Browsing Tag: and

    How did Japan Invade China in WWII? | Animated History
    Articles, Blog

    How did Japan Invade China in WWII? | Animated History

    August 20, 2019


    This video was made possible by our supporters on patreon if you want to join the community and help us reach our next goal Consider making a pledge Despite the massive death toll and sheer magnitude of the confrontation The second sino-japanese war is often overlooked as a part of the second world war This conflict played a major role in deciding the victor of the ongoing Chinese Civil War award that would transform China into the communist state that exists today I’m Griffin Johnson the armchair historian and today we’ll be exploring the causes and course of the second sino-japanese war But first I’d like to say thanks to our sponsors over a banknote world. I Always say that everyone should have at least one hobby whether that be indoors or outdoors One problem with most hobbies however is the cost and so a better place to start for history buffs Than with collecting inexpensive currency from all around the globe. Our friends at banknote world actually sent me some Chinese and Japanese currency from 1944 to go with the theme of this video This Japanese currency here only costs you about five US dollars and so getting started is extremely easy You can check out our unique link to their website and YouTube channel and the description below Now back to the topic at hand to understand the precarious situation that led up to the second sino-japanese war It is important to mention the events of 19th century China The century can be characterized as one of factionalism lawlessness foreign intervention by Western powers and Rising nationalist sentiments which in 1911 culminated in the overthrow of the established Qing Dynasty by the nationalist Republicans or Kuomintang this led to intense regionalism across China as warlords to control of small territories that they ruled in their own name by the 1920s the spread of communism led to the creation of the Chinese Communist Party or CCP which was suppressed by the Kuomintang the leader of which was the cunning Chiang kai-shek Who subjugated influential warlords in order to secure his rule over China soon after Chiang turned his attention towards the Communists igniting the Chinese Civil War in 1927 Japan by contrast had been relatively isolated for millennia. The island nation had developed a highly militaristic Society and this was intensified after the Emperor of Japan Consolidated his power in what was known as the Meiji Restoration With its populations adherence to warrior and feudal codes translating into a religious devotion to the Emperor these years of seclusion Contributed to the development of a xenophobic mentality the Japanese viewed their culture as the most sophisticated and civilised this sense of national pride continue to inflate despite increased influence of the West in matters of technology and trade throughout the 19th and 20th centuries the combination of Ultra-nationalism a centralized state and European technology allowed Japan in the first sino-japanese war To conquer Korea from the Chinese whose administrative process and technology paled in comparison The Japanese would continue to expand throughout the Pacific and on to the East Asian mainland The requirements of both a large population and a large military began to strain the Japanese economy Causing ever deeper expansion into the Asian mainland in September of 1931 Japan invaded Manchuria which offered ample resources and living space as Justification Japan cited the Mukden incident in which elements of the Imperial Japanese Army Detonated a small amount of dynamite at a section of the South Manchuria railway Which had been granted to them in the russo-japanese war the Japanese then falsely accused China of sabotage Despite receiving orders to keep the incident contained at a local level the Japanese army Proceeded to capture all of the cities along the South Manchuria railway and surprisingly the Republic of China maintained a policy of non-resistance Although some Chinese warlords and generals tried to resist but unsuccessfully by February of 1932 Japan had control over all of Manchuria establishing the puppet state of Manchukuo Which interestingly was governed by the last emperor of China the 26 year-old Pu Yi The Chinese appealed to the League of Nations in response and after a year-long investigation The league concluded that the invasion was unjustified to which Japan simply left the League of Nations Chiang kai-shek was aware that the Japanese interests in China were not over and so in 1936 He agreed to an alliance with the Communists putting the Chinese Civil War on hold Less than one year later the second sino-japanese war would break out in full when on the 7th of July Japanese troops conducted a Military exercise near the Marco Polo Bridge in wham pink which startled the Chinese garrison who weren’t warned in advance And the resulting confusion shots were exchanged and after the skirmish ended the Japanese noticed one of their men was missing after a headcount When the Chinese refused to allow them to search the city the Japanese attacked the city head-on trying to cross the bridge on July 20th Japan began bombarding ran ping and by the end of the month had taken Beijing and the surrounding areas the Japanese were initially content with the territory they’d taken in northern China and wanted to end the war quickly But Chiang kai-shek was not giving up anytime he decided to open up a second front at the city of Shanghai storming the Japanese quarter of the city on the 13th of August The fighting around the Shanghai area lasted for a total of three months marked by intense close quarters combat Shanghai finally fell when an afib ia’s Japanese force landed in the southern region of the city Which was left undefended the Chinese took heavy casualties Losing two hundred and fifty thousand men many of them their highest-quality troops while the Japanese lost 60,000 on the 8th of November Chiang ordered his forces to retreat west towards the city of Nanking the capital of China at the time The Chinese in Nanking were positioned in elaborate fortifications inside and outside of the city Despite these defenses the Japanese had captured the southern portion of the city by December 12th Which prompted Chiang to evacuate his troops from the city the Japanese were frustrated after what they thought would be an easy victory this frustration Translated into brutality against the civilians who were raped and executed on an immense scale estimates for the number of casualties ranges from 50,000 to 300,000 the massacre is possibly the defining event in the second sino-japanese war and is possibly one of the single largest atrocities in human history as such the event remains one of the primary reasons why even today Relations between Japan and China are at best somewhat bitter by 1939 the war was beginning to reach a stalemate the Chinese still refused to surrender despite huge casualties and Territorial losses and had begun to receive much-needed experience and foreign aid meanwhile The Japanese lines of communication were being stretched to their limit and Japanese forces had suffered substantial losses both equipment and manpower however Japanese spirits were lifted when their German Ally signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union whom the Japanese feared would invade Manchuria and their holdings in northern China on September 14 13 days after Germany invaded Poland a Japanese force of 100,000 men attacked the city of Shanghai which was the next major target on the road to Shan Shan where the Chinese government had been relocated a force of 240 thousand Chinese soldiers repelled them Inflicting more casualties than they had sustained on October 6 the Japanese myth drew and allowed the Chinese three lost ground in the surrounding areas Shengshou was the first major Chinese city that managed to fight off the Japanese successfully while the Kuomintang tended to partake in large sweeping Operations their communist allies in the north had mainly opposed the Japanese through insurgency and guerrilla tactics But under pressure from Chiang kai-shek the Communist Party of China began to execute large offensive actions on the 20th of August 1940 the CCP gathered 400,000 men of the 8th route army and assaulted numerous staging areas and railways which were defended by 420 Japanese and collaborationist to Chinese forces and what would be called the hundred regiments offensive? although the Japanese and collaborators push in the back the communists considered their campaign successful because it resulted in the destruction of about 600 miles of railroad tracks The remainder of the second sino-japanese war was marked by repeated failed attempts by the Japanese to take various strategic studies It wasn’t until near the end of the Second World War when on the 9th of August 1945 three days after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and promptly destroyed the primary Japanese Army in Manchuria on the 15th of August Japan surrendered ending the second sino-japanese war and Ending the occupation of China within a year the Chinese Civil War began again, but that is a story for another day As I mentioned before our friends over at banknote world are sponsoring today’s episode So, please click the link in the description below and check out everything they have to offer Thanks for watching. I’d like to thank my general staff on patreon Jake Hart Joe Crispin gibbsy Joshua Haverstock Fritz Patrick Reardon, Joe Graham James Thompson Derek below Jim Talbott, Dmitry Stillman and everyone else listed on screen I’d also like to thank those working on the armchair history team for making this video possible Thanks again, I’m Griffin Johnson the armchair historian and I’ll see you next time with our video on the siege of leningrad You

    Abandoned Railroad Crossing Cement Industrial Spur
    Articles, Blog

    Abandoned Railroad Crossing Cement Industrial Spur

    August 20, 2019


    Hello ladies and gentlemen So right now I’m at Lincoln Ave and Main ST near Lakeland FL and this here, I’m going to show you an abandoned railroad crossing so that there is the main right Make sure no cars are coming As you can see it came off of there See the ancient sign there with the lookout for the cars Auburndale subdivision crossing number so it came out of here and it came this way Here you got this one, I don’t think it ever had lights or gates or bells and it went over there I’m guessing its been a few years since this one was in use see the tie right there and then here the rails just disappear its consumed by grass You can see the old DOT tag, SORRY emergency contact info there’s no crossing number anymore Mile post has been faded off its getting fungus on it too so yeah guys I think that’s it I mean this is the most you can see right here You can see the stop dismount sign over there and where it eventually went into where the cars loaded so that’s all we got Alright guys, thank you for coming along with me Please subscribe or like Thank you for viewing, give you one last shot of the crossing here over and out

    Oil shipped on railroad new milestone
    Articles, Blog

    Oil shipped on railroad new milestone

    August 20, 2019


    KIM VALLEZ. THERE IS A DEFINITE OIL BOOM IN SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO. THEY CAN’T GET HAY UN RETUMBO DE PETRóLEO DEFINIDO EN NEW MEXICO. DEL THE CRUDE OUT SUDESTE. OF THE GROUND FAST ENOUGH. SO NOW THE OIL INDUSTRY IS ELLOS NO PUEDEN CONSEGUIR EL CRUDO DE LA TIERRA RáPIDO HAVING TO TURN SUFICIENTE. BACK THE CLOCK 30 YEARS. NEWS 13’S GABRIELLE BURKHART EL ENTONCES AHORA LA INDUSTRIA PETROLERA TIENE QUE VOLVER AL EXPLAINS HOW PASADO 30 AñOS. THE CRUDE IS NOW HITTING THE RAILS. RESIDENTS IN LEA COUNTY SHOULD NEWS 13 ES BURKHART DE GABRIELLE EXPLICA COMO EL EXPECT TO SEE A CRUDO GOLPEA AHORA LOS LOT MORE OF CARRILES. THESE ROLLING THROUGH. it’s all hands on deck, moving the trains as fast as we can move them. FOR THE FIRST ES TODO TRANSMITE LA CUBIERTA, MOVIENDO LOS TRENES TAN RáPIDO TIME IN AT LEAST COMO PODEMOS MOVERLOS. 30 YEARS, THE TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RAILROAD IS SHIPPING CRUDE OIL FROM THE PERMIAN BASIN. Kurtis Lindsey, Texas/New Mexico Railroad underground pipelines in the region here, they’re at capacity, and the next viable alternative is to ship it by rail. IN THE 1930’S, TRACKS WERE LAID TO GET OIL OUT OF THE AREA–BUT UNDERGROUND EN LAS PISTAS 1930 FUERON PUESTOS PARA CONSEGUIR EL PIPELINES HAVE PETRóLEO DEL áREA. BEEN SUFFICIENT…UNTIL NOW. RAILROAD OIL SHIPMENTS PERO LAS TUBERíAS SUBTERRáNEAS HAN SIDO SUFICIENTES. STARTED THIS HASTA AHORA. PAST MONTH… WHICH MEANS MORE GOOD NEWS FOR THE BOOMING OIL INDUSTRY WHICH IS BOOSTING THE LEA COUNTY ECONOMY. Lindsey, it’s doing great, we’ve brought ESTO QUIERE DECIR NOTICIAS MáS BUENAS PARA LA INDUSTRIA PETROLERA EN AUGE QUE MEJORA on 15 new employees LA ECONOMíA DE LEA COUNTY . in the operations department, 8 employees in the mechanical department and maintenance, and just doing our part to contribute to the local economy here. gb, Lindsey says before the recent oil boom, in 2010 they shipped under 4,000 GB, LINDSEY DICE ANTES DEL RETUMBO DE PETRóLEO RECIENTE, carloads on the TX NM Railroad. This year they’re on track to ship EN 2010 ELLOS TRANSPORTARON BAJO 4000 CARRETADAS EN EL FERROCARRIL DE NM DE TX . 21,000. That’s increasing business by more than five times. PREVIOUSLY, TRAINS WOULD RUN ONCE A WEEK–SHIPPING SCRAP METAL, LOS TRENES DIRIGIRíAN ONCE UNA CHATARRA DE EMBARQUE DE AND SAND. SEMANA, NOW, THEY’RE Y ARENA. RUNNING FIVE DAYS A WEEK…THE 105 MILE TRIP FROM AHORA, ELLOS DIRIGEN 5 DíAS POR SEMANA. LOVINGTON TO MONAHANS, TEXAS. AND IF BUSINESS CONTINUES LIKE THIS… IT COULD GET EVEN BETTER. the more trains that we need to run you know with crude oil and frac sand and everything else to help out the oil industry here, is gonna be more jobs, and MáS TRENES QUE TENEMOS QUE DIRIGIRLE SABEN CON CRUDO Y ARENA DE FRAC Y TODO LO DEMáS more money coming in PARA AYUDAR A LA INDUSTRIA PETROLERA from the railroad side of things to the local area here. IN HOBBS, GABRIELLE BURKHART, KRQE NEWS 13. EN HOBBS, BURKHART, DE GABRIELLE , NEWS 13 DE KRQE RIGHT NOW THE RAILROAD IS SHIPPING ABOUT 30 CARLOADS OF OIL A WEEK, AND THEY EXPECT THAT NUMBER TO AHORA EL FERROCARRIL TRANSPORTA APROXIMADAMENTE 30 CARRETADAS GROW. DEL PETRóLEO UNA SEMANA, Y ELLOS ESPERAN QUE AQUEL

    Bravo & Col3man – Diamonds (Lyrics CC)
    Articles, Blog

    Bravo & Col3man – Diamonds (Lyrics CC)

    August 20, 2019


    ♪ Running through a list of all my insecurities ♪ ♪ And I fell asleep halfway through ♪ ♪ (I just don’t know anymore) ♪ ♪ Then I woke up with a sense of clarity ♪ ♪ I could never be the one for you ♪ ♪ (Making my way to the door) ♪ ♪ Cause I feel better in my own world ♪ ♪ Trying to be perfect ♪ ♪ Tends to wear me out ♪ ♪ And I’ve been wondering when this road ends ♪ ♪ Tired of being hopeless ♪ ♪ Paralyzed with doubt ♪ ♪ It’s like I’ve been walking on a tight rope ♪ ♪ Try to change my mind but ♪ ♪ I’m too far to quit ♪ ♪ And you can keep your shiny life cause ♪ ♪ I’m in love with diamonds ♪ ♪ We’re flawless as it is ♪ ♪ (Flawless as it is) ♪ ♪ (Flawless as it is) ♪ ♪ When you’re young, the world might break you down ♪ ♪ Fell off a couple times, but I’m better now ♪ ♪ I found my smile but it took a little ♪ ♪ Darkness and silence, in the middle of the night ♪ ♪ I learned to take my time ♪ ♪ With healing up my mind ♪ ♪ And knowing it’s all right ♪ ♪ Cause I feel better in my own world ♪ ♪ Trying to be perfect ♪ ♪ Tends to wear me out ♪ ♪ And I’ve been wondering when this road ends ♪ ♪ Tired of being hopeless ♪ ♪ Paralyzed with doubt ♪ ♪ It’s like I been walking on a tight rope ♪ ♪ Try to change my mind but ♪ ♪ I’m too far to quit ♪ ♪ And you can keep your shiny life cause ♪ ♪ I’m in love with diamonds ♪ ♪ We’re flawless as it is ♪ ♪ (Flawless as it is) ♪ ♪ (Flawless as it is) ♪ ♪ It’s like I’ve been walking on a tight rope ♪ ♪ Try to change my mind but ♪ ♪ I’m too far to quit ♪ ♪ And you can keep your shiny life cause ♪ ♪ I’m in love with diamonds ♪ ♪ We’re flawless as it is ♪

    Why Switzerland is the Safest Place if WW3 Ever Begins
    Articles, Blog

    Why Switzerland is the Safest Place if WW3 Ever Begins

    August 20, 2019


    This is a RealLifeLore video, made possible by Hover. Get 10% off your custom domain or email from Hover at hover.com/RealLifeLore Switzerland is a tiny landlocked country surrounded by France, Germany, Italy and Austria. If you’ve ever looked at a map of the European Union you’ll notice an awkward blob in the middle which doesn’t belong to it and that blob is Switzerland. Switzerland is famously neutral and in addition to not being a part of the EU, it’s also not a member of Nato and it didn’t even join the United Nations until pretty recently in 2002. In fact, Switzerland is so neutral that it hasn’t fought a single war in over 200 years. The last one being against Napoleon in 1815. All of this is despite the fact that Switzerland is in the middle of Europe and surrounded by historically more aggressive countries. So why is it that Switzerland has been such a stable and safe place for centuries? The answer lies in understanding the geography of Switzerland. The country can really be divided into three separate parts. In the South are the Swiss Alps. A gigantic mountain range that covers most of Switzerland’s territory and separates it from Italy and Austria. To the West and North are the Jura Mountains a range much smaller than the Alps but still large enough to separate the country from France. And Finally there is the Swiss Plateau. A basin dotted by Rolling hills Rivers and lakes that is home to most of Switzerland’s population. It’s no accident that Switzerland’s major cities are all located in this region instead of the other two. But it’s not as easy of a defensible position either. Switzerland has long been a little paranoid about a foreign invasion and it’s not without good reason. In the first World War Germany invaded neutral Belgium in order to attack France in a more vulnerable position and in the second World War Switzerland found herself in 1940 to be completely surrounded by axis occupied territory and faced an imminent threat of invasion from Nazi Germany. The invasion never happened, but fears persisted into the Cold War of a potential Soviet invasion and that attitude has never fully gone away Switzerland’s plan for dealing with a potential invasion from anybody was called The National Redoubt and it was essentially intended to make any possible enemy look at the map look at Switzerland and think to themselves: “No thanks, I’ll take over something a little easier instead”. The first reason why is Switzerland continues to have mandatory mail conscription meaning that all men have to serve in the military for 170 days and receive basic training. They enter into the reserves afterwards and keep their rifles at their home. And although many get exemptions, Switzerland has the ability to mobilize over 200,000 soldiers within 72 hours of an emergency being declared. In addition, every road, bridge, tunnel and railroad in the country has been designed in a way that they can be remotely blown up to deny a possible invader from ever using them. There are over 3000 of these points that can be blown up inside of the country including entire mountain sides that can be detonated to cause a landslide to block off entire roads. In addition to all of this, the modern Swiss military strategy has always been to abandon the plateau and the city centers and retreat almost the entire military into the alpine region. Here high in the mountains the swiss have built over 26,000 bunkers and fortified positions ranging from anti-tank guns anti-air guns or machine gun nests. They are camouflaged like this anti-tank gun that looks like a rock or this barn that’s actually a machine-gun nest on the left and an anti-tank gun on the right and both of these are connected by a tunnel underground. There are camouflage positions like these all over the alpine region of Switzerland which means that the entire country is basically one big booby trap. An impregnable castle in the center of Europe. This is why Switzerland has been able to remain neutral throughout some of the most difficult times in European history. But many now question the importance of this defensive and neutral mindset. Germany, Austria, Italy and France are today all European Union member states and have no militaristic intentions on conquering Switzerland. The National Redoubt has seen many of its fortresses and bunkers turned into museums in the last Few years and Switzerland is planning on downsizing its military from around 200,000 to only 80,000 by the year 2020. But nonetheless, one place that Switzerland will always be is the safest place in the world to possibly be at in the event of a global nuclear war. This is because Switzerland is the only country in the World to have enough nuclear fallout shelters to house their entire population. In fact, Switzerland has enough fallout shelters to house 114% of their population. Meaning that even in the event of a large refugee influx the country would still have enough shelters to fit everybody inside of them. All residential buildings inside of the country built after 1978 are mandated by law to contain a nuclear shelter capable of surviving a 12 megaton blast from a distance of 700 meters away. As of 2006, there are over 8.6 million fallout shelters located throughout the country ranging in sizes like this in a normal house, up to gigantic public shelters built inside of tunnels that can house over 2,000 people for over four months. In the event of a nuclear attack on Switzerland it is possible that the entire population of the country could retreat to their bunkers and continue fighting off any invader after the bombs have exploded. Not even nuclear weapons can conquer the fortress of Switzerland and it has been said before that in the event of a global nuclear war the only survivors would be the heads of state of a few countries, cockroaches and 8.4 million Swiss citizens. If a nuclear war ever does happen, then the swiss have enough bunkers for not only them but a few friends to survive it all through with. So remember this when it may become important later. Switzerland is likely the safest place you could possibly be during the event of a nuclear war or World War 3. Before you start making plans to visit though It would be nice to let other people know about what you just learned. Possibly by creating a domain with an accurate name, like switzerland.party Hover makes it incredibly easy to buy lots of different domains with fun extensions like .party or .cool But even better, even if you don’t need a domain name, you can set up a custom email account instead. With a switzerland.party email address people will think you’re either a hero or insane. But both still sound fun. For over 400 different domains to choose from and award-winning customer support please make sure to visit hover.com/RealLifeLore for 10% off whatever domain or email your heart desires. Other than that please make sure to subscribe to my channel to stay updated with future videos by clicking here. You can visit my patreon here if you’d like to directly support the channel and I hope to see you next Friday for another brand new video then.

    MIT Tech Day 1998: Creating Wealth – Tony K. Tan, Judy Lewent, David H. Marks, Lester Thurow
    Articles, Blog

    MIT Tech Day 1998: Creating Wealth – Tony K. Tan, Judy Lewent, David H. Marks, Lester Thurow

