Good day, fellow investors. I recently came across a chart that shows 90 years of stock market returns year by year. And then I thought I could combine that to a chart that shows the evolution of the stock market over more than 90 years, 120 years. And then I could make a great video showing what really matters when it comes to investing in stocks. And where are we now? And that will give you a perspective also where you are in your small point in life and how the stock market can add value, create wealth for you or you are looking at the stock market trying to make money, but actually too risky, depending where you are in life and what are your financial goals. So let's immediately start with the two charts. One chart is this. 90 years of stock market returns, SAP 500. And I wish to discuss positive tailwinds of stock market investing, volatility, how it evolves year up, year down, year in, year out, the valuations and then how it is all about you. And that we'll be discussing also taking into account this chart from the Dow Jones. This is up to 2014. Now we are 29,000 up from the 24,500 level there. But still very, very good historical lessons to be taken from the two charts. So let's start with the first chart. We have year by year split of all the returns over the past 90 years. And the key is that there have been 66 positive years and 25 negative years. This means that investing in the stock market is a positive sum game, which means that if you do it smartly, you'll win a lot, you'll end up well off and you will gain very, very much from investing in the stock market over your financial life cycle, which is crucial when it comes to investing. The Dow Jones index went from 16, yes, 16 points 120 years ago to the current 29,000 something, which is an insane, remarkable feature, especially as all the stocks that were in the Dow Jones index are not in it anymore, which means that even if things change and I'll make an update on how to invest in index funds, how to take advantage of index fund investing also for my stock market, free stock market investing course that you can find the link in the description below. But I also upload those videos on YouTube. So don't forget to subscribe and click that notification bell. So positive tailwinds is what we are talking about when it comes to investing, but you have to also keep in mind volatility. You have to expect that there is a 5% chance that you will see your portfolio go down more than 20%, even to 50% in a year, and that there is a 10% chance that it will drop more than 10% in a year. 50% down in a year is possible. However, 50% or more up in a year is also possible, especially on individual stocks. So keep always in mind the volatility when it comes to investing. Year in, year out, it doesn't really matter. The stock market will see later moves often in trends and therefore it's very important to see, okay, which trend are we in and later we'll compare it to valuations. 1930 was down 20 to 30%, 1931 50 to 40%. If we look at 2016 was a positive year, 10 to 20% up, 2017 positive year, 20 to 30% up, 2018 was slower year, let's say at zero with the dividend, and then 2019 was a great year with a 30% increase in the SAP 500. However, the stock market, as I said, usually works in trends and there have been 20 years of stock market returns, nominal stock market returns being at zero. The last 12 years have been from the peak of the dot-com bubble, 1999 to 2012, and then stock market reversed and went up significantly before that from the 1960s till 1982, 17 years of zero returns, and also 25 years of zero returns from the 1929 stock market bubble. And this is something you have to keep in mind, but if you are a real investor then things are again easy, because let's say you invest now and over the next three years the stock market crashes 50%. Many would be devastated. I would be happy, because most of us, especially the YouTube investor base, are net investors, which means that each month, each year we add money to the stock market, which means that the lower stock prices are, the higher our long-term returns will be, and that's a win situation. If you invest now and stocks go, continue to go, go, go up, up and up, it's again a win situation. So it's always a win-win situation, but you have to apply common sense and invest properly. So dollar cost averaging, some might call it, but if we constantly add investments over our investment lifecycle, then stock market is a win-win situation. So the key thing to really keep in mind is that we buy businesses, we accumulate wealth over the long-term, long-term lifecycle, and when stocks go down or are down, you buy things on a discount that will increase your investment returns. And then on the discount, a good thing to watch are valuations. This is the cyclically adjusted price earnings ratio that shows the average 10-year earnings in relation to the price of the stock market. So in 1929 the cyclically adjusted price earnings ratio was above 40, now it's at 31, also it was above 40 during the dot-com bubble, and if you look at the long-term returns afterwards, those weren't that good. So there is a pattern when it comes to investing related to valuations. As I said, 2001, 2002, and then also 2020, the price earnings ratio is 32, so the stock market from a historical perspective is very, very risky. But if the valuations are down, like it was the case in 2009, with the price earnings ratio of just 14, that implies a 7-8% stock market return, that is what we enjoyed over the last 10 years. So valuations really, really matter when it comes to investing. Also, if you compare the valuations very low in the 1930s, very high in 1929, subsequently those that invested in 1932 did much, much better than those that invested in 1929. Similar situation, 1960s, similar 2000s, and similar later. The key is that you have to always implement all the ifs when it comes to the stock market. What would I do if my portfolio crashes 50% next year? It is a possibility, therefore you have to keep that in mind when it comes to investing.  If my portfolio crashes 50% next year, I have my 70% cash allocation at the moment, 17% cash allocation, I will deploy that, probably take some margin depending on the dividend yields and what's going on with the businesses I own. If it goes up another 50%, I'll probably look at what are my other investing options with lower valuations and then switch on to that. If you know all your ifs and this chart shows whatever can happen in the stock market, you have to be ready for anything and this is the beauty of this chart and you have to see how this fits your current financial situation and if there is a scenario that you can't weather from your current financial situation, then the answer is pretty simple. Don't invest because it's too big of a risk and usually people do the wrong thing at the wrong moment in time. If you can't handle this 25 years at zero and add money during those 25 years and that will give you great returns, then you shouldn't be investing in stocks at all and I'll tell you a very important story. When I was a accounting professor at the Amsterdam Business School, a former colleague of mine, also a finance teacher, he sold what he has been accumulating 10 years prior, he sold in 2008 and this is the Amsterdam Stock Exchange Index and we spoke in 2015, 2016 sorry and then he started to slowly go back in with what was left of his money but he lost a huge amount of money when selling and he sold at the wrong time because he couldn't watch his portfolio deteriorate over that time. The poor guy lost probably more than 25% of his life cycle wealth because he sold at the wrong moment in time, he was panically watching those stock prices instead of buying more of good businesses or knowing what he was holding on to, he sold in panic late October 2008 and then didn't return into the market till 2015-16 slowly starting to get him back into the market. The loss if he would just had reinvested the dividends back then he would have a huge return which would now would be 50% and more of his net wealth making the right financial decision over a long period of time. At that moment when those moments like 2008 come is crucial and therefore you have to keep all the ifs in mind and what you would do when those ifs come and by looking at the stock market history you learn what can happen and how you would react to that and be prepared. That's the key when it comes to investing in the stock market. The second key is of course subscribe to this channel click that notification bell so that you don't miss any videos that might add value to your financial life, to your financial decision making where the mission of this channel is to help you make better financial decisions in time. Thank you! Looking forward to your comments I always love to read them and answer them so please put one and click a like if you like this. I'll see you in the next video.


