french revolution france on world map reasons that lead to french revolution social and political reasons were root of the revolution french revolution occurred between 1789 -1799 important figures who took part in french revolution some of the personalities with their introduction events that lead to the end of the revolution napoleon had major role in end of french revolution due to his immense popularity among the people how the revolution affected the people various affects of the revolution the long lasting effects of the french revolution thanks for watching
In 1871 for a few months during the summer
there was something unusual going on in Paris. A completely functional democratic commune
was formed by the working people and they brought reforms that could still be considered
revolutionary today. Anarchists, Marxists and other socialists
worked together on this project which was supposed to be the beginning of a worldwide
workers revolution. But let’s take a step back and see how we
got there. As I am sure you are well aware, during the
mid-18th century the industrial revolution happened which led to the people who used
to be farmers to be unemployed since new farming equipment meant that farming required less
work and the introduction of private property centralized all farm land in the hands of
wealthy elites. Those new unemployed farmers went to the cities
to work in the new industrialized factories. One of those cities was Paris and it had huge
amounts of factories that needed workers. Of course, since this was before unions or
labor rights the workers had to work for 12 sometimes 18 hours a day every day without
weekends or vacations to look forward to. For some reason those people weren’t happy
and there where multiple riots and demonstrations throughout the century. The French government at the time was the
2nd French empire ruled by Napoleon. … No no not that one. His nephew. Napoleon the third. He tried to emulate his uncle in every way
he could but he never managed it. And the fact that they were back to an emperor
didn’t quite please the people either. The climate in Paris was revolutionary. The high number of alienated workers cramped
in small places and the availability of new socialist and anarchist literature gave Paris
the potential of revolution. But while Napoleon the third and his government
where going about the usual business of suppressing workers, making themselves richer and granting
themselves privileges, across the border there was someone provoking them. The Prussians under Bismarck wanted a confrontation
to get Elsass and Loraine and to unify the smaller German states into a single German
empire. The germans sent a letter which the French
didn’t like and a week later napoleon had declared a that he would invade them. A wave of nationalism swept across France. The workers and revolutionaries of Paris focused
on banding together with the bourgeoisie against the Prussians and forgot about that class
struggle and stuff like that. They where going to destroy the Prussians
and rule Europe just like they did under Napoleon the first! And then the French army got itself surrounded
and the emperor was captured by the Germans. Upon loosing their head of government the
rest of the French leader ship decided that this was as good a time as any to proclaim
the 2nd French republic! Which immediately got destroyed. And then they proclaimed the 3rd French republic! And the Prussians promptly surrounded the
capital city of Paris. And asked for Elsass and Loraine plus a lot
of money in exchange for peace. The government declared that they would not
give up an inch of territory to the Prussian invader! The Prussians dug trenches around Paris and
decided to wait until the French would give up. Weeks turned to months and nothing much happened
besides the fact that the food and coal supply got lower. At the time there where 50 thousand professional
soldiers and 120 thousand recruits who were loyal to the government and 300 thousand men
from the national guard. After some more starving and suffering there
was a proposal for an armistice with the Germans. The condition was that the French army had
to give up their arms. The national guard was exempted from this
because the government argued they needed them to keep order. Now the national guard was mostly made up
of civilians and they where organized by the districts they where from. They mostly reflected the opinions of the
workers of Paris and the surrounding provinces which was inspired by socialist and anarchist
writing. They weren’t exactly disciplined and even
demanded to elect their own officers and sometimes refused to follow orders unless they had democratically
decided if they were okay with that. Can you imagine that? Democracy in the army? After the climate became more heated and the
government and the national guard fought about a few guns the government left the city. This means that the workers where now somehow
in control of the city. The national government as well as the local
government including the mayor had left. Suddenly everything they dreamed of could
be achieved. They could create a new government based on
the socialist and anarchist ideas they had read about. All that change was suddenly possible! They created a council to govern the commune
and immediately held elections. The council was made up or representatives
that represented about 20k citizens each. They could immediately be called back by the
voters if they backed something the people didn’t want. The council also had some professions represented
in it for example they had 33 industrial workers, 5 small business owners, 19 clerks and other
big professions taking part and voting in the meeting. This was to ensure that the laws they made
wouldn’t hurt the workers of paris. They officially proclaimed the commune, held