    August 20, 2019


    [MUSIC PLAYING] BILL HECHT: Could
    I ask you to please take your seats for this
    Saturday morning class? Now to those of you who are
    young men and young women– that’s defined by the
    way by my standard which is you’re younger than I am– many of you don’t remember
    the great pleasure that MIT invested on all of us
    who are my age and older, which was Saturday morning class. Typically, these were
    laboratory classes. They were hard to get to,
    they were harder to be in, and they were usually
    impossible to perform. In fact, frequently, one got a
    whole new sense of appreciation for men like
    Michaelson and Morley who produced experiments which
    were totally irreproducible. I’m convinced they threw out
    all the data except the one that fit their theory. But, of course, their
    theory was correct, so it doesn’t make any
    difference, as they say. My name, for those of you who
    don’t know me is Bill Hecht. I’m a member of
    the class of 1961. I was a Sloan fellow in 1976. And 18 years ago, I took
    this job for five years and somehow or other have lost
    the capacity to count or enjoy myself a great deal. I’m executive vice
    president of the association and your senior employee. It’s my great pleasure
    to welcome you all back to technology day this year. I usually don’t start with an
    apology, but as many of you know who were here yesterday,
    we had this visitor who seemed to cause untoward
    and unconscionable distress among many people– largely by causing traffic jams
    on every major and minor artery in Cambridge– closing an airport
    here or there, having helicopters
    land on Briggs Field, and giving a major
    address at commencement. The most distressing
    thing, to me at least– and, as you all know,
    I am an MIT loyalist– was looking at the
    evening news while I was shaving to go to dinner
    with a class last night and recognizing that
    some rock promoter named Don Henley got more press
    coverage than his MIT commencement speech. But, oh, well. I guess that’s more a
    comment on the media than it is on substance. It’s my great
    pleasure this morning to kick off this program. I think we have a great
    one, as we always do. And it’s always a special
    treat to introduce my good friend Chuck Vest. Chuck came to us from the
    University of Michigan following, by the
    way, in the tradition of another MIT
    president, Jerry Wiesner, who came from the
    University of Michigan. And Chuck has become
    very much a part of MIT. And those of you who were
    at Pop’s on Thursday night know that we made his wife
    an honorary alumna following Chuck. So we now have a first
    family, both of whom are honorary alumni
    and alumnae– Chuck Vest. CHUCK VEST: Thank you, Bill,
    and good morning everyone. On behalf of the
    students, faculty, and staff of the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology, I’m absolutely delighted to
    welcome you back to Cambridge and to welcome MIT back to some
    semblance of reasonable calm and normalcy after yesterday’s
    commencement exercises. I know that many of you were
    not able to be in Killian Court, but I opened my
    part of the program by telling the assembled
    graduates and families that last week, a faculty
    member had said to me that she really thought
    I was a model president. And I was very proud
    and pleased and sort of floating on top of the ground
    until I went home and looked in the dictionary and discovered
    that a model is a small replica of the real thing. And we had the real
    thing with us yesterday– together with a very
    distinguished scientist and graduate of our joint health
    science and technology program with Harvard– Dr. David Ho. I’m told that it’s good
    to tell inside stories about the President
    of the United States while I have my chance. So I’ll tell you what he wanted
    to share with our students yesterday. We had an opportunity
    for Mr. Clinton to spend about 20 or
    25 minutes together with Paul and Priscilla
    Gray, Alex and Brett D’Arbeloff, Becky and
    myself, and about 14 of our undergraduate
    student leaders– all of whom admitted
    to me later that they were so awed by the presence
    of the President of the United States they forgot
    most of the questions they had planned to ask. But he opened by telling us that
    he had recently visited a grade school and that a very,
    very young person there– a first grader or so– after everybody had asked lots
    of things looked at him very seriously and said, are
    you the real president of the United States? And he said, yes, I am. And the toddler looked
    at him and said, then why aren’t you dead? As many of you know,
    this was the first time that we’ve had a sitting
    US president address an MIT graduating class. And although our staff
    carried off the entire event with their usual great skill
    and aplomb, I must tell you, we were absolutely astonished
    by the logistical complexity of this undertaking. As they sometimes say
    on television ads– do not try this at home. In fact, I’d recommend
    that we not try it again for another 10 years or so. As I told the class
    of ’58 last night, the statistics of this
    undertaking were astounding. We had 300 police officers
    on campus yesterday. We had a commencement
    speaker arrive with motorcade consisting of 40– 4-0 vehicles. And we had snipers on the
    roof, buildings shut down, and unfortunately, as you know,
    a lot of traffic congestion. But one of the things I was
    really proud of and also pleased to note that a lot
    of the TV channels picked up, at least yesterday morning,
    was this typical MIT approach of creating a big group
    of MIT ambassadors, which were literally a hundred
    or so of our very dedicated and devoted
    staff, some of whom are from the Association
    of Alumni and Alumnae who just simply
    wandered the crowds, keeping everybody happy,
    answering questions, solving problems as they rose. And it’s those
    touches that I think make this such a magnificent
    institution to be a part of. So I therefore want to take this
    opportunity to thank the entire community– and, as I said,
    including many in this room– for helping us really
    put our best foot forward on a day when the whole world
    was watching– as indeed it was. The address was run at
    least once last night on C-SPAN, as well as being
    broadcast live on the internet. In one sense, however,
    I would suppose you could argue that the
    entire world is always keeping an eye on MIT. Our institution’s
    reputation for excellence in academics and
    research is exceeded only by our graduates’ reputation
    for innovative entrepreneurship. The world looks to
    MIT and its graduates for the ideas and
    the technologies that enrich our lives and
    drive our global economy. Whether the topic is the digital
    transformation of society, or the complex interplay
    of human activity with the global climate, ocean,
    and other natural systems, or the amazing growth
    of biomedical knowledge, or the breakthrough developments
    and chemistries and material science, or the latest
    discoveries on the frontiers of physics and astronomy– you will never find MIT very
    far from the absolute center of the action. The world looks to us
    and to our graduates for innovative leadership
    in many dimensions. For nearly one and
    a half centuries, we have done our best
    to provide just that. The topic for today’s discussion
    is a natural extension of the way the
    world looks at MIT. The Institute is seen, and
    rightfully so, as pragmatic, productive, and energetic
    as a university. A university that
    engages directly in the world of commerce,
    industry, and public policy. The MIT ethos
    recognizes and, indeed, celebrates the value
    of entrepreneurism. Nothing could be more fitting
    than that we invite our alumni and alumnae to join us today
    in a discussion entitled Creating Wealth, Knowledge,
    Skills, Capital, Resources. We’re going to spend the day
    talking about just how value and wealth are created
    through the development of new knowledge, through
    prudent investment in education and training, through
    the development of skills and expertise needed to
    bring new products, services, and technologies into the
    marketplace and into society. Before we go too far down
    that road of entrepreneurism, however, we should take a moment
    to reflect on the fact that the value of an institution
    like MIT certainly cannot be measured solely– and definitely not
    primarily– in terms of its impact on society’s
    financial bottom line Our impact on the economy
    is one of the qualities that distinguishes us
    among our peers but we should be very
    clear to ourselves and to the communities we
    serve that this is only one of the roles which
    shape our activities and define our reputation. In recent years,
    technology day has explored the role of MIT in
    World War II, the arts at MIT, the oceans as a new frontier,
    and even the role of technology in athletics and entertainment. MIT is proud of the
    impact of its graduates and of our faculty on the
    world in many dimensions. What we do to fuel
    a vigorous economy is the means to the
    end of higher quality of life and health
    throughout the world. As we begin our
    discussions, then, let us recall that the best way
    to celebrate entrepreneurism at MIT is to see it in
    the larger context– the Institute’s deep
    and abiding commitment to fundamental inquiry
    and scholarly discourse– to the creation and to
    the sharing of knowledge. That is the real
    secret that underlies our entrepreneurial success. When we talk about
    wealth and MIT, we are talking not simply about
    economic or monetary abundance. We’re also talking about the
    beauty and inherent worth of the quest for knowledge. We’re talking about
    the transforming power of ideas and insights which
    enrich our intellectual lives, expand our lifespans,
    preserve the goodness of our natural environment,
    help us to understand the mysteries of our own
    behavioral and social problems, and light our path forward
    in the great adventure of human existence. This is at the core of what
    we do and why we do it. Some of life’s greatest rewards
    come not when we seek profit, but when we seek understanding,
    knowledge, and wisdom. Along the way, however, we often
    find that these discoveries have the power to transform
    our economy and our fortunes as well. All this was, in fact, forecast
    by William Barton Rogers, our founder, when he conceived
    of his original plan for MIT– a kind of educational
    institution that emphasized– and I’m quoting Rogers– “the value of science and
    its great modern applications to the practical arts of life,
    to human comfort and health, and to social wealth and power.” That is what we are here
    to discuss this morning. So let’s get on with it. To address this broader
    concept of wealth and value, we’ve assembled an exceptionally
    engaging group of speakers to lead off this
    morning’s panel. I’m going to
    introduce all of them now and then ask each to simply
    come up and speak in turn. And then, as I will
    indicate in a moment, we will open up for
    questions and answers. Our first distinguished speaker
    will be Dr. Tony K. Tan– the Deputy Prime Minister
    and Minister of Defense of Singapore. Dr. Tan holds honor– excuse me– holds an
    honors degree in physics from the University
    of Singapore, a 1964 SM degree from MIT, and
    a PhD in applied mathematics from the University of Adelaide. He first won election to
    Singapore’s parliament in 1979 and was appointed as minister
    of education in 1980. After serving in several
    ministerial posts throughout the 1980s, he moved
    back to the private sector where he served as chairman
    and CEO of the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation. Dr. Tan returned to
    government service in 1995. Dr. Tan will be followed
    by Judith C. Lewent– senior vice president and
    Chief Financial Officer of Merck and Company. Judy Lewent came to MIT
    as a graduate student at the Sloan School following
    her graduation from Goucher College with a BS in economics. Equipped with an SM degree
    in management in 1972, she went forth to conquer
    the business world where her financial and
    managerial skills led her into a series of
    senior positions in the international
    pharmaceuticals industry. She has held her current
    position at Merck since 1992. Judy is also a member of the
    board of directors of Motorola and of Quaker Oats. In addition, she serves as
    a trustee of the Rockefeller family trust and,
    to our good fortune, as a member of the
    MIT Corporation and its executive committee. And she also chairs the
    corporation’s visiting committee for the MIT
    Sloan School of Management. Now Judy is a tough
    act to follow, but Professor David
    H. Marks will try. In fact, like myself,
    Dave will try anything if it’s for the
    betterment of MIT. Dave is the crafts professor
    of civil and environmental engineering here
    at the Institute, and I suspect has more
    than a few students in today’s audience. A member of the MIT faculty
    since 1969, professor Marks founded the Institute’s program
    for environmental education and research in 1992. His pioneering
    initiative has since evolved into the
    internationally renowned center for environmental initiatives. As that center’s
    director, professor Marks plays a leading role in the
    continuing worldwide effort to bring interdisciplinary
    cooperation, education, and research to the challenge
    of environmental analysis, planning, and policymaking. Few modern scientific missions
    are more important than that. Finally, we will round
    out the opening remarks with comments from Lester C.
    Thurow, who currently holds the Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson
    professorship of management and economics and, of course,
    as the former dean of the Sloan School. Lester Thurow graduated from
    Williams College in 1960, took his MA degree at
    Oxford’s Balliol College as a Rhodes scholar, and earned
    a PhD in economics at Harvard in 1964. He has been an honorary
    alumnus of MIT since 1991. Lester served on the President’s
    Council of Economic Advisers during the administration
    of Lyndon Johnson. He came to MIT in
    1968 and has gone on to achieve a global reputation
    as a prolific and respected scholar, commentator,
    author, and teacher. Professor Thurow is an
    expert in entrepreneurism. And, believe me, he
    practices what he preaches. Taken together,
    these four speakers embody the strength
    and diversity of the richness of
    the MIT experience and I therefore should not
    keep them from you any longer. Dr. Tan. TONY K. TAN: President
    Vest, ladies and gentlemen. I woukd first like to
    thank President Vest and the Technology Day committee
    for inviting me to speak to you this beautiful morning. Indeed, since leaving MIT
    some 34 years ago in 1964, I have not known the
    weather in Cambridge to be so beautiful as today. The topic of my
    speech this morning is creating national
    wealth from the perspective of my country, Singapore. My speech will be
    in three parts– I will first describe briefly
    how Singapore developed from a small fishing village
    to the modern metropolis that it is today. I will then speak on
    the current situation in the Southeast Asian region. And then I’ll conclude
    with some remarks on how Singapore sees the way ahead. But let me begin
    with the year 1865 when MIT opened classes in
    Boston with an enrollment of 15 students, bringing to
    realization William Barton Rogers’ years of
    work to organize an institution of
    higher learning which would be devoted to scientific
    and technical training. In that same year– 1865– the island
    of Singapore, which is roughly the size of
    the city of Chicago, was already in its 46th year
    as a British trading settlement at the southern tip of
    the Straits of Malacca. Could I have slide one, please? This is what Singapore
    looked like at the time. By some accounts when sir
    Stanford Raffles first landed in Singapore in the year 1819
    and acquired the tiny island for the British
    East India company, the population of the
    island numbered about 150 living in a few shabby huts
    and dependent on fishing for their livelihood. But in the months
    and years to come, the news about the establishment
    of the free port of Singapore would attract many traders
    and adventurers to our shores in search of profit
    and a new life. Slide two. When the news of Singapore
    reached the southern parts of China, Chinese traders
    who had previously traveled to places such as
    Malacca, Brunei, and Manila found it safer and more
    profitable to visit Singapore instead. Chinese junks brought with
    them goods and large numbers of immigrants. The news of a trading
    center in Singapore also reached the
    Indian subcontinent, and Indian traders
    and immigrants soon came to the island
    in large numbers. Slide three. So at a time when MIT first
    started holding classes across the Charles
    River in Boston, on the other side of
    the world, Singapore was starting to flourish
    as an important trading post in the East for
    the British empire. In 1916, MIT moved
    to its present campus here in Cambridge. And about the same
    time, Singapore, which is still a British
    colony, continued to grow as an
    important trading port. But Singapore’s success
    was not without problems. The British had
    encouraged immigration, but did not pay enough
    attention to the basic welfare needs of a rapidly
    growing population. As you can see, immigrants
    faced poverty and bad living conditions. Then came war in 1942 to 1945. And Japanese occupation of
    Singapore during World War II demonstrate the inability
    of the British forces to protect the people
    of the colonies. And, understandably, the return
    of British rule after the war met with demands
    for independence. And in time, these
    demands became too strong for the
    British to resist. That’s the proclamation
    of independence in Singapore in 1965. A union of Singapore
    with independent Malaysia in the early 1960s– from ’63 to ’65– proved to be brief and unhappy. And after a few years
    as part of Malaysia, Singapore left the
    federation and became an independent,
    sovereign state in 1965 under the shadow of racial
    rights, unemployment, poverty, and ethnic strife. It is not surprising that
    many commentators confidently predicted, at a time
    of separation in 1965, that Singapore, in view of
    its lack of natural resources, could not survive as
    an independent state. But the island weathered
    the difficult years after separation, established
    its own national identity, and became a
    thriving metropolis. Today, Singaporeans enjoy
    the second-highest standard of living in Asia after
    Japan and Singapore is an integral part of the world’s
    trading and economic system. How this was achieved
    and how Singapore created national wealth
    from inauspicious beginnings is the focus of the
    next part of my speech. When Singapore became
    independent in 1965, the British left the island
    with a relatively well-developed legal system, a functioning
    civil service, and a good port. Together with a strategic
    geographical location, these assets led to the
    commerce and trading sector becoming the pillar of growth
    for Singapore at that time. But dependence of the
    Singapore economy on trade had its limitations. A rapidly growing population
    increased pressure on the capacity of the Singapore
    economy to meet their needs. Unemployment was common. The physical infrastructure
    of the island was inadequate and
    under tremendous stress. Housing was poor. Slums were abundant. And this was only 34 years ago. Slide 10. Poverty plagued the majority
    of the island’s population. the. Absence of a domestic
    market or hinterland because of the
    separation from Malaysia compounded the economic
    problems that Singapore faced in those early
    years of our nationhood. But worse, there were signs
    that the inter-port trade on which Singapore, then
    depended to earn a living was stagnating. New ways of leveraging
    on the inter-port trade to create new economic
    growth had to be found. The withdrawal of British
    forces from Singapore in 1968– three years after Singapore
    gained independence– was not only a major
    economic blow to Singapore, but also created a security
    vacuum for the island. Consequently, the first tasks
    of the newly independent government in Singapore was to
    build a defense capability base or national service because
    of our small population which could secure the
    sovereignty and territorial integrity of the new nation. On the economic side, the
    withdrawal of British forces and the closure of British
    bases cost Singapore one-fifth of its GDP. So newly-independent
    Singapore had to quickly overcome the major
    problem of unemployment. The way the Singapore
    government went about this was to aggressively
    build infrastructure. We had a massive public
    housing program in order to house Singaporeans. We built roads, bridges,
    ports, airports, telecommunication
    facilities, and all of these proceeded at great haste. And at the same time, a
    unique tripartite partnership between employers, trade
    unions, and the government was established which
    allowed Singapore to mobilize its domestic
    labor resources quickly and effectively. Next slide. The government also
    placed great emphasis on education and training,
    because we were an island with a small population. We provided places in
    school for every child of school-going age. We created technical colleges to
    impart the technical expertise required by the
    newly-established companies in Singapore. We also established
    universities. This is the Nanyang
    Technological University which was established
    in 1980 and which MIT has been very much involved. And these universities
    were created to ensure that bright
    Singaporeans could attain the highest
    academic qualification. Fortunately, all this
    happened at a time when the world was experiencing
    rapid expansion in trade. World trade grew at more than 8%
    per annum between 1963 and 1973 compared to 5% per annum
    in the preceding 10 years. Increasing numbers of investors
    from industrialized countries were seeking low cost
    production bases overseas to supply the world market. As world trade boomed,
    Singapore rode the boom and was able to
    revitalize its economy. I’ll go on to the
    next phase now, which lasted from about 1965,
    from the time Singapore became independent,
    to the early 1980s. When Singapore
    became independent, many countries in the developing
    world looked upon Western, multinational
    corporations– or MNCs– as unwelcome remnants of a
    previous imperialist era. But Singapore, which
    was desperate to create jobs for a growing population,
    actively and deliberately courted MNCs, attracting
    them to locate operations in the new industrial
    estates which had quickly been established. An economic development
    board was set up which adopted a multifaceted
    approach to investment promotion involving
    coordinated industrial policy, identification of new
    business opportunities, manpower development, and
    active industry development. The aim of the
    Singapore government was to create a liberal and
    investor-friendly investment regime which would allow MNCs
    freedom and corporate ownership in the repatriation of profits. Ultimately, our
    aim was to create, within Singapore, first
    world operating and living conditions– but essentially at
    third world costs. And our success
    in attracting MNCs was a key to
    Singapore’s rapid growth as a manufacturing center
    for export-oriented industry. This shows the GDP growth. Consequently, Singapore’s
    real GDP growth rates averaged a phenomenal 13%
    per annum in the years from 1966 to 1973. With the success of
    industrialisation, Singapore not only achieved
    full employment by the 1980s, but was importing increasing
    numbers of foreign workers to ease a growing
    labor shortage. Rising wages and
    inflation became concerns for Singapore’s
    economic competitors. We had to, again,
    restructure our economy. But this time,
    consciously moving away from labor-intensive activities
    towards capital-intensive industries that favored high
    wage, high value-added jobs. While Korea and Taiwan
    were aggressively targeting technological
    development to their own
    indigenous companies, Singapore continued with the
    MNC partnership strategy– encouraging
    multinational companies to evolve from a predominantly
    manufacturing role to one that encompasses product development
    and design responsibilities. The growth of seaport, airport,
    telecommunications, financial, and tourist services
    strengthened Singapore’s economy. This is a pie chart of
    our economy last year with manufacturing accounting
    for 23% of our GDP– the highest would be in
    financial and business services– 29%, transport and communication
    10%, commerce 18%– which is a significant
    change, because this sector would have been the
    major sector when Singapore became independent. And other sectors, 12%. And so by 1997, the
    Singapore economy had become a
    multifaceted economy, which has standed us in good
    stead when the economic crisis hit the region last year. By the late 1980s,
    Singapore had joined the ranks of the newly
    industrialized economies and had built up a
    diversified economy where trade was supplemented by
    manufacturing, transport and communications, banking
    and finance, and tourism. Can I have the next
    two slides, please? This is a picture of our
    central business district today in Singapore. That’s our new MRT line which
    was built a few years ago. The success of
    Singapore’s ability to create national wealth and to
    improve the standard of living of its people in the 33 years
    since our independence in ’65 can be seen by comparing
    some social indicators from the 1960s to
    the present time. These are some of the
    social indicators– let me take the first one,
    which is life expectancy. Life expectancy increased from
    67 years in 1965 to 77 years by 1997. Home ownership in 1965
    when it became independent, only 29% of Singaporeans
    owned their own homes. And by 1995, the ratio
    had increased to 91%. This shows the number of
    telephone lines– so put in a different way, the
    number of telephone lines increased from 17 persons
    sharing one line in 1965 to just two persons
    sharing one line in 1997. 35 years ago, less than half
    of all Singapore households would order television sets. Today, there is at least one
    television set in every home. Infant mortality
    dropped from a high 20 per 1,000 births in 1965 to a
    low 3.3 per 1,000 births today. And finally,
    university education– in 1965 only 3% of every
    cohort entered university in Singapore. And by 1996, this
    has increased to 22%. What I’ve described so far is
    what has happened to Singapore up to now. I think what is more
    important is what will happen in Singapore from now on. And to answer this
    question, we have to look at the present situation
    not only in Singapore, but also in the Southeast Asian region. Much has been said and
    written about the causes of the economic and
    financial crisis in Southeast Asia and East Asia. We started with the devaluation
    of the Thai currency– the Thai baht– in July 1997. Within a period of one
    year, enormous wealth has been wiped out from the
    countries in Southeast Asia and the extent of devastation
    in the Southeast Asian economies can be seen from the movements
    in the Southeast Asian currencies and stock markets– could I have chart one, please? This shows the drop
    in the currencies– the worst hit, of course, has
    been the Indonesian rupiah, which has dropped to
    about 23% of its value compared to July ’97 within
    the course of one year. The others would be the Thai
    baht, the Malaysian ringgit, and Korean yuan. Singapore itself has depreciated
    by about 15% since July 1997, but we have been
    relatively unaffected compared with our neighbors. In addition to the currencies,
    the falls in the regional stock markets were just as severe
    and, in some cases, even more. Can I have chart two? Since 1st of July,
    1997, the stock indices in the regional stock
    markets in Southeast Asia have fallen by
    between 30% to 60%. This shows a drop
    in the stock markets in our part of the world. If you combine the
    stock markets together with the fall of currencies
    in terms of US dollars, the falls have been in
    the order of 80% to 90%. And I’m told that today
    the market capitalization of a single large American
    company like IBM or Microsoft would be more than the
    combined stock market capitalization of Singapore,
    Malaysia, Thailand, and Korea– which is an indication
    of how much wealth has been wiped out from the
    region in the space of one year. The severity and the protected
    nature of the Asian crisis caught everyone by surprise. After all, East
    Asian countries had good macroeconomic fundamentals. We had high GDP growth, low
    inflation, and high savings. But it turned out that good
    macroeconomic fundamentals alone were not enough. For example, high savings
    alone were not enough. These high savings had
    to be intermediated efficiently by sound
    domestic banking systems. And, in general, East
    Asia institutions have not kept up
    with the rapid pace of growth in their economies
    in the last few years. One example is that Southeast
    Asian banking systems were not equipped to handle the
    large inflows of capital into their economies
    in the 1990s. Could I have chart three? This shows the net
    private capital inflows into Asia and into the
    developing countries. The top line shows the
    total net capital inflows of all developing countries. And this is the one that shows
    a flow of capital to Asia. In the six years
    between 1992 to 1996, the flow of capital from
    industrial countries– such as the United States– to emerging markets
    increased five times from $40 billion US in 1992
    to $200 billion US in 1996. And developing Asia
    absorbed almost half of all net private capital
    flows into developing countries in 1994 to 1996. And when confidence
    ebbed, East Asia saw large outflows of capital
    within a very short time. The end of the economic
    crisis in Southeast Asia and the restoration
    of economic growth can only come about
    with the establishment of properly regulated and
    well-supervised banking and financial systems. This will take considerable
    time and effort to achieve. But if the governments
    in the region have the necessary
    will and determination and are assisted by
    multi-national agencies such as the IMF
    and the World Bank, I am confident that the
    regional economies can return to the path of
    sustainable growth within a period of
    three to five years. In the meantime,
    the main worry is Indonesia, which has
    seen violent turmoil in recent months. It is a great relief that a
    smooth, peaceful political transition has taken
    place in Indonesia with President Habibie taking
    over from President Suharto. And we, of course, hope that
    political and social stability can be quickly
    restored in Indonesia so that economic progress
    will be possible. With Indonesia occupying such
    a large and important role in Southeast Asia, a
    prosperous and stable Indonesia will be beneficial
    for the whole region. Let me now focus my
    remarks on Singapore. Although Singapore has largely
    escaped the economic storms which have affected
    Southeast Asia, we have not been
    totally unaffected. Our commerce and
    financial services sectors have been more severely affected
    by the regional downturn. Tourism and
    tourism-related industries, for example, have been hit by
    the plunge in tourism rivals as tourists from
    the ASEAN countries and the newly-industrialized
    economies account for about half of
    our total visitor arrivals. Growth in our exports has
    also moderated due partly to weaker regional demand. However, the impact of
    the crisis on Singapore has been cushioned by the
    strength of the US and European economies. For example, based on
    1996 data, more than half of Singapore’s
    electronic exports go to the US and
    the European Union. Today, Singapore is the largest
    manufacturer of disk drives. And the bulk of Singapore’s
    foreign direct investments also come from developed
    countries such as the United States, Japan, and Europe– and most of our
    manufacturing products are exported to
    the OECD markets. We will continue to strengthen
    our civil and business institutions in Singapore
    and make sure that resources flow into productive areas. For example, Singapore
    took steps in May 1996 to prevent the type
    of asset bubbles– particularly in
    property prices– which has added to the
    problems of our neighbors. This shows the property
    prices and the measures taken by the government
    in 1996 in order to slow down the growth, which
    has shown a gentle downturn, but not a collapse. This has happened in Indonesia,
    Malaysia, and in Thailand. So, as a result, asset
    prices in Singapore have not taken a large
    fall which would otherwise have had a devastating effect
    on the Singapore economy. The exposure of Singapore’s
    companies and banks to the region– although not negligible–
    have also not been large enough to be
    destabilizing for the Singapore economy. So let me sum up by
    saying that in spite of the regional economic
    crisis, Singapore’s macroeconomic fundamentals
    and institutions remain sound. Singapore has large
    foreign reserves, positive current account
    and fiscal surpluses, and no external debt. We also have a sound banking
    sector and strong institutions and a stable government. To prepare for the
    longer term and to guard against a slowdown in
    business, Singapore has to watch its
    business costs carefully to ensure that we
    remain competitive. At the same time, we are
    enhancing our capabilities and accelerating the building
    of good physical infrastructure. When the countries in the
    region resume their growth, as they will one
    day, Singapore is well-positioned to continue
    its traditional role as the gateway to the regional
    southeast Asian countries. Although the strategy
    of developing Singapore as a multifaceted
    manufacturing and services hub has been successful,
    this does not mean that Singapore can
    afford to rest on its laurels. I believe that it was
    Andy Grove of Intel, which made the remark that
    only the paranoid survive. And the truth is that we
    have to take cognisance of fundamental changes
    in the world’s economy, particularly for a small
    country like Singapore, and adjust our economic
    strategy from time to time in order to continue
    our growth and progress. So I’ll conclude my speech
    now by describing how Singapore sees the way ahead. We believe that in
    the 21st century, the world will be dominated
    by knowledge industries with technology and information
    processing spurring growth. I think that President
    Clinton referred to this in his commencement
    speech yesterday. And for Singapore
    to further progress, we must transform our economy to
    a knowledge-based economy which stresses skill and creative
    people as a main pillar of growth for the economy. This means that a good education
    and training system covering not only the pre-employment
    stage in schools and universities, but also
    the in employment stage in companies– as well as the ability to
    acquire, process, and create new knowledge–
    will be a country’s key competitive advantage. In the years to come,
    Singapore’s economic growth will come from our ability to
    leverage on our human capital and to enhance the
    skills of our people. To develop a knowledge-based
    economy in Singapore, we are undertaking
    three initiatives. First, we are revamping
    our school curriculum, taking steps to enhance
    thinking skills and innovation in our schools under the
    slogan, thinking schools, learning nation. Our aim is to promote a learning
    culture within Singapore. And at a tertiary level
    in our universities, we are revamping the
    curriculum in order to enhance broadening
    of outlook and skills as recommended by an
    international academic advisory panel which met in Singapore
    in August last year. Indeed, Robert Brown is a very
    valuable member of the panel. We have also taken
    advantage of our links. We’ve established
    universities overseas to review our curriculum. The MIT School of
    Engineering, for example, is finalizing a yearlong
    review of education curriculum in the universities
    in Singapore, which will result in large changes. The second initiative is
    that we are formulating a strategy for
    lifelong learning so that people who are doing work
    will continue to be trained. For a person to
    remain employable throughout his working
    life in the 21st century, he or she will need to
    change his or her career several times. And this means
    that people must be prepared to learn new skills
    throughout their lives. The Singapore
    Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of
    Education are implementing a national strategy to
    ensure such lifelong learning and to encourage our workers to
    continue to upgrade themselves continuously. Third, we will continue
    to liberalize our economy and open our markets– including the
    markets in services like finance and
    tele-communications and encourage a more
    entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. In the years to come,
    we see economic growth in Singapore coming not
    only from large companies, but also increasingly from
    small, nimble companies which can spot emerging trends
    and react more quickly than large organizations. To foster
    entrepreneurial activity, we are making changes in the
    structure of our economy, like taxation and regulation. And these have to be
    implemented expeditiously but without lessening the
    prudence and efficiency which have made Singapore attractive
    to investors both domestically and worldwide. Finally, crucial to Singapore’s
    success in the coming years will be a welcoming
    attitude to foreign talent who can supplement Singapore’s
    indigenous talent pool and help to enhance
    our competitiveness and further strengthen
    our economy. Like the United
    States, Singapore is ultimately a
    country which has been built by
    immigrants who come in search of a better life. And so long as we open our
    doors to able people who want to live and
    work in our country, so long will Singapore
    continue to thrive and prosper. Ladies and gentlemen,
    during last three decades, Singapore has grown from a
    poor, underdeveloped country with high unemployment and a per
    capita GDP of less than US $500 to become a nation city-state
    of three million people with full employment and a per
    capita income of US $18,000 last year. From the start, we had come to
    a simple and clear realization that Singapore is a small,
    fragile nation with almost no natural resources. It had to plug itself firmly
    to the global economic network to survive. And we owe a special
    debt to the United States for your leadership in resisting
    protectionism, championing free trade, and keeping
    international markets open. Fortunately, years of heeding
    the discipline of the markets have prepared us to handle
    the present uncertainties in the region calmly
    and deliberately. The creation of wealth
    is an ongoing process which requires constant
    attention, effort, and development. The present economic crisis,
    which is sweeping East Asia, shows how easy it
    is for prosperity– which has been built on
    unstable foundations– to crumble to dust. Vision, hard work,
    entrepreneurial skills, and sound leadership
    have been responsible for Singapore’s success. And these are the
    same qualities which have made MIT the leading
    university in the world today in science and technology. Thank you and I wish all of
    you a happy and enjoyable day. JUDITH C. LEWENT: Good morning. Let me echo the sentiments
    expressed already about how pleased I am
    to be part of this very distinguished panel. And, clearly, to be honored
    to be part of a very exciting alumni weekend. Clearly the topic at hand here
    in terms of building wealth is equally relevant
    and important. And I just want to
    express before I get into the core of my comments
    the extra significance to me personally of MIT and the clear
    and strong links that MIT has to another institution which
    means an awful lot to me, and that is Merck. And in thinking
    about that, I think I could capture that
    in a very brief way. To echo what Chuck
    reminded us about– which is the founding
    mission of MIT– and that rests on the linkage
    of the practical application of research to industry. And when I think about that
    and I think about Merck, I would say it’s epitomized by
    the 138 graduates of MIT who participate at Merck
    predominantly in our research laboratories and in our
    manufacturing enterprise. And also the great pride
    and great expectations that we carry at the