Hello, everyone, and welcome to our 72nd webinar on the Latin American Webinars in Physics. My name is Federico van der Palen from the Universidad Antioquia in Colombia, and I will be your host today. Our speaker is Natalia Tapia from the Universidad de Santiago de Chile, and she will speak about measuring the boiling point of the QED vacuum. So Natalia is currently a graduate student, a PhD graduate student at the Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile, but she's currently visiting the Universidad, University of Montreal, and she spent one year visiting as an internship at DELCI. And Natalia will speak about a very interesting subject because we usually hear about the QCD vacuum, and she will speak about the QED vacuum, and a work she's been doing with colleagues at DELCI. Well, let me remind you that you can be part of the discussion writing questions and comments via our YouTube live chat system. And I will hand you over now to Natalia. So Natalia, you can have now the board. You have to unmute yourself. OK. Can you listen to me? Yes, great. OK. Can you see my presentation now? Yes, perfect. OK, well, thank you very much again. And Natalia here. Thank you for letting me share my work with you. Today I will show you the results of my last paper in collaboration with Anthony Harting and Andrea Springbaugh at DELCI, where I spent 10 months doing an internship. The project involved a strong field QED and the measure of electron-positron per-production in this new experiment at DC, the Laxie experiment, very similar to the Slack experiment performed in the 90s. So we are all aware, we all know, of the successful of the QED theory. But there are some observables of the theory that are not possible to achieve by means of perturbation theory as the rates of spontaneous per-production. But there are some related processes that you can measure in non-linear experiments. So before I'll show you my results, I would like to talk a little bit of the history or the context of these kinds of experiments. So can you hear me? Yes, yes, don't worry, we can hear you. Okay, so can you see that I changed the slide? Yes, that's perfect. Okay, so the first attempt to measure a non-linear process was performed at the Slack experiment in the 90s. So this collaboration focused on extremely intense laser beam at a beam of high-energy electrons. This picture that you can see here appeared in the November 97 issue of Photonics Spectra. And you can find all these pictures, documents, news about the experiment, paper, pieces related to the experiment in the Slack repository. And in this experiment, it was the first time in history where per-production or light by light scattering was measured from real photons. So basically, in this experiment, they collided a high-energy electron beam with a laser, which at the focusing point had an intensity of around 0.5 times 10 to the 18 watt per centimeter square. So this number, you can think, is very high, but actually is below the non-perturbative regime, where you can somehow measure the critical field. So when the laser photons collided head on with the electrons from the electron beam, they got a huge energy bus, much like when you throw a ping-pong ball through a track in movement. So the ping-pong will get a lot of momentum from the track and will go away with a higher acceleration that it was in the beginning. So these high-energy photons that are produced when the electrons collide with the laser photons then can interact with the laser, with the laser incoming photons and producing electron-position pairs. These pairs are sometimes produced in accelerated experiments at high energies, but the photons involved in the process, at least one of them was a virtual photon. So this experiment marked the first time in history that real photons interacted to produce visible matter, electron-position pairs. So this old animation shows what is the experiment about. You have the electron beam in blue colliding with the laser. And in the same path of the laser, this high-energy photon in green produced from the previous collision will produce an electron-position pair. So around the 85, Kirt Magdana, one of the Spokesperson of the Slack experiment, established three different nonlinear processes that would be measured at this experiment. So by the time, the greatest acceleration that they could obtain in a laboratory was the one of an electron in a high-intensity laser beam. They were expecting to measure different nonlinear process with these highly-accelerated electrons. So they consider the case of a very unusual, strong electromagnetic field. So what are the kind of process that they were expecting to measure? For example, that always called the attention is Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation. In the case of Hawking radiation, you have an observer at rest near to a black hole. And due to the high acceleration produced for the very strong gravitational field around the black hole, this observer will be involved in a thermal bath. And it will scatter this thermal bath by means of emission of high-energy photons. A very similar process is the Unruh radiation in where a highly-accelerated particle, in this case an electron, will also fill a thermal bath around it. And it will scatter the thermal bath by emitting high-energy photons. So these high-energy photons would be measured by some observer in the laboratory. But this is still an experimental problem and how to measure this kind of radiation. And it has still not be solved. But it's always present in the propositions for this kind of experiments. So you could also measure various possible effects of vacuum polarization as light by light scattering or multiple benefits as spontaneous per production, stimulated per production. And you can also expect to see limits in the energy of the field due to the cascade process in which you will use energy of the laser in the focusing point. Due to, at some reference frame, the particles will have enough energy to produce electron-position pairs spontaneously. So that will be a limit to actually reach the critical field for QED. And by the time the most accessible process was a high-guer harmonic radiation of Thomson scattering. So just to see some numbers, for example, for light by light scattering, we know that this is a fourth order in perturbation theory, the interaction of two photon particles. And it happens by means of the virtual reproduction of electron-position pairs that then annihilate into two photons again. Related process is photon-photon scattering giving rise to electron-position pairs. So in this case, the cross-section goes as the fine structure constant to the fault power. And it will also depend on the energy of the photons involved in the process. So if you use the appropriate units in MEV, you will need 10 to the 15 photons of one MEV to be brought into collision to observe one pair. So usually, the laboratory beams around the MEV ranch have typically less than 10 to the 10 photons. That is why it's not possible to see this kind of process. So what they propose to observe nonlinear processes is the study of the scattering of 50 or around 50 GeV electrons and a laser with peak energy flux of 4 times 10 to the 18 watt per centimeter square. So there are two considerations in how to measure how strong is a field. One of it is when the electric field in the process is higher than the critical field. And this is quite difficult to achieve. The other way to measure that the field is strong is when this quantity is bigger than 1. When this quantity is bigger than 1, it's considered the static limit or the frequency is much smaller than all these other parameters. This parameter xi is also called the nonlinearity parameter, or the laser parameter. And it's strongly related with the nonperturbative limit. When this parameter is higher than 1, these fields are considered to be strong. The process is considered to be nonperturbative. And usually, it's also nonlinear. Due to the effect of the electron traveling in an electromagnetic wave, the mass of the electron will suffer some changes. Or seen from the outside, you will see an effective mass. The electron will move in a transverse way to the laser. So it will add momentum to the particle. And the electron will be heavier when you increase the intensity of the laser, for example. The parameter xi is also related to the intensity of the laser. So if you increase the intensities to see a higher nonlinearity process, the mass of the electron is going to be heavier. And that will be translated later in a higher number of photons involved in the process to see one pair production. So finally, what they observed in this experiment was nonlinear contents, electron positive jump nonlinear contents scattering and electron positive jump production for electrons around 50 GB. And the laser intensities peak were around 0.5 times 10 to the 18 watt per centimeter square, which corresponds to a laser parameter of around 0.4. As I said before, you need to be up one to see nonperturbative process. So all these measures that they get were not in the nonperturbative regime. However, these were the first laboratory evidence of inelastic light-by-light scattering involving only real photons. In the case of nonlinear contents scattering, they observed an absorption of up to four photons. That means that they observed nonlinear scattering for one to three and four photons in one process. The setup of the slack experiment was something like this. They had the electron beam here of around 50 GB colliding with the laser. And in the same spot of the laser, they will re-interact the high-energy photons produced for nonlinear contents scattering, for example, and then the electron positive jump pair production. And the particles that don't interact here will then be collected further. In our case, we propose something a little different. We propose first to obtain high-energy photons by means of ramstalling. So the beam of high-energy