I'm very glad to be back in the Institute and especially to be looking at cooperation with Japan in a very important area. A country, Japan, where I served for just two brief years in the embassy between 2000 and 2002 under Ambassador Poric Murphy with my colleague Franco Donohue, who's in the audience, who's still working on Irish and EU-Japan relations, and where some of the most dynamic leadership on Irish and European relations with Japan were, of course, provided as ever by Tom Hardyman, whom delighted to see here today. I'm very pleased that we can talk now about common challenges. We've looked at our own situation, we've looked at Japan's situation, but what we're going to look at now I think some of the most pressing common challenges that none of us can escape and none of us should try to escape. Japan has shown great leadership on global challenges and on development, where it is in volume terms the fifth largest provider of official development assistance globally. The European Union collectively provides just about 55 percent of total ODA, total official development assistance, and Ireland as current presidency of the European Union, but also as a central element of our foreign policy, regards development issues as central to foreign policy issues. And we have a tradition of providing assistance, but more importantly working in the area of development and learning all the time how the global challenges of development are more than just the provision of assistance. It's 40 years now since the Irish government established its aid program, and I think it's very important to note that it's not a coincidence that that coincides with our accession to the then EEC, the current European Union, because that is one of the, I suppose, obligations that you take on board when you join the European Union, which is to look at development at the provision of assistance to those in the world who are less well off than ourselves. So I think the European Union has, the heads of state and government have just completed their negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework, and while the Commission and NGOs and many others might have felt that the amount provided for development instruments was not as high as they would have hoped, we regard it as very important that it still represented an increase, no matter how slight, over the previous multi-annual financial framework, and that at a time when, as you know, budgets everywhere and EU budgets are under great pressure. Ireland and Japan are two very different countries, but we have taken on board a sense of the need to work on development issues, reflecting a sense of our responsibility, our moral responsibility, but also, crucially, I think, our interests, both nationally and globally. Japan's program is quite different from ours in some respects, but as we heard from you, Madison, earlier, Japan makes a major, major contribution in Africa through the TAICAD initiative, and we in our way in Africa are much smaller, but a prominent actor nonetheless. We cooperate with Japan in some still relatively small respects in Uganda and in Zambia, and I think there is great potential for Ireland and for Japan to cooperate more closely in Africa. So just very quickly to give you a sort of a broad oversight of what our development program looks like at the moment, the context where we are coming from as Presidency of the European Union and entering the debate on global development. We have a program that is completely untied. It is completely provided in the form of grants, no loans. We have now, at the moment, eight priority countries, our program countries, where we have commitment to long-term strategic assistance. Seven of those are in Africa, and one, very interestingly, is Vietnam in Asia, obviously. And there was, among the development community, for want of a better term, a little bit of unease and questioning about why we opened a program in Vietnam. But I think you only have to visit that country to see exactly why we opened, because what we're seeing there is a country which is moving through the different phases of development, moving into middle income status, or towards middle income status, and where you can see that we can see our own program moving from the provision of working with government for the provision of basic services through economic assistance, learning from our experiences. To be very honest, we had, in 2008, we were planning a program there, which in the slight hubris of the moment was to be known as the Celtic Tiger program, but that name disappeared pretty quickly. And it's where Vietnam had asked to learn from our experiences. Well, now they've been able to learn, and we've been able to share experiences for good and for ill in economic growth and in building up an economy. And, for instance, our Economic and Social Research Institute, our central bank, and other institutions work through the program in Japan. Also, our Enterprise Ireland trade promotion people work in Vietnam through the Irish aid program. So some of the barriers which were seen in the past in terms of development programs have been broken down, because we can see that development is not just about the provision of aid for basic services, it's about helping countries in their interest and in our interest to move through the phases of development, so that they can drive their own development. Once you've built up the social services, inevitably you're focusing much more on economic activity and on trade activities. So I think we will have a lot to learn in our African programs from our program in Vietnam. And I think it's fair to say that Vietnam is a country where you could look ahead and you could see the point at which our relationship with Vietnam would change away from the provision of aid towards much more exclusively a sort of a political cooperation and a mutually beneficial economic and trading relationship. That's to divert slightly, but I think it's just important to make those points. Nonetheless, over 80% of our assistance and our aid program goes to Africa, to sub-Saharan Africa. We provide about two-thirds in bilateral aid, one-third multilateral. We channel about 30% of it through non-governmental organizations. We work particularly closely with them, probably because of the experience over the years of Irish volunteers and missionaries in working in Africa and the very strong non-governmental sector that we have here. And our focus is very strongly on the fight against extreme poverty and on hunger. And we have made a very strong priority in recent years on focusing on the global hunger crisis, not just in terms of food price crisis, such as there was in 2008, but the chronic systemic crisis that exists, which leaves some 900 million people without an uptweet in our high technology, in our high technology world. A world which actually has the resources to feed the people. And the technology, there are very simple solutions available to end the hunger crisis, and yet we have to ask why they are not being adopted. We look at, in particular, in our program, smallholder farmers, building up smallholder farmers, which is one of the, in Africa, 80% of smallholder farmers are women. And it's one of the most effective ways of building broad income growth in Africa is to look at smallholder farmers, to look at new varieties of seeds and agricultural practices. And we had some very interesting discussions with Bill Gates on this just a few weeks ago when he visited Ireland. And also on the issue of nutrition, which hadn't been looked at much before in terms of development, it was seen as a non-development issue. And the scaling up nutrition movement in which Ireland has taken a leadership role and Japan has taken a leadership role, is actually looking at the impact you can make on societies and individuals by focusing on the first two years of a child's life. The first two years, if you intervene in the right way, in terms of providing nutritious food, you can make changes which then feed into education and society and economic growth.   