a big parade and started to implement their changes. They changed the flag to a plain red banner
and switched the calendar back to that disastrous thing they tried during the French revolution
a few decades earlier. The council was made up of different factions. There where the radicals that wanted to implement
changes that would help the people and there where the moderates that didn’t want to
do that and argued that a better world isn’t possible. This will be familiar to anyone who has ever
seen any political debate. The radicals where made up of both anarchists
and socialists who were happy to work together at this time. Because the anarchists proposed it, they decided
not to have a president, mayor or commander in chief. You know anarchism. Rule without a leader. Those jobs where to be done by democratically
elected committees instead. Oh and when I mean democratically I mean elected
by every MAN over 20. In the 6 times they met they agreed on some
nice changes. For example:
The abolition of capital punishment; The abolition of military conscription;
The separation of church and state. The remission of rents owed for the entire
period of the siege. The Abolition of child labour and night work
in bakeries; The Granting of pensions to the unmarried
companions and children of national guardsmen who gave their life in active service. This was new since until then only married
people got pensions. The Free return by pawnshops of all workmen’s
tools and household items, valued up to 20 francs, pledged during the siege;
The Postponement of commercial debt obligations, and the abolition of interest on the debts;
The right of workers to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner
The prohibition of fines imposed by employers on their workmen
In addition to that they Seized church land and made it public. Churches could still continue to say and do
religious stuff if they allowed political debates in churches in the evening. Then they tore down the Vendôme Column which
was built to commemorate napoleons conquests and melted it down to create coins. They also tried to take Versailles with military
force but that but that failed spectacularly. They then decided not to conquer the rest
of France but to show them that a better way is possible. To lead by example and demonstrate the superiority
of their ideals. And this is why they made their biggest mistake. They let the bank of France operate as usual. This means that the government which had fled
from Paris had both time and money to recruit an army. The other French provinces didn’t want the
follow the example of the commune either. This was because most of rural France was
incredibly conservative compared to the revolutionaries in Paris. After about 3 months the French army outside
of the city gates was ready to take Paris back by force. The following week is known as the bloody
week. This is of course because the emperor peacefully
convinced the people of Paris to give up their new freedoms and they agreed and everything
went over peacefully. No just kidding they murdered everyone and
burnt down half of Paris. Afterwards socialists and anarchists split
because they disagreed what the commune should have done differently. Anarchists argued that they should have spread
the ideas of their commune more and socialists argue that they should have been more militarist
to defend themselves. This split is there until today. So in conclusion: Even though it ended quickly
the commune taught us many lessons about how to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat
and to be careful not to let outside powers become too strong. And 41 years later a Russian revolutionary
and his successor would make sure that their revolution would not be crushed be foreign
powers. But that’s a story for another time.
today the coming of mass affluence to the advanced
economies, principally the economies of the west.
Jennifer, speaking of informal
property rights, I thought you owned a chair
right up there? I ‘m just kidding.
I’m going to take it in three
chunks. We’re going to look at big
picture, causal explanations for the
rise of mass affluence, and for explanations first of
its rise, and second, its rise beginning
in Western Europe and North America.
Second, I’m going to
reintroduce the joint stock corporation into that
conversation, and finally we’re going to look
at the phenomenon of mass affluence and the advertising
culture of mid-twentieth century America.
Then on Wednesday we’re going
to descend to details, and the challenge for you in
preparing for Wednesday is to imagine a country,
and imagine that you somehow have been granted a fund
amounting to 5% of its gross domestic product,
and with that 5% you want to make whatever changes you can
imagine, will increase the overall
wealth of that country as much as possible.
It’s a pragmatic question.
It has a causal side to it,
but ultimately it’s pragmatic and it is not one size fits all.
That is, you’ve got to know
something about the country to know something about what needs
doing; 5% of the GDP in Ghana will be
spent–will be wisely spent very differently than 5% of the GDP
in Bolivia or Mexico, or Norway.
So the first of the three
topics is capitalist takeoff. The portrait of this corpulent
and obviously affluent gent is Sir Richard Arkwright,
who was the creator of the most efficient early textile
machinery, and who unlike many others
about whom Clark talks, actually profited very
handsomely from that work. By takeoff in the west,
and this goes back to the first day of class,
and by Wednesday we’ll go back again to gapminder.org and look
at the bubbles moving through space.
This still photograph,
so to speak, covers a longer time horizon,
a 500 year time horizon. It shows an abrupt northward
movement in GDP per capita in the U.S., lagging a bit in
Japan, lagging further in China, India, and Indonesia.
