Dwi'n fyddiw i ddweud, Andrew. Felly, ddweud i'n mynd i'n ffordd ti'n wneud, i'r cyffredinol a'r cwmaint i'n ffasg ffordd. Dyma, ar hyn sy'n meddwl i'r ffrindig o'r ffrindig ac yn cyfriffeilio'r cyfriffeilio. Mae'n gwneud yn 2008, yna i gyd, ac mae'n amgylchedd yma o'r ffrindig yma. a oedd yw'r cyflawni a'r cyflawni wedi'i gweithio bod eich cyflawni a'r energi awdur, a'r cyflawni a'r cyflawni yn y UK. Mae ganddo yw'r cyflawni, mae'n cyflawni, a'r cyflawni a'r cyffordd, a'r cyfrifio ar gyfer y ffraenig yw'r 2014, a ddim yn ymgyrch yn ei wneud hyn yn ymdysgfaen nhw, oherwydd mae'n gweld yn ymddangos. Ond oherwydd ddifen nhw'n ddwylo'r ffinolynig ymddangos ddweud yn cael ei ddweud, ac mae'r ffordd byddaeth yn defnyddio'r wyf yn ddiwedd ar hynny o'r ddweud ymddangos. A ddweud yw'n ddim yn oes i ddechrau ac yn 2011 oedd gwiswch a'i amser am ymddangos. Mae'r ddweud yn ddim yn ddim ymddangos a'r ddweud yn oed yn ddweud y ffinolynig. A dyna wedi bod y ddweud ymddangos rwy'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl i'w hyd yn teimlo'r energio cerddwyddoch chi ac ydych chi'n meddwl i'r bobl i wneud ar gyfer fforddau US Bank, Ben Bernanke i'r ymddorol i'r cwmpewter. A dyna'r meddwl i'r meddwl i wneud ar gyfer os ddim yn ymddangos, ond rydyn ni wedi bod yn fydig gwybod yn eistedd o'r hyn sy'n gwybod mewn gwirioneddol, That led me on a path to look into economics. It was actually my dad who sent me the link to positive money. I was really excited to join as the campaign manager. Just to say a bit more, we're kind of a research and campaigning organisation set up by Ben in 2010. We spent the first few years really researching the monetary system. I'm just trying to tell people how money's created without being told that you're mad... ...and now we're kind of moving into a more campaigning section of our organisation... ...as the debate is kind of expanding. So we ask questions like inequality. Why is the gap between rich and poor getting bigger? Housing. Why are prices too high for people to afford? . sandy environment. what's stopping us tackling climate change when we try and link the big issues to how the monetary system works. For all those problems, there's an issue like money can solve them fusionally, but how does the money system actually work? Who creates it? Quite often, when I think of money, you think of it as circulating, is banks and background in the economy.. only kind of leaving when the banknotes get too old. But actually there are kind of two types of money. So there is money that circulate in the economy but there's also a kind of spendable IOU which is created when someone takes out a loan and then when they repay the IOU is ripped up, and disappears. And the everlasting money is cash and coins ac mae'n gweithio gyda'r Bank of England i'r UK, ac mae'r Cash and Coins i'r Scotland i'n gweithio gyda'r Bank of England i'n gweithio gyda'r UK. Ac mae'n gweithio gyda'r 3% o gweithio gyda'r unrhyw o'r unrhyw o'r UK o'r Pound Stirling. Ac mae'n gweithio gyda'r 97% o gweithio gyda'r IOU sy'n gweithio gyda'r Lones ac yn ddigon ni'n rhoi'r IOU gwladu. A mae'n gweithio'r 97% o gweithio gyda'r IOU gyda'r Bank of England i chi odyn yn gweithio gyda'r bach gyda'r Lones. Ac mae'n gweithio'r IOU, gyda'r branch gyda'r 5 bach gyda'r bank o gyda'r IOU. The money they create is in the form of electronic deposits in bank accounts. The numbers you see flashing up on the ATM. Most of that money is created when banks make a loan and it's held electronically on the bank's balance sheet. So we don't have a kind of money system from households to businesses to banks. to banks. We do not have this model that is actually still taught in textbooks. Save as deposit money in banks and banks lend to borrowers. That model does not work. Money is created at the point in which somebody goes into a bank and takes out a loan. I like to think of that money, the spendable IOUs, as an easy way to think of the electronic money the women of fire uses as the bath water in the bath and when the loins are made it's like the water coming in through the taps and when the loan's are repaid then it's like the water coming out the plug hole. Obviously it's quite tricky to get those two in balance, so usually what's happening is either the money's flooding out of the taps or as we saw after the financial crisis actually banks panic and stop lending it's like the taps being switched off. Ond mae'r bwysig y gallwn yn cael ei wneud i'r byw yn gwneud i'r llon ac mae'n fwyaf i'r bwysig i'r system ac mae'r wath yn ymwyfydd yn ymdweithio y plwg. Ac mae'n oed yn ymdweithio'r cyd- oedd o'r ddefnyddio. Yn y US, yma yw'r grwp sydd yn y L-20, mae'r ddwyf yn gweithio'r ddwyf yn ymdweithio'r ddwyf, ac mae'n gweithio'r ddwyf yn ddwyf yn ymdweithio'r ddwyf yn gweithio'r ddwyf. Felly, ydych chi'n gweld, a byddwn i'n ffordd'r dweud, byddwn i Professor Galbraith, byddwn i'n gwybod y bydd y banc gwirionedd ymlaen, yn fwy gwybod y byddwn i'n gweld. OK, mae hi'n gwybod y byddai'n gweld? Well, yn 1970 ydy'r ffordd 30 bilion pwn yn ddwy'r cofnol i'r cofnol. By 1980, y gweinline yw cash, ac y blwline yw'r elektronicaeth yw'r loneg yw'r banc yw'r cyfnod, ac mae'n dweud 100 bilion. Yn ymwneud yw'r gweinline yw by 1990? Not quite there yet, half a trillion, about 500 billion. Anyone to guess by 2000? It's till about 850 or 900 billion. And then before the financial crisis, that's when we went past a trillion. So then it was about 2.2 trillion pounds. Bank issued money and then you can see the fraction of cash obviously getting smaller and smaller until it's about 3% as it is now. So quite a substantial amount of money in the economy. Obviously because it's all being issued when people take out a loan, then it all is backed by debt. So the amount of debt in the economy increases at the same amount. So we have a situation where basically we rent our currency from private banks because we take out loans from the banks and we have to repay them with interest. So that interest is really the rents that we pay the banking sector for having the privilege to create our national currency. And actually that breaks down to quite a significant amount of money. So it's about 100 to 200 billion pounds that we pay them per year in rent. And that breaks down to about 2.4 to 4.8 thousand pounds per person, which is quite a significant amount of money. And obviously one of the reasons they are so profitable as an industry. Okay, so they get to create all of the money but what happens to that money? Surely they do something useful. Who decides how to use it? Well, it's the same banks that create it that get to allocate it. And as I said, because we've got a really undiverse banking sector, there's actually just five big banks which get to create and allocate most of the money in the economy. And it's not the bank person that you see when you go into your local branch that's really deciding whether to lend to you or not. It's some kind of complicated algorithms or profit maximising algorithms that say that. So it's quite a concentrated amount of people that decide where it gets allocated. And quite a vast sum of money. So in the five years going up to the crisis, 2002, 2007, they allocated 2.9 trillion pounds into the UK economy. Okay, so where did it go? Well, it didn't go into particularly useful things for society or us as individuals. 40% went into mortgage lending which inflated a housing bubble which I'll talk about a bit more later. 37% went into financial markets. So that's kind of almost 80% going into things that aren't really useful for most normal people. And only 13% went into business lending. What most people think is the whole job of banks to do is to lend to business. It's actually only about 10% of what they do. And another 10% went into credit cards, high cost credit, personal loans. So they have a choice where to put the money and obviously they're always going to choose where is most profitable. So they don't lend to productive parts of the economy anywhere near the way people kind of think they do. And it's around 10% of lending is directed towards useful things. And the majority of it is towards what we'd call non-productive. So financial markets and speculation and mortgage lending. And so what happens is you kind of have consequences which aren't necessarily useful. House prices increase quite rapidly. You just have a situation where the banks get to decide what they do with your money. And in terms of speculating in markets, food speculation has caused some attention because some campaigning groups such as World Development Movement has been highlighted. They shouldn't be speculating on food prices which can have really bad consequences for some of the poorest parts of the world. And you can end up in a situation where you're depositing your money with Barclays and they're investing or using part of that money to invest in things like the tar sands in Canada, which is obviously undesirable. But actually they have the legal control over the money when you deposit with the bank. And obviously all the time that they're creating this money it's causing households and businesses to go further into debt. And so this is just a graph to show the kind of between 1990 and 2008 household savings as a percentage of personal debt going up. Personal debt as a percentage of GDP going up between 1990 and 2008 from about 60 to 100%. And at the same time savings as a percentage of disposable income falling from about 10% to zero. So you can see that kind of on the whole we've been getting more and more indebted in this boom. And eventually the debt becomes too much and a financial crisis is kind of precipitated. And this is a debt earner who was the chairman of the FSA in 2012 saying the financial crisis occurred because we failed to constrain the private financial systems creation of private credit money. So we have the system where if the banks aren't lending like the financial crisis then there's no money. And worse than that money's actually disappearing as I showed in the bathtub situation earlier. People are still paying down their debts, banks aren't lending so the kind of money in circulation is shrinking in the economy. So you get headlines like this where politicians are desperate to get banks lending again because it's the only way to get new money into the economy. And as I