Tag Archive : education

/ education

Does liberalism have a future? (1996) | THINK TANK

Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg.
As we head into the 1996 presidential election, some issues already seem to have been settled,
at least rhetorically. It’s not whether to balance the budget; it’s how soon. It’s
not whether the government should be shrunk; it’s how much it should be shrunk. It’s
not whether welfare should be reformed; it’s how. Now, these are conservative ideas in the saddle.
Is liberalism in retreat? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
consensus are E. J. Dionne, author of “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate
the Next Political Era”; Ronald Walters, chairman of the political science department
at Howard University and author of “Black Presidential Politics in America”; Todd
Gitlin, professor of sociology at New York University and author of “The Twilight of
Common Dreams”; and Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. A few weeks ago on this program, we looked
at the future of conservativism. The question before this house: Does liberalism have a
future? This week on “Think Tank.” Ben Wattenberg: This is not the first time
that liberalism has been declared dead. Listen to this. Quotes: “Liberals meet in Washington
these days, if they can endure to meet at all, to discuss the tragic outlook for all
liberal proposals, the collapse of all liberal leadership, and the inevitable defeat of all
liberal aims.” End quotes. Does that sound like 1995 or 1996? Archibald
MacLeish wrote those words in 1944. Well, so where is liberalism today? Since
World War II, a central idea of liberalism was to strengthen the role of the federal
government. But here is what President Bill Clinton, a Democrat and often described as
a liberal, has to say about that. President Bill Clinton [from videotape]: The
era of big government is over. [Applause.] Ben Wattenberg: Affirmative action, another
hallmark of recent liberalism, is unpopular and under attack. In California, a statewide
referendum seeks to ban it entirely. And critics, like our panelist Todd Gitlin, argue that
some liberals are so hung up over issues of race, ethnicity, and sex, the so-called identity
politics, that the broader liberal coalition has been fractured. And finally, economics. Liberalism promised
that government intervention would result in growth and job security. But in an era
of global competition, high technology, and downsizing, economic problems seem immune
to liberal remedies. Union membership, for example, is sinking. Economic insecurity is
rising. The government seems paralyzed. Well, that’s a nice picture. Let us go around
the room once, starting with you, E. J. Dionne. Is liberalism dead, or does it only look dead,
which is almost the title of your book? E. J. Dionne: I think liberalism is coming
back to life, almost precisely for the reasons you said: that when people are going through
a period of economic insecurity and uncertainty, they look for some new rules and they look
for some help to seize the opportunities of a new era. In the past, that’s when they’ve
turned to liberal progressive politicians, and I think they’re going to do so again. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Will Marshall. Alive,
dead, moribund? Will Marshall: Well, a certain kind of liberalism,
New Deal liberalism, interest group liberalism, I think is moribund, or at least we should
regard it as being in an honorable retirement. The question then is: How does liberalism
adapt itself to a whole new set of national challenges? And the good news for liberalism
is that the alternative today, anti-liberalism, doesn’t address those challenges, either. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Alive, dead? Ronald Walters: Well, I think that it can’t
die. I think also it depends on how you actually define it. You can’t have a liberalism which
is dead with respect to interest group politics because this country is multicultural-izing,
so is the globe, and so you really do have to have a philosophy which looks for the expansion
not only of government, but for the expansion of opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd Gitlin. Todd Gitlin: I think liberalism has hopes.
And what is going to make the difference in terms of whether it converts its hopes into
actuality is whether it convinces enough people that if they don’t get serious about finding
some common dream, that they will just lapse into the arms of big business and all of the
reasons why big government came into existence in the first place. Ben Wattenberg: Your common dreams, as I understood
what Ron Walters said, are not Ron Walters’ common dreams. Todd Gitlin: We have to have a discussion
about what common dreams are. I mean, I think there will be a debate. Republicans will say
the common dream is that everybody gets to be an entrepreneur. I think that’s ridiculous,
but that is an idea about what people have in common. My idea and many other people’s idea is
that what people have in common is that they have certain obligations to the maintenance
of a society that’s whole and certain needs, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, but also a right to a decent livelihood, a right to security of person,
a right to public institutions, like schools and public transportation, that people need
to live. I don’t know if we disagree on that, but
I think a lot of people do agree on what’s happened in the recent years. Ben Wattenberg: Ron goes beyond that. Is that
correct? Ronald Walters: I would certainly go beyond
that. I think he’s right in terms of the dream, but I think the difference is between
the dream and the reality. When you look at the reality — we share the dream, but the
reality is that some people are much closer to the dream than others, and therein lies
the problem. Are you going to have a definition of liberalism which only gives us sort of
an intellectual vision of that dream, or are you going to have a definition of liberalism
which is functional? And if you do, you’ve got to run up against the ability of government
to provide expanding opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but you are saying,
on a race-specific or gender-specific or ethnically specific grounds, is as a way to measure? Ronald Walters: I would say yes. Otherwise,
you really don’t have a measuring rod. You can’t define it, I think, only by economic
opportunity. You’ve got to look at these groups that are coming into society, immigrants
included, and say to yourself, if the demographics are right, by the year 2050, only 52 percent
of this country is going to be white. So there is a tremendous continuing discussion about
the nature of America, about the changes that are going to go on, and therefore the basis
of liberalism. Todd Gitlin: Excuse me, but those demographics
aren’t right. There’s no way to predict how people are going to feel about who they
are two or three generations hence. What will it mean to be white? What will it mean to
be Hispanic? There is a tremendous amount of intermarriage already. The confidence with
which these claims are made by the Census Bureau I think is scientifically invalid. E. J. Dionne: What I’d like to say is if
you go back to — Ben Wattenberg: I think you’re right. E. J. Dionne: If you go back to sort of what
the liberal idea has been on these subjects, the issue is not: Are we going to be an all-quota
society or a color-blind society where we pretend there’s no such thing as racism?
Liberals have always asserted that cultural pluralism is a good thing, recognizing the
enormous contributions of all groups to this country, that that’s a good thing, that
racism is a particular problem that we continue to have. That’s very different from saying that we
want to racialize every question, that every issue, whether it’s public schools or public
transportation or how you’re going to get a job, that these are all racial questions.
Most African Americans don’t think that way. Most white people don’t think that
way. Most Hispanics don’t think that way. Now, I think liberals have always asserted
that we respect the fact that we’ve got to do something about racism, which is a particular
problem. We also respect the fact that we are one country that has always had a common
dream, as Todd has said. Will Marshall: I agree that that’s a traditional
view of liberalism and one we desperately need to get back to, but it’s not the current
view. Liberalism today is bound up with the notion of biology is destiny and the politicization
of all issues around this corralling of people into racial, ethnic, and gender categories. And I think that’s a tremendous liability
to contemporary liberalism because what it does is it prevents us from having the kind
of civic empathy that we need to have, prevents us from looking beyond our group identity
toward some broader community. And I think before we get back to that, it’s going to
be impossible for Democrats and liberals to reconnect to the economic anxieties and aspirations
of the middle class. And that, after all, is the big political challenge we’re facing. Ronald Walters: But you know, I think that
will only happen when you really do address the issue of groups. You can’t leap over
groups because groups were the basis of a certain sense of subordination in this country.
Slavery was based upon groups. At the time of the manumission of slaves in 1865, 90 percent
of all blacks were in slavery. There was a group basis of that subordination. And so if you look even down as far as 1960
and ask how many blacks made the average family income, it was only 5 percent. Ninety-five
percent, as the basis of subordination of blacks, didn’t make even the average family
income. So you can’t then leap over, 30 years later, to start talking about individuals
unless you deal with that basis of group subordination, which is part of the legacy of this country. Ben Wattenberg: Let me just go back to what
we said in the setup piece and just see if we are in agreement on that, that the current
consensus in the country is that we do want a balanced budget, that we do want to reduce
the size of government, that we do want serious welfare reform, and that in fact those ideas
and many others that we could all list are in fact — have their roots in the conservative
ideology, and that seems to be the way the country is going. E. J. Dionne: Yes, Americans in principle
think we shouldn’t run a big deficit. But we just had a controlled experiment in 1995.
And the Republicans said, okay, we want to cut back the growth in Medicare, Medicaid,
education spending. We want to cut back on environmental regulations. And the electorate
quite clearly said, wait a minute, that’s not what we think we voted for in 1994. So
the public — sure, the public wants fiscal sanity, but it also believes that a lot of
these things, including things you helped fight for when you worked for LBJ, have been
successful programs that they want to save. Todd Gitlin: The thing about it is Americans
want everything at once. They want all these things. They want apple pie, but they also
want — they want pie à la mode. They also want health care. They also want raising of
the minimum wage. They also want a lot of things that they think they’re entitled
to get. Will Marshall: It’s so important that we
don’t let this notion that any attack on bureaucratic liberal programs is a conservative
one. Take welfare, for example. Fundamental welfare reform is something that 80–90 percent
of the people of this country are for. It cuts across all racial and class lines, and
it doesn’t — you don’t have to be conservative to want to reform the welfare system. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and other notable liberals have been trying to do it for decades. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but the notable liberals
who ran the Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not anxious to reform welfare. You know that
better than anyone. Will Marshall: I do. E. J. Dionne: They didn’t pass health care
reform, either. They failed in Congress. Will Marshall: I’m not saying that liberals
are not defending failed bureaucratic programs. They are, and that’s one of their principal
— or another liability. My point is that the alternative all too often is simply kind
of a mirror image agenda on the right that says let’s tear down the liberal achievement
edifice that they built over the last 60 years, but they don’t have any idea about what
they’re going to replace it with. And that’s where they keep failing. It’s a dismantling
agenda, not an agenda that replaces programs that aren’t working with approaches that
hold out more promise. Ben Wattenberg: Let me ask a tactical question.
As we have this discussion in mid-April, for all the moaning about how poorly liberalism
is doing, Bill Clinton is beating Bob Dole in the polls by about 12 to 15 points. Is
Clinton riding high because there is a resurgence of liberalism or because he has, at least
cosmetically, made a U-turn? E. J. Dionne: How about neither? I mean, I
think in one sense, Bill Clinton defined himself first with a — he had a fight with the Republican
Congress, and he said, “Look, I stand for this, this, this, and this. I disagree with
them on that.” Wherever you stood on the issues, I think that helped give him a presence
in this country. It was something people respected. He could define himself against the Republicans. I think secondly, a lot of these things he’s
talking about — for example, throwing criminals out of housing projects, talking about the
family — he’s done that since 1992. Ben Wattenberg: You don’t feel that in 1993
and 1994, when you had a Democratic president, Clinton, and an all Democratic Congress, that
he went substantially to the left of what he ran on? Because he believes that. E. J. Dionne: See, I don’t think the voters
— if you look at Clinton’s first two years, I think a lot of voters did not say he went
too far to the left or too far to the right. They say, “Gee, the Democrats failed. They
said they’d give us health care reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us
welfare reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us political reform, and it failed. They
said they’d help give us job training and education, and that kind of got shrunk in
the budget.” So I think a lot of voters pull back not because of the ideological stuff,
but because they sense, “Gee, we expected more from these guys.” Ronald Walters: Let me just say, these were
the seeds of 1994, too. That accounts for the election of 1994. But in seizing a conservative
mandate as a reaction to that, what happened is I think that the Newt Gingrich politics
hit a wall. And I think that’s what the American people are responding to. Will Marshall: What the polling shows now,
interestingly, is that Republicans are down. There’s no question about it. Something
in their rush at the budget and this array of programs, many of which are still popular,
scared a lot of folks, and they are down. But Democrats have not gone up correspondingly.
I mean, that’s the era we’re in now. We’re in a three — you know, it’s a three-way
split now. There’s a huge group of unaffiliated, nonaligned voters who hold the balance of
American politics. That’s why I would be most unconfident if I were a Democratic strategist
now about this temporary uptick in Bill Clinton’s popularity ratings. But let me go back to the point E. J. made.
I mean, E. J.’s right about the failure of Clinton and the Democratic Congress to
deliver, but the problem is much more fundamental than that. The Democratic Party and contemporary
liberalism is defending a regime that’s dying. It’s defending an old top-down, bureaucratic
way of solving problems that people simply lack confidence in. It’s the same problem,
I think, of parties of the democratic left in Europe, which is why many of them have
been out of power for a long time. We’ve got to think through what governance
means in a new era and find new ways of solving problems. That’s what the public’s looking
for. That’s the kind of — [Cross talk.] Ben Wattenberg: Wait. Hold on a minute. Todd Gitlin: Parts of the government work
well. You know, you call Social Security for advice, you are going to get it much faster
than if you call a lot of private corporations. People want the government to be active. They
want the government to get results. They’re pragmatic about where the results come from. I think that what liberalism has to make sure
it doesn’t do is to sacrifice its soul, and its soul has rested on a matter that we
haven’t really talked about yet, which is a real conviction about equality, equality
of persons, equality in access to opportunity, equality in an absolute rejection of discrimination.
And I think it’s extremely important, whether Bill Clinton wins or not, that that side of
the liberal vision not be sacrificed. Will Marshall: That’s very true, and I agree
entirely, but I want to make a distinction between ends and means. You’re exactly right
about equality. That’s the soul. That’s — we have to maintain that commitment. But
it doesn’t follow that there’s one monochromatic way of going about that. Todd Gitlin: Right, but let’s say we want
to make sure that it’s absolutely intolerable to discriminate in employment or housing or
lending. How are you going to do that without calling a government agency in to enforce
the law? Will Marshall: Well, of course no one’s
saying repeal antidiscrimination laws. That’s not what I’m — Todd Gitlin: No, we have laws, but they’re
not enforced. We need enforcement. Will Marshall: They should be enforced. I
agree with stepped-up enforcement. But my point is there are lots of things that we’re
trying to do in government, some of them under the rubric of equality. Let’s take our social welfare policies,
which we know now — the evidence is overwhelming — that they’ve been failing. They’ve
become dysfunctional. They’ve begun to underwrite problems in inner-city communities. And yet
we’ve been unable to come to grips with those problems and reimagine the way we try
to lift people out of poverty. Todd Gitlin: See, that — Ben Wattenberg: Let me just interrupt here
for a moment. You know, there’s an old saying, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be
a bus,” okay, “but she doesn’t have wheels.” You guys, particularly you, Will,
but many of you, certainly you, E. J., just now, are saying, oh, if liberalism would just
change this and just change that and just recognize that you really have to do welfare
reform and you have to do this and you have to do that, then they would be back — but
that’s not what liberals have been doing for 30 years. They’ve been going bananas
by my light. Yes? E. J. Dionne: But we’re not talking about
years. We’re talking about, I think — Ben Wattenberg: They wouldn’t be liberals. E. J. Dionne: — a real reform in the way
— look at Todd’s book, for example. Take Todd’s book, “The Twilight of Common Dreams.”
Todd wrote a very good critique of a certain style of multiculturalism. And it was a critique
from the left because he said, “The problem with this is not just the things the conservatives
say about it. The problem with this is that in fact it takes our eye off the ball of a
genuinely fair and equal society.” That’s — Todd’s book is an example of this. I think some of Will’s ideas have been accepted
by large numbers of liberals about the need to — I mean, for example, all the stuff
Will has written about civic life and the importance of strengthening our civic sense
and third sectors in society. Some of those ideas started on the right. They didn’t
all come from the right. Actually, some of them came from the new left, but this notion
that you need a strong civic life, that’s popular, too. Ronald Walters: But you know, you’ve got
an intellectualism of both the left and the right here, which I think is wrong, because
so much of this really is spinning without the people who are really affected. When you
come to assess things like poverty, yes, you’re right, Will, a lot of people want changes
in the welfare system. But the fact is you cannot say that it didn’t do what it was
designed to do. The fact that people want to change it now is quite another discussion
altogether. They want to turn it into a jobs program. Now, we had a jobs program, and Reagan
killed it, so that now they want to turn the welfare program into a jobs program. That’s
fine. But we really have to be honest about the
ideological currents which come through and change things. We can’t say that everything
failed because these things haven’t. We have to talk to the people who came through
welfare and who made an honest living today out of a welfare system that worked for what
it was designed to do. Ben Wattenberg: If Sen. Dole wins the election
in November of 1996, you will have for the first time in at least 70 years a Republican
conservative — mainstream conservative president, a Republican conservative Senate, House, sympathetic
Supreme Court, control of the governorships, and probable control of the state legislatures
and state legislators, as well as the mayors of Los Angeles and New York. This is unheard
of in contemporary American politics, unheard of. If that happens — and that’s just
on the election of Dole — is liberalism really in the ditch for a long time to come,
because won’t the other guys really get their shot? E. J. Dionne: Well, first of all, that’s
like, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bus.” I mean, you are positive — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, no. That’s just one
election. That’s who’s going to win the election. Todd Gitlin: If one of her wheels falls off,
she’ll be in a ditch. E. J. Dionne: No, but two things. One, that
scenario you just described is actually Clinton’s ace in the hole, because what all the polls
show is the country really is uncomfortable with the prospect of this kind of unified
conservative government because they think they’ll go too far. To go back to your history, you worked for
LBJ. A lot of the stuff you guys did worked for the country. Medicare worked, food stamps
worked, civil rights worked, voting rights worked. This is a good legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. E. J. Dionne: There’s nothing to be ashamed
of in this legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. Don’t
you think that many of those programs were carried by liberals over the edge too far? E. J. Dionne: Well, how too far? I mean, has
Medicare gone too far? Is it too expensive? Sure, all — the whole health system is.
Has it gone too far? I don’t think so. Todd Gitlin: These programs were popular at
a time when the country felt rich, the country was unrivalled, and Americans felt, “Well,
let’s do more of the same. There’s no bad price for it.” Today people feel you
can’t have everything at once, but this doesn’t mean that these were not great achievements.
It also means that they have to be reformed. But nobody’s willing to get rid of them. Ronald Walters: That’s what I mean by change
in the intellectual mood, and I think we have to look at the forces that were responsible
for that. I mean, you had — in two or three decades, you had a downturn in the economy.
You’ve got people now who are very afraid, and I think that when people get afraid, they
start changing their evaluation. It’s not that the programs changed; it’s that the
evaluation has changed. Ben Wattenberg: What would you — if you
had to — if you had a paragraph to tell liberals how to govern and recapture the mainstream
of American thought and action, what would you tell them to do? E. J. Dionne: I think the main concerns for
Americans right now are both economic and moral. The economic is a sense of economic
insecurity and worry, as President Clinton said, that people who work hard and play by
the rules aren’t going to be rewarded. That in turn is a moral question. Now, I think liberals have to be unabashed
about saying that economics and morality are linked and that if we want liberalism to revive,
it’s going to have to do what it did for about a hundred years in our country, which
is tell people to use government not to make people dependent, but to enhance people’s
opportunities, to let them seize the chances in this new era, and to create a sense that
the rules are fair that they’re competing under. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd. Todd Gitlin: I would say liberalism has to
support the fiber of the country. It has to be committed to those institutions which increase
the access of all people to their common human heritage, and that includes reinvented government,
government that works, and it also includes unions and it includes public schools and
it includes metropolitan government and all of those forces that enable Americans to live
in a world with each other. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Ronald Walters: You’ve got to show people
a vision of the future. You’ve got to show them that this country is becoming more diverse.
I don’t think you can roll that back. I don’t think we need to be frightened of
it. I think we need to have a rational vision of what this country is going to be like,
and I think that we have to locate somewhere the source of our economic fears, I think,
because you can say that the white males are leading a conservative revolution, but at
the end of the day, someone has to explain to them in nonracial terms, nonimmigrant terms,
what is happening to them. And I think that once we get some of these explanations right,
I think then liberalism can show the path to leadership, and government has to play
a role. Ben Wattenberg: Will Marshall, you’re batting
cleanup. Will Marshall: I think liberalism has to adapt.
It’s got to identify itself once again as the party of innovation and new thinking.
For about the last 20 years, we’ve been in rearguard positions, defending the old
achievements, unwilling to admit criticism of them, and unwilling to offer something
better. Until we get into the arena and fight, you know, the battle of persuasion with the
American people that we have better ideas that are updated to new circumstances, we’re
not going to be competitive electorally. Ben Wattenberg: If it had wheels, it would
be a bus. Thank you very much, E. J. Dionne, Will Marshall, Todd Gitlin, and Ron Walters.
And thank you. And now we would like to announce part two
of our bumper sticker contest. In part one, we asked viewers to make up bumper sticker
slogans for or against President Clinton. For example, the anti-Clinton winning entry
was: “Clinton: 99 percent fact free.” A pro-Clinton entry was: “Clinton sax beats
Dole-drums.” This time we are looking for bumper stickers
for or against the Republican nominee, Bob Dole. So please send your entries plus any
other comments or questions to New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036.
We can be reached by email at [email protected] or on the World Wide Web at www.thinktank.com. For “Think Tank,” I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