electrons, so it's going to be around 17.5 GB at the laxie experiment at DC, will hit a ramstalling converter foil, a thin foil, and they will produce high-energy photons here. So once they have the high-energy photons, they will collide them here with the laser at the focusing point. And here with these high-energy photons and a number N of laser optical photons, there will be pair production. So for the laxie experiment, it is expected the laser to be a one-perawatt laser system of around 35 m2 a bunch. And with a focal area of 10 micrometers squared. And with a peak intensity of around 10 to the 20 watt per centimeter squared. The electron beam is going to be of a size of 50 micrometers and with a repetition rate of 10 hertz. So as I said before, we consider this as one photon pair production. But this process is in the background of the laser. So this high-energy photon here has to interact with a N number of laser photons to produce these electron-position pairs. These particles are also called dress states because due to the laser or to be in the background of the laser, they will have different states. These are called bulk of states. And when you use them, you are already considered the nonlinear effects. So we are considered a rem shallowing spectrum to the pair production in the background of the laser. And these are the dress states that I named before. So the one photon pair production that we are considering is going to be a nonlinear process. And if we compare our rates later that we will obtain with the spontaneous pair production rate that you obtained from the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian, you obtained that the vacuum will decays in electron-positron pair production in this way. The dependency in the exponential here with the critical field also hides the dependency on the electric charge, that is the coupling constant of theory. So as you can see here, if the coupling constant goes to 0, the exponential diverges. And that means that you cannot obtain this result by means of perturbation theory. That is why it's considered to be non-preservative. So here you can see in the exponential, the dependency on the critical field that is around this value is expected to be 1.3 times 10 to the 18 volt per meter and the dependency on the coupling constant. So the bulk of states or dress states look like this. And from here you can see where this laser non-linearity factor comes from. This will affect the mass of the electron and you will have an effective mass that depends on the laser non-linearity parameter. So if you increase the intensity, the electron is going to be heavier. And that will mean it will need more and more photons to produce one pair. So other important parameters in these experiments, as I said before, the laser parameter are the photon and electron recoil parameter. This depends mainly on the kinematics of the process, on the energies of the photons involved, the mass of the electron, and the angle of collision. So this is the rate for electron position per production when you consider the bulk of states. So you can see here that it goes like some powers of vessel functions that depends on the set-up function. So you can see here that the argument of the vessel function depends also on the laser non-linearity parameter and the photon recoil parameter. So the threshold number of photons here needed to produce one pair is here. And you can see that also increase with the laser non-linearity parameter. So you will have higher orders and higher arguments for high intensity parameters. In this case, you can approximate in this range of parameters for psi much bigger than 1. And for photon recoil parameter less than 1, to this asymptotic expression, simplify from here when the argument and the order is high by the device asymptotic expression. So here we can see that the asymptotic rate goes as the exponential that also depends on the electric charge and the critical field here or here. So you can see here that the electron position per production rate from one photon, it also goes as the spontaneous per production in some extent. So these are the rates that we obtain with the function f that I showed you before here. So the full rates are the solid line here. The dot line is what you expect to be for a small laser parameter. This is the perturbative behavior. It means that it goes like psi squared for a process of two vertices. And for a high psi, for psi actually bigger than 1, you can see here the asymptotic result that actually fits very good for the case of psi bigger than 1. And for photon recoil parameter much less than 1. The other plots for different parameters are to compare the feet of the asymptotic result with the full rates. So you can see that indeed the best behavior is for the case for psi bigger than 1 and photon recoil parameter less than 1. So as we consider a Bremschalm spectrum, you can find, for example, in the review of particle physics, the rate for a Bremschalm spectrum and it goes like this. So we use this rate to integrate our rate of pair production and we integrate in terms of the photon recoil parameter between 0 and the electron recoil parameter. What we get for the asymptotic result is this analytical expression. In the case of the full rate, we obtain an numerical result that I will show you. So if we look to the Bremschalm pair production rate in terms of the critical field, you can see again the behavior very similar to the asymptotic result obtained for the pair production before the integration and in the spontaneous pair production rate. So here we recover the non-perturbative behavior. So that will mean that even after this Bremschalm spectrum, you will have non-perturbative behavior and this will be a way to measure the critical field in this experiment. So here I show you again in solid line, the full rate integrated and the dashed line is the asymptotic result integrated in the background of Bremschalm spectrum. So for different parameters, here we see again that the base behavior is for a small recoil parameter and for laser parameter bigger than one. You can see that the good behavior starts from psi equal one. And you can see here the rates produced of electron procedure pair production and you can see that these are very high numbers but actually the range of parameters for the Laxie experiment is around here, the corner, the right corner. So for the peak intensities, the rates are going to be around 10 to the four pairs. So in the case of the experiment, it's much easier to vary the intensity and the energy of the electrons. For example, if you want to keep the photon recoil parameter or the electron recoil parameter and vary the laser intensity or the laser parameter, it is much difficult because the recoil parameters depend on the laser parameters. So actually you will have to move the laser to change the angle for example and that is much difficult. So it's much easier to vary the intensity and the energy in this case. Here we can see that the laser non-linearity parameter around one, that is where you can see the non-perturbative behavior and the non-linearities, is going to be for an intensity around 10 to the 18. This is one of the reasons, even in the slack experiment, the energy of the electron beam was higher why they couldn't get a non-perturbative behavior because they were far less below this intensity. So here we see in terms of the intensity, the rates of per production. For the peak intensity, here we see that the rate production is going to be around 10 to the four, as I said before. Here the solid line is the complete rate integrated and the dashed line is the asymptotic result. So around one time 10 to the 18 watt per centimeter square, as I said before, is the laser parameter around one and the first pair is going to be produced around two times 10 to the 18 watt per centimeter square. That means that your first pair is going to be in the non-perturbative regime and is for a quite modest intensity. The dot line in blue here is for the case that the nominal value of the critical field is smaller. We wanted to get something like an error bar here. So if you have a 10% lower value of the nominal value expected for the critical field, you will have higher rates and this makes sense because if this kind of potential barrier to get per production is smaller, you will have more rates and if the value of the critical field is bigger, you will have less rates because it's more difficult to produce the pairs. So in this case for the experiment, the energy of the electron beam is going to be 17.5 GB with a bunch of six times 10 to the nine electrons per bunch with the remstallium foil thin in comparison with the radiation length of the material used under the laser shot of 50 femtoseconds an angle of P12 and the energy of the laser photons of 1.053 electron volts. In the case of the variation of the energy, the rates are going to be for an energy of around 14 GB. You will see a first pair for an intensity fix of three times 10 to the 19 watt per centimeter square. We know already that for this parameter, the behavior is non-perturbative. So you will have your first pair around 14 GB and you will see around 30 to 20 pairs for 17 GB, 17.5 GB for this fixed intensity. So in conclusion, we can see that the behavior of the electron positron per production will behave very similar to the spontaneous per production rates. Here we can see the similar behavior on the exponential dependency on the critical field that hides also the dependency on the electric charge that is the coupling constant of the theory. So even in this very restricted range of parameters that you need to get the asymptotic result where you have the non-perturbative limit, you will have the number of pairs high enough to see something in this kind of experiment. And it will be possible to measure the Schringer critical field for these modest intensities. Around two times 10 to the 19 watt per centimeter square, you should be able to see one pair in the non-perturbative regime. And with a 10% discrepancy with the nominal value of the electrocritical field, it's expected to see a high rate of electron positron per production. And these values around one order of magnitude for small intensities and for high-end intensities is affected because becomes less important. So, well, these are my reference. