There's a target. That's where we should go, right? On our way to Target, because we forgot to buy a card reader. We went fast. We didn't know how long it was going to take. It's 2019. We're here. We have spot on radio row. Shout out the Roosevelt's. Dear mighty things. They sent us here. They're hooking us up. They're making this all possible. We go to Roosevelt's and use discount code Jambino for 20% off fun shirts like this. We got like 20. We're going to be wearing a ton. Can you say something? Passing. Number one Elmo voice impersonator behind us. Jake Locke dies briefly. We're going to try and corner him. It was intercepted. I think we got to follow now. I think we're invested in this. Let's go with Chase down to the sun. Passing. I'm thinking about passing by him. I can't grab his butt, right? That's like harassing him. He doesn't know us at all. We've talked to him slightly. Strasberg just got announced. Strasberg just signed. Going back from that. Do we have the writer's room? Do we get some reactions? Yeah, let's get some instant reactions. We can post that on Twitter. This is the lobby. People drink beers here. Sit around. How are you, dude? How are you doing? Just touring up there? Oh, look at it. Congratulations. I'm going to the gym. I'm very happy. This hurts. It's too real. I don't need a windshield.  I'm going downtown. Roosevelt's. Sent us some shirts to give away. What size shirt are you, my man? That's a large. Roosevelt's. The great Hambeano. Can I get one of those? You have to share that one. I'll take that. I'll give you one. I'm not giving Nathan. You just deserve one. I don't know. You got a large? Looks like an XL, I don't know. I'll take whatever you're giving away. It's pretty stuff. I've seen these. They've got the hot dog. They're fantastic. Nathan, you get one. Jake, you're the man. Thank you. Roosevelt's. Roosevelt's. Free stuff. Roosevelt's. One of our questions. He was one of the few. I actually got it correct. And then we saw a gentleman wearing a Roosevelt's t-shirt. We said nice shirt. He said nice shirt because it was. And he said, oh, Jared gave it to me. So we're going to find out what really is going on. I wonder if Jared made him answer a similar question. Right. He'd think so. Or like maybe he bested him as a man. Because otherwise it doesn't make sense. Maybe Jared got rocked. Let's go see. What's the survey question? You answered a trivia question. Thanks for that question. I was like, if you want a shirt. So thank you guys. Roosevelt's. Day three. Winner meetings. Roll with the punches, bro. That was good. I feel haggard. Two nights in a row of drinking. That's the first time I drank two nights in a row since I was young. Same for me. But since two nights before this. We're getting in a van. Phil Hughes sent a van to come get us. We're going to go open some cards with him. And... We're going to put the Yankees today too. And he may kill us. Or we may just open cards together. Come with us, friends.   Sprinter van. Decked out. It's got a TV over there. Good morning. And welcome to Jake Eats. Just another normal day for me where Phil Hughes has made me a burrito. I asked for a good Southern California record. I asked for a good Southern California breakfast. Phil Hughes, if it is, I'm going to make these losers burritos. Jerk. It's good. Theresa. You like Theresa? Yeah. Your name's Billy too?  Well, we're here. We need anything? I need my bag. I'll wear my sunglasses. I'll fit in. Look at this thing.  See that? It's a good place to die. 7-1-2-1. Pie number. These are your cards? Yeah, we're just like in general. Because I'm just going to be helping hands. That is going to help me open this box of 1993. How did that kind of come to be? It can't be true. That's not a great story. It is. If it was in the food room, when they go to the pen, for me it was like I had options. I could be sent down. And so for me, I was like, he already called me in his office. I'm like, I know what this is about. And it was like, hey, you've done a good job. It was the year I think chiming along was coming back from a shoulder thing. Yeah. And he was ready to come back. And so they were like, hey, you're the odd man out. We're going to put you in the bullpen. And I was like, oh, that's awesome. I don't want any more AAA, you know, meals. Did you feel like it was? Yeah. Calls going to the Yankees. We know that. Team work. Welcome back to San Diego, everybody. We are still here at Winter Meetings. I'm Julie Alexandria. If you want to follow them, do it right now. Break out your phone. This is just water with us.  It's done. We're gone. We had fun. Crazy week. 50 interviews. Three days. 50 interviews. 20 podcasts. So many Roosevelt shirts and shout outs. Two new friends. Two new friends. Go to Roosevelt's. Eat Winter Meetings. Dare mighty things.


Well I say 5, a couple of these seem to be bogged so they appear for some and not others or they appear at some times of the day and not other times of the day but I'm pretty certain they are bogged and will be fixed in a future patch.  How's it going guys? My name's DPJ and if you enjoyed this video leave a like really helps out and if you like what you see and want to see more Cyberpunk on a daily basis be sure to subscribe. So there are 5 vehicles you can get in this game without paying a penny for and for the most part I've rewarded to you for just playing the game and today we check them out. In fact a couple of these you can literally run and grab as soon as you start playing. Ok so first up and this one is a little weird, it's called the Colby CX140 boot or but whatever that says. This is a car which seems to be there for some people but not for others. We haven't figured out what triggers it to spawn in but in my opinion I don't think there is one I think it's just bogged. I've almost done everything on my main character and it isn't there for me yet my power who's just completed the prologue went there and got it straight away. So even the badlands as you can see I've been pointed on a map right now it's like a filming production set up with a couple of dead bodies lying around and a couple of cars scattered about the place. But this car well for some people is also sometimes sitting here and it's as simple as just jumping in it and there you have it, it's yours you own it and it really is that simple but for others like me it just isn't there and I can't get it to spawn in no matter what I do. So go here, check if it's there for you and let me know. Ok so next up guys and if you haven't completed the prologue yet, spoiler warning in three, two, one, ok so next up we have Jackie's bike. So Jackie's bike is pretty special, it's called the Arch Nazar and it looks amazing but you should get this bike no matter what choices you make as there's a point within the prologue where you have to send Jackie's body after he dies. If you pick his family this opens up further side missions with Jackie's mum who will call you and eventually you'll see yourself getting Jackie's guns as well as his bike. If you opt not to send Jackie to his family and pick to send him to Victor's clinic his mum will eventually leave the bike keys outside of your apartment and it's just the case of going to pick the bike up and well from there guys you have this bike. But hang on, there's another version of this bike on this list so don't go anywhere. But next up guys and we have in my opinion the most iconic car in this game and that's Johnny Silverhand's Porsche and well although this isn't the fastest or best handling car in the game, guys it's a Porsche it's a must get. So to get this one you need to get quite away through the stove you're completing and getting to the stage of a side mission called Chippin'In. This is done by completing the side mission Tateworm, Tateworm is automatically completed upon talking to Johnny Silverhand within four story missions along its chain. The story missions are automatic love, transmission, life during wartime and search and destroy. Once you've completed them you should get the side mission of Chippin'In. Towards the end of this mission you will meet a dude called Grayson, here it's very important that you do not kill him. When the opportunity with the dialogue comes up you need to choose you got lucky and let him leave. He will then give you the keys to a container, within that container is Johnny's Porsche and there you have it guys. An amazing car to add to your collection. Ok so next up people we have another version that arches our motorbike and this one labelled the Smade. Now this is the end of a side mission reward from the highway man's side mission. But guys you don't actually have to do this mission to get this bike, you can actually just go to this lockup as you can see on the screen now, enter in a code and take the bike away. So you can see this happening on the screen now of where this bike is located, so once here simply enter the code of 0214. The lockup opens up and you can simply grab this bike and ride away with it and it's yours. Now we'll state this is another one that's bugged for some people, as it wasn't there for me. For some reason the mission for the bike isn't there, which is called the highway man. This side mission opens up after you complete the prologue mission to ride. I've completed that obviously, I've completed the game but still the highway man's side mission isn't there for me, isn't in my completed, isn't in my quest to do, it just isn't there for me. And if it isn't there for you guys you may not be able to retrieve this bike, but it seems as though most people can. But thanks to my pow my life crisis for this footage as you can see the bike is there for him. His channel can be found on the link below if you want to check him out. Ok so lastly guys we have the fastest car in the game and that is the Rayfield Caliburn. But this Bugatti wannabe is probably the easiest to get from this list, as it's the simplest entry in a cave system, driving up to it, jumping in it and driving away. Now we'll state like the two bikes I've mentioned previously, this one seems kinda buggy as well, and I experienced this first hand. As when I first went to get this car it wasn't there for me. I ran up to where you eventually killed Nash in the Panamside missions, I come back and all of a sudden the container appeared and it was there. So I don't know whether this is on a timer, I don't know whether it's a timer day, I just don't know what's going on here, but for the most part it seems to be there for most people. So hopefully it is for you too and you can see its location on screen now. But there we have it guys, 5 amazing 3 vehicles for your driving pleasure, and I hope you don't have any problems with bugs with any of them. And unnoted the end of the video has arrived, if you enjoyed it leave a like really helps out, if you're new around here and want to see more cyberpunk be sure to subscribe and if you never want to miss a video I upload you can turn notifications on by hitting that bell button. But guys thanks as always for stopping by, hopefully you enjoyed the video and hopefully I'll see you on that next. One.


