But I got into the topic of migration and climate change, which is what I'm going to talk about today very shortly. I was a Fulbright scholar. I did cultural exchange in Toronto, and I work with the migrant justice group. No one is illegal on building a sanctuary city. So I'm sad that our lawyer talking about sanctuary cities not going to be here. That was the project that we're working on. And out of that project, I wrote two books. I mentioned as one, but the publisher was like, 600 page book is not going to go. So you got to write two. And so I wrote one called The Figure of the Migrant and One Theory of the Border. And that's how I got into this topic. And so today I want to offer, hopefully within 10 minutes, two ideas, two small ideas, introductory ideas. One is about the, I'm a philosopher. So this is a kind of view from 10,000 feet here, not exactly as concrete. I mean, there's lots of concrete things to say about the Anthropocene. One way to think about the current geological epoch that we're in is that it is absolutely defined by mobility and movement. There's a very strange way in which we've sort of through extraction have sort of turned the earth inside out. We've pulled out all of the metals. What used, if you think about geology, it's like, oh, these layers of different materials and they fold and people study this kind of stuff. But what we've effectively done is we've ripped all of those layers of the earth out and we've just sort of thrown them up into the air. And we've distributed them everywhere. Where are those sedimentary metallic ores? We're driving them around. There is an entire geological strata of vehicles, boats, cars, airplanes, flying around. I mean, I know that if there was a geologist in the audience who was like, no, that is not what I'm talking about. Okay, I realize that that is not, but that is essentially what has happened to geology. Geology now is in motion. I mean, we are seeing this happening. We have 500,000 pieces of space debris flying around at, you know, 175,000 miles an hour around the orbit. I mean, we have made our own geological strata around our planet. That's the state of geology right now. If you want to talk about our age, we can talk about the layer of plastic and petroleum that's just covering everything. I just read recently that we are digesting one credit card's worth of plastic, microplastics, a week. A week. Yum. So where exactly is that petroleum, that oil, those broken down plants and animals, they are there in you. Right now, microplastic is in your body and you are part of a geological layer of petroleum. Okay, so that's another way to think about what is going on. And it's moving. That's the thing. We think about geology.  The other great one I really love is chicken bones, the McNugget O-scene or something.  There is now just a layer of chicken bones that, you know, future geologists, if there are any, will discover, oh, these were the people who loved McNuggets. They ate so many damn chickens that it became an entire geological strata. Okay, so there's a lot of different ways to think about what's going on. But one of, I want to venture this forth. There's all these different scenes. There's the Anthropocene, the Capital O-scene, the Plantation O-scene. I like the Plantation O-scene. But, you know, maybe one way to think about this is in terms of the mobility of the entire geological strata, including the bones of the animals that will have been buried and become those strata. So more than half of the species on this planet are now in migration. Forced migration due to climate change. So this includes tons of humans, but also animals. Everything, Karl Marx did not have this in mind, but everything that is solid is now melted into air as carbon dioxide. So I want to just read you one little thing very quickly because I couldn't find a way to spontaneously say this. Certain humans, it's important, certain humans, may have initiated this increase in planetary motion, namely the movement of all these geological strata, and capitalism has certainly hastened it. But now geological mobility is taking on an unpredictable life of its own that I think should be recognized. That's this kind of mobility of this strata that's beyond what humans can do on their own. Perhaps we're living less in an Anthropocene, and this is a very problematic term you may know, because not all humans are responsible for causing climate change. Just talk to any indigenous people to be like, Anthropocene, are all humans responsible for this geologic attack? No, they are not. About 100 corporations are responsible for 75% of emissions.  It's like, wait, hold on a second, we know who did this. Okay, so capital is seen as a little bit more specific there about who's responsible for this. But just as a descriptive term, what we're witnessing is the most mobile geological epoch in the Earth's history. We are living in what we might call, and I'll just throw my own term into these ocenes, but the kino scene, and the management of those mobility, everything is in motion. And so the management of this mobility is what we are going to see in the 21st century. When we look into that prospective dark future of the next 100 years, one of the biggest things that we're going to see is what I'm going to call here, the climate-industrial complex. That is the anticipation, the management of the huge movements of people, of plants, of animals. That is the largest growing global industry right now. Okay, I'm throwing a lot of things into the climate-industrial complex here, but let me just give you some examples. So 30 years ago, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, there were 15 walls, border walls in the world. There are now 70 border walls. There are over 1 billion national and international migrants. International migrants alone are projected, the estimates vary, but can up to double in the next 40 years due to climate change. This industry of building walls to keep people in certain places and keep them out of certain places, and the same industries of security that are securing nations against climate change, building sea walls to keep water levels low, building walls to keep humans out. That industry is projected to be over $742 billion by 2023.  So this industry has a lot of different tentacles and arms, but one of them is the detention process. When you think about what happens to immigration, it is a huge business. Cremigration, it is the criminalization of migration for-profit institutions and corporations that basically make money transporting people, detaining them for as long as they possibly can, sometimes up to years without any formal charges. But they are making money on this, and they want immigration. That sounds weird, but let me get to this. This is the very strange paradox that we are living in, which is, on one hand, you have right-wing nationalist xenophobic groups who are like, we want all immigrants out. The difficulty is here, if you actually got that, dear right-wing racists, what you would get is the collapse of huge economies. It's suicidal to want to do this. I mean, it's homicidal, but it's also suicidal. It would destroy that economy. So there's a tension there. If Trump actually got what he wanted, the economy would be destroyed. And of course, the narrative is Trump is like, yes, we want to build the economy. Well, here's the other side of the paradox. From the kind of economic perspective, and any honest economist will tell you, that immigration increases GDP. It is a wealthmaker, and it always has been. So this is the kind of paradox we are living in. On the one hand, you have huge populist xenophobic outcry against immigration. On the other hand, corporations who very much want that migration, but the catch is they want those immigrants to be cheap. They want them to be affordable. How do you do that?  Just stay home. It's not worth it, right? But what these two poles work together, and Donald Trump is really, I'm not saying he knows this, but he really is the solution to this problem. Not in a positive solution, like in a really devious kind of solution. Not this conspiracy, because again, conspiracies, you have to know what you're doing. But he doesn't really know that. But what he is doing is he mobilizes a right-wing xenophobic populist to essentially devalorize, criminalize, and socially subjugate a population of people. On the other hand, the companies are like, this is, you know, on one hand, they say it's politically despicable, whatever, but they benefit because that devalorized labor is a lot cheaper. It can be exploited a lot easier as long as you have the people, which brings us to the climate refugee.  How do you convince people to do that? And this is the second idea that I want to share with you, a hypothesis. Again, it's not a conspiracy, but let's just say that there are certain countries that are benefiting strategically by climate refugees and climate-related migration. Corporations benefit by that. They make money when people migrate and that those migrants are not given full status. They can't vote. They are not paid the same wages. They are overworked and exploited and deported and interested through a criminalization system. Tons of money is being made off of those people. It is in the very strange interests of the capitalist system to displace people through climate change. So I want to read you this, again, little pithy quote here. If only there were a way, the capitalist dreams, to kickstart the economy and cheaply dislodge huge numbers of people from their land, devalorize their labor and then appropriate that labor extremely cheaply. In other words, if climate change did not exist, capitalism would have to create it. Lucky for it, it does because it did. Climate migrants today now form what we might call a disposable climate labor army, wading around in underemployed global poverty until the next climate-related disaster strikes and they are moved around to whatever precarious, securitized and criminalized labor is ready to exploit them next. Yeah, so that's one way to think about what's going on. Again, not that there's anybody in a back room cooking this up, but this is simply how this has unfolded, is that it benefits these companies who manage migration, who incarcerate, who build walls and so on. They even succeed when those walls fail, because walls mostly fail. They're not that successful in keeping everybody out. So what you can do is you sort of mobilize, if you mobilize enough people, shockingly, I'm over time, but the music has not gone on. Okay, so I'm going to wrap up very quickly then. I don't know how that's happened, some terrible mistake has happened. So I want to wrap up that. I got lucked out. So the last thing I want to... There it is. Okay, the last thing I wanted to say is about the migrant arts. Very briefly, I think this is why migrant arts, and I mean that like art created by migrants, art about migrants, having curated institutions and galleries for migrants to tell their stories. I don't have a solution to this problem. My point is the starting point of the solution is to get everybody together, and part of that we is not just even valorizing or kind of exoticizing migrant art or migrant stories, but those stories are our all everyone's story. They need to become the story of the we. How do you change the political we who does anything? Everybody's got to be on board. Until all of those people have a voice and have a place to say that voice, then there's no solution that I or anyone else is going to be able to offer that's going to solve this problem unless everybody's brought in. And the migrant arts in creating that space for people to share those experiences is at least a starting point. Thank you.