said, yep, the taps turn off and people are still paying the debt so the amount of money shrinks. And quite quickly after a financial crisis you get a lot of people unemployed. So you can just see the year along the bottom and around 2008 to 2009 a jump of a million people became unemployed. And obviously we live in a country where if you're unemployed you have social security and so obviously that's when the national debt jumped a lot as well. That's the situation that we're in. So we have a system where if we want more money in the economy then we have to take on more debt. Obviously we want less debt and so we have less money and really we'd like a system where you can have less debt with more money but that's not possible. So I could stop there and say that's basically what positive money are advocating that we just want a system where you can have less debt and more money. But I'll talk for a little bit more about some of the kind of negative consequences of this system. So why is the gap between Rich and Poor getting bigger? So we kind of have this myth that it's fine for lots of people at the top to have lots of money because it trickles down to the rest of us but in reality through systems like the monetary system it's sucked up from all of us to the people with lots of wealth and that's done through the money system with the kind of interest that we pay to the banks. So this kind of just shows income groups into desiles, into tens and the poorest 10% of people pay a disproportionately high amount so 9.4% of their income, all of the red, is paid to banks in interest whereas the wealthiest 10% have a disproportionately low amount so only 1.4% of their income is paid to banks in the form of interest payments. So another way is that obviously businesses and households need the money to kind of keep the economy going and so they all have to pay interest on that in the form of loans when they take out loans to banks so that transfers money from the real economy to the banking sector. Geographically, as I said, we've got a concentrated banking sector in the city of London so from everywhere else in the country money's kind of sucked in to that again in the form of interest payments and also what you do with your money so when we're all taking out lots of debt wealthy people tend to take out debt to leverage their assets and speculate on things like mortgages and buying more properties whereas if you're on a lower income you tend to buy consumables which will actually depreciate through time so that's another factor to increase this inequality that we've already got. So I've talked a bit about housing already but just to show a graph because everyone likes graphs so the purple line is house prices between 1991 and 2010 and that's showing the index relative to that so you can see they increased by 300% up until the crisis in 2007 and the other three lines are population growth, housing stock and mortgage lending so you have to guess which is which so which is the green line, I think that's next yep, very good, population growth anyone guess the red line? yeah, housing stock so the myth that you know it's a supply and demand issue we just don't have enough houses it might be true on a geographical level but on a national level we have enough houses for the people and so one of the big drivers is the blue line which is obviously mortgage lending which increased over 500% up to the financial crisis it's really driving that bubble it's money being pumped into mortgages through that period of time but interestingly it wasn't the own occuporship increase it's not like more people got to own their own houses actually that went down throughout that time it was mostly mortgages going to people who already owned homes buying more homes, buying to let getting on the buy to let scheme and all of that money being pumped into mortgages had one big effect for people who were renting or had one mortgage, the house that they lived in which was just to pump up house prices so in 96 the average house price was £51,000 it increased to £78,000 in 2004 increased to £140,000 in 2004 and increased to in 2008 to £179,000 so a huge increase over that period of 12 years ok, so just moving on to democracy so you have a situation where you know as we saw the financial crisis made a lot of people unemployed which increased the national debt because of their social security and welfare and you have a situation where a debt based money system after a financial crisis and nations become heavily indebted weakens the democracy as that kind of dwarfs the discourse and there's not too many options for politicians to take but also in terms of the actual money going into the economy so in the five years leading up to the crisis the government spent £2.1 trillion and commercial banks lent £2.9 trillion so a significant amount more which suggests their power to really shape the economy and what kind of industries we have in the economy and what we don't and obviously whilst the 650 MPs who decide where that £2.1 trillion goes and most of it's already allocated to various departments it's a very small amount of people deciding where that £2.1 trillion goes and where it enters the economy and whether it just gets stuck in mortgages and financial markets before it hits anyone in the kind of real economy doing real work so, could it be different? well, we definitely think so and we're not the only organisation we want to see a money system where businesses and households and people that do real work in the economy to keep things going don't have to take on more and more debt it's going to further debt we want to see a situation where you don't have to have a money a money system that has to continuously grow because if it doesn't grow it will collapse into a recession and a lot of businesses will go bankrupt out of no fault of their own and we want a money system where money gets to the places we need whether that's affordable housing or flood defences that's in Dundee, I think I'm not sure where it is but somewhere in Scotland and energy, we need renewable energy so we want to see a money system where we can get new money to the places we actually need for a healthy economy so what does positive money do? well, as I said, the first few years was really taken up with research so we did one book with the New Economics Foundation called Where Does Money Come From and then this was the book that we did on our own so Andrew Daxon and Ben Dyson wrote it and it's called Modernising Money and it's also how the money system works now but also half of it is how we propose things could be different I won't lie, isn't the most exciting of reads quite a few balance sheets in there but it's quite a thorough thought through proposal of how things could be different that isn't totally out there it could be done basically what we propose are that we could have a situation where instead of going to a bank and depositing it and it being legally theirs and they can do what they like with it you have a situation where you basically you have two types of accounts you have a current account which will sit with a bank but it will, within that bank it will sit at the Bank of England and they won't be able to do anything with it it will be safe, it will be money that they can't and speculate anywhere and so if there's any financial crisis that money won't have moved and you'll be able to extract it as and when and then there'll be investment accounts where if you do want to take a little bit of risk but get some interest on your money you can invest it but you kind of realign risk and reward so our proposal also suggests that banks won't be able to create money anymore actually all new money will be sustainable everlasting money that doesn't get destroyed when loans are repaid and the way that will work well kind of with our bathtub analogy it will be like putting the plug in and shifting who is in control of the taps so it will no longer be the banks that are creating money they are going back to being kind of intermediaries between savers and borrowers and the decision of how much and what for gets a split because we're not if you have both under the same control mechanism then it's a conflict of interest and in a similar way to the current monetary policy committee sets interest rates you could have a money creation committee that looks at how much new money if any we need in the economy each month and the government looks how to spend it and so that money will be created free from debt and spent in the public interest so is this a radical idea well maybe some people think but it has happened before in the UK one of the only kind of historical documented places but in the 1800s or before then all over the UK banks could create their own banknotes and that led to quite an unstable money system where lots of financial crises happened and the government of the day decided that actually the Bank of England should take on the sole responsibility for issuing banknotes so they passed a bill, the Peel Act in 1844 it's never been updated to account for obviously the kind of evolution of money and actually there's been a never been a debate on Parliament really since then about money creation and who should create a national currency so I mean Scotland cannot mention the fact that you're going to have a referendum on Scottish independence and you know it's kind of doesn't really change things we're advocating for money reform on a UK wide scale if Scotland went independent then we'd hope that people would advocate for money reform on a national scale in Scotland and we've done a small report just to kind of lay out the five design floors of the Pound Sterling and how it could be done differently if Scotland did go independent and you could set up your own central bank and issue your own national currency and tomorrow we're launching a petition positive money to basically say that we want to have a national debate now about money creation so we're launching that through our subscribers we've got about 25,000 people now who are supporting us online and we're hoping that they're all going to sign it and share it and get a lot more people interested in this debate because we think it's a really important one and to kind of follow that up we are pushing for a backbench debate so MPs who are on the