How to Make A True Scrappy Quilt

February 23, 2020 | Articles | No Comments

Welcome to SewVeryEasy, my name is Laura. And the quilt behind me is a true scrappy quilt. What makes it a scrappy quilt is, well, just that you get to use up all of your scraps, regardless if you think they’re going to match. Now this quilt was worked on by at least four different women, because you can tell by the hand stitching, and I’ve named it after my grandmother, who would never have seen a scrap go to waste, named Margaret. Let’s make a true scrappy quilt. None of the patches match. The only thing that matches is the size: 2″ by 3½”. So whenever you finish a project, you just need to take all the scraps and cut them to 2″ by 3½”. So an easy way to cut them all together is to have them all pressed. And try to have two edges that are the straightest out of the pile, and then from there just match up the edges. And they don’t have to be exact because you’re going to be trimming them. So I will just keep using this corner and place them as close as I can to that corner. And I’m not worried about the edges because they will just be discarded. Just keep piling on the one corner, and it doesn’t matter the shape. Just have the corner and stack up about four to six layers. Whatever you feel comfortable cutting. So once I have the stack done. I’m going to just straighten one edge. And I’m going to take a peek and make sure that all of my fabric edges are on the outside so that they will be trimmed off. The next edge to straighten is the other edge that you were following, that corner. So line it up on your ruler. Make sure all of the pieces of fabric are sticking out, and straighten it up. Now I have two corners that are nice and straight. From there I’m going to be able to cut 2″ strips and then take the 2″ strips and cut them into 3½” pieces. And once you have them all cut up, you’re going to be able to go through and you will see which ones have made the cut, and just put them in a bin and you will just be able to see as you go along which pieces are going to make it and which are not. And when you have all your strips cut, toss them up. Now when you go to the sewing machine, the hardest part is going to be trying 𝒏𝒐𝒕 to match them up. So take your two pieces, match up right sides together and sew a quarter inch along the long side. And you’ll basically keep going until you’ve done the whole basket. So when the two pieces are sewn together, just with your fingers—you don’t need to do this with an iron— just press the seams towards the dark side. And I do this right at the machine. So I’m going to have two pieces, and I’m going to take the next two pieces and I’m going to put them together. So the pieces are going to go lengthwise and widthwise because when you sew the two pieces together, 2″, it will equal 3½”, which is the length. So those two will go together. And stitch down. So now you’re going to have a whole stack that looks like this. And with that you’ll make another block. You’ll just take it and twist it and they will go together. So you’re not going to have a seam matching up here. None of the seams around the outside are going to match; just the center. so when you have the eight pieces sewn together it should equal 6½”. From there you’re going to be able to sew them together in long rows. Now as you’re sewing them together you might find that you have some blocks that are going in opposite directions, and when you go to put them together the opposites are not going to be here. They seem to want to match. Well, instead of having to take this block apart, you’re just going to take another block that you’ve already sewn with your four pieces and you will sew it in-between as you do your rows. And when the next row matches, it’s going to match up fine. And you’re just going to keep sewing them together until you get to the size that you want. The whole key is to make sure that the strips are not matching up. What’s really nice about this is you can use any fabric even if they don’t match because the overall effect will just be a scrappy, old-fashioned-looking quilt. Now if you don’t like scrappy, you can make this in a controlled color setting. This had six fabrics: Three solids and three prints, and it was strip-pieced. So no matter which way you do it, it’s a fun and quick quilt. Now if you like the idea of a scrappy quilt, and maybe you don’t have enough scraps to make scrappy quilt, it’s a good opportunity to get together with your friends, sit around a circle, put all of your 2″ by 3½” strips in the center, mix them up and everybody draw from the center. Now that would be a fun scrappy quilt. Thank you for joining me today on SewVeryEasy. Free to subscribe and, as always, come on back. Let’s see what we’re sewing next time
in the sewing room. Bye for now!