So James last time I saw you you rated me a 2. What do you write me today? Tell it to Um, can I ask why? Well, I know a man when I see one Well, I've never had that one before James is kind of rude. I think you should apologize.  I mean, yeah, that's that's fair enough. Yeah So I could ask this question a lot on here this you do Who can be always wear sunglasses and all your videos part of the reasons because I never know where to look whether the camera at Myself at the phone. I'm always just very confused But the biggest reason is that I've got some pretty banging blue eyes under these things and my followers are like 90% women and I really don't need y'all getting pregnant today But here comes a photo to prove that I'm not lying.  That's funny.    Did you not you stop? Did you not did you know? Yo, could you kick him out of the car? Could you get him out?  Hey, I'm breaking up with you. Oh, yeah, yeah, you know Yeah, I'm never gonna break up with you Why would I break up with you? I don't know how am I break up with you?  I get this a lot. Yes, you do So em do you have daddy issues or how did this come about you? Here Michael's just really attractive. Oh, yeah, very sweet to me. I have a great relationship with my dad No daddy issues here Michael just happens to be older than me I am 18. Yes, I am married. No, my parents were not mad. I Just loved my boyfriend very much. So we got married Packing lunch for my man child. He works 12 hour a day.  Oh, you wanna do something dirty. Oh, what now hear me out Hear me out. Okay. I got a fresh bottle of oil and I'm gonna put you on your back What's the name and trust me you're gonna want to take a shower afterwards. All right, let's do it Let's do it. I cannot believe I fell for this again. I better not break a nail Lefty-loosey righty-tidy. Oh my god. Hey when you're done under there. I need you to go up here and pull my dipstick Here's what my kids are having for lunch I made Italian pasta salad with salami smoked ham some cheese and some random veggies with some Italian dressing Salt pepper give it a quick toss and refrigerate for at least an hour I'm just going to add it into their lunchbox with some croutons for the crunch here We have some sugar snap peas some cherry tomatoes for their fruits today We have some blueberries strawberries palm seeds and I also have some mini cinnamon rolls for their treats And that's it. I hope you guys have enjoyed this video. I will see you next time. Bye So this is it You can see in the back. It's pretty short But it's long in the front. It's my husband's favorite cut. I give him what he likes Party in the front business in the back Let's talk about traditional Homemaking on my wedding day at the altar I vowed to my husband that I would take care of the house and family and his primary Responsibility is taking care of bringing in income So I would never have to lift so much as a finger to provide money to this family My husband does such a good job at this that I never have to worry about if I want to get my nails done If I want to go get fast food for lunch a coffee whenever I want it My husband works an extremely labor intensive job and it's very dangerous He cut off his pinky last year and was out of work for two months in those two months He beat himself up every single day because he wasn't able to provide income to our family Like he was able to before he cut off his pinky My husband has to get up at 4 30 in the morning to drive two hours to the job site only to come home at 8 p.m Dead tired not to mention he chooses to voluntarily take over night shift for our children So that I can get more sleep at night because he values what I do for our home So is something wrong with my husband for expecting a hot meal when he gets home because I promised him I would provide one Absolutely not that doesn't make him misogynistic and that doesn't make him a bad man I love serving my husband because he makes it easy Because even though he does expect a hot meal when he comes home because I promised him that on the days when I cannot Provide that and he comes home and sees it even though all he wants is to take off his shoes Sit down for the first time all day long and relax and eat a hot meal his first hot meal of the entire day He looks at me and says baby you must have had such a terrible day, and I am so sorry What do you want to eat and I will go get it every single time? Why do women have to attack husbands for literally no reason? I made a video that other woman would be able to empathize with on the hardships of motherhood and the amount of pressure We put on ourselves nowhere in my video Did I ever mention my husband being disappointed in me my husband not being satisfied and yet you along with many other Women automatically assumed my husband is this evil terrible person and there's something wrong with him If my husband would have made a video about when he cut off his pinky and was not able to provide for our family for two months because of a Circumstance nobody would blame me for that But one of our I make a video talking about how I'm not able to provide something for my husband that I promised him because of being Pregnant because of being sick and a circumstance so many women automatically blame my husband Not all men are bad and I love being able to provide nourishment and a home for my husband So no nothing's wrong with my husband He goes above and beyond for me every single day the least I could do is provide him a hot meal


Over the past decade of my life, I have spent literally countless hours in doctors' offices hearing everything looks fine. We still don't know what's wrong and being referred to another specialist. I won't bore you by recounting all of the different things I have tried and all the specialists I have seen, but I can tell you that if you were to add up all the hours in my life, it would be a substantial percentage that was spent trying to find an answer to what is wrong with my body. If you're new to this channel, hello there, my beautiful internet friend. Welcome, it is lovely to see you here. I expected to be making a video today titled something like, finally a diagnosis, exclamation mark, exclamation mark, but instead I have something very different for you. About a month ago, I released a video in which I mentioned I finally thought I had a diagnosis, but I wasn't ready to share that yet. The reason I wasn't ready to share that yet is because I was emotionally processing it, but also because they were running one final test to make sure that they were confident that this was my diagnosis. For the majority of my life, I have never been physically okay. I am in pain every day in various parts of my body. I'm fatigued a lot. Sometimes I'll wake up and feel like I was hit by a train when I did literally nothing the day before. I always have abdominal pain that I've had exploratory surgeries for that never had an answer. I deal a lot every day with headaches and chronic migraines, which mean they get 15 or more every month. There's a lot of other random little symptoms thrown in there that have always seemed so unrelated and random and bizarre. When I get sick, I get really sick. But the problem with healthcare in America is that they refer you to a different specialist for basically everything. So when you have a complicated diagnosis, it can sometimes take literally years to ever get to someone who is actually willing to look at the whole picture. And that's definitely been the case for me. And last month, I finally made it to the right doctor to see. He happened to be a rheumatologist who looked at the scope of my history, everything put together and said, you have fibromyalgia. That is what everything points to here. However, because fibromyalgia is diagnosed by ruling everything else out, there are a few more tests I want to run just to make sure. But I am confident that this is what you have. And so I had a beautiful emotional breakdown that day. I spent time in my car just sobbing in tears after the appointment because I'm like, oh my God, I'm not crazy. Like there is actually something wrong. And it's terrifying when something's wrong. It's scary when it's something that is not curable that you will deal with the rest of your life. But I have spent the last decade of my life dealing with something that didn't even have a name or a face I had no direction to go in. And was sort of just fumbling my way through the waters of American healthcare, which is a nightmare, trying to find some kind of relief or answers. And yesterday I had the appointment to follow up on the results of the test and receive what I thought would kind of be the official diagnosis. However, that's not at all what happened. What I heard instead is that it's a presumed diagnosis as in we're gonna treat it as if it is that, but it's not actually diagnosed. He said he's confident again that I do have it, but there's one of the major kind of implications of it that I don't really experience that often. So he's not willing to really call it that just yet. We're gonna keep looking into different things. And if you don't have a history desperately, I know I've used that word before in this video, but I mean like desperately looking for answers and thinking you finally found it, having a doctor say, hey, I think you probably have this.   That might seem pretty insignificant. And like, okay, well, that makes sense.  I know that sounds like a really big word, but here's the thing. I've thought a lot over the last month about what a diagnosis actually means. I meant to make a whole separate video about this, but we're gonna fit it into this one. Being able to have a word, a name for what you are going through allows you to kind of wrap your hands around it and be like, okay, this is what I'm dealing with. I am dealing with fibromyalgia. I am dealing with PTSD. Like I'm not crazy, right? And I felt crazy for so long because I would go to doctors and urgent cares and emergency rooms and have everybody say everything looks fine.  