backbenches can put forward their own debates we've got a handful, we're now up to 11 that are committed to going to a backbench debate and talking about this issue of money creation and who should create our nation's currency and so we'd love for you if you're interested try and get them interested I think come and talk to Andrew or Richard or Scott about maybe going as a team and see what MPs, see if you can get them interested we're not asking them to have an opinion to say what the right proposal is or to agree with positive money but we're saying we should have a national debate about who gets to create it because the same banks that caused the financial crisis it's still the same system, nothing's changed we've still got an affordable housing we've still got the highest personal household debt in history and they're getting to blow up another housing bubble so we need a national debate so we're trying to get things going across the UK so we've had about 150 meetups over the last year in 30 different cities we're getting local groups to meet up more regularly lots of quite a few meet up monthly it's going to be great if a local group formed here in Edinburgh and also we are kind of spreading internationally so we've now got about up to 20 sister organisations so all volunteers they're not as big as or they haven't grown as many supporters as we've got in the UK but they're starting, they've got websites they've got social media accounts and they're raising the debate in all these countries across Europe and even further afield so that's quite exciting especially when smaller countries which don't have such vast bank lobbies can actually get to their politicians quite easily and get a debate going so we're quite excited about places like Iceland where there's even interest to do a feasibility study potentially into money reform so we want to support them because although we want to grow the campaign in the UK we are well aware that we have one of the two biggest banking lobbies in the world so if we can see some other countries move first as well that would be great so that's about all from me just to kind of leave it at that it's not a law of nature that we have to have a debt based money system thanks for coming so I have two questions the first question is say what is the amount of money that banks lend in four different categories and the two first were non-productive and the two last were productive, right? Do you understand right now? Yeah, I mean so it was the third almost for business loans in the UK so the question is if that's the middle of the money they lend is from productive stuff right when they chop the top why do they not chop just the first part and not the second part or put in another words what's the benefit of not lending to business at any crisis time and the second question is why is it possible to change the currency system in one country without changing it in all the others to make it possible because I don't know Iceland decides to start changing it but then how do they do it to for example buy foreign currency in that country with that they appreciate their money to have certain values or something Should I answer that one before we go? So first question on business I mean it's so it's just really not in the bank's business model anymore to make small loans to businesses because they're so ginormous basically you know if you've got a thing about so there are kind of two things first the amount of the loan and then the kind of back up so if you lend to a house the average house price in London is now hitting half a million pounds if the person then defaults on their loan you've still got the house obviously you don't that often make that big of business loans of half a million pounds so you make lots of small loans it's lots more paperwork to do to make that many loans but also with their limited liability if a business goes bust then there's not much for the if they default on their loan there's not much for the bank to take so there might be some assets like some computers or something but there's not much to back that up so it's just more risky and in many different ways it's more risky so that's why they're incentivised both in that way and also in the kind of international banking standards way to lend to mortgages and then with the international one yeah it's a really good question I mean obviously if say a small country like Iceland did the money reform thing there would obviously be a big reaction in the markets and bankers panic and say oh not going to invest in that I signed a company anymore but it kind of depends I guess how dependent how the country is on flows of money coming in and out of their country in terms of the real economy but there's no practical reason why it can't happen and why the market shocks wouldn't calm down after a period of time but also there's the potential that it might be seen as once they got over the initial shock they might actually realise it's quite a safe investment then because it's not going to have booms and busts as easily so it might even become an attractive country to invest in One of the things that I feel to me aboutquisitive money was democratisation and the idea about the or the idea about using a committee to decide how much money should be that I'm a wee bit uneasy about that on two grounds one is that it sort of implies it's a technical matter about really it's a political one isn't it and the other thing is how would they be accountable to the public because what's to stop it just being captured by the kind of interest that we've seen capture the finance industry I mean it's not a straightforward matter and I don't say that we've not necessarily got it right I think the issue is that you could say a lot of politicians are already a bit captured so then giving them both the kind of power to create money and allocate it could be a conflict of interest and because the public are so distrustful of politicians at the moment part of the way that we've made the reforms to make them as politically acceptable in the current situation not saying that we can necessarily really bound to these specific reforms and we've kind of put bit more democracy in place so at the moment the MPC is really undemocratic and it's just appointed by the governor and obviously the governor of the bank union is just appointed by the chancellor and we kind of say that there should be some kind of election where the MPs elect a bit like they currently elect like the select committees so at the moment MPs elect who's on the committees based on who is knows more about the environment or knows more about housing or knows more about the treasury like economics so we kind of say that MCC should be elected economists but I think it is kind of a technical you have to have economists on there because if the stability thing you don't want to be creating excess amounts of money or too little money that might make you go into inflation or deflation so you do kind of have to have some people that are able to do the modelling and the kind of complicated stuff I think Okay, point taken but I trust economists even less than I trust Yeah, I think I have two questions but that's okay so the first question we have one of the two banking lobbies Banking lobbies in the world I'm just wondering what does a banking lobby look like So it's just because our banking sector is so big and has so much money they just have vast amounts of resources to put into like stopping any legislation going through so like a good example is at the moment or with the banking reform bill we're trying to get like transparency so basically data release that shows what sectors banks are lending to on a postcode scale across the UK so whether they're lending to businesses or mortgages or whatever and that's just transparency and they were really fought hard against it and what they have is just resource to pour into paying lawyers and paying advisers how to stop any reform going through and yeah so whereas civil society generally don't have any resources so if they want to kind of push something through then getting MPs time getting legal advice about a bill is just a lot more difficult so it's that just unequal unequal kind of distribution of resources to go into kind of making laws happen Is the second one would that be Wall Street who gets it? Yeah exactly I mean I don't I mean Brussels is pretty big as well in terms of like stopping any kind of EU reform on banks getting through as well so I don't know what the sizes are but I'm pretty sure London and Wall Street are the biggest ones kind of So my second question I don't I'm not even sure I know I asked a question but I just you know you have in this country we have the city of London which is an independent jurisdiction which is not under Westminster it's locked when most of the bags are I know so it's a huge question I don't even know the question I'm asking I'm just trying how do you manage effectively an independent state or have most of the money has been created inside our country and then it's done to democratise the money inside about it Yeah I don't even know So yeah the city of London is a corporation in itself which is really weird and I don't know enough about it but I mean it's kind of two things it's like political parties if they had if they weren't you know they do still think the banking sector is like our best industry and are still under that kind of dream so they're really scared of doing things basically anything I don't feel like yet the city of London corporation is even scared of them making decisions against the banking sector but obviously if they were that could come up and they could I don't know what powers they have but one of the powers is this thing called a rememberancer or and it's a man that stand or could be a woman I guess that stands behind the speaker of the house and the House of Commons and can like whisper things to him behind her it's really weird there was a film called UK Gold that was about tax avoidance mostly but it kind of uncovered this idea and there's been a few petitions going around about let's get rid of this person that has special powers in the House of Commons so these things are surfacing but I think at the moment we're still at the stage where we need politicians to wake up and realise they need