    inception of a five year, $15 million
    research collaboration that we have instituted
    between Merck and MIT. But now, let’s get
    down to the topic and talk specifically
    about building national wealth through
    investment and innovation. And I’ll start with the premise
    that pharmaceuticals, compared to many other
    industries, is actually not a capital-intensive
    business, yet it does take
    significant investment in financial and physical
    capital to get our job done. Actually at Merck,
    if you add up what we have on our books today in
    property, plant, and equipment, it totals about $12 billion. But our industry’s wealth
    is created primarily through intellectual capital. And here, we are
    ahead of the curve. And you’ll hear in my comments
    an echoing of the presentation that just preceded. Because in today’s
    information age, financial and physical capital
    no longer are the key assets. The only strategic
    imperative is knowledge. And for this reason alone, the
    knowledge-based pharmaceutical industry serves as an excellent
    case study in building wealth. Our success is a function
    of let’s try three P’s– people, patents, and patients. They are the keys to how we
    build wealth through investment and innovation. People– our employees– drive our ability to leverage
    knowledge effectively. Patents are the pharmaceutical
    industry’s mechanism for protecting and
    promoting discovery. And our relationship
    with our patients– the real benefactors
    of our innovation– is what ultimately builds
    social and economic wealth. Given these insights,
    what are the factors that have propelled the US
    pharmaceutical industry to be a global leader? And how can other US
    knowledge-based industries use these same
    factors to strengthen the national economy? Let’s begin with investment. The US pharmaceutical industry
    leads all other industries in research and
    development investment. US industry in general overall
    invests less than 4% of sales in R&D. In contrast, America’s
    research-based pharmaceutical companies will spend
    more than 19% of sales– or $20 billion dollars– on R&D in this year alone,
    which also represents a tripling of the amount
    spent only 10 years ago. Now what may seem
    counterintuitive at first glance is
    that the industry’s sustained this high
    level of investment despite the inherently risky
    nature of our R&D process. To cite one example, only
    one in about 5,000 compounds screened in our research
    labs becomes a prescription medicine. From discovery, to lab
    testing, to animal testing, to human testing, to
    regulatory approval takes about $400 million on
    average and 12 to 15 years. And with all of that,
    only three out of 10 marketed prescription
    medicines actually recoup the cost of this investment. So many skeptics are
    right to ask, why bother? Actually, the odds
    are better in Vegas. And, as a matter of fact–
    returning to my economic roots– there exists a concept
    in the world of economics that’s called gamblers ruin. And, simply stated,
    what it means is that as long as you
    get an adequate return, you can stay at the
    table despite the fact you’re playing with high stakes. But the catch is that you
    better understand the risks or you may lose everything. And herein lies the paradox
    of pharmaceutical R&D. The way to deal with high
    risks is to invest more. Now, ironically
    with all of this, people only see the big payoff
    from a breakthrough drug, but they aren’t
    there in our labs as I have been when
    compounds fail. And they don’t witness
    the many products that actually fail commercially. It’s actually sort
    of like assuming that all movies are box office
    successes like Jurassic Park– and for those of you who have
    any memory of a great failure, that none of them
    are Waterworld. But in both cases, people
    miss the investment paradox. Now let’s move on to innovation. Maybe the best way to
    shape this discussion is, again, to pose
    two questions. First, on a micro level– what conditions
    have to exist for an individual
    pharmaceutical company to be successful
    as an innovator? And then on a macro level– what conditions enable
    industry overall to contribute to economic
    growth through innovation? Again, with our MIT
    heritage, I want to cite Dr. Rebecca
    Henderson, who shed light on these
    macro level issues by asking the following– is it enough to invest large
    amounts of money in R&D and assume innovation
    simply will follow? Her answer was, no. Innovation needs to be managed. Those companies that remain
    innovative over time first keep connected to the
    scientific community, second, allocate scarce resources
    effectively and third, manage organizational
    design appropriately. So let’s look a little closer. First– keeping connected
    to the scientific community is critical because innovative
    pharmaceuticals require more than industry can do alone. Without an historic
    research partnership with government and academia,
    our US pharmaceutical industry would not be nearly as
    productive as it is today. At Merck, we pride
    ourselves in having strong, in-house
    research capabilities, but that doesn’t preclude us
    from having our scientists go outside to publish in
    scientific journals, attend conferences,
    and collaborate with scientists and
    leading universities– as I indicated earlier. And it’s through
    this peer review that scientific
    knowledge advances. One term that we use to refer to
    this is external R&D spillover. Now turning to allocating
    scarce resources effectively. This, too, is critical, because
    the road to drug discovery and development is costly,
    it’s long, and it’s stochastic. At Merck, we are currently
    spending a record $1.9 billion in R&D– 1998. But to Dr. Henderson’s
    point, it’s not just the amount of
    research investment that maximizes innovation,
    it’s how effectively we allocate those
    R&D resources that create a critical
    competitive advantage. So our strategy is
    specific, focused, concentrating on diseases with
    large patient populations. And then we want
    novel products that are potent, well tolerated,
    convenient to use, and with clinical results that
    are meaningful to physicians and patients. And finally, managing
    organizational design appropriately is also critical
    to managing innovation. Here professor Henderson found
    that organizations typically choose to organize by function
    or to organize by project. Organizing by function ensures
    that the specialized knowledge necessary for
    long-term innovation is preserved, while
    organizing by project encourages rich communication
    across functions. Observation– the most
    successful pharmaceutical companies are never
    satisfied with one approach. These companies benefited
    from internal R&D spillover that resulted from
    a communication across both function
    and product lines. So ideally, the individual
    pharmaceutical company must do three
    things to succeed– keep connected to the
    scientific community, allocate scarce
    resources effectively, and manage organization
    design appropriately. And let’s not forget– these hold true for the success
    of other knowledge-based industries as well. Now let’s turn to
    the macro level. Here, we believe there are
    five enabling conditions for pharmaceutical innovation– preserving the US free
    market, continuing support of basic research
    by the federal government, protecting intellectual
    property at home and abroad, streamlining our
    regulatory system, and creating a global
    business environment conducive to innovation. The first enabling
    condition for innovation is to maintain a free
    market in the United States. A free market is clearly
    important to all industries because that is what attracts
    investment and rewards innovation. And for a high-risk industry
    like pharmaceuticals, a free market is critical. Other countries have actually
    seen the chilling effects of policies that restrict access
    to medicines, control prices, or ignore intellectual
    property rights. It’s actually very
    close to home. Take our fence-line
    neighbor, Canada. In the 1970s and 80s,
    Canadian patent law allowed generic copies of
    existing patented drugs to be sold on a virtually
    unrestricted basis through compulsory licensing. The result of that
    was lights went out in Canadian labs as Merck and
    many of our other competitors significantly reduced
    investment in Canada. Now contrast this with
    post-1987 and again in 1993 when the Canadian
    Parliament enacted legislation to protect patented medicines. Merck and many of our
    other colleagues responded. And for Merck, we responded
    through our subsidiary Merck Frost with a $63 million
    investment in a center for therapeutic research. The result for us– our scientists
    discovered and developed Singulair, a revolutionary
    treatment for asthma for children and adults. But it didn’t just
    benefit human health and it didn’t just benefit
    the pharmaceutical industry, it boosted Canada’s balance
    of trade and economy. A second enabling
    condition for innovation mandates that the federal
    government’s continued support be there for basic
    biomedical research. Again, there’s a
    symbiotic relationship that we have to pursue here– both basic and applied research
    are needed to drive innovation. It’s a collaborative
    effort and each of us have special and distinct
    competencies in that regard. Historically, as
    you know, government through grants to America’s
    research universities exemplified by MIT
    advances basic research. And then in the case
    of pharmaceuticals, think about the
    advances it’s been able to provide in understanding
    how the human body works, revealing pathways of
    disease, and developing other critical technologies. Industry then weighs in and
    applies this information through our research investment
    to the next steps of research, discovering a compound and
    then carrying it forward through clinical trials, process
    development, manufacturing, and distribution. Now I saw fantastic cover of
    the Boston Globe this morning, so I don’t want you to
    totally misread my interest in the Boston Globe
    by the next comments that I’m going to make. But, unfortunately, there is a
    recent reference in the Boston Globe that illustrates
    the fact that the public’s understanding of these
    complementary yet unique roles is flawed. According to this
    article in The Globe, industry’s use of
    government-funded basic research is, and I quote,
    “a pattern of scientists and universities cashing in on
    government-funded inventions.” close quote. To illustrate the
    counter to that– 97% percent of prescription
    medicines available in the US today came through the high-risk
    pipeline of the industry, not government– and industry
    couldn’t have done it, though, without the collaboration
    on the basic research side. This lack of understanding
    of the government’s role in science and technology,
    as we all know, carries over to
    Congress, where some would like to shift the funding
    focus to applied research– such as product or
    process development. These are the areas where the
    pharmaceutical industry excels. And if Congress
    shifts priorities, the advance of basic
    knowledge could be slowed and our research system could
    be thrown out of balance with a resulting negative
    impact on the US economy– not to mention patient welfare. Chuck Vest underscored
    the importance of public funding of basic
    research in his testimony before the House Committee
    on Science in March. He said, “there is a
    generally accepted proposition that innovation is the principal
    engine of the US economy. Our present and future
    economic strength depends on an
    innovation system that has been, since the end of World
    War II, the envy of the world. I believe that
    government at all levels plays a crucial role in
    supporting that system, namely through
    encouraging and funding research partnerships between
    universities and industry.” Let’s turn to the third
    enabling condition– the need to protect intellectual
    property at home and abroad. Remember, patents is one
    of those three P’s which are the cornerstones
    of innovation along with people and patients. We’re fortunate to have a
    strong, strictly enforced patent law in the United States. This gives companies
    like Merck an incentive to make the decade-long
    investments in R&D and also gives our
    shareholders a fair return. In fact, the World
    Bank funded the study at the University
    of Pennsylvania which estimated that without
    adequate patent protection, over 2/3 of new
    pharmaceuticals would never have been introduced. And we’ve made progress
    in recent years, especially through the general
    agreement on tariffs and trade. But it’s estimated
    that in some countries, including Argentina,
    India, Turkey, Egypt, patent piracy costs legitimate
    pharmaceutical companies $1 billion a year. And piracy can
    thrive even despite strong national intellectual
    property laws on the books. Through our trade
    association, Pharma, the US pharmaceutical industry,
    works with the US Trade Representative and the
    World Trade Organization when countries fail
    to enforce or comply with the letter and the spirit
    of intellectual property laws. In South Africa, for example,
    the US Trade Representative placed the country
    on a watch list after President Mandela paved
    the way for parallel imports and violated patent rights. Now the fourth enabling
    condition for innovation is a regulatory environment
    that is effective, efficient, and puts patients first. The US has long led the
    world in the discovery of important new drugs,
    but historically too many of these new medicines
    were available abroad before they
    benefited patients at home because of the delays
    in the approval process by the Food and
    Drug Administration. It’s critical, of course, that
    the FDA both protects patients and improves new medicines
    in a timely fashion. And in order to
    accelerate drug approval, the Prescription
    Drug User Fee Act was reauthorized
    last year mandating that the FDA reduce review
    time to 12 months or less. And the FDA has kept its word. For example, returning
    to Singulair, the asthma medicine
    I mentioned earlier– it was approved by the FDA in
    February of this year, 1998, exactly one year after our
    company submitted our new drug application to the agency. And the FDA also
    recognizes that because we are dealing with the
    health of people, there are cases that
    deserve special attention. So the agency’s accelerated
    drug approval process, new medicines that can mean
    life or death for patients, receive expeditious review. One such case was Merck’s
    drug, Crixivan, for AIDS. On March 13th, 1996 the FDA
    approved Crixivan just 42 days after the drug was filed– the fastest approval in
    the agency’s history. And now the last– the fifth enabling
    condition for innovation is policies that help create
    a global business environment conducive to innovation. Many economists have
    pointed to the success that certain Japanese
    firms have enjoyed based largely on national
    industrial policies. But this success does not extend
    to the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. A study conducted at
    Columbia University showed that US
    pharmaceutical companies are among the most innovative
    and competitive in the world, while their Japanese
    counterparts have remained among the weakest. The study showed that
    industrial policy works best in our industry
    when it creates a home market and vigorous
    competition that forces domestic firms to develop
    necessary competitive skills. For the pharmaceutical industry,
    these so-called tough domestic markets are characterized
    by favorable pricing, significant public
    funding of research, and strict regulatory
    approval standards. In this kind of an
    environment, regulators must approve drugs not because
    of local protectionism, but because of the drug’s global
    quality and innovativeness. And countries that have engaged
    in these policies, namely the United States, the
    United Kingdom, Sweden, and Switzerland have nurtured
    globally competitive industries like pharmaceuticals. And countries that
    have steered away from these policies, such
    as Italy, France, and Japan are now at a competitive
    disadvantage. While the US
    economy is booming– and, again, in the spirit of
    not resting on our laurels– we must not forget what
    led to our present success. Michael Porter of the
    Harvard Business School spoke about the growing
    threat to American innovation at the National Innovation
    Summit here, again, at MIT. His research shows
    that we as a nation are beginning to
    pay less attention to the fundamental
    factors for innovation, especially in research
    and education. After years of success, we are
    living off past investments and now risk
    becoming complacent. But here again, the
    pharmaceutical industry remains an exception as
    measured by the continued registration of new patents
    which support our innovation. Likewise, the other
    enabling conditions that made the pharmaceutical
    industry one of America’s most successful business
    stories are the same ones that will bring success to other
    knowledge-based industries. When in place, they
    foster an environment in which all knowledge-based
    industries can leverage their intellectual
    capital through investment and innovation. Leveraging intellectual
    capital through investment and innovation are
    the primary driver of how wealth is created
    in today’s global economy. Now I know I gave you three
    P’s as the basis for success, but I’d like to close with a
    special focus on just one– people– and actually
    share a story with you that may sound apocryphal,
    but it’s actually true. Recently one of
    our newer security guards at our research
    facility in Rahway, New Jersey was working
    the graveyard shift when a car drove up to the gate. As he watched from the guard
    box, a man jumped from the car and ran to the lab. He was actually
    dressed in a bathrobe and slippers were flying around. And the guard stepped back
    and said, so this is Merck. What this guard was
    actually recognizing is that innovation, first and
    foremost, is about people. It’s people who
    carry the knowledge. It’s people who
    aspire to discovery. It’s people who translate
    the abstracts of enabling conditions for innovation to
    the reality of building wealth. And, clearly, MIT
    and those of us who have the benefit
    of time on this campus recognize this principle
    and strive to apply it in our daily lives– both personally
    and professionally. I thank you very much and I look
    forward to the participation later on the panel. DAVID H. MARKS: Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I stand by– I just realized I’m
    on– instead of a coffee break, good morning. Do you know the difference
    between teaching undergraduates and teaching graduate students? It has to do with good morning. When you come to an
    undergraduate class, half of them are there
    half of them are not there. No one’s sitting
    in the front row. Some of them who
    are there are asleep or drinking orange juice–
    or we hope it’s orange juice. And you say, good morning,
    to them and they go, uh. You go to a Sloan School
    class or to a leader for manufacturing class– people who have seen total
    quality management and have been trained in the
    importance of communication– and you say, good morning,
    and they say, good morning. You go to a graduate
    level science class and they’re all there and
    they’re all in the first row and their notebooks are all
    open and you say, good morning. And they write it down. And you go to an audience like
    this and you say good morning– and the audience of industry or
    alumni– you say, good morning, and they say, that’s easy
    for you to say in academia, you have tenure. Well, good morning. My topic today–
    how do I start this? Can I have the first slide or
    is this a slide thing here? I’m a professor of technology. Paul, could you help me? There it is, OK. Was this from my lecture? Oh, yeah. And basically, I’d
    like to give you a message here that could
    be half full or half empty. And following the
    previous two speeches, we are talking about
    wealth creation. Oh, thanks, OK. Forward. But at the same time,
    I’d like to talk about global sustainability. And that is as we see
    a world population grow from our present five billion
    to a much larger world– when, in fact, the activities
    associated with that wealth generation can create
    natural resource depletion and environmental
    impacts which could cause great problems for us all. Exactly what will happen– what are the business
    opportunities that will grow out of this? Because this is not
    just a half empty glass. I’m not here to tell
    you to hug a tree or to shower with a friend– well perhaps not. But I would like to talk
    about the opportunities that come from these sorts of
    problems and, in fact, increased
    vulnerabilities as well and to give you some
    statistics which are probably a little different
    than what you have seen before. My job at MIT– I’m an environmental
    professional. One of about 5% of our students
    and professors and research are about environmental
    professionalism, but it’s the other
    95% of you who go out and create new products,
    decide what materials are in them, decide what those
    products will do or won’t do, decide whether you
    will take them back, make decisions about where
    the resources will come– which, in fact, are the
    ones who drive environment and sustainability problems. And it is my job as well
    to worry about the literacy of these sorts of people. And I’m going to
    show you a slide now which was presented here
    by Joan Morbidow who is from Lucent Technologies. And it has to do with market
    potential for telephones. And if you take a look at
    the upper right, over half of the world’s population
    lives more than two hours travel time from the
    closest telephone. And Lucent’s reaction to
    this is, hot diggity dog. The average woman in rural
    Africa spends six hours a day simply gathering the food, fuel,
    and water that the family will need that day. The guys are hunting
    or watching TV. Tokyo has more telephones than
    all of sub-Saharan Africa. Four billion people of
    the five billion people presently on earth
    don’t have a telephone. Hot diggity dog, let’s
    sell them some telephones. What is it about that
    process by which they go from not having a telephone
    to having a telephone? What are the implications of
    that for natural resources? What are the implications
    of that for the environment? What are the
    implications of that for our educational processes? And this, I think, is a problem
    that we are all wrestling with and what causes great problems. Because my premise is that
    business as usual and wealth creation will be very
    different in the 21st century, not just from a
    technical point of view– and everybody has talked
    here about the rapid changes of technology– but from a social
    point of view as well. What does drive wealth creation? It’s consumer preferences and
    consumers taking their wealth and investing it
    in your products. And we’re seeing here
    an awful lot of people in the world who in
    fact don’t have wealth. And in the process of the
    growth and development that will take place,
    will begin to have wealth. Will they go through
    the same cycle that we did of knocking down
    all our natural resources, creating pollution, and
    then becoming wealthy enough to remediate those problems? Or will they, in fact,
    be able to jump start– to do something in which they
    move to more efficient resource use without having to
    go through this cycle? Now consumer preferences
    in the United States, however, are not going
    to save the environment. I mean, you just
    have to look out at the SUVs that are driving
    around Cambridge with rhino guards on the front– whose job are basically
    to go to the Stop and Shop or to pick up the kids at
    school at 10 miles per gallon. And the United States uses
    25% of the world’s energy, and this is made possible
    by the other part of what drives wealth creation,
    which is government restrictions and innovation. And our government gives us
    wonderfully cheap gasoline to drive those cars
    and those huge SUVs and calls them trucks,
    not cars, because trucks have a much less
    stringent fuel economy requirement than cars do. So governments also
    influence this as well. Where will the knowledge
    and the skilled employees come from to make this change? If we’re going to sell
    telephones– hot diggity dog– to all these people
    throughout the world, where will that come from? As Lucent tries to sell
    telephones in China, as Ford and GM now are
    trying to build cars in China or in Thailand,
    certainly they’re not going to import people
    from New Jersey or from Detroit to build those cars or
    to manage that process. They’re going to be indigenous. How is it that these
    global networks communicate and communicate
    in all directions, particularly the more
    efficient use of resources? Where will your customers be and
    who will your competitors be? They are a vastly different
    lot, I would suspect. And, finally, what
    government concerns around the world will influence
    your business strategy? What new law where will make it
    more difficult for you to work? Should Ford or should
    Lucent be pushing for worldwide environmental
    standards or worker safety standards? Because that would
    mean that they don’t have to
    change their product or change their processes
    throughout the world. Should they voluntarily
    try to do these things– all major issues. If you take a look– as Glenn Urban of
    our Sloan School has pointed out– if you
    take a look at the success factors of industry
    in the 90s, they all had to deal with globalization,
    trade barriers going down everywhere, and everybody
    going all over the world into markets they
    had not been before, sourcing more the
    international employee. We saw a tremendous emphasis
    on least-cost production– really tightening the costs
    and trying to bring them down. An increase in total
    quality management, getting things right
    the first time. We saw euphemistically
    right-sizing. Where is the corporate
    research lab now in many of these places? And where are the MIT
    programs that turned out PhDs for corporate
    research laboratories that no longer exist now? What does all this mean? We’re seeing much, much more
    rapid technological change and sometimes much more
    risky technological change. Andy Warhol once said you
    had 15 minutes of fame. Well it seems like products
    have 15 minutes of life. And the winners in one
    technology generation tend to be losers in the next. It’s a much more
    risky business, which needs a much more flexible
    employee, a much more flexible organization. These are the
    lessons of the 1990s. Environment and sustainability
    is not mentioned in here, or is it? Or is it? Actually the environment
    is really aided by this. If you want to be a
    least-cost producer, you don’t want to pay for
    resources and energy that are wasted– that come out labeled as waste
    and cost you 20 times more to get rid of than
    it costs you to buy. You want to tighten the process. And the idea of loop-closing
    is really beginning to increase the efficiency of resource use,
    decrease the amounts of waste– movement from waste management
    to waste minimisation– from waste treatment
    plants to, in fact, tighter industrial processes. These sorts of things
    are going on there and I think we’re seeing some
    massive changes in all of this. Rapid technological change
    means that you go back to a clean sheet
    of paper each time. Which means in the
    paper industry, you’re using chlorine
    now, it’s very hard to retrofit to stop using
    chlorine and bleaching. But in the next
    iteration, you can begin thinking
    about a plant that doesn’t have any
    affluence whatsoever– it does total recycling. And, therefore, these
    issues go away– why use something like chlorine? So all of this has
    been very good for us. But now I’d like
    to come to what I think are some of
    the volatility issues that will begin to affect
    things in the future. One is the challenge
    of the megacities. These are a large set of
    cities which I’ll show you a slide of in a minute– largely south of
    the equator, which will grow very, very rapidly. And the reasons for
    their growth are not just that people within
    them are having more children, but, in fact, there is
    a massive in migration from traditional
    agricultural activities or land use activities
    which are no longer tenable. And these are very
    poor people moving to the centers of wealth. What will that mean for markets? Future energy
    technologies, the price of fossil fuels in the world,
    and particularly the United States right now is just
    so low that even attempts at conservation are not
    bringing much payback– much less looking at
    alternative energy sources. We’re going through a massive
    examination of climate change now that we don’t
    have the smoking gun as to just exactly
    what will happen there– whether CO2 is or is not
    causing global warming or even, in fact, if it is what
    global warming will mean to us. And yet, at the same
    time, we suspect that resource use is
    going on in creating some of these change
    issues in fact may be untenable for a lot
    of other reasons as well. Human health and
    natural resources– you can drink coffee today. It’s OK to drink
    coffee today, it’s not OK to drink coffee tomorrow. It will be OK the day after. In fact, we really don’t know– we really don’t have the science
    to tell us what is going on. In world trade,
    the trade barriers have gone down all
    over the world. Will environmental barriers
    grow up between them to replace them? Will we take some
    copper that comes out of Chile, which comes
    out of some of the worst environmental conditions
    in the world– but that copper is very clean. And then it comes
    to the United States where the US competitors
    are superfund sites and are out of business because
    they have such liabilities. Will there be a barrier
    against clean copper coming into the United States
    produced in dirty conditions? Let me just turn to the
    first slide on megacities. And I hope that comes out well. These are a set of
    cities in the south. And if you take a look
    at the set of cities, the first time I saw
    this slide there’s at least three cities on there
    that I had never heard of– which it turns out to have six
    to 10 million people in them. And then you take a look at
    the projection of where that population will be in a
    few years– say, in 2025– and we see Tokyo not
    increasing very much but, in fact, Shanghai,
    Bombay, Jakarta, New Delhi growing tremendously. And we can say, hot
    diggity dog, more people to buy our goods and
    services, but you can also say these are basically
    poor people, a lot of them living under the bridges,
    living in substandard conditions and, in fact, perhaps
    destabilizing these cities. We’re talking not only about
    the growth of the cities, but the growth of the
    importance of these cities as economic powers even
    more than their states and having almost
    the inability to deal with these tremendous
    increases, which could lead to more instability. Again, the number of very
    large cities over three million projected to go from 35
    in 1970 to 160 in 2025– most of these in the south– in South America, Central
    and South America, and Southeast Asia. If you take a look
    at this graph, the top bar shows
    the GDP represented by the city of Shanghai. It is in the order of 10%
    to 12% of China’s GDP. And then you see its population,
    which is much less than that. Bangkok with about 12% of
    the population of Thailand has almost 40% of the GDP. These cities are
    enormous magnets. This is where the jobs are. This is where the wealth
    is and these cities are growing rapidly because of
    a tremendous migration to them. And start thinking about a
    city that grows that rapidly and how you provide
    water, and sewer, and clean air,
    and food for them, electrical power,
    communications, and, of course, mobility
    and transportation since they must be
    able to get to jobs. This is a graph of car
    ownership per capita increasing from 1970 to about 1990. The top is the United States– we’re rapidly approaching
    700 cars per 1,000 people. The bottom is Japan
    rapidly approaching 2,250 cars per 1,000. Now the Japanese are
    as rich is as we are, yet government policy has
    reflected in this difference between car ownership. We have cheap gasoline. We have worked hard on a
    national highway system. Tolls on that highway
    system were very low. Car ownership– there are very
    few taxes on cars themselves. In Tokyo, gasoline
    is very expensive. If you want to buy
    a car in Tokyo, you have to come with
    a certificate that says you have an off street
    parking place for it. The average car in the United
    States at the end of 10 years has 120,000 miles on it. The average car in Tokyo
    at the end of 10 years has 30,000 miles on it. And an inspection
    system that makes sure that it won’t come back
    on the road in Japan at the end of that 10th
    year but, in fact, we’ll go somewhere else
    in Southeast Asia. Now Thailand is way
    down at the bottom. Thailand is about
    55 cars per 1,000. 0.05 cars on this graph. What’s going to happen– China is even less than that. What is going to happen when we
    redraw this graph in 20 years? Where will their
    car ownership be? Where is their investment
    in infrastructure for cars, in alternatives to cars
    in terms of other types of transportation? To what extent will
    information technologies remove some of the needs
    for transportation? It was predicted when
    the telephone came that this would reduce the
    need for moving people around since the telephone
    could replace this. I don’t think that’s
    really happened. will. There be a massive use of
    information technologies to take cars off the
    road because we do not have to travel to
    knowledge anymore and knowledge can come to us? Interesting question. I do spend a lot of time in
    Bangkok and a lot of time actually in a car in Bangkok. When you come out of the hotel
    in the morning in Bangkok, you have a choice of Mercedes
    limousine or a Chevy astro van. It’s a very big van. And you generally take
    the van because it’s got in it a portable toilet, a
    desk that’s setup, extra power plug-ins so you can put in
    your laptop and your cell phone because, in fact, you’re
    going to spend a lot of time in that van and why
    not get some work done? The Japanese already
    have special vehicles– they’re preparing
    hybrid vehicles for these sort of congested
    Southeast Asian cities. Now these are speeds
    in kilometers per hour. And a simple little test
    would be do we multiply or divide by 0.6
    to get to miles? And I’m sure that we can
    get a consensus on this– I’m never sure. But this is not very fast. And stop and think
    about the pollution that comes from those
    vehicles sitting there and from that energy use. If we take a look at
    transportation infrastructure, US cities, European cities,
    Asian cities, and Bangkok– look at the very difference
    in population densities in the Asian cities. These are cities in which the
    population growth took place before the automobile and before
    these massive transportation needs. And they are very, very dense. How do you now impose upon
    them transportation systems so that people can move around? The road length per capita
    in meters in Bangkok is less than one meter. Of course, they can always
    float their cars in the canals or wait until the flooding
    season and float them that way. These are the sort
    of problems that are developing in these massive
    cities in Southeast Asia. If one thinks about the
    energy sources and conversion processes– can you make that
    a little brighter– what’s taking
    place in the center is the energy forms
    and what’s on top and the bottom are
    different sources of energy that might deal with
    this particular problem. And right now, there is
    really only one thing that is working here and that
    is the fossil fuels– gas, oil, and coal. Nuclear is, in fact,
    decreasing in its amount. The energy companies– the
    oil companies in the 70s when they watched
    the oil embargoes and watched the difficulties
    in getting fossil fuels, thought that they might
    become energy companies and that they would invest
    in energy alternatives. And they took a look at
    all these processes– the biomass solar, ocean
    thermal, photovoltaics, wind– that’s all gone now. Cheap fuel has driven that out. At a time– the
    economists tell us that the invisible
    hand will automatically bring new technologies in
    this areas off the shelf or that it’s just sitting in
    a research laboratory waiting to come off the shelf
    and be commercialized. I’m not so sure. I’m not so sure
    whether a glove has to be put on the invisible
    hand to deal with this. And then professor Thurow
    will come and tell me how I failed the course again. But, in fact, I think this
    is a difficult situation. If you look at the present
    sources of world power– and when you look at coal,
    which in many parts of the US is a four-letter word– but in fact it is not in China. And half of the north-south
    railway capabilities in China bring coal from the
    north down to be burned at 5% or 10% efficiency,
    for instance, in Beijing and 450,000 different
    residential and light commercial boilers. And the resulting pollution
    from this very ugly coal is incredible. Just a little bit of an increase
    in efficiency in that coal use could lead to major reductions
    in emissions in that area. Now how will this
    look in the future? The percentage of hydro
    is going to go down simply because I think most of
    the major hydro sites have been developed. The percentage of
    nuclear in the near hand probably will go down as well. There’s a real reluctance
    to see nuclear power. The people from EDF– from Electricite de
    France– have been here to talk to us about what will
    happen 10 to 15 years from now when their existing licenses
    in their nuclear power plants come up. In fact, public sentiment will
    not allow them to be renewed and they will have to
    switch from non-CO2 emitting nuclear fuels
    probably to natural gas. Right now China is thinking
    about 50 new nuclear power plants in a privatized
    situation in which they will buy plants from Germany, from
    Italy, from the United States, from France, from Russia– bringing with each
    their own approaches to these technologies
    and to regulation of these technologies. It’s a frightening thought. MIT is getting ready now to
    work with Tshingua University in Beijing and the
    Chinese government on simply thinking about
    a regulatory process for looking at the safety and
    efficiency of these new plants which will probably be built
    whether we participate or not. But if these plants
    fail, nuclear is out for the next 100 years– all throughout the world. Just for the basis of time, I
    do have several more slides here on energy use, but
    let’s just come to this one, which is the
    relative commercial energy use per capita in 1992. And with the United
    States, it’s 100% and we see India down
    at around 2% to 3%. Can someone make it more light? There’s a request
    to dim the lights. Everybody listens to me here. Bear with me. The one on top– United States, the
    one on bottom, India. This is per capita
    commercial use– one’s 50 times the other. Let there not be light. Will this continue? Or will it not continue? Hot diggity dog, we’re going
    to sell them all things that will increase their wealth. What will happen here
    in terms of energy use? The United States already uses
    25% of the world’s energy. We’ve become rich
    on cheap energy. Will there be security
    problems if we try to deny– or can we possibly
    deny India the right to move right up there with us? And finally, CO2 emissions– we see some negative emissions
    when you’re not efficient in the former Soviet Union
    or in Eastern Europe. Those plants go out of
    business when you bring them under new regimes. And, as a matter
    of fact, Europe is depending on a lot of that CO2
    reduction in those countries to trade off against
    their growth. The United States probably will
    be increasing from its 1990 levels even though its
    efficiency is going up incredibly. Yet in Kyoto, the
    United States has promised that it will do
    a 7% reduction of these from 1990 totals– doesn’t look right. Meanwhile, when we look
    at the Kyoto protocols, there’s nothing in there
    about the third world and nothing in there about
    China or India or Mexico and what they will do– nor no mechanism by
    which the first world can help the third world
    to make a transition. And I think that one
    of the biggest issues will be this issue of the