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, thank you, Natalia, for this very clear talk about the subject which is new to me, but I think I learned something. Now, let's pass, let's see if there are questions from the board or from the Q, Alberto? Yeah, I have a couple of questions for Natalia. First of all, Natalia, thank you very much. It was very interesting, in fact, your talk. So, I have one question that is more kind of a little bit naive, but in the sense that is it possible to observe this kind of process, the one that you were talking about, this boiling point in QED vacuum, but in some astrophysical environments, I don't know, pulsars physics, because also you have very intense electromagnetic field that could also bring electrons and all this stuff. Well, the Hacking Radiation is related with this process. And when you can have actually very intense electromagnetic field in astrophysical environment, so near a black hole, you will have, for example, a pair production and you will have a virtual pair. So it's thought that due to the very high gravitational field, one of the particles can fall inside the event horizons and you will have at least one real particle produced near to the black hole. So this particle can escape and you will have one particle produced and this particle will need some energy from somewhere, right? So the energy comes from the black hole. So this is translated as the Hacking Radiation, this loss of energy due to the pair production. So in this kind of process, you can see pair production. That is one way to think about it. Yeah, but in the sense of, yeah, I understand that with the Hacking Radiation, but do you think that it's possible to observe the effect in, I mean, I know that Hacking Radiation is super hard to observe nowadays with the technology that we have at the moment, but I don't know another type of gamma-ray burst that also there are very strong photons emitted and I don't know. No, it's just a question is, you know. Yeah, yeah, no, I understand, but I don't know if we are able to measure something like this. This process shouldn't happen in the universe, right? At some point of the history, but how we measure this is, I really haven't talked, think about it. It's actually difficult now to measure Hacking Radiation in a laboratory or UNRO radiation. So I hope maybe in the near future or not from here, it will be possible. Ah, yes. Okay, yeah, I have a nice question. Okay. Then you can have another question. And I was thinking, what do we learn with this experiment? I mean, do you expect to confirm QED or could you eventually find something new or new techniques in non-perturbative? Regimes of QED or even other models? Okay, so first, when I started my talk, I always like to talk a bit of the slack experiment at the Stanford Accelerator because I always think what they wanted to measure by that time. In that time, they wanted to measure non-linear QED and they measure it. Now the idea is to see the non-perturbative regime and indirectly measure the critical field. And if it's what it is expected, it will be a way to test QED and in a very extreme condition to test the theory. But there can be the case that you can find something different. So that means that you have to reformulate the theory and keep working. Right, so my question is, when do we know that we are within the range of errors or that we have to change the theory? I mean, my question leads to the following. If, I mean, QED is quite well established, but when you go into the non-perturbative regime, maybe you have, I mean, beyond the standard model of physics appearing or not. I don't know, do we have any possibility to measure something that goes beyond the standard model and what could it be? Right, I mean, the theory says that we should measure something with this behavior that I showed you and that would mean that, okay, the behavior is non-perturbative as it is expected by this result by Schringer, right? But if it's different, I think we are like, okay, what do we do now? Because there are not other ideas about it. We are expecting to prove the theory to be like this, right? So if we find something different, it would be also nice, right? Because then we find something funny, maybe, or something that we are not expecting. Okay, thanks. I mean, because in some theories, you expect something new, like flavor physics. Yeah. And in other cases, like, Schringer's traveling faster than light, you don't expect that. I mean, that's a result where you say that's probably wrong, the experiment, because it's so out of the way. So in this case, is it possible to find something different or would it be something like, you know, neutrinos faster than light, which are clearly not really wrong? I think that when they perform the experiment, they will measure this. There's no, like, I think that there's not like a big change of measure, something different, actually. Because QD, we know it's well-tested and it has worked until now, but it can happen that in some extreme range, it doesn't work. But there are no other ideas that I know, at least, how QD will behave in these extreme conditions. Okay, thanks. Roberto? Yeah, and in fact, there is also a question in YouTube, but then first I'm gonna do my question, then I'm gonna ask my question. Yeah, the other question that was, in fact, it's kind of related with the stuff that Federico was saying that because, in principle, in the context of the standard model, we know that QED, at some point, start to get mixed with weak forces. So to have the electro-weak processes that are very well-known, let's say, that also is well-tested. So do you expect also to more range in which range you start to have this correction due to the Z and W bosons or production, maybe, of neutrinos that would appear like kind of missing energy for your experiment or, I don't know, kind of? Because if you start to test QED in the non-linear regime, that means that your, in some sense, your energy in your processes start to be very high. So maybe in that sense also, you could start to perturbate the weak modes of the, because at the end, electrons also has a isospeed. So I don't know if you can understand what I'm saying, because I'm trying to... Yeah, I actually don't have any reference of how possible it would be to see something. I mean, in this kind of process, you could see spontaneous pair production, as I said before. This is a laser-assisted pair production because we produced the photons before. So you will have a spontaneous reproduction, but all non-linear QED process, actually. At this point, I think it's only QED. It's only QED, oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, because the kind of the stuff that I was saying, Federico, in the sense that if you start to see a deviation with respect with QED, maybe it's not faster than light neutrino, but it's only, maybe it could be weak processes that start to perturbate your model. But yeah, but in this sense, yeah, makes sense. Okay, so now we have a question from Babesh Chauhan. I hope I pronounce his name correctly. So is it possible to also produce a muon pair? So what would be the expected rate? Okay, so first to see muon pre-production, you will need to have a muon accelerator to have the very high-grantu muons. Instead of an electron accelerator, right? But he is probably asking about the pair production which happens after the laser produced spontaneously. The process after you have the electron proceed on pair production. That's what I understand that his question is. Otherwise, he can reformulate it. Yes, because actually if you have an electron initially and photons you will, I mean, unless a left thumb number violation is considered, you will have electrons, right? I think you could produce muon pairs, but the problem is you need to have a mass of around 200 times larger than the electron. So you probably don't get to the energy. Yeah, that's one point also. But first you will need a muon beam to collate with the laser. And then you maybe will see electron muon pre-production but you will need much higher intensities to go above the energy that you need to produce one pair of muons, right? I don't know if Pavèche has something to say. I think that you don't need a muon beam. I mean, but okay, I don't know about the subject, but I think that once you have the photon, the very energetic photon, which by the way, what's the energy of those photons in a few GVs, I expect? Yeah, it's expected to be around the five and 15 GVs. Yeah, so once this photon, this is a virtual photon or a real photon, but which spontaneously interacts with some field and so produces a pair of, decays basically in an electron positron pair. So it can also decay to a pair of muon and muons. Yeah, I think there has to be some probability that this process happen, but probably at a higher intensities. Yeah, probably the rate, which was his question, is very small, but on the other case, this would be very nice event because it would be very clean. Yeah, probably around the peak intensities in the case of laxi experiment. Yeah, you will have maybe one in, I don't know, a very high numbers of electron pair production. Okay, let me see what he's saying that do we really need a muon B now? E was around 17 GV, the energy of the electron. I don't know, see why muons cannot be produced? I think this is what we discussed. Yeah, I mean, there has to be some, but what I'm trying to say is that I think if you are only considered electron beam to produce muon pairs later, the rates are going to be quite small. I don't think of this experiment as a way to produce pair production. I