to have some political will before the kind of power of these of what the banks do have is really kind of shown for what it is. The city of London is so powerful it's like the Vatican in Rome. Yeah, yeah. A different thing but it's very similar. You can't go against it because of the community they deny it. I mean I stood as a paper candidate in the recent council elections and we I mean I was not going to be elected I was just there to be on the sheet and so you know we got all got brochures sent to us from the city of London Corporation you know already before you even got no chance of being elected as a counciller in London but they're kind of already trying to sweeten you or something. It's very scary. Some people say that the reason that politicians focus so much on economic growth is also a consequence of the way money works what is your view on that? So not necessarily so yeah so I mean the situation we have is we've got a debt based money system so if we stop creating money then the amount of money shrinks and so you kind of either growing or collapsing so they are desperate to have growth but then you know GDP is only increasing at 2% a year which you could look as being quite stable but then looking at money being pumped into housing it's much bigger than that so there's an argument to say that if all new money went into something that would create new goods and services which would increase GDP then it wouldn't then we'd kind of have alarm bells ringing a lot earlier than we did if that makes sense but I feel like you know we can't get away from growth when we've got a debt based currency because if you stop creating it you just stop in a way On your map of housing businesses and so on that you showed how the debt loan created money is allocated it didn't really talk very much about the funds which are then gambled on the stock exchanges and on commodities and so on so I understood that one thing that's changed in the last few decades is money you've focused a lot on housing I totally understand that and there's the leaflet on how the mortgage side of things is very significant but can you talk a little bit more about the role of these secondary and tertiary things in the financial system where there's gambling basically and where does that lie because I thought that was what a lot of the created money was being used for I mean it's like I put it up as almost as big as the amount going into mortgage lending 37% into financial into the financial markets but I mean they're kind of a black hole to me in a way they're you know trading these weird mathematical algorithms that some poor PhD students have come up with but it it's a black hole but I think the key is money gets created by banks lending into some kind of less dodgy financial instrument and then it just goes into a kind of the markets the stock markets and gets stuck there and it doesn't trickle down into the the real economy as we're told but it is a horrendously complicated system and completely un productive I mean there's a really good argument to scrap the whole thing scrap the stock markets I think but yeah I mean I don't it's not something that we at positive money have spent a lot of time looking into exactly the pathways of money that's created as loans going in and where it ends up and that kind of thing and then I suppose I slightly take issue with the the image of the house and the I'm just saying and asserting that shelter is unproductive because it's quite an awkward thing in the human psyche shelter is a nearly human right and that but what isn't is the is the value added the artificial value added so it's the bubble which is unproductive it's not the actual so have you ever had comments like that before about how it's not it's not housing say it's not the construction of houses and building buildings is the problem it's the fact that because there isn't because the way the money is used with mortgages too much money was into mortgages the price of the houses just was up and up and up and you don't build more houses that's the problem so it's the asset it's disinflating it as an asset and it's not like it's getting more that's why I took to add that own occupy thing because it's not like it's getting more people to own their houses it's actually just increasing the people that own the multiple homes if you look at the statistics from the ONS it's own occupy ship went down in the period up to the boom it was people buying multiple homes and obviously they're controlling rent there's like rent controls is another area which is pretty outrageous so yeah it's mortgages it's not house building that we're trying to kind of highlight we're in an unproductive part just relates to the fact that you're not putting money into new housing but into existing housing yes yes I appreciate that I think it's new money it's 40% of newly created money so it's all it's where it starts off that's right the next question was I just wanted to refresh you with the what's the debate in the House of Commons what's the debate it's not been tabled yet but it's a back bench debate that we're trying to make happen and it's going to be on money creation something along the lines of who should create our nation's currency or should our nation's currency be created in the public interest and it's we've got kind of three Michael Meach from the Labour Party Steve Baker from the Conservatives and Caroline Lucas from the Greens who have kind of agreed to lead it to try and get cross party support and we've got 11 so far so if we can get any more MPs signed up then it's more likely to get tabled sooner and have a longer time to debate just a quick one have you contacted all the MPs about about your philosophy just generally did you get any kind of response from not all of them because you've contacted the ones that have had some kind of contact with with what we're doing either through signing an early day motion on money creation or being on the Treasury Select Committee I think you know at first so in March the Bank of England came out with a paper about money creation and they kind of you know backed what we were saying which is that money creation isn't constrained in a way it is all created by banks on their land and that's really helped to kind of move the debate forward and now we've got we've had the chief economist of the Financial Times say basically advocating a similar proposal to us and those two things in short space of time has meant that actually it's becoming a bit more mainstream so now we're going back to the politicians and they're actually listening to us a bit more because they can see the debates not going away it's just gathering steam which is really exciting because if we you know contacting them a year ago they just were kind of very dismissive and so basically we're trying to mobilise supporters to talk to their MP because an MP's first priority is his or her constituents so it's much better coming from the constituents than coming from us because we're quite small and yeah exactly I come from I guess a pretty similar background for yours I just did a Masters in Ecological Economics in University of Edinburgh and so that's also how I came into this the topic I was mostly concerned with growth actually solving climate crisis solving pollution solving all these things although there is a section on the website on the environment it's not exactly a big part of your promotion material I can imagine that right now we're now together together a lot of interest focus on the acute crisis right now even though you could really argue that the environmental crisis is pretty acute as well with the news coming about the Antarctic ice sheets the western half is completely lost basically is that it felt to me when I I came across positive money roughly two years ago when I was back in the Netherlands but a lot of my friends here in the environmental movements I work in international development because obviously just south of Edinburgh they're all doing environmental management none of them have heard of this issue and it's I feel like there's so much we could gain if you could get environmentalists behind this as well definitely I mean something I'm really passionate about doing sorry who do you finish there and I've thought about it a lot and I guess like the main reason is is the kind of way we've positive money has already started always started from is the kind of research based advocacy stuff so the kind of how the monetary system works and how we've performed this based on a lot of research and basically it's a lot simpler to exactly correlate or have kind of cause and effect relationship between things like the housing bubbles and this monetary system and the environmental stuff's just much harder and the growth stuff so Tim Jackson who wrote Prosperity Without Growth he's been really exciting that he read modernising money and he was like oh this really helped me fit this piece in and now he's doing research a bit more on that connection between the monetary system and environmental stuff and Andrew Jackson our main research has gone to a PhD with him and kind of on this stuff but you know a few other friends that are also from environmental backgrounds and interested in this have gone I know someone that went to a PhD and was like yeah I'm going to just totally come up with the link between the environment and the monetary system that's really clear and she's like switched her topic to housing after like and the mortgage bubble after like six months because it's just really complicated so I think yeah I don't think we've got clear arguments that are succinct that we can kind of put out there without knowing that we could probably be shut down of it so it's kind of figuring out how to talk to people without basically we need better arguments that sound like a topic to develop at the top for our next the next round of research you could probably argue go along with performing money however you've looked at things like land value taxation or if you have personally I think of when the works of positive money is quite we're all like supporters of land value tax and kind of citizens income basic income but kind of and we know people that are in the land value tax campaign but you know it's already quite complicated to talk about money so we're not going to