Program paves pathway for future Rockford teachers

ROCKFORD STUDENTS SEE FIRST HAND THE EFFECTS OF THE TEACHER SHORTAGE. ((ERIC)) THOSE EXPERIENCES ARE THE REASON THEY’RE PROMISING TO COME BACK AFTER COLLEGE AND FILL TEACHING POSITIONS IN ROCKFORD SCHOOLS. HANNAH ZETTL SPENT THE DAY LEARNING ABOUT THE EDUCATION PATHWAY PROGRAM. AND HANNAH, THERE’S SOME GOOD BENEFITS FOR THE STUDENTS SIGNING UP. ((HANNAH)) THERE REALLY ARE, ERIC. AS IF REDUCED TUITION AND A FREE MASTER’S DEGREE WEREN’T ENOUGH — THESE ASPIRING TEACHERS WILL ALSO BE GUARENTEED A JOB WITH R-P-S AS THEY START THEIR CAREERS IN EDUCATION. Gov. JB Pritzker, (D) IL “Great teachers make great schools. But we have thousands of unfilled teaching positions throughout Illinois.” GOVERNOR JB PRITZKER WILL SET ASIDE 16.5 MILLION DOLLARS OF THE 2021 BUDGET IN A BATTLE AGAINST THE ILLINOIS TEACHER SHORTAGE. NATS: “Your future teachers!” Applause. ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHARE THE SAME GOAL. Dejan Kuljanin, Education Pathway student “I want to stay in the district and put back into the community.” TWENTY R-P-S SENIORS ARE COMMITTING TO TEACH WITHIN THE DISTRICT AFTER GRADUATING FROM ROCKFORD UNIVERSITY. IN ADDITION TO A GUARANTEED JOB, DEJAN KULJANIN AND HIS PEERS WILL RECEIVE FOUR YEARS REDUCED TUITION AND A MASTER’S DEGREE IN URBAN EDUCATION. Dejan Kuljanin, Education Pathway student “I can’t wait to see all the students succeed in life. I want to see them go back out in Rockford and have them put back into the community the way I did.” Guadalupe Moreno, Education Pathway student “I’m going into high school education for psychology.” GUILFORD HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR GUADALUPE MORENO HOPES TO RETURN TO THE SCHOOL — TO TEACH IN A DISTRICT THAT HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED HER DREAMS. Guadalupe Moreno, Education Pathway student “The scholarship is a benefit yes, but the program itself I feel like it would benefit me more personally to help me achieve the path I want to go into, education, more.” GUILFORD PRINCIPAL GUS CARTER SAYS HIS STUDENTS PURSUING THEIR PASSIONS ARE A TESTAMENT TO A DISTRICT THAT SOLVES ITS OWN PROBLEMS. Gus Carter, Guilford HS Principal “we’re not going to wait for you know another community, we’re not going to wait for the state, we’re not going to wait for programs. We’ll just do it ourselves, we’ll problem solve ourselves and get the best outcome we can possibly get.” ((HANNAH)) GUILFORD HIGH SCHOOL’S SERVICE ACADEMY IS PREPARING THE GROUP FOR ROCKFORD UNIVERSITY IN THE FALL. THEY CAN EVEN WORK AT R-P-S OVER THE SUMMER TO HELP PAY FOR TUITION. BRITTANY. ((BRITTANY))

Which Try Guy Knows Eugene The Best?

February 19, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 100 Comments

Which Try Guy Knows Eugene The Best?

We found out who everyone else’s best friends are, and finally we get to find out who Eugene’s best friend is. What time is it? Try Guys Game Time!
(powerful Ned sneeze) (distorted version of Ned’s powerful sneeze) I sneezed. Oh wow. That was awful. We’re gonna use that take I guess. (upbeat intro music) We’re here to see who’s Eugene’s best friend. B.F.F. Hey BFF, Eugene’s my best friend and I’m here to prove that our bond is strong and mutual. Hashtag #Zugene forever. I thought it was Zagene Oh, 1 point off of Zach, he got the hashtag wrong. You can’t start with negative. I mean you didn’t even get our ship name right. Eugene, I’m here to prove that you and I are best friends and I drew you a gorgeous drawing Oooohhh of you without a shirt holding Pesto. I like that. And I tried to really capture Pesto’s energy. Yeah, he looks insane. Three points for Ned! Yeah! No, what, what the dick? Let’s do this, bitch! – That’s so good.
– That’s so you. Yeah, Keith five points. – Yaaayyy!
– Whaat? He’s sitting all naked and closed off and somebody’s a bitch. (fabulous Keith laughing) Round one: questions that the public could know, they could look up, maybe we’ve said it in a video before. What is the name of the town I grew up in? Spelling matters. I instantly forget it, I know it’s some bogus German name and I cannot believe — Pflugerville, I wrote ‘German name’. It’s Pflugerville. Pflugerville, Texas. – What was your answer, Ned?
– Pflugerville, Texas! – And what was your answer, Keith?
– Pflugerville. – You misspelled Pflugerville.
– Sure did. Ned was the only one who spelled it correctly. It is with a P because it is German. So Ned gets the point. Yes, I can’t believe that was worth only one point! Wait, wait the town that has a silent P is your first easy question? You dick. Guys, my questions are crazy. You’re like that. You’re crazy. This has been in many videos. What is my mom’s name? Pfffffffffff Oh God. I will also accept if you spell it in Korean. I’m not gonna draw what I think Korean looks like. Why, of course, your mom’s name is Irene and here it is in Korean. It is a very common Korean-American name. Possibly. Your mom’s name is… Diane. Here it is in Korean. (Eugene dying of laughter) I know she calls you Eugena. So maybe it’s because it’s her name too. My mother’s name is Min-young. What is the Korean characters? You know, actually, you’re pretty close. All right, let’s give the point to Ned Yeah! Diane wins. Thank God I started with five points. What attribute does my dog Pesto have that most other dogs you see don’t have? I know this one. I would say this is way easier than Pflugerville So Pesto is a pound pup and he has a scar down his back. Pesto’s really great at pooping. It’s because he always has expressed anal glands. Pesto has an underbite. Pesto does have a giant scar down his back Breaking even! From a previous Try Guys video. I’m just expecting it to be Korean. You are not 100% Korean. (dramatic music because Eugene was lied to by his parents) What percentage Korean am I? You get an extra point if you can also write my Japanese percentage and my Chinese percentage. I guessed 40 Korean, 30 Japanese and 10 Chinese, which I do realize does not equal 100. I guessed 76 percent Korean, 13 percent Japanese and 11 percent Chinese. I felt you were 63 percent Korean, 16 percent Japanese and 21 percent Chinese. This is the hardest question for one point. You’re such a dick. Really? Yeah. Because guess who is 63 percent Korean. (excited screams) WOW! I take it back, I’m a hero. We talked about my mother, but we didn’t talk about my drag mother, Mayhem Miller. She was just on a little show called RuPaul’s Drag Race. What season was it? We love Mayhem. She’s dope. But we don’t love her enough to know exactly what season it was. RuPaul’s Drag Race season 11. It was RuPaul’s Drag Race season 17. No idea, season 8. The correct answer is tens, tens, tens across the board. Which means Zach was the closest. That means I have one point now because I started negative. Yes. So, let’s see what the points are currently. Wow, Keith got six points from five questions. And I got one right. Try Guys Game Time! No, Bean, don’t eat the marker, don’t eat the marker. Now it’s time for round two The questions are worth two points, and these my friends should know. What is actually my greatest irrational fear? Eugene is afraid of airplanes crashing. Eugene is afraid of airplanes. Because he doesn’t want to die when it’s someone else’s fault. Flying or a plane crash. I also drew a little bug. I was just sort of doodling. Planes and flying. I don’t like when I’m not in control. Next question. That was the easiest question you’ve asked so far. Name the one music artist whose entire discography I randomly know. We’re in the pop culture round now. Daddy Zach’s got this. Did you say “daddy Zach’s got this”? I did. What is your answer? Miss Perfect Pitch herself, Celine Dion. Rihanna. I would be surprised if you knew all of R Kelly. While I do appreciate, love and want to be Rihanna; Celine Dion is the correct answer. ‘Cause my stepfather and mom are obsessed with her. They would play her constantly when I was growing up. I’m playing to win. I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to make friend. There’s one thing I’m truly terrible at that the other guys are better at me at. Better at me than at. Better than me are at? Speaking. What is the one thing I’m bad at that the other guys are better at? Eugene sucks at video games. Eugene sucks at emotional vulnerability. Eugene sucks at Mario Kart, video games. Lady Mushroom~ Lady Mushroom- What’s Lady Mushroom’s real name? Lady Mushroom is Toadette. Oh, I just call her Lady Mushroom. It is video games! No.. My mother did not want me to become an “Asian nerd”, so she told me I’d get thumb cancer, so I wouldn’t play it. Min- *scoffs* Lay off him! When I’m drunk, Yep. I’m known to become one of ten distinct split personalities. Name 2 of my 10 split personalities when I’m drunk. I wrote down four. The most dangerous Eugene is Theft Eugene. There is of course Social Eugene, Runs away Eugene, and doesn’t like Zach, Ned, and Keith Eugene. I tried to name all ten. Crazy Eugene, where you hop in trees. Wanderer Eugene, where you leave your friends. Bitchy Eugene, Depressed Eugene, Angry at white people Eugene, Slutty Eugene and Euphoric Eugene. I have Hostess Eugene and Run away Tabitha We have Sexually aggressive Eugene, Childlike wonder Eugene, Politically argumentative Eugene, Escapist ghost Eugene, Sleepy time Eugene, Dancing maniac Eugene Always comes out of weddings. Klepto criminal Eugene, K-rage fighting Eugene, Existentially depressed Eugene and Hostess with the mostess Eugene. Wow. You have two, let me give you four. I’m gonna give you… two. I especially like that Hostess with the mostess Eugene is the most recent split personality. I-it’s the newest Evelution. Eugenelution. So that’s the end of round two. Here are the scores And there’s an ice cream truck. Do you hear the ice cream truck? Should we get ice cream? Final round: Round three. It’s anyone’s game. Wow These are the hard questions. Fill in the blank: As a child up until I was about 7 years old, I suffered from chronic blank. The thing that I’m thinking I think is right, but it’s gross Well, they’re already icked out. Just by your general demeanor this entire episode (Eugene laughing) (distorted “Daddy Zach’s got this”) Zach, what’s your answer? You were a skin picker. You had chronic ear infections. Chronic bowel puss– puss in his bowels. I had chronic nosebleeds. I was like an anime character who was constantly turned on. So, do you still have bowel puss? Fun fact, I know a lot about astrology. So, which zodiac signs, if you happen to suck, makes you the suckiest? I’d say everyone says watch out for the Leos, which is me. Scorpio and Capricorn, because Capricorn has ‘corn’ in its name. And that’s also me. I’m a Capricorn. Oh… oh shit. Based on my encyclopedic knowledge of the astrological tables: Scorpio, Taurus and Capricorn. I also threw Capricorn under the bus, and added in Libra and Cancer. Well, the three zodiac signs I personally think when they’re messes they’re really messy: Cancer, Virgo and Pisces. Well, I got– Didn’t see that coming at all. One point for Keith. They’re some of the greatest people you know, but also if they suck they’re some of the worst people, in my opinion. Leos are fucking dope. Scorpios are consistently moody. Tauruses super chill. Love Libras. When you get a Virgo that’s, like, got an agenda, they’ll fucking cut you in your sleep. What’s a word like yelling ‘nerd’ that could be applied to this bullshit? Sometimes I think about when there’s a situation if we have to eat other people. What would be the first part of the body I’m most interested in trying? If you get closest, I’ll give you the points. I’m not certain what part of the body you want to eat, but I do know whose body you want to eat off of and that’s Mr. Keith Habersberger. So I wrote Keith’s femur area. – Yeah, I’d be delicious.
– I feel like you’d want to eat this. – That is– Your femur is your upper leg.
– Your femur is there. Well, that’s still delicious. I wrote Keith’s ass. – Did you change, did you write Keith in after I wrote?
– No. No, everyone just assumes I’m gonna eat Keith. Uh, I wrote the back loin. It should be the tastiest, given that that’s the tastiest on most animals. The thumb and the fleshy palm. Because it looks just like a drumstick. You wanna eat this? It looks like a drumstick, – and you can just eat the flesh off the palm.
– That would be awful tasting. Have you guys not thought about this? No… Well, I’ll give the points to Ned because I would eat Keith’s ass out of all of those. Yes! I pray I never crash on an island with you. Eugene’s the guy that waits like ’til sundown, he’s like ‘well, who we eatin’?’. Speaking of which, the next question: If the four of us were in a horror movie and I was the final girl, in what order would you three die in? We are big horror movie fans, you and I. So, Keith is the sacrificial lamb, the first kill. He’s our Drew Barrymore, gets the horror movie started. Ned’s the fake hero that dies halfway through, thrusting Eugene into final girl status. And Zach, in the end, he somehow survives and is there just as comic relief. – Interesting presentation.
– Pretty good, pretty good. Ned, what about you? Ned dies first ’cause he’s cocky, runs in thinking he can save the situation. Next Keith, ’cause he’s sexy, you want to keep him around to at least act two. For the, for the eyeball factors. Good call. But you know, he’s gonna get murdered. Finally Zach. He appears to be smart ’cause he has glasses. Zach would freeze and fumble in the cold open of the movie and be killed mysteriously. He’s just the old man character that gets murdered for no reason. Ned would bro out in an attempt to save everyone and kill himself on accident. Keith would be the joke. ‘I made it, it’s okay the movie’s gonna be just fine’ and then suddenly… And it is revealed that this beautiful person was in on it the entire time, and was trying to get all of us killed. These are great horror pictures guys. One, we’d have Zack in a false death. Two, we would have Ned. Three, we would have Keith, and then four, Zach a true death. Wow, so we all had elements that were right. Ned had the purest horror conventions, which I was going off of, which is: – Cocky
– Yeah. – Pretty nice.
– Yeah. – Smart with glasses.
– Yes! – And Ned hates horror movies the most!
– And Ned hates horror movies. I do like the Drew Barrymore thing. I liked the final girl as the villain in the end. – But this is actually the way it would break down.
– Yeah. Alright. Good job guys Last question, final round. At what age did I lose my virginity? So whoever is the closest will get the points. People assume that Eugene has been slutting it up for a long, long time. Eugene did not lose his virginity until age 25. Eugene did not lose his virginity until age 23. Gotta team up with Korndiddy on this one. Let’s say 25 It was 25. Eugene kept his pants zipped up and then he unleashed Pandora’s box. Oh yeah. Yeah, that’s true. I kept my pants on for a very long time, people would be surprised by that. And in fact I was the least slutty Try Guy until 25. Ned’s slutted it up hard! Okay, I think we don’t have much more time in this video so we should probably sign off. We have some pretty exciting scores here. Between first and second place is one point. *whispers* Oh no. The person who’s actually my best friend… Wait, can we all hold hands. This is huge. This is big is Ned. – I won’t give you a hug.
– Thank you. You know me, you know me. Well, this is game time. It looks like after all four of these videos we found out who each person’s best friend was and we’re all each other’s best friend in some way. It turns out we’re all best friends together on… Try Guys Game Time! (upbeat outro music) For the record Eugene made this game up, told us the rules, and in classic Eugene fashion is changing the rules. I think one point off of Zach. Come on! Nice job, bitch. Thanks. I like that, thanks 😀