And I feel like I was a waste of people's time as I was really suffering and having a very difficult time existing in this body and feeling like a fraud, feeling like maybe I am nuts, having people suggest that maybe it was all in my head. After I'd been hospitalized for five days, they just suggested it was like, maybe it's just anxiety. Maybe you should talk to someone, you know, about your brain. Because with a few days of testing, we can't find anything wrong with your body, which means, I mean, we know everything in the world, so you just must be crazy, right? Like that is often the response when you are someone who repeatedly goes to doctors for answers and they can't find them. In no way am I downplaying the very real connection that things like anxiety, PTSD, depression, all kinds of mental illnesses can have on your physical body because they do. But those are things that I have examined extensively, received there before, found solutions for and got a lot better for. I think another reason why it can be so helpful to have a diagnosis is because it lets you take it seriously. What I mean by that is over the last month, I was kind of walking around with the assumption that I have fibromyalgia. So I really researched it, I looked into it, I looked into what helps and what doesn't, and started doing those things. I started actually allowing myself the space to take care of myself because I'm like something is actually different about my body and I can respect that. I can make more time to rest. I can intentionally cut out stress in my life because that's what my body needs and it honestly helps. I can make time every day to stay active and move because low impact exercise really does help me feel better. And so I started doing all these things that were really good for me. I started doing like really taking time for myself and taking care of myself and not feeling horrible about the fact that I wasn't functioning like a normal person. Like if I had a lot of pain or I was really exhausted or couldn't think straight, there wasn't like all this guilt and blame of like you should just get over it because I'm like something's wrong and I can respect that and I will allow myself the space to take care of myself through this. And obviously those are things that can be done regardless of having a diagnosis or not, right? But I think the reason why I have such a hard time not being diagnosed is because it becomes so difficult to trust yourself. It becomes really difficult to advocate for yourself. It becomes really difficult to be like these are the things I'm experiencing and they aren't normal because those things don't make sense to other people. I guess at the end of the day, I feel like the very real physical experiences that I have are not valid because they can't be put into a category.  It feels crushing. It feels like I'm just a crazy person. It feels like I must be making it all up because it doesn't show up on a scan anywhere, right? Like when I thought I had this word for it, it became exponentially easier to have compassion towards myself because prior to that moment for 10 years, I was just dealing with a lot of stuff that no one could ever figure out. And so I forced myself to power through. Oftentimes I wouldn't pay attention to very real signals my body had or give it the time needed to recover from stuff because I'm like, it should work. It should work. Like nothing's wrong with me. No X-ray or MRI or CT scan or blood work or whatever else has ever shown anything wrong.  Just do it. Just power through. Ooh, I just spilled coffee on the couch. I don't care today. I feel like I definitely shouldn't need a label to take myself seriously. And that's probably something I should address in therapy, but it's hard to know or even sometimes want to take care of myself when I don't know what's wrong. And here's the thing.  Like that's not good news. Like I understand that. It's not good news. It's not something I'd celebrate, but it was something that I was so excited to hear when I thought that was the answer, right? Because it was an answer and having an answer is better than not having an answer in most situations, at least for me. I think another big perk of having a diagnosis is that other people take you seriously and perhaps that is one of the biggest things here. Like I think that the biggest issue is actually having a word for it would help me. But right below that is having something that other people could understand rather than saying I honestly feel poorly all the time in varying degrees. Some weeks I'm okay. Some weeks I am completely disabled. Not by my leg at all, but by the things that my body does to me, how I feel, how sick I feel and exhausted and in pain. I just can't think straight, all of that. Like being able to say I have this disease which is a valid thing, which is a legitimate thing, which you can look up, which you can read about, which has actual symptoms that I have. Like it's flaring up. That's the reason why I'm feeling this way. That's the reason why I can't make it that's the reason why, whatever. But not having like a package to deliver that to other people with. Talking to doctors in future situations and being like, and I also have fibromyalgia that would be like, okay, I get it. That means you probably experience these things instead of me having to be like, yeah, let me go through my list of symptoms that's about a mile long and have you get bored by the time I'm done. People, myself included, understand things a lot better when there is a title or a label for them. It doesn't mean that it's less valid if it doesn't have a name, but we sure like names and labels for things because as humans it helps us process and cope and understand information. And here's the thing, I trust the doctor I'm with. I understand that he's doing what he's doing for a reason. It's very probable. I probably do have fibromyalgia. We're gonna treat it like that. At the end of the day, this is not the video I wanted to make, but I did want to share a little bit about what it feels like to continue to be undiagnosed as someone who is chronically unwell. And we are treating this as if it is fibromyalgia, like we're gonna try to address a few different things, a few different ways, but for the time being anyways, I remain undiagnosed, but what I'm gonna try to do, here's where I like try to put a positive spin on things, even though I am not feeling positive at all in this particular moment. I'm going to attempt to carry what I felt the past few weeks forward with me of making space to actually take care of myself. And that's hard to do because there's a part of me that already feels my brain slipping back into like, well there's nothing actually wrong with you, Joe, so just do it, just do all the things, just completely ruin your body because you feel like it should work a certain way and it doesn't, but I'm going to do my best to acknowledge that voice, let it say what it needs to say in the background and not listen to it and actually continue to do the things that I know help me, that I know enable me to be able to do more by resting more, by actually caring for myself more, by investing in personal stress management and removing large sources of stress from my life, by staying physically active, by experimenting with different diet things that could potentially help. So for now, I shall simply focus on what I can control because that's all any of us can do anyways. Thank you for listening. Really, thank you for listening. Thank you to my patrons for supporting me during this time. I truly appreciate each and every one of you and your generosity and my little community there. Thank you. To you watching this video right now, thank you for spending a few minutes out of your day here with me today. I do not take your time, your listening ears for granted. Could be anywhere else in the world doing anything else and you chose to hang out with me for a few minutes and that's really darn cool and means a lot to me. Thank you. I love you guys. I'm thinking about you and I will see you in the next video. Bye guys. 🎵 And her from the sky all about... 🎵


My name is Chris Coyne and I am the F.A. Harper Professor of Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the Associate Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Today I'm joined by Dr. Robert Higgs, who's a senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and the editor-at-large of the Institute's Quarterly Journal of the Independent Review. Bob, thank you for taking the time to talk to me today. Glad to be here, Chris. And what I'd like to talk about is a part of your scholarship which focuses on making significant contributions to both our understanding of the Great Depression and World War II. And the orthodox story that is typically put forth as it relates to these events is that significant government spending due to World War II is what got the United States out of the Great Depression. You have spent a lot of your career exploring this question from a variety of aspects and developing an alternative perspective on the relationship between government spending for the purposes of the war and for the Great Depression and the recovery from the Depression. So tell me a little bit about your work in this area and the arguments that you put forth and how it relates or differs from, I should say, the conventional story. I started out my own work on the Great Depression by focusing on the early part of it, the Great Contraction of 1929 to 1933, and then particularly the response first by the Hoover administration and then on a much wider scale by the Roosevelt administration from the spring of 1933 onward. And that work is reported in large part in my book Crisis in Leviathan. But the Great Depression can be characterized in several different ways and I've called them, first of all, the Great Contraction which I just mentioned. Secondly is what I call the Great Duration. It's the fact that this depression ran for more than a decade without full recovery and it's unique in that respect.  