    north versus the south– in the energy use and
    in cleaner production. The north now has all the
    production, all the wealth, is making use of
    most of the energy. But we’re talking about a
    world in which two billion of the five billion people
    are in two countries in India and in China. Can we afford to let
    them develop in the way that we developed
    or will we have to work out mechanisms to help
    them do it in a better way? Who will pay for this? Who will regulate
    growth and activities? What sort of institutions
    will grow up to do this? The population redistribution,
    the social change, and this transition from
    agricultural resource base to industrial base is
    actually quite frightening, I think, in terms of what it
    will mean to world security. We will see, in fact, tremendous
    emphasis on material bands, recycling content,
    product design– but that is lowering per product
    energy use or per capita energy use and deals not with
    the question of the fact that the population
    is increasing. We will have to deal with public
    perception and expectations. Can you eat an apple
    or should you not? Will using a cell
    phone drive you crazy or not having it
    drive you crazy? There’s a great deal
    of contradiction here. And I don’t think we will ever
    get the science totally right so that everybody
    will ever accept it. And even if we did,
    different parts of society will value that
    science differently. And we have regulatory issues
    in which the science is pretty well-established, but different
    countries around the world draw different regulatory
    implications from it. And I think that will continue. The issues of sustainability– which is I see the intersection
    between developmental and environmental concerns– involve eco-efficiency–
    trying to use resources more efficiently– loop closing. Equity– we were
    going to have to deal with these issues of where
    things are built, how they are built, who gains the wealth. Will we see the south
    developing at the expense of the global environment? Or probably, what
    is more likely, at the expense of the
    northern standard of living? Futurity– thinking about
    the future and resources, anticipating human impacts. And finally security, which I
    think is an important issue. I’m a water engineer and the
    great American philosopher Mark Twain once noted that whiskey
    is for drinking and water is for fighting. And will we have a
    fight over the last drop of water in Mexico, over
    the last tree in Indonesia, and over people in
    great discontent in the environs of
    metropolitan Cairo? If we consider some
    of the recent events to try and deal with
    these issues, the 1992 Rio conference, which was about
    sustainable development– how the countries
    of the third world will develop in a
    sustainable manner. And the very recently completed
    Kyoto conference in 1997 about CO2 mitigation. Both were small steps
    in the right direction. At least countries were
    talking to themselves or were talking to each other
    and trying to learn more about these issues. Neither of these dealt
    with population issues. Technology– I mean, this
    is a great institution of technology. We used to be the
    villains in all this and now we’re the heroes. I mean, we can have all
    this wonderful growth and use all these
    wonderful resources and technology will
    protect us from lack of availability of
    future resources and will protect
    us from emissions. Isn’t it nice to know that
    you’re no longer a villain? Well, I kind of suspected all
    along that I wasn’t that bad. I’m not that comfortable
    with the hero role, and I worry very
    much about this. We have no mechanism for
    addressing equity and security issues. They will probably have
    to evolve over time and things probably
    will have to get worse before we will come up with
    ways of dealing with this. It was very interesting to watch
    the United States’ strategies at the Kyoto conference. I mean, they started with
    one, they switched to another, they switched to another. And, suddenly, a magic
    set of technology targets came out which, as an
    engineer, bothered me because I don’t
    think anybody has any idea about how these
    technology targets will be set. And, certainly, I didn’t
    see technologists involved in how they will be set. How will the public
    understand this? And what strategy should
    an industry, a government, a university adopt? These are long-term issues– prepare and invest
    for the long-term. A vision for the future,
    more flexible thinking, and institutions–
    get the science right, better implementation
    mechanisms, better education of the
    public and of professionals. And what does this mean for
    the Gray Lady by the Charles? You’re wonderful alma mater. MIT is changing rapidly
    in this and a whole set of issues like it. We have to educate a socially
    literate and flexible professional. And the way we
    present these issues to most of these
    professionals– we certainly have courses about the
    environment and sustainability, but we’re working
    very, very hard to get within
    professional courses examples of these materials
    to give the correct message that these are important parts
    of professional concern, not some extraneous issues
    that you take if you think you’re interested in it. There’s a lot more emphasis
    on distance education and cooperation at a distance
    in bringing these ideas. And we are trying to move
    towards greater flexibility. MIT is taking a step
    beyond an outreach to government industries
    and the public and education throughout the world. We set up a joint program
    on climate change, we have our alliance for
    global sustainability which works with partners all
    over the world on education, on research, and, more
    important, on outreach. Not just thinking about
    peer reviewed publications that a few professionals in
    our own disciplines read, but thinking about how
    our students are educated, thinking about how we
    reach out to the world, and trying to bring
    about consensus towards better solutions. And, finally, we’re getting our
    own house together physically and organizationally
    and trying to be a more sustainable university
    in having the ability to build the Cross Institute faculty
    and educational programs that will deal with these problems. Now the best and
    the most important slides in any lecture
    like this– in conclusion. A smaller and faster
    developing world presents major
    challenges that will require very different
    technical, social, and economic response. Anticipate this and be
    prepared or be very vulnerable. And that’s a message not
    just to you, but to us. Now you thought
    that a slide that was labeled, in
    conclusion, would mean it was the last slide. No. Preparation will mean more
    flexible organizations and professionals in them. New alliances– MIT is forming
    new alliances all the time. Faster technology
    changes– in particular, we’re trying to deal with
    the technology changes that are involved in distance
    cooperation and distance education. Better strategic
    planning– well, we sort of do that at
    this university I think. Well, yes, we do. Yes. My boss just told
    me that we do– and much more risk-taking. And finally, in conclusion– if industry and government
    sneeze, MIT catches cold. Our educational and our
    research programs and partners are changing rapidly as well. If we are preparing
    professionals for a world that is
    changing so rapidly, we better know what’s
    going on out there and prepare our
    students to do this. And finally, our
    willingness to take a step beyond normal academic
    roles is the key point for the next decade. Come on back in
    20 years and let’s see how this
    presentation will look. Thank you very much. LESTER THUROW: About a
    year before the handover in Hong Kong, I was sitting in
    the business lounge of the Hong Kong airport and I was
    basically eavesdropping on two Chinese businessmen. In the first half of
    their conversation, they were boasting to each other
    about how they’d become rich moving back and forth across
    the boundaries between Hong Kong and Wandong and how
    they’d become wealthy men. And they were basically
    describing that part of China as the economic garden of Eden. In the second half of
    their conversation, they were both
    bitterly complaining about having to go to Vancouver
    because the Canadians were basically selling
    passports to Hong Kong. You invest $200,000 $300,000,
    live there for six months, you get your insurance policy,
    you came back to Hong Kong. And they were complaining
    because you can’t make money in Vancouver. Now the question– Vancouver
    is a much richer area than the Hong Kong area. Why is it that people who
    could make a lot of money in Hong Kong saw Vancouver
    as an economic desert? Second puzzle– is
    the last 10 years in the United States
    the best 10 years ever or the worst 10 years ever? We all know the story
    about the best– even corrected for
    inflation, we’ve created more billionaires
    than we’ve ever created in the 10-year period of time. 10 years ago, there were 13
    billionaires in America, today there are 170. We have great show and tells– biotech, the internet,
    the stock market has zoomed up
    faster than it ever has in a 10-year period
    of time, inflation’s zero, unemployment’s low,
    and for the first time in 30 years since Harry Truman,
    we have a government budget surplus. How about the story
    that is the worst decade in American history? In the last 10 years the rate
    of growth of productivity, which is the ultimate wealth– getting something
    by putting less in– has been the slowest growing
    in American history– 0.8% per year. In the decade of the 1960s,
    which was not the best, productivity was growing
    four times that fast– 3.2%. And in fact in the
    Great Depression, productivity grew faster than
    it did in the last 10 years. If you look at total factor
    productivity– which normally we talk about labor
    productivity– but if you look at total factor
    productivity, in the decade total factor productivity
    has been zero. If you look at real
    wages corrected for inflation over the
    last 25 years, 20% of us have done very well. Our real wages are
    up substantially. 60% of us have done very
    badly– our real wages are down about 20% and another
    20% have held even. That’s the worst performance
    in American history. And if you look at the
    median family income, the median family income
    in 1997 is precisely where it was in 1973 after you
    correct for inflation. We’ve never had a
    25-year period of time when there’s been no increase
    in median income and, in fact, it’s worse than
    that, because women have gone to work and work many
    more hours per year in 1997 than they did in 1973. This is the worst decade
    in American history. Or I’d like you to imagine
    that you’re John Akers– head of IBM. It’s 1990. You’ve just had a decade– the decade of the 1980s like
    no firm in human history has ever had. Over that decade,
    you have averaged profits between $8 and
    $9 billion per year. To put that in context, last
    year the two most profitable firms in America
    with almost exactly the same profits
    were Exxon and GE and they both made
    about $8 billion. So over 17 years ago–
    and for 10 years– you made more money than
    the most profitable firms in America make in 1997. You’re the most profitable
    company in human history, the most admired company
    in human history, the best-known brand
    name in human history, and if anybody says, who
    do you want to work for, more people want to work
    for you than anybody else. And in 1990, you have profits
    between $10 and $11 billion. No company has ever
    made that amount of money before that
    and no company’s ever made that amount
    of money since then. And now God comes
    to you like Moses and he says, John, come
    up the mountain with me. I’m going to show you
    the promised land. This year, you’re making
    not quite $11 billion. Next year, 1991, it’s
    going to be zero, the year after that minus-9,
    the year after that, minus-9, the year
    after that, minus-5. And over the next
    four years, you’re going to lose $23
    billion dollars. And no firm in human history has
    ever lost $23 billion dollars. The era of the
    mainframe is over. And now, John, it’s your
    job to go down the mountain and persuade 420,000 employees
    who’ve just had the best year in human history, the
    best decade human history that they’ve got all rip it
    up and do something different. You think you could do that? I don’t think God could do that. There is simply no
    way it can be done. I don’t think everybody is going
    to fall off a cliff the way IBM fell off a
    cliff, but I think everybody is going to
    have an IBM experience. And to drive that
    point home, I’d like to read a list
    of names for you. This is a list of
    names, and it’s the 12 largest industrial
    firms that existed in America on January 1st, 1900– the beginning of the century. Two things interesting
    about the list, but only one is really relevant here. They’re in alphabetical
    order, so I’ll read them. The American Cotton Oil Company,
    the American Steel Company, the American Sugar Refining
    Company, Continental Tobacco, Federal Steel, General Electric,
    National Lead, Pacific Mail, Peoples Gas, Tennessee Coal and
    Iron, US Leather, US Rubber. 10 of those 12 companies
    were natural resource-based companies. But what’s the second
    interesting thing? How many of those
    companies are alive today? One– General Electric. That’s why people write
    books about General Electric. And every one of them
    died for the same reason– including General Electric. General Electric’s laboratories
    invented the transistor one day after the Bell
    Labs independently. General Electric was the
    dominant maker of vacuum tubes. There were five makers of
    vacuum tubes in America. General Electric
    gave the transistor to the vacuum tube division. Guess what the vacuum
    tube division did with it? Spent three years
    proving it wouldn’t work. There were five makers of
    vacuum tubes in America, not one of them ever
    successfully made a transistor or a semiconductor chip. Because, of course,
    the answer is you have to cannibalize
    yourself to save yourself. And who the hell can do that? I’ll make you a prediction–
    even a little bet if you like. If we come back 30 years
    now, Walmart will not be America’s biggest retailer. The other day I
    read in the paper that Walmart had opened up
    an internet electronic store, but had very carefully
    priced everything so it was a little
    bit more expensive in the electronic store than
    it was in its real store– because it’s got
    too much invested in people, land, and buildings. It can’t have a cheap
    electronic store. Because if it did, you’d
    either go to the real stores, look, and then buy
    it electronically, or you wouldn’t go
    to the real stores. And two CEOs of
    Walmart would have to be prepared to lose
    massive amounts of money as they closed down
    this huge operation if Walmart were to be the
    leader in electronic retailing. Can you cannibalize
    yourself to save yourself? The general answer is you can’t. I think if you’re interested in
    the issue of building wealth, you’ve got to think
    about managing some creative tensions. The first creative tension
    is between chaos and order. Too much of either is bad. And let me give you
    an example– take Russia in the last half
    of the 19th century. No society has ever
    been more creative. Think about the writers who
    all existed at the same time. Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy,
    Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol– the list goes on and on and on. You can do the same thing in
    music, painting, anything. And their society is
    about to collapse. Lots of chaos, lots of
    creativity, but not the order to use it. Or think of a different
    historical example of the opposite– suppose a man from Mars came
    to the world in the 1500s– the 14 whatever– 15th century, 1400s. And was told some
    part of the world is about to conquer
    the rest of the world and make it into a colony. What part of the world
    is the conqueror? Obvious answer is China. In the 14th century,
    China had all of the technologies necessary
    to have the Industrial Revolution that
    wasn’t, in fact, going to occur for another 400 years. They had steel in the
    blast furnaces, gunpowder and cannons, paper, movable
    type, printing presses, compasses and rudders. They’d put an armada
    with 200,000 troops on the coast of Africa. Their biggest ships
    were five times the size of Columbus’ ship. And, believe it
    or not, they knew how to drill for natural gas. But the emperor said, order,
    and none of those technologies were ever effectively used. Question is– can you
    manage the tension between order and
    chaos, because both are necessary to create wealth. The second tension
    you have to manage is the tension between
    individual and community. Judy was talking– why the
    hell are we leaders in biotech? The answer is
    somebody in 1960, who was either very
    smart or very lucky in the National Institutes
    of Health in today’s dollars, started putting $2
    or $3 billion a year into what was then
    called biophysics. 25, 30 years later we have
    a big, important industry. But somebody out there in
    society put $60, $70 billion worth of money into the
    research and development of building this industry before
    it became a private industry. But at the same time,
    those brilliant individuals and private companies are
    absolutely necessary to make this a success. And the answer, of
    course, is if you’re thinking about R&D
    that’s going to pay off more than 10 years from
    now, that basically has to be a social responsibility. If you’re thinking
    about R&D that can pay off in less than five
    years in profitable products, that can be a private
    responsibility. And if you’re thinking
    about between 5 and 10, we have to think
    about creative ideas as to how you get
    both of them worked. Third tension you have to
    manage is between investment and consumption. Are you investing the
    right amount in the future? And I think this is one of
    the places where economics is at fault.
    Because of course we teach that the only thing
    that creates value utility is consumption. And you have to ask
    yourself, is that really true or is mankind a beaver? Beavers build dams
    and cut trees when they clearly have enough
    food for the whole winter and they know it. They’re just built to
    build dams and cut trees. That’s what they enjoy doing. And I think the
    answer is human beings are at least partly a beaver. And if in our society we
    throw out the beaver impulse and we become simply
    a consumption society, then we won’t have a future. In the United States,
    social investment in education since
    1976 is down 50%. Investment in new infrastructure
    since the late 1960s is also down 50%. And the private savings rate is
    the lowest in American history. We are perfectly consistent
    in both our private and our public lives. And the answer is, you can’t
    live off the past forever. If you’re not willing to
    invest, you don’t have a future. And, of course, that’s the
    fourth creative tension– one things that makes human
    beings human beings is we have a history of
    present and a future. To the best of our
    knowledge, no other animal has either a past or a future. All they do is have a present. And the problem is if you
    think of our economic system– capitalism– it’s myopic. It can’t make the
    long run investments that it itself needs in research
    and development, education, and infrastructure. And this is going to
    be put into a bad mix. By 2020 or 2025,
    the United States will have a voting majority
    of people over the age of 65. How do you get people who
    are over the age of 65 to vote to spend money to
    make the future better? It’s going to be the big
    question that our society is going to have to answer. The fifth creative tension
    is between competition and cooperation– you need them both. Communism fell because it
    believed in cooperation. The idea was you would build the
    new man or the new woman that wouldn’t be motivated by
    greed and individuality, would do social good
    for the community. It didn’t work, but the
    opposite doesn’t work either. It’s important to remember
    that Darwin borrowed the phrase, survival
    of the fittest, from a 19th century
    British economist by the name of Spencer. Because Spencer believed that
    the only way capitalism could work is if the fit
    drove the economically unfit into extinction– and
    by that, he meant death, starvation. And, of course,
    everybody at that time believed that what was necessary
    to make capitalism successful. And it’s why Marx
    predicted a revolution. It didn’t happen, of
    course, because Bismarck– the great conservative–
    invented public pensions and public healthcare
    and Winston Churchill, when he was chancellor
    of the Exchequer, invented unemployment
    insurance so that individuals don’t starve to death when
    the economy doesn’t want them because they’re too old, too
    sick, or they’re unemployed. Now I think the right way to
    think about creating wealth is you’ve got to remember
    one of the reasons we’re creating
    billionaires so fast today is we’re in the midst of what
    historians 100 years from now are going to call the third
    Industrial Revolution. The first industrial revolution
    was the steam engine end of the 18th beginning,
    of the 19th century. And it’s important to remember
    it really was a revolution. Napoleon marched armies
    around Europe 2,000 years after Julius Caesar, but
    Julius Caesar could actually move an army from point A
    to point B slightly faster than Napoleon– because they both used
    horses and carts and roads were slightly better
    in Roman times than they were in
    Napoleonic times– 2,000 years of history and
    not a single improvement in land transportation. But 50 years after
    Napoleon died, steam trains are already going
    more than 100 miles an hour. 8,000 years of
    agriculture is over and one country,
    Great Britain, has more than half its
    workforce out of agriculture and into industry. The second Industrial Revolution
    is the end of the 19th and the beginning
    of the 20th century and two things happened– electrification, and
    the Germans invented the idea in their
    chemical industry of systematic industrial
    research and development where you push technology forward
    based on scientific principles rather than waiting for the
    inspired tinkerers of Great Britain. And, of course, it
    ended completely Britain’s economic
    dominance in the world because, for whatever reason,
    the British could never shift to the German model a
    systematic, academically-based research and development pushing
    ideas and products forward. But electrification
    changed everything. It didn’t just change
    night into day. Before electrification, the
    most expensive apartment was on the ground floor and you
    put the servants at the top. With electrification,
    you get elevators, and the penthouse was the
    most expensive apartment. You put the servants
    on the bottom, right? Factories– you can
    go up to New Hampshire and you can see the
    steam factories– kilometers long,
    big steam engine at one end, rotor belts,
    everything in a linear line. Took them about 30
    years to figure out that the right answer was not
    to put a big electric motor where there used to
    be a big steam motor, but distributive processing. A lot of little electric
    motors on machine tools so you could organize them
    in very different ways on the factory floors and get a
    lot of productivity out of it. We tend to act like the computer
    is new in terms of price declines and performance
    improvements, but it isn’t. How much in today’s dollars do
    you think the first light bulb cost? More than $1,000. How many light
    bulbs you think you would buy if they cost
    $1,000 a light bulb? Not very many. And the first light
    bulb wasn’t even thought of as a competitor with
    lamp oil for light. The first light bulb was, in
    fact, used on wooden ships. Because wooden
    ships at night have got to have a
    little bit of light. And if you got a
    storm and a lantern, that means a wooden
    ship that burns down. And so the first light bulbs
    were used on wooden ships as a fire prevention device. And if they’d had a catalog
    in that day and age, light bulbs would have been
    listed under fire prevention equipment and not under light. And, of course, that second
    Industrial Revolution produced the first generation
    of American billionaires– Rockefeller, Morgan,
    Carnegie, Mellon, Kodak. Rockefeller, in today’s
    dollars, had about $27 billion. Bill Gates has more– about
    somewhere between $40 and $50– but relative to per capita
    income of that day and age, Rockefeller was six times
    as wealthy as Bill Gates. Now why do I say that we’re in
    the third Industrial Revolution and that’s why we’re
    creating billionaires today? It’s a revolution which
    is not sometimes called the information revolution. I like to call it the era of
    manmade brainpower industries. But it has to do with a set
    of industries that are all changing at the
    same time, which, like electrification, are
    going to change everything and the way everybody
    does everything. The industries I think
    that would be on the list are microelectronics,
    biotechnology, the new telecommunication
    industries, new materials, computers, robotics,
    plus machine tool. And what’s happening
    this time, of course, is in the previous
    revolution we went from local to national economies. This time we’re going from
    national to global economies. And one of the
    differences, of course, is when we move from local
    to national economies, we had national governments. Moving from national
    to global economies without a global government
    creates a problem. What’s the fifth-biggest
    Banking Center in the world? The biggest is New York,
    the second-biggest is Tokyo, the third-biggest is London,
    the fourth-biggest is Frankfurt, and the fifth-biggest is
    the Grand Cayman Islands– 30,000 people. Nobody’s ever been there. It’s a place you bank when
    you don’t want government looking over your shoulder. Taiwan, for example,
    makes it almost 1,000% illegal for Taiwanese firms
    to invest in mainland China, and Taiwanese firms are
    the biggest investors in mainland China– bigger than Japan, bigger
    than the United States, all done through the
    Grand Cayman Islands coming back in
    through Hong Kong. These industries are going to
    change every other industry. In the 1950s when I was a high
    school student in Montana, we had what we hoped was going
    to be a big oil boom which proved to be a minor oil boom. But in the 1950s,
    the oil industry was like the James Dean
    movie, Giant– luck and brawn. Punch a hole in the ground
    and have a 5% probability of hitting oil. You’ve got about 30% of
    the oil out of the ground. And the people who worked as
    roustabouts on the oil rigs were literally illiterate. Last summer, I spent some
    time doing some consulting for Saudi Aramco– the biggest oil
    company in the world. You’ll find three
    supercomputers side by side. They’re doing three and
    four-dimensional acoustical sounding. The hit rate’s 60%, the
    extraction rate’s 80%, horizontal drilling. Norway was supposed to
    be out of oil by now. Instead, it’s the
    second-biggest exporter in the world after Saudi Arabia
    because they can drill oil in water that’s two miles deep. This is now a manmade
    brainpower industry. Still makes oil, but the
    process is so different. It’s a completely new industry. And you can tell stories– and
    we could take a long time to do them– about how many of our
    conventional things are going to change. If you look at at
    electronic retailing, it is very clear that we
    have all the technology necessary to close every
    retail store in the world. And 5,000 years of going to
    your local store may be over. I don’t think it is, because
    people like elbows in the ribs. We’re a social animal. But the big thing in retailing
    is entertainment retailing. You pay 20% more, but
    you have it getting fun. Because if all you want to
    do is buy good stuff cheap, it’s always going to be cheaper
    electronically because you don’t need the expensive people,
    the expensive real estate, and all the things
    that go with it. And if you want to see
    that part of the future, maybe it’s LL Bean– a store in rural Maine
    that now sells $350 million worth of clothes in
    Japan and it doesn’t have a single employee in Japan. There’s a 90% probability if
    you bought an Easter Lily, the Dutch made the money. They didn’t grow
    the Easter Lily, they didn’t sell
    the Easter Lily, but they control the
    logistics system. And 90% of the
    flowers in the world go through the Dutch
    flower auction. And all of the money is in the
    logistics– anybody can grow, anybody can sell, but
    to get an Easter lily? To you on Easter that’s blooming
    on Easter, that’s the trick. And that’s what the
    Dutch know how to do. And these things aren’t going
    to just change economics. The French have coined a term
    called, the ultra power– militarily. A superpower is somebody with
    missiles and nuclear weapons that can blow up the world. An ultra power– and they think
    their only one is the United States– is a power that commands
    the information system– can see everything, can shut
    everybody else’s eyes and ears off. And warfare is
    completely different because you shoot at things over
    the horizon that you can’t see. And it is a difference on public
    television here in Boston, they’ve been replaying the
    battles of World War II. Recently I watched the
    battle of Leyte Gulf. Two giant Japanese
    and American armada just steaming at
    each other and they get within 20
    miles of each other before either side
    knows the other’s there. Today, we know where every
    big ship in the world is within 8 cm at every
    moment in time off the GPS. Remember Peter
    Arnett in Baghdad? Solar cells off the satellites– that device cost
    $500,000 in 1991. Guess what it costs today– recently I got an ad and
    it’s less than $5,000. And if you don’t need the solar
    cells, you can plug it in, you can get it for $2,500. The problem with being
    able to see the world is everybody becomes more
    sensitive to military deaths. Here you’ve got the ultra
    power and eight people get killed in Somalia,
    they’re all professionals, we put our tail between
    our leg and we get out. And we’re not peculiar,
    because there’s a difference between reading
    about 30,000 deaths at Normandy and seeing one soldier die
    in real time on your TV set. The problem in the
    next Persian Gulf War, you’re going to have 1,000 Peter
    Arnetts in your enemy’s capital and you’re going to be bombing
    your own correspondents. Maybe that’s a good thing. Culture– culture
    from now on out is completely different,
    because, historically, culture was older people telling
    younger people what the traditions of their
    society were or are. Today it’s what sells. It jumps right across
    the generations. Recently somebody did a
    study in the United States among teenagers, how
    many minutes per week do you spend talking to
    your mother and father and how many minutes per week do
    you spend watching the TV set? It was 22 minutes per week
    on the mother and father and eight hours on the TV set. Now who do you think has the
    greatest cultural impact? The rest of the world sees
    this as an invasion of American culture, but it isn’t. It’s a brand new culture. There’s somebody in the
    economics profession who has written a book called
    The Winner Take All Society. Pavarotti makes more
    money than all the singers in human history combined. His voice is not better
    than Caruso’s probably, but Caruso was limited just
    singing in the concert hall– 2,000 people, what
    can you charge them? On CDs, Pavarotti can
    sing to the world. And, of course,
    it means there is no market for second-rate
    tenors, third-rate tenors, or fourth-rate tenors. We tend to forget it, but Joe
    DiMaggio and Babe Ruth were not the highest-paid Americans– but Michael Jordan is. Because Babe Ruth was limited
    to how many people can you put in Yankee Stadium. Michael Jordan can play
    basketball for the world on TV and he makes a much bigger
    income relative to everybody else. Now I think the thing you
    have to understand here is what I like to
    call a wealth pyramid. If you think about the pyramid
    being widest at the bottom– the pyramid at the
    bottom here is, are you creating the basic
    knowledge that allows you to create
    the discontinuities that change history? The reason those Chinese can’t
    make any money in Vancouver is very simple– they’re very good
    at looking at what’s happening in the
    developing world and moving it to
    the underdeveloped world in Guangdong. But you get them in
    Vancouver, they’ve got to have a brand new idea
    that nobody in the world’s ever done. And they weren’t
    geared up to do that. In Vancouver, there’s
    nothing obviously missing. You have to think
    up something new. One of the things
    I like to do is– I don’t know, let’s call
    it imaginary history here– counterfactual history. Suppose I’m a historian
    in the year 3000 writing a book about a people
    alive in the year 2000– that’s us. What do you think they’re
    going to say about us? What do we say about
    people in the year 1000? People who, let’s say, were
    alive between 900 and 1100. Name me anything that anybody
    did in that 200-year period of time? We don’t say anything. They didn’t do anything. They’re completely ignored. And maybe we’ll be completely
    ignored, but I doubt it. I think what is going to happen
    is that historian in the year 3000 is going to say,
    these are the people who invented biotechnology. And for the first
    time in human history, plants, animals, and human
    beings are partly manmade. And it’s going to happen. Let’s take human beings. First thing we’re going to do
    is cure genetic diseases, right? But now I’m no longer
    just made by God. Suppose I’ve got a
    son that’s a dwarf– that’s a tragedy. If there’s some technology
    that can make him into a normal sized
    person instead of being three feet tall,
    we should use it, right? So now he’s four feet
    tall, but that’s still kind of a semi-midget, right? It’s a big handicap
    to be four feet tall, let’s make him five feet tall. Now if you’re five feet
    tall, you’re normal, but you’re not a man’s man. I want him to be six
    feet tall, right? Once he’s six feet,
    just another foot he can be an NBA basketball
    player and make millions. You can like it or you hate
    it, but it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen. We’ll first start
    correcting defects and then we’ll make bigger, smarter– suppose you could add 30
    points to the IQ of your kid. Wouldn’t you want to do that? And if you didn’t do it, your
    neighbors are going to do it and your kid’s going
    to be the dumbest kid in the neighborhood. Of course you’re
    going to do that. The second thing on the
    pyramid is human capital. Are we, in fact, educating
    the whole population with the skills necessary to
    participate in the process? And we sometimes look
    at India and we say, they’re doing what economists
    call the enclave strategy. 200 million Indians are
    going to be educated and move into the first world,
    and 800 million Indians are going to be illiterate
    and stay in the third world. One, I don’t think
    it’s going to work, but isn’t that what we’re
    doing in the United States? We’ve got 20%, 30%
    of the population where the greatest thing
    that’s ever happened to them is globalization. I make more income than
    I ever made before. And we’ve got 60%
    of the population where it’s the worst thing
    that ever happened to them– their income’s down
    20% despite the fact that the economy is up 40%. And the answer, of course, has
    to do with their human capital. The third thing on this pyramid
    is entrepreneurial skills. A lot of entrepreneurial
    skills have to do with new technologies,
    but we shouldn’t think that’s the only thing. Think about Starbucks–
    one of Forbes billionaires is the Starbucks founder. It’s genius– he persuaded
    Americans to pay $3 for a cup of coffee when he used
    to pay $0.50, right? That’s why he’s a billionaire. What you have to have as you
    think about entrepreneurialism skills is not just
    the right individuals, you have to have the right
    environment for them. If you compare Europe
    and the United States, for example, the Europeans
    have some problems. And I’ll tell you
    what the problem is– if you take the 25 biggest
    companies in America in 1997 in terms of market
    capitalization, you’ll find that six of
    them didn’t exist in 1960 or were very small– Microsoft, Intel,
    Walmart didn’t exist– Hewlett Packard had less
    than 1,000 employees. If you take the 25 biggest
    companies in Europe in 1997, they were all big in 1960. They have been
    completely unable to grow any new, big companies over
    this 30-year period of time. But it doesn’t have to
    do with they aren’t just as smart as Americans. Fact is, they’re
    probably smarter. They’re better
    educated, certainly. It doesn’t have to
    do with the fact that they’re behind
    in technology because, in some fundamental
    sense, they’re not. The question is,
    have you created the institutions that allow
    those entrepreneurial skills to come out? The next part of
    the pyramid is what I call natural resources
    dash environment. And I hope that 20 or 30
    years from now we don’t think of them as something different. I mentioned to you
    the revolution in oil. One of the problems you’ve got
    is hey, good news thing, right? A few months ago I was down
    at the world offshore oil Congress in Houston, Texas– 36,000 people. And one of the geologists for
    one of the big oil companies came up to me. He said, Lester, we know
    where all the oil the world is going to need for
    the next 100 years is with this new technology. The greatest oil play in
    the world at the moment is under the Caspian
    Sea and there may be more oil in and around
    and under the Caspian Sea than there is in and around
    and under the Persian Gulf. And there’s some signs
    that there’s even a bigger pool of
    oil off the north coast of Siberia and Norway. Traffic congestion–
    here’s a case where you need both social
    innovation plus the technology. London recently did a study
    about how many roads would they have to build to solve
    London’s traffic problem. The answer is you have
    to tear London down. But when I can put a barcode
    in every car and a sensor on every street corner, I can
    do congestion pollution pricing and I can let people buy cars. And, at the same
    time, run a city that’s congestion
    free, pollution free. But it requires
    social organization, because people have to
    start paying for something that they now get free. And the question is, who’s
    going to be good at doing it? Next, going up to the
    peak of the pyramid, is physical capital. And as Americans, we ought
    to think about something– all the evidence shows if you’ve
    got major cities between 1 to 400 miles apart,
    the right way to connect them in terms
    of people is not roads and it’s not planes, it’s
    called high speed rail. 12 countries have
    high speed rail, 16 countries are building
    it, and the United States is not in either category. Now there are either two
    possibilities– they’re dumb or we’re dumb. They’re wasting a
    lot of money or we’re stupidly not spending
    a lot of money and not doing the right things. And despite the train wreck
    in Germany a couple of days ago, the answer is the rails
    saves lives, saves fuel, saves pollution, and is the
    right way to do it. The question is, can you get
    yourself organized to do it? And if you think about
    those parts of the pyramid, at the top you get
    financial wealth created out of those disequilibriums. Think about Bill
    Gates, $50 billion– I bet he’s never saved
    a penny of his income in his entire life. He didn’t get rich
    by saving his money. He got rich by playing
    the disequilibriums as you shift from one
    technology to another. People weren’t dumber in
    the 50s, 60s, and 70s, yet we didn’t create
    the billionaires. We didn’t create
    the billionaires because the environment
    wasn’t right for creating the billionaires. And on financial
    wealth, obviously, one of the things you
    have to worry about is how do you widen
    participation– something Bill Clinton was talking
    about yesterday. Now when you look at
    the whole pyramid, I think the thing you
    have to think about is, do we in the United States
    and in the rest of the world have the concept of what I
    called the builder as opposed to the consumer? Are we interested in building? Can we take joy in building? Can we get utility
    from building? Once again, when I
    was a boy in Montana, there was a railroad–