The Bizarre Future of Stroke Treatment

February 19, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 66 Comments

The Bizarre Future of Stroke Treatment

[♪ INTRO] When it comes to strokes, doctors often say
“time is brain,” meaning that the more time that passes before
a stroke is identified and treated, the more damage it can do. Which is why medical professionals want everyone
to know how to spot a stroke F.A.S.T. Weakness in the Face or Arm? Speech problems? Time to call 911. But even with rapid action, there can be lasting
damage. So researchers are looking for better ways
to help stroke patients, and that’s led to some kind of creative ideas. A stroke happens when part of the brain’s
blood supply is cut off. The lack of blood flow means some of the tissue
stops receiving oxygen. So it essentially suffocates and starts to
die. That leads to neurological symptoms, like
slurred speech and weak limbs. And when brain cells die, losses to function
can be permanent. It’d be great to just never have these things
happen. Unfortunately, stopping strokes entirely isn’t
likely. The trouble is, there are two main types of
strokes. About 15% of strokes are hemorrhagic
strokes, which is when a burst blood vessel leads to
bleeding in the brain, which disrupts the normal flow of blood to
the surrounding brain tissue. Most strokes, however, fall under the banner
of ischemic attacks, which means a blood clot obstructs blood flow
to part of the brain. That means, to stop all strokes, you’d need
to make it so people have blood vessels that never fail or clog. And that’s just not really possible. So instead, scientists are looking at ways
to minimize the damage strokes cause. And they’ve gotten pretty creative about
it. Since time is a critical factor in how much
damage a stroke will do, any treatment that can buy doctors more time can help. Sadly, we have not yet figured out how to
freeze time. But doctors can do the next best thing: freeze
a person’s brain. It’s a technique called therapeutic hypothermia. And, OK, technically, the brain is not frozen. Using ice-cold IV drips and cold packs applied
to the skin, physicians lower the patient’s body temperature
to around 33 to 36 degrees Celsius, a bit below the typical 36 to 37. This aims to slow down something called the
ischemic cascade. See, your brain cells, like pretty much all
cells in your body, prefer to make their energy-shuttling molecules with a process that requires oxygen. When they stop receiving oxygen because their
blood supply is cut off, they switch to a less efficient method in
an attempt to keep up with the energy demand. Soon, though, there’s just not enough energy
to go around, and everything starts to fall apart. Before you know it, the cell is dead. The longer the tissue lacks oxygen, the more
cells will die, and the larger the damaged area becomes. But, since all of this stems from those cells
needing energy, if you lower their energy needs, they can
last longer before they crash. It’s kind of like how you can keep your
phone running longer if you dim the screen and turn on airplane mode. And that’s what therapeutic hypothermia
seems to do, it slows all sorts of processes in cells, thereby reducing their energy needs. Studies have found that for every degree you
reduce a person’s core body temperature, the rate at which their cells use energy decreases
by up to 5%. That buys more time to treat the clot or bleed. And, once the cause of the stroke is fixed,
the patient can be warmed up gradually, over the course of many hours, to avoid the complications that come with
a rapid increase in body temperature. But while therapeutic hypothermia can help
prevent brain damage from occurring, it doesn’t affect the damage that’s already been done. And unfortunately, strokes often have lasting
symptoms, because brain tissue is notoriously bad at repairing itself. Now some scientists believe that’s largely
because there isn’t enough structural support for the tissue that tries to grow back. Patients basically end up with small, fluid-filled
cavities in their brains once the debris from the dead cells is cleared out. That’s why some neuroscientists think they
can give the brain a helping hand using a technique called bio-scaffolding. A bio-scaffold is a structure that tissue
can grow over, an empty frame of sorts that encourages new cell growth better than the
fluid-filled cavity. One 2012 study even suggests the best material
for scaffolding is… pork bladder tissue? Or what’s left of it, anyway, after you
remove the actual cells, what scientists call the extracellular matrix. That’s basically all the proteins, starches,
and other molecules in between your cells which support them physically and biochemically. So the idea is, you plug a gap in someone’s
brain with the structural elements of bladder tissue and maybe add some neural stem cells
to get things rolling. And voila! But although there have been promising results
in rodent models, we don’t know for sure that this works in humans. And before we could start doing this in human
brains, we’d need to make sure the tissue wouldn’t grow back in a problematic way and that the immune system wouldn’t respond
unfavorably to the scaffold. There are also other ways to encourage healing,
like, by injecting molecular signals for regrowth. The thing is, it’s not just neurons that
need to grow back. The new tissue will also need the little blood
vessels that ensure those neurons get enough oxygen and nutrients. And that’s why one group investigating this
kind of injection tried something called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, a substance that, among other things, encourages
blood vessels to grow. Previous research had suggested injecting
VEGF into brains wasn’t so great because it causes inflammation and doesn’t
do much in the way of repairing stroke damage. But that was when it was injected all alone. So, the research team created a water-based
gel from a starch known to promote neurons to grow from stem cells and added nanoparticles that dampen inflammation. Then, they added VEGF and injected the mix
into stroke cavities in the brains of mice. And, as hoped, new blood vessels and new neurons
grew into that space The damaged areas even started working again, which didn’t happen for animals
that received a control gel. Like with scaffolding, this hasn’t been
tried in people yet, but with such promising results, human trials might not be too far
off. And these methods aren’t necessarily mutually
exclusive. A doctor may be able to use some combination
of therapeutic hypothermia, bio-scaffolding, and injectable growth promoters to give their
stroke patients the best possible outcome. Plus, these are just a few of the promising
developments from the field. Stroke treatment and rehabilitation are two
massive fields of research, so doctors are bound to come up with other exciting, creative solutions. We still have a long way to go before strokes
are easily treatable. But with a little luck, approaches like these
will go from theory to practice very soon. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow
Psych! If you enjoy learning about your brain and
how it works, and, presumably you do
because you’re watching this, be sure to stick around! We are all brain, all the time here,
all you have to do is click on that subscribe button and ring the notification bell, catch
every single episode, never let us down… No, I’m kidding. Enjoy it how you like! But if you think out free, educational psychology
videos are really great and we do,
and you want to support the team here, you can learn more about joining our community
of supporters at patreon.com/SciShow. [♪ OUTRO]

Geopolitical Threats to the Economy in 2020 (w/ Maziar Minovi)