see that the other case would be maybe the right way to see. If you really want to see muon pair production, you have to do it in another way. All right, so okay, but in any case, I think it could be a simple exercise to change the mass instead of putting the mass of the electron, put the mass of a muon and see the rate. And who knows, I mean, sometimes naive questions are not so naive, I don't know, but are leads to something. So I have also another naive question. And basically a few years ago, we were discussing as an option for the linear collider, a few years at the beginning of this decade, a gamma-gamma collider option. But then they dropped that option, but some people continue to say we want to use these free electron lasers colliding with each other and producing gamma-gamma collisions. So these collisions come also in this regime, I mean colliding gamma-gammas basically, so having two lasers between each other. So would you go into this regime or would you get a higher energy regime? Okay, I've heard of this kind of experiment that is going to be performed in Shanghai. So there is people thinking about measuring these kinds of laser-laser interactions. But in this case, I'm not sure about the numbers because you will need very high energy for the laser to see some per-production. As I showed you before, we first produced the high energy photon in a previous process in order to get higher energies. Yeah, I mean, the point is that now when you two lasers collide, you are in an experiment where you can focus on the center of mass system. And so the energy, I mean, whereas in your case is an experiment where you hit a target. So the center of mass energy is not so high as the energy of the photons, right? Because you have a moving center of mass. And in this case, you can achieve a higher center of mass energy. And I don't know what the status is. I mean, 10 years, five years ago, people were still very excited. And then they decided to build a linear collider without the photon collider option. And then they stopped the linear collider optional together and so on. Okay. Yeah, I think it's an interesting case. Also, I haven't really checked the numbers of the rates, but it's also very interesting. And yeah, probably you will see at some point, some process, but I really, I'm not sure of the numbers. I will be, like. And another naive question. And basically, I mean, light by light scattering is very important. For instance, for radiative correction for g mu minus two corrections, for instance, where you have large uncertainties, but they are the uncertainties that are QCD and not QED. Does this relate to the Luxe experiment or not? I would say no. This is only QED processes. All right. So improving QED in extreme conditions. Thank you. Okay. So I mean, I asked more than what I was expecting from a subject where I learned something, but I didn't know anything. So I don't know. We don't have any more questions on YouTube. I have one more question. Nobody kind of also all the time thinking beyond standard model cases. So do you know, or maybe other people also try to do this? Because there are all these theories that propose that there is dark photons that are kind of similar to the photon, but just not as visible as the one that we know. So, or maybe other type of particles like albs, like action-like particles, even though they are not the action from QCD, but you can have some kind of action that couples to electrons. So is it possible, I'm not saying that in your theory to include this, but in the sense, is it possible to use the same experimental setup that you were explaining to detect this type of new particle? So it was kind of the experimental setup that you explained is only for testing QED processes to this number to routine regime or something like that. Okay. There were some ideas instead of using a thin foil. So you use a thicker foil and to have a laser before. So you will have something like light shining through the wall in the first process and then making this interact again with an electromagnetic field to measure something. There are some ideas for this experiment later, they prove the QED processes. Yes, there are some ideas that you can use later, they prove the QED processes. Yes, there are some, I know that there are some thoughts about measuring action-like particles with this. Okay. So yes. Ah, good, nice. Yes. And yeah, maybe later, this will go to something like hidden photons or something like that. Yeah. Ah, cool. Yeah. Okay, thank you. So if there are no more questions, we finish this very great talk and we'll meet in our next webinar. Okay, bye.


Good morning, Hank. It's Tuesday. Last week I was in Washington, DC, to ask senators and congresspeople to prioritize tuberculosis, the world's deadliest infectious disease. But I was also there to make an announcement about our family's commitment to support comprehensive tuberculosis care. In some ways, this is the biggest bet of my life, a bet that we simply don't have to live in a world where over a million people die every year of a curable and preventable disease, and it's time to start putting my money where my mouth is. So today's video comes to you in three parts, part one, our $80 million bet. So as I discussed in this video last week, we know how to end tuberculosis because we know how we drove down TB rates by over 99% in the US and many other countries in the 1950s and 60s. We did it by searching for cases, providing curative treatment to every single person with tuberculosis, and offering preventative therapy to their close contacts. But that kind of comprehensive care has long been seen as too expensive or complicated for poor countries leading to an insane situation where we have a cure for tuberculosis, but we don't get that cure to the places it's actually needed. Now that is not to say the work is easy, it's hard. Like it's easy enough and true to say that tuberculosis is curable, but then it gets a little more complicated once you're talking about how many van-based x-ray machines you'll need and who's going to pay community health workers and other health care workers to screen for tuberculosis, and the differences between screening in rural and urban communities and so on. So okay, at a briefing on Thursday, USAID announced a new program to fund truly comprehensive care in regions of Ethiopia and the Philippines. The hope is these projects can be both a blueprint and a beacon to show how we end tuberculosis worldwide, and for once, they're pretty well funded. In the Philippines, USAID will devote 10 million dollars a year to this project. We're kicking in a million dollars a year, and the Philippine government is matching all of that by providing 11 million dollars a year. This means that over the next four years this project can have over 80 million dollars to fund comprehensive TB care beginning in one region of the country, which has the fourth highest prevalence of tuberculosis in the world. Now we're only putting in like 4% of the money, but I hope it's an important 4%, and also it gives us a seat at the table to see up close both the challenges and hopefully the successes of trying to radically drive down tuberculosis rates in the Philippines. I really believe the only way we can end TB is with this kind of public-private partnership, I mean this is a relatively small one, we need much bigger ones, but like that's how we ended smallpox, that's how we've almost ended polio. Because government buy-in to end TB is absolutely essential, no individual has enough money to end this disease, that's actually not true. Very few individuals have enough money to end this disease, and they aren't interested in doing that right now. There are so many people involved in this from USAID to the Department of Health in the Philippines, to the Partners in Health community, to all these Philippine NGOs, and to see them working together over the last few months as we've been planning this project has been so inspirational. It's not going to be easy, there are definitely risks, but I'm betting big on this project because I truly believe it has the chance to be transformational in how we think about what's possible when it comes to tuberculosis. So a couple things, first, this is not the end of our bet that TB can be defeated, and second, we're not asking you for money yet, because this can be covered by Hank and me and a few exceptionally passionate TB fighters in Nerdfighteria. So yeah, we're donating a million dollars a year to this, USAID is bringing 10 million dollars a year, and the Philippine government is bringing over 11 million dollars a year, which altogether is a lot of money. Now of course comes the hard part doing as much good as possible with it. Part two, I know there are many Filipino Nerdfighters or Nerdfighters of Filipino descent. Hello. If you're interested in this project, I'd like to be able to get your ongoing feedback and also share updates with you as they become available, because citizens asking their government to prioritize TB is a big reason we got to this momentous occasion. So if you want to be part of that group, you can email NerdfightersFilipines at gmail.com or find that in the doobly-doo. Part three, we're launching something new and very exciting over at Crash Course. Crash Course Lectures. These are like long deep dives into a single topic with unbelievably beautiful graphics. We're really excited about it, and the first one comes out on Monday at noon eastern time, and it was written and is hosted by me, and you'll never guess what it's about. We're doing a premiere so we can all watch it live together and chat with each other noon eastern time on Monday at the Crash Course channel. Whether it's maternal mortality in Sierra Leone or the global tuberculosis crisis, I am genuinely astonished by what Nerdfighteria has done through orienting their attention and some of their other resources in the same direction. It's extraordinary, and I am so, so grateful. Hank, I'll see you on Friday.