    no longer exists– called the Great Northern. Mr. Hill built it and the
    train that went across Montana was called the Empire Builder. He thought he was going
    to build a physical empire in the northern part
    of the United States. It never happened. But it was the right idea. Can we have the
    empire-building mentality– not in terms of
    physical empires, but in terms of
    intellectual empires. Hard facts and
    wild imaginations, and a hell of a lot of
    vision, a sense of adventure, and we’ll all be
    economic explorers. Thank you very much. CHUCK VEST: We have
    the real privilege of spending about
    the next 40 minutes really participating in a
    dialogue with everyone here. My understanding is there is a
    mechanism for getting cards out to those of you in
    the audience who would like to ask questions. We’re going to ask that
    you submit them in writing. And then, because
    they don’t trust me with the primary function of
    a person in a role like this, Diana Park is going to
    select questions for me then to deliver to the group. Perhaps while we are waiting
    for that, maybe one of you would like to ask
    one of the others a question to get us moving. Well, they’re out of creativity. They’re going to be in
    the dustbin of history in the first 20 years
    of the next century. Yeah, let’s just take
    one while we’re waiting. AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] CHUCK VEST: Will
    Singapore be able to avoid the problems caused by real
    estate speculation running rampant that some of the
    other countries in that part of the world has run into–
    is that a good summary? TONY K. TAN: Well I think, as
    I said in my speech just now, one of the things
    we’ve been able to do was actually to prevent that
    type of property bubbles which happened in Japan. I think at one stage at
    the height of the property speculation in Japan,
    it was estimated that the market value
    of the property in Tokyo alone was more than that in
    the whole of North America. So obviously that type of
    situation is not sustainable. In Singapore, there
    was a possibility that we could have a safe
    situation because between 1992 and 1996, the price of
    property essentially doubled. And if nothing had
    been done, then we could have the
    same situation that has happened in Malaysia,
    Indonesia, and in Thailand. But the government
    took various steps in order to restrain
    property prices by imposing the amount of credit
    that is available for people to buy property. And I think that
    since then prices have come down by about
    25% but in a gentle way So that they did not damage
    the real economy or our banking system. So if you want to speculate
    in Singapore property, I would say that perhaps
    just wait a year or so. I think that would
    be a good time. CHUCK VEST: Well, the real
    questions are now rolling in. And here’s first one– I think it’s pretty intriguing. How will electronic cash
    affect wealth creation? Lester, you want to
    take a crack at that? LESTER THUROW: That’s one
    of those discontinuities. And see on most of
    these things, it’s going to be sociology
    that determines what we do and not technology. For example, when it comes
    to the cashless electronic society, the United
    States is one of the slowest movers
    in the entire world in that technology. And there’s a very
    simple reason– Americans love to kited checks. You write a check and you
    don’t have the money there and three days
    later, you know you will have money that’s illegal. That’s a crime. How many people have never
    kited a check in this room? And with electronic
    funds transfer, you get an instant debit. And I think we’re not going
    to electronic funds transfer in the United States unless the
    business world– the banks– are willing to say, we’re
    going to do electronically, but we won’t subtract
    the money for three days. Otherwise it’s not
    going to happen. Now if you can make
    it happen, there’s a lot of money to be
    made, because it’s very expensive to
    process all these checks, do all this paper bookkeeping. But you’ve got to look at
    it real sociology as to how people live. And you can’t simply say,
    hey, here’s a technology. It’s a cheaper technology,
    we’ll automatically move to it. Because historically,
    you can point to lots of better
    technologies that were never adopted because of various
    sociological realities out there in the system. And it’s exactly the
    same thing on retailing. Everything is going to be
    sellable electronically, and I think we’re going to
    be very surprised about what people want to
    buy electronically and what they don’t want
    to buy electronically. Like in Boston, it’s supposedly
    already true that about 20% of the cars have some
    electronic involvement. And there’s a very
    simple reason– everybody, when it
    goes to the car dealer, feels cheated because that’s
    the only place we bargain. Basically he’s a
    pro, I’m an amateur. And even when I
    got a good deal, I feel like I should have gotten
    a better deal I’ve been cheated, right? And I’m perfectly willing to pay
    an electronic negotiator $100 to certify that
    I’ve got the lowest price in the metropolitan area. Makes me feel good
    and it’s worth $100. And so on all of these
    things, I think the thing that you need to think about
    is not what’s technologically possible, but what is the
    sociology in combination with the technology going to do? And that’s where the
    people make money– when you can figure out
    both of those things together as opposed to
    just the technology. CHUCK VEST: Here’s a very
    topical and timely question, as opposed to some of
    the longer term ones. And, Judy, maybe you
    can take a shot at this. Dave wants to know if
    it’s when is lunch? The answer to that is 12:30. How will the euro
    affect wealth creation? JUDITH C. LEWENT:
    That’s interesting. As Lester was
    speaking, I was almost going to try to take it in a
    little different direction. Because there’s a theme in there
    in terms of at least reducing to a single currency. And I think there– again, there’s the promise
    of great economic wealth. Because if you can leapfrog in
    terms of trade barriers and tax barriers and other
    economic barriers to really foster a
    stronger European economy, you see great promise. Whether that’s doable because
    of the things that I just ticked off in terms of, again,
    reducing trade barriers, reducing the flow of
    employment, facilitating the flow of employment, as
    well as changing tax regimes becomes extremely
    difficult. It’s sort of a variation on
    Lester’s theme in terms of national priorities
    and national rights. So I think there’s a
    healthy degree of skepticism we have about the promise. But having said that,
    just giving an example for our industry, per se. Leaving aside, again,
    the advantages I think on the currency side in
    terms of maybe just coming up with more– if you pardon the
    expression, tectonic plates because we’re going to
    have just one large currency to deal with. And from a hedging
    perspective, tough to tell with the volatility,
    the correlations are going to be like, but
    that’s a technical problem. From a business
    standpoint, there’s one great appeal and that
    is transparent pricing. I cited a little bit earlier
    the issue of parallel imports and that basically means a
    violation of patent rights where low cost payers
    actually permit product to be shipped across
    national lines to be sold by other parties
    where the beneficiary is not the innovator, but
    the beneficiary is the wholesaler
    or the pharmacist. And what a single
    currency will do is basically force to
    single-pricing and transparency in pricing. So, from that standpoint,
    it may actually be a very beneficial effect
    on innovation and, again, the right kind of
    price competition and the right kind of
    economic environment. LESTER THUROW: Let’s see. Let me make a comment here
    that has to do with R&D. I think one of the
    big payoffs in Europe is going to be on the R&D front. If you drill three
    oil wells a year, you’re in a risky business. If you’re Royal Dutch Shell
    and you drill 7,000 a year, it’s just probabilities. And the same thing is true
    in R&D. Suppose I’m in Spain and I’m a government
    I’ve got an R&D budget. Where do I put my money? If I put a little
    bit and everything, it’s all wasted because it’s
    just such a small amount of money it doesn’t pay off. But if I’m playing this
    game at the European level, I can afford to bet on
    all of the technologies if I do it right. And I think– for example in
    Spain where I’ve looked at it, I’d be willing to argue
    to the Spanish waste every dollar they put it into
    R&D, because they’ve spread it in such a way they
    don’t get any benefits. And if they spent zero,
    they’d be better off, but the right thing
    is not to spend zero. The right thing is if you
    can really coordinate this in a bigger pan-European thing,
    then you can get some real payoff of European R&D
    that’s now hard to get if you’re in one of the
    small countries in Europe– and maybe even Germany. See, I don’t even think
    the United States is quite big enough to play
    every technology these days, but we’re close. And Europe, of course, will
    be a slightly bigger economy and so I think there may be
    some real payoffs in terms of European R&D if
    they can pull this off. CHUCK VEST: Here’s one
    that I’m going to answer– what’s the best way to
    start when you’re young– no capital, but good ideas. Listen very carefully, because
    this is the definitive answer. Be the first person in line
    for this afternoon’s session on entrepreneurism. Seriously, we’re going
    to have a great session this afternoon with
    a lot of people who have been there and done it. And that’s the
    whole intent of it. This one for Tony Tan. From the perspective
    of Singapore, has the present
    government considered the problem of an aging
    population in the 21st century? How do you think
    about that issue? TONY K. TAN: We have. And I think that one of
    the surprising things about Singapore– and it is
    statistically the most rapidly aging country in the world in
    the sense that the demographics of our society are such that
    we will move from a relatively young country because
    Singapore, as I said, was built by immigrants– to become a society with a
    large number of aged people. More than 2/3 within,
    perhaps, 20 to 30 years. And it is going to
    mean enormous changes in the way we regulate our
    economy and run our society. The way in which we
    have tried to deal with this problem of coping
    with an aging society is to look at it as a
    tripartite problem which has to be resolved
    not individually, but through the combined efforts
    of the individual, the family, and society. For the individual,
    a certain amount of savings during his or
    her working life in order to prepare, to
    have the necessary means to sustain oneself
    when you get to 60, 65– and very important to pay
    for your health needs. And also, this truly
    second track and that is to emphasize, again, the
    importance of the family. We regard the
    family in Singapore really as a building
    block of our society. And the family unit is
    still strong in Singapore. Family members feel
    a responsibility to look after one
    another and we feel that this is of great value. Because for an aging
    population, I think in addition to the physical needs, one
    of the grave consequences and the drawbacks which
    many people suffer from is a lack of social
    acceptance by the family. They feel neglected, they feel
    that they are not important and it is here that the
    family unit is very strong. I think the difference
    between a family unit and other types of
    social organizations is that you can
    choose your neighbors, you can choose your friends, but
    you can’t choose your family. I mean, you are
    born with a family and we will regard that as
    something which is worthwhile keeping healthy. Finally, of course, the
    government and society as a whole, we are trying to
    put into place national schemes to provide essential
    safety nets. But that alone will
    not be sufficient. And we do not know whether
    we have the right answers. We have looked at what is
    being done in the United States and in Europe. It is a problem which
    we know will come onto us in 20 to 30 years time. And we believe that, by
    looking at this problem early and trying to devise a type of
    organizations and strategies, that will help us to
    cope with this problem. We hope to be able to deal much
    more effectively than if we were just to neglect it. LESTER THUROW: See here
    is a perfect example of where you get both a
    threat and an opportunity. Because when we’re
    talking about the elderly, we mostly talk about it
    from the respective Tony’s just talked about it–
    the problems of government and how do you pay for
    healthcare and those things. But it’s also a
    tremendous opportunity. If you take those 170
    billionaires in America, five of them own cruise lines. Now what do you think suddenly
    made cruise lines successful? This is a very old technology– Cleopatra had a cruise
    boat 2,000 years ago. The answers the elderly– time, money, you don’t
    move, we move you on, we wheel you on, wheel
    you off, don’t feel good, stay in your state room. The perfect vacation
    for the elderly. And if you lived in
    Boston last summer, you would have seen
    the reality of that because there was
    a cruise boat– it was cruising the Canadian
    maritimes headed to New York and it stopped on an
    emergency basis in Boston because flu epidemic
    had broken out. Now if a flu breaks out and you
    got a bunch of 18-year-olds, no big deal, right? But on this boat, more
    than 70% of the people were over 70 years of age. And if they were
    all going to die, they wanted them to die in
    the Mass General Hospital and not on the boat. It’s made a big market for
    elevators in two-story homes where older people want
    to convert their house into a one-story house. They don’t want to
    move to a new house and so you’ve now got a
    market for a type of elevator where there just wasn’t a
    market for 30 years ago. And so at the same time,
    you’ve got a social problem. Some people have become
    rich basically on this shift in demography. CHUCK VEST: This
    is just a warning– just a Warning to
    the panel that there are several questions
    in here about your views on the Microsoft
    antitrust matters. I’m going to ask it
    before the day’s over. Right now, Dave Marks. How is the problem
    of providing food for the world going to
    fit into our economy and our responsibility? DAVID H. MARKS: Oh,
    I think this is– if you watch, for instance,
    Monsanto and Dupont– Chuck sits on the Dupont board– you’re looking at two
    big what were formerly chemical companies
    now largely moving towards agricultural
    and food companies. Food is going to be one
    of the biggest issues– but, in fact, I don’t
    think it will be in terms of traditional agriculture. What we’re looking at,
    as Lester suggested– man-altered foods– new
    foods that can be developed and with less land resources,
    less water, less energy. And the difficult
    problem will come in the competition between food
    and other types of resources. Are we going to
    use land for food that might be used for solar
    or for transportation purposes, other sorts of things. But, in fact, the big
    fortunes in the future will probably be made
    in the food industry and you’re already seeing
    world industry betting on this. The critical issue in the food
    industry is water availability. And water has never gone through
    the tightening, the squeezing that oil went through when we
    saw the oil shocks in the 70s. We still have people
    growing rice in California. You have no business
    growing rice in California and using six acre feet of
    water per acre to produce that. And you’re going to find
    much more efficient resource use in agriculture to keep
    up with the food supply. However, there is one
    estimate that I’ve seen that came out of the World
    Watch Institute that predicted that if the Chinese move to a
    habit of one six-pack per week of drinking beer that, in fact,
    it would use up all their water resources. I’m sure that we can find
    some alternatives to this. CHUCK VEST: Next question was
    actually addressed to Lester. But I think everybody
    on this panel is in a position to
    have a view on it. And I think, in at least the
    near-term in the United States, it’s a really
    important question. Could you comment on the fact
    that much more innovation is taking place in
    small startup companies than large companies that
    have tremendous resources? And will this trend continue
    or do you foresee a reversal? Judy, you want to
    start it off, actually? JUDITH C. LEWENT: Well, I’ll
    start it off close to home, because– CHUCK VEST: I thought you might. JUDITH C. LEWENT: I might. Looking actually forward
    to the opportunity to maybe editorialize
    on what Lester touched on earlier about the genesis
    of the biotech industry and cannibalization–
    a willingness to cannibalize one’s own. Actually our industry is an
    example of a couple of things, including the fact that
    we’re willing to cannibalize basically because we
    don’t have any choice. We lose a patent protection,
    let’s say, in a 10 to 12-year period and with
    generics– which, by the way, we totally support the
    advent of generics– but we lose basically
    all of our product. So if you want to
    be a going concern, you have to think long-term
    to replenish that product lifecycle. And therefore, the whole part
    of our R&D is regeneration. So in order to be
    active in regeneration, what the pharmaceutical
    industry has been able to do, I think, differently
    than the vacuum tube and the transistor is to adapt,
    to change, and to basically metamorphosed as
    technology has changed. And biotechnology is
    a prime case in point. And actually, again, I may be
    in the wrong economic pew here. But what we’ve seen
    as the models evolved is that biotechnology has
    been an excellent laboratory and an excellent environment
    for a certain approach and a certain
    entrepreneurial approach to capitalize on
    individual ideas. But what it doesn’t
    have is global scale to really develop those
    ideas and maximize the return on those ideas. And what has evolved
    over at least the last several
    decades is a unique kind of symbiotic relationship
    between biotechnology and big pharmaceutical
    companies, because we have the scale and
    there are very few examples of biotech companies
    that have really grown into quasi-full
    fledged big pharma companies. But I think in the end that’s
    not necessarily a bad thing, because we continue
    to have demand and we continue to stimulate
    through capital investment as well as research collaboration
    investment and transfer of scientific knowledge to
    actually increase productivity and foster the biotech
    industry at the same time that the larger scale
    industry serves its purpose and incorporates innovation. So it’s an interesting kind of
    a model that fosters the small, fosters the entrepreneurial,
    and actually has taught us a lot of
    things too that we want to bring into our own labs. Because, again, for us,
    the entrepreneurial spirit is key if we’re
    going to continue to have high R&D productivity,
    which is our lifeblood. So it’s a very
    interesting case in point. CHUCK VEST: Comments on this? TONY K. TAN: Can I make a point? CHUCK VEST: Tony, certainly. TONY K. TAN: I think this
    point about growth coming from small companies rather
    than large companies in our view is a very fundamental one. Because it goes back
    again to how national wealth is created
    in the country. And we feel that
    that essentially is the key question which many
    countries have to decide on. If you look at the
    recent economic crisis in our part of the world,
    which country has actually weathered it best– the answer is Taiwan. Its currency has gone down
    about the same as Singapore. Its stock market
    is still resilient. And I think the key
    difference between Taiwan and the other countries
    in my part of the world is that there is a
    very large number of very small entrepreneurial
    companies in Taiwan, which has managed, I
    think, to build on this knowledge-based
    economy, which all of us are talking about. And with the type of knowledge
    industries which we feel will be dominant in
    the 21st century, I think that a lot of
    opportunities really for young people to build small
    startups because you don’t require a large amount
    of capital or resources which you need to go into oil
    or into larger industries. The problem for a
    country like Singapore is that we have been very
    effective at mobilizing capital and people in
    certain directions. And to move into
    this new strategy now where we have to encourage
    small industries to encourage a more entrepreneurial spirit
    requires a major shift– not only in our
    economy, but also possibly in our social systems. Because you don’t get
    entreprenuership or innovation without some degree of
    messiness in society. And we have been used
    to order in Singapore– which is not bad– but the question is, how
    can we marry the two. I think this is one
    of the tensions which Lester is talking about. And it really is a matter of
    trying out various ways, which we are doing in Singapore. And hopefully,
    come 10 years time, we have had to reinvent the
    Singapore economy several times from a trading hub
    to a technology hub to a financial hub. And now we’ve got to transform
    it into a knowledge hub. It’s not easy and there are
    no guarantees of success in anything which we do. But I think that when one sees
    that the direction is clear and the government
    is prepared to make the necessary transformation,
    the chances of success are probably more. DAVID H. MARKS: It
    seems to me that there’s a strategy in between here. And The Globe reported
    on one recently which is, it’s not just is the
    big industry going to do it or are the small industries– startups going to do it and
    then become big industries? But it seems to me that
    there’s a trend now in which the big industries are
    watching the small startups. And you start off
    in the basement with two friends
    and some savings and 18 months later,
    before you have a product, before you have sold anything
    to anybody, before you have accepted even any
    venture capital, you become an
    instant millionaire as you’re being bought
    out by the big companies and then have a set
    of golden handcuffs to keep you with that
    company for a while. This is the sort of trend
    that we’re seeing now– not taking it all the
    way but, in fact– and the big companies not
    keeping their big research portfolios and big
    research laboratories, but improving their
    antennas so that they can watch the new emerging
    technologies come out and pluck them before they’re
    too expensive to write. CHUCK VEST: This
    next question I’d like to encourage some sort
    of quick, succinct answers. It’s, again, rather
    topical and it’s a question that gets asked
    with great regularity in every boardroom in America. Is the increasing
    use of stock options in lieu of salary a good or bad
    thing for companies, workers, investors, and the nation? Anybody want to give a
    quick answer to that? JUDITH C. LEWENT: I’ll start. CHUCK VEST: Judy. JUDITH C. LEWENT: Yes and no. CHUCK VEST: By the
    way, it says, and why? JUDITH C. LEWENT: Oh. CHUCK VEST: Good MIT. JUDITH C. LEWENT: I thought
    you wanted a succinct answer. No we’ve actually been one of
    the companies on the forefront of going deep and broad in terms
    of the use of stock options judiciously. And I say that for the
    following reasons– I think the advantages– I do believe strongly you
    align the employees’ interests with the shareholders’
    interests and that’s a good thing for
    everything that you want– productivity and anything else. The counterbalance
    is one has to be very cognizant about
    the fact that these are expensive compensation
    tools and accounting standards
    notwithstanding, there is a real cost to using options. And I think companies like
    Merck have a pretty acute sense of understanding
    how to value those so that we can look at a
    total compensation package and make sure that we are
    appropriately compensating people and know what the
    value of options are. But in that scheme, I
    think options have a very, very positive effect in
    terms of aligning employees– particularly long-term– with the objectives
    of the company. CHUCK VEST: I’m particularly
    interested in this topic because I’m thinking of
    moving to stock options at MIT in lieu of salary. DAVID H. MARKS:
    I’ll take five, sir. CHUCK VEST: Here’s,
    again, one that is pretty tough, because we can
    spend hours and hours and hours on it. But it’s addressed to Lester. Given your vision, what should
    primary and secondary education be like and how should MIT’s
    undergraduate education change? In 20 words or less. LESTER THUROW: I think this
    is one of those cases– you know, if you look at the
    American secondary school system– or the total school system– the thing to remember
    is we’re simultaneously the world’s best and the world’s
    worst all at the same time. At age 18 we’re all
    behind– even if you’ve got the highest IQ in
    America, none of us could pass the
    French baccalaureate. None of us could pass
    the German Abitur. None of us could pass the
    Korean or the Japanese exam. But then we go to college
    and we work a little harder than the rest of the world
    and we kind of catch up because you go to the
    University of Tokyo, it’s sandbox for four years. And so by time you’re
    age 22, we’ve caught up. And then 15% to 20% of us go
    to graduate school and most of the rest of the
    world, they don’t even have graduate schools. What they call a
    doctorate in Germany is kind of the equivalent of
    a master’s degree in America. So 15%, 20% of us at the
    end up being the best educated in the world. On the other hand, if you take–
    we got 25% of young Americans who don’t finish high school. That’s third world, right? It isn’t a very
    tough high school and they don’t even get out
    of that very easy high school. And I think one of the
    issues is how do you really make sure that you’re delivering
    some education to the bottom? Now we know how to do that. We can do it by simply
    looking at the countries who do it well. You’ve got to put some resources
    there, some focus there, and some reorganization. It’ll never happen as long as
    you have local school boards. How do you flunk
    your neighbor’s kid and get elected to
    the school board? You don’t, right? School boards won’t
    set standards, it’s just that simple. But on the other
    hand, school boards are Thomas Jefferson, right? It’s very hard to reject
    local school boards. So you need some
    changes in organization. Now I think one of the
    things you were talking about is a more entrepreneurial
    environment and those can be
    created over time. MIT’s proud of
    its history and it should be proud of its history. But I think the
    fact of the matter is MIT today is more
    entrepreneurial than it was 15 years ago and a
    whole variety of things have changed that. I’ll just give you a
    couple of examples– I’d love to take
    credit for it, but it wasn’t due to myself at all. When Jerry Wilson was
    dean of engineering and I was dean of
    management, some students came to us from
    engineering and management and said, how would each of
    you guys like to put up $5,000 and we’ll have a $10,000
    competition for the best business plan? I’d love to tell you we
    thought that was a good idea, but I think the
    answer is we gave them the $10,000 because
    it was easier to give them the $10,000
    than explain why we were not going to give them the $10,000. Well then later on,
    I meet a business man who’s willing to up it to a
    $50,000 competition, which was held here in April. Now it’s a big event. You got a lot of students
    who are thinking about this. Some of them go into
    business immediately, some go into business later. But, see, I think one of the
    things you have to understand here is a lot of
    sociology– here, again, at a national level
    plays a difference. If you start up a new
    high tech company, eight out of 10 times
    you’re going to go broke– or go out of business. Not necessarily broke,
    but go out of business. Now your company’s failed
    and you’ve got to get a job. So you’ve got to
    put on your CV– Lester Thurow, started
    a company, went broke. Now does that make it easier
    or harder for me to get a job? The great thing about
    Silicon Valley or route 128 is probably going
    to make it easier. People are going to say he’s
    got energy, he’s aggressive, he’s got good ideas. I know that eight out of 10 fail
    for no particularly bad reason on a personal level. I’d love to hire that guy. We’ve had some of
    our Japanese students who get the entrepreneurial
    bug and go back to Japan. They set up a company and
    fail and what happens? They’re branded for
    the rest of their life across their forehead– failure. They never again get a good job. You can’t afford to
    be entrepreneurial in that kind of an
    environment in Japan, because the risks are too high. And the question is, do
    you have the kind of– you can get people
    taking too many risks. But here, again, it’s
    one of those tensions that you have to
    think about socially. It should be risky to
    set up a new business, but it shouldn’t be
    the kind of thing that’s the equivalent of
    economic suicide if you try. And so I think these things
    over reasonably short periods of time can change. Because I will confess– next fall I will have
    been here 30 years. And this is a more
    entrepreneurial today than when I came 30 years ago. CHUCK VEST: I’m going to
    read two questions that were independently
    submitted– you’ll see why and then turn the whole
    panel loose on them. One questioner asked– what
    should we or our government do to improve our
    transportation infrastructure? That is speed is
    the measurement of– I’m sorry, the speed of the
    movement of people and goods within and between cities. And the second member asked
    Dr. Tan specifically– the initial spark
    for Singapore’s rise after independence was a massive
    growth of infrastructure. Can you comment on
    how the investment capital for this undertaking
    was raised and successfully managed? Maybe we could
    start with Dr. Tan, then ask the somewhat
    broader infrastructure question, including
    transportation in the US. TONY K. TAN: I think
    the short answer to that is through
    national savings. What we did in Singapore
    was to essentially start a fund called the
    Central Provident Fund to which every employee
    contributed a set amount of his salary every month. It’s a compulsory fund. And this is matched by a similar
    contribution from the employer. And this was put into
    a retirement fund where the employee,
    when he retires at 65, could draw on it
    to defray expenses during his or her old age. But in the meantime, of course,
    these funds were available and the government was
    able to lend these funds to various statutory boards. And we used them to
    build housing boards. And the other main
    component was that we were fortunate to have a period
    of very rapid economic growth, because world trade was
    conducive to growth. At the time, it was expanding
    at more than 10% a year. And because the
    economy was doing well, this created a
    great deal of wealth not only in the
    corporate sector, but also in individuals. And this provided the
    necessary amount of finance for Singapore to be able
    to build roads, apartments, airports, and seaports without
    having to borrow externally. Which of course, is a
    very fortunate thing– in view of the collapse
    of regional currencies in the last 12 months. I hope that answers
    the question. CHUCK VEST: Other comments
    in generally, Dave. DAVID H. MARKS: I think that
    what the American government should do is– if it really wants
    to be successful– is to do the exact
    opposite of what it’s presently doing right now. If Lester’s
    historian of the 3000 comes back and looks at this
    last part of the 20th century and asks, what was the greatest
    impact on American society, it will probably be the
    interstate highway system– the national defense
    highway system– which was– Eisenhower rode
    on the Autobahn in ’52, thought it would be great if
    we could move military vehicles around the country. The car manufacturers and the
    auto manufacturers thought this would be a good idea and now we
    have the wonderful interstate system, which has led to
    the demise of the railroads to people with cheap gasoline
    being allowed to live anywhere– to off ramps on the
    interstate system no matter whether you’re in Kansas or
    California or New York that look exactly identical and a
    dispersion of people around the country dependent upon the
    automobile– cheap automobiles, cheap gas– who can now not be reached
    by public transportation. It also led to the demise of
    the inner city and to the paving over most of the downtowns. Now this was government policy– government policy, cheap
    gas, government policy, cheap roads that would
    come out of the tax funds. It doesn’t have to be this way. And simply a more
    relevant policy about what the price of energy
    should be for transportation would singularly
    change what is going on here along with
    reinvestments in the type of logistical infrastructure
    that we had before World War II or even after World War II in
    terms of public transportation and the ability
    to move freight– not in trucks, but in
    other types of vehicles. A third area may well be the way
    that information technologies will, in fact, begin to cut
    into this market for the need to move goods and
    services great distances, but allow them to produce more
    locally, assembled more locally and using information
    technologies. CHUCK VEST: Here’s
    a question submitted by Lester Thurow’s publisher. Lester, what do you think the
    fourth revolution will be? LESTER THUROW: Well, the
    thing to understand here is if you take these
    breakthrough technologies, the people who
    invent them usually don’t have a clue how
    they’re going to be used. The steam engine was
    invented because they had reached the limits of
    conventional mining in Europe and they had to have
    a way to get water out of the bottom of the mines. And that need was what led
    to the invention of the steam engine. Now of course we use the
    steam engine to pump water out of mines, but that’s
    not what it did. It created the
    transportation revolution where you went from the horse to
    the train and all of a sudden, you could go much faster. I think you’re going to see
    the same thing at the internet. Now the thing you remember
    about the railroads– and this comes back to this
    business– you both have to have the private
    and the public sector involved. Every railroad east of
    the Mississippi River was built with private money. Every railroad west of
    the Mississippi River was built with public money. Why? The answer is if
    you’re connecting pre-existing economic nodes
    like Chicago and New York, private industry can
    very profitably do that and they should do that. If you’re opening up
    brand new territory– the west of the United States– Los Angeles didn’t
    exist, San Francisco existed, but was very small– then the time lag
    before you can make the money is so big that you
    have to have a heavy government involvement. And so you see that
    in the internet. For the first 20 years,
    it’s the Defense Department. For the next 10 years, it’s the
    National Science Foundation. Now it’s eminently supportable
    as a private transportation medium. And I think it’s going
    to change lots of things. And so here, again,
    the question is, do you have the right mix as opposed
    to being all one or the other? And you know here– it may very well–
    how much are we going to travel in the future? Well, globalization will
    make us travel more, electronic travel
    make us travel less. We don’t know which way
    that’s going to come out, but it’s already
    true in my life. About 10% of the things I
    used to go to physically, I now go to electronically. And here again it’s going
    to be more of the sociology. And I think the thing that where
    it makes a difference is people my age say something
    that isn’t true. What we say is, well,
    that’s a nice trick, but you’ll never sign a
    business deal that way. Our kids will sign a
    business deal that way, because it to them it’ll
    feel perfectly comfortable. They’ve used it their entire
    lives, it’s perfectly natural. You don’t have to have your
    wife in the same room with you. You can hook up on the video,
    and it’s all the same, right? There’s only one thing you
    can’t do electronically. CHUCK VEST: Well, I
    promised I would ask it, because I think it’s been
    posed by three or four different people here. So here it is– will breaking up
    Microsoft and Intel help ingenuity and innovation? LESTER THUROW: You’re
    addressing that question. CHUCK VEST: Judy,
    you want to start it? JUDITH C. LEWENT: No. CHUCK VEST: Judy doesn’t
    want to start it. Dave, do you? DAVID H. MARKS:
    Don’t start with me. CHUCK VEST: Tony? Lester. LESTER THUROW: The problem
    is that it makes sense to use one standard, even
    if it isn’t the best. Because for example,
    if you take Microsoft, it’s got a lot of competition. Personal computers are only
    about 8% of the computer market and a lot of operating systems
    for non-personal computers. Even on a personal
    computer, there are half a dozen
    operating systems. Some of them clearly
    better– like Apple’s. But the fact of the matter is– the fact of the matter
    is it makes sense for us all to use the
    same standard even if it isn’t the best. It’s like the typewriter
    keyboard, which is a rather
    inefficient keyboard, but it makes sense for us all
    to learn the same typewriter keyboard. And I think the problem
    is if you broke up Microsoft and succeeded
    in creating confusion, we just– it might
    not be Microsoft, it might be some other
    company– we’ll all focus in on one because it
    makes sense for us all to have a technology that we can
    use even if it isn’t the best. And I think the other
    thing that’s happening is this is an area where
    technology is moving so fast, it’s not obvious that
    an antitrust case, which takes at least 20
    years to settle, can solve this kind of fast,
    fast moving technology. So I’m not a big believer
    that the Justice Department is going to solve a problem or
    that there is a problem here. Because place a little bet– suppose you came back 30 years
    from now– will Microsoft– there is no antitrust
    case, will Microsoft have its current monopoly? I think it’s very unlikely. Bill Gates almost blew
    it on the internet. He was at MIT about a
    year before he switched, saying the most negative
    things about the internet you can imagine. And if he’d been two years later
    before he made his discovery that it’s, in
    fact, a good thing, Microsoft would not have
    the position it has today. And it’s hard to make that kind
    of a transition when you’re 41. It’s impossible when you’re 61. And I just don’t believe– I think technology is
    moving in such a way that it’s virtually impossible
    for somebody like Microsoft to keep a lock on it. Remember, they don’t
    have the best stuff, it’s just that we
    all have an incentive to use the same system, even
    if it isn’t the best system because that’s the most
    efficient thing to do. And we’re going to do
    that no matter what the Justice Department does. And so if you
    break up Microsoft, there’ll be somebody else
    who’ll become the new Microsoft and we’ll all use their personal
    computer operating system because it makes sense. CHUCK VEST: Thank you. Now I suggest in closing
    that since we believe very deeply in equal
    opportunity around here, that you folks can go this
    afternoon and ask Bob Metcalf the same question. If you didn’t like Lester’s
    answer, you can take Bob’s. We’re a little
    past time and we’re going to now adjourn
    and go across the campus to have lunch together. However, in doing that, I’d
    like to throw two questions out for you to think about and
    suggest that, rather than panel questions, these
    might be questions that could stimulate some
    conversation around your lunch tables today. There are two of them– one– how can we as
    MIT alumni and alumnae ensure that all Americans
    at every socioeconomic level are included in the developing
    third Industrial Revolution? And the second question,
    which, in some sense, is related to this– there is only one
    woman on this panel. What do you think will happen
    to the traditional roles of men and women in the years ahead? So if that doesn’t give
    you enough conversation to carry you through until
    the formal program, I quit. Thank you very much and
    thanks to our panel.