Ireland's official development assistance now stands at about 0.5% of our GNP. Back in the 1970s, through a whole series of cumbersome negotiations, the international community arrived at the objective of spending 0.7% of GNP on development assistance. It's not the best measure of the contribution you make, especially in a changing world, but it's the measure we have and it's the measure against which we hold ourselves and others to account. And Ireland, as I say, having reached in 2008, 0.59% of GNP is now providing around 0.5%. Now, our experience in 2008 was a very good example of how it's not the best measure because we were racing in volume terms to increase, to chase after our very high GNP growth rates. When the government cut the program in 2009, 10 by about 30%, because our GNP fell so precipitously in those years, we still did not fall below 0.5% in our... So I don't think it wasn't... The 0.7% measure wasn't designed for economies that are booming and collapsing. It's designed for a much more, a much calmer way of running your economy. Nonetheless, we are, on the latest measure, the joint eighth highest provider of development assistance in per capita terms. So in areas where our reputation may have taken a dip over recent years, development hasn't been one of them. And that's why we regard it as essential. It's an argument we always make every year when ministers are fighting in budgets. The reputation of the country, we believe, is another reason why we should maintain a strong development policy. Therefore, we have been very pleased, actually, that this six months of our presidency is the particular six months that it is because this is a period where the world is looking to the framework for international development post-2015. We've been working under the Millennium Development Goals since 2000, which set very clear, tangible targets for the reduction of poverty. But the world is changing, and the MDGs come to their target date as 2015. And our presidency takes place at the start of the period of substantive discussion of the post-2015 international development framework. So in development, we have three broad areas for our priorities for our presidency. One is to get a strong EU-united position for the UN event, which will take place in September in the UN General Assembly week, 25th of September, probably, on what to do to reach, to maximize progress on the MDGs and to start looking at post-2015. Our second priority is to make greater progress on linking actions and funding on humanitarian relief, response to emergencies, and long-term development, so that we don't make the mistakes that have happened so often before, where you go into a crisis, feed the starving and leave only to find that there is a chronic structural crisis and famine returns, say, five or six years later. And thirdly, we want to, and we believe this is very important, not just for the effect on people's lives, but also to make the best use of funding that is available to break down the barriers that still exist in thematic approaches. You often find in development that your education people don't talk to your health people, who certainly don't talk to your climate people, and who don't talk to your water and sanitation people. And we are looking, in particular, at the links between hunger and nutrition and the effects of climate change. And we are organizing a major international conference in April, along with the Mary Robinson Foundation and the World Food Program, on those three themes and how the experience in the daily lives of communities in poor countries can feed into the post-2015 debate. Now, we held an informal meeting of development ministers in Dublin just two weeks ago, in Dublin Castle, and we brought to it in order to open the post-2015 debate. We brought in outside speakers, we brought in Mary Robinson, we brought in the deputy head of USAID, we brought in Aminah Muhammad, who is the special representative of the Secretary General on post-2015. In order to have that first substantive debate among EU ministers, we brought in three commissioners, Development, Humanitarian Affairs and Crucially Environment, and I'll come to the significance of that very shortly. And we looked for the first time really within the EU at substance rather than process. Everyone knows the European Union loves process, but you have to every now and then move a little beyond it to talk about substance. One of the criticisms of the MDGs is that they were handed down from on high and that there wasn't enough consultation. So we are now in a year of global consultations internationally, which is a great period to be in, but of course next year will be much more difficult as we have to make choices and look at how we focus our objectives and our goals. But it is true that the context, the global context is hugely different today from what it was in 2000. It is different nationally and it's different globally. But first of all just to set out very briefly what has been achieved by the generation of action and resources under the Millennium Development Goals. All too often development assistance is seen as a bit of a luxury or something you do in good times, the charity notion. We would argue that this isn't charity, it's interest, but it's also effective. People say all too often that development assistance is not effective. And yet since 2000 the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a day has fallen from 43% to 22%. The target of having that percentage was reached in 2010. And yet still with population growth 1.3 billion people still live in extreme poverty, 900 million people face hunger. On the success side again between 1990 and 2010, 2 billion people gained access to safe drinking water. Primary school enrollment over the past 10 years has risen enormously and is now at 89% with moves towards gender parity. Although still far too many people are out of school and still you have to look at the issue of quality and you have to look at pushing that through to secondary and third level. The chances of children dying from disease has fallen considerably, HIV infections are falling in large part due to the retroviral drugs and huge investment across the board internationally. Global ODA over those 10 years rose by 70% to some 96 billion with the EU providing in 2011, 53 billion of that. But also crucially it's not just because of ODA and that's the really important point. Trade, global trade has increased hugely in the years from 2000 to 2009. Global exports rose 40% but exports from developing countries rose 80%. So you can see that the future actually does lie once you've once you plug the gaps and provide the basic services, trade is going to be trade and economic growth are the engine for development if we can get if we can get to that point. So there are new opportunities, new contexts, the MDGs have had successes, they missed certain areas, they didn't necessarily then perhaps looked more at quantity rather than quality. The issue of gender equality perhaps wasn't addressed as clearly and specifically as it might have been. Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile who's now the head of UN Women was in Ireland last week and she made the point that we all agreed it was politically correct not to have specific goals on gender equality but to mainstream them across everything except that that last political visibility and frankly it didn't advance gender equality to the extent that it should have. And we believe that the goals perhaps didn't look sufficiently at the drivers of hunger and especially on the on the issues of nutrition. And also in the changing context we have to take a different approach I mean the emerging there are new actors in development the private sector is more involved the emerging economies are more involved the the geography of poverty is shifting the majority of poor people as we heard at the conference last week that was held in Dublin will soon be living in cities and the majority of poor people will be living in in middle-income countries while at the same time sub-Saharan Africa in particular is an area that is lagging behind on all these measures. There is one particular measure that has been almost really difficult to shift and that's the issue of maternal mortality the the numbers of women dying in childbirth remains far too high and hasn't been reduced to the same extent of some of those other measures that that we have. So the questions of population growth and climate change do it's clear that they are posing the threat of