ED HARRISON: Maziar Minovi, very glad to have
you here on Real Vision. You are the CEO of Eurasia Group, we actually
had in Bremmer talk to us a little while ago. Tell us a little bit– I noticed your tagline
was politics first, tell us a little bit about what you guys do, and how it relates to markets
in particular for what you do. MAZIAR MINOVI: Yeah, our hope and aspiration
is to be the place where people come to find out about the world. Our approach to that is with politics first. The firm really offers services across a range
of clients, our home and the beginnings of the firm 21 years ago was to service financial
sector clients. Over the years, that’s expanded to corporate
clients of all sorts in the US and outside. More recently, the last few years into media
with the advent of GZERO Media, where we try to make politics accessible in an unbiased,
but smart way, the first part of which is in rare commodity these days. ED HARRISON: Actually, it’s interesting because
before, we were talking off camera about your background, and it makes a lot of sense that
Eurasia was in the finance space before because you were actually in the finance space. We were talking about how you had IMF economists
and there’s like a merge between understanding non-markets type of economics and the global
economy and financial markets. Tell us a little bit about your background
and how that came to be that you came to Eurasia. MAZIAR MINOVI: Yeah, actually, the link goes
even deeper and earlier than that. I share on my first day on the job as CEO
and I was talking to our colleagues, I mentioned that I feel like I’m coming back home again
because many in your audience may be ancient history but I grew up as a teenager in the
middle of the Iranian Revolution. I saw firsthand when the rest of teenagers
around the world were figuring out who their boyfriend or girlfriend would be, the impact
of politics on real lives. My father was in the Navy, we had friends
escaped, we had friends killed. We stayed there for two and a half years after
the revolution and my father had some experiences he’d rather not talk about. I escaped at 16 through the Pakistani border
and came to Europe and the US from there. For me from an early age, politics and the
way it shaped lives was fundamental and trying to understand it and frankly, in the early
stages, trying to control it, understand, to be able to use it to get my country back
was one of the things that guided me. I remember in college, I called my dad up,
we were separated by an ocean, that I have to decide on a major. What do you think? He said, well, you’ve done well so far. It’s really your choice but just remember
one thing, you’re not like the other kids around you, you’re a refugee. Whatever you pick has to be something that
also supports the family. I remember looking around, so I like politics. I like their national affairs, international
finance, that seems like it has both of them. That’s what really got me into finance and
pretty quickly, I trended towards the political economy portion of it. I did my dissertation and privatization in
Eastern Europe in ’89 to ’92, just as things were changing. That got me into finance, financial firms. My first financial firm was Putnam, they were
looking to buy and sell sovereign debt of Eastern European countries and Russia. There was no fixed income Eastern European
expert in 1994. There I was in finance, and the rest is history. ED HARRISON: Yeah, that is really very interesting
I have to say. Actually, I could go on for a long time talking
about this the past, but let’s fast forward it to the present for a second because the
nexus of your background, and what’s happening today is it’s really driving markets, it’s
driving the economy. I want to set the stage in terms of what you’re
seeing in terms of what the preconditions are for the top risks from a geopolitical
perspective. You had a presentation that I was going through,
and you outlined what the macro background is. One of the things was growth. Tell me a little bit about what the overall
growth outlook is. MAZIAR MINOVI: As an investor, you can either
take these risks as given and react to them, or you can try to lean in, I’ve always tried
to lean in, in my former life the last 25 years as an investor, and the last year at
Eurasia. When you try to understand when geopolitical
events have impacts on markets, and really do the survey, one by one, to see the impact,
a couple of things come through. One is of course on a country and a regional
level, they could have a lot of impact in all sorts of markets. When you widen the lens to geopolitical risks
that really makes sustained impact on major markets, US equity market, US bond market,
in fact, there are very few that do so and that’s even going back to the ’60s. Believe it or not, we did. When you do that, really, there are only a
few situations where this happens where the impact is persistent and large. They generally hack occur when there is broader
economic fragility. Now, there’s some other conditions like it
has to impact the supply of a major commodity, US has to be involved, but really, none of
it happens, unless there’s some fragility or imbalance in the global economy at the
same time. Perfect example of this is Nixon impeachment,
that whole process. You look at the markets, the timing works,
I think the equity market in the US tanked 27%. You say, okay, well, here’s a political risk
that impacted markets, but then you look a little bit before that and really, that happened
on the heels of the quadrupling of oil prices, and the stagflation that started to take hold
there. The economy was already fragile, the Fed was
trying to deal with it. Fast forward to today, one of the things I
always have in mind is where are we on that scale? What is the enabling condition? When you look at it that way, there are some
signs that are worrying. Growth this year in 2019 ended around 2.9%
globally, that’s the slowest we’ve had since the financial crisis and the trends aren’t
particularly encouraging. ED HARRISON: Oh, yeah, that’s the real question
for 2020 then. MAZIAR MINOVI: When you look at the IMF latest
WEOO assessment, they came out I think on Monday, they have a growth in the advanced
world stabilizing to going down even more. US is supposed to go down to 1.9 and then
1.7% growth. That’s just a hair’s breadth over stall speed. They have China slowing down. Europe is also slowing down. The only places they have going up are emerging
market countries ex-China, which as we were talking earlier, seems somewhat aspirational. I haven’t seen it my quarter century, that
set of facts very often. When you dig down bit below it, they expect
some emerging markets that really fell a lot in 19 to rebound. I’ve worked at the IMF. I know their models are designed to mean revert
to some trend. Yes, if you slow down a lot, you’re forward
looking projections will be to go up. That seems not necessarily, from a real world
investor perspective, what you should be counting on and indeed between the October IMF forecast
and the one this week, we already see some major revisions in the growth most notably
in India. ED HARRISON: They’re down? MAZIAR MINOVI: As big drop in the projected
growth of India, I believe, is over a percent in the span of three months road. That’s pretty big revision. To come back to the main point, the global
economy is fragile. Yes, is the base case we’re going to go into
a recession? No. You look at most models in New York Fed and
others, around 25% chance of recession in the US in the next year. That compares to an unconstraint 11% in any
given year since ’81, when the monetary policy framework was similar. From my point of view, well, 25% isn’t so
bad. If you look at the other way, as I have, and
when you talk to people who’ve been at the Fed that certainly looked at this, most of
these recession models, almost all of them, don’t wait till 70% or 80% or 90%. When they pass 40%, historically, we’ve had
a recession, so being at 25%, or a few months ago when we were at 30% is not something to
be to sneeze at. That worries me. The macro economy is vulnerable to a push
and the ammunition to offset any impact on growth that comes from loss of confidence
from all of these geopolitical risks, be the US-China trade or Iran, the room for offsetting
them has dropped. ED HARRISON: I was going to say actually,
when you say the room for offsetting them, the first thing that comes to mind for me
is the ability for countercyclical measures, whether it be fiscal or monetary. What do you see there in terms of the macro
preconditions? MAZIAR MINOVI: Just to set the scene for people
who may not be familiar, we’ve had three rate cuts in the US this year, and the Europeans
have resorted back to QE. The Fund, again, its latest assessment said
those moves, the loosening of monetary condition, really allowed for a boost to the economy
of these countries and to the world of about half a percent for this year and next year. That’s the order of magnitude we’re talking
about impact that monetary policy can have. The problem is that now, interest rates amongst
the G3 countries and you can add UK to that, G4 economies, is close to the lowest on average
they’ve been since the financial crisis. Where do you go from here? In Europe, we’re already in negative territory. In Japan, we’re in negative territory. In the US typically, when the Fed faces a
recession, they have five percentage points to work with. Now, it’s significantly less than that. The room is less on the monetary policy to
do anything and the bond markets already pricing in more QE in the future so forward guidance
and promises of buying bonds in the future. At the margin, the impact of it is minimal
going forward. On the fiscal policy side, another way governments
can try to push back against loss of confidence. When we look at the political economy, the
picture isn’t pretty. You tell me in the US, are the President and
the Democrats in the teeth of an impeachment process going to cooperate to do a fiscal
stimulus? The political economy of Europe really is
not conducive to meaningful fiscal stimulus. We can go into that if you like. Yes, Japan will do their typical supplemental
budgets as they do every year. We will all suspend disbelief that a country
with 260% GDP government debt, debt to GDP is sustainable over the long term, but there’s
not room for massive surprises. Neither is there in China, absent a major
crisis. The global economy has slowed down, the ability
to offset the impact of negative political risk is lower and that’s the environment in
which the sorts of risks we see for next year and 2021 really concerned me. ED HARRISON: Let’s get into the risks then
because I know I saw a presentation that you had done just recently on what you would consider
the top 10 macro geopolitical risks. Maybe we can cover five or six, but let’s
go down what are the most important? What’s the first thing that pops in from a
geopolitical perspective risk-wise? MAZIAR MINOVI: Interestingly enough for the
first time in the history of Eurasia, we have the US as risk number one. It’s not the way you would think of it. It’s not about the impeachment process itself. It’s not about the outcome of the election. It’s more about the impact of this extreme
polarization that we’re witnessing today. Yes, the impeachment and the election are
turbocharging it, but what worries us is that as we approach the election and its aftermath,
there will be a crisis of legitimacy in the US, something that US citizens and the markets
aren’t used to thinking about or pricing. What do we mean by that? When you look at the timeline of the Ukraine
affair, it’s interesting to note that the President’s efforts, based on the evidence
so far describe, to try to compel investigations into his competitors in Ukraine started the
day after the Muller report was put to bed. Here we are looking at the impeachment and
the election timeline is getting closer, we do expect that the President not be convicted
in the Senate and we are concerned about what happens a day after. You have a president who has very stable ratings
in favorability ratings, but low. What is the strategy, the election strategy
that makes sense for any politician in that situation? It’s not to go and tack to the middle and
bring in independence, people have already made their choices that the range of truly
open-minded voters is quite small. What you do is mobilize your base, wait for
an opponent and delegitimize them as much as possible to turn down the turnout from
the independence and right leaning Democrats. We’re very concerned that after the impeachment’s
over, the President’s going to continue his efforts of delegitimizing whomever he sees
as his biggest threat and given the experience of the last four years, very likely that there’ll
be increased allegations of foreign involvement, of using private money in ways that are not
typical or possibly legal, certainly in the eyes of the opposition, as we approach election
day. You turbocharged the polarization, you get
to an election that’s very close. In our assessment, the election is going to
be very close either way. Right now, gun to head, we think the President
would win 60% odds or so, but very close and very likely where we’ll have democrats actually
win the majority of the votes, possibly with even a wider margin than last time. This fuel to the fire of the polarized environment
could create an environment where the opposition whoever loses will have a hard time accepting
the outcome. Demonstrations on Washington, court fights
in multiple states contradicting each other and it’s very unlikely to imagine as we had
in 2000, once the Supreme Court speaks, that the opposition is going to say, okay, fine,
thank you very much. I’m gone. Just imagine, just to crystallize this, you’re
on January 19, the day before the inauguration, and still one side hasn’t accept the legitimacy
of the other, how is the market going to respond to that? How are foreign leaders going to respond to
that, enemies and allies? Now, we’re not saying the US is we’re going
to become a banana republic, the institutions will work themselves out but there’ll be a
very unusual period of uncertainty. ED HARRISON: You could make the argument that
this legitimacy that you’re talking about has become one where might makes right and
in the sense that if you control the numbers, you get to do whatever you want. MAZIAR MINOVI: When we look at the political
economy of major countries around the world, you do see that countries with strong civil
societies have a much more stable environment and started framing this in the J curve concept
as you become this more democratic stability really phrase. Then as you go even further, you get to a
place where stability is higher than when you started in autocracy. The US has, the political system, has strong
institutions, powers diffused, we’ve had a history over hundreds of years of these, whether
it’s the judiciary, whether it’s the states, whether it’s the offending parties, own party,
pushing back when it comes to an extreme, McCarthy era is one. What we’re worried about is we may not have
seen a situation like this since 1887, where ultimately, they couldn’t agree to the President
through legal means so they had to make basically an extra legal compromise that brought in
[indiscernible] presidency but the [indiscernible] at the North would pull its troupe out of
the South and the Reconstruction Era took a different turn. That’s just to dramatize what we’re talking
about, but we will get to a solution. It’s just that from here to there, we’re worried
that markets may have one of those air pocket moments or many of them not knowing what comes
next. That is not something that’s priced in. When we talk to our clients globally, they
want to know if the President’s going to get impeached, they want to know who’s going to
win and inside and outside the US, they want to know, what can Warren do? What damage can Warren do? This is questions from our clients if she
becomes president. They are not thinking about this crisis of
confidence and the constitutional crisis. ED HARRISON: Interesting. What about the US and the world stage in terms
of things that are potential geopolitical risks, whether it be trade, China decoupling,
what are the things that you’re looking at there? MAZIAR MINOVI: In our top 10 risks, risk two
and three really are focused on this China issue. One is the great decoupling. We’re already seeing in the tech field, in
5G, the beginnings of a decoupling between the tech ecosystem of the US and around US
technology and Chinese technology. Our concern is that this will metastasize
and grow beyond the confines of a few sectors in tech. Given the structural confrontation between
the two sides and the increased need for countries to take aside that we will see media, telecommunications
and other sectors more and more have to pick sides. ED HARRISON: Interesting. Like for instance in the UK, recently, they
were talking about Huawei and like if we don’t choose Huawei, who do we choose? I think it was Boris Johnson’s call to the
United States. Is that the thing that you’re talking about? MAZIAR MINOVI: It is. The question almost will become, who will
be? Where will the next Berlin Wall, the tech
Berlin Wall fall, and which countries are on which side of it? UK, Japan. For countries like Korea, South Korea and
Taiwan, it’s going to be a very difficult choice because they’re already tied into the
value chain in China as well as penetrated China’s final demand market. Where do they fall? On 5G obviously, right now, the Chinese and
Huawei is slightly ahead in terms of commercializing the technology. If a country has to pick sides, they’ll have
to look down the road that if they do this, then they may lose access to other parts of
the US ecosystem that they truly value. We think at the end of the day, most western
countries will gravitate around the US orbit, even Japan for security reasons given their
long history of enmity with the Chinese. The most interesting part is who are the other
ones that are on the edge? It’s clear to us that Sub-Saharan Africa and
Southeast Asian countries will probably choose the Chinese ecosystem. As I mentioned, Taiwan, Korea will be on the
cusp, but this is what the intensification of this bifurcation of technology and sectors
is the future. It’s a structural trend and it’s just going
to metastasize. ED HARRISON: I have two questions in that. One is, how much of this is driven by whether
Trump is reelected? The second is, what have the Chinese decided
in terms of decoupling in terms of we’re definitely going to decouple or maybe we could go back
and recouple? What do you see on both of those fronts? MAZIAR MINOVI: This is not a Trump phenomenon
on many levels what we’re experiencing globally. On the tech side, in particular, I’ll tell
you a story. In 2017, right after the President was elected,
I had a chance to speak with Ash Carter, who was the Secretary of Defense under the Obama
administration, the serious heavyweight professional, not taken to hyperbole, actually a rocket
scientist by training in and out of government. Back then in 2017, when we were talking with
him, he said one of his biggest regrets is how Washington and the politicians are not
taking seriously the threat to critical infrastructure of the US from Chinese and Russian technology. That globalization and the market’s considerations
have dulled the sensibility to vulnerability of the US. That was from a Secretary of Defense of democratic
administration. Among the very few things in DC that you find
now unanimity about is this issue that our critical infrastructure has to be protected. We have to be much more mindful of this. Even if the President is a Democrat, maybe
the temperature comes down but the national security leg of this is going to continue
with more or less the same intensity that we’ve seen. ED HARRISON: Does that have any implications
in terms of balkanization of the internet and tech giants and where they stand from
a valuation perspective? MAZIAR MINOVI: Yeah, it certainly does. You and I’s professional career has been defined
by a world that’s constantly globalizing, we’re getting closer and closer to optimizing
economic activity and investments, and it’s hard for us to process, no, this can go the
other way. Another way of putting what you said is, are
we headed to a world where we’ll have suboptimal outcomes, and our tech is not going to be
as cheap as it could have been in a globalized world? Absolutely, or as accessible. When people make these choices, countries
make these choices, they’re going to have to choose between cheap, but far less privacy,
or more expensive. In our current context, think of Apple versus
an Android device. If you want privacy and more quality, you
have to pay for it. ED HARRISON: You could look at the trade front
as a second front there in terms of this US, Chinese tete a tete, but it’s also beyond–
when you talk about deglobalization, it’s beyond just US-China. It’s also USEurope. Literally just the other day in Davos, Trump
was like if they don’t do X, then they know that I’m going to put tariffs on them so they’re
going to do X. Is that where things are headed? Where does that stand on your list of geopolitical
risks? MAZIAR MINOVI: The trade component of it is
what has obviously fueled the fire and really brought this issue to the fore in the most
recent period, but it’s not a new development. I wish I could remember verbatim the speeches
by President Johnson about how the European auto industry was sucking the lifeblood out
of the US and that was actually why the US imposed 25% tariffs on trucks in the ’60s
on European so this is not a new phenomenon. The Airbus Boeing debate has been going on. In the context of that, clearly, the President