أخر سؤال عن القرآن الكريم is which sura is the first sura in the Quran and which sura is the last sura The first sura in the Quran is sura fatiha which means opening and the last sura in the Quran is sura nas which means people or mankind Which sura among of the suras in the Quran is the biggest sura, sura baqarah which means cow is the biggest sura in the Quran Another question is which sura is the shortest sura in the Quran The shortest sura is sura kawthar which means abundance or a lot of the good things How many parts are there in the Quran and what do we call them There are 30 parts and we call each of them para or juz The Quran is divided for 7 parts What is the name of each of them We call each of them manzil or stages How many ruku or paragraphs are there in the Quran There are 540 paragraphs or ruku in the Quran Who is the first hafez or the one who memorized the entire Quran The first hafez is Prophet Muhammad How many times has the name of the last prophet mentioned in the Quran 5 times, 4 times by the name Muhammad and 1 time by the name Ahmed Name the prophet whose name is mentioned and discussed most in the Quran Prophet Musa A.S What is the first anxious mosque according to the Quran Ka'bah or Masjid Al-Haram How many times has the Quran talked about prayer or namaz 700 times Allah in the Quran emphasized about Salat or prayer How many times has the Quran emphasized on charity or zakat 150 times 100 Allah سبحانه وتعالى increase our knowledge about the Quran By Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his progeny السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته


Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when I presented the bill and I asked the horrible Minister of Tourism to lead the discussion and Mr. Speaker, I never intended that discussion to be a treatise on tourism management or tourism history, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent on me that I, for the sake of history, for the sake of ensuring that the records of this horrible house and the young people, Mr. Speaker, let me just dive in a little bit to tell you why the young people in San Lucia need to know their history. Just give me two seconds, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you have a nice collage of pictures out there. And, Mr. Speaker, I think they should not be there. I think they should be framed and put in a proper place, because that's what Mr. Speaker is doing. And, Mr. Speaker, there are some bright young people who, I get about quiz, and they do, if they had to go for an exam, you see how all them pass the exam on the high. And, Mr. Speaker, it just shows me, Mr. Speaker, how the history of San Lucia, the young people in San Lucia, they get their history from sources that do not give them the facts. So, this is why it's very important when the leader of the opposition stands up and speaks the words that he speaks, I must clarify with you, Mr. Speaker. I have to. I feel duty-bound, Mr. Speaker. So, very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I will mention the idea that he says the Labour Party was against tourism. I remember, in 1998, the member for New Ford South was the Minister of Finance. And, in a budget address, he said the economy is in transition. It was transitioning from an agricultural-based economy to a service industry led by tourism and its national financial services. Mr. Speaker, the opposition castigated him, castigated him.  He, I mean, they thought he was saying, they said he had an abundant idiotrae fig, the bile coupé, all kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. You know, that's the history. When he said the economy was in transition, but he stands, sits and says the Labour Party never understood tourism or condemned tourism. He says that we bought a racism to come into solution and censure poison tourism. Who was the first politician who went on public media and accused people in his Honourable House, specifically the member for New Ford South, about being a massacre? Who was, who did it? Who did that?  And only recently, one of his senators, one of his senators, did the same thing, one of his senators, and as usual, he did not condemn it, but he speaks about, we bought the racism, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, any time you use some votes in solution, they crowd it.  Where are we heading to? Where are we heading to this country? So we are the ones who bought the racism in the politics. Who started this? Who started it, Mr. Speaker? Who started, who started saying whose lineage is in slavery, who is a master? Who started, Mr. Speaker? Then he goes and he says about we don't understand the benefits of tourism. In 1997, which government removed taxes on tips and service charge to benefit the workers of the tourism industry? Which government removed taxes so hotel workers got their taxes, got their tips and service charge free of taxes? Which government moved with the labor code to stop the shift, the double shift system in the hotels? Which government, Mr. Speaker, which government spoke about or implemented the tourism stimulus bill after 9-11 to almost double the incentives for hotel investments in the country? Which government and, Mr. Speaker, then the village tourism, the member of the leaders of income that speaks about what he called village tourism. Village tourism was a completely new idea that came from the genius of the leader of the opposition and he thought that village tourism would have benefited Lucia as long before under the member of you, there was something called the nature heritage tourism program where we sought to improve local hotel sites, waterfalls etc. Who started the Ansari fish fry? Who started the Mrs. Speaker?  Who did it? Who built the road to win jammer on a nature heritage tourism program? Who decided that we should we would have insurances for waterfalls and rivers and then the flower place in Miku? We developed it as a tourism place to bring tourists to the hinterland of the country. Which government, Manico Gardens, thank you. Which government, we have them in the insurance and keeping the area so tourists could come? Which government decided that point seraphim, that there was a gate at point seraphim that was closed? I mean, listen to me, that tourists had to come, had to go right around and did not come to the arcade. Who opened that gate for tourists to come through before 9-11 and the store after 9-11? Who did that? Which government? Which government builds the at month at the month next government house? Which government build the lookout in that area? Which government build the lookout in January? Which government? Yes, in my daily, which government? I talk about we don't know about tourism. I mean, never supported tourism. Which government? Which government? Mr. Speaker, the member for Miku South speaks about hotel development and trying to be sarcastic. He said, oh, I'm glad you all come together with me. When he came into government, he found range developers building a hotel. We came here and we begged him not to change the model. He changed the model. Range developers left the country and he had to pay them millions of dollars and they went to Dominica and they built Dominica's first six-star hotel. Which government, Mr. Speaker, which government decided that jazz would have to have to have the economic effects in the country? Have to create it? And we had the jazz and arts festival. We added an arts component to the jazz festival, Mr. Speaker. Which government? Who condemned it? Which government decided that Darren Sammy was somebody that had to be used to promote Saint Lucia? Which government decided to give him his first set of cricket gear and his first and his trips to play cricket in England? Which government? So, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition comes to his honorable house and this time his advisor asked him to change the style. He said, I am happy that you are embracing. We don't need his happiness because we always understood the benefit of tourism. He was the one who started the idea of transition from agricultural tourism. I was the minister of international services. We started the offshore industry in the country. The same way we started a CIP, we only started it and how did we start it? We started it with a group that the member of view for us was ensured that members of the opposition were in that group that began exploring the benefits of CIP for Saint Lucia. Which government? When it came to change the model, which government, Mr. Speaker? So, you know, Mr. Speaker is very, very important. It's very important that I make these points for the young people of Saint Lucia to understand the history because, Mr. Speaker, this population, more than half of it are people below the age of 25 years old. And these people listen to that kind of thing and believe it. They