undermining the progress that has been made. I mean one statistic that I saw is that not just in terms of long-term development but just in terms of the the just in terms of the resources that have to be devoted to natural disasters since 1992 some 750 billion has had to be devoted to coping with natural disasters and there have been 1.3 million deaths from natural disasters and these uh Japan is very well aware of this experience from its own experience and I know that Japan has played a major role in focusing attention on how to cope with with natural disasters. Likewise the processes that we've set up to deal with with with these challenges these global challenges are still too separate and for instance climate change discussions have taken place in one forum development discussions have taken place in another at a time of huge budgetary pressure we've agreed budgetary targets financing targets for development and in theory or in principle separate targets for climate change for overlapping activities actually and also with the knowledge that probably the developed countries are not going to meet those so we have a huge issue of of of bringing together our analysis of the challenges we face but also how we're going to generate generate resources to meet them even the arrangements that we put together for post 2015 are segmented the Rio conference on sustainable development last year decided to set up an open working group in the United Nations to try and craft sustainable development goals there's a high level panel co-chaired by David Cameron under the under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General looking at post 2015 and the millennium development goals and yet we are all agreed that these two processes are supposed to bring us to a state where we try to put together a single set of new goals not sustainable goals and development goals but one set of goals for the international community post 2015 ideally with universal application although it's easy to say that and there was great agreement on that at the informal development ministers meeting but then what exactly does that mean if every country is to be held account across a whole set of goals and also does that mean that the fight against extreme poverty gets relegated or does it mean that we don't generate the same action and resources as we did as we did before so I think as we see it at the moment we would hope that post 2015 we maintain and strengthen the international community's fight against extreme poverty we address the gaps that there are that there have been in the millennium development goals we perhaps set ourselves the goal which has been talked about of eliminating extreme poverty in the world in a generation which is achievable but we have to be realized that we can't do so without addressing issues of environmental sustainability and the limits of the planet where there and the resources of the planet where we live there's a fundamental link between global environmental sustainability and the eradication of poverty and and and the crafting of these objectives and the creation of international momentum behind addressing and fighting for these objectives is a huge challenge I think for the global community over the next two years and I just would conclude by saying that one thing I think is clear in setting goals and and is that to galvanize public and government support and that is absolutely crucial to galvanize public and government support to generate financial resources both from government from private sector and from innovative sources of financing the great phrase that is always used when we're not 100 sure where the the gap in financing is going to be is is going to come from and to ensure that we generate action and not just aspirations I think we can say at this stage that whatever goals we do agree will have to be very clear they'll have to be understandable to the public they'll have to be measurable statistically robust and politically feasible they'll have to deal with both quality and quantity and they will have to they will have to galvanize as I said the support not just of the development professionals not just of government but of the public so that's the challenge that we and the global community face it's it's it's it's often doesn't receive the attention that it deserves because the issues involved are perhaps so huge we often only come to these issues when there's a natural or man-made disaster but it is clear that given the resources of the planet given the way we're using them and given the persistence of poverty and the growth in our population that we actually cannot avoid these these these these issues and that they're vital foreign policy issues that need to be addressed now rather than when the disasters increase and in our in our presidency in the next few months we will be hoping to guide the European Union towards council conclusions for the September 2013 UN event we want to try and do so and this is this is an enormous challenge is to work with the European institutions to ensure that the environment and development foreign affairs ministers can adopt the same set of council conclusions if we can do that we will have achieved something that people thought was not possible now hopefully then you translate that great achievement into action that affects people's lives rather than just words on paper in Brussels and and then we would hope that also in June when the G8 meet in in Northern Ireland we're working with Prime Minister Cameron to ensure that there is somewhere in that process a sufficient focus on the issue of of hunger and poverty and and also then we will move to the UN process in in in September where the international community has to decide how to move from September 2013 to a major summit meeting perhaps in the first half of 2015 to adopt these goals and this new approach that I have been talking about and Ireland again there I'm glad to say has a role to play as our ambassador in the UN has been is the co-facilitator for that September 2013 event so we've a busy agenda I look forward to hearing from our Japanese colleague on on your approach but I know that there's a great commonality in our approaches to these global challenges and that perhaps out of this meeting today we will understand that commonality better and maybe even oh good and then and then also that maybe out of this we will we will be able to agree as some practical areas of further cooperation between Ireland and Japan so thank you very much for that


There would be people that would have wanted to buy this land and immediately rock pick it and turn it into a monocultural field so they could plant soybeans or corn, these higher commodity priced crops. Luckily this land, most of it is in a permanent grassland easement so it cannot be broken into perpetuity and had it not been a grassland easement I would have put it in one. This will protect this land from ever being broken. Grasslands are not the the poor land, it's not the pasture, it's not you know kind of the wastelands. This is an ecosystem that is by far probably the most important ecosystem we have in North America and yet it is disappearing at extraordinary rates. It would be equal to the rainforest, you know equal to the boreal forest. I mean this is what we have in North America that matters and you know there's a small little track of Tallgrass Prairie that runs even you know down in Oklahoma and Kansas and comes up through almost North Dakota to Canada and yet you know that slice is getting thinner and smaller as people keep converting and inside this track of what we call Northern Tallgrass Prairie it's just being fragmented all the time and you know it's not like you can turn it back to prairie. Once that happens you are disturbing the infrastructure under the soil and oh yeah okay we'll see it back to prairie someday. It takes a hundred years, a hundred years for it to ever establish what you had to be getting rid of. So you're much better off to try to maintain what grasslands are left for native grasslands and try to work with them to make them as healthy as possible. You know it goes even beyond this conversation about monoculture versus grasslands. The juries in grasslands are where it's at needs to be preserved absolutely integral to our human existence.