go veer off but we're very supportive on a personal level and the kind of organisational level of land value tax because it's rent seeking stuff again yeah we're getting less clear in my mind but that's alright I mean my question I've identified a country that has an economy as close as what your philosophy is I've identified a country in the world that is pretty close or the closeness of what you wish to promote or what you promote yeah I don't haven't done enough research into other countries but Iceland seems pretty I mean it's quite small so it's only half a million people it's like half of Hackney but they could do it and I don't know what would work five million we think would be a good sized country so Denmark, Scotland New Zealand New Zealand big enough to be taken seriously but it's also so yeah, New Zealand and Denmark are our hopes the question was was it the the closed sorry, no or something the closest would be the close at least would be like Iceland or potentially Iceland but no, not very close we're all in lots of debt we don't have a home historical examples yeah it was just two points from what Ben was talking about and how you used to marry the money thing into the environment we heard of Nate Higgins he's a very good guy and he did a really good YouTube presentations all the time forward to you it was an hour and a half but he talks about if you create infinite money for your currency if you have 100,000 if you create 100,000 pounds and ask in the ecosystem to match that 100,000 pounds the ecosystem isn't finite so I guess that was his way of looking at it the other thing I was going to say is obviously the flip side of a recession is that all your green policies go out the window so they're the first things that get kept in touch as soon as you have a recession now people will house you no more there's more important things in the environment and these are the plus what you came for wasn't in front of me yeah absolutely and actually that's the one thing that we advocate that we're quite sure on is that the one reason environmentalists shouldn't want the system is because it creates boom and busts and recessions that make governments kick out environmental safe guards another issue with money and the environment I guess is that a mathematician has calculated that because there is interest on money it's actually most efficient to fish all the way out of the sea to extinction as quickly as possible then have your money in the bank and let it grow with interest rather than fish the whales sustainably in the end if you do cost benefit analysis it will be better to just fish the whales to extinction and that's because of interest on the money so that's something that would not be addressed in this system or maybe to some extent part of that is the whole modern economics doesn't factor in externalities does it so it's the cost of actually depleting your system that you profit from to extinction isn't that a good idea if you factor that into your economics right I think we'll take just a couple of last questions so nope there are lots of last questions ok people who haven't spoken before then please just behind you Sarah and then you at the bank ok three last ones ok so touching on that point isn't that the profit aspect of it doesn't this idea threaten the basis of the profit motive itself because that's the thing that drives by increasing financialisation and everything else the justification for doing all of this is the pursuit of profit so I work in a third sector so I'm clean it's that desire for profit that justifies all of this our current system I mean not what you're proposing so to start chipping away at that means a fundamental rethink of our entire value system which is quite frightening for a lot of people isn't it because if you're not doing it in pursuit of profit then where's your motive I definitely agree but I think just kind of on every day every day perspective it's like you don't really begrudge the person that's like working really hard making socks to earn a profit but you do begrudge people that are just kind of rent seeking profit which is the kind of finance sector profit is when you make money without working right when you give money to some people they work for you something you say we could define profit online ok but I'm not sure that the positive money proposal changes that make such a fundamental change no but it's the kind of the post growth kind of mindset isn't it of just kind of the profit motive is what compels us to do more in most business is that what I'm saying if you're there's the profit is the good side and there's the avoidance of debt so you have a pool but there's also debt coming up behind you but if debt is the profit centre itself if the issuance of debt is the profit centre so do you have a question that has disturbed me for a long time it's too big a question to expect an answer here and I don't expect a right to leave it and regarding the difference between America and the UK America has now 17 trillion of debt and the only way they know to get back on the real is to increase and increase and increase and then you have the UK the only way they can get back on the real is on the Bank of England and have a chance of cut, cut, cut, cut, cut now the question as I said is but later is either system right or one of them right whether they go through all together back on the reals and student deals but the good answer now is that is the real one right I fundamentally disagree there both the American and the UK approach to debt government debt as you guys have said the government debt to the UK will unfortunately effect by 2015 although there has been nearer of austerity in Britain this present government have doubled the national debt and it's exactly the same approach really as the Americans and that's the futility of the system and the things that are being cut here are the essential things and jobs and everything else that's a political stance that is a political stance provided there is no positive money system if the Americans have a better idea austerity is really hurtful and that's what actually caused the Great Depression I mean the key thing is if you cut jobs then they go on social security and take out benefits so then you increase your deficit anyway so it's a bit of a non-productive thing to do I think this might be the last question It was wonderful comment to be interesting I'm not 100% sure I'm talking about potential gains from ally in your cause to environmentalists but I would actually put that the other way and say well if you look at people in the country for example when you pull a majority of people will either say that they don't believe in man-made climate change or they don't know and so might you actually do better by emphasising the other benefits I mean I like the fact that this has environmental benefits and I think that's great and you might get a lot of really keen activists by American environmental cause who don't believe in climate change and all people who hate windmills on board as well for other perfectly good reasons to do with that it's going to make their life better I don't know about that it's just a thought I'm not I think everyone's different and we're not going to not try and get on board different types of people I think at the moment we tend to appeal to people who think more holistically about society and big issues and they are more likely to kind of get active and so they are quite often tuned into the climate change very vital to the debate and I talk to different people friends or family I don't try and talk about different things like house prices is obviously the main one in to people, especially people living in London young people who have no hope of owning a house but often they aren't necessarily the people that are kind of ready to that kind of take it on fully and then want to act on it because actually they haven't been thinking oh god the economy is really broken and it's like looking at the bigger picture and I think if you've been looking at the bigger picture for a while then you're more likely to get motivated when you hear about this so that's it This is so fundamental and this is going to be hard enough this is going to be hard enough to change let's just do this and on that note I think I'd like to join me and thank you for having me Thank you


Hey guys, all right, so in this little series, you're going to see me Hopefully trying to finish up some journals.  I'm going to speed through pages. I Don't know if I'm going to exactly get one done a day. I'm going to try for that. We'll see I don't think that's actually going to be super manageable all the time, but I'm going to do pages pretty frequently I've got a number of journals that I started either last year in 2016 or a couple of them in 2015 They really just need to be finished now So we're going to start with this one and then we're going to continue if you're watching this in a later video. I Am going to link all of these videos in a playlist. So I will put the playlist link in the description below So check it out So here we go. We're going to do some journal pages. We're going to do some quick speed-throughs We're going to try to finish up some old journals and fill them up so I can get them out of my space, right? Are you with me? All right, let's go for right now Don't forget to check out the video description for that playlist link links to any of my Facebook groups Links to my Etsy shop if you want to support my channel by shopping at my Etsy shop I do have a tip jar link. That is also in the description below if you would like to support my channel by just sending me a tip. I don't have patreon we use a tip jar instead and My happy mail address is down there if you want to ask me a question leave it in the comments Or you can email me if you'd prefer all of that's in the description. So check it out. Don't forget to Make some art have some fun and go out and have a great day Do something nice for yourself because you deserve it and I'll see you later. Bye guys