listen to that misinformation, especially when it's done in a nice, you know, when it's packaged properly in social media. And they believe it, Mr. Speaker. So, I have to clear that career, not for my benefit and my way out, for the benefit of the young people of Saint Lucia, for the benefit of the future institution. I'm sure the member from Miku North, if I bring him out, they're here to stand in front of that table there. I'm sure he doesn't know some of the people outside there. They're a member for Miku North and he's a member parliament. Because, Mr. Speaker, the history of this country has not been written away where we can celebrate our heroes and know the truth. So, we listen to the truth on talk shows. We listen to our history on talk shows. We listen to our history on things we write three minutes on TikTok. Nothing wrong in that. But that's where we learn our history. So, we have to find a way. And this Honorable House should be a way, should be a place where the young people of Saint Lucia should know the history of Saint Lucia, Mr. Speaker. How many young people know about the liberalization of the telephone industry in Saint Lucia led by the member for Vufa South and colleagues George? How many people know that, Mr. Speaker? How many people know about going to secondary school? Sixty or fifty people out of two thousand could own into the secondary school in Saint Lucia. Some people didn't even know that they needed tax clearance to travel to Saint Lucia. So, when they made a big fuss about peer, when they tell people they can't travel, because they owe taxes, because right down that building, there was a little hut, a little cubicle, where you had to go for tax clearance. You had to pay five dollars for it. Who removed it? The member for Vufa South. He's the one who removed it. So, when you hear that, he comes and gives this confluted view of history and appears as if he's a kuru and he did tourism. The guy was a minister of tourism for five years and prime minister for five years. But he pretends as if he don't have number one and he's happy that we have embraced tourism. Thank you for your happiness. We don't have to embrace neither. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to support this. Finally, Mr. Speaker, who started the Rangers and the Hostess program? In Saint Lucia, there dismantled it when many came there. We had employed Rangers and Hostesses. They dismantled it. And now we're going to bring it back. We dismantled the nature heritage tourism program. They stopped it. And now they came. They come back for village tourism. Pretend as if it's the first time that's come in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would do that because of the way in which these people fashion Saint Lucia and try to place a little party in a position where we would never work. Mr. Speaker, what the Labour Party stands for is Saint Lucia first. We're not against foreign direct investment. The most lucrative slope, the most lucrative set of foreign investment legislation was passed by the Sinusha Labour Party. The most lucrative, the most lucrative. We have a, we're talking about taxation. The next motion is going to be about taxation, Mr. Speaker. And you will see the history of taxation in Saint Lucia. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to support this motion on the tourism environment fund. And I thought it necessary that we give, we go back a little in time. And I know the member shows he knows that too. He knows about that too. He knows about some of the misinformation that comes from inside. But one thing of him, he does not repeat it. He doesn't, he doesn't repeat it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, history, history, history. Let me make it history, Mr. Speaker. Because you know, these days we drop in documented house, talk about investment and who stopped investment. The range investment, Mr. Speaker, that came into Saint Lucia started with us. And he speaks about CIP and hotels. The range investment, Mr. Speaker. The range investment. We begged him. We begged the member for Microsoft to not to interfere in how the range development was progressing. We begged him. I sat here and although they said that we have lost our right to speak, I sat here and I begged him. I remember the member for Microsoft begging him to not interfere with that, let it go. But he is speaking about because we started it, he stopped it. There are a number of things that we started that we stopped, Mr. Speaker. And one day I was talking to a friend of mine and I said to them in 2016, when we lost the election, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the projects that were on the table. Rosalie Highway, St. Jude Hospital, PPP Fund for the airport, Millennium Highway, Lysus Health Center, and OKU Hospital was complete. If they had just sat down, just sat and allowed these projects to continue, we would not be in government. But they changed, they talked about changing things. They changed everything including the range hotel. And you don't know what it cost us to change the further, further, hence what it cost us. Requests for advance, settlement agreement, government of St. Lucia and range developers. The Department of Finance requests that the Minister of Finance grant approval of an advance to the Department of Finance to finance obligations for settlement agreement arising out of a dispute. In relation to the development agreement for the development of a hotel resort in St. Lucia, range development St. Lucia in the amount of $5,200,000 United States dollars, talking about wasting money and who was the government treasury and who doesn't know how to handle money. The approach on May 41, 2016, and you know, Mr. Speaker, they have always threatened me, been the evidence, been the evidence. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I have a country to run. I have a country to run. I have to see about the young people, I have to get employment for them, I have to deliver the investors that will, that will push their way from St. Lucia. I have to deliver them. So I don't have time to go into come every time and read documents and pull up things, pull up that. But if we're in the business of winning documents, for those that they did not discard, I'll bring some, some of them that will not discard it. I'll bring some, Mr. Speaker, because we want to challenge and threaten people. You know, on May 44, the government St. Lucia entered an agreement for the developer, RDSL, to develop a resort district of Black Bay, St. Lucia. This agreement was amended on May 15, 2017. Following a period of negotiations, the parties have agreed to terminate these arrangements and have now entered into a settlement agreement on August 18, 2018. So you terminate what's there and now you enter into a new one. While provisions have not been made in the 2018-2019 estimates of expenditure for financing the expenditure, the Department of Finance proposes that revenue raised from the proceeds of the citizens investment program be utilized to finance, be utilized to finance expenditure. It should be noted that this expenditure will be part of the supplementary estimates in 2018-2019. Talk about use of funds and how we're using CIP funds. We have that discussion. We have that discussion. Why are you the CIP funds? Why is CIP money going? We have that discussion. We have that discussion. The Department of Finance requests that the Minister of Finance approves and advances to the Department of Finance for a settlement agreement arising out of a dispute in relation to a development agreement for the development of a hotel resort in St. Lucia to range developer's solution limited in the amount of $5,200,000 United States Dollars. That is the history, the issue of who's stopping projects, the issue of who's using CIP funds. That's the history. That's the history. That's the facts. Who is stopping projects, who found projects and they let it continue? This government has never had to pay anybody to stop any project. This government has not had to pay anybody for stopping any project. This government has not had to pay anybody compensation to anybody for stopping any project. So all these threats and these as if they have a secret, this government has no secrets. This government has no secrets. We are open. We are open to even sovereigns. We know everything. We have no secrets. I have no secrets. I call in no investor. Let's not go there. Let's not go there now. Let's not go there now. But you know, we have no secrets. None. Let's not open government. And that's why you criticized a while ago because you say that I said I don't know certain things. I'm not a god. I don't know. I don't know many things and I wouldn't pretend that I know. I wouldn't pretend that I know things that I don't know and bluff my way around and when they catch me lying, come back and say that's not what I said. I wouldn't do that. So Mr. Speaker, when they try to pollute the history about our record in tourism, Mrs. Speaker, the history is clear. Now let me give you a few facts. I, under the guidance of the millions for view votes of, build the most hotels in solution history for now. If you want to go for facts, built, operating. If you want to, let's go facts now. Let's be factual. We had, when we were in government, we had and in a record the highest number of silver visitors ever in solution for the time that you speak about on the millions of tourism. Let's do the facts. Let's do the facts. I'm the one who got the point serving port configured so it could take heavy, the largest ships of the industry. Facts, mega ships, facts. You want to talk about facts and who did what for tourism? Let's talk about it. When you come here and you mixed up the history, you just think that didn't exist.   