As patron of the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, it really is a pleasure to be in a position to reflect on the immense work that has been undertaken since the establishment of the Forum and to look forward to the exciting work planned for the coming years. As Ireland's National Advisory Body for Teaching and Learning, the Forum has engendered such a spirit of collaboration and inclusion right across the higher education sector. The work of the Forum centres on ensuring that those who teach are supported and valued so that those who learn can be inspired, engaged and prepared for their lives beyond higher education. In just a few short years, the Forum has collaborated with the sector to establish a roadmap for digital teaching and learning, Ireland's first national professional development framework for those who teach in higher education. It's established an award structure that celebrates, shares and enhances outstanding impact on student learning and assembled a vast evidence base to inform decision making at national and institutional levels. It's so heartening to see that students always take a central position in the intentions and in the actions of the Forum. Their input, their voices have echoed right through all the Forum's work. Its little wonder that a recent international review of the Forum described it as an essential component of the national level infrastructure for higher education in Ireland. Indeed the national Forum has attracted great attention internationally, with higher education systems across the globe looking on an interest at the developments that have taken place here in recent years. As we look to the future, the Forum is set to build on this solid foundation, continuing to work in partnership with students, with teachers, with leaders and policy makers to create a valued teaching and learning culture in Irish higher education. One that is characterised by innovation, inclusivity, collaboration and informed practice. One that maximises the learning impact for our students.


Now, we're up 135% and it's increasing. The bank reserves, which to me tells me, there are liquidity problems in the banking system and with that, there's no way they're going to cut back on the money supply. You do not have a stable system. I wish it were otherwise. I see very bad times ahead, very high inflation, potentially hyperinflation. Inflation is in the news, whether you're looking at the escalating costs of just being alive, the record number of companies actively talking about inflation on their corporate earnings calls or Federal Reserve Glitterati, who recently observed that inflation was high, but transitory. It seems like things are getting hot. I'm Adam B. Levine, and this is Speaking of Bitcoin. I'm joined as always by the other host of the show, Stephanie Murphy. Hi there. And Jonathan Mohan. Hey, hey. Andreas is out this week. On today's episode of Speaking of Bitcoin, we're digging into this growing topic no pun intended with the help of special guest, John Williams of Shadow Stats, who's, frankly, a personal hero of mine. Got to say, John, thank you very much for your time today. My pleasure to be with you. So my goal today is to understand not just how inflation is measured and what it really tells us, but how and why, just broadly speaking, government statistics have a tendency to change how they measure whatever it is they're measuring over time. But to start, let's zoom back to the 1970s, a period that we're told had historically high inflation. So OK, John, it's the start of 1971 before Nixon closed the gold window. Can you pick up the story from here? Well, let me pick up the story a little bit before there, because what you'll find is that up through 1970, 71, going back to the early days of the Republic, the inflation pretty much had gone along with the price of gold and the currency was tied to gold at that point in time. Nixon moved off the gold standard. And all of a sudden gold prices start to soar. And so does the actual inflation rate. So they seem sort of tied together. But to come the early 1980s, the people in the federal government said, gee, we've got a problem here because inflation is rising and we need to boost cost of living adjustments here to keep people even with social security. So in order to do that, what they did was they changed the way they reported the CPI to lower the headline cost of living. And the first big shift was, I think it was 1982, they revamped the cost of housing, major portion of consumer price index. What they did at that point in time was to completely redefine it instead of where they had had a component, just a sub component of the index that was tied to the actual cost of what's a buying a new home, which people did. What they did was they reclassified the index to homeowners equivalent rent, what a homeowner would charge himself to rent his house from himself. And then the monthly inflation was calculated in terms of how much he would raise the rent on himself each month. Absolute nonsense number. That sounds like a nonsense number. Like, was there any kind of discussion at the time when that change was made that sort of justified it? Or what was the argument for doing this outside of what you talked about, which is the government would like to keep cost of living adjustments, which the government has to pay for with money it could use, you know, that they tax from us, obviously, but that they could use for other things besides paying, you know, the people who they owed it to. What was the argument? I know no rational argument for it other than what they described. They're just trying to cut it down. Nonsense, they had no way of estimating that. What I can tell you is the effect for that one year was that it knocked one and a half percentage points off of CPI, annual inflation. Now, in this last year, we had in terms of the headline inflation for 2020. I think we had headline CPI inflation around 1.3 percent. So had this one change not been made instead of being 1.3 percent and assuming just went along and did it the way it had been done before, you'd be up closer to three percentage points in that headline number last year. But that was not the only change. They made change after change going forward, trying to reduce the cost of living adjustment. The changes were made up into the 1990s, but the effective cumulative change is about seven percentage points. What I started to do at the time, and I argued with the people back in the time, was whatever they took out, I just added back in. I said, okay, here's what you're taking out. I'm just going to keep calculating it the same way you were doing it. The difference it has made since the early 80s is about seven percentage points. So right now, where we're looking at an extraordinarily high headline for the existing series, six percent, let's say year to year change, that would be up about 13 percent on my basis. And there's a lot of evidence that what I have done here and what would have happened had they not played the games is a much better indicator of headline inflation. So when we're talking about your measurement, effectively what you're doing is you're just using the way that inflation was calculated before all of these adjustments started in the 1980s. And then you're just saying, all right, well, if we use the same data that we have today that they're using to generate today's inflation measurements, but we use the old methodology. What do the numbers show us? And what do they chart over time, right? Exactly. And what they do show, what you're telling us is that there's about a seven percent difference between the way that inflation is calculated today versus the way that inflation would have been calculated then. So yeah, so that's in terms of year to year change. Right. In terms of year to year change. So then what that tells us is that if we're looking at inflation that is, you know, nominally call it four percent, but then has an additional seven percentage points added to it, we're looking at only about a third of the inflation that according to the way the government calculated these numbers in the 1970s and previous to that, that would be. So we are actually at around 13 percent inflation. Yeah. I just want to point out, like we didn't really give John this introduction, but I just want to say, like, so what John is doing with shadow stats is calculating government statistics about inflation, but not just inflation also, like the economy and unemployment, which we can also maybe get into just using their own yardstick, but from a different time and then comparing that with what the numbers are now. Is that right, John? Effectively. Let me just give you a quick background here on me. I was in a family business from a kid on where we imported a chainsaw from West Germany. I was educated to take over the company and, you know, in the economics and such. I got into economics, found it very interesting. And in the late 70s, I had developed along with some other people, some new econometric models on the economy that were pretty good in forecasting what was going to happen. When you get into an econometric model, as I use today, there's been grand scale things to try and