Jinbei is a man of great, unwavering, profound honor, a man who wears his decisions proudly on his chest, much like his trademark tattoo, which he uses to encourage people to subscribe to the Grand Line Review. For regular One Piece content, upload it straight into your YouTube feed. Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece. And today we have a review of chapter 977, The Party's Off. And this chapter, honestly, is pretty much exactly what I've been waiting for ever since the Wanoak began. And to be clear, there's nothing particularly, you know, world-shattering about it, no massive developments or even story progression, really. However, what it does have in exceptional quantities is the straw hats just being the straw hats. They have three major scenes during the chapter, and they each feel almost nostalgic, because for the first time in far too long, we get to see the entire crew interacting with one another, as well as clearly showing why they are rapidly becoming one of the most infamous pirate crews in the world. And that is really all I need to make this week a satisfying experience, because in the end, as much as One Piece is known for great plot twists and incredible action, what really sells this series is the chemistry between our protagonists. And I feel kind of dumb for saying that because it should be so obvious that it goes without saying, but then again, after you spend a huge majority of the new old era without protagonists physically divided, it's almost like exploring a brand new idea again. Having everyone here feel surprisingly fresh, and when I say everyone, I guess I'm also including Karat, because straw hat or not, she is very, very present, especially in that first group panel, which is just magnificent. It's one of those panels that really makes me slow down and go from character to character to see their unique expressions, and you can just feel the history of the series in it as well. So for example, you have most of the Whole Cake Island crew being Luffy, Nami, Chopper, and Karat, just leaping right onto Jinbei, due to their experiences with him in Totterland. And then interestingly enough, Sanji has this shocked expression, which kind of confused me slightly at first, because he obviously should not be all that surprised by Jinbei, but then I realized that the shock must have been because of how easily Nami and Karat embraced Jinbei, and thus Sanji here is actually kind of jealous. Which is a nice touch.  Well, that is just super. But in general, I just love how accepting of this everyone is. Nobody is truly shocked by the fact that Jinbei has properly joined their crew, and it's just a lovely panel in general. One that I spent many, many minutes scanning for the sheer pleasure of it. And just while we're here, I did mention Karat before, and I should say that this is definitely, you know, one of those moments that gives the Karat for Nakama movement quite a boost, because she admittedly fits in here very naturally. And I honestly don't think that the idea of her joining the Straw Hats after Wano is completely out of the question. Although for her to do so, I was assuming that she would need to have quite a pivotal role in Wano, which thus far has not turned out to be the case. But it's very difficult to forget the inherited will that she has from Pedro, as well as the very direct interest that she has in seeing the Straw Hats succeed. But then again, Karat also does not appear in the following two classic Straw Hats scenes, at least not that I can see, which is nice because it means that we do get to spend some time with just the official members. And one of those scenes happens to be a pretty awesome sequence of action, where this powerhouse crew just casually takes matters into their own hands and defeats a set of, I guess now, miscellaneous members of the Beast Pirates. And every single panel that we are treated to in the sequence is nothing short of a brilliant work of art, with my favorite rather predictably, being the one featuring Zoro. But I really love its composition. It's just such a great angle that conveys the sharpness of movement incredibly well, and it also allows Oda to showcase some nice sword close-ups, one of which being Enma, which you know we can never get enough of in this early stage of its use. And many of the other Straw Hats have similar panels to this, with a nice masterful angled touch, another of which being Robin, who I am so glad was mixed in with the action for a change, because I feel like it would have been so easy to leave her out of things, as is often the case, kind of like our Nami, Usopp and Chopper were. But instead, Robin ends up looking like an outright boss, and someone that you would not want to mess with under any circumstances. And I guess, yeah, I just love any time that Robin gets serious, which is epitomized by her amazing facial expression here. And then again, in stark contrast, I also have to highlight that Sanji panel, because just wow. I love how completely chill he is about this whole situation, just casually sending a devastating kickback, whilst enjoying a tasty cigarette. Or at least I'm assuming it's tasty, I don't smoke. And the fact that he's dressed so formally only adds to this overall impression of superiority. And actually, you know what? This is one panel that immediately justifies what Luffy said on Zo, about needing Sanji because he is super strong. And from the perspective of the Samurai, I would say that this moment makes the entire Holkekalen Detour completely worth it. So yeah, this is the sort of thing that we spent 78 chapters to accomplish, and I'm thrilled to be seeing it in action. And finally, for this section, I also want to highlight Usopp Nami and Chopper, because this was another one of those things where at first I didn't quite understand why they weren't getting in on the action, because you know, usually in these straw hat fortified scenes, you'll have a token shot from Usopp firing a pop green, like Nami, shocking people with the climate attack, to even Chopper transforming into whatever mode, let's say Kung Fu. But upon swift reflection, they were kept out of things to once again reforge that classic straw hat group dynamic. You've got the supercharged powerhouses taking care of business, while the weak trio kind of cower and observe, and actually not only that, but after everything is over, they emerge and congratulate everyone as if they had some sort of integral role in what had just happened, which I found very funny, as well as very nostalgic. It gave me these wonderful pre-timeskip one-piece feels. Harking back to the days where Usopp and Nami had almost no combative ability, or at least not to be able to face opponents on this level. And even though it doesn't make technical sense now because they are both wildly powerful in the modern day, it was just nice to see these classic roles in play. And everything came together really nicely as well in that final straw hat-centric scene, where everyone is standing victoriously over, I guess, Wap Haas as for a battlefield, with Zora looking far happier than I have seen him in an awfully long time, all thanks to the discovery of alcohol. And as it is set up, here is the moment where I thought that we were going to do the toast, because that is the only bit missing from Jinbei. After that toast, he is locked in for good. There is no escaping the straw hats, but of course, as close as they come, they don't actually do it, which does give me some pause and concern. I know that Luffy's reasoning is that they should do it after beating Kaido, but I don't know, I just have this thought lingering around in my head over Jinbei's ultimate purpose, and if some sort of dramatic sacrifice may or may not be on the cards during the Sark, which would prevent him from being solidified as a crew member in the traditional ritual manner. And as always, I'm probably just considerably overthinking that, and the chances are that after this whole battle is over, we will just have one glorious Jinbei-rific moment, but it just sits with me as a bit strange that Oda would go to the trouble of almost making this happen, and I'm really left wondering what he's conjuring. Speaking of conjuring though, a lot of people commented on my review last week with a thought that I had but quickly decided was foolish, which is the idea that Jinbei may not in fact be Jinbei, and is some sort of elaborate Kandro ink drawing. And I do think it's an interesting idea, but I dismissed it pretty much entirely, because Kandro has never met Jinbei, and I don't think he's ever been in a position to even see an image of Jinbei either, let alone understand his connection to the straw hats.  So the idea is pretty out there, but at the same time, there is, you know, a chance that something else may be up, because once again, this is just me reading into things far more than is healthy for any human, but the way Jinbei appeared in the last chapter was very much the epitome of the word casual, and I was expecting there to be at least a brief explanation of his time between the end of Holkake Island and reaching Wano, specifically in regards to how he escaped from Big Mom, but there really wasn't. Now that we've had this sort of toast tease on top of that, I don't know, I guess I'll leave it to the theorists, because chances are that this is just crazy overthinking. Jinbei appeared, he's clearly capable of using Fishman Karate at high level, and Kandro couldn't possibly know about him, so this must be our whale shark. Now before I move away from the straw hat, because there was other content in this chapter, surprisingly, there is a splendid panel of Jinbei, assuming his roll aboard the Thousand Sunny and taking up the helmsman post, and he just looks so happy to be there, as if the weight of the world that he had been carrying all this time had been lifted from his wail-y shoulders, and he can now do what it is that he personally wants to do, which is to join Luffy and help him become the Pirate King.  