    Cetacean Ops – This is Only a Test 513 – 8/15/19
    Articles, Blog

    Cetacean Ops – This is Only a Test 513 – 8/15/19

    August 20, 2019


    this week’s episode of this and only a
    test is made possible with support from nitsa do you think it’s okay to drive
    stoned well the truth is your reaction times slowed way down when you’re high
    you not only put yourself in danger but everyone around you so stop kidding
    yourself it’s not okay to drive high if you’ve been using marijuana in any form
    do not get behind the wheel if you feel different you drive different drive high
    get a DUI for Thursday August 15th 2019 welcome to this is only a test the
    official podcast of tested hello and welcome to the test podcast
    this week I’m norm and we have our caffeinated crew of podcast regular
    getting their left it’s a big TV ha ha ha ha ha if you’re watching the video
    they may be I’m not covering as much now I know oh that is a fantastic idea
    you’ve not been introduced yet you’re not allowed to talk but you out there
    what should our name of our TV be that’s up to you please place your suggestions
    in the comments Jeremy Williams is Sam watching the TV with me
    the monthly movie how you doing Jerry I’m fine how are you norm I’m
    caffeinated are you caffeinated I’m getting there ok I’m off sugar this
    week so I’m going straight black with some of your office cold brew why would
    you do that to yourself like would you be honest trying to be healthy for a
    couple weeks ah do you not use arable hey sugar
    substitutes my mood has suffered my whole family agrees with me too Oh No
    Wow I’ll see if the listeners agree with you as well and then of course you heard
    him earlier Kishore horik sure how you doing sugar is the spice of life or at
    least anything that activates the sugar receptors in that tongue because you
    know fake sugar also works for some people
    I’m doing great norm thanks for asking I’m highly caffeinated there you go all
    right you got your caffeinated beverages next to you so we took your advice out
    there and if you watch the podcast because you can listen to it or you can
    watch it on YouTube oh did they say I didn’t know that people pointed out that
    while we do have a new TV in the podcast room which we’re going to use
    judiciously and we’re gonna experiment with you know we want to figure out the
    best way to use it we might use it in the future to have guests on for some
    type of Skype conversation we’re definitely gonna use it to play some
    videos or that we’re referencing but not you know rely solely on it because we
    are an audio podcast as well but last week we had a position in the room where
    I was blocking half of the TVs so we’ve changed the camera position hopefully
    it’s a little better this week and Koosh or is
    that is running the V part of a V Jeremy you won the a I’m on the a but not for
    the TV no strictly we’re not getting any a from TV right now we’re TV I mean this
    bike isn’t gonna turn into a tank ball podcast soon Oh with me controlling you
    know I got a problem with it running the whole time in the background I play the
    first time and this is a tank ball is a game that Jeremy and Sean worked on with
    Mike Micah over at other ocean and you can play it on mixer I played for the
    first time no did you well it’s technically a second time but the first
    time I played was like the first stream you ever did when did you play recently
    I played like two days ago and I got creamed Wow my games hard’ on the
    keyboard so we need to hook up a control were you playing with the tank controls
    because there’s two ways to play you can play with arrow keys to drive around you
    know sort of a user friendly mode but then you can do like I and K and E and D
    in order to like do with tank mode where you like I was in tank mode left and
    right and spinning I feel like 1000 no easy mode I want tank mode right on it’s
    called tank ball tank mode works better with a little bit of latency like for
    some reason when I do the tank mode I feel like the latency should be there as
    you would be you’re driving a tank the responsiveness interesting yeah in my
    lease my brain I’m using WASD and it just the arrow keys the lanes he bothers
    me a lot more no then then with the tank mode yeah we’d like no latency that
    would be the best option yeah but not very difficult yes the fact that we’re
    like around a second we’re pretty happy with that that’s that’s in the old
    that’s twice as long as in the old dial-up days the thought I was gonna
    have about 400 milliseconds yeah latency 200 if you’re real lucky local server we
    were trying to do the cameras that the quadcopters used the RF cameras yeah
    there are almost no latency yeah right super analog but when we put forward
    those in one room interference galore so you don’t even talking about and we can
    dive in this later but you’re not even talking about the latency from oh no I
    am too people like for people it’s about a second I think I mean it depends where
    you are in the world you felt a little less than a second but yeah good like on
    on that level that’s the spirit right right yeah closing those pipes
    anything you guys did fun over this weekend we’re in in the middle of a heat
    wave here in San Francisco cosplay prep I have two cons coming up
    Silicon Valley this weekend and two weeks to Dragon Con oh my gosh I did my
    homework I watched the boys Oh what why is that
    not in our show notes I I can’t say I watched all of it because I only watched
    the first four episodes but I still feel like that’s quite a commitment on my
    part that’s got to be half of them it is half exactly I’m not so sure like you
    guys like you know it’s not that greatest show it’s okay but it’s gone
    it’s loaded with one-dimensional characters like the main bad guys like
    completely one-dimensional have you haven’t gotten to the ad no I have it
    no I but I’ve watched four hours of it I think I should have an idea there are
    perplex you don’t think Huey has complexity there’s there’s a lot of the
    one you’re supposed to relate to there’s a lot of things in there that are just
    like that’s like they cross a line there’s kids on planes who are terrified
    of flying we warned you warned you we described that scene specifically
    there’s two scenes like that oh they’re more than there are more
    later on in the early episodes a show and and as I did say it is not even
    doesn’t push the boundaries as much as some of the more repulsive stuff and it
    happens in the comics so okay they even held back by a significant amount I
    think for for the TV show but it yes it does push a lot of boundaries I don’t
    know if you want say it crosses them I’ll say that they the showrunner has
    talked about scenes specific they had to cut because it did cross lines that even
    Amazon was not comfortable with is that right yeah
    and did they say what those things were yes I don’t want to describe them okay
    it does involve cuz it would cross a lot we cross a lot I see even even
    describing it on the podcast here yeah and there’s a lot of sexual harassment
    installed against women they did change so that is in the comic books for sure
    it’s one of the plot lines but they embrace the addressing of that and the
    ramifications of that in the show as they were making a show because of me –
    popping ups they felt like you know that there was a right moment
    so you put that head on I well maybe I needed to keep watching I think I think
    you do I I think I’m gonna say for your benefit yeah based on your reaction in
    the first four episodes I think you should stop
    given that I’m on a flight tomorrow if there’s any more like flight disasters I
    don’t think I want to watch it yes it’s not it’s not gonna be a show you’re
    gonna want to watch on a plane at least that episode yeah I do want to make a
    correction I had misspoken last week the artist so the the boys the comic is
    creation of Garth Ennis and the artist is Derek Robertson and I said Robert
    derrickson because I had Scott Derrickson record of dr. strange in the
    head so I won’t make that make a culpa I watched glow season 3 which went all
    the way through yeah it’s ten episodes goes right half
    an hour episodes eats 40 minutes whatever and it’s I think the best show
    on Netflix the best show they’re making right now and I really hope it gets a
    season four whoa yeah I like glow tell me tell me a Netflix original one that
    they have homegrown not just licensed the rights you I know a lot be
    recommending dark as a science-fiction show that’s a German show that Netflix
    is producing and that’s supposed to be very heady it supposed to be like if you
    like the 20 runs of Westworld kid friends from the 80s in in the stranger
    things so really good point stranger things and glow both kind of set in the
    80s I think close characters are more developed I think I like glow more and
    stranger things that’s love stranger things I love season 3 you know I’m not
    saying it’s better but I did check out another show on Netflix called a typical
    teen time soon and it’s about an autistic kid and his family and his
    social life and it’s it’s a it’s a comedy but before we turned it on my 12
    year old said so hold up hold on what are the ground rules here yeah if I just
    read the description there’s an autistic kid in this am I allowed to laugh at it
    oh and I said of course it’s comedy and it’s well worth watching it’s like
    Michael J Fox now dressing full on the Parkinson’s when he was in curtain 2 Z
    Azam and when the heat of that short live ABC show afterward right plus I say
    have you heard of I know not in pop culture yet we solve our top
    story talk about but the one other Netflix slang because I do our heart
    wholeheartedly recommend glo-bo uh do you either if you watch the oh no I
    watched the first season but wasn’t there some news about the OVA well they
    all was cancelled yeah it was cancelled after two seasons there’s a very
    passionate fan base that wants to save it and they’ve gone with the hashtags
    and the the trending stories but maybe I’ll save the story for for pop culture
    because it’s even elevated beyond that now there are conspiracy theories this
    is the week for conspiracy theory ah yeah we’re not gonna talk about no we’re
    not gonna talk about on the price this is the week for them yeah I’ll talk
    about the one on pop culture anyway let’s get to our top story this week so our top story
    this week is probably top starter from last week but the event happened either
    as you were recording a podcast or right after we recorded the podcast and that’s
    Samsung’s big second annual product launch they do – every year one for the
    Galaxy line of phones when it’s in this springtime in the summer / fall they
    announced their new note phones so we have a note 10 note has bounced back
    after the disaster of the note 7 after the exploding phone’s burning batteries
    we’ve made it to note X note 10 two sizes get the note 10 they didn’t know
    did they know ok it’s the note 10 note 10 isn’t really a note it’s like the
    smaller version it’s smaller than the note 9 so it’s kind of a streamline
    thing the thing that’s the same as the note 10 plus is the same size as the
    note 9 so it’s this kind of weird dichotomy they made two sizes but really
    the note 10 is shrunk down it’s the note and the Galaxy phones have always been
    an interesting thing for Samsung because there are fans of the note phones for
    sure and you have to use two different product lines and there are two
    different form factors a slightly different allows them to different ID
    things but the note has always been the vice that you get if you were using
    Samsung’s gear VR headset it was the the big one the big screen obviously has
    their stylus built in the s-pen it was the one that you always were able to put
    expandable storage and removal of batteries and but a lot of those things
    going away yeah I mean the s-pen is still there I mean if they got rid of
    the stylus I think this phone would die because I think that’s the number one
    thing the hardcore fan base is all about but it’s always been about
    top-of-the-line internals for an Android phone do you feel like that’s still the
    case I mean it still has like it’s like an insane amount of memory I think it’s
    like 256 gigs which is high for the base model compared to other phones it’s 12
    gigs of ram on the note 10 plus there’s a 5g version of it that’s apparently
    shipping who knows what that means the bigger body being
    slightly bigger batteries and what you find the Galaxy phones there is still
    microSD but this year also no headphone jack headphone jack is gone people care
    I don’t think people care I care you know I do I do really still care I do
    think people care what is the problem with these people some people can that’s
    like you can’t do both with a headphone jack I mean clearly you can yes love
    shown that you can’t but from a business perspective no you can’t from a business
    or fine but so why are we in favor of it I mean having this ship sailed at this
    point like what do we what do we find out here hey I didn’t bring it up would
    you pay more for a headphone jack $50 more like this stupid question I
    shouldn’t have to pay more this your headphones on their use all the wires
    that you want right yeah the asymmetry that a headphone jack
    brings and why do I need to pay more so that their business model makes sense
    yes this is the stupidest argument it is so dumb but would you know about a
    principle look whatever I I’d have an iPhone without a headphone jack I’m
    living I’m still alive it sucks true but I think I do the group for sure I think
    the ship has mostly sailed I think Bluetooth is good enough that most
    people are fine using bluetooth headsets and unless you’re on the super high-end
    high-end stuff and and adapters and adapters of course can work from usb C
    or lightning the case of Apple will work it’s not ideal
    I also wish it was there but I think I think we’re all resins that world where
    you’re a traveler make phones Apple suit and Ray not only get to mature I mean
    that’s how you know last week I speculate like we talked about some of
    the apples earnings stuff and so much money they had made was from their
    wearables from the watches and the air pods and I was like how you know I think
    30 million people have air pots now and that’s out of like 900 million people
    who have iPhones so there’s definitely a lot of room to grow even if they get to
    one out of every ten people who have an iPhone by air pods
    these $200 accessories for phone because there is no headphone jack that’s
    tripling the amount of money the Apple is making
    which is you know increasingly a big part bigger and bigger part of their
    business but my question was how do you how do you sustain that right once all
    the school kids have air pods is their need to buy air pod next generation air
    pod like I was okay for the first gen I don’t need to buy the second gen what’s
    gonna get me to buy the third gen and I think it’s gonna be the battery I think
    the battery being consumable and using it day in and day out and need to
    replace that battery that’s what’s gonna force people to have to re-up on their
    air pods so you make life worse and then make it slightly better and more
    expensive and then you got a selling point and then you gotta say now that’s
    a business model other things announced at the Samsung event there are some
    updates to their Dec software this is the thing that allows you to plug the
    phones into a computer and basically run run the version of the OS there and also
    a galaxy book s I think this looks interesting I think when you compare it
    to what do we add surface six right yeah this galaxy book s is I think a thousand
    bucks which is a little cheaper than the surface pro six it’s super thin
    I think it’s thinner than the surface pro six and it apparently has 23 hours
    of battery life so yeah form factor for sure this is essentially their their
    attack on Chromebooks and running in partner in heavy partnership with
    Windows in fact Satya Nadella a CEO of Windows and Microsoft was there at the
    event which really shows a huge strong tie because it wasn’t just an Android
    phone event became a Windows event as well and this is a Windows 10 laptop
    running on an ARM chip on a Qualcomm HDX ARM processor that’s in a samsung
    designed laptops and it’s running full fledged Windows 10 it’s running yes full
    fledged Windows 10 on arm which isn’t new and there are performance trade-offs
    and you know this is a feature we’re gonna see this with MacBooks in a couple
    years right you said that probably two years ago
    yeah and I think it’s gonna be a great secondary laptop for a lot of people who
    are in that get for a travel laptop who runs the
    people who are looking to market basically in the market for a Chromebook
    because Google’s out of that game now I don’t know a thousand bucks is probably
    too much for a secondary notebook that’s what’s it’s but but I do like the super
    thin design I think we got away from those and this is you know at least a
    nod to return I’ve really struggle to imagine someone buying this as their
    primary laptop maybe I mean if you had like some like mostly Chromebook
    functionality maybe this is powerful enough to do it it’s like it’s like a
    Martha Stewart came out with with the was bought the MacBook Air right then
    that was her dream laptop right it was expensive but it was the form factor was
    great and it was underpowered this feels like Samsung and Microsoft’s MacBook Air
    super thin long battery life if you’re just gonna be watching a video or
    listening to music using cloud apps using cloud apps even though it runs
    Windows and using some local apps just maybe spreadsheets but if you’re doing
    any type of real productivity I doubt this is gonna be your even graphic
    design workhorse no of course not one thing I wanted to back up and ask about
    the phones we are now getting four cameras as standard yeah like we’re
    seeing that with the notes there’s a telephoto lens there’s a standard main
    camera and there’s one other one on the back of your wide-angle I think and then
    the selfie front facing is that just gonna be how it is now we’re gonna see
    four cameras on every phone and and maybe more as time goes on until they’re
    I mean it’s a physics problem what’s the type of we’ll get to that physics
    problem later yeah with the volume you have in the camera and that’s why
    there’s the bump on on so’ming the backs of these phones now that’s get people
    automates the fact that you’re you can only get as big that big of a sensor
    with that type of lens and the only way to get a wider range is to use some
    computer vision and computational photography and combine different
    sensors and different lens arrangements which we’ve seen already I mean
    doesn’t on every iPhone big iPhone since the 7 this is just continuing the story
    that I think we’ve been saying for a long time like these are commodity
    devices now yeah I do think the note is in a weird place I’d love to hear of
    people who love the note because they use the s-pen I think even Samsung knows
    a significant portion of people who buy the note
    don’t use the pen don’t use the stylus does it mount to the phone is it’s a
    slot oh it’s always has a slot belt in a slot that would also presumably don’t
    say it because birth some type of other hey David more lottery in the space they
    said when they removed that thing that we’re not allowed to talk about it $1300
    phone that’s the new I mean if you’re asking about new realities and and
    people been expecting phones of cameras I think new more so as a new reality or
    higher and higher priced phones and even though there is a justification that
    your phone is for many people the primary computing device if you look at
    hours on phones versus hours on any other type of entertainment or computer
    device the phone probably blows that away it’s still expensive yeah and a
    thousand dollars for phone I think only makes sense if you’re buying a phone
    every let’s say four to five years not every other year anything else in the
    Samsung event want to talk about I’ve got that other way out of the way all
    right hit that button okay can I talk about the oh uh now how
    do you spell it the Oh a it’s I’m gonna go in a minor
    spoiler territory he has a good mystery to set up the first season there is it’s
    it’s Jason Isaacs and I am the the lead actress I don’t want to get this wrong
    but it’s written Marling that’s right definitely a kind of a supernatural
    science mystery that goes on and I will go into light spoilers the Oh a stands
    for the original angel although I don’t think religious elements are a huge part
    of it but the bigger thing is they were exploring what it means for this
    character to jump between worlds and dimensions you can jump had five minutes
    if you are let’s say like three minutes if you don’t want to get into these
    spoilers and so you have this character who’s running away from this the villain
    who’s played by Jason Isaacs who was Laura
    Lorca on a start discovering for season one and you know just like that
    character which out between the dimensions this character also they also
    jump between dimensions and one of the things that happen that big twist here
    comes at the end of season two the cliffhanger that ended on is as she’s
    escaping him as her she and her friends are jumping with a dimension they end up
    in that probably the end of the show is our world the world where the OA is a TV
    show and jump into the bodies of the actors who play them and so here goes
    the crazy obsessed fan conspiracy time the fan Theory the fray I love this idea
    the prevailing fan theory yeah I really hope it’s true is that Netflix announced
    the cancellation of the OA and all the actors in social media on
    the same day talked about you know say good saying goodbyes to the show but
    that’s a ruse because now the show has become an Arg an alternate reality game
    and there will be a third season after some crazy thing is unlocked because I
    won your past Netflix I know the fans want
    to be the king crazy yeah yeah people have production
    schedules like TV production works a certain way but they’re hoping it was
    okay because of the way the show ended at the end of season two in our world
    there was a chance that now the season 3 is happening in our world right now
    through events and through through things that are not traditional
    television media that will eventually go back to being shown and filmed and put
    on put on Netflix alright man it looks like it was a long
    time between first and second seasons over two years between our end of season
    1 and the beginning of season 2 long time yeah I I don’t know the reason for
    that I think that’s it you watch season 1 back in the day yeah she’s in one like
    not – I’d rather read the Wikipedia for season 2 oh god yeah conspiracy theories
    popped up on who this is this could be this could get me back to watching the
    show I like the name it’s like the opposite of the og right yeah yeah yeah
    okay other stuff in pop culture big merger probably the big business news to
    happen this week related to our interests in terms of star trek CBS and
    Viacom are now back mm-hmm paramount CBS they were they were one family they
    split off and now it looks like the family is united now from a business
    standpoint like I don’t know if this is strengthening their bonds to fight
    Disney to fight the on of the the mega multinational corporation that is the
    Disney Corporation or why exactly this is happening but related to us this puts
    Star Trek TV including everything that’s being produced on CBS all access from
    Picard to Discovery to the animated shows in the library of TV stuff from
    that was all under you know I was all under the CBS own ownership and the
    Viacom stuff which is the movies the Kelvin universe is just not the original
    movie the tcu was like sorry all under one corporate umbrella and potentially
    under one creative umbrella okay that’s exciting all track all the
    time great I don’t know no it’s good I mean
    obviously the the TCU they have their own time line so that still has to be
    yeah maintain I think people can understand
    that right so that it’s not like they all exist in one universe now because no
    it’s not shown yeah I thought the beauty of Trek from my youth was having one
    compelling narrative at a at a time you know about the shows yeah and to have
    multiple going on now which is what this may portend I’m not as excited about see
    for me it’s always been about just serious optimistic science fiction yeah
    and that is something I’m you can give me five shows like that no I’ll watch
    them I like that yeah but they haven’t given you a single
    one and recently well we got discovery two seasons about cars didn’t it yeah
    that’s the problem with that one you’re right so Star Trek has I mean that when
    you’re talking about creative direction and less about a big universe my hope
    for the kelvin timeline the thing that JJ from start with the reboot and kind
    of re-rig arise at least a lot of mainstream awareness of Star Trek and
    it’s so successively is that I hope that light time line gets closed off and done
    and wrapped you know without we don’t know if there was gonna be a next movie
    giant lens flare that whole universe was all on the holodeck experience that
    Picard wasn’t watching that Riker and Troy are watching the entire time but I
    think it’s done it’s done its service in establishing that timeline and that
    timeline really feels like doing a TV show there would be too expensive or
    there’s not a lot interest in that that aesthetic from the TV side like discover
    is kind of co-opted a little of that but it’s still very much set in the
    traditional TOS timeline it’s a prequel that Picard pushing forward in the TNG
    right Kelvin going forward Kelvin universe going forward
    he’s either overlaps there’s too much overlap so I would love if there if if
    Quinn Tarantino was going to come in and do his cult Glen universe movie let it
    somehow from a story standpoint at least book
    and the 2009 Star Trek the move it came out 10 years ago but if you were CBS or
    Viacom at that point wouldn’t you prefer that Tarantino used the CBS all access
    characters no I prefer turned into whatever do whatever he wants
    and make something good mm-hmm and I think in the movie-going audience
    there’s still a lot of love for that Kelvin universe you know there may not
    be so much in the if there was one core then why don’t they make more because
    that that’s the the one that they had plan is off the table because of
    contractual problems because of talent because of negotiation it’s because of
    boring business stuff money right being being the problem and and then the
    movies have immediately made less money over time beyond made less money than
    darkness made less money then or not as much as they’d hope after a success of
    2000 2009 yeah so I think tie that up wrap it up give those last actors that
    we love can Chris Pine playing Kirk to call urban and play McCoy give them one
    less for all let them do something fun with it get simon pegg involved let
    Tarantino do his thing I think I’d be amazing way to end that journey of that
    reboot and then really go all-in on discovery and the Picard stuff
    do you imagine Tarantino Star Trek being pg-13 no are ya
    that’s the only way I imagine it I don’t think I think you’d get away with I mean
    it’s not about swearing it’s about the scenarios he’s gonna put them in so yes
    or no R or pg-13 I think you’d be beaches everything you do yeah you think
    he’s got it in him to do a pg-13 film yes great I don’t think what defines
    here in T no movie is the swears or the violence well no it’s the Tarantino
    directed it and you let him do what he wants to do as you said
    and the only dialogue big drives the only thing that you’ve ever seen him do
    incorporates like mass but silence best scenes in Tarantino films are even PG
    level yeah absolutely and I think that’s what he would bring a Royale with cheese
    I think yes I think he’s bringing a lot of leverage to the table and he’ll
    demand creative control it being all just changes the scope of the budget
    right I know they’re making an r-rated film I think once upon a time in
    Hollywood it’s probably his most successful open
    in terms of box office and that was not a massive box office compared to Italy
    it so it’s made 109 million well his budgets aren’t sky-high either
    though but when you’re talking about making a Star Trek story their budgets
    are sky-high so if he was doing already film they would have to scale that back
    you have to basically be the Tarantino bottle episode you know she presets more
    talkie talkie less cool yeah like Deadpool did a
    Marvel film on half the budget initially that was a special case guys that was
    Tim Miller who directed Deadpool also running the effects company and doing it
    probably on the cheap didn’t know that yeah and watering and you know being in
    in the family for that we should talk more about Star Trek sets because
    there’s a story that came out this week nice segue
    I want to share this this popped up on reddit forgotten Trek is the website and
    they have a post about the unseen enterprise-d yeah this is pure nerdery
    but they want to explore what it would look where are the parts of the ship
    that the sets never got built that are mentioned mentioned episodes mentioned
    and technical manuals and for the enterprise these specific galaxy-class
    ship something else open for families i had that the big saucer section design
    where were these places and what did they look like for example did you know
    jeremy that the shuttle bay that we see the answer is no is never the main
    shuttle bay I only knew that cuz I read this article I have no idea yeah what so
    what they have a bigger shuttle bay that never is seen because their engine ever
    there’s no sets for bill it’s a two level design and what’s the point then
    like did they refer to it the point is that they needed to have that in the
    design of the ship because I’m the fiction of building out the geography of
    the layout of the ship yeah have the the CUDA grams when you have the technical
    manual right there needs to be a sparkly if that’s the shuttle if a ship holds a
    thousand people and was the size of the Paramount lot the shuttle bay is here we
    made that big well that’s a lot bigger than what we have room to build a set
    for okay right and what we have on the show is the secondary shuttle bay got it
    that’s different than the constraints being what works for this story yes yeah
    I mean there’s some parts for the story for example there are whales and
    dolphins support aboard the the enterprise-d
    shut up I’m like I will not like a voyage home just like and and they heard
    used I think in Canada for navigational purpose and what if not for
    communicating with that so there’s a whole a whole aquarium a cetacean ops
    that’s mentioned mentioned in I think what what did they say in this episode
    yesterday’s enterprise and the perfect mate it was mentioned yeah what do they
    mention let’s go check out the whales and see what they say this is what
    dolphins and whales and on in the blueprints it is placed on decks 13 and
    14 in the forward section uh and so this story is great because they they
    interview some of the people worked on the production design who wrote the
    technical manuals and and and also some people who have done some some previous
    and have kind of drawn up sketches concept art about what for example I
    gotta blow that up for exactly here’s what a lounge would look like with the
    doll visitation ops artwork yeah yeah we’ll put this link it’s on forgotten
    trek dot-com there’s a whole medical deck one of the things I love is there
    are there’s more than ten for you know you know the the etymology of
    ten-forward tenth tech is the most forward part of the ship I wanted to
    quit Jeremy on that but ya know I knew that I knew that that’s not yeah yeah I
    knew I didn’t know that it is the most four part of the ship so it’s the best
    Observation Lounge as opposed in addition to being just a relaxation
    lounge yeah because the saucer section is made of 20 decks and ten is right in
    the middle so you get the right to the front but there are beneath and above on
    decks 9 and 11 there are other lounges small lounge they imagined you know a
    ship of this class and the size to have places where people can relax and look
    out the windows cannot not necessarily one’s gonna get ya you know the cruise
    ship with the the the galaxy view so somebody made renders based on technical
    drawings render sketches there are some references to there was a
    that see indeed VR enterprise-d yeah that got shut down yeah and so they have
    screenshots of that it’s really an exploration of the you know the build
    out of a ship if you if you ever saw galaxy qua was just about and saw the
    Justin Long character going through the blueprints yes that’s what this is yeah
    point this this really makes me want to see a remake of TNG like a new series Oh
    on the enterprise like featuring the captain maybe well this I mean this is
    what’s different about both Picard and discovery right discovered and not just
    by being serialized shows that are tell trying to one big story across a season
    which is all fine DNA alike but the episodic structure of Star Trek allowed
    the environment of the ship to be the main setting it wasn’t always about
    going from place to place to place the ship with you that but allowed for you
    to live in this ship you would get scenes in people’s crew quarters walking
    down hallways you know chatting in ten-forward going
    to the Met Bay and then allowed the viewers to really imagine even though we
    were only seeing those dozen or so locations it for a minute you imagine
    your head fills in yeah what that whole galaxy-class ship the intro paragraph
    did in this article says that engineering was even designed for
    encounter at Farpoint for just kind of superfluous reasons because Gene
    Roddenberry knew that he wanted it later and they wouldn’t have the budget yeah
    the most money upfront to build that yeah and I think that uh you know
    Orville does it does it well with building and using sets and building
    sets but you don’t have a show like this where it’s basically the cruise ship
    design you know a lot of the more realistic science fiction shows their
    ships are more Firefly like firefighter class small or small more submarine yes
    dial which that makes a lot more sense logically but it’s less fantasy it’s
    less than utopia sci-fi that we got and we love from from TNG good stuff okay
    from Star Trek we’re no Star Wars and I’ll let you guys know that I won’t be
    in next week unfortunately I can’t say exactly why but one of the things I’ll
    be doing towards in next week for my birthday’s I’ll be going to Anaheim
    don’t Disneyland I don’t know if I’m gonna get a chance to go to galaxy’s
    edge I’m gonna try cuz sentence is that of course you’re going to go I I’m
    taking I’m taking the family there maybe just time restrictions I might be but
    you’re gonna be in Disneyland I’m gonna be I’m gonna be in Anaheim I might be
    only going to California Adventure ah there’s some blackout dates because d23
    is that weekend as well and says it was SPECT it to be very very crowded oh my
    with a lot of Disney fans so the second best thing I have to going to Galaxy
    judge and maybe there’ll be some other opportunity the future of us to go is
    Disney is gonna put out a free-form special behind the scenes the making of
    galaxies edge adventure awaits at the end of September so 20 2010 when th oak
    Harris is hosting is he singing I don’t think he’s singing celebrity guests
    including kicking Michael key Jay Leno miles brown telly Coco from Big Bang
    Theory and it’s about it’s a tour of the land look I love the Millennium Falcon I
    love NPH really love keegan-michael key what’s new I don’t want any part of this
    this is basically call should be called spoiler cast no it’s not a spoiler
    they’re right they’re not gonna space this is officially sanctioned by Disney
    it’s a commercial it’s a half-hour commute exactly this is but this is
    still not something you want any part of really I this is what I claw this is
    gonna be just just oozing of like of look how wonderful this is from the
    outside I never watched as a kid what you really want is like the Adam Savage
    behind the scenes or like how did you make this stuff and they’re not gonna
    tell you there one thing about how anything works this is the closest we’re
    gonna get and yeah the tested behind scenes tour some we’d love to do and
    we’re working on trying to do but this brings back my memories kid watching
    those TV specials on ABC the wonderful world of Disney stuff were where Eisner
    or did you know we were they basically sell you on the parks and I had filled
    up my imagination watching watching these commercials these
    infomercials for what for Disneyland for the movies for all all the stuff they
    were promoting yeah then okay well I’m I’m in on it is it a d23 thing is that
    why they’re doing it no I’m d23 is a end of August and this
    is maybe maybe film around that time but we release end of September yeah on on
    free form a few bits more of TV news Dark Crystal 2 comes out in two weeks
    time August 30th we have a little bit of a new trailer I guess oh my goodness
    sorry I blacked out there for a second this was epic have you both watched this
    well yeah but you’ve seen the other trailers right yeah okay I just looked
    unbelievable it was so good I mean it there’s one there’s one real weird thing
    okay they have real-world puppets that can
    really can’t move their mouths yeah in incredible seedy landscape that like
    incredible effects surrounding yes so you notice like how these puppets
    aren’t really like you know fitting in the landscape but it looks so beautiful
    and the voice acting is so on point I’m with it and I watched the Dark Crystal I
    don’t think I remembered that this is the actual story of the Dark Crystal and
    they’ve like kind of iterated on it in a in a fun continuation yeah but the
    villains feel more villainous like more scary’s and I remember
    oh I remember being terrified by them and I watched it recently and they’re
    still quite quite scary but I I want to know how people feel about that CG mixed
    with live-action puppetry I mean and I’m not against it I’m just saying that it’s
    like back in the day when they made the Dark Crystal of course there was no CG
    whatsoever and I imagine Jim Henson would have used it appropriately if he
    had access to that yeah but we don’t know and so if you’re gonna honor that
    aesthetic there’s gonna be a know there’s gonna be some people who were
    just like oh that doesn’t work any CG dude there’s CG and stuff all the time I
    don’t real and I wonder if maybe that’s where the line could have been drawn I
    don’t know I this is just an open-ended question they were rather the expanses
    of landscape look shittier know but this we’re not talking about simply
    backgrounds we’re talking about effects coming like syrups war
    around characters I think there’s some CG camera movements but there-there is
    CG I mean they’re not CG but there are effects for those old shows as well they
    just a crappier absolutely composited effects well the puppets look crappier
    they could have done those in CG and they didn’t they didn’t yes no dear I
    think they know character is the most important thing and they’re gonna get
    the best representation of those characters with puppets there’s a
    difficulty I think there’s definitely a respected nostalgia factor there for
    that for the going with the practical puppets yeah and I just so I’m curious
    to see what that’s like and I want to note from a production standpoint I’d
    love to know how they decided to draw that line because I know it wasn’t do CG
    wherever you want I think there must have been an interesting discussion
    there I think there’s also it’s all magic matter of budgets right like there
    was a creative angle for this and there is a Netflix saying how much money we
    want to spend on this because you had like the Thunderbirds reboot and that
    was real practical environments heavy cost
    yeah these giant bigger churros that whatever works I’ll put together but the
    character CG because they were doing ongoing a show and it was just way more
    expensive to do puppets that way than it would be do CG characters but they had
    the compromise of the actual environments and the ships being a real
    location and that was the mix and it was received really well I mean it’s how you
    got story drives the whole thing I don’t think you can like poopoo the show if
    they use CG elements beyond who you’re liking if the story’s great and if it’s
    still dark crystal I don’t know even if it’s weird I’m excited about the
    prospect of an experiment like this me Jim because we don’t see stuff like this
    no and I’m just glad that you know dark crystals back in the public conscience
    because it’s a really interesting little chapter in Jim Henson history it’s it’s
    a question of whether it will there will be a season to whether they like Netflix
    was known is known to have spent a ton of money on content but they’ve been
    canceling shows left and right and you know the story is the the big argument
    from network television is that they will stick with you and give you and
    with creators wrote the shows and get seven seasons of the show for Netflix
    it’s if you don’t do well if numbers aren’t there you’re not gonna get a
    third season or a fourth season and you know for a lot of storytellers the
    who want to do long-form storytelling yeah 20 episodes isn’t enough or 16
    episode is probably is gonna get harder and harder for people on the Netflix
    platform because of their subscriber base taking a dive for the first time
    yeah there was a whole story that came out about one one Netflix show which was
    a syndicated show they didn’t originally produce it but where the showrunners
    gamed or as one story but hacked their way into getting into the recommended
    rotation and there was no hack it was basically it was the comedy Viking the
    show I further the Norse comedic take on on Viking culture but basically they
    bought Facebook ads himself and they made they market they have to pay their
    own money to market the show on social media and Facebook to get interest on it
    to a point where people were tuning in and then it getting popular that way
    allowed it then to really surge up to the front front front page of Netflix
    that’s not hacking that’s a key that it sold advertising exactly and then the
    hack I guess isn’t really a hack it’s the fact that the showrunners the
    craters so had to do that himself right like that looks like a youtuber
    yes Netflix wasn’t gonna do that for them because just because you’re on
    Netflix doesn’t mean you’re gonna get that promote I think the same is true
    for a lot of network shows now like even though they’re paying budget for this
    they’re still asking the actors to really push out stuff to the audience’s
    they’ve developed elsewhere I mean you see that with like Andy Samberg on
    Brooklyn nine-nine like most of the people that are probably hanging out
    fall in Andy Samberg are coming from you know his years of work on SNL and other
    things I don’t know why I picked that example a little bit sir I’m gonna
    switch the conversation over to Barbie oh good I knew Barbies lawyer what yeah
    yeah I’m the toys that made us no no I I knew a guy he used to be a lawyer who
    handled Barbie for Mattel was it Mattel yeah yeah you know Barbies said some
    pretty good stuff please past couple years they’re a really great 50th
    anniversary Star Trek collection yeah but the wonderful hoorah and even a
    Spock they’re wonderful designs they’ve had collaborations with the ESA
    European Space Agency and in which they’ve created these one-offs of their
    astronauts a great EMU suit and I think earlier this year they put like a David
    Bowie Ziggy Stardust Barbie that looked incredible know if you’ve seen that but
    this is Barbie though this is Barbie ok Google ok Google Google Ziggy Stardust
    Barbie right away sir you might you might be impressed these new Barbies so
    good they have this new line of Star Wars Barbies don’t don’t poo poo this
    that’s because I’m which they’re Star Wars but it’s basically fashion take it
    you know what made it reminds me of cash or and makes me think of the her
    Universe costume contest and the costume fashion show they had at New York Arata
    at silk’n or San Diego comic-con and these new Barbies new collection
    which is I think three character is one spired by Leia
    when inspired by Vader the Vader one’s very Devil Wears Prada one inspired by
    r2 r2d2 r2 is very Bowie inspired it seems like to me crazy incredible design
    blue hair if you had if you saw any cosplayer dressing up but I think it’s
    great inspiration for I would stop to take a picture absolutely that’s a
    wouldn’t take her of course of course but like the layout of the hair that
    trust like this is really Leia is the only one that really looks like cosplay
    the other ones look like crossovers right I’m like mashups oh yeah mashups
    yeah yeah I mean I don’t think the Leia one is look like exactly cause we she
    never have the contrast that big they are like the Barbie takes yes it is and
    Vader didn’t technically wear sunglasses yeah I get that but I’d like that
    they’re doing it I think it’s a really really cool take on it yeah are you
    gonna buy some Barbies these are 100 bucks each so probably not that does not
    answer the question any of these at least some yeah we’ll see we’ll see if
    they go up in value I did pick up the Ziggy Stardust Martin because I think
    that one did you yeah it does look cool yeah really cool
    I’m gonna put another piece of news Lego news I’m adding stuff left and right to
    pop culture yeah new Lego set Disneyland that’s a new Disney Railroad Lego set
    what like the the railroad that goes around the park yes
    motorized motorized train no kidding you put this in our show notes so we’re
    gonna need this you don’t need to show it but if you’re a fan of trains it’s
    part of their Lego power powered up line of sets which has the motors and the
    sensors it does have have Mickey and Minnie and Chippendale and Goofy and
    it’s you know paying tribute to Walt Disney’s love of trains and model trains
    you know really quickly on the toy front we saw the unicron model that has roll
    ABS yes quote-unquote crowdfunding and it is dangerously on the precipice of
    not making its funding goal it was like I checked this morning I think it was
    only thirty percent funded with two weeks to go and it’s like they can’t put
    that much development time into a unicron that weighs that much that is
    that intricate and not make this right they can I mean it’s it’s a really good
    question they might do as a this is like forcing Hasbro’s hand right Hasbro’s a
    big company they have money tooling is expensive presumably some of the tooling
    is already made because they have prototypes of this stuff these aren’t
    print 3d printer prototypes they look like injection molded prototypes so what
    it really is the you know the the point of these crowdfunded support campaigns
    they’re making like a high-end collectible market I think is what
    they’re doing because their goal for this was eight thousand they know that
    much well it’s also five hundred and
    seventy-five dollars oh it’s totally an expensive toy very glance if their goal
    is eight eight thousand units right that does sound like a lot yeah how many
    eight thousand people like were you talking about
    in the high-end collectors market we talk about things like Sideshow
    Collectibles people spending like five to seven hundred dollars on a statue a
    lot of those are on the five hundred or a thousand unit range yeah eight
    thousand is a ton so the question is in terms of the stages of development where
    are they what did why do they need because they have the 3d models it’s all
    in their page right they it’s the design is done
    it really is manufacturing okay III I take it back
    it does look like they did 3d print prototypes and the a
    one-of-a-kind master model was created so what we saw comic-con might have been
    just the one-off master tooling might not have been created it’s a lot of
    parts the tooling we talk we say tooling is neither paying to machine the molds
    that the plastic will go go in and anyone working in toys even small toys
    require every single piece every single limb every single joint requires its own
    tool and to make those tools are in tens of thousands of dollars to make those to
    manufacture those so maybe that’s what they need but I got to believe that
    their break-even for tooling is under 8,000 there may be a point where you
    know I’m storming over out there if they make if they if they get 5,000 people to
    commit because once you’re signing up and put your credit card in you check
    the box as you agreed to pay so maybe there is a point below there their goal
    they whether they won’t make as much money but where I’ll still be worth it
    to manufacture five five thousand ladies and honestly do those people really care
    if the box isn’t as good right maybe somewhat money in the packaging goes
    away right maybe it’s a more of a white box bottle I don’t know the other has
    lab thing I’m gonna I will give a shout out to because this probably also will
    not make it into Intel product is the Cookie Monster did you see this no oh
    that I want this more than I think I want the Unicron 300 bucks they need
    three thousand people to get in on it and only about 460 people have it you
    have eleven ten days left by the time you’re listening to this podcast but
    this is a what an adorable looking Cookie Monster it’s it is a full are
    matured puppet you can pose it oh this is the closest is with the the real
    fleece witness there’s not a muppet like you don’t use it to perform no I’m
    saying at the poseable it’s opposable where me there was only one Cookie
    Monster this is clearly a replica is for cookie it’s good enough for me 38 inches
    tall the largest Sesame Street item that would be created if they if they get it
    to manufacturing so you can pose at googly eyes that’s great the perfect
    plush yeah except for the price I love the under the why Cookie Monster it’s
    their last reason is because c is for cookie is an anthem for our collective
    childhood that is a great life my twelve-year-old posed the question to me
    and my daughter yesterday what would you choose
    if you could have a complete collection of anything in the world
    yeah great question but you hold on you couldn’t sell it you couldn’t sell any
    of them you had so was it couldn’t be like a profit motive I love this
    question also as a tangent I think we should start soliciting these kind of
    questions from our audience and my and my nine-year-old daughter responded with
    out much thought but it’s it she was like she would never have said anything
    else plushies oh wait wait plus she yes I stuffed animals but there’s no limit
    to of course there is there’s a certain number of stuffed animals and you only
    get one of each but still that’s gonna be a lot of stuffed animals and I said
    you know could we possibly fit one of every stuffed animal in the world in our
    house floor to ceiling oh this is a Google you can ask those questions
    she’ll get hired at Google and that would be a billboard right like get
    hired if you can answer this and she said no of course not no we couldn’t
    fill her house like it no I mean she said we would need more space like yeah
    we would need more than that yeah um so I’m not sure what she’s going to do with
    all these small and all so the question is you compress it is it is it
    vacuum-sealed plushies not work no all the volume we just like to enjoy the
    plushies okay so you’re even talk about just display space and balls ever do in
    the matter of the volume in the house anyway surface area she got like this in
    her mind when we went from lunch to Dave & Buster’s because it’s like their last
    free day of the summer sure she won a stuffed animal and as we’re walking out
    she said I’m one closer uh every plushie in the world every pleasure yeah that’s
    that’s danger talk right there Wow give me all the GI Joes no hesitation I want
    all the GI Joes I want the aircraft carrier
    I want the planes I want I get all of Cobra two of course yeah so give me a
    rattler flying in that’s the reason why the whole space shuttle thing you know
    why I want those because I’ll play with
    those I mean how broad the question should be narrow the findings firms like
    you’re talking about literally a category a type of are you making this
    fun question not fun I’m making it more fun I’m turning into a pocket you’re
    gonna be like coins right yes like I want all the gold in the world
    Oh all coins all the Bitcoin are all you can’t like we can’t sell them that’s
    true that’s true but I think the question should be narrowed to like a
    collectible yes either brand or something that was a set right where
    there’s a limited number that was actually produced in this well I think
    that’s the spirit of the question yeah my son for what it’s worth said
    magic cards magic card I knew it and I asked him I said if you had every magic
    card yeah would you be able to win any game like you know is it as magic solved
    you could say your sank right exactly he said no brought here you guys have
    worked with some AI programs yeah and solve magic yeah right deep mind
    Magic the Gathering now that they’ve done go has he listens
    though you should introduce him there’s a podcast that is about the creation of
    fantasy when I forgot name it was recommended Oh syndicated on 99%
    invisible but it’s about the one of the episodes was about magic to gather and
    the host learns magic gathering put in interviews designers of matric at
    Wizards of the coast including one of their lead designers we met for four
    years and they talk about why magic is so popular and you know they actually
    don’t anatomy of the card itself the art the the flourish and the language which
    they have a lot of fun writing the attributes but one of the big takeaways
    and I want to diminish from the episode cuz it’s a wonderful episode is magic is
    fun because unlike fantasy where there are there’s clear good and evil if you
    think of Lord of the Rings if you think of any traditional fantasy story there’s
    clear good and clear evil there isn’t in magic there are different ways you use
    the powers of fire and different colors right through the color wheel that they
    have but none of that is explicitly good or evil it’s more just
    personality it’s more of the personality so I hard disagree because anyone that
    plays a blue-and-white deck are just plain people those people are the worst
    come at me I don’t look for the name of the the podcast gathering the magic is
    name of the episode imaginary worlds is the podcasts and the podcast is also
    great because it’s about it’s a finite series no no no shows it’s an ongoing
    ongoing no well shows but it’s a biweekly podcast about science fiction
    and fantasy genres so okay it’s not all about magic no no the one episode was
    about magic in the episode is called gathering of magic but you should you
    should listen to it with your son what would your thing be Jeremy Williams
    dot-matrix display games DM DS so that’s you know I first I thought pinball
    machines right but that’s what are you gonna do with that
    first of all golf clap for that answer very specific like you can’t store that
    many games you need a warehouse I don’t want that oh you’re thinking of a little
    shit you’re making a fun question not fun I think logisitics of of storage
    know you have a magic hat you have a magic door the closet no you open and
    then when you go through you have everything of this yeah one collection
    right enjoy norm has Narnia he goes to first yeah that’s that’s the terms of
    this contest last question I thought maybe pinball
    and then I what I was gonna do if that’s the case of I have Narnia then I’m gonna
    invite the Internet to come and take the leftovers because I’m probably only
    gonna take twenty games you can’t give it away yeah of course you can you can’t
    sell them again the bet the goodwill you had from giving it away is in effect
    gained well let look at you let me reverse this a little bit would you ever
    want to have like a pinball a store or museum where people could come in and
    play them all I would love to but then you have a maintenance and storage and a
    read problem and I don’t want any of that I just want a few games in my house
    there so I’m doing Williams DMD games and I’m probably not even able to store
    all of those because that’s probably 60 games right there but that’s my answer
    you have not said Marvel comic books okay yeah all Marvel comic books like
    from the beginning to Kearney up that’s a lot of space there there are you gonna
    read them are you just gonna of course okay can’t
    so no but some people love just keeping them in yeah in the shrink-wrap in the
    flexible case the rated case no it’s okay you gonna read them they’re meant
    to be read what is those be right I mean I know you can’t sell them but is there
    a Superman issue one from the Marvel Universe kind of equivalent that mean
    there’s famously expensive and hard time for one it’s probably up there early
    spider-man earliest by Ramona amazing store amazing amazing fantasy
    yeah mazing fantasy highly valuable yeah yeah yeah I’m swinging through holding
    holding the guy hmm yeah yeah I mean I think we’re a little
    past that there’s this certainly market for that but I think that uh yeah I just
    want these comics be enjoyed I suppose would read them that’s nice
    but you should open a library then didn’t let everyone come enjoy your
    Marvel collections into my Narnia yes excuse me that’s why people in the oh
    you guys can come to my pinball museum all right I’ll bring some comics are we
    done here yeah no great hey before we continue with technology
    news I want to know that support for this is only a test this week also comes
    from indeed if you’re looking for your next tech gig it’s time to flip the job
    search script with indeed prime on indeed prime top tech companies apply to
    you with jobs you’ll love stop living for the weekend and start doing what you
    love with indeed prime all you’ve to do is fill out one free application and
    indeed prime takes care of the rest putting tech talent in front of
    thousands of companies like PayPal Twilio WP engine across more than 90
    cities it’s that simple they’ll match you with the right role based on your
    skills experience and goals and you won’t spend any more time sending a
    resume after resume companies apply to you not the other way around
    plus every prime candidate gets free one to one live access to technical coaching
    resume reviews mock interviews and even salary negotiation tips to seal the deal
    so whether you’re hiring or looking meet your match on indeed prime if you go to
    indeed prime com slash test you’ll find out more again join now at indeed PRI M
    e.com slash test all right on to lets heck news this is a piece of technology