forecast where things are going into the future. You need some kind of a lead time because all the underlying variables of their coincidence, you have to first assume what the underlying variable is going to be before you can make the forecast. So I specialized in developing econometric models where it could predict and it could go about nine months into the future with actual numbers based on what had already been reported. You didn't have to make underlying assumptions. And with that, I developed a pretty good client base. The problem was that again, in the early 80s, the government started to just revamp the numbers. And it was not just inflation. Indeed, we usually got later the unemployment, the GDP, there are all sorts of factors that got manipulated, restated. So that's when I found a shadow stat, because I knew where the numbers were, but it was not what was being reported in the headline data. So what I found myself doing was specializing and putting out effectively restated things such as the inflation, such as the GDP, in terms of where they were in terms of the way the average guy would view the economy. Back before 80, most people found the numbers reasonably accurate. You get after that, the average guy says, well, gee, you know, I'm getting these inflation adjustment payments, but I'm not able to keep up with my lifestyle. The reason he's not able to keep up with this lifestyle is that the inflation numbers are understate. The GDP booming along, but guess what? A good part of the GDP is tied to inflation. And then this is where the inflation numbers have all sorts of unusual twists. But in terms of the government's standpoint, that there are a number of advantages from having it understated. Number one, in terms of rehab to make cost of living adjustments, which the government had to, the lower the inflation rate, the better. Number two, in terms of reporting headline economic data, the way most data reported are net of inflation in what's called real terms. And the higher the inflation rate, the weaker the economy, the lower the inflation rate, the stronger. So if you could reduce the headline inflation, guess what? You could increase the GDP. And that's exactly what they did. And I figure right now that if you had the same GDP, the same type of calculator on the GDP, as it was before all these fanaticans started, what we're seeing is GDP growth right now, real growth. It's maybe 2% below where it was, which means basically after they started all these gimmicks, you haven't had much real growth, the real being again, the inflation adjusted growth in the GDP. And then as we got along into the politics tied to NAFTA, they changed the way they counted the unemployed. The big thing there, 1994, right outside of NAFTA, they decided to redefine the unemployed measures. The headline unemployed stayed the same, but they had broader measures. The broadest measure they had there included discouraged workers. And these are people, they were classified as discouraged workers because, A, they weren't looking for work. But the reason they weren't looking for work was because they couldn't find a job. After 1994, if they couldn't find a job after one year, they're no longer counted. Yeah, but they're still unemployed. They're still unemployed and they're still discouraged. They're still looking for work or want work, but they've given up. So the difference knocked you up another 9% or such on the unemployment skill right now. I mean, I'm looking at unemployment over 20% in terms of people who would like a job, but they've given up looking for work against what is otherwise a very heavily inflated unemployment rate still with all the crazy things out of the pandemic. And on top of that, the Bureau of Labor statistics has not been counting all the unemployed people from the pandemic. If you read their monthly press releases, they'll say, you know, here's how we calculated dump the dump. However, we may have misclassified 600,000 unemployed people as employed. We're telling our people they need to do better in their surveying. This has been going on since the pandemic started. They still haven't been able to get it straight now. And if you listen to Fed Chairman Powell, he admits very openly, he said, look, the unemployment rates understated. I didn't hear him say anything at this last press conference, but the one before he had it up around you figure is up around 10%, which in terms of regular unemployment calculation I could buy. So you're looking at circumstances here that are not normal, not realistic, and some in substance. Now I'll give you some background to it. Number one, the economy is not as strong as advertised. We've had a much deeper plunge in activity. We're much lower from recovering where we should be in inflation is running a lot higher than their advertising. It's not a happy circumstance. And at some point, the markets are going to be catching up on that. So John, I have a big picture question I want to ask you. It seems like a lot of these statistics are basically being manipulated to the point where they don't really match with people's experience of their life. Yep, that's true. Yeah. And I think everybody knows that. But what is the benefit? Like, why does the government continue to do this if it's so obvious that these are not an accurate reflection of people's lives? Is it just about cost of living increases? Who benefits from manipulating the GDP numbers, for example, to create a rosy picture of the economy when it's maybe not true? Well, in terms of the where you have a direct financial benefit is with the CPI numbers. The rest of it is political. And look at the popular press, Wall Street. They're all tied together. Wall Street always tries to put out a happy picture because they want to sell stocks. The people who are involved in the the economists with the big houses there always try to put out a rosy picture on the economy. I'm independent and I can't tell you how many times I run into people say, Oh, I completely agree with your outlook. But you know, I have to say it's like this. I'll give you a very specific example without getting into names. Really, is it more like a decade or two back? Maybe even three decades. But it was with on CNBC. I was talking to the people there and I told them I was looking at a recession in the next year. It was probably in the 80s. Like, you get the specific dates. And I explained it to them and the people there said, Gee, that's very interesting. I had had some dealings with them. They want you to come on and talk about it. But you know, then, since you're contrary to the consensus, which at that time was for forming economy, we need to have someone on to provide a counterpoint. So that's fine. So they bring on a well noted economist from Wall Street who was providing the counterpoint. The two of us sit in their green room before the show going back and forth. He says, Well, what are you looking at? I said, Well, based largely on what's happened to the money supply, I'm looking at a recession in the next year. And he says, Yeah, I think that's the consensus. We get on the air. I give my pitch. He says, We're going to have a booming economy in the airhead. He had to put that out because of the nature of his employer, Wall Street press. You have something of a financial press here that has to cater to Wall Street if they want to get advertising and things like that. Wow. And that was decades ago. I'm still seeing it happen. It's, you look at the press and you see a real bad number of building and they look who puts out the positive side on it and they come up with all sorts of inventions. I'm talking here now really pre-pandemic because of pandemic circumstances beyond anything anyone's ever seen before. But right now we're starting to get real hype as to how good things are. And things are indeed are better than they had been. But for people trying to measure the economy, I can tell you two things. Number one, we're still in a depression and number two, until related circumstances, which I'm about to highlight, you're not going to be seeing a recovery. Before you get into that, John, I just want to ask you just another follow up question to that. So if people's common experience, as you say, doesn't match up with the official numbers, I would think that the government kind of loses credibility over time when they're reporting on the status of the economy. At what point did they lose all credibility, or do you think that they already have? Well, from my standpoint, they have, but in terms of the average person, a lot of people out there who, frankly, are willing to accept what they hear. They're not economists. I can tell you, the average guy is not doing as well as advertised even today. The thing I find most powerful about what you do is you were saying before someone was asked your opinion. But on the website, Shadow Stats, it's very hygienic. You're just taking what the government used to say and applying that metric. So it's not, this is what John is saying. This is what the canonical statement that the government would make was, and then it changed to this and then it changed to that. And I know that it's so overused, but what you do is shine a spotlight on