Moving on though, I said in the beginning that this chapter wasn't too intrigue-heavy, but that doesn't mean that there was none at all, because the last two pages delivered some fascinating ideas, one of which is that Kaido is claiming to have a son. And funnily enough, this idea was spoiled for me as well, as things often are, because as soon as this information was leaked, before the official release, I started getting comments on a video that I made way back in 2017, which was a theory that Charlotte Oven was the son of Kaido. And yeah, this was back in the time when I was trying out the whole theory video format, before deciding that no, that wasn't really for me. But with that said, I am very much thinking that this may pay off here, and perhaps not with Oven specifically, because what I neglected to mention in that video is that Oven is part of a set of triplets, with Katakuri and Daifuku. And Oven just seems to be the one who shares the most distinct physical similarities with Kaido, but if Oven was Kaido's son, then obviously the same would be true for Katakuri and Daifuku. And we definitely haven't seen Katakuri since Holkei Kailand, I'm not sure about Oven actually, but Daifuku was certainly present on Wano because he was aboard the Queen Mama Chanta when King attacked it. So I'm actually feeling pretty good about this idea at the moment, and I think that it would tie things together so brilliantly, making the climax of Holkei Kailand in retrospect look like a Luffy versus a Mini Kaido, and the way things being portrayed in this scene, certainly does make this father-son relationship look quite strained. So it might even open up a Luffy and Katakuri Alliance possibility, which right now is beyond my wildest dreams and also quite possibly delving into the realm of unreasonable fanfic, but here we are. In the end, this is all making a lot of assumptions though because Kaido's son could be anything, you know, a member of the Beast Pirates or an inhabitant of Wano or whatever else. So we'll certainly see, but this is intriguing nonetheless. And I should also touch on the fact that the end of the chapter features the introduction of our complete set of flying six, or at least the complete set of their feet, which I'm sure does excite one particular niche of every fanbase. And as much as it doesn't present us with a lot to digest, it is pretty effective in creating some excitement for these guys, who I'll be honest, I had almost completely forgotten were a thing. Lately in my mind, everything has just been like Beast Pirates, Big Mom Pirates, Calamity, Sweet Commanders, Numbers, Vassals, etc. So yeah, it was a nice reminder that there is another group of potent individuals around, one of which you can clearly identify as Diaz Drake. And page one would assumably also be there, if I had to guess I'd say that he was the guy right in the back, but he could also be the other guy not quite in the back, but still around the back, if that makes sense. In any case, page one would be by far the least interesting character to consider. But the only other two things that we can really determine from this image is that one of the Flying Six is a swordsman, and one is a woman. Oh, and I guess one of them also likes wearing really nice shoes. The guy in the front that is, who I guess will be acting as something of a leader. But this gang is still interesting to consider, because obviously, Drake has his own game going on as a member of sword, so I do wonder if he has infiltrated the Flying Six, or if this entire group is secretly working against Kaido. All I know is that this was a very cool introduction panel that makes them all seem like bad asses, so what I'm actually expecting is that when we do eventually see them, they will be a bunch of goofy comical figures, as is often the case in One Piece. And the final thing I should mention is that after some questionable absence from these events, Killer has finally reappeared in a teeny tiny panel that does make me wonder why he was so deliberately left out of more recent chapters, especially the one where we got to see all of the straw hearts, all of the heart pirates, and all of the kid pirates, except for Killer. I thought that Oda might have had a grander plan for his reintroduction, but I guess not really. He's just here and ready to roll, equipped with his trademark mask, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the chaos that he will cause, along with everyone else. And that pretty much shows up for chapter 977. But what do you guys think? Please do leave your thoughts in the comments below or even join my Discord server. And if you'd like to see more videos like this, then please do check out some of my other content or even subscribe to the channel for more glorious One Piece business uploaded straight into your YouTube feeds. But for now, this has been the Groundline Review and I'll see you next time.


Apple just made an announcement that I think will legitimately change how humans interact with the world and each other over the next decade, and it scares the living out of me. You ever see that Wall-E movie where everyone is basically a vegetable because they are being served everything they want through virtual technology? That could be us. Even though there are some cool applications of this new technology, as you'll see near the end of this video, I'm concerned for our future. With this new Vision Pro, Apple is introducing the idea of spatial computing where you can basically control everything through your eyes, your fingertips, and your voice without any physical controller or device actually in your hand. And what blows my mind is that in this digital environment it tracks your eye movement to navigate through different windows, and with a few taps and flicks of your finger, you can control the distance, the size, and the scale of various apps and move them wherever you want to in front of you or throughout your space. Does this not give you like total Tony Stark Iron Man vibes here? And Apple already showed the first area of our lives that they want to change. The workplace. With the Vision Pro, how we work will be completely transformed. This makes working in the office basically obsolete. You can now set up as many 4K virtual monitors as you want. You can bring up whatever is on your Mac screen virtually in front of you just by looking at it. You can have group video calls where you can share presentations almost as if you're having a real person in that meeting. And what's even crazier is that the Vision Pro will create a natural representation of what you look like, including your facial expressions and hand movements. It's as creepy as it sounds. Why do you give them faces? Try to friendly them all up and look all human. Imagine if this would have been available in 2020. Honestly, Apple might have missed the boat because I guarantee people would have been shelling out their bread for this thing. The other area that Apple is going to be changing in our lives is at home entertainment. Honestly, with the Vision Pro, do we even need a 4K TV anymore? You can ultimately create an immersive photo and video viewing experience just with the headset alone. The screens for each eye have more pixels than a standard 4K TV. You can also adjust the screen size to whatever fits your preference. And you can change the entire environment around you to where you can feel like you're either in a movie theater or alternatively in a totally immersive space where it seemed like you were in a completely new world. Wild, I know. Apple shared an example of this by saying on a flight you can use your Vision Pro in addition to your AirPods to block out everything and fully immerse yourself in whatever you are watching. I don't know about you, but I don't see myself bringing this expensive headset outside when it first comes out. I feel like it was just making me an easy target to get jump. My weakness is small knives. They also showed how you can be fully immersed when playing various video games from Apple Arcade, which I think is super dope. However, I do wish there was a partnership with PlayStation, but of course that would cannibalize their VR too. Now, the biggest highlight for me was actually Apple's partnership with Disney where Bob Iger shared how you can view rich experiences on their platforms, whether it's seeing unique animations when watching shows on Disney Plus or my personal favorite watching sports through an immersive lens where you can watch different games at once, have a dynamic view of a basketball game or even see stats and effects when your team scores. I honestly couldn't have thought of a perfect partnership between two companies, especially when they have two competing streaming products. And another thing that surprised me was the fact that the Vision Pro includes a 3D camera where you can take 3D videos and photos of different moments that you can revisit in the same format later in the future. I know this may be like a bit of a depressing take, but the first that I had when they showed this was that it reminded me of those like movie scenes where people would do flashbacks or replay voicemails of loved ones who passed away or if they wanted to continue to experience those touching moments that could cherish forever like a wedding or birthday party, which honestly, I could see this being something extremely useful for that type of use case. This is all possible through Apple's new software system, Vision OS. Can I get an Avengers Age of Ultron anyone? I suppose we are both disappointments. Now there are definitely concerns around this new product. Apparently, even though it's beautifully designed, I heard it's pretty big on your head and a bit heavy when wearing it for a long period of time. Also, the battery life is only two hours when it's not plugged in and you're only using that small portable battery charger thing. And don't even get me started on the $3,500 price tag. It was funny how Apple was trying to justify the cause by saying that you basically get a 4K TV, surround sound system, a powerful computer, multiple displays and a high-end camera all in this one device, which I guess is kind of true. However, my biggest concern is how is this new technology going to affect how we interact with each other in the physical world? After 2020, we got tired of sitting on Zoom calls all day long. We crave those in-person experiences and by interacting face-to-face, all five senses can be felt. It's just different when you're physically near someone. And my biggest fear is that this could potentially cause most people to be out of touch with reality and accelerate the levels of inactivity and obesity in our country. What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Could this be the end of true humanity and in-person relationships as we know it? I mean, it could, but I'm still going to buy it.