When did the depression end? What got it out of its depressed condition? And when I began to think seriously about understanding the Great Duration, I knew from my reading already that the Roosevelt administration had changed its character between the first couple of years in office, 1933-34, and the remaining years particularly those starting in 1935 and running up into the end of the decade. During the first couple of years of the Roosevelt administration, the government attempted to integrate many private business interests into its program, particularly its program to recover or to bring about economic recovery from the depressed conditions of 1933 which were very severe indeed. And also to some extent integrate private and business interests into its programs for reforming the economy. So many historians have talked about three aspects of the New Deal relief, recovery, and reform. And again, they're not all completely distinct. Some things have an element of each or more than one at least. But what happened was that opposition to the New Deal developed quite rapidly. Even though Roosevelt was a very popular president early in his presidency, not everybody liked what he was doing and not everybody liked him. And it wasn't just Republicans who opposed the New Deal program that he had supported or created. So Roosevelt was not so worried about Republicans as he was worried about Democratic opponents. So in order to avert that threat, to cut it off at the knees, starting particularly in 1935, very definitely, Roosevelt shifted his ground. He began to give up trying to compromise with business interests, to cooperate with them. And instead he began to take a more radical turn and to support measures that he hadn't supported in the first two years. And probably the two most important measures, which were in fact enacted into law in 1935, were the National Labor Relations Act, which was a large scale labor law that gave labor unions privileges and powers to organize and to retain their organizations and to cripple opposition by employers that it never existed before. The government had never given a legal basis to labor union organization nearly as strong as what it did in this so-called Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. So Roosevelt supported that and he also supported the Social Security Act of that year. It created old age pensions, it created a system of state unemployment benefits, it created benefits for widows and orphans and blind and disabled people and so forth. It was a very broad scale welfare state measure. And that was the first time the United States had done anything like a broad scale welfare state program. Previous ones had always been for particular groups or very limited. But now the country was basically launched into a new era as a welfare state managed at the federal level. Previously local governments and state governments to some extent had undertaken welfare state type measures, but there again they were limited by financial constraints and by ideological constraints as well. But when the Roosevelt administration went in that direction with the Wagner Act and the Social Security Act it was it was raising its flag over kind of collectivism that the federal government had never supported in the past. And there were many other measures as well that moved in the same direction of strengthening the federal government of expanding its scope of getting it involved in and all sorts of activities for regulating private business including regulation of the issuance of securities by private firms, the regulation of labor relations, regulation of particular industries, prices and profits. And it went on and on and on. But the drift of it was that the Roosevelt administration's turn in 1935 put it much more in opposition to business interests than before. And Roosevelt himself changed the nature of his rhetoric starting then. He began to attack investors and bankers and to blame them for the depression and to blame them for the continuation of the depression and to say that in some cases there was a strike of capital. Private investment had never come close to recovering back to its level of the 1920s late 1920s and indeed it never did recover fully for the whole decade of the 1930s. And everybody understood that that was a major reason for the great duration. That was why the economy as a whole had not recovered is that private investment projects were not forthcoming particularly long-term investments. So Roosevelt began to rail against private businessmen and to blame them for the depression and to blame them for all sorts of other evils and to characterize them as economic or royalists and the claim that they wanted to establish industrial dictatorships and so forth. It was really violent rhetoric. No president had ever talked about private businessmen before in such language and the combination of the president's rhetoric and the change in subordinates he had close to him in 1935, more radical people, more leftist people, fewer business people, fewer people sympathetic to business interests, the change in the character of the administration's makeup, the change in the president's rhetoric, the change in the nature of the legislation that was enacted or proposed, all these things added up to a much more hostile environment for business in general and particularly for investors because investors are people who take large sums of money and spend it right now to create projects which will, if they're lucky, return a stream of income over a long period of time in the future that will be sufficient to justify their current outlays. Well, that means you place your money at risk. If something happens to prevent you from realizing the gains you foresee when you make the investment, then you've just thrown away good money. So a businessmen began to develop a lot of fear, a new kind of fear. They'd always said economic fears, of course. No one can be sure that consumers will buy what he wants to sell or that technology will not leapfrog over the kind of technology he's invested in or what have you. So there are always many risks whenever investments are made that are purely market risks. But now investors face a new kind of political risk. The risk that their private property rights might be overridden by a radical government that would regulate them into oblivion or tax them so heavily they wouldn't be able to make any profit on their investments or, eventually, perhaps even seize their property. This was not as far-fetched as it might seem in retrospect today because if one looked around the world, one saw perfectly civilized countries such as Italy and Germany who are precisely such things it happened. And we're being done at the time. So it was not crazy if businessmen became very, very afraid of the administration. That's not to say all businessmen turned against the administration. They didn't. The Roosevelt administration had its crony capitalist just as every other administration before and since has had its their crony capitalist. But, nonetheless, overall there was a big change starting in 1935 and becoming more and more frantic in 1936 and 37, particularly as the labor unions began to organize more rapidly than ever before and they began to use unprecedented tactics such as sit-in strikes where strikers would go in a plant or the workers there would stay in the plant. They wouldn't work. They would strike. But they wouldn't leave either. So they would just get in the way and prevent the operation of the property. So this was a kind of trespass and in many places local authorities, governors or local police mayors would not take any action to evict these workers as trespassers. And so firm operators could not replace them with non-union workers or workers that didn't want to be on strike. And so employers were just stuck. They weren't running their property. They weren't earning any income. They were being held hostage by workers that the government was sympathetic to. And these sit-down strikes spread in many parts of the country, particularly in big industries, making materials like rubber and glass and automobiles and chemicals and steel and what have you. So there was a tremendous amount of turmoil associated with labor relations in the second half of the 1930s. And the Roosevelt administration, by and large, had not only sponsored the legislation that made this turmoil possible but it befriended and become allied with the unions, particularly the CIO unions, which had just come into being in that decade. Now all this activity, the government is growing, it's becoming more radical, its regulation is increasing, the president is hostile, he's threatening businessmen practically every day when he talks to the press. This created what I call regime uncertainty. It created the fear in calculable outcomes. Businessmen didn't know what the odds were that Roosevelt would become an economic dictator but they thought he might. And so the response to this fear was a paralysis. Very few businessmen were willing to make long-term investments in this environment. And that, I believe, was a major reason, perhaps the major reason, for the failure of private investment to recover in the 1930s, particularly long-term investment. Now, when the war broke out in 1939, Roosevelt immediately took an interest in involving the United States in it. The American people, however, were not interested in going back into a world war. They had almost all become disgusted by World War I in retrospect but Roosevelt, meanwhile, was taking all kinds of actions to build up the US armed forces with an eye toward their future engagement in the war. Now, in order to have a viable armed force, the United States needed not simply troops which could be obtained and were obtained by drafting them, starting in the fall of 1940 when a new draft law was put into effect. But it had to have a military industrial sector, firms that would produce raw materials that could be made into munitions and weapons platforms, and firms that would create actual military products of battleships, submarines, military tanks, armored vehicles, you name it. And then the War Department began to bring many private businessmen into the ranks of the Pentagon or of control agencies the government created afterwards to run the war economy. There's a large number of actions the government took in 1940 and 1941 which had the effect of almost guaranteeing profits for those manufacturers and other private parties that would cooperate in the government's buildup for war. So the idea that somehow the government's investments during the 1940 to 45 period in industrial facilities was the reason for post-war prosperity is a very poor hypothesis. It doesn't stand up well at all. And it's just one of the ways in which people misunderstand the nature of the war economy itself. As you said before that the reigning understanding of that among economists has always been from the time of the war itself to the present, that it was a simple Keynesian episode. The government spent a lot of money which it borrowed and voila, multiplier effects. And so everybody was in great shape. There was a carnival of consumption as one historian described it. But this is bogus. There was no carnival of a consumption. In fact when we correct the data that are very misleading during the war because they don't take into proper account price controls and rationing and all sorts of government allocations of resources and prohibitions of various forms of production and what have you. When we take those things into account it's very clear that consumers were worse off after 1941 throughout the war. It wasn't until the war ended that consumers were able to improve their situation from what it had been when the government declared war. So there is no carnival of consumption. There is no wartime prosperity. Both private consumption and private investment fell, particularly private investment because the government took over most of the investment during the war years. And so the idea that it was prosperous because production GDP or GDP went up 70 or 80 percent during the war is just an accounting fiction. All you're doing is measuring the value of what government spent to make war. And that's a very different thing from outputs that are validated in their value by consumers ultimately or by investors who require consumer validation for their success. So the war prosperity was a myth. It didn't happen. It wasn't real prosperity.