As at the time of making this video, my father is an heterogeneous in his 80s, he was born by poor parents and he to his poor, so growing up, I never knew a single day when my father had enough money for our needs.  Growing up, my family is almost always in recession, now the opposite can be true too, you can build a life that is recession proof, you can build a life which economic recession doesn't affect at all, and that's what I want you to see in this video, by sharing with you 3 kinds of people that will suffer most during this recession, if you're an entrepreneur or an ambitious person, we specially invite you to join our motivational channel which is designed to give you daily inspirations so that you will have the strength to pursue and achieve your most important dream. We call this channel HOND TV and you can join in the description box, one, those who pay other people first. Growing up as a child, my mother always told me don't eat with your 10 fingers, the meaning of that adage is don't spend all you earn, I knew what she meant at that time but I didn't understand how important it was until I grew up and started having financial responsibilities. Today, I eat with my 1 or 2 fingers, when it comes to keeping and investing money, I should be considered an extremist but most people in the world are just my opposite, they spend as fast as they earn, in fact some spend faster than they earn, I understand everyone believes that they would save or invest money if they earn a little more than they are earning now, unfortunately that's like saying you will stop sleeping with different girls when you get married, it doesn't work that way because it's a habit. Saving money isn't much about how much you have but about your money habits or your money mindset, what is your money mindset, my life has always been about earn, invest and spend, I only spend whatever remains after I've invested and often time it doesn't remain much so I hardly have much to spend, opposite is true for most people, the financial mindset is earned, spend and try to save, often time there's nothing left to be saved or invested.  2. Those who have low paying skills Robert Kiyosaki told the story about how son asked him what advice he had for an average investor and his response was don't be an average investor, this is true regardless of your industry or field, if you're average meaning you're like everyone else well, when the weather goes bad economically, your job or business is at risk, however if you're having some high paying skills, you might not even know what the weather looks like outside because you'll be under the umbrella of the most high. 3. When I started out as a speaker and writer Since I am an entrepreneur, I haven't speak of writers do everyone should be an entrepreneur, however when I grew up and got more insight into how life works, I discovered that not everyone can be an entrepreneur, more so you don't have to be an entrepreneur to be rich or happy, but there's something you have to do and that is, you have to strive to become one of the top 10% in your industry, this is about acquiring valuable skills. 4. Then someone will ask me what is the valuable skill, this is like asking what is the best food in the world, the answer is it depends on which part of the world you live in and who you are, for example if I was in the technology industry, being the best guy when you're talking about coding, web design, app development means that if everyone loses their job, I will remain valuable. 5. If I'm a sales person and I learn, study and master the art of sales, so much that I'm among the top 10% sales people in my company, well no crazy company fire best sales people and if I'm fired, a hundred other companies seriously need me right now that the market is difficult. 6. Over the last one and a half decade, I have studied entrepreneurship, marketing, human and the abiding psychology deeper than 97% of the people in the world, what it means is that, I tend to know how to create things that people want to buy, what this also means is that, while economic recession can affect me, it will probably not break me, you can get my point here don't you, you don't have to be an entrepreneur, a musician, an athlete or other people you think are rich but you have to strive, study and work smart to become one of the very best people in your field, 3. Those who think money doesn't matter, I spent about 3 years of my life in a particular church where they preach that money doesn't matter, no they won't directly say that money doesn't matter but they might say something like money is the root of all evil, you will take nothing out of life, riches come with sin, in fact a chrisian brother once told me that anyone who has money is close to hell fire, I know you might not hold some of these extreme views about money but that doesn't mean that deep within you you take financial freedom very seriously. විවඅවිය ඇතය්ාව ඬ඿෋දයුත් ණධම්ු එක්ාටු ඒමේ්,වවීනිණු කලො,වුනිවියුක්.වක්මු දුණුඹුත්ෝ මීක්඼ානිඵ.ැවෙලාීමික්ඩ් Top you don't need it after you're dead, but if you don't have enough of it, you cannot live.  Yes, nobody can spend a billion dollars on food in a lifetime. Yes, nobody needs the $100,000 Rolex watch, but if you don't have enough money to cover your basic expenses and a little more, you can't be a truly happy human. The name of the game is called Desire, Burning Desire. If you don't have a stronger burning desire to build wealth, you won't build it. And when times like this comes, you are likely to suffer. Change your money mindset, stop paying other people first, increase your value in the market. Acquire relevant skills which others in your field don't. Have a burning desire to be financially free.  The objective of the channel is to give you daily inspiration so that you will have the strength to pursue and achieve your most important dreams. We call this channel HOND-TV and you can join in the description box. We love you.