has his own very unique views about what trade means and what trade deficits mean. We would expect from the US side, this issue
on auto tariffs where they currently have a truce to rear its ugly head sooner rather
than later, maybe not this year, but if not this year, and he’s reelected next year, the
President’s focused on countries that have large bilateral deficits with the US and he
seems especially focused on heavy industry. Steel, aluminum, autos, and you look at that,
and the Venn diagram falls straight on Germany. That tension is not going to go away, but
it will be going beyond that. We have now the Germans really getting serious
on carbon taxes and reducing emissions. Well, project forward a year or two, if they’re
shifting to that, they don’t want to disadvantage their companies because they have to be operating
in a much more sustainable basis. Guess what’s coming next in our future? Carbon equalization tax, effectively a tariff
on carbon. Guess where the biggest emitters of carbon,
US economy coming out of a Trump administration, the Chinese. These issues are going to be with us to stay
and actually worsen in the future. ED HARRISON: Again, is that a Trump related
phenomenon, or let’s say that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, whoever it might
be, gets the nod, do you see that persisting? MAZIAR MINOVI: We do see it persisting, the
targets may change, and in some places, the temperature may change. A President Biden is going to have advisors
that are far more in line with mainstream economics that trade deficits by themselves
are not negative. You see right now this USMCA or NAFTA, NAFTA
2.0 that just got passed that many populist Democrats and Congress were happy about this. It actually goes towards what they’ve been
wanting to do all the time. Now, from a macroeconomic point of view, from
an efficiency point of view, it’s a suboptimal outcome. Really, NAFTA hasn’t changed much, but in
ways it has, it’s going to make things more expensive, but Democrats are all– some portion
of populist Democrats, Warren’s, Schumer on trade, Sanders, like many aspects of this,
and it was already hard to get a trade deal through. It’s going to be even worse after a Trump
presidency. ED HARRISON: I looked at your list of your
top 10 geopolitical events. One thing that I think was interesting when
we talked about the IMF and the fact that they’re downgrading between October and January,
India, you mentioned was downgraded 1% in three months. For me, this is a topic– and I think actually
at Real Vision in general, that we don’t talk about enough. India is a huge economy and we don’t really
have a good hold on what’s going on there, both economically and politically. Can you give us a sense of what are the risks
there? MAZIAR MINOVI: Sure. The way we rank these risks are a combination
of the probability of them happening and the impact they’d have globally. India’s risk was number five, because of exactly
the size that you mentioned. One of the joys of leaving my former employer,
Goldman, coming to Eurasia is the titles can be so much more interesting. At Goldman, the title of this risk would have
been India’s economic outlook the year ahead. Here, we have India modified. The point we’re trying to make is in Modi’s
first administrations, despite fears of his now nationalist tendencies and then some of
the policies he had pursued in his home state, he actually took on some of the sacred cows
of economic reform in India. Yes, it’s a messy democracy. What came out of the sausage factory was far
weaker than what was hoped for, but he finally got a nationwide BAT reform through, that’s
been something they’ve been trying to do for 20 years, and many other small reforms along
the way, which fueled huge capital inflows and gains for investors. What we worry about is in his second term,
in order to maintain his grip on power, he’s now had to rely more on policies that are
attractive to certain segments of his coalition policies like route stripping the special
status of cashmere, what looks like a religious test for citizenship, although they have different
wording for it, which on the face of it obviously from a human rights perspective are very concerning,
the problem is that the parties that that appeals to are also the most anti-reform parties
in India. Not a surprise that at the same time this
was happening, India withdrew from the RCEP, which is the a trade agreement in Asia which
China’s involved in to try to lower barriers between Asian countries. India, at the insistence of these coalition
parties, removed itself from those. You have an India going into 2020 that, because
of this turn towards nationalism, is going to come under international scrutiny. We can see more sanctions, in fact, on India
from the US and Europe coming on, and when you think about the political economy of it,
they’re a proud country, they’re a large country, the Nationalist parties are going to agitate
for a response. That’s only going to worsen this cycle. Meanwhile, they are buying S-400 missiles
from the Russians. There’s US legislation that forces sanctions
because of that. We think the era of incremental reforms are
over. In fact, we could see it backpedaling. All of that is happening while India’s growth
is tanking as you started out, saying. That combination is concerning to us. We put it at risk number five. Does this mean necessarily that India is going
to implode this year? No. The fragility is rising and you already have
an economy and a financial system that’s battered because of banking vulnerability and scandals
in the last year or two. The Spidey sense in the back of my neck certainly
starts tingling that all of these things are going in the wrong direction and a direction
that a year ago investors would not have imagined. ED HARRISON: I obviously missed the number
four risk, what was the number four risk before India? MAZIAR MINOVI: That’s a risk that we thought
most people would be surprised to see on our list, which is about multinational corporations. Really, the idea there is in line with what
we’re talking about, over the last two or three decades, multinational corporations
have been seen as the solution to problems in countries. Let’s bring Apple in to invest in our country
and that will increase our level of technological superiority, or let’s attract FDI into our
country, but increasingly in this polarized environment, both politically but also from
a social perspective as income inequality is rising and fueling populist movements,
people are looking inward and we’re starting an era where multinational corporations, large
corporations are seen rather as the problem in the major economic areas of the world. What we’re flagging is that be it in the US
with all the concerns both about privacy with the tech company, but as well as the reach
of multinationals from China, etc. In Europe, certainly a world leader in data
privacy issues. In China, response to the US is decoupling. Companies have to become far more aware of
the politics around them and how it impacts them and politics and geopolitics increasingly
will find its way into the boardroom as you decide as a firm where are you going to grow? Where are you going to fall on this in this
tech Berlin Wall that we’re going to face? ED HARRISON: As you say that, immediately
I think back to the previous point that you were making about the fact that Europe, in
particular, with regard to the trade war, will have to decide how they’re going to deal
with things like the carbon tax, or as an example, privacy issues. Clearly, they can attack via the multinational
route, that is the Googles, the Apples, the Facebooks of the world, or in terms of polluting
the American oil industry, whatever it might be. They can use that as the way to create a we’re
now a much more– we’re willing to wield the power that as the US and the UK leave the
diplomatic space globally, the EU may step into that and use multinationals as the way
to take the lead. MAZIAR MINOVI: Yeah, as an investor and an
analyst, our job is to see the world as it is and predict what will happen. The direction you’re talking about is the
direction that we see it going without any changes to the policy outlook of the major
actors. We do nothing, this is where it’s going to
go, increased friction, and friction begets friction. If a European company is constrained in the
US, you can bet that the next EU Commission anti-competition effort will be focused on
a US company. Then you have the Chinese angle of this for
sure, both on tech, and in the other areas you talked about. This could go another way. In fact, in our GZERO summit in Japan a few
months ago, where we bring together 500 of the most senior corporate executives in Japan,
the Foreign Minister was there and the senior people and actually gave a speech to suggest
another way. In the data area, if you think about this
world that we’re going towards, a tech decoupling, the US and China are the most innovative in
terms of developing these new technology, in terms of market cap, the top 10 five are
US, five are Chinese, the Europeans have the best regulators. In the US, nobody wants their child to grow
up to become a regulator. In Europe, in fact, the best students go to
the best schools and then go into government and not surprisingly, they are ahead of everyone
and regulating tech and thinking about privacy issues. In Japan, because of their shrinking population
and their high income and their openness to innovation, they’re a hotbed of experimentation. Can you use robots to comfort senior citizens
as society ages? Instead of sitting back and taking it as it
comes, should these three economic blocks try to get together and create something like
the WTO but for data, the international data organization? Set common standards, and really lean into
the problem of trying to make the best of this environment and make it vibrant, makes
norms and standards that companies in all these areas can adhere to, and something so
attractive that will be a counterweight to the cheaper goods and the inducements that
the Chinese ecosystem would create, and possibly in some day long log in the future, even compel
the Chinese to rethink their approach. ED HARRISON: Interesting. What do you think? Do you think that that has a chance of working
or do you think that it’s unlikely that they’ll move in that direction, you have a rise in
supply? MAZIAR MINOVI: Well, when you look at political
economy of the changes that really impact and create the financial infrastructure, it
doesn’t happen in a straight line. Generally, things have to get much worse before
they get better. The IMF and the World Bank were created in
the aftermath of World War II. People saw the abyss, lived the abyss, and
then the consensus for that emerged and same thing for GATT and then the WTO. These are, I think, early thoughts that are
going to take a while to germinate and really flower and it’s going to take things getting
much worse before they really get energy behind them to operationalize. ED HARRISON: We have a limited amount of time,
but I there were two other regions that I wanted to cover in your list that I thought
were interesting. In particular, one is Turkey. I thought it was very interesting because
when you look at Modi, when you look at some of the nationalist tendencies here in the
US with Donald Trump, I saw in your analysis similarities in terms of what Erdogan has
going for him from an economic perspective backdrop and then the nationalism. What’s happening in Turkey and not just in
Turkey, but also how does that impinge on what’s happening in the Middle East as well? MAZIAR MINOVI: Actually, I have a soft spot
in my heart for Turkey because it was the first market I ever invested in back in late
’94 I believe. The lira was 34,000 to the dollar and by that
same denomination right now, it’s at 6 million. It’s a fascinating, fascinating country, which
from 2002-’03, until I’d say three or four years ago, constantly surprising investors
to the upside. We’re sad to put it as a risk. It’s risk number 10 because of its relatively
modest size, but in terms of probability of a significant crisis or slowdown happening,
it’s higher than almost all of our other risks. The political economy in Turkey is fraying
in an accelerating way. You already have a country that is one of
the most vulnerable to a stoppage in capital flows. It’s reliant on short term private external
funding to keep it going. Turkey and Malaysia constantly rescreen as
country’s most vulnerable in those ways. ED HARRISON: This is the private or the public
sector or both combined? MAZIAR MINOVI: Private sector, corporations
and banks. The government is reliant on short rolling
over of its domestic debt, domestically by retail investors and local banks. It doesn’t have a big debt to GDP, but it’s
very short term. That’s the problem. You have to not just pay the interest but
keep borrowing the principal over and over again. That’s what makes the challenge higher. Already, it’s economically viable, vulnerable. Then you have a president that is used to
having his way who is politically wounded and weakening even further. He even lost Istanbul which was the city he’s
rose to power in as the mayor, even when he said out no, fair we’re going to do the election
again, tried everything possible, he lost again. Turkey, one of its fascinating parts is that
despite the attempts of Erdogan in the last few years, civil society there still keeps
pushing back. Now, you have many of the previous senior
people in the ACT Party, his party, splintering and creating their own political power races. Now, none of them are going to win, but it’s
just going to reduce his domestic political support. Here, he thought he was going to be the next
Ataturk and be able to impose his will on the country. A wounded, unpredictable, ambitious Erdogan
sitting on top of an economically vulnerable economy is the genesis of this risk. We think what we’re going to see as more and
more adventurous foreign policy moves to distract the population, we already saw him move troops
into northern Syria, to try to push back against the Kurdish forces there, with the US pullback
from the region, the vacuum that creates that risk only increases and there could be other
elements there like drilling in the Mediterranean in disputed gas territories that could create
pushback from the EU or others. More than that, his tangle, his conflict with
the US could worsen. They’re already under sanctions for buying
them as well as 400 missiles. We have in the next year coming up the trial
of Hawk Bank, one of the largest banks, tied in very closely to him and his party and the
US Bank courts are most likely going to convict them of funneling money to try to circumvent
Iran sanctions. This could really reach quite high up in his
political apparatus, including his family. A wounded Erdogan’s response to that is very
much of concern. Remember what happened in the aftermath of
the imprisoning of Pastor Brunson and the US sanctions, the Turkish currency tanked
20%, 30% in the ensuing few months, so we see the risk of that thing increasing. Then on top of it, he wants to remain popular,
so he’s trying to juice up the economy. Turkey’s economy is very flexible. If he’s able to do it, and his main tool would
be forcing state-owned banks and other banks to increase the lending to favored industries,
there’s only one thing that will happen happens over and over again in Turkey’s economic history,
the current account deficit’s going to widen. Then you already have a vulnerable economy
people have a hard time lending to as it is, they see a large current account deficit. They see the threat of more sanctions from
the US and Europe, it’s just all set up for a significant crisis, be it a banking crisis
or an economic crisis and indeed, the IMF’s article for report, the annual review they
do of every country in the world has a beautiful line in there. It’s going to start out its assessment buzz,
the situation in Turkey, the common Turkey is fragile, and we would understand that’s
a polite way of describing the risk we’re worried about. ED HARRISON: Oh, you call it number 10, but
as you were going through that, one of the reasons I pulled it out was when you look
at it from a geopolitical perspective, not just in economic perspective, it seems to
rank higher. The nexus between Syria, Iran, the fact that
they are a member of the NATO Alliance, and then there are inter-NATO vulnerabilities,
sanctions from the US, the EU and the drilling. It sounds to me like Turkey’s at the nexus
of a lot of geopolitical tensions and potentially, could rank higher at least from a political
perspective. MAZIAR MINOVI: There’s always a challenge
in these lists. For instance, if you had a top 10 risk ranked
by human misery, you would certainly put large swathes of the Middle East and Africa on top
of that list. As I said, we look at it as a combination
of the probability of a risk happening but the impact it would have on the global economy
or markets. Yes, it’s a big issue but really the impact
of an implosion in Turkey at this stage is pretty much confined to the markets and the
economy of Turkey and the surrounding countries. Could an adventurous foreign policy venture
by Erdogan reignite the Syrian civil war? Possible. Is that really going to impact markets? Is that really going to impact the economy
of major countries around the world, not, unless it impacts oil? It’s obviously a horrendous way of from a
human perspective to look at it. I know and as right now in Davos, speaking
on a panel with the head of the UNHCR, talking about the human toll of the unrest in the
Middle East created by the vacuum of the US pulling back. That certainly is in our minds but from a
global economy perspective, the impact, I think the ranking is justified. ED HARRISON: The other reason that I was talking
about that I mentioned was Latin America. Particularly, I thought it was interesting
because you mentioned NAFTA and USMCA earlier. Mexico, what’s going on there in terms of
what they’re doing from a fiscal perspective, and what are the economic outcomes that you
see? MAZIAR MINOVI: Mexico is unusual in the region,
principally, because its leader is actually liked. His favorability, Andres’ favorability ratings
are in the 70s. Clearly, he’s capturing the mood of the country,
unlike the leadership in many of the other countries in the region that has led to the
demonstrations we’ve seen over the last few months in the region. In fact, as a longtime investor and observer
of the country, it’s exactly a time like this that worries me about Mexico because the honeymoon
is coming to an end. He truly wants to fulfill his campaign promises,
which require significantly larger investments in education and infrastructure and his favorite
projects, but still large investments. At the same time, he’s promised to not allow
the budget deficit to widen beyond a certain point. These two things in a slowing economy with
reduction in oil exports are incompatible. He has to start making choices about which
one is more important, fiscal prudence or his promises. We think he will choose his promises. If he wants to keep the optics of the fiscal
picture, still all right. That means he’s going to have to increasingly
resort to unorthodox measures using Pemex as a piggybank. One of the reasons Mexico and the peso are
the most heavily traded currencies in emerging markets is because of their well-developed
fixed income market, fueled by investments of their growing pension funds, which have
very clear rules and regulations to guide their activities. Could he be tempted to tweak those regulations
to allow or direct the pension funds to spend some of their money on domestic infrastructure
projects? Then what will happen to the bond market? If we do have a hiccup and confidence, then
10s of billions of dollars of pension fund money from US and European investors could
flee quite rapidly again, in the context of an economy that’s slowing down. In the oil services area, he’s, if not shut
down, significantly curtailed the opening to allow private investors to come in and
he wants to concentrated all through joint ventures with Pemex, which means more and
more inefficiency, and most worrying of all would be if he starts to muck around with
the independence of the central bank. He’s already appointed a few governors. In the next year or two, he’s going to have
more appointments. So far, their reaction function has stayed
the same, but a president that has the ability through the votes in Congress to change the
charter of the central bank and make it more political and to impact the people who are
running monetary policy, that’s a worrying combination. We’re going to be focused laser like on when
he faces this tradeoff which way it goes. Let’s not forget the IMF, thanks to the much
more market friendly policies of the previous government, has given them what they call
an FCLFF, flexible gridline of a massive magnitude, 10s of billions of dollars, SDRs. It’s supposed to be for countries who do great
policies to use as a line of credit. As they start moving in the wrong direction,
is the IMF going to continue to endorse the economic policies of Mexico? If they don’t, and they withdraw it, what
signal does that send to the market? The future is quite dicey for Mexico. ED HARRISON: You’re actually talking about
Italy, and a bunch of other stuff. We’ve ran out of time, unfortunately. We’ll definitely have to have you come back. That is a massive overview that you’ve given
us today of the geopolitical risks. I really thank you for coming in. It’s been a pleasure. MAZIAR MINOVI: My pleasure. I’m like a kid in a candy store in this new
job. It’s like, figuring out the best things you
enjoy looking at and mixing it with what you knew before, so always happy to talk about
it. ED HARRISON: Thank you.