US dominating global arms trade. Sales of weapons and military services by the world's top 100 arms makers totaled $597 billion last year according to a report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI. US firms continue to dominate the market despite seeing their overall revenues fall according to the watchdog. The combined figure for the top 100 arms companies marked a year-on-year decline of 3.5% but was 14% higher than the total recorded in 2015. US firms saw a combined decline of 7.9% to $302 billion but still accounted for 51% of total arms revenue in 2022 with 42 American companies represented among the world's top 100. The revenues of the 26 European weapons makers in the rankings saw a slight increase of 0.9% to $121 billion. According to SIPRI, the global decrease was mainly due to diminished revenues among major weapons producers in the US where the sector struggled with supply chain issues and labor shortages related to coronavirus pandemic. SIPRI highlighted that global weapons production has lagged behind demand, which sharply increased last year due to the Ukrainian conflict and global geopolitical tensions. Moreover, numerous countries placed orders for weapons and military services at the end of 2022, the revenue from which is only expected to be reflected in company accounts in two or three years' time.


So yesterday I described these FZ relations as explicit list of all the relations we know how to prove on MG and sort of speculated these are all the relations on MG. And today I want to move back to stable curves and marked points. So I want to begin by sort of outlining what you want to do if you want to generalize these relations to MGN bar. So there's sort of two steps to this and I'm not going to, I'm not going to fully write out the formula today, but I'll at least describe approximately what it looks like. But the first step, generalizing FC relations MGN bar, the first step is adding in the marked points. So I mentioned briefly before that the tautological ring of MGN, like all the tautological rings for me is defined by restriction from MGN bar. And if you're just dealing with smooth curves, this means that you don't have any graphs to worry about. You just have kappa classes and psi classes. So this is a ring generated by one through psi n and the kappa classes that we had before. It turns out that if you want to generalize the FC relations by adding in those marked points, then you sort of do it in the, one of the simplest ways that you could hope for. So you have to change what relations are now going to be parameterized by relations, let's say relations in RD of MGN are, or these relations I should say, although again these are all the relations we know of, they're parameterized by, so previously we had a partition sigma, no parts that are 2 mod 3. We still have that, but now we need more data dealing with the N marked points along with non-negative integers a1, a2, through an, which are also not 2 mod 3. Note that they can be 0 though, and there should again be some inequalities, meaning the only finitely many relations, so previously the inequalities that I had were written on the board were that the bias of the partition sigma is less than or equal to 3d minus g minus 1, and concurrent mod 2. I need to modify that by adding in the a sub i's, so I add in the a sub i's. So there again only finitely many, for a given dg and n, they're a finite number of partitions along with a sub i's, and then what the relations themselves look like is going to be very close to the relations that I wrote down yesterday with n equals 0. For this it will be convenient in this notation, which maybe I should have introduced yesterday, which is that I define, so previously I had series a and b, these hypergeometric series in a single variable t. Now I want to define c sub 3i of t going to be t to the i times a of t, t sub 3i plus 1 of t is p to the i b of t. And as usual with these definitions, numbers are 2 mod 3 don't exist today. This is some sequence of power series. And the fc relations, as I described them yesterday, what did I do? I took the exponential of, I had 1 minus a, maybe I'll write it as c0 here, c0 is a, I inserted kappa's, took the exponential, I then multiplied by b, with kappa's insert raised to the power b is c1, power raised to sigma 1, c3, sigma 3. To get the idea, this is the same, this makes this formula look simpler if I have that extra notation. And then, this is all just the same formula I wrote then before with the c notation. I add this upper twiddley thing, changing the kappa polynomial everywhere and there, and then I took coefficient of t to the d at the end. I want to do the same thing here, except I need to insert the psi classes. Previously I just had kappa classes, one polynomial in the kappa classes, now I better have psi classes appearing in at least some of my relations as well. And I do so by just, at the end, multiplying by, I have ca1 of psi 1 times t, time, reach point, can, psi n of t. And then I still take the degree d part, the variable capital t, and this is just keeping track of the comb logical degree. So, this should be, right, equals zero since this is a theorem in rd of mgn. So, again, this is about as simple as you could hope for, for inserting psi's in there. You keep the formula the same, you just multiply by some power series in psi before taking the coefficient, before taking the degree d part at the end. And they're parameterized not by partitions, but by partitions with some slight decorations if you want, these additional integers. And the way you might guess this sort of formula is, for instance, when n equals 1, you're getting relations in mg1. You should be able to take the push forward by forgetting about the marked point. Forgetting about the marked point would turn the ca1 of psi1 t into some sort of expression involving kappas. So we turn into something very close to one of these factors. So the condition that the push forward of a relation should be a relation is more or less how you'd come up with this formula.  It serves the natural generalization. That's the first step if you want to guess what the relation should look like an mgn bar. Since the point is that an mgn bar, even if you just want mg bar, you'd want marked points because mg bar is all these boundary strata where you glued points together. So that's just an easy to state modification of the formula with psi classes. And to outline what the relations on mgn bar will then look like. So we have to remember what the tautological classes on mgn bar look like. They look like sums of these basic classes given by a graph and then a polynomial or really polynomial in the kappas and psi classes being pushed forward. So it turns out that these, so now we're into step two, which is also going to be the final step at least in terms of telling you approximately what the relations look like. So step two, these relations on mgn, now we, before we were generalizing by adding in marked points, now, now we're just extending by adding in boundary terms. So these relations on mgn extend to relations on mgn bar parameterized by the same data, which I've erased exactly what it was, but they were given by sigma and the a sub i with these conditions. The resulting relation, so if I write like r for relation of, then we have various input data, we have g, we have n, number of marked points, we have a homological degree, we have sigma, the partition, then we have a1 through an. That's the data we need to describe one of these relations over there. And the relation on mgn bar is given by the same data and it should look like equals, well it's the same, it's the relation on mgn plus classes supported on boundary, where by that I mean that the graph that you use should be non-trivial for those terms, should have at least one edge, correspond to having at least one node in your curve, and that's approximately what it should look like. Again, it's taking what you had before and extending it by adding something in the boundary, then if you take this relation, you restrict to the interior, you will get precisely that. Now the actual formula for it is going to look something like, I'm not going to carefully write down all the details right now, because we'll see another way of thinking about these formulas in a bit. But it will be a sum over gamma, a stable graph, okay. So now we want to write down some classes on this stratum here. It's really given by iota gamma lower star of some expression. Maybe I'll draw the picture here. So I have some graph, stable graph as vertices connected in some way, maybe we have a loop, we have a couple of legs, two, three, each of these should have a genus, which I'm not going to write down right now. This is what the graph looks like, and I need to tell you where to put cap as in size, yes? They're vertices. I'm writing them as loops because I'm going to write stuff inside them. Possibly I should have made the circles even larger, but that would have made it even more confusing between them and loops. So I need to tell you how to insert cap and psi classes here, decorate this graph with cap and psi classes. And the basic idea is you put an FC relation on each vertex. This isn't exactly right. So I can say a little bit about, but morally this is what's going on here. So by FC relation here I mean really this MGN relation because I have marked points. So each of these vertices has a genus, it has some path edges coming out of it, it corresponds to some MGINI bar, and I take some FC relation parameterized by some amount of data in that location. That gives me some cap as in psi classes by this formula. I insert it in each of these vertices that I push forward by the graph. Right, so there are some details which I am going to gloss over a bit right now because we'll see them a bit later, but you also have to choose a way of dividing the partition sigma among the vertices of the graph.  