Who started the expansion of Virgin Airlines of airline services to solution? Who started joint marketing or continue joint marketing when we traveled with members of the private sector and members of the Ministry of the Ministry of Tourism and members of the the National Tourism Board? Who expanded the Ministry of Tourism? When I came to government in 1997, the member of UFO itself allowed me to do a consultation with a fellow called Scantabari on the structure of the Ministry of Tourism. Who started that? It was, it was a sham with the Honorable Romanus Lansico, a fellow called Pedro Toussaint, Percival McDonald, a cleaner and a messenger. That's why it was, so don't come and talk about, we only know we begin to accept tourism and you have this hypocritical thing. I'm happy, keep your happiness. Yes, I'm happy and I'll say you turn investors to invest in television. These guys don't know what they're doing.  You, you stop in all kinds of things, trying to, trying to, we are beginning to expand. We are beginning to some work on the, on the port.  And so you opened some big mega port in Tenlusha. You, you spoke to several shipping companies to tell them to develop points or something. None of it working. None of it came to, came to pass. We're doing it now and you complaining and you complaining. You complaining. Mr Speaker, you, you try your best to stop GPH. You, you did whatever you could do because you did not want it to happen because you did not want it to have, after you tried it because you didn't want to have the benefit that comes to Tenlusha. You came into documents and you found an agreement to build an airport. You went to the IHC with a member for Cassius Knopf. But people begged you. They said, do not do that Prime Minister. Please continue. Do not change that model. They begged you. There are hundreds of airports around the world who are built like that. They begged you.  That's how they say you cheated them. And then, and we had to pay the IHC for you. You come talk about it.  First loan tied to a contractor. And you instructed Slasper to employ that, that contractor. And you paying 5% interest plus 8% fees on top of the 5% interest. So you paying 13% interest for that airport deal. And you want me to continue that? You think about good conscience. I will pay 13%. 5% interest and 8% for every transaction. 13%. And you want me to continue that. You had a project, the airport went on a, as you bill project, no plans, no bill of quantities, as you bill, no bill of quantities for the terminal building, no bill of quantities, you billed it as if it is a, of our cage of billing. Do that now. I pay you. Do that now. I pay you. And airports, you had no bill of quantities. I am the one now who has, who have instructed that Slasper to repair a bill of quantities and a consultant who was, was selected. Just last week to do that. How in your good conscience, you think I could continue building a terminal building and you have no bill of quantities, no final design as you go, as you go, bill it as you go, of our cage of billing.  You have no bill of quantities for the largest investment project in the country. In the history of this country, you have no bill of quantities. You tie the loan to the contractor and you select the contractor by direct award. This bill, it hurts me. When I see this, this, this is masquerading as financing and try to denigrate us. And this, and the sad thing is that the way he tries to denigrate us and, and call us all kind of names, as if we don't know what we're doing, we are fools, test people all over the world that these guys don't know what, I don't know what I'm doing. And, and say, Lucia is in a mess. Predicting, predicting. And further, I also have something to say. I won't say now about the crime in Saint Lucia. I'll say that some point.  I know, I know all that pretends about crime and who's pushing crime. I know what's happening behind the scene. I'm starting behind the scene. I know. You see, Mr. Speaker, when, when you are in a hit, when you do not want, when you do not want to accept the will of the people and you believe that you have a divine rights. You understand, Mr. Speaker? That's what happens. Always threatening people. Try your best. Trying your best, Mr. Speaker, to denigrate people. You understand, Mr. Speaker? So, Mr. Speaker, I thought that I would speak about these things because of the way that the member from Microsoft speaks about us and speaks about this track record and speaks about tourism and to the financial management of the economy. All kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. So he has already started to attack the estimates that you will get tomorrow. He starts already. He begins to attack it. Begins. Because in his mind, he knows. Because these things are not secret. I don't, I don't call my technocrats and say this. We, we work as a team. So he may know already what's in the book. He may see that the progress of financial situation in paper, he may see what happens. He'll feel, he'll understand where unemployment is. He will know what are the growth projections. So he already started to denigrate it. To discredit it. He started already, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to be talking about a tax bill in a while. And I'm going to show the public again. And I hope he stays and listen. Which government has done the most for tax reduction and tax relief and pollution? I hope he stays and listen to that. Because the history is there. The history is there. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to support this motion, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask members to please support the motion. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


headline news update. Everyone Basel chapter on this Monday, the beginning of the week. This is Monday, the 8th of November. We're looking at the doubt for the Tiger Financial News Network market update up 158 at 36,483 all time high. It actually went to 36,565 earlier on. We'll see if that's able you're able to maintain that. Meantime back at the ranch, there is one particular index that says to me or tool that's just to me just be a little careful here that we could get some kind of a pullback. And that is the on balance volume, which is a little double top. And the chapter we've notation says in a leg F. I'm calling this F for now. We'll have to see how this closes and what happens over the next two or three days. Just make it as simple as possible. Can you believe that just three, four days ago, we were in the 35,800. Now we're at 36,474. Incredible move. And look at this weekly chart skyrocketed from the under 34,000 just a month and a half ago to the 36,000 halfway into the 36,000. Amazing. All right, here we go. The S&P somewhat different here. So we've got different notations. That's what you can expect very often in the market. As you're getting to some all time highs, there's to be made it's all time high on Friday at 47,1850. Today's high is 47,14.92 fractionally under it. And we're trading right now up only five at 47,03 when the Dow is actually up 140. So we're looking and there's a doji candle. I mentioned this to my subscribers from opening call in my overview section. We're watching all these dojis. Look, QQQ, doji candle. Well, it filled out on Friday, but it is leg C 499 so far hasn't made a leg extension. I'm anticipating this week we go to a leg D. Then you've got to be somewhat careful. IWM Russell 2000 making an all time high as we speak at 244.46 went through Fridays 243.40 high. This is very good. This is a leadership in the small caps just real quickly. We've got gold gold is up again up seven. But really what's interesting is look at this Bitcoin huge move up previous half of 68,030. Today's high 66,955 filling in that the rectangle formation and the TLT will talk about when I get back for my tiger technicians. I hope you can be there. Stay tuned. Otherwise, see you tomorrow.