and welcome to episode number 13 of what sex got to do with it. And we're here with my favorite 84-year-old great-grandmother. You know what, maybe I'll just have to live a real long time, and then you can start with my favorite great-great-grandmother. Yes. That's a goal to strive for, right? Yes, definitely. And then the fact that you say you've kind of started off. And then there wouldn't be so much competition.  It means I have to live a long time in order to do everything I've wanted to do. Yeah. So, so, so, so, so, let's have it. You know, but this chapter, chapter 12 is called the economics of desire, as we always do with the basis. The basis for this is that sexual desire, particularly in women, can be triggered by the economic prowess of the man in question. And I say can be. It often is. The women I interviewed, the trait that headed the list, intelligence, of course. But that's kind of a generic term. People mean different things by intelligence. But control of material resources was at the top of the list. The trait that influenced a woman's choice of her partner. This is going to be a hard chapter for me to, you know, interview you on, because there are just so many questions I have on this one.  So I might be a little rude. Oh, be rude.  But I love listening to you. So you talk about me, how we eat that when we do surveys or whatever, it becomes apparent that for women, an older man is preferred. And for men, a younger woman is preferred. First off, is that across cultures? Yeah, I think so. Although my area of expertise is within this culture. So I don't want to speak for all cultures. When you say women prefer an older man, it's not the age that they're selecting for. It's age. Enough time enables a man to accumulate resources. When I did my research, there was no internet dating scene. But today in the era of internet dating scene, one of the statistics that was in, again, the New York Times and the Washington Post informed a lot of my ideas that was reported in the paper, was because it's easy to measure how many swipes left, swipe right, that men, the ideal age for women, in terms of what men preferred, was 18. In terms of women, the ideal age for men, I think, was 55. That doesn't really mean much, except that a 55-year-old man has had much more time to establish some economic stability. I think if a woman saw, if an 18-year-old woman saw a 22-year-old man with the same control of economic resources, that would be more likely found in someone 55, his youth would not work against him. So I think it is correlated to just economic security. What's the preference, though, for younger women?  So there would be a preference on younger women because there would be more reproduction potential. Oh, absolutely. That's it.  I mean, young women look healthier, stronger. They move easily, more easily. So, you know, they're a good choice if you want healthy children and they have more years to be reproductively active. So, yeah, there's a reason. You know, there are evolutionary reasons, obviously. There are people who run counter to that. But, you know, we're used to seeing men who were they not wealthy would not be sporting the trophy wife on their arm, what we call a trophy wife, that they are. And that's kind of a cliche, you know, the old man with his trophy wife, which may be his fifth or sixth wife, because as the age he might tend to divorce them and his wealth enables him to attract a younger woman. I don't, I don't, that's not particularly behavior that I would recommend or that I personally admire. But, you know, I think we all are aware of the existence of that behavior. Right, gotcha. You know, so this is a minor curiosity question because you mentioned that, you know, most men and women do eventually have children. Do you have to know what percentage, you know?  There is more women reproduced than men. But it's hard to get the exact figure. But in fact, women are more personally reproductively successful than men are. Interesting. That's really interesting. Go ahead. Well, because women are selective.  And so if a man is sort of at the bottom of the economic pile, he's going to have a harder time finding a partner. Oh, I get it. Yeah, so yes, women are more selective than men are in terms of choosing their partners for all kinds of things. I get that. Yeah. But then you said that most so. So essentially, I think the conclusion I'm drawing is that women will choose me. They're more selective about them than they choose. And because of that, the fewer men get chosen, you know? And so it would. Like one man, I just was talking about a very wealthy man who might have multiple wives. That's one man, you know, say he's had five wives and had children with all of them. Right.  So that's how it works. Right. So it's really trying to get at how the... The dynamic of it. Well, not so much the dynamic, but that's part of it. But also how you end up with a mismatch because you would imagine that you'd have equal number of men and equal number of women you'd have in children. So are you saying that there are more men who have multiple wives over the course of... Or have children with multiple wives. And there are women that have children with multiple men. Like I've been married twice, but I've had children with only one man. Right. My second husband was very, very generous about contributing to the well-being of my children. Was that a timing issue or a choice issue? What's a choice issue? I had a child from a former marriage. I had two children from a former marriage. I want neither one of us wanted more children. Was that a possibility? I was young enough that I could have had more children. But his enthusiasm, more than willingness, his absolute enthusiasm to invest in my existing children was one of his charms. I must confess, not only my children, but every time he came to see me, he brought dog biscuits for my dog.   He fed the dog. How could I not fall in love with this man? You know, in the generosity thing, because you're saying that, that's one of those like... What do you call it? I mean, not soft traits. You call it... There's a term you use for those types of traits. Generosity was one of them, that you think that women could be selecting. Oh, women do select for that. But you called it something. I'll scroll back at some point. I'll mention folks at the beginning of the next chapter, because I'll scroll back and find it, because you called it a certain kind of trait. Generosity was... Oh, generosity. I mean, really, for a woman who has children, when Jean, that was my second husband's name, and I was a poor starving graduate student when he met me. I mean, my kids and I were living on a very minimum income. And he would take us out to a Chinese restaurant and essentially order everything on the menu. My two kids, his daughter, and any of their friends who wanted to come were more than welcome. Early on in our marriage, and Jean and I married very quickly after we met my daughter, looked at all the food coming to the table and looked up at me and said, don't you just love Bob's? He's so excessive. And yet he was. He was over the top generous in all ways. Well, food is the way to a person's heart. So, look, I just have to... One of the other things I really enjoy about reading, your writing, I think you're a really good writer. You have a lot of turn and phrase. So we're talking about Fifty Shades of Grey. And you say, Fifty Shades of Grey is less about the erotic turn on of bottom spanking and more about the economic turn on of the bottom line. Actually, let me read that correctly. It's less about the erotic turn on of bottom spanking and more about the economic turn on of bottom lines. That's great. I think that's really good. But you do say that. What kind of makes it not so creepy is that it's a wealthy guy and that if he had been a poor guy he would have a whole different tone being more like a stalker. And maybe an abuser. But how about this? What if it was a penniless woman dominating a billionaire? A penniless man? No, a penniless woman. A penniless woman dominating a billionaire. Well, I'm sure he would be paying her plenty to dominate him. Okay, now, you didn't take my premise. You took my premise and you changed it. Let's stay with my premise. A woman? Give me your feet back to me. Sure, sure. So would it be creepy if it were a penniless woman dominating a very wealthy man? Not quite as creepy maybe because she's not exploiting his need for income. So the fact that a very wealthy man is actually dominating this penniless woman in some sense he's really exploiting her vulnerability, her economic vulnerability. So in the case where it's a, what was it? A penniless woman. A penniless poor woman dominating a billionaire man. She's not exploiting. He's not economically vulnerable. It's happening because he wants it too. Yeah, that was just kind of a fun question for me. No, it was fun to think about. Yeah, so I'm bouncing around a bit here because like I said there's just so much in this chapter. So you talk about greedy people and it's essentially a problem caused by greed. Do you think people who are greedy realize that they're greedy?  