So this tells you what the sigma should be at each vertex. Just summing over all the ways of assigning sigma to each vertex, I also need the a sub i's. And it's clear what a sub i's I should use on the legs of the graph. I still have the a2 that I started with, the a3 that I started with, a1 here. But on the edges there's something more complicated that has to be done. And there is some sense in which what's going on is I also have to choose numbers which should be minus 2 minus x along each edge here. This is not the way we'll see it stated later, but morally what's going on is I also have to choose for each edge, I choose xe and minus 2 minus e. And then these are the other inputs I use for the a's, so also choosing these xe's. And what ends up happening is that, this is something that you should have asked about when I first said I was putting an FC relation on each individual vertex. If I put an actual FC relation on a vertex, forget about boundary issues, I should expect that that's already zero because it's a relation. The things I'm putting here are going to in general be FC relations, but they're given by this formula, but they are in the, remember I had this inequality relating g, d, sigma, and the a sub i's. They'll be in the range where that's, they might be in the range where it's not a relation. So use the same formula to assign cap and psi classes to each vertex, but you aren't just putting actual relations on each, you're just using the same formula. Okay, so this is just the sketch of what the relations look like. Again, I'll tell you specifically what the relation mg and bar is later. The idea is the principal term is when your graph just has a single vertex, no edges, and then you just have these terms here. What did you say? Yeah, so you have to, and that's something else. We're here, we took the coefficient of t to the d for each term individually, and we also can think of it either as taking the coefficient, taking the, the comological, the part of comological degree d at the very end, or we can also divide up the d's, d equals summation dv. There's also some technicality with regard to the parity condition that relates sigma, d, etc., this mod 2 condition I had there. That, that also has to be applied for each vertex. So you really have number vertex, number vertices, different parity conditions. Again, you shouldn't interpret this as a natural formula. I mean, what, what I've said is almost complete description, but no, it is required for the individual vertices. Yes. Yeah, I mean the modified ones because I need the marked points. Yeah, no, no, no boundary. Like really what the sum will be is I've written it as a graph here, but it will actually be of the form summation, gamma, graph, maybe this, this extra data here, but then each term, the thing I've written here will be iota, gamma, lower star of some polynomial in cap as in size. I don't want to put the boundary in again. The, the, the, in a term with a corresponding to given stable graph, I want basic classes which are in precisely that, that boundary stratum. Yeah. Yeah. You, I mean, I'm multiplying the contribution from all of this. Yeah. I mean the, the actual form of this will look like, this is a very common form for formulas in topological ring will be summation over stable graphs should be like one over automorphism of the graph somewhere. And then here I have a product of various local factors. Local meaning given by the edge data, vertex data, or lag data in, in the graph, what I have here, just product of all those factors. And so what am I putting in here? Iota gamma is from some product m g v, n v bar to m bar g n. So the things I put in there is they are attached to specific vertex, but they involve like the side classes which are also along an edge. So like the, the edge contributions, if I wrote this out carefully, would be part on one vertex and part on another vertex. Okay. Again, I don't want to get too much into, into the details here because we'll see a sort of more universal language for talking about the sort of formula. But this is the idea and it shouldn't actually be that surprising to you that, that the formula should look like this. Because if you, if you believe that these are all the relations on m g n, which again we don't know, if you believe that those are, are all the topological relations on m g n, and if you take a relation on m g n bar, well if you're restricted to the interior, the principle term, that should be one of those relations or a linear combination of them. That's this principle term. You can also do tricks like restrict to a boundary divisor and then restrict to the interior of that boundary divisor. That should, if you start with a relation, give a relation on, in general, some product of m g n and you would expect that you would get these f z type relations again. So because of that, you should expect that not only the principle term, but also all the boundary alterations should be related to f c relations in some way. If you believe those are really all the relations. Yeah, so, so the reason why this is contradicting each other is the details of what happens when you restrict to some boundary stratum. That you aren't just like picking out what's in the center, you're, you're multiplying by some psi classes more or less, because if you restrict to given boundary stratum, then lots of different components from other boundary strata will contribute. You have like a sum of a bunch of contributions which should fit together to make a natural f c relation in the end. And one of those things is multiplying by some psi classes. And that's why you start with things which aren't in the range, which would give relations, but then you multiply by psi classes to add some corrections from other boundary strata and you end up with relation. Okay, so that, that's sort of, maybe this is historical note about, about how, how one might guess this formula. If you're stranded on island and want to remember the f c relations and want to know what the relations on m g n bar is, you, you can work out what they are by thinking of, looking for something of this general form, which actually restricts nicely to these relations on the interior of every boundary stratum. Yeah, this is what I was saying before about these aren't really f c relations, they're given by the same formula, but they aren't in this range. This is only zero if I need size of sigma plus summation a sub i is less than or equal to 3d minus g minus 1. That inequality isn't, isn't required to, to hold when you distribute sigma and the degrees here. Right, so as, as I said, I will give a sort of better language for writing down this formula. It would be quite, quite annoying to write down the formula at the moment with what we know, but I want to talk now about co-mlogical field theories, and give and tell our matrix action on them, which it turns out is really the natural way of thinking about these relations. I'll always just turn this to coft. And I won't talk about these partly because they're the natural way to discuss these relations, but also because they're sort of, co-mlogical field theories are really ubiquitous in families, when you, whenever you've taught a logical classes on MGN bar, it seems that a lot of those come from different co-mlogical field theories. So these definitions and techniques are really important if you want to think about classes on MGN bar. So what is a co-mlogical field theory? It's, I have to state a lot of, a lot of data usually call our co-mlogical field theory something like omega. And at its base, this is some family of homology classes, of co-mology classes. So for every G and N, we should have some class. I'm also going to, there's also additional data, which need the data and, yeah, sorry, greater than zero. Yes, the same range I'm always talking about MGN bar. So what is this? This is really going to be a co-FT with the unit. The unit being the one at the end here. But what are all these things? First, V should be a, I'll say a finite dimensional Q vector space. Ada should be a non-degenerate metric bilinear form on V, so metric on your vector space. And I'll often use the notation Ada inverse to talk about the bi-vector, this is the element of V tensor V. Ada itself is in V. Dual tensor V dual, inverse should be in V tensor V. So if you want to think about coordinates, this is given by the inverse matrix of the matrix defining Ada. That will show up later. Element one will just be a distinguished element of the vector space. This is sort of the numerical data, this vector space in bilinear form. Forms the base of the co-mlogical field theory. And then these elements omega GN should be an element in the homology of N bar, rational coefficients. You could also define child field theories if you replace homology by child, but much less is known about those. So I'll put co-mlogical field theories here. I want to tensor now with take the dual of the vector space V and take N copies of that one for each marked point. So we usually think of this as it's a multi-linear function which accepts N vectors in your vector space and outputs in co-mology class on MGN bar. Again, for any GNN, you have such an omega GN. Okay, so to be a co-mlogical field theory, you just had us by, I guess we'll group them as three axioms. More or less the way you should think about this is that it's a family of co-mology classes on modular spaces of stable curves. For every MGN, you have some co-mology classes which are coherent with respect to the maps between the MGN bar. So first axiom is that MGN is invariant under the action of spectrogroup Sn acting simultaneously on both factors. It can relabel the N marked points in your giving an automorphism of the co-mology of MGN bar, and it can also permute the N factors here in your tensor product of N copies of V dual. It would be invariant under that if you're thinking of it as a multi-linear function on product of N copies of V two there then should be Sn act covariant as a function there. Second, we want it to behave nicely under pullback by gluing maps. So to say there are two types of gluing maps, maybe I'll just state this for case where it's simpler to say. So for if you have the gluing map from MGN plus two