    well it’s a piece tech news that applies to a lot of our may be a consumer
    culture but it’s SD was shipping yeah we got news this week that fedex has
    essentially dropped amazon as a client and this is because amazon has been
    shifting most of their deliveries and i think this is us only to their own
    carrier to their cellphone carrier i’ve been my recent amazon purchases have all
    come through the amazon delivery service and i gotta say i’m not entirely
    thrilled about it my experience of it I’m sure they have a rough gig but like
    packages left without like doorbells being rang that kind of stuff and that’s
    all the last mile stuff yeah right that they can
    crew up logistically but what does that mean for the first hundred miles and
    getting from the facilities over to the local distribution centers like I would
    I think it’s a it’s a big strong move from FedEx and hopefully they can
    survive it because I’m sure Amazon the big source of income for them but I
    don’t want to see a world where FedEx is no longer around because of Amazon well
    I think all the Amazon competitors are still using FedEx and if shipping is on
    the rise as a whole I don’t think FedEx is in trouble from
    that in the long term if this trend continues and I just don’t know how I’m
    a it’s an interesting move to see how this experience goes with Amazon switch
    or switching to in-house logistics I’m sorry how does Amazon save money by
    dropping em how does FedEx save money by dropping Amazon as a client well it’s
    already on the decline because the Amazon is shifting stuff to in-house
    anyway yeah so they’re basically saying like this is already sort of a an
    account that’s going way slowly so we’re gonna shift our business and prioritize
    other clients yeah because they probably offered Amazon a deal you know there’s
    no patience for the cost and we talked before about you know that that you’ve
    not just the last mouth the whole shipping ecosystem is probably the most
    under appreciated and underpaid part of modern consumerism you know your
    delivery person and all the extra work they have to do not just you know on the
    day to day but holidays when new products are launched like you know
    we’ve seen those videos of the UPS factories when a new iPhone release day
    right and just because there’s space in the back of the man doesn’t mean it
    should be all filled up and it’s a lot of work I stopped by the UPS Store as
    big delivers I see the the truck drivers like loading you know hundreds and
    hundreds of pounds of stuff that I presume a lot of suffer just returns
    because of LOX return policies things we take for granted and assume that free
    shipping is a part of it so it really is a plea to get to know
    the people who are making these deliveries
    and who are on your routes and you know maybe they’ll give you a heads up when
    uh when things are coming the one thing I’ve noticed is like the FedEx person
    that comes to my house I know that person it’s the same person with Amazon
    hasn’t been that way right it’s a different person every time and I don’t
    know if that’s that’ll change but it kind of makes what you’re talking about
    harder when it’s not the same person yeah so there’s something a little more
    of lighthearted this video came out actually late last year there is a
    communications company called voices I want to pay via YS YS networks and I
    believe they they make software for tella operation whether that’s do
    flat-screen VR or other things basically controlling robots or vehicles remotely
    for some type of operation purposes and one of the demos and experiments they
    did is creating a virtual way to control a car miles away I want to make this
    using a a what do you call this like a Half Dome projector system it looks like
    an old-school flight simulator projector so if it feels like you’re enclosed in
    this space but it’s really just a two-dimensional projector that fills
    your peripheral vision it’s like 180 it seems yeah yeah so if
    you watch the video it’s on YouTube on under voices website basically they have
    an RC car they put essentially like you say an RC transmitter a camera like a
    fpv camera on there and tied it into their system and had ro control using a
    steering wheel and and this kind of half dome projection system to drive that car
    remotely on a horse on the ground and do it effectively I wondered I don’t think
    they did do an RF cam I think that that’s all tied in digital probably just
    a wired cam that’s plugged into their system it looks wired and so their tech
    might be encoding low latency crashing into you yes and then they’re
    transmitting directly from that car I mean what’s crazy is the latency I think
    they said on this is only a few hundred milliseconds right because like that’s
    the critical part of this is like you can’t do this
    if your latency is is upwards of a second they said it’s 300 milliseconds
    total including steering input so there’s gonna be latency involved even
    is like PC set up to do the controls on that and that side but 300 milliseconds
    he certainly could drive in what seemed like a it was 1 to 5 scale size as well
    as speed so I think this they slowed the car down I think they also make this
    dome player this yeah called the Odin don’t player and one of their things
    they want to tout is the advantages of this type of you know all-encompassing
    projection system over a VR system whereas VR probably is cheaper and
    weirdly available for consumers and people might play racing games and you
    know and other sims yeah love VR they feel like the peripheral the benefits of
    having peripheral vision and being able to get encompassed almost essentially a
    lot of your field of view with this is better than some it’s a little more
    there’s also something cool about it being connected to some real world thing
    even though you’re not there yeah like how much do you want to see a mario kart
    version of this so like a thousand percent right the first video that got
    shared around with us they were testing this in their office so the car was
    driving around in the same apartment or whatever office that the person driving
    the car was and it was basically you know tiny racer is running around from
    the skewed perspective of the world yep love it it’s fun I don’t know if it
    necessarily like needs 5g though like or this was LTE this is just LT okay I
    thought you linked to a 5 G’s story all right that makes more sense in terms of
    other VR and and this is next story it’s more about user interface as well the US
    Navy had done a study yeah and the report from the National Transportation
    Safety Board said that the operations were less effective when touchscreens
    were used than when tactile keys were used because of the the complex throttle
    systems and controls and they like it’s more damning than that they kind of
    point to there’s a couple accidents in the past few years that they don’t 100%
    blame on touchscreens but they said it participated in it and in both of those
    accidents sailors were killed and these were like destroyer level ships elisions
    that got into accidents so these are big at big expensive ships yeah in one
    circumstance I think that the whoever was the captain or piloting the ship
    transferred the controls accidentally to a different terminal oh and didn’t mean
    to and the system was running in a mode that allowed it to happen and so the
    question is is this a design problem or is this a fundamental problem with
    touchscreens versus tactile buttons a muscle memory problem this is one of
    those places where it has to work like a hundred percent 100.0000 percent of the
    time because of the vehicles we’re talking about the assumption that we
    have with UI going forward whether it’s in cars and Tesla cars and even a lot of
    interfaces in other cars and also in the science fiction that we see is that
    touchscreen is the visual it’s versatile right one screen allows for multiple
    languages inés yep and an input is more granular because you have pressure
    support you have zoom you have all these gestures that you an action that you
    cannot do with physical buttons but the benefits of physical button said it is
    it is binary in case you lose a discrete you know exactly when you how many
    buttons there are what buttons are pushing and your muscle memory will work
    with a also have a better grasp at failure rate for those components like I
    can just imagine if a touchscreen reboots like while they’re piloting like
    a Navy destroyer that’s like yeah that’s non-trivial you said it has to work on a
    percent of the time and I would say that it doesn’t appear that there was a
    malfunction it appears that there was a lack of training or understanding about
    how the system works and I’m sure that the UI designer would say it does work
    all the time yeah there so I it’s a weird argument like I certainly coming
    at it from a car standpoint I love tactile controls I want to be able to
    reach out and feel things but that’s not for the same reasons as what this
    article is about it’s more about keeping my eyes on the road and not wanting to
    read anything and there’s certain things that were you tactile control and the
    analog control is important the steering wheel is something I don’t
    think we’re gonna see ever replace if you’re doing manual driving with a
    slider right or our virtual steering wheel you know something you’re just
    using your finger you having that the force feedback yeah yeah having that
    that immediacy is important even the Star Trek human science fiction remember
    in insurrection insurrection nemesis maybe was nemesis daddy brain where
    Riker pulled up the joystick on the enterprise-d yeah yeah right no what
    happened Seto oh yeah and a joystick taken off upon the console and he used
    the joys I can manually steer the enterprise why it was like a half step
    away from WASD it in into why did you have to do that the touchscreen broke no
    it was clearly like somebody made a choice like this all look cool okay but
    from a story perspective I think it was just the precision of it
    oh and he’s an amazing pilot remember right that’s right even though you never
    saw a Voyager but the Delta flyer you know Tom Harris designed it to have
    tactile control yeah yeah cool this is what our physiology works with best okay
    are there some product stuff want to give you a shout out to this new antenna
    switch accessory it’s called the it’s not just like an accessory it’s like an
    important functionality because like the switch dock kinda stinks okay and this
    like unifies it so let’s explain what it is the Genki covert dock and replaces a
    swiss charger and TV dock it’s one of the few things that also gives you the
    HDMI output as well as the charger USB Seto so apparently and I didn’t even
    know this cuz I’ve never tried it but this switch
    you cannot hook directly to an HDMI or a to HDMI converter like any standard
    thing off the shelf and connect with TV the official Nintendo dock does some
    magic to allow that to happen yeah and when it was released I guess some
    third-party manufacturers figured out whatever they’re doing and this is one
    of the things that basically replaces it but in the size of a small puck charger
    yes so it’s less of a dock that you put the switch in but it’s a puck charger
    but that has it’s a chromecast version where you have an HDMI port and you can
    plug that cable into the TV did you watch the Kickstarter for this no
    because that it’s a little funny like there’s a you
    remember the original switch commercial when they showed a bunch of people like
    taking the switch to parties and took his dog like to a dog park and plants
    which instead of playing with his dog and it’s sort of that they there’s these
    group of people that go to a bar a hangout spot presumably and there’s
    probably ten of them there and two of them are playing switch and one guy says
    hey did you bring your doc so we can hook it up to the bar TV and the guy
    says he’s like feels small you could tell he’s embarrassed and he says no I
    didn’t bring my doc and everybody says ah like he’s made this huge party fun
    there’s gotta be a better way everybody’s upset and then lo and behold
    one of the other party guests says don’t worry guys I brought this I brought the
    kink overtalk plugging it in and they see em I mean USBC exactly and then the
    whole party’s plan towerfall which is actually awesome I’m glad they chose
    that game on the bar TV and they’re having a blast and it just felt like
    I’ve never liked fine I’m out of touch I don’t go to that many parties I go to
    even fewer bars but I don’t imagine this is a common scenario nonetheless they
    they’re shooting for fifty thousand dollars in the Kickstarter and they must
    have eight hundred thousand dollars but I do over 800 they reach their funding
    in 40 minutes it’s a number one gaming hard work excelsior clearly this is a
    neat case fifty bucks you know all it takes the
    firmware update from Nintendo it’s disabled the HDMI functionality and
    speaking of which if you’re in the market for a new switch because remember
    the Nintendo not only has the smaller switch coming out the one without the
    removable controllers but also they did a stealth update with increased battery
    life of the switch I think Game Stop has a trade-in for your first generation
    switch where if you do the math basically you could create in your
    switch what what what do you mean first generation switch you know that this is
    the switch that’s not the internal upgrade oh right right right so like
    your one we all have essentially you can sell to Game Stop and then you can buy
    for $75 less so which is a not a bad depreciation actually and then which
    lets you then buy a new switch for $75 essentially for increased
    battery life if that’s a way you want to go of course you have to go through all
    the reporting of the saves and everything and that’s kind of a headache
    on the Nintendo side oh you don’t mean the new switch without the detachable
    can no I mean it’s then they remade the switch but it now has better battery yes
    I didn’t know that maybe you were gone that week when we talked about that’s
    great guys yeah there’s you have to look for a specific model numbers they’re
    phasing off production of the old ones but gotcha you can google it and there
    will be if you look at the box there will have a different model number serum
    is it like double O battery yeah no it’s not 30% or something okay yeah the same
    form factor yeah I think they found some efficiencies with the new chip they’re
    using there’s a new teensy teensy 4.0 brothers TCL C is a chip it’s a
    microcontroller it’s you know I don’t know how many how many people that we
    have are so listeners actually follow this stuff but a microcontroller is
    basically like a little tiny computer that does everything sort of there’s no
    operating system it just you store your program on it and you turn it on and it
    runs that program Arduino is the most popular microcontroller so the teensy is
    a competing with Arduino company made by Paul staff Riggin who we actually had on
    the show was it like a couple years ago from Maker Faire he doesn’t he developed
    a cool music synthesizer using his latest tip at the time now he’s released
    the 4.0 and goodness gracious me the power blows the other teensies off the
    chart there’s a graph if you look at it it’s just like every other teen see
    that’s ever been made is this little tiny slice of the pie and this thing
    just blows them away so if you’re into microcontrollers you want to program
    something go fast the teensy 4.0 maybe for you and this is a teensy is one of
    your own personal faves yes this a lot it’s really well integrated into the
    Arduino IDE support is there for almost you know so many of the libraries and
    Paul is just like a low-level genius and he not only developed the hardware this
    is this by the way this is a six layer board I mean there’s a lot going on in
    this tiny little board but he also helps to port all of the necessary libraries
    and he’s very really involved in the community so it’s it’s definitely a
    great platform to build things on so I’ll be curious to see what like the
    power here that’s a cortex with m7 if that means something
    to you and it just it runs it dive I think six hundred megahertz it’s blazing
    fast it has pads on the back so you can solder SD card reader directly to the
    chip and I look forward to seeing what people can do fast LED was just ported
    over so that’s what I run game frame on am I trying to see if I can what speed
    my animations run out and how things like that but yeah beaker see what it
    does I mean it should be able to do like video decoding like crazy new things
    that we haven’t seen before so look forward to seeing what that what that is
    very cool speaking of switch and games
    well loot boxes we we kind of talked about this last weekend right after we
    finished recording they announced this but we talked about there was loot boxes
    being banned in a couple games because it’s gambling they’re here and then
    right after that Microsoft Sony and Nintendo all said that any games that
    are on their platform that have loot boxes are gonna disclose the rates of
    musts close must disclose the rates of the prizes which to me that really
    confirms it as gambling it’s totally gambling I mean it’s
    exactly how slot machines work slot machine manufacturers have to go to the
    regulators and disclose and they get audited for the the frequency of these
    these jackpots and that’s that’s exactly how this what this sounds like it’s it’s
    a catastrophe amble no I think we’re gonna look back on this period as when
    people used to smoke cigarettes and nobody knew about nicotine this is just
    like there’s a bad period in the history of video game a getting so much money
    off the kids making so much money it’s not goals yeah I want I want answer that
    question I want every loot box in my tell them I will whatever but you know
    what games do is like they give you the loot box for you to buy the key Wow yeah
    but that’s dialogue yes yeah remember those snap sunglasses yeah you know
    snapchat course snap court had a police a physical device had was a little fun
    design had a camera on one corner they’re releasing their third generation
    model a third gen they haven’t had a whole lot of success they haven’t that
    was a big loss leader for them no they had success that one day when they
    created like a mega storm when you got to buy the first gen out of a vending
    machine right and people lined up for them
    scarcity was a big thing for them but it turns out if you’re gonna have
    artificial scarcity you’re not gonna sell a lot either it’s based on how much
    money you spent developing them well there’s a third generation these are the
    snap spectacles three they are gonna be three hundred and eighty dollars and
    they’ll be released in November this is a big redesign that looks a little
    sleeker still has a more forward ya circular frame circle lenses yeah and
    square pictures and rectangular pictures where a square pictures I started but
    also two cameras so it will allow for depth mapping and sterile imaging so you
    can record in stereo not to be clear there is not an augmented reality aspect
    here right no this is really recording purely recording devices and with no
    talk about stabilization so you can get basically very shaky stereo imaging you
    could post process yeah yeah you crop in and post process but they’re not to be
    viewed in VR for example it’s made to be viewed and some type of 3d viewer after
    the fact with some depth data in the age we live in which is bouncing back
    towards more privacy issues this is weird to have this coming out now I
    don’t I’m not a big snapchat user I’m not really a snapchat user at all I’m
    curious for snapshot users out there is this something that people use as a part
    of their snapchat diet I’ve been in content generation I don’t know man I
    think that this is a sign of future still like I I still imagine one day
    we’ll all be wearing cameras that it is on all the time
    and people are trying to figure out when is the populace gonna be ready for
    that do you member the movie her Nolan said
    yeah welcome at love that movie I love that movie remember one of things that
    was in that movie so it was scar Johansson as an AI Fah and Joker walking
    Phoenix falling in love with her and they go on a date yeah number yeah and
    one of the things that are they gonna date is she’s in the phone form factor
    she’s on a single camera phone which is how backward thinking was that at least
    four lenses on that phone right to be forward-thinking but he puts her in his
    shirt pocket facing camera facing outward peeking out in the top like a
    pocket pretender and basically she was doing surveillance
    she was scanning the world yeah but she convinced me to it because it was a
    friendly ask it was it was so conversational hey buddy let me see the
    world I just wanted I was wanting a sense of what’s out there yeah have fun
    conversation you make it sound a Farias well if you think of the future there’s
    nothing to say that you know our phones in the apps we use even in things like
    the Pokemon goes that’s exactly what’s going on so there’s a great episode that
    came out this week on the podcast flash-forward that’s posted by Rose
    Eveleth that’s about this idea of like facial tracking and AI and like what are
    the limits and one of the questions she poses in the episode is like okay we can
    talk about this in a human context what if we like take it to the extreme do
    animals have any sort of right to privacy in this frame and does that
    change anything because maybe that informs where we actually are on this
    issue and it’s super gnarly I mean I think that’s ID we don’t think the
    animals off the right to privacy anywhere right but exploring that
    question I think unpacks where it is that we want privacy and why and where
    the places we don’t do you think animals want privacy oh I don’t know if they
    have the cognition to do this but there’s definitely been situations in
    scientific studies where animals have noticed they’re being tracked and
    differently and so there is some cognition of being Absalon I totally buy
    that and that is well that is something yes what that means I don’t know
    interesting because I mean then you apply that back to us it’s like is the
    idea of us being watched even if it’s not being used for any nefarious reason
    does it change our behavior overall and does that violate us I don’t think so I
    think I think the short term memory that we have or the fact that we can be so
    easily sold with convenience or entertainment
    I think easily bypasses that these aren’t easy questions that’s why it’s
    fun it might change your behavior in a good way
    oh no I I don’t think this is all deleterious stuff I mean there was a
    whole logician Snell talked about you know a a while ago about Gaber points
    like you know if we start to gamify everything in our lives will that change
    our behavior well you know we want to read better books and view and if we get
    more life gamer points out of that stuff right if a gamification of and you know
    it really didn’t happen because people only really care about gamerscore
    in gamification when it was tied to the things that they already wanted to do
    that were fun not necessarily the stuff that they’ve resisted there was
    definitely a line really okay last bit of technology news Hey optics oh we we
    gotta talk about this cuz I don’t understand this story but we’re gonna
    try so should I start it’s like you got to jump in because yeah this is very
    confusing so there’s a well-known optical problem and it’s best probably
    characterized it when you look through a viewfinder on on a camera is that when
    you’re looking through the center of that viewfinder see things pretty
    clearly but even the edges even on the highest of high end cameras be a little
    blurry and that has to do with the fact that there’s no such thing as a perfect
    lens even the highest of high end lenses are going to have sums or
    of defect deformer knee abnormality so that when the light comes in and bends
    it’s not gonna actually focus on one single point it’s gonna have a focal
    area as opposed to a single point aberrations and yeah and it’s called
    aberrations so can we actually solve this problem and this problem which I
    actually didn’t know that it was the case has been known about for almost a
    couple thousand years like Greek scientists have known about the physics
    of this problem for almost two thousand years and scientists have always thought
    there is a solution to this but most of the ways that it’s been addressed has
    just been through brute force computing and it has shown up in how we construct
    lenses where it’s not a single lens it’ll be like six or seven in series as
    opposed to one lens that does that creates a more sort of perfect picture
    well late last year and it’s just making the rounds now there was a solution to
    this problem posed by a couple scientists and I am going to put up the
    solution yeah on the screen yeah that makes sense there is a solution the
    solution according to the story was discovered by one of the scientists he
    was working on this problem I used two postdocs working together on this and it
    came to him while he was in his kitchen putting Nutella on a piece of toast does
    that did and he had an aha moment that relates back to this beautiful mind the
    idea of this equation which explains some of the brute force computing that
    we’ve been doing is that you can create a lens I think it’ll be still called a
    lens that is one unified piece that has different shapes attached to it so it
    could have like parabolic or hyperbolic shapes on one side and sort of like a
    normal sphere achill shape on the other that actually corrects all of us and and
    leads to a single focal point whether we can manufacture it that’s the question
    right because it’s not a traditional lens we’re talking about or stacking of
    lenses requires manufacturing techniques
    especially we’re talking about its small sizes for cellphones another place that
    this definitely applies to is is VR because the aberrations the the the
    imperfections and the imperfect sweet spots of lenses that we get in in VR
    lenses is a place where we see that most clearly or not clearly I guess I mean I
    don’t know why we didn’t get this earlier I mean it seems simple yeah yeah
    he’s gonna pick white chalkboard if you give a big chalkboard he had a lot of
    chalk you know someone’s gonna come with lips what I loved it every single story
    I read about this so when norm put this in our in our show notes I was like ah
    this is so interesting and I went down the rabbit hole I read six different
    articles about this all of them said to make this incredibly simple or to vastly
    oversimplify every single article had that sense in it even the paper uses
    that phrase so this is this is how complicated this solution is yeah yeah
    that’s pretty cool it’s a lot of variables in there and
    it’s all algebra too yeah which i think is hilarious whoo all right ouch my head
    hurts okay that’s it for technology before we move on to the next segment I
    want you know that this is only a test this week also made possible with
    support and thanks to bombas when I was close when I was in school a young lad
    buttons school the coolest thing to wear well I think polo jackets Nautica
    jackets yeah those are Tommy Hilfiger jackets those are super cool to wear
    those who had it were cool and those who didn’t well they wanted to have them now
    the coolest things in school bama’s sucks I think socks are very cool as an
    adult bama’s are the most comfortable kids
    socks ever they’re designed with several comfort innovations to help them feel
    better than any other kids sock I’ve ever made and they’re so colorful
    literally bursting with color they even have a little colorful B on them and
    since bombas donates a pair of socks or every pair purchase you should get some
    for yourself too can send your kids back to school with bombas the socks that
    will keep them comfy colorful and ready to take on the school year visit bombas
    comm slash test and get 20% off your first purchase
    that’s B om bas comm / tests for 20% off your first
    purchase bomb is calm / test and thank them for supporting the show now it’s time for a moment of science
    I’m gonna begin and end this segment with some video recommendations and this
    is the first one it was tweeted out from the testing account and this is the
    Smithsonian official video on the projection mapping of the Saturn 5
    rocket on the side of the Washington Monument I dare you to watch this and
    not cry it was awesome it was so awesome to see it and their shots are so dead on
    that you can see everything in its glory you can see here the audio perfectly
    you’ve got to listen to it with good headphones good speakers because the
    audio is big part of experience here it was so mesmerizing
    and just kudos to the entire team at 59 productions that went through this there
    are some videos of Adam talking to the team that put this together but I
    implore you all to take 19 minutes and watch this movie you know it’s
    exceptional I find the most striking thing about this video is that it’s in
    the dark of course and you can see there’s a massive very densely packed
    crowd watching it is how few I mean they’re a lot but the density of people
    holding up their phones is much less than I thought it’s much less than you
    would see at a concert or even a sporting event right people like they
    were started why they were watching it for they were in the moment all right so
    a few stories this week we’ll get the serious one out of the way first so in
    August of last year there was officially in Ebola outbreak in the Congo this is
    the second time this has happened and Ebola is caused by a virus the reason
    it’s so well studied and so concerning this is highly communicable and it’s
    mortality rate especially in this latest outbreak was 67% so if you get it you’re
    probably going to die now that mortality depends on the viral load you get well
    we have some good news there was two clinical are actually for clinical
    trials started with two with different drugs but with different effects one of
    them is like antibody suppressor one is sort of an antiviral age
    two of them reduce that mortality to twenty to thirty percent for people that
    had a lot of the virus and if you didn’t have a lot of the virus that mortality
    dropped to below ten percent we’ve never seen that kind of progress with Ebola
    before this is massive news because it might give the ability for public health
    workers if this is actually approved to actually stem transmission in a pretty
    significant way when the mortality rate is that high it’s basically really hard
    to sort of pen in the transmission of this person-to-person if you’re able to
    bring down the mortality rate you can probably bring down the transmission
    rate too so this is really really really wonderful news to see this kind of
    uptake and from my understanding the earlier that the this was administered
    the rava rates skyrocketed yeah even though I think it’s below 50% it’s still
    it’s it’s a big deal and also they’re working in partnership I must say with
    the drug manufacturers so manufacturing won’t your problems supply won’t be a
    problem yeah Regeneron is the pharmaceutical
    company that made one of the drugs and they are they’ve partnered on this and
    trying to come up with methods to to administer this they still have a long
    way to go in the trial and you’re right it is like detecting early but it’s not
    just detecting early because this is a weird thing about Ebola it’s actually
    the viral load in your body and it’s not always
    I mean it’s typically a function of time how that viral load increases but it’s
    not always like the the viral rate isn’t the same person to person anyways this
    is just great news on to some more mysteries so Jeremy yes can I tell you
    about this group in Germany they imported tons of snow from Antarctica
    kept it frozen the whole time brought it back to Germany and then melted it what
    the hell like why why would they do that do you any guesses where do they what do
    they do with the melted snow yeah they filter it and then they
    vaporize it that wasn’t the taste of albatross all along no any guesses no I don’t know man it could
    be like a slice of time it seems like a very carbon heavy load to bring to fly
    snow from yeah dark to go all the way to Germany what they were looking for was
    concentration of something called iron 60 and their reason they were looking
    for iron 60 is they’re looking for traces of a supernova blast that
    occurred across the galaxy in Antarctic snow this snow they confirmed had only
    fallen in the last 20 years so this isn’t some like ancient ice like that’s
    been buried in Antarctica is happening now they found traces of iron 60 that
    only could be formed from a supernova explosion and cosmic rays coming and
    interacting and so the dust from that explosion actually coming and hitting
    the earth and the reason they confirm that is even though iron 60s here on
    earth the iron 60 is usually coupled with manganese compound and so they
    actually measured the concentration of this manganese compound in it and
    there’s no way that this was made on the earth so they confirmed that dust from a
    supernova from across the galaxy yeah scattered iron on us in the last 20
    years it’s like still depositing stuff on us right now I think that’s so
    incredibly cool and mind-boggling 20 years no fell how far away I see so how
    far away how many light-years away it was a supernova let me look up that
    number but it’s far it’s really far so it traveled that distance and it
    traveled along and ended here in the past 20 years yeah I didn’t write down
    how far that jet sorry but it’s far I just want to be clear that the supernova
    didn’t occur 20 years ago no yeah supernovae like thousand millions maybe
    billions and holy canoli all right who has a cat I have a cat and you don’t
    you’re not fond of this cat you know I don’t want to throw Jojo under the bus
    whoa or do you does mmm depends the size of us does your does your cat like grass
    do you know about this phenomena I couldn’t tell you we have a weird how
    with no backyard okay a lot of cats like the idea will if you expose them to
    grass will start eating it and like gnawing on it
    the exhibit weird behavior and typically after they do that they vomit very
    endearing cat behavior yeah and they’ll sell cat grass like Trader Joe’s is it
    like a pet store sell it and the idea behind it was always something very
    simple that they that vomiting they would do this when they were feeling
    sick and they would just sort of evolutionary and go over to grass
    eat this stuff it would force them to throw up and they’d feel better that’s
    not entirely the truth we actually got to the bottom of this from a study this
    week that came out in the oh is reported at the International Society for applied
    ethology in Norway this week and they interviewed people that spent on average
    three or more hours a day with their cats and studied their behavior and they
    were able to tell that what they’re doing is an evolutionary based behavior
    where they were trying to eject parasites from their gut and so they
    would chew on grass in the wild and develop this behavior but now they do it
    to build up the muscle tissue around that to be able to throw up so it’s kind
    of linked but now we know why cats eat grass and it’s gross and they it is to
    throw up but it’s actually a behavior that’s been cooked in for a long time
    all right do you think cats don’t know though cats don’t know why they eat
    grass they just do it no it’s not cognitive they I was like it’s something
    that’s been evolved for a long time now all right grouse time ready Oh God
    if you’re short showing a video from Twitter and the pics of snail looks like
    a snail a little bit translucent snail and the snails head and eyes look like
    they got like moldy candy corn in them isn’t wonderful is one of them it is
    horrifying I love this what has happened is this is a snail that’s been taken
    over by a parasitic worm oh and this parasitic worm
    has affected the motor function of the snail so the snail comes to a stop and
    then what it does is it the parasite a four forces the secretion of this sort
    of like this agent that affects their eye stalks and makes them pulse with
    different colors so it’s typically like a green and an orange and a red and the
    reason it’s developed in the eye stalks is this is an attractant
    to birds that will eat the snail and so the reason it’s in the eye stocks is now
    the birds will come and pluck out the eye stalks of the snail only where the
    parasitic worm has traveled and then the worm goes into the bird gut to complete
    its it’s a mating cycle and then get pooped out by the bird and sort of
    conclude this is how gremlins work this is how the xenomorph work to a certain
    extent this explains so many science fiction movies this is wonderful it’s
    the grouse this is so exceptional this is why Twitter exists people I thought
    this was like the rare now clown snail no this is horrifying
    parasites parasites oh my god this is one of the most horrifying things you’ve
    ever seen I take back every favorable thing I said about this video
    you said something favorable about it looked amazing oh it’s not good and
    lastly I have a recommendation of something to watch first science let me
    see if I can bring this up just give me one second
    it is a story that was in Wired this week but it’s a story I featured here on
    this podcast so a long time ago yeah I talked about oh no I closed him no no
    I’ve screwed up I talked about this mantis praying mantis well I believe
    you’ve put up your your other window here couture things have gone off the
    rails and I can’t control it yeah I was gonna turn off the television I can’t stop it it’s like you know I can
    build to see anything I can’t control your computer no I didn’t expect to see
    this alright I’ve forced quit that’s the only way I could deal with this it was a
    praying mantis that had 3d goggles printed on them you might remember this
    from episode I think it was like two three years ago now and it was one of
    the most adorable things yeah I love seeing bugs that have goggles put on
    them I’ve shown a parrot that had 3d printed goggles as it went through a
    laser field to understand it’s it’s wing patterns and they had the air sort of
    flow that comes off with them yeah well this praying mantis oh I think I got it
    I’m back this praying mantis that has 3d glasses on it so they’ll deal with the
    glasses yeah the praying mantis is and most
    insects actually don’t see color in the red spectrum but they have incredible
    stereoscopic vision that that surpasses ours but we’re trying to understand what
    channels of light they actually see to put together these stereoscopic images
    well this week wired actually released a video with a writer Matt Simon that
    actually shows the process of doing this and I think my computer is like freaking
    out so I can’t show it but I’ll somehow link it in the YouTube comments and you
    can see how they actually constructed 3d goggles for a praying mantis yeah and
    what they did is they came up with a station or they anesthetize the praying
    mantis by putting it in cold water and then while it’s sort of sedated they
    basically used a combination of oh I got it
    I got it guys they use a combination of what essentially is almost like a hot
    iron like a soldering iron and beeswax melted a little bit of beeswax and then
    glued with that beeswax these cutout 3d glasses with different colors and onto
    the praying mantises eyes totally did not harm the praying mantis right I mean
    I don’t think this is entirely comfortable but no they did not harm
    like the praying mantis is alive it wakes up then they play videos on a
    screen where it sort of suspended next to it yeah to see how it reacts to stuff
    that only showing in a certain wavelength of light to understand how
    they react and how they develop it is an awesome video we rarely see kind of like
    the maker ethos of scientists behind the scenes of how they conduct this and that
    video shows the entire process it’s awesome all right that’s it I’ve
    horrified enough people today the VR minute virtual reality this week so we
    got a little bit of VR news this week first of all industry news big deal was
    announced this week that Nate Mitchell of oculus / Facebook founder one of the
    original co-founders of oculus as a company is leaving oculus not sure where
    he’s going it sounds like he’s gonna take some time to recharge and travel
    yeah won’t be leaving VR necessarily will be part of the community within a
    smaller role but but pretty big departure it he was most recently he
    went through a number of positions obviously but I think most recently he
    was head of product you know in virtual reality mm-hmm so he wasn’t for a while
    there he was strictly rift you know and out of rift and so my thought initially
    was well maybe oculus is really going all-in on quest and maybe prioritizing
    that’s part of this thinking but if he’s had a product that would have been
    enveloped request so I’m not sure I’d love to know his story you know I’m sure
    I know a lot of people would I don’t think we’re gonna get it no time soon
    yeah I mean part of me feels like this is part of the Facebook Zuckerberg
    regime of like you know cycling out a lot of the original people who were
    evolved and and as VR is maturing or growing at speeds that there may or may
    not be happy with you know changing it up and getting a fresh blood in there I
    don’t know I mean it’s they were a start-up I mean
    they were way before Facebook they were a Kickstarter and he was a part of it
    then there was nothing to guarantee they were gonna have some sort of buyout and
    be able to become you know multimillionaires sure and Brendan is
    very much like a startup guy I couldn’t sort of understand why he would desire
    that again and I had thought maybe Nate was gonna stick you know long term at
    Facebook but maybe he’s the same way maybe he just wants to get back to
    something fresh a scrappy little group of people I mean the only thing we can
    say for certain is that VR is much bigger now than it was in 2012 oculus is
    a multi-product you know it’s a much bigger company and operation that’s not
    to say that they weren’t suited for it but it’s also a different type of
    company and with different products and maybe different directions and so the
    only thing we can look to is their next steps whenever they that stuff comes out
    of our mouth and then we can speculate as to you know whether why they aren’t
    gonna be involved going forward we’re gonna miss him he’s been a great guy to
    chat with almost every year absolutely I’m actually kind of excited
    to see what he like as a startup person what he’ll probably be back in the game
    in a couple years I wonder with some new idea I wonder if he’ll stick with with
    VR I mean you were in that position and none of us are but you know if we were
    there from the start at oculus at 2012 and got picked by Facebook because we
    wanted to sell the Facebook with its resources and saw the development of the
    release of the rift first of all the release and launch of the touch and then
    go and then of quest and of rift s you know would you feel like your job is
    done I don’t know I think if you if you founded a company if you’re that
    invested intellectually and emotionally in it I don’t think you’re ever gonna
    feel like it’s done because you probably have a vision that’s inside your brain
    that will never be realized or it’ll take years and
    years and but this is also super typical of founders when they sell their company
    that they don’t always stick around and the visions and directions no longer
    become yours when someone else owns the company and when there are other
    managers than two people too that you thought you work with I don’t think it
    says anything bad about the future products I’m think that you know I still
    hope that they will invest heavily in desktop and I hope that everything
    they’ve said will be true that they’re still paying attention to that and there
    are still a lot of people even though that weren’t part of the founding team
    that were there close to the beginning closed shortly after the the acquisition
    the fact that Sean carboxyl involved Michael a brush still involved it seems
    like she’s losing still involved isn’t in a good place right now they’ve had a
    massively successful launch this year with the quest that they can they sell
    everyone they can make yeah yeah and we know that they you know they probably
    with another one and they hopefully when they talked about the family of VR
    products at OSI six this year they will still think of it as maybe go less so
    much but quest and desktop will still be two big strong pillars but okay seen go
    because they have some big dislike light uh games in the works yeah absolutely
    yeah big desktop game also out well updated
    and PDA and psvr is no man’s sky the big beyond update to
    oh yeah that people are talking about it like it’s no man’s sky 2.0 so if you
    remember the launch and it seemed like it was underwhelming compared to all of
    the hype you’re gonna want to look at it again first of all the update everything
    about this every up that they’ve released has been free so if you did buy
    it and checked it out you’ve got this already just boot up steam or wherever
    you bought it and it will patch an update it this adds three like what they
    would have otherwise called three different updates that combined into one
    and one of them is VR support as well as expanded multiplayer that feels like the
    big one yeah it feels like VR support with
    support for index controllers with some custom UI scan custom actions you can do
    in VR they had talked definitely I think they did a lot of configuration in terms
    of scale because a flat-screen game you know it’s
    different than own compass for VR in terms of landscape and trees and
    interface cockpits an interface of course I haven’t a chance to jump in
    this literally came out this morning the patch came out I was hoping last night
    we’d be chance to go in but I’m very excited multiplayer is gonna be there so
    Jeremy if you got time oh I want to sure let’s jump in and do some exploring of
    the galaxy oh I’m really looking forward to this I mean you know this wishful
    thinking on a lot of people’s part like this is potentially like a real killer
    app for a lot of people like this is this could justify a VR purchase if this
    because this is a massive massive game where you can explore the in its at the
    solar system and top this well is it the galaxy or is it the universe I don’t
    even know but it’s Anna massive amount of spaces procedurally generated and
    there’s vehicles and you’ve take off and land from planets seamlessly and you can
    go underwater and it just looks spectacular
    alright I gotta say I’m a I’m a little surprised only because open-world games
    I always associate to long periods in a in a game yeah and like two three hours
    just getting totally lost and does that lend itself severe does yeah I don’t
    know right and so certainly people play lead dangerous and that’s yeah the same
    kind of timeframe involvement so I’m curious if after an hour this is just
    like overwhelming and too much or is or if I’m just gonna want to keep going and
    just lose track of time which is the Holy Grail right yep and then Oh last
    week you brought some getting a chance to show this but you did the Franken
    quest up mod do you know what the Franken quest is it’s a mod that joins
    the vive pro audio strap that was called I never remember yeah deadlock sorry
    lost audio strap with the quest so you take this the quest strap off which
    requires you know just like a little nudging of the connectors and you you
    remove it you can easily put it back on and you replace it with this deluxe
    audio strap and you like though it gives you the rigid strap and it gives you
    built-in headphones so it’s it’s I I think it’s fantastic it’s a wonderful
    model ready had the deluxe audio strap and so I you know it was a no-brainer
    just to try it out so even though the deluxe audio strap
    was built with a different head set in mind like did it maintain
    the balance yeah of the weight absolutely I mean sure yeah I mean the
    the quest is just a bit front-heavy for me
    and so this counterbalance is that small bit even though obviously the strap is
    gonna be heavier adding that way to the back helps to offset it plus you can
    ratchet it and better and it grips the underneath the back of your skull better
    than the soft flexible quest strap does that’s the thing we found with ergonomic
    for these headsets it really is less about total weight than it is about
    ergonomics the halo strap design it’s in psvr and the rift s is is very
    comfortable because it particularly grabs them put back to the head I’m just
    a little bit less of the fan of that because it’s the the ring design I think
    the pressure is applied in a weird way I like the flux auto head strap a lot I
    love the index heads the the strap in the next the way that the back part of
    it yeah is wider and really cups like there’s no way you can do it with Eliot
    cupping the back of your head I’m in that for much longer than I am in a rift
    us yeah that’s a great headset Jim you can’t fit the franking quest inside the
    official quest case no so you’ve got to find alternative higher the the standard
    Pelican ripoff case that’s no there’s another one that I got it works more or
    less fine yeah it’s great and there’s used to have to do it with Velcro and
    someone released a couple different people release 3d printable brackets
    that allow everything to snap together and that’s what I did and it’s been
    working great audio is pretty good I mean yeah you can still use the quest
    audio if you just unplug the headphones right but it’s fine it’s good like I
    actually didn’t like the deluxe audio strap compared to like the rift the
    original rift but it’s compared to no no or direct it’s an improvement so yeah
    yeah I wonder if we’re gonna see a third-party audio strap yeah I want to
    mark it I would be surprised and then last well a little more pavlof you
    finally got a chance to jump in Jeremy I did yeah and you were you were right
    it’s it’s a good it’s a good game there’s old you know if you like
    counter-strike or deathmatch games first-person shooters it’s a it’s a good
    time it’s I just thought it was funny because I I’m a real running gun player
    so I’m not we’re making very high on the
    scoreboards but I had a good time jumping in there with you I didn’t
    expect the mode that you had talked up so much TTT me as fun as that was and
    funny yes so that I mean there’s all that is very much a social game and that
    and people there there’s a merchants behavior you would expect you would
    expect maybe the the audience for a social game to not have crossover with
    counter-strike where it’s really about communication and talking and trying to
    deduce who’s the traitor and who’s the villager and but it is like people get
    together they talk things out they try to intimidate one another they try to
    like figure out they try to fool one another it’s you watch the movements
    people back in a way where they’re looking there’s a lot of that subtlety
    that really can make or break a game that yeah really is really great for VR
    yeah and you start counting people you know how many are left and you notice
    somebody’s missing like well where did they go yeah there’s also a prop hunt
    mode which is also another Garry’s Mod adaptation for Popoff this is a hide and
    seek game it’s not a very popular one for Pavlov right now I can find a lot of
    YouTube videos all youtubers are streaming it and I had a lot of fun on
    this this is a one map it’s a warehouse and it’s hide-and-seek one team searches
    for the other team but the other team gets to hide and the way you hide is by
    grabbing any object in the room and then you become a clone of that object and
    you can walk around as that object so I can grab a tiny soda can on the table
    and I become a tiny soda can and it run to a vending machine and hide amongst
    the other soda cans but then you’ll eventually be forced to say something
    and everybody hears it like it audio think why are you forced to say
    something so that people can find you oh so it’s like a Marco Polo a little bit
    yes well yeah but you don’t want to be yeah exactly yeah is that so they have
    you part of as part of the map there are audio taunts that get downloaded and
    your character will MIT the taunts as the game is close to the end so you
    can’t as easily hide and you got to run and you can change the other object so
    you see them like you see a couch running across the room and suddenly it
    becomes a barrel and it’s only becomes a briefcase
    is it the kind of thing where you can memorize the map and you you know this
    one things out of place but you also tell yourself there are certain places
    but I know there are for water you know buckets here but well you don’t want to
    shoot anything because uh yeah when you shoot you actually lose five health for
    every shot so you can only shoot twenty times yeah you can guess twenty times
    and if you guess correctly your health will count down and it’ll get actually
    pumped out doctor one hundred one shot one kill
    or is it now it allows for if you get shot as a prop you have a chance to run
    Andry hide if but everyone starts chasing yeah run really fast to but and
    but the thing is it’s not a serious game when you start running as a soda-can
    people flip out and they say oh my god it’s a soda can and everyone starts
    laughing and they can’t catch the soda can and like then they run over and they
    try to find it so what’s awesome about this is I’m so used to turning off group
    chat in in certain VR games yeah and this sounds like one where they built a
    community where not only is it a good game mechanic but people are having fun
    with it I was thinking a lot about this last night the the TTT game-mode because
    at a certain point after playing for a couple hours
    the gameplay does become a little predictable right like there are certain
    things that people say or do and I’m like how do you increase replayability
    and I wonder how could this type of game scaled on to a pub G or fortnight level
    you know what would it mean to have a mafia style werewolf style TTT style
    game in a big island with a hundred players and the way I thought about
    working would be if it was started off in groups of players you have a hundred
    players and everyone spawns in a party of five randomly so you are in your
    group of five and you know how in pub G the the wall closes in yep it would be
    the reverse of that you would you would be on your part of the island and you
    would have a Corinne that you and other four people or you another five people
    small group could not leave okay until only the innocent people are alive or
    only the traders were alive so you have to have your little mini
    social experiment to resolve yeah who the traitors or the innocents are in
    that small area and once it’s done then you thus the survivors of that group
    find the next group I think and you gotta convince them we were the sole
    survivors we were the innocents or you have to yeah obviously you might be or
    you might be or like there’s a lone survivor coming over the hill is that a
    lone trader or is it a lone innocent one that that joins us the bigger group and
    the bigger group and the big group and as and as you get to the end of the game
    it’s all the survivors got a winner design there I just wonder if it’s
    possible to make a game that’s a successful as fortnight or anything like
    that that requires voice chat like requires it
    yeah well this is why I think that the scalability I think if you’re talking
    about conversations between you know conversations through 200 people at once
    yeah is gonna be chaos and if you segment that to splitting people off yep
    and then kind of tear it up so it’s only you know five ten people at a time right
    you’re never gonna get it more than like you know 30 20 people at the end and it
    might all be traitors and you might be like all the it’s all left for traitors
    but like three innocents and they’re like they have no idea how many of them
    you know are left and now I think that’d be a really fun way to do a pub G yeah
    survival version of I’m waiting the Mafia game I’m with you who’s gonna do
    it I don’t know I want where’s the game
    developer button someone listening in the podcast make that version for rec
    room for Pavlov rec room just is 32 players I know that’s I think it’s also
    a technical limitation between that yeah all right no does it for the podcast
    this week next week I’m not in but I think we’ll have a special guest yeah
    Norm’s going to parts unknown so if you’re in parts unknown as well say hi
    to norm that’s right anything coming up on tested this week we have a lot more
    videos from Adams trip to the Smithsonian National Air and Space
    Museum including a tour of their restoration facilities and also next
    week oh yeah we have videos from Simone and
    in arial ‘arial Simone and I went to NASA Ames and got to check out some of
    the really cool facilities including their vertical motion simulator
    they’re giant 20g centrifuge and and some other cool things to have videos
    coming up about that next week as well if you’re at Silicon Valley Comic Con
    come say hi Adam had signings and he’s on a panel norm is on a panel I’m on a
    panel yes I’m muttering a panel with some
    people developers in VR darshan is gonna be there talking about big screen and
    some other companies as well Gary’s gonna have a booth yeah he’s gonna be
    there signing things yeah cuz I guess on Twitter he’s making a big announcement
    tomorrow really yeah fascinating so I can’t wait you know for you guys
    listening will pie be it’s a day that does it for this week any altro you guys
    we got an outro this week go Hawks back with another one called trek Museum there’s a new pinball machine in town no
    no no wrong segment no it was so difficult to choose what the top story
    would be this no it wasn’t it’s the card it’s Star Trek the card the Picard I
    think we should talk about our experience fanboy all over this universe
    location but celebrate them exactly because he’s over wonderful the
    enterprise the captain’s yacht manager Oh the underfill yeah no drop in
    knowledge bombs get a few things wrong so a relic of starpha is the lover
    it’s Starfleet what that wedding uniform I was most impressed you know but you
    don’t hear this in the in the video but norm does this and then like we’re
    walking around maybe thirty seconds later and the music comes on over like
    the speed was cute and he was right like you know the course it was right I think I want to hire whoa Hawk to
    follow me around at my company meetings and put together that is fantastic
    yeah oh you’ve ever needed an advertisement for this podcast what do
    you get when you listen to this and lay test hey play the bullhog clips