like a true instance of Orwellian double thing, where it's like, now we're at war with Britannia. Now we're at war with Oceania. We've always been at war with Oceania. You look at the way that they calculate inflation and it reminds me sort of like civil engineering. No one ever goes and says, well, in the 1970s, they had this understanding of civil engineering, but now we have a better understanding of civil engineering. But when looking at buildings from the 70s, we're only going to apply our understanding of civil engineering in the 70s on those buildings. And we're only going to look at civil engineering on buildings today that are built with our understanding of civil engineering. It's a better understanding of reality. You apply the best understanding consistently. But what you shine a light on is it's much more like a mosaic, like a quilt of fraud, where every time they change the structure of how they calculate it, it's always narrowcasted to the few years that they apply it to. And then the next year they change and the next year they change it. When you look at the actual graph, it's not here's one consistent framework for evaluating it. It's here's this quilt of all these different untruths that are internally inconsistent to one another. But that's the reality you have to live in. Yes. But I've never heard it expressed that way, but you're absolutely right. The only thing I would qualify there is that with the inflation numbers, the games they played, they sort of ceased in the late 90s. But nonetheless, at that point, they done the damage to the system. They never got it all the way to where they wanted it was pretty close. With the GDP, they have ongoing games that they're playing with that in terms of inflation and such. With the employment, that was redefined in 1994. And the effects of that are ongoing, but it was massive in terms of its impact. So in some of the numbers you have sort of breakpoints where all of a sudden the things changed. And the other like the GDP just ongoing with some of the creative things they come up with. I think where it draws its most sort of stark conclusion is I try to sit down with someone who's well school in economics, manages a family fund, but is a traditional Keynesian. And I say, well, look, here's how they pulled the shadow stats website. Say this is how they calculated inflation in the 70s. This is how they calculate it today. Let's just apply these heuristics consistently across time. Is it true using the understanding that the 70s was a depression that right now we have an economic boom or is it true using the understanding that we're in our session right now that the 70s was an economic boom, because you have to agree to one of these frameworks for reality. You can't say that both are true yet neither are true. But depending upon the outcome, they're both true but not true at the same time, which is the current understanding of when you look at inflation. Yep, that's a fair assessment. Let me tell you why I use the name shadow government statistics. Because they keep looking at the numbers. And we have extraordinary problems upon us right now with the pandemic. Now I can give you some heads up and things that are coming within the next month or so. Extraordinary. And the Federal Reserve's in the center of this.  And of course the politicians on both sides like to have happy numbers. But the Fed right now is in a very difficult circumstance. And what's happened here, really extraordinary. In terms of the economy, this goes back prependemic. Standardly, the government data would get overstated and then you'll have benchmark revisions and they'll bring the numbers down. So all the happy presses, yep, no, we're moving along here. Average guy says, Hey, that's great news. And they're some are feeling well, some aren't. But those who aren't, they said, you gotta do better. They try to keep a positive spin to it. But when you look at the benchmark revisions, they go back and report it on a consistent basis. Industrial production, which is a key underlying factor in the economy. Published by the Federal Reserve, put together by the Federal Reserve, actually a fairly good number. It's very well thought out, very well surveyed. And every year they go through a benchmark revision, except three years ago, the government shut down with a because of the budget deficit. A certain survey was not completed. So they didn't benchmark that year. The next year, they didn't benchmark either for no excuse. So after two missed benchmarks, they didn't benchmark this year. What they did, this just recently published, and will impact the GDP, which gets its annual benchmark revision at the end of July, July 29th, they revised industrial production lower by five percentage points, as of the point we're entering into the pandemic. And what it shows is that instead of a stable way, they had sort of a flat economy going on. What the revised numbers show is that the economy peaked in 2018, and that we've been in a recession since August of 2018. And we're in a recession, going into the pandemic collapse, which nobody's talking about. I am I'm writing about it. But so what happens is the pandemic collapse now starts at a lower level. The pandemic trough is now at a lower level. It now has a much higher goal to try and recover where it was. So what's happened here is deeper than reported. It's going to be more difficult to recover from, or no ways close to recovering the pre pandemic levels, which happened to say pre pandemic and recession because recession was feeding right into it. You're looking at something here that when they revise it, the end of July, this is the GDP. I'd be very surprised if you don't see the GDP, take a basic hit downward, it's going to move everything downward. And all of a sudden, the pandemic steeper, the recovery steeper, and all the downturn was not pandemic. We were in a major downturn before the pandemic started. You're seeing that as well in downside revisions to the trade deficit, retail sales, payroll employment. I always try to look at reality. If you know where reality is, you can live with it. You can just pour it. Exactly. You know, Jonathan was saying something earlier about, you know, the differing standards. This all, you know, the creation of a narrative that isn't matching with reality that most people feel. This reminds me of the psychological term gas lighting, which is basically when an abuser does things to undermine someone's trust in their own perception of reality. And I think you can say, yes, that is exactly what is going on on a mass scale. It's trying to, you know, make people doubt what they're perceiving, which is that no, you know, the economy is not as great as the official numbers are saying. And they're saying, no, no, no, everything's fine. See, look, we have these statistics, but they don't tell you that the way that they calculate those statistics and the devils and the details has been heavily manipulated and changed to create a certain narrative. So I want to take us in a slightly different direction here, but building off of that. So this is not a partisan issue, right? So much of our world today is politics and so much of our politics today in the United States is about the Republicans versus the Democrats, right? And you got people who, you know, it's kind of like sports is how I look at it, right? It's people like pick their favorite team and then they root for that team and you boo and you hiss at the other guys, right? Because they're the bad guys. But ultimately, what we're talking about here in the gas lighting that Stephanie is talking about there, this is not partisan. This is something that has continued and escalated even under multiple administrations across both political parties, right? Sure. It is to the politicians benefit to have a healthy economy. And I can give you three or four examples real fast here. But irrespective of party, if you have control, there are sorts of things you can do. Lyndon Johnson was a great manipulator. He had a cooperative infrastructure and he could get the numbers any way that he wanted. Richard Nixon, he wanted to he didn't like the way that unemployment numbers were being reported. So he approached the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He said, look, why don't you just report the unadjusted number or the adjusted number, whichever is better? And they said, no, we're not going to do that. Well, they Nixon was assets and his liabilities. He didn't know the numbers too well. I saw in the Clinton administration, a direct manipulation. But before that, the Bush administration, George Bush, when he was running for reelection against Clinton, I know people I had employed people who were involved in the process. The headline GDP was boosted from outside sources, cooperative outside sources to try and help Bush get reelected didn't happen. He didn't get obviously didn't get reelected. The Clinton administration, I was looking at the payroll numbers. I like to tear numbers apart. And the there's a period of time there where the payrolls were increasing by an exact $500,000 a month, I would send me 500,000 jobs a month. And it wasn't necessarily just that in a given month. But you