Meet Zealandia: The Earth’s ‘8th Continent’ (and Real-Life Atlantis)

Thanks to Skillshare for supporting SciShow. ♩ Okay, look. I get that there are a bunch of great Disney
movies, but Atlantis is arguably one of the best. It’s got everything you need: great animation,
some magic, a good story, and a city stuck at the bottom of the ocean. And it could even be real! Okay, so that last part isn’t totally accurate. But some scientists do believe Earth has an
eighth continent that, millions of years ago, sunk almost entirely underwater. It’s called Zealandia, and besides basically
being real-life Atlantis, it also has a lot to teach us about geology. Zealandia makes up almost five million square
kilometers of the southern Pacific ocean. It includes New Zealand as well as regions
to the south and north, all the way up to the island New Caledonia. Today, it’s almost totally underwater … but
it wasn’t always. Millions of years ago, it was part of the
supercontinent Gondwana, and was mashed together with other land masses including modern-day
South America, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. It separated around 80 million years ago thanks
to interactions between tectonic plates, the giant rock slabs that make up Earth’s surface. But it wasn’t exactly a clean break. As Zealandia pulled away, its crust began
to stretch and thin, and it became less buoyant as a result. At the same time, water began to fill the
gap between it and Australia. As the crust got thinner and the sea got larger,
that water began to cover Zealandia, too. And ultimately, it sank. Unlike in Disney’s Atlantis, though, it
didn’t happen in “a single day and night of misfortune.” It took millions of years. And it probably didn’t involve any super
magical crystals, either. Still, around 55 million years after it separated,
Zealandia was almost completely submerged. And even though tectonic plate interactions
have pushed some of it back above sea level, 94% of it is still under the ocean. The name Zealandia has actually existed since
the mid-90s, but most geologists have just considered it a microcontinent, like India. That’s the label they use for areas made
of continental crust but not large enough to be considered their own thing. Over the years, though, researchers found
more and more evidence to suggest Zealandia could be worth upgrading to proper continent
status. And in a 2017 paper in the journal GSA Today,
a team from New Zealand, New Caledonia, and Australia published the most compelling case
yet for why we should just accept Zealandia as the Earth’s eighth continent. See, geologists typically consider continents
to have four main qualities: First, they have to have a higher elevation
compared to the oceanic crust around them. Second, they need to have a broad variety
of rock types, including igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock. For comparison, oceanic crust is typically
only made of igneous rock like basalt. Continental crust should also be less dense
and thicker than oceanic crust. Typically, the continental stuff is 30 to
45 kilometers thick, while oceanic crust is only 7 kilometers. Finally, continents should have a well-defined,
relatively large area. There’s no set definition for what that
exact area is, but it should be enough to distinguish it from things like continental
fragments or microcontinents. These qualities all apply to the traditional
continents. And according to this team, they apply to
Zealandia, too. Even though it’s mostly underwater, it’s
still elevated compared to the oceanic crust around it. It also has a variety of rock types, and generally
has the right thickness. It’s also more than twice as large as the
next smallest microcontinent. Most importantly, it’s also geologically
distinct. It’s separated from Australia by a feature
called the Cato Trough, which is almost four kilometers deep and considered a significant
boundary. Not all geologists agree, though. They have a bunch of reasons, but some suggest
that it’s not a geologist’s job to figure out what a continent is in the first place — they’re there to study different kinds of crusts and features. Others have also made the case that since
Zealandia is more like a bunch of different islands than one continuous landmass, it shouldn’t
count. In response to this, the authors of the paper
had a few words. They said that if it weren’t for the, quote,
“arbitrary datums of opaque liquid oceans,” we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In other words, if we studied Earth without
its oceans — like we do for dry planets like Mars — it would be clear what Zealandia’s
true identity is. We’d be able to see things like that difference
in crust elevation more clearly, without all the water getting in the way. But we’ll leave that fight to the geologists. If nothing else, though, researchers do seem
to agree that Zealandia — whatever it is — can teach us a lot about the Earth’s
crust. According to some models, Zealandia should’ve
been ripped apart into microcontinents when it separated from Australia. But instead, the crust just thinned out and
sank — and so far, we’re not totally sure why. Figuring out how and why that happened could
help us understand what else happened to the Earth in the past, as well as what might happen
to modern continents in the future. While we’re figuring all of this out, though,
one thing’s for sure. If any Smithsonian researchers out there find
a mysterious Atlantean treasure map … you can give me a call. Or if you just want to create a treasure map
of your own, check out this Skillshare class by Vancouver artist Tom Froese and learn how
to illustrate creative maps using digital and analog tools. If you follow me on social media, you know
that I trust my community a lot. One thing I like about Tom, is that he’s
the same way. This map making class was requested by his
Instagram community and you can feel how thoughtful he’s been in designing the class with them
in mind. Like a good map, he gives a great big picture
overview, but pays special attention to the details as well. And Skillshare is offering SciShow viewers
2 months of Skillshare for free right now. Click on the link in the description to sign
up and check out Tom’s class or any of over 20,000 classes in art, business, technology,
you name it. And if you make a map of Atlantis or Zealandia,
let us know in the comments! I want to see it! ♩