    Air Line State Park Trail – Introduction
    Articles, Blog

    Air Line State Park Trail – Introduction

    August 20, 2019


    MUSIC Used to be a train track. Now it’s the Air Line Trail. . . NARRATOR Long ago, the vision of a railroad running in a straight line from New York to Boston crystallized and became a reality. Known as the Air Line Railroad, the line operated from the 1870s to the mid-1950’s. Today, this corridor has been reclaimed as a new kind of state park. The Air Line State Park Trail is a 50-mile rail-trail in eastern Connecticut, with numerous access points for non-motorized recreation, and is open daily from dawn to dusk. The trail currently runs from East Hampton to Putnam and Thompson, and then into Massachusetts linking together diverse communities. With endless opportunities for year-round use there is something for everyone on the airline trail; — whether it is a half hour walk — or an intense training run, a half-day bike ride, a leisurely weekend-get away or a week-long tour from end to end with plenty of stops along the way to savor all that the state has to offer. The unpaved trail provides a natural experience and is mostly level with gentle grades making it suitable for people for all ages. There are many ways to use the trail year round. Most sections of the trail are handicapped accessible and suitable for strollers and wheelchairs. Some sections offer benches and picnic tables. Interpretive signs explain the history of the area, mileage markers are in place in some sections of the trail, and trail maps are posted at major access points. As you travel along the trail today, you can still see evidence of the extensive engineering works required to build and operate train service from New York to Boston. Look for long viaducts that span valleys from ridge to ridge to maintain a level grade, — long stretches where the builders blasted through bedrock in order to lay tracks, and — numerous bridges and road crossings. In some places, old railroad ties are visible along the sides of the trail where they were discarded years ago during routine track maintenance and other remnants can be seen poking through the soil here and there along the sides of the trail. The trail passes through an ever-changing classic New England landscape, including extensive wetlands and bogs, — woods, — stonewalls, farm fields, rocky streams and meandering rivers. From the top of the viaducts and the trails many bridges, visitors can enjoy tree top views of scenic river valleys. If you want to expand on your trail experience, there are many interesting things to see and do just off the trail. Here are just a few examples. Let the Airline State Park Trail take you places! — — — — — —

    Moving CTA Forward: Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Transit Legacy
    Articles, Blog

    Moving CTA Forward: Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Transit Legacy

    August 20, 2019


    “Chicago. Magnificent hub of America’s Great Midwest,
    far flung city of millions. Ever expanding. Ever growing.” Back in the early 20th century, filmmakers
    showed Chicago as a fast-paced, cosmopolitan, kinetic city. That hasn’t changed. Nor has the role of public transit as the
    linchpin that keeps this metropolis moving. After more than 70 years of service, Chicagoans
    still rely upon the CTA to get them where they’re going — and back again — reliably,
    efficiently and affordably. Our trains and buses provide one-point-five
    million rides each weekday. Today, we’re a world-class operation thanks
    to the leadership of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Since 2011, the Mayor has made unprecedented
    investment in the CTA — more than $8 billion across the entire system. Under the Mayor’s leadership, CTA overhauled
    and purchased buses to make our entire fleet like-new, refurbished rail cars and placed
    the largest order of new cars in agency history, built new stations, completely rebuilt old
    stations, and reimagined how stations can become centerpieces that reinvigorate communities. The transformation we’ve undergone is truly
    impressive. Since 2011, CTA has rebuilt or refurbished
    nearly one-third of all rail stations throughout our system, some of which were more than a
    century old! We’ve rebuilt or rehabbed more than 70 miles
    of track, to make our customers’ commute faster and more reliable. We’ve also made accessibility a priority. 71% of our stations are wheelchair accessible,
    and we announced our strategic plan to reach 100% accessibility in the next 20 years. A new assembly plant on the Far South Side
    will produce our 7000-series cars, bringing railcar production back to Chicago after a
    30-year absence. We’ve overhauled a thousand buses, purchased
    425 new buses, and ordered 20 new electric buses, giving CTA the largest electric fleet
    in the country! We’ve undertaken some of the biggest projects
    in CTA history, including the Red and Purple Modernization and the Red Line Extension to
    130th Street. Starting in 2019, CTA will rebuild the northern
    part of the Red Line, the CTA’s busiest, replacing century-old tracks and stations
    to meet 21st century demand. The Red Line Extension will extend transit
    service to the Far South Side, promoting access to jobs and opportunity. And we’ve tackled transformational projects
    that will benefit our communities for decades to come. The sleek, modern, eye-catching 95th Street
    Terminal created a new landmark that streamlines connections between bus and rail services
    on the South Side. The beautiful Wilson Station is already a
    source of pride for the Uptown neighborhood and is rejuvenating activity around the station. The newly renovated Illinois Medical District
    Blue Line Station provides the West Side with a fully accessible, modern transit link to
    Malcolm X College, the United Center, and the nation’s largest
    medical district. And the architecturally striking Washington/Wabash
    station in the heart of downtown has become the gem of Jewelers’ Row in the Loop. But, to CTA transit goes beyond getting people
    from Point A to Point B. It’s about being part of a community and helping drive economic
    vibrancy in our neighborhoods through opportunity and engagement. CTA’s historic investment in modernization
    has created thousands of jobs and contracting opportunities for local businesses. The CTA has also created a series of programs
    intended to train and assist local businesses to compete for CTA work. And under Mayor Emanuel, CTA has expanded
    its nationally recognized “Second Chance” Program, which provides valuable job skills
    and career opportunities to ex-offenders and others who face challenges re-entering the
    workforce. The program doubled in size under the Mayor,
    and has made a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of Chicagoans and their families. A desire to give back to our communities also
    led the CTA to bring Chicago Market — a grocery co-op and community space — to the historic
    Gerber Building at the newly rebuilt Wilson Red Line Station. We remodeled and re-opened this vacant neighborhood
    fixture, which now will provide residents and CTA customers access to local, fresh food. It’s no surprise that the new Wilson Station
    has kick-started local economic development with more than 30 new business licenses and
    13-hundred residential units announced, approved or constructed within
    a half-mile of the station. At the Morgan Green Line Station, we’ve
    seen a doubling of building permits and business licenses, while may companies, including Google
    and McDonald’s, have re-located their headquarters within walking distance of the station. And economic development and commercial rents
    both saw a significant uptick near our Cermak-McCormick Place Station when it opened. Mayor Emanuel has also pursued new and innovative
    sources of funding to support CTA’s modernization. Transit TIF legislation is supporting the
    Red and Purple Modernization and future transit projects. And the Mayor established a new, ride-hailing
    fee, making Chicago the first city in the country to devote ride-hailing fees exclusively
    to public transit capital improvements. The ride-hailing fee support two important
    CTA initiatives: The “Safe and Secure” Project — which is upgrading and expanding
    CTA’s security camera network — and “FastTracks” — which is replacing aging
    track infrastructure to provide faster, smoother, rides on all train lines. As you can see, no period in recent CTA history
    has seen the amount of system-wide upgrades, service enhancements and community engagement
    that we’ve seen under Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The Mayor has ensured that the country’s
    second-largest transit agency will be second to none! But, don’t take our word for it. The New York Times recently lauded the job
    Mayor Emanuel has done to keep the CTA rolling. The article’s headline says it all: “Where
    Chicago Trounces New York: Fixing Mass Transit” Thanks to Rahm Emanuel, the future is now
    at the CTA!