look at the revisions and the revisions, when we've worked out that 500,000 category, I called the guy and I said, oh, we wouldn't do that. And of course, it stopped after that. As long as numbers have been around, the politicians have been involved with them. The average guy has a good sense of what's going on with reality. And going back to the fellow I learned a lot from was Albert Sindlinger. He used to do consumer surveying for Herbert Hoover, met him a number of years ago. He was separate from the conference board and that type of surveying on consumer sentiment. What he did, instead of asking people, you know, we think the economy is going to be better in the year ahead, he would go out and actually ask people people and he had a big survey base. Do you think the employment at your place of business is going to be up or down six months from now? And he put it on a personal level and asked direct questions. And he's able to get very accurate responses that tended to lead the economy and was used by a number of presidents up through the last George Bush administration. Sindlinger died some about that time. But the point is the average person knows how he is doing. And that's where things got a little screwy in the electoral process. Because people in the political system think they can, if they just put out those happy numbers, that's going to move the electorate. It may not, depending on circumstances, if they're bad enough. Again, the average guy will say, Hey, I'm not making it. I'm going to vote against the incumbent. And that's what got Donald Trump in on a surprise against Hillary Clinton, because the economy was not as being advertised under the Obama administration. Same problems. Now, what I'm saying here now with the revision of the industrial production numbers is that the economy wasn't quite as strong as advertised under Donald Trump either. But there are a lot of other issues that went into this last election that I'm not going to get into it. I've just put that one aside, but I can tell you there's some unusual factors there with the economy. Don't you think this sort of fundamentally comes from the two different camps about what is the economy and what is inflation, namely the Keynesians and the Austrians, where, you know, does objective reality measure or is it only the consequential perception of what's occurring that matters? And you see a play out in inflation and, you know, to the detriment of everyone. I would contend that it's the reality. And then the average guy, if they're telling him, you know, inflation is only 2% but he's, he can't make his ends meet and he thought he was okay at 2%. He knows there's something wrong there. If people have accurate numbers, they can live with them. You give people hype numbers. That leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, again, particularly in terms of things like cost of living adjustment, where the government had a fine idea you will give you will give you an annual cost of living adjustment on your social security to make sure you don't fall behind. But guess what? They monkeyed around with it. And when we're seeing something here right now, that it's going to be interesting to see how it works out. It's going to help people, but not as much as underlying reality, because of the current spike in inflation, which is real and is much worse than being advertised. Well, I think we've been talking a lot on the show about hyperinflation and the everything bubble.  You're very close to it. We're looking at inflation knowing it really is an inflationary circumstance that no one in the United States are seeing in modern times. And it's tied to the Fed's money creation. They don't have a model for handling this thing. They're guessing at it as well as saying, oh, of course, we can pull this back any time. So what would happen in the last year that I found absolutely extraordinary? I've always been tracking the money supply. They stopped tracking the money supply M3, so I keep tracking that. And then they changed. All of a sudden last year, the things started to get a little unusual. When you looked at the money supply M1, which is the narrowest measure, basically cash and M2, which is the cash plus savings accounts and other less liquid assets. If you looked at the year to year change in the money supply M1, as they were reporting it, and the money supply M2, as they were reporting it, year to year, as you got past the pandemic, all of a sudden you started to see an acceleration year to year in the M1, which is the cash, effectively near cash, and you're getting a 50, 60% year over here. Never seen anything like that. You're seeing maybe 20, 30% in the M2. What that told you was that you were seeing a flight to liquidity. People in the current circumstance wanted to be more liquid so they're moving their cash into M1 from M2. The Fed didn't like the message that was sending. So they did an extraordinary thing and they redefined M1, the narrowest measure, to include savings accounts, which is the bulk of M2, less liquid. They said, well, we changed reserve requirements so they're really the same thing with liquidity standpoint. There's no evidence of the shift there in terms of behavior. But by putting that in there, they brought the M2 level down to, let's say you're up at 25% with the M2 that maybe M1 would be up at 30%. The more liquid, the higher the percentage rate. That was nonsense. That was a deliberate effort to up you skate what was happening. And at that point in time, they're reporting the numbers on a weekly basis. All of a sudden they go to a monthly basis. They don't want people to see what's happening. Well, they also renamed that metric. And Adam and I were talking about this offline about how much of what the rename metric is is still going to wholly be what the old metric was. Like 93% of M2 is now M3. M1 accounts for 93% before or something like 13%. M1 no longer exists. It's effectively M2. What I've introduced is a concept of basic M1, which is the old definition of the FEDGE going back to 48. When they introduced the concept of the money supply, their basic money supply, which is what I'm calling it, basic, with a quotation mark around it because that's mine, that there's M1 is there. I've got this basic M1, the M1 they have now has got all the savings accounted, but the old basic money supplies, basically currency and demand deposits, checking accounts. And that's still there. What I have in that measure is 83% of what the old M1 was. And what we just saw in the most recent reporting is that year to year, except by it's up by 80%. Never seen anything like that. By killing the M1, do you think we should be concerned because I remember when M3 got discontinued. And 18 months later, we had the great financial collapse. And a lot of people said that had M3 had been continued being disclosed that it would have served as an early bellwether for the collapse that was occurring, should we read into the fact that they have functionally discontinued M1 in the same way that the FED might have seen indicators there that would indicate something bad was occurring. And because they didn't want the tail to wag the dog, decided to discontinue M1 in the way that they discontinued M3. Well, there are two answers to it. The reason they got rid of M1 was because of inflation fears. They know that people see it soaring money supply growth, they're going to think inflation. There is an issue here that is uncomfortable because what you're seeing with the redefined monetary base effectively, but they haven't redefined the monetary base. What you're seeing with the monetary base, which underlies the money supply numbers. Monetary base is not the same thing as the money supply, but it drives a money supply. There are two components. One is currency, which you'll also see in the money supply. The other is bank reserves at Federal Reserve banks. Well, if you look at the money supply numbers, we're seeing year-to-year growth rates that have never been seen before. You look at the monetary base where that record levels in recent times, but the only time it was surpassed was during the banking collapse of the Great Recession. The banking system literally collapsed and they flooded the system with reserves to keep the banks afloat. And you were up 4,000 or 5,000 percent year over year. That's what you're competing with now in the monetary base. That's why it's not at an old-time high. Those reserves never came back down. They came back down a little bit, but never came back down all the way. Now we're up 135 percent and it's increasing. The bank reserves, which to me tells me there are liquidity problems in the banking system. And with that, there's no way they're going to cut back on the money supply. You do not have a stable system. I wish it were otherwise. I see very bad times ahead. Very high inflation, potentially hyperinflation. Let me just make a quick point here because there are a lot of inflation specialists out there and they'll say, oh, you can't have inflation without high velocity of money. Velocity of money, very simply, is the speed with which the money supply turns over within the economy. And sure, the money supply is turning over rapidly. That'll