bar to MG plus one N bar given by gluing together two marked points, say the last two, we want to take the pullback of some class on MG plus one N bar plus we're going to take, I'll take omega g plus one N evaluated at some simple tensor let's say one tensor V two. So this is some class in the co-mology here and pulling it back to class there and the result should be equal to omega g N plus two. Now I have I can give it the same inputs I gave before but I need to give it two additional inputs. Additional inputs I give are precisely this by vector given by the inverse of the matric. So if you prefer you can think about this as elements here as you're taking on the right hand side you want to contract your tensor product of N plus two copies of V star by this by vector to end up with only N copies of V star on the other side. And I'll just write and similarly for the other gluing map. For the other gluing map you have two different curves gluing together one point from each so on the right hand side you'll have the tensor product of two copies of two things which look like this in your eta inverse by vectors or distributed over both pairs. It's the natural thing to do given this definition. The part two is saying that the co-mological field theory should behave well under pullback by gluing maps and behaving well is determined by this by vector contraction. The final condition you might be able to guess is about behaving well with respect to pullbacks by forgetful maps. I from mg N plus one bar mg N bar is forgetful map we want pi star of omega g N v one through v N something now we need to come up with one additional input to give omega g N plus one sorry into commas I should probably be consistent use tensors and well fortunately we have this this unit element. There's one last thing which it should possibly be separated out from three but it's really spirit doing the same thing which is that number m zero two is not it's not a thing we want to talk about so we can't pull back from m zero two to get m zero three so we can think of this as a formula telling us how to evaluate an insertion of the unit the unit acts as pullback but what if we wanted over here to write omega zero three of v one tensor v two tensor the unit so this isn't going to be pullback of omega zero two because we don't have omega zero two instead this should just be the metric applied to pair together v one v two so all right so these are the three axioms of a commutical field there right yeah I mean in in in theory you could you could wonder is there a formula like this for omega one one of the unit um the way to think about that would be you can compute omega one one of the unit by using the other formula since you can get m one one by gluing together two points on m zero three I mean m zero three is really special because it's only zero the dimensional modular space that we talk about data should be non-degenerate no so no though we'll mainly be talking about I mean get this in second so this is the basic definition but there are a few basics I'll give a list of some some examples of commutical field there is in a second yeah dude this is this is all you you want um in practice eight of one one will be non-zero in all the cases to I guess it will often be zero no eight of one one can be zero certainly um this will become clearer once I use these definitions to define an algebra structure on v so you know I'll I'll get two examples of commutical field theory in a minute definition quantum multiplication on v is defined by let's just say the beginning it's commutative associative um multiplication operator by star on I already said it was on v three determined by so if I take data of v one star v two with v three so if I tell you what this is for every v one v two and v three this will uniquely determine the multiplication because it is non-degenerate this is just going to be omega zero three of v one tensor v two tensor v three interpreting that as a rational number because omega zero three is just because m zero three is just a point it's a homology class on a point d sure I mean I was saying a as a because the fact that's commutative in the fact that's commutative is obvious from the fact that um I mean it the fact that's commutative is obvious from definition the fact that because we need to use the s three symmetry over here v two and v one without changing the value associativity is is a nice little exercise to do because you're actually going to need to use parts two two and three here more or less associativity here corresponds to looking at m zero four and using the um relation between any two points and m zero four are the same some of those properties you can prove associativity that way it's it's definitely not obvious from this definition it's implied by what we had before I should say that by three rather the last part of three one this unit element is in fact um they under this multiplication say this differently as we we choose one to be our end element this is a turns v into a commutative out associative algebra with the unit and it's actually more than that v becomes a Frobenius algebra because you have some extra structure given by how you define the multiplication here these the quantum algebra or Frobenius algebra of the homological field there right I mean Frobenius algebra more so from this definition you can see that um eta of v one tends v one product v two with v three equals eta of v one product v three with v two Frobenius algebra is more or less just a commutative associative algebra with a metric on it satisfying this this identity with respect to multiplication it's a Frobenius algebra of v two of t omega all right so you have this algebra structure which justifies why i'm calling this thing one they have some examples first example is going to be quite simple v is going to just be one dimensional eta is going to be one um of course one to matrix one the unit will actually be one and i just have to tell you what the classes are so these one dimension omega g n should just be an element in the comology of m g n bar and define it to be the total turn class of the hodge bundle hodge bundle i mentioned a couple days ago it's just the um vector bundle of one forms on your curve sections of the dualizing shape in general and so checking this is a comological field theory is just a matter of checking that the total turn class of the hodge bundle behaves nicely under these pullbacks basic properties of it i know that you have to use the the total turn class if you use like just the top turn class that that won't work because this gluing map here that have pulled back by changes the um this is an example of how um most comological field there is are going to be um not of pure degree there are mixed mixed comological degree usually certainly don't have to be but this is an example of why they have to be of mixed degree you can't have something always be of degree g because then when you pull it back from genus g plus one genus g the comological degree doesn't change but the genus does change this is this is an example examples hopefully convince you that there are at least some simple examples of this you can also modify this in a few ways to write down other other like one-dimensional comological field theories in terms of the turn classes of the hodge bundle now some more complicated examples i mean if you're in more than one dimension the examples tend to be harder there's the right all the details in this one makes they don't want to get caught up in defining the verlanda bundle but if you take the total turn character of the verlanda bundle or if you prefer to call it the bundle of conformal blocks then this will be a comological field theory and i should say so in the first case of course you can guess what the quantum algebra is the furbenius algebra it's just q nothing else that can be in this case though i mean i haven't told you to define verlanda bundle you need various input data like choosing a choosing a le algebra choosing a level the algebra though is going to be what's known as the verlanda algebra the fusion algebra that's a much more complicated example yeah so usually people were working with bundles conformal blocks for linda bundle if you just look at the bundle itself and think about pullbacks and satisfies various like factorization roles the bundle itself that implies the same that implies the comological field theory properties for the turn character of it turn character is basically a multiplicative function of the bundle third example i want to mention is actually technically not a comological field theory as i've defined it but it's almost one so from affliction theory of the target space x choose any x you want let's say so this gives say what i mean by gives it gives a comological field theory put quotes around it because it's like a comological field theory with coefficients so this notion of comological field theory it's coefficients it won't show up but again what i'm talking about but it's a variant on this so you can do coefficients in the novical frame power series in beta or really e to the beta where beta are effective curve classes on x so what's going on here is by coefficients you basically have to tensor all the definitions by some q algebra in this case the novical frame and so you can think of it as your function omega g n where you insert n factors it will output not a rational number but an element of this novical frame and yeah novical ring i i again don't want to get too caught up in defining this but it's and maybe i should say e to the beta beta corresponds to effective curve classes so this is basically taking the free monoid on the the i won't take the i mean it's a vector space with basis corresponding to the effective as a vector space it corresponds to the basis corresponds to the effective curve classes on your target space and the way you define this is for each curve class you have some space of stable maps to x with with image in that curve class and if you take the virtual classes for that for all curve classes beta and some of them together