Do you think they just rationalize me? Oh, I think they rationalize it, sure. Yeah, I think they rationalize it. Because the character in Wall Street, I mean Gordon Gekko, I mean he said greed. Greed is good, yeah. People often forget though that parenthetical phrase that he then says like greed for lack of a better word is good. And so for me, that to me was sort of like, you could say well he embraced greed. But that parenthetical phrase though kind of softens it up and then you kind of realize... Can we the parenthetical phrase? Greed for lack of a better word is good. Yeah, I don't think there's a better word for greed. I think that's a little bit of rationalization going on there for lack of a better word. Greed is not good. Controlling more of the resources... Controlling so many resources that by your controlling them other people are being denied. And that's what greed is, that is not good. Yeah, so I wasn't saying it was good, I mean. So I was just kind of pointing... No, no, no, I didn't think you were. But really what I was getting at though is that do you think that people who are greedy realize that they're greedy? I think we're all very good at rationalizing. I don't have more than my share. I've earned this. I've worked hard for it. Nobody wants to believe that what they have did not come to them honestly quite frankly. I'm good at doing that myself. This very generous man that I was married to worked for a very large corporation. And his quite nice salary was built on the backs of people paid minimum wage, scooping mashed potatoes and college dorms. And I don't like to look at the fact that I have a nice condo in Arlington and I do love my condo that was paid for by people who weren't earning the money they needed just to have what they needed. So I myself am good at rationalizing the origin of wealth. And certainly my husband who was a generous man and would give anybody literally the shirt off his back neither one of us were very good managers of money. He would not like to think that his salary came at the expense of someone else. He absolutely believed that his talent was fully earned and yet I say absolutely less so than most people because he did one time say to me, he was five years older than I am, he said you're my very privileged generation. He said I graduated from college in nowhere. Men my age did not have to compete with women, people of color, any job that I applied for I got. He said the economy was booming post-Second World War and he said so I don't know what it's like to apply for a job and have any kind of competition. And that points to so he did have an awareness of his privilege that came of being white and being male. I mean the privilege born of being white and being male and my privilege is born of having been married to someone who was white and male. Well it's very touching that I did trust me with my intention to get to that emotional state. No, no, no that's it. I love conversations. You know we learn from each other as I was saying to you before we started this session a question you asked me a few sessions ago I woke up one morning thinking oh I know the answer to that question now. So it's so good to be in dialogue with people because that's how my theories develop. We can always email me or you can even call me when that happens and don't have to worry about waking me up because I turn my volume of my phone off when I go to bed. So it's like a plan. I thought of the answer to that and I love it. So that's now part of my explanation of how the first children born of that chromosome fusion happened to have mates and I'm going to just quickly give it here. I think it's possible that COVID has made me aware of it. Look at all the body parts that a COVID infection can hit. Neurologically, lungs, heart, liver, reproductive organs, COVID toes, taste buds, impacts whole body organs. Look at our genome. There is what used to be referred to as junk RNA and junk DNA just because we didn't know what it did. And then it was called dark RNA, non-coding RNA. Those are viral in origin. And imagine if there had been a huge pandemic that somehow whatever the virus was, weakened the telomeres on the end of the second chromosome, which I now believe is possible because of what COVID has taught us. Most viruses aren't studied that closely. People can have COVID and not know they have it and yet it can be impacting body parts. So imagine that the second chromosome, the telomeres were just a little weaker than normal and this pandemic came through the primate, the non-human primate population and weakened those telomeres enough that suddenly chromosome fusions are happening more frequently than they would have. And so when you were asking me who would that Adam or Eve have made it with, I thought, oh, it could have been the result of a viral infection. So see, that's what conversations make me think. I wish I'd thought of it before I wrote the book. Well, time for another book from the late boom. So focus on the greed thing. So look, greed, I think, to a certain extent, it's kind of wired in because we want more. And as you said, our language allows us to accumulate more whereas other species can't. So it's not like they wouldn't, they just can't because they don't have the language. Absolutely more is, in fact, Michael J. Ryan's book, A Taste for the Beautiful, is what alerted me to this obsession with more and he was not speaking about humans. It's true in all species, but they're limited physiologically and humans are not. Symbolically, we can control everything. But given the greed is such a motivating factor, do you think we could maybe pay people to incentivize them to do things that would be good for the environment? Oh, yes. Or charge them. Rather than pay them to do things that are good for the environment, charge them for doing things that are bad for the environment. But I generally think that the carrot works better than the stick. The carrot does work better than the stick. If you hit that dopamine response, the carrot works better than the stick. So maybe it's just a way to kind of get people to try to pay them. Yeah, well, there are people now who are very given to service that are already doing things that are good for the environment. A lot of people, particularly young people, it's already happening. I don't think that's the solution to our environmental problems. The goodwill of people who feel good. Or even get paid, like working in, like Teach America, those kinds of programs. They have a program you're doing environmental good. It's not sufficient. It's good. It makes people aware. It raises an awareness of environmental damage. But I think if we want to change, we're economic animals. We respond to cost-benefit signals. No, it's good yet. The benefit, yeah. But also the cost signal. We have the cleverness. Those people are good at algorithms, which I'm not. Can look at any item we buy, this cup, this table, and calculate what the environmental cost of everything that went into it is. And charge. For example, organically grown food ought to be cheaper than factory food. Because factory food has inflicted a terrible cost on the environment, factory food production. But what those corporate farmers do, what do I say? They privatize the profit and socialize the cost. Once you begin charging for the cost of food produced that way, then it flips. And then the reward is food that doesn't damage the environment and its production. It is actually cheaper when you charge what are called the externalities. All the externalities associated with producing a product. If the product reflects that cost, rather than corporations or corporations and they do it, almost all of them do, privatizing the profit and socializing the cost. I'm sure we're coming from this. Once again I'm trying to think of how do we get me to a point that is better in a way that is politically palatable. I'm talking. I think that trying to force those who have more, it's just going to create a lot more resistance than if you try to create a system where you tell those who don't have, we are going to give you money to do the right thing. And they could then create the political drive to do it. You know, if you say this is what we're aiming for, this is why we want to tax these other individuals. And so sure, the wealthier is still going to have to pay more, but it's being driven by people who go, but you know what? There's something in it for me, and what's in it for me is actually going to help the environment too. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I just don't think it's enough. I don't think it's enough. I think it's a good idea. You know, I think a lot of that is happening already. But we have to get money out of politics. That's a tough one. That's tough because who would vote the programs that take money out of politics, the very politicians who are benefiting from those programs? So I think exposing, I think exposing what's going on, that I think privatizing profits, socializing costs, I think once people catch on, hey, wait a minute, that's not right. I think a recognition, hey, there's something not right about that. And maybe there'd be a level of shame. And I don't know. So I have two ways to go here. So growth, is any growth really sustainable? I mean, certainly, compounded growth is not. Yeah, compounded growth is not. I think... What about linear growth? I think some growth is sustainable. But the thing we have to keep in mind, we have a finite planet and we are a species with infinite desires imposing our infinite desires on a finite planet. I think once we realize that we are destroying, you know, we're killing the goose that's laying the golden egg, actually, hey, wait, wait, wait, what we're doing is going to make life untenable for future generations. I think then we may begin to reevaluate. Certainly, we can use resources more efficiently. And that makes growth more sustainable.  We haven't run out of those things. And in part because of our technological skills, we've switched to other resources. We're also because we've learned to use those things more efficiently. And what forces the efficient use of a resource, a scarce resource, charging the appropriately cost for using it? If you have to pay a lot for, say, oil or electricity, you begin to use it more carefully. You use less of it. You figure efficient. You design things that, you know, you can get the same outcome with less input of a scarce resource. So that can happen. That can make it more sustainable. Right. Well, as I said, I was going to bounce around a bit. So I'm going to bounce over to you, but you say, I think this is Taki, who sets this, you know, quickly scanning. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, I guess that was a popular slogan in the socialist movement. And you say today's corporate capitalism would be, I would say, summarized from each according to his ability to each according to his power.  So it is going to be like the power of the majority. So it really, I think it's really a matter of do those in power, then watch out be for those who aren't in power. So it's always about power, right? Yeah, a few sessions ago you brought up the issue we got into positive power and negative power. I think it always is about power. But there are ways to design policies that keep power from being exploited, exploitative. I think I would focus on exploitive power. Some power is exploitive, and we have to design policies that punish for exploitive power and charge for exploitive power. You have to pay. Yeah, and also power that looks out for those who don't have power, because even though the majority may, may, should win elections, you know, it doesn't mean that the majority gets to abuse the minority, so I feel that leaders often, they get elected by the majority, but they have to look out for the minority. And I think maybe that's a distinction we need to make, leadership versus power. Leadership is controlled, or is concerned with everyone. Power is not. Power is wanting for yourself. That's it. Yeah, whereas leadership. So you want to elect leaders, not people that are just powerful. We're drawn to powerful people, but I think as voters and as citizens, we have to, and as women, choosing partners to make a distinction between someone who's just interested in raw power and someone who's a leader. And there is a distinction, a pretty major one. And it sounds like you're talking sense to the species with all the answers. That's going to be the next chapter. Thank you, folks. Len, we're crazy. Yes, we are.


the same concept is here for any kind of prepayment and insurance is the biggest is the most common example because insurance by definition is something you paid for before you did they gave you anything right you didn't get the coverage you can't get the coverage and then pay for the insurance you have to pay for the insurance before giving the coverage now if you pay for insurance every month then if you just expense it monthly you're pretty close and that's probably not a problem but if you pay for a whole year's worth of insurance up front which is often cheaper and so therefore many people do it then you're going to have the same issue where you have this big the insurance expense say in january if you paid for it in january versus february and therefore the typical method from an accrual standpoint is like with the furniture and equipment you put it on the books as an asset and then you've got to determine how much of it you have consumed over the life thus far as of the cutoff date and make an adjusting entry this time not making a contra asset account as is done with fixed assets but just writing down the insurance account directly so so we'll dive into that in more detail you could do a prepaid insurance for any kind of expense account if you prepaid it but there's certain type of expense accounts you're more likely to do that with


Back when we first conceived of Model Railroad Hobbyist in 2008, our vision was to produce an all-digital Model Railroading magazine using Google's Internet Business Model. Helpful free content for readers, but supported by advertising. After all, people expect content on the Internet to be free, but why disappoint them? Grow your audience in an unbounded fashion through a free-to-read model, and let advertisers ride along as we grow to eventually reach every Model Railroader on the web around the world. And that's just what we've done, growing an average of 30% year-over-year, with no sign yet of slowing down. So to make this digital magazine have a rich format, we'd do a PDF, but we'd design it from the ground up for a computer screen. So instead we used a landscape format, so it fits on the typical computer screen without scrolling. We also adopted a slightly larger than normal body font size of 16-point, to make the text easier to read on a screen. We also used a dark gray font ink instead of dark black, to make reading our pages easier to the eye. But that was 2008, and a lot has changed since then. Smartphones and tablets are quickly becoming the most common Internet-connected device today, outpacing desktop computers and laptops. These new mobile devices are always on, always connected, and for smartphones especially, they're always with you. In fact, studies are showing that some connect to the Internet only with their mobile device, and they never use a desktop or laptop ever. Given these trends, MRH is announcing our new Gen 2 magazine. Mobile Railroad Hobbyist, redesigned to take the best advantage of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, while still keeping the same great reading experience we pioneered back in 2009. To make MRH more readable on devices like smartphones, we're taking our landscape page and splitting it down the middle, to create a new portrait page orientation for smaller screens, while maintaining a facing page view for larger screens. We're also making our body font 18% larger, so the page is more readable on a smartphone. This means our page size now becomes a new portrait page orientation, and a full page ad is now portrait instead of landscape. Another benefit of going this route is it's now easier to repurpose your print ads into our magazine, because the page orientation is now similar to print, and our ad sizes now more closely match your print ads. Ok, with that said, it's important to remember we're talking about ads that need to look good on smaller mobile device screens. So advertisers, you need to think larger fonts and obviously clickable buttons on your ads if your goal is lots of clicks. For advertisers, remember digital ads should not sell product. Digital ads should drive people quickly to your website, and your website should sell your product. Advertisers need to think very simple ads with large fonts and big obviously clickable buttons. MRH's Gen2 ad formats include templates designed to guide you as to the best font sizes to use, and the templates include a reminder to put clickable buttons on your ads if you want clicks. So remember, MRH is the front door to your website. And we're evolving to be more readable than ever as people move from desktops and laptops to tablets and smartphones as their personal web-connected device of choice. MRH Gen2 is coming January 2013.