Taj praskel je o zelo pristiljnega bljevstva Librofis. Vse je zelo prišal, da je to počutak, načal, da bomo zelo v ponadstvu bar, in sem bilo tudi srednje. Tako, agenda, vse je vse problema? Kaj je soluzija vse? To je vse, da se vse je uvarjali, da bomo izvajali, kaj je začal. In sem videl, da se se izvrživamo, da je tudi statistična. Zato, je to problem, da sem počutila, da je to počutila, da je to počutila, da je to počutila. Znalej se, da je tako bilet. Srečen bilet, da se počutila, da je to dobro bilet, da je to dobro bilet, da je to dobro bilet, da je to dobro bilet. when the library changes and it results in a long developer cycle. So what's the solution, still from Lubosh, improving code, like including only what is needed, using forward declarations instead of include and avoiding templates in headers, and he wrote that this is a lot of work, which I can confirm it is. So codebase is rather old and has seen a lot of reworks, and there are some unnecessary includes in most of the headers and source files, and I think during the last year I managed to clean up approximately half of the files in the codebase, so this is still a work in progress apart from causing build failures. So what is include what you use? It's a simple or not some simple tool to remove superfluz includes, at least that's how they define themselves. It's an alpha quality tool created exactly for codebases like ours. It basically promises to filter through source files and tell what are the unnecessary includes, and once that could be replaced by forward declarations, which are much cheaper to use in header files than the full headers themselves. So how to install it? We need a fresh LLVM8. There are APT repositories available on their website. You need to install those packages listed above, and some Linux distributions like Ubuntu have packages of include what you use. I used that initially, but that was rather old, so the best way to use it is use the compiled latest and greatest version, because it's updated in three to six months time frames. So to build it, first prerequisite is fresh LLVM, and then we need the source code from GitHub, and the commands are outlined here. There is four. I will put this information up to the LibreOffice wiki, but it's not there yet. Build process is detailed in readme.md of the codebase, but these four commands is basically the essence of that. So how to use it? Prerequisite is make VIM ide integration command. Then there is a small tool called bin slash find, and it includes, which was made by Mikroshvajna. You need to call this tool on the files you wish to filter, and it will basically tell if there is anything to throw out of the files, and it will show a long command line of evu, which you need to run. So how to use it? Sorry. Sorry, someone looks for me on Skype. So if you suggest headers to remove, after that you should recompile either the full source, full codebase, or the module that you are working on, and if it does not compile, you should add back the missing headers, and finally remove the unnecessary ones if it compiled. So basically it's commenting out, compiling, and removing. And then we should commit and push together it as usual, and fix any breakage caused by, caused another platform, because I used this on Linux, but sometimes I cause build breakages on Windows or Mac because of platform specific codes that is not seen by evu on Linux. So in action, this is one screenshot from live action. I cleaned up one CXS file in the SD module, and I got three removal suggestions from findUnitedIncludes, and one from the similarly named header files that is also checked by evu. So this is why I always check the header files and then CXS files. On the right side you can see that in the editor, I already commented out those includes, and nice feature of findUnitedIncludes is that it sorts byline numbers, so it's very quick to find in order which lines need to be commented out. Then there is this long command line that is actually run in the background. We need to run this long command line on a different terminal, because if there is a build breakage, like transitive includes, can cause that. This command line shows all these includes that are necessary to build this particular file, and if one of those are only included transitively in those headers that are marked for removal, that will cause a build breakage locally. The output of the long command line can show you which are these transitively included headers, there is always a lot of them, and you can see from the build breakage that what is needed to be added back. So, next. There is of course exceptions. Evu is not a perfect tool, and since LibreOffice code base can break any tool chain, there are exceptional situations for file specific situations, when Evu gives a bad advice. You can list those headers in a module level YAML file, which is called Evu filter underline module name dot YAML, and the next time you run or someone else runs find unneeded includes, those bad advices won't show up again, which is good because for rechecks, and unneeded includes stops whenever it finds one problematic file, and this file is usually updated with every or every second commits. There are more common situations too, that affect many modules, and those are handled by the find unneeded includes script, such as not replacing HPP files with HDL ones, and standard library headers with their debug variants. Such updates are more rarely needed, but sometimes it is needed to update this Python script tool with exceptions. So, about progress. Since April 2018, which is when I started this work, I managed to clean up these modules, these directories. This is the result of 200 plus commits. These larger directories are now done in master. So, first I started to clean up the include directory from bottom to top of the module hierarchy, and since waiting for Jenkins and review is somewhat time consuming, I also started the other end of the tree, like the calc and impressed modules, then charts as well. So, to not lose track of my work, I used this beautiful dependency graph of the project, printed and taped to my office wall. You can get a similar dependency graph using make dump depth png command. And after cleaning up include, I started to clean up the internal libraries from bottom to top, which is now about done until VLC. So, all these are also finished. So, results more. Mezered results of my efforts, I used the bin slash includeblot.evkey script, which measures how many files are included during the build process. These next charts I show were created using that on fresh builds with unit test from stable grid branches of LibreOffice 5.326.4 master, which was end of July. I could get these versions to build on my Ubuntu 18 machine. So, we should start to see differences starting from version 6.1. That was the first one hid by my commits. From 5.326.1, the natural evolution of the project can be seen. And in the bug report about this problem, which is numbered 42949, there is also included a similar analysis from 2011, thanks to micro mix. And I used that here as baseline. So, that's what you see on the beginning. It was about 3.5 time or so, I'm not sure. This chart shows the number of individual files in the code base, including the bundled and built external modules. And these show a slight growth over time. And then, recently, a large jump, and that's somewhat strange to me. So, 6.3 is omitted because it's so close to 6.4, but that's only master, really. And this chart shows the number of inclusion occurrences. We have about 25,000 files, 26. Many headers are included in many of them, which in turn are included again and again in different libraries. And these add up quickly. The total of this number has peaked at about 4.3 million. And now we can see these are down to about 3.5 million. And this is some 15% reduction. And I'd like to take the blame for this, but others also helped with refactorings, like the welding work by Keolan. So, thanks for that, too. OK, so, another measurement is the total number of bytes included, because some headers are small, others large, and including a small one many times might have a smaller impact than including a large one fewer times. And I think this is the ultimate measure of my efforts, because build time depends on the amount of input to process by the compiler tool chain. We can see an interesting bump in 6.1 to 24.5 gigabytes, then slight reduction back to below 23 gigabytes in 6.4, which is interestingly, if you see, about the same as we were in 2011. So, somewhat interesting. Another developer-friendly measurement is the total number of minutes spent with building. Here in this, I try to minimize the non-C++ parts of the build, such as help content, icon teams, galleries, and I did not run the unit tests either, because that's heavy on CPU, but does not really say anything about compilation. And this is consistent with the previous charts, but I expected larger drops. And it looks like that having 16 thread processor helps more with compressing the user column, the red one, to the real people time blue one. But something is not really right with this picture, because since 2011, a lot of refactoring happened. Supposedly, we should do things simpler now than we were doing it back then. Then, apart from refactorings, my work has happened. And basically, we are still at the 2011 level. And so the question comes that, was this all in vain, and is the best achievement I can get, is not getting much worse, is that all? So I looked deeper into the data created by IncludeBlood script and found something interesting. And there is one module that shows some alarming trend. There is a certain component of the project, which shows this chart in its Include sizes. Can someone guess which component is this? Anyone? Miklos? It's boost, yes. So this is the boost library. Somehow it added a lot of bloat to our build process, then it was reduced, then it's growing again. So, future possibilities. Boost slash optional HPP is included for 4,500 times. And removing a single one shows a reduction of 900 kilobytes of input, which is quite a lot if we multiply it. It would be really nice to remove our dependency on this boost optional, since it's so expensive. It's very extensively used and unlike the other parts of boost. There are some platforms that are not really ready to move to the standard library equivalent of boost, which has appeared in C++17. Android is one problem, because it's using G++4.9. But the recent bump in the Android baseline might have helped, because we moved away from one standard library to lib C++, so that might help. And also there is Mac, which would need our newer Xcode version, unfortunately. So I will also continue cleaning remaining modules, like internal libraries and writer, whatnot. So the things between VCL and user applications. And there is one more problem to tackle, and this is forward declarations. These are very useful in this fight, and the view is very keen on finding good replacement candidates for them. But using forward declarations can build the break in configurations that are not tested by Jenkins, like the no precompiled headers case on Windows. And because of that forward declarations are now disabled in find unidid includes, but it would be real nice to have them enabled back. So it would be real useful to have one more Jenkins configuration or even more for this. So that's an issue to tackle commonly. And that was it. Thanks for the attention.