in a generating function maybe capped by some comology classes and then pushed forward to mg n bar you end up getting a homological field there in the sense with coefficients i should say here that b the forbenius algebra ends up being the quantum comology ring so the inputs that you give are comology classes and then you have some product role with coefficients in this novical frame all right so those are some examples to convince you that there's some geometrically interesting homological field there is i will give at least one more example tomorrow i also want to say one more construction you can think of another way of constructing comological field theory so given a homological field theory omega they may on the pair v eight of one that basically numerical data lowercase omega g n of some input factors that be the degree zero part of the capital omega g n so again in general this is some impure um comology class might have contributions in every comological degree just take the degree zero part then you can check because degree zero things pull back to degree zero um then little omega is also a comological field theory with the same other data v eight of one and has with the same with the same algebra structure the same forbenius algebra so this is now a comological field theory it's only in degree zero so it's not not really about comology so these are often called topological field there is a such degree zero f days are called topological field there is any homological field there is an underlying topological field there all right so in a couple minutes remaining i just want to say two more things first is important definition which is so we have this algebra here you can ask when is this algebra semi simple or maybe when is it semi simple after some base change and in that case you if it is semi simple you call the entire comological field theory semi simple write that eco of t is semi simple venous algebra is semi simple and then reason why we care about semi simplicity is tell them on more or less this is a statement of some of what he proved and proved more than this um this is also known as given tolls reconstruction conjecture and it's saying that it right now is given tolls or matrix action acts freely and and transitively on the ofts with a given semi simple for being this algebra i haven't defined given tolls or matrix action to an action of sometimes known as i guess the symplectic loop group um some explicit matrix action which once you write out definition will look very similar to the sort of graph some of those writing earlier about the relations on mg n bar how to get those from the fc relations our matrix action is doing some operation similar to that on comology of mg n bar it's an action comological field there is and the term of tell mom says that if you've two comological field there is with the same propenious algebra equivalently the same degree zero part that's the same then there's a unique our matrix taking one to the other and the result this is essentially is a classification of semi symbol comological field there is i'll write that what is this classification and even be very explicit any comological any semi symbol comological field there it can be written uniquely in the form are applied to a another into any comological any semi symbol comological field there a capital omega is given by applying some matrix action to its underlying topological field there it's equivalent here yeah yeah so if you think about how i defined the quantum multiplication i defined it just using omega zero three which is only in in degree zero so that gives one the that gives one direction the equivalency other direction is that you can recover any any degree zero information from the m zero three and that's just a matter of taking basically degenerating any mg n bar into lots of copies of m zero three bar okay that that will do it for today the plan tomorrow the last day is the outline how to use this this theorem of telemon classifying semi symbol comological field there is to actually get topological relations and explain how the relations i outlined before coming from the fc relations sort of naturally pop out of this r matrix action if you choose the correct comological field theory and look at it in the correct way to get topological relations but i should say this is a general tool the theorem that can be used to get explicit formulas for any semi symbol comological field theory at least in theory there's a question of how do you know what the r matrix is and there's a sort of second part of telemon serums and there's certain conditions the r matrix is determined by some differential equations actually in a lot of cases effective way of getting formulas for comological field theories again provide their semi symbol


What's up guys Michael you're a jaspies and this is it doesn't say it But it's actually our last filler for the curry mixer a little giveaway there It's just a one box break of flux five top five names will get a spot in the mixer here Let's see do all-card ship. No vet common ship. All right But yeah, just a one box break got all the names. Thank you to this group for getting in This list got all the teams in this list. Let's roll the dice two and a six eight times on the randomizer Both the names first one two three four five six seven and Eight eight times there Tristan up to Alan doesn't list here and then eight times again for the teams here One two three four five six seven and eight Eight times there Cleveland up to Miami. So I'm matching up match him up here. Make it look nice All right, so Alan with the heat Omar with the pelicans Aaron with the Celtics Alan with the thunder Aaron with the Kings Tristan with the Hornets Alan with the Suns Aaron with the Blazers and Timberwolves Andrew last spot mojo has the Grizzlies mark with the wizards Aaron with the rafters rockets and magic Alan with the Hawks and Spurs Aaron with the Bulls and Warriors Dylan with the Pistons and Nets Alan with the Kings Pacers and Mavericks Dylan with the Nuggets Jason with the Knicks Tristan with the Clippers Aaron with the Sixers Peter with the Bucks Tristan with the Jazz and the Cavaliers Let's print that out real quick Switch it over just the one box Filler here quick one. Good luck everybody. Oh There's definitely a new blade in that That's a lot Rex four to five inches is a lot not too bad there Sacramento. No, that's Memphis actually Jason Williams Memphis that's going to Andrew Wu last spot mojo. How about that? That's pretty cool Jaden Hardy silver Dallas Keegan Murray purple that one's for Sacramento to 75 Keegan Murray to 75 that's going to Aaron nice box so far the tari Easton there Don't let anyone tell you different What's how much has it gotten now Paul? og and a nobie those sunbursts or whatever those are called Not numbered Shade and sharp and Jaren Jackson junior to 75 another one from Memphis The Dame dollar Dame Keegan again Sengoon Silver Caleb Houston Joe Chris Paul three packs left Walker Kessler Nope Eric Gordon to 99. That's for the clips. That's going to Tristan and Jaden Ivy there In flocks Detroit is Dylan. Oh, it's a that's a second year kid actually a Kong Wu red. It's not numbered Jalen during there Last pack here And then we'll see who's getting into the mixer Who's it gonna be? Jane Lowry and All right, so actually a Decent box couple nice cards actually out of that flux Jaren Jackson Keegan to 75 Hardy and then a white chocolate autograph Grizzlies edition Switch this back here All right, so I got the names in the list again This is to see who gets into the mixer and again top five names Let's go into the top five names. So let's roll the dice again new dice Two and a four six times. Good luck everybody one two three Four five and six six times there Thank you once again to everyone who gave it a shot everyone who got in what does Joe say sad times for This group here whatever extra sad times for Jason. It was just one off there But five names getting in Dylan getting a spot Alan getting a spot Andrew's last spot mojo got him an autograph and a spot in the break Tristan gets a spot and Alan doubles up and gets another spot. So this group here these five names Getting into the break But yeah, awesome That's uh, that's gonna do it I think there's a couple spots left in the mixer two left. So we're gonna run that really really soon next up We'll be a prism one boxer, but Thank you once again to everyone who got into the filler and I'll see you guys in the next video. Thanks You


So here's the one skill that I believe that makes my patients love me without having to be the smartest doctor. Now, usually when you're in medical school, you're very over-concerned about being the smartest, being able to just take out information on random enzymes and random symptoms and being able to help a patient. That is definitely part about being a medicine, but sometimes being able to go into a room and just having a common presence of saying, we're gonna figure this out together. I understand why you feel bad. Here are the two or three things that I'm considering are going wrong with you. Let's make sure we're on the same page because that's not like a plan. Making that transition where you're the smart doctor and the patient doesn't know anything and you're gonna care for them to now saying, we're a team and I'm gonna use my expertise and you're gonna provide me the information to help better take care of them. You'll find that your patients will trust you much more than a will of somebody who's intelligent but has no ability to socially interact with patients who are struggling. So if you wanna make sure your patients love you, take that extra bit of time to listen, to educate, to go ahead and communicate to make sure you guys are on the same page. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If your patient doesn't trust you, you can't be a great provider to them. Now, if you enjoyed those tips and strategies and want more just like this for your medical journey, go ahead and hit that like, subscribe and follow for more content just like this one.