tend to give you a strong economy. And when you get a strong economy, you tend to have higher inflation. But when you look at prior incidences of hyperinflation, such as the Weimar Republic or Sambabu, which is another story, you didn't have the surging economy. What you had was a surging money supply against a weak economy. And that's what we have had here. And the reason that you're seeing the inflation right now is because of the extraordinary money supply growth against the extraordinary weak economy. And that's where the danger is that they can't bring that into balance very soon. And to pageant are really an impossible circumstance at the moment. They don't want to see an economic implosion. Nobody does. The collapse, that's their risk. So that's why they keep pumping the money supply in there. The federal government's going to keep going along doing everything it can in terms of expanding its spending. We have Janet Yellen, former Fed Chairman as Treasury Secretary. They're going to create as much money as they have to here to keep the economy from collapsing. But in the process, the way I'm reading it is they've opted for higher inflation, as opposed to economic collapse. And they may get both. I think we're headed for a hyperinflationary collapse. So I was born in 1984. Everyone who you're talking to on this call, like we literally never lived in a world in the United States that hasn't had this sort of like comprehensive misrepresentation of data for like broad political purposes, but irrespective of politics. That is the entire world that we have lived in and have never really known anything else. And, you know, you mentioned before that, like the reasons why data is important and why having accurate data is important is because it allows you to make good decisions. It allows people who then have to live in that world that this data is supposedly accurately describing. It helps you make decisions. And in the absence of that, you're making decisions that you think are right, but are actually wrong because the data that you are basing those off of is systemically wrong. That's what I was looking for, systemic manipulation of data. So for the last, I don't know, probably half a dozen years as I've come up on this topic, I've been increasingly saying, if you can't control reality, but you can control how people talk about or measure or the sort of terms they use to discuss and think about, you know, these things, that's almost as good as controlling reality. You're not controlling reality, but you maintain many of the benefits that come from having the reality that you wish it were. Politically, that's about 70 percent. You do have people out there who have a good sense of what's going on. And I can tell you that the average guy has a sense of how he's doing. He knows how he's doing. You can't fool him. And that's where the politicians get it wrong. And that's where the system will fall apart because people are not going to buy the political spiel, oh, here's what's happened, dump the dump. If it hasn't happened, and I've heard the average guy, he's going to know what's happened and he's going to vote against the people that put it on him. Is your read of this situation that this is the kind of really short term focus of electoral politics just generally that has led to this situation? Or do you think that there is a sort of broader motive here than that? Because I mean, thinking about it intellectually, it seems like plausibly, this could be just each time, you know, like a government comes in each time, you know, like the party changes hands or whatever, you've got them saying, well, the other guys didn't fix it. So I'm not going to be the one who takes the hit for finally resolving this problem, right?  Is there a way out of that? And is that your read of the situation? Well, it's indeed it's evolutionary and each political party that comes in has found its own temptations to try and improve things and maybe do a little bit beyond that with their propaganda. What we have right now is a real crisis. I mean, this is, had we had more stable circumstances coming into the pandemic, we might have a better outlook, but the pandemic has turned the world upside down. It's a real crisis in terms of the economy. If you look at the average guy right now, and I'm talking about how the average person feels, not what you're hearing in the hype, payroll employment, people who are employed, basic economic indicator, year to year change. And this is a reason that they do all sorts of things with the payroll employment numbers. But if you look at the year to year change, you're getting about as honest the numbers you can get right now from the government, not the GDP, but from the year to year change and the payroll employment, you're up 10% year over year. But that's only because the numbers collapsed a year ago. If you look at the current employment, the payroll employment levels against where you were at the pre pandemic peak in February of 2020, you're down 5%. That's like being down 5% year to year in a normal circumstance. You've never seen anything like that since 1946 when the US economy was being restructured to a peacetime from a wartime agenda. Effectively, you've never seen anything like that since before World War II, the Great Depression. And guess what? That is not a recovering economy. That's not a recovered economy. Payroll employment is a basic economy in economic numbers you get. So that all this hype about, yeah, the economy's never recovered, not there. And the average guy knows that. So you're getting now politics being built into this crisis. So, John, I think we have very effectively laid out the case here that the numbers we see from the government that relate to the economy are not accurate and true to life and especially people's lived experience. So, John, what do we do about it? How can we save ourselves? What is the best way to hedge against inflation to have the best life we possibly can? And what do we do? Well, in terms of the numbers to vote the better judge out of office, you need someone who raises this as an issue and someone will. I mean, I hope it's not like Adolf Hitler, but I mean, believe it or not, that's, you can get very radical political change here because if we have such a dichotomy between what people are experiencing and someone comes along and says, hey, boom, boom, yeah. Let's think this through. Do we need to vote someone out to get Ben Bernanke or was it Alan Greenspan or is it Janet Yellen? I'm not sure which point in the voting someone out to replace someone gets us a better Fed chairman. You can't revoke the Fed is not subject to a popular vote. That's my point. It's the administration. And let me put it this way, you're subject to Wall Street here. Wall Street controlling this money, big money. And it's things have to probably have to get worse before you're going to see some kind of a voter revolution. I hate to say that, but the things are not going to be getting much better here as they're advertising. I think you're going to have a voter rebellion at some point here. I don't know when. I mean, we can talk about it as we go along. But I can tell you that things are not as advertised. And the from the average person standpoint, do the best to preserve your wealth the best, especially can stay liquid. I wouldn't put much money in the stock market at this point. It will be a point in time. It'll be a wonderful buy. But yeah, that kind of brings me to the next part of this question that I wanted to ask you, John, which is you often hear from people who are concerned about inflation in particular that precious metals are the solution. They're the best hedge against inflation. And of course, our show is speaking of Bitcoin, right? And so we talk about cryptocurrency. And a lot of people view cryptocurrency also as a hedge against inflation. So what are your thoughts on that? Do you think that precious metals or cryptocurrencies can act as an inflation hedge? Are you interested in those at all? Or are you kind of agnostic on that? Well, in terms of cryptocurrencies, I'm not an expert. Oh, I told you that up front. Are you dealing with any particular cryptocurrency? We would be talking about Bitcoin to be clear. Okay, the nice thing about Bitcoin, as I understand it, is they have a limited universe of what's being created or what's been created. That's a plus. That's the same thing that you have with gold and silver. It does not have the acceptance of gold and silver. And the gold and silver physical, you have a history there that goes back millennia. I'm going to say the same amount of gold that would buy a loaf of bread and ancient Rome will do it today. And the interesting thing I found with my alternative inflation measure, and this was accidental that I found it. It was not delivered in the design. But when I set my index, I went back to 1970 when Nixon went off the gold standard. And I think it's at the base of 100 and maybe gold was 70 bucks at the time. I'm not quite sure what it was, but it's close enough. And when I eventually plotted the two together, I found that my index went right up with the price of gold. And in fact, gold tended to lead it. And so my personal