Do these drinks dissolve your teeth? Well, as you know, gut health is certainly trending, but we tend to overlook the very important microbiome in our bodies, in our mouths, the oral microbiome. And it's the first contact your body has with the outside world, so it's critical to keep your oral microbiome healthy. So let's take a look at the three worst drinks for your teeth and mouth. Soda. Yes, even diet soda. Soda is loaded with acid and phosphates that are really good at dissolving enamel, number one. I grew up in Omaha, Nebraska, and my next-door neighbor was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and he used to do a fun experiment for his son and me in his kitchen, and he would take a bottle of Coca-Cola and he would take a tooth that he got from dentists in the local area and put the tooth into the glass of Coca-Cola and watch to our shock that the tooth would be eaten away by the Coca-Cola. That made a tremendous impression on me for a little while, and then, of course, as a surgeon, I began drinking eight glasses of Diet Coke a day. I guess I forgot that lesson. But these things are really good at dissolving enamel, plus the phosphates in many of these sodas have been implicated in producing osteoporosis, and who wants that? And remember, almost all diet sodas not only have that acid load, but they're also loaded with artificial sweeteners, which destroy your gut microbiome.  Juice. Now, juice is just another fancy way for main sugar, particularly fructose. We now know that bacteria in our gut and yeast in our gut, candida, absolutely feast on fructose. They prefer fructose even more than glucose. So fruit juices are loaded with fructose. They also impair the ability of your white blood cells to engulf bacteria.   Interestingly enough, long ago, my wife and I practiced a raw food diet for about a year. And quite frankly, got to know a lot of raw foodists, a lot of very famous raw food chefs. Many not all of these raw foodists and chefs gave up raw food, because so much of a raw food diet is fruit based. And these people had huge dental cavities, had huge amounts of gingivitis, because of the amount of fruit that they had in their diet. And it's always reminded me that be careful that we are not frugivores. We are not supposed to subsist on fruit. And fruit is a really good way of destroying your gums and your teeth. Similarly sports drinks. Sports drinks are loaded with usually sugar, artificial dyes. Have you noticed many of them seem to glow in the dark? These dyes have no place in food. They're more and more regulated. We are now finding that these dyes are increasingly toxic. They're toxic to our immune system. They're toxic to us. And they're toxic to a healthy microbiome. So stay away from the sports drinks. Now what are the two best options for your teeth and oral microbiome? Well number one, you've heard me say this before and I have no relationship with them San Pellegrino mineral water. San Pellegrino I love for two reasons. Number one it has the highest sulfur content of any mineral water. It also has been tested to have the lowest number of impurities of any mineral water test. Sulfur is incredibly good for our oral and gut microbiome. It serves as a base for many postbiotics including hydrogen sulfide which is actually incredibly good for your blood vessels. Now please avoid other carbonated waters like La Croix or others. Italy has a law that the pH in waters have to be balanced in carbonated waters. France and other countries including the United States have no laws to balance the acidity in carbonated beverages. So those of you who are using your soda makers at home, please get rid of that. That's not a health benefit. You want San Pellegrino. My personal opinion is if you want a drink like a cola pour a tablespoon of balsamic vinegar or other vinegar for that matter, apple cider vinegar in your San Pellegrino, you'll have a refreshing cola or sports drink that's going to benefit you and the short chain fatty acids and polyphenols and vinegar are going to benefit your microbiome and more importantly your mitochondria. Alright, tea. I have a great tea that promotes healthy teeth and gums called Brassica tea made out of a component in broccoli and broccoli sprouts. Yes, sounds terrible but Brassica tea made by the Baltimore Coffee & Tea Company and I have no relationship. Brassica tea has been shown to have really fascinating anti-cancer properties. Brassica tea was patented by Johns Hopkins and all of my cancer patients I prescribe Brassica tea and I have it in my office and it's part of my daily routine as well. Macha tea. Macha if you get it from Japan rather than China is a great way of getting the full benefit of green tea plus it's loaded with chlorophyll as well. Be careful. There are many additives in Chinese Macha tea that I think we need to be aware of. White Willowbark tea. White Willowbark tea many of you may know that contains a small amount of salicylic acid and fun fact we need a small amount of salicylic acid that's aspirin to activate long chain omega 3 fats into anti-inflammatory compounds called resolvins. Now they're not going to be a test on this but I actually have White Willowbark tea every day in my tea. What do you do about staining of teeth? Well I can tell you my dental hygienist just loves to see me coming because I get a lot of tea stains on my teeth and she thinks it's just great fun.  Okay to sum it up put that soda sports drink or juice down right now and pick up a spot of tea or San Pellegrino for a beautiful smile and more importantly a happy oral microbiome. I hope you enjoyed this episode of the Dr. Gundry podcast. Make sure to check out the next one here. What if you could cut out sugar for a full 30 days? Well I'll tell you this you would notice some remarkable changes to your health and your appearance.