One interesting fact for every Country in the World! (Part 1) ✠ Truth Crusade ✠

Hello Truthsaders, I am Kavallier. Let’s talk about countries. One, two, three, go! I did not choose this fact because it mentions goats and Afghanistan at the same time. I promise! Does this mean Albania cannot handle albanians? How can chess help your life? I don’t know. Are you english or american and need a fertility centre? Book a flight to Barbados today! They allow it! Yes, european bisons exist Looks like you got competition with your ancestors, Belize. This is your typical petrol station in Benin You want to be amused? Search of bhutanese phalluses We need them in North Yungas Road immedietaly Natural? Artificial? You decide. Seriosly though? 35%? I’m not sure that’s true. Interesting study anyway. You’d think that it can travel somewhere else in the air. But of course not. Looks like someone is trying to alleviate their yearly gifts to their loved ones. Lake Nyos? More like lake no. This is basically an igloo hotel. Nice. who would have guessed. Wait… milk soup? It probably needs some money to get its excavators going. Your welcome! I just prevented you embarrassment when going to Costa Rica. Wait. Why are they called Ivory Coast? I guess you cannot murder elephants indefenitely Ok that was a really pointless fact. Here’s another one. Also here’s a sperm bike. It actually transports sperm. Also the lowest point of Djibouti Good to know… Interesting fact so far: Even though we went through one fourth of the list of the countries, we only mentioned countries that start from the first four letters of the alphabet. I’m going to have to stop this list for now. If you enjoyed this video and want me to continue these facts for the rest of the countries, go and like, share and maybe even subscribe! Every little bit counts and help me a ton! Also, since this is the first time I’m doing this feedback is much appreciated. Thank you for taking your time to watch this video. See you next time for more!

What Realistic Film Dialogue Sounds Like

February 14, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 48 Comments

What Realistic Film Dialogue Sounds Like

Selling all the art, dad? Why? One thing I think film can do really well, better than any other medium, is capture the reality of conversations. In a book, no matter how you lay it out, one piece of dialogue always has to follow another. You can’t simulate people talking over each other, which is what we all do a lot of the time. And you can’t really capture the rhythm, speed and tone that a conversation has. Even radio and theater miss some of the nuances that film is perfectly suited to reproduce Of all the filmmakers working right now, I think Noah Baumbach, maybe has the best ear for dialogue as it really is and an ear is what it takes, because there’s a general disconnect between what we all sound like and what movie and TV characters sound like, especially the most articulate ones. You asked me that moronic question and then my world came apart and she came here And I landed in the tabloids, and I got death threats and my job is constantly in jeopardy and you ruined my life Yes. That was me Of course, you don’t have to aim at realistic speech Screenwriters like Aaron Sorkin and Quentin Tarantino have done really great work by writing human dialogue as it could be Finding music and language the same way that Shakespeare did centuries ago. But Baumbach on the other hand seems to be committed to a different principle I think the conversation like this speaks volumes. In one sense just by looking at it You can see that This is a total failure of communication between father and son. The two men are on parallel tracks: Matt is talking about his new business and Harold is talking about his forthcoming art retrospective But in another sense, what makes this exchange so heartbreaking and true to life at least for me is that they really are communicating with each other just not explicitly. Matt brings up a major life change and expresses some of the hopes and fears He has about it and his father immediately brings up his own major life event and some of the hopes and fears he has about that. Implicitly, Matt is asking for approval, he’s asking for reassurance, and he’s asking for consolation. Harold, on the other hand, is denying approval because he can’t bear his son being more successful than he is, while asking for reassurance of his own hopes and consolation for his own fears. It’s like the two men are firing a volley of missiles at each other, some are hitting, some are missing and some are crashing into each other in midair. I think Baumbach understands a key dynamic in conversations, especially conversations with family. When we speak to others we’re often speaking to ourselves, attempting to frame dialogue so that the person were talking to will reflect back the things that we want to believe about us When I was younger I was so invested in his grievances his anger, the world they were mine too, but now that I lived 3,000 miles away and have my own kid thriving business I I don’t even get angry at him anymore, it’s even… just funny I’m sure a lot of people who just went home for Thanksgiving experienced something like this. You feel that you’ve changed, that you have an updated nuanced idea of yourself and you’re gonna show that idea in one way or another to your family. It doesn’t matter how much money I make You make me feel like a big piece of shit because you don’t care about it But you also actually do! You’re primally obsessed with it! You know that I beat you I beat you! The thing we seem to forget is that as we’re trying to get our family to affirm our sense of self they’re doing the same thing to us, and the result is often conflict or a conversation that just goes nowhere Well, maybe not nowhere, just not where you intended. This is my favorite scene in the movie It’s a minute and 30 second long take of two half-brothers attempting to connect. By making it one take, you get all the elements of conversation that I spoke about before including the body language, the projected self confidence of Matt and the nervous insecure energy of Danny, always nodding his head like his father. They’re doing this thing where they agree while also disagreeing it’s a specific kind of non argument that tells you a lot about their personalities and their relationship. There’s so much going on here. On one level, Danny is trying to connect with Matt by literally trying to finish his sentences. He’s also trying to challenge him and assert some dominance by acting like he knows what Matt’s gonna say next. Talk about speaking to yourself, Danny is effectively trying to hijack Matt’s sentences and make them his own. Listen for this the next time you’re in a conversation. People do this all the time. At this point, Matt and Danny are getting out of sync which actually makes it appropriate that Danny brings up ‘arbitrage’ an investment term for when the same asset is worth different values in different places and you exploit that price difference for profit. Exploiting differences in value is a pretty good definition of what it’s like to be in a dysfunctional family or a dysfunctional conversation, for that matter. And there it is: a moment of connection. One minute and 13 seconds into the conversation. In the Meyerowitz family, moments of connection are few and far between, so when they happen, they land with a special poignancy and though this family is perhaps more intense, more insecure than most, I hope, There’s something that rings so true about this to me. When we talk, so often we fly around each other, working out our own shit, thinking about ourselves We try to make our meaning clear, but we can’t quite say what we want, how we want, when we want. That’s because communication isn’t easy. Sometimes movies make it seem like it is but Noah Baumbach isn’t interested in that kind of dialogue. He uses the medium best suited for depicting conversations to show us the truth about them, that we miss the mark more often than we hit it and that it’s a beautiful, meaningful thing when we do One of the questions I get asked the most by far is what kind of software do I use to make these videos To edit I use Final Cut Pro 10 and since 10 is so different from the programs that came before it I actually depended a lot on online videos to teach me the new features these days you can pretty much teach yourself anything this way and Skillshare is the perfect way to do it Skillshare is an online learning community for creators with more than 16,000 classes in graphic design animation web development video game design and more all the classes are professional and Understandable and follow a clear learning curve a Premium Membership begins around $10 a month for unlimited access to all the courses but the first 500 people to sign up using the first link in the description will get a 2 month free trial in those 2 months You could easily learn the skills you need to start a new hobby or business specialized skills like learning After Effects which I’ve always wanted to do and Skillshare has dozens of classes that will help you master that program. What’s the skill that you’ve been putting off learning? Why not sign up the skill share using the link below and start learning right away? You got nothing to lose and a valuable skill to gain. Thanks guys. I’ll see you next time