recommendation for people is to own physical gold, not paper gold, physical gold, and that tends to preserve the purchasing power of your assets over time. The cryptocurrencies is a very interesting concept. And again, I don't know as much about it as I shouldn't. And you don't have a long history here. But I can tell you one thing that is sort of interesting. You look at hyperinflations. And that's a problem that we're going to have here. And I don't care what you have. If you look at the velocity of money, you pump the high money supply into a collapsing economy. That's when you tend to get a hyperinflation. You need to look at that as well from a crypto standpoint as to where it might have some relevance. But if you look at the great hyperinflation, probably the worst one ever was in Bobwe. And that mean they got to a point of what had been a $2 bill, eventually was sort of their standard exchange became something like $194 trillion bill. Just adding zeros all over the place. Adding zeros all the way along. And you wonder how could that could survive so long by doing that? Well, what they did was as they were going through their hyper inflation, people are very smart. They'd say, well, okay, I just got paid today. It's going to drop by 100 percent tonight. So I'll quickly go and exchange it for US dollars. And they'd use us dollars as a backup. And then it was they needed the local currency that they'd convert. So they keep trying to mitigate their losses by going to something other than the Zimbabwe dollar. But it got to the point. And please excuse any vulgarities here. It's just the way it happened. There's a border station with South Africa. And if you went to the restrooms there, they had and there's a very famous photograph, but it's actually true. A sign there that said, you know, please use toilet paper, nose and bobby dollars. I kid you not. And when you get to that point, it effectively becomes nonsense. You don't have that with a cryptocurrency. You're holding you don't have you don't have the Bitcoin you're holding it at a fixed level. Well, you literally can't use it as toilet paper either. Well, no, that's the point I'm getting this point back. So thank you. That's the point I was trying to get around to because where you now have talk of crypto dollars or something like that, the cryptocurrencies actually could enable hyperinflation. If you had a crypto dollar, they could issue you a hundred trillion dollar credit electronically. They don't have to print a hundred trillion dollar bill. You no longer have the paper that's going to be jamming all the restrooms are in the country. You know, I think this whole like central bank digital currencies thing is a very good marketing scheme because the dollar is already digital. The only thing that makes Bitcoin unique is that it's a bearer instrument, right? It's bearer digital currents. Yeah. And so when I hear central bank digital currency, all I hear is let's demonetize physical notes. And so my thought is the only thing that the dollar isn't at this time is bearer when it's digital. And so if you say let's make a central bank digital currency, you're not going to make any of the attributes of Bitcoin. The only thing you're going to do is just sneak in a demonetization of every physical note. And then when you do that, you can finally get negative interest rates because you can just apply Demerage and apply explicit velocity to funds that you send to people as a programmatic rule. I'm not quite following you there. Basically, what he's saying, John, is that right now the Fed can't reach into everybody's wallet. And to an extent, everybody's bank account and actually subtract the amount of money that they have if they want to. Whereas once you've got this as a digital currency, cryptocurrencies are in theory, this decentralized thing, but actually physical paper bills are much more decentralized than central bank digital currencies will be because there's no central element of control to them in terms of modifying balances or things like that. Whereas once you get onto the digital side, well, I mean the Fed has a tool in its toolbox that's a new tool that allows it to stretch this thing out one more day. They're going to use it. Yeah. At the end of the day, the digital currency unit of the dollar is always competing against the physical bearer instrument of the dollar. And so there's only so far the central bank can go against your balance on a spreadsheet in a bank that wouldn't result in you withdrawing it physical notes as a bearer instrument.  Nominal. Makes sense. You get to that circumstance. My recommendation be get into physical gold and barter and what you deal because you're going to be heading into a very rapid debasement of the currency. They do that you're heading for a hyper inflation. I know what you're looking at is not something that's per se hyperinflation or you're looking at as an alternative here. They do that with the currency you're going to have a restructured monetary system. That will not survive. I have one question that I'd really like your take on. And I'm not saying the quote is attributed correctly. But the reason why it's so sticky is because we all feel it in our gut and we fear it and it feels true. Which is what do you say to the sentiment that in the future you will own nothing and you will be happy about it. Nonsense. Own something independent of the government such as physical gold silver. It will continue to trade. I know people. I knew people and most of them are dead now or there have been children of people who went through the hyper inflation in Weimar Germany and this is when you get to the point your currency is worthless. You had circumstances then this world came out of the effects of World War II and German reparations to France and such. But as the hyperinflation kicked in it came in so quickly that this before it really got bad. You could be you could go out and say you wanted to have dinner night. You could still do that by dinner at a restaurant.  You could have a fine bottle of wine the night before and the next morning the empty bottle of wine was worth more than it had been the night before filled with an expensive wine. One guy told me about his father who had traded his shirt for a can of beans and got down to barter system and it's not bad to think about bartering and whatever might be involved here in bartering because you have solid things you can barter. We're talking about things get really bad circumstances that can save people's lives. This is not a happy circumstance. I wish we didn't have the pandemic right now we'd be having a little bit of a different circumstance. But we're at high risk right now of going into hyperinflation as I see it. And so this guy trades his shirt for can of beans. He says I'm going to take the can of beans home and we'll have dinner with it. Open the can of beans if can of beans had gone bad. There are lessons that you learn there but physical gold and silver there are other assets of value. And I don't know quite how you structure this with the digital currency but if it's recognized as something of value you can do things with it you can survive. It's important it's basic and you need some small change. Now digital currency presumably can get that down to any decimal point that you I don't know. One one hundred million is the division currently within Bitcoin. One hundred million satoshis is one Bitcoin. Okay. That's interesting. Send me an email. I learned the terminology. I'll send you an email. What I would look at from the standpoint of physical gold and silver which is a field in which I normally deal in what which I normally recommend. You take an ounce coin of silver to the grocery store. It's tough to buy a pound of hamburger with it. What you need are some physical bags of silver. So you can trade a silver quarter dime or something like that. That's the type of circumstance in forgetting the digital currency just in terms of the hyper inflationary history of the world and physical currencies and precious metals. That's the type of thing that you need is a backup. How do you translate that into Bitcoin.  Well even though we were born after all this manipulation of the statistics started maybe we have some hope in thinking ourselves out of it after all. So thanks John. Well thank you. Very interesting conversation and please we'll talk again either formally or informally. Always happy to talk. Great. We really appreciate that. Well folks that's all the time we have for today's episode. A big thanks to John Williams for this enlightening conversation on a complicated topic. If this discussion has been interesting to you make sure you check out shadow stats dot com where you can see all the numbers we've been talking about and read John's very insightful alternative analysis of new statistics as they come out as compared against the government's current standards of measuring them. Today's episode featured Stephanie Murphy, Jonathan Mohan and myself Adam B Levine. This episode was edited by Jonas and featured music by Jared Rubins and Gertie Beats straight from the street. If you enjoyed today's show do us a favor and leave us a review on your favorite podcast player.


Western Massachusetts has to fight really hard to get its share of resources and everybody out here knows that that's the case. And one of the areas where we feel that there's been some inequality is the fact that the Mass Bay Transportation Authority, otherwise known as the T, which serves approximately 50 communities in eastern Massachusetts, they get a dedicated revenue source for their public transportation. We out here in Western Massachusetts and in the other 13 regional transportation authorities, we don't have a dedicated revenue source. We have to fight every year to get our funding in the annual operating budget. And there's a further problem when you're dealing with the regional transportation authorities and that is that it's the only part of government that has what is known as lag funding. That is a budget is approved by the local organization, that is the PVTA or the Franklin Transportation Authority or any one of the other 12, and then they spend the money and then at the end of the fiscal year they send the bill to the state and the state then appropriates the money to pay for last year's services as opposed to appropriating money for next year's services. Well we have the same problem with the T and in the mid 1990s we fixed the problem by going to forward funding. What it required was to appropriate twice as much money in one fiscal year so that we could pay the bills for the previous year and have the money in the budget for the next year. Well the way we did that was to bond the previous year's spending and pay for it over a number of years and then put the funding for the next fiscal year in the budget. And so we want to do the same thing for our regional transportation authorities because otherwise they have to go out and borrow money, spend their budget, pay interest on the money that they're using to pay for their operations and then come to the common wealth get their budget reimbursed for the expenses for the previous year including the interest on the borrowing. So we want to stop that and we've been trying to fix that for oh probably a dozen years or so now and finally we decided to organize a caucus a gathering of legislators it's not a a standing committee it's not an official committee it's a voluntary committee that members of the legislature come together and form in order to work together on behalf of a particular cause or issue and so in this case the regional transportation authority caucus was born and Dan Bosley former state representative from North Adams and I were the co-chairs of it and over the course of three years we were able to fix a number of the problems with the RTAs being able to use the full faith and credit of the commonwealth for example allowed for lower interest rates on their borrowing and so that was a benefit we also were able to fight to make sure that they were getting adequate funding in the budget to pay the bills for the previous year even in the years when we're having recessions and and the funding is more difficult to come by so because they had already spent the money we argued they had to get that amount of money and could not absorb cuts and so we kept working on a variety of these things including forward funding and finally we were challenged by the administration because they said look we're gonna have to come up with sixty five million dollars to do the paying off of the previous years funding and six roughly sixty five million dollars for the next year so we have to come up with a hundred and thirty million dollars all at once well we try to convince them that they just had to bond as we did for the MBTA the previous years spending and use the operating budget money for going forward well too many complications in terms of a variety of financing problems with our bond cap and and other obligations that they had already made for transportation and felt they couldn't get it so they challenged us and they said well if you can find the money we'll work with you to figure out how to do the forward funding and so we did some research and we discovered the toll credit program at the federal level the toll credit program is actually tied to maintenance of toll roads that have both a state designation and a federal designation such as the mass turnpike so we put language into a transportation bond that the administration should do the homework necessary to join the toll credit program and then join it well two years later I'm happy to report it worked we now have membership in the toll credit program we've received two years retroactive payment for a total of about eighty five million dollars from the federal government this is money we would not otherwise have gotten into the Commonwealth and we're about to apply for next year's share of the money and we expect to get somewhere between 35 and 50 million dollars a year each year going forward for as long as this federal program exists so as a result of this the administration has redoubled their efforts and they're working with us to try to find a method for doing the forward funding for the RTAs unfortunately this federal money can't be used for this specific purpose because it can only be used for the turnpike and in relation to the turnpike but in the effort to find money to do forward funding we also found a new revenue source for transportation improvements in the Commonwealth and we will soon have our forward funding accomplished which will save money for our cities and towns on borrowing costs for the operations of and the operating budgets for our regional transportation authorities and we will soon have them funded in the same way as all of the state agencies submitting a budget in anticipation of a new fiscal year and then having that budget approved by the legislature and then receiving money as they go through the year so they do not have to borrow to do their operations so it's one of those unexpected benefits of having formed the regional transportation authority caucus and we soon hope to have our goal of forward funding accomplished but we also found a way of attracting more federal funds into Massachusetts to support transportation


Hello everyone. I'm Sanjay Gupta. I welcome you on Sanjay Gupta Tech School. Let's understand the requirement that I'm going to demonstrate in this video. So I'm going to demo you how you can redirect to newly created record and screen flow. So one of my viewer asked me like he got a requirement and he want implementation for the same requirement. So as per the request, I'm creating this video. So first we need to create a contact through screen flow. So I will be creating a flow that will be creating a contact. Then flow should be able to redirect on newly created record and we need to place the flow on the homepage. So if I take you to the org, so here I'm going to search for the flow. So I already created a flow for another demonstration, which is already available on the homepage. So I'm going to search for it and I will be modifying this flow for you. So this is the screen flow, which is like here you can see receiving contact information and creating the contact record. So if I double click on it, so this is off type text. So text you can search here and click. It will be available. You can provide first name, sorry, label as first name and API will be available. Then similarly you can create a last name of type text fill the label API. Then phone is off type phone. Sorry, phone is also type of type text and label is phone API is phone. Email is also off type text. And here, label, email, email is available. Then this is account name. It is a lookup. So here you can search for lookup click on it. It will be available. And this way you can fill the details. API is ACG field API account ID, label account name, object API contact. So this account ID is the lookup field that is available on the contact object so that I'm using here. So basically we are creating a contact. So that is why that lookup will be available on the screen and we will be able to select an account. So this way this is a screen. Now here you can see create contact element is available. Here I selected one then you separate resources and literal values then object as contact. Then account ID I linked with ACC and dot record ID, which we created as a lookup on the screen. Then email, first name, home phone, last name are linked similarly. Now here I need to create one more variable where I will be storing the newly created contact ID. So I'm creating a variable then if a name is contact ID type is text and done. So this contact ID I will be using so that I can redirect to the newly created report. So just click on plus screen then here redirect to new record. So here I'm just searching for display text, click on it. So display text will be available here. So this will be the text and click here to open contact. So I'm selecting it and clicking on this. So it will be creating a link. So here I need to write slash then curly base exclamation. And here I'm writing the API name of the variable that I created, which will be storing the newly created contact ID, right? So before slash this URL like your org URL. So in my org, this is the domain. So tech Sanjay Gupta hyphen dash hyphen ed dot lightning dot force dot com. So it will be available automatically. And after that, this slash and that contact ID will pop. So I just need to place it again. So this way, this is a link which is created now and I'm clicking on done, clicking on save as save, activate, right? So this redirect to new record screen is available and it will work as well. So I'm moving here and doing a refresh. So from here, I'm going to create one contact. So I am entering dummy phone number. I'm entering, let's say my email ID Sanjay Gupta dot tech school entry gmail dot com. I'm selecting one account and clicking on next. So it is showing some error. So I think there should be an email. So whenever your flow fails, so you will receive an email. So that we can verify why that is failing. So here you can see our field custom validation exception alert, duplicate record found. Okay. So actually in my org, I have a duplicate rule. So I just need to modify that. So I created a contact duplicate rule. Okay, but it is deactivated. Let me see. Duplicate rule is already deactivated by it is failing. Okay, so maybe what I can do instead of providing that email ID, I'm going to provide another email ID so that we can just verify. So I'm providing test at the rate test.com and I'm clicking on next. So here you can see, you will find a link click here to open report. So if you click on this link, so your newly created record will be opened in the new tab. So you can see contact tab is opened and the newly created contact. John Davidson is available here if I go to details. So I will be able to view all the details. So just skip that error part because it was because of some duplicate rule. So in your case, it won't be breaking because you won't be having any duplicate rule implemented. So this is the way like in your flow, if you create this kind of screen, having this hyperlink along with this variable. So you will be able to redirect to the newly created record. So I hope this way, like if any of the project, if you find same requirements, so you will be able to resolve that now. Thank you.