If we just throw all the
countries in the world in a pot, we get a picture that looks
something like this, where gross GDP is in blue,
population in green, and the one divided by the
other in gold. What we’re interested in from
here to the end of term really is in understanding what lies
behind these curves and in thinking about from a given a
country’s point of view, or from given class of people
in a given country’s point of view,
how can we increase the rate at which things gets better?
Now before I go further some of
you are thinking green thoughts. Wave at me if you’re thinking
green thoughts and wondering whether it’s really a good idea;
I have so many people with so much money in their pockets.
Sasha tell us.
We got a microphone here?
Student: I think
basically the root of all environmental problems,
if you care about the natural environment,
is that there are too many people, so you have more people
who can consume more. The simple thing to think is
that that’s bad news for the earth.
Prof: Okay so you would
like to kill off a portion of the world’s population.
Prof: Okay very
straightforward, good, clear MBA thinking.
Given a constant world
population, if we had it, would you prefer that that
population on average be a little less affluent then it is,
or that I seem to want it to be? Student: I’m not sure
that it’s that straightforward because if people–
societies don’t have the means to advance technology,
even though consumption does go up,
you have cleaner technologies that would be developed with
greater economic prosperity, so I’m not as clear on that one.
Prof: Okay, not as clear.
Now you would acknowledge that
as hundreds of millions of people living in places like
China and India come into income enough to have a family car or
even two, that there’s a challenge there?
so let’s keep the natural environment in the background as
we talk about this, but let’s for the moment focus
on economics, and let’s start with a curve
like this. The curve shows low income to
the left, high income to the right,
and the frequency of each income stratum is indicated
vertically, and the red curve is a fairly
typical market economy income distribution with a truncated
tail on the left, and an elongated tail on the
right, with the mean income being much
higher than the median because it is pulled to the right by the
very high incomes. If this chart were drawn to
scale that right hand tail would probably be even more elongated,
but wondrously thin out to the right.
Well the phenomenon of takeoff
is the upward shift in that distribution.
It may change shape a little,
bit it’s not mainly that it’s changing shape;
it’s that its mean is drifting upward and to the right.
If we think about two
distributions, two or three generations
removed from one another in a given society,
let’s say the United States 1920 and the United States
today, it will often be the case that
the difference is so dramatic that the material condition of
people living in the top tenth then will be about like the top
half today. And you keep that up for ten
generations or so, and you have something like
this, where the top decile in, let’s say, 1800,
is living in material conditions that would be
equivalent to perhaps the ninth decile today.
Not the very bottom,
but people living relatively near the bottom.
This is particularly true if
you take into account not just income,
but what it is that income can buy in the way of medical care,
comfort and lodging, quality of diet,
and so forth. There’s an enormous explosive
change in the background here. That change is our subject.
Now how you feel about that
change is more complicated and we often hear that money doesn’t
buy happiness. The people who say that have
evidence of a kind. None of them volunteer to
become poor, and there is something that money buys that
people want, and we’ll return to that from time to time.
But imagine now that there
are–just think about an economy with two people in it,
A’s income or wealth is measured vertically,
B’s is measured horizontally, and you’re Mr. A.
Which of these two outcomes
would you prefer on–by one way of thinking you’re maximizing
your own income, you’d like to be there.
If on the other hand,
what you’re doing is staying ahead of the Joneses,
you’d like to be there. More generally,
if you’re just trying to maximize your own household
income, you will have indifference
curves like these horizontal ones and just seek to climb as
high as possible, and you’ll be perfectly content
if others climb at the same rate,
or even a higher rate. On the other hand,
you may be calculating the ratio of your household to other
households that you choose to compare yourself with and the
indifference curve will then become rays from the origin like
that, and you will be trying to swing
your position from bottom right to upper left.
One function is just maximize
one variable and the other is maximize the ratio of two
variables, and most people are–tend to mix these two
things. The–their contentment with
their material position is partly relative and partly
absolute; absolute here, relative there.
If you think about the
employees of a firm, the way they’re compensated
is–raises both concerns. Suppose everybody in a law firm
is making between $150,000 and $200,000, and along comes Jim
Alexander, ace corporate lawyer–
Jim Alexander: Never. Prof: Never, I know.
I’m abusing you.
Never, and–all right Leslie
Hough, ace corporate lawyer,
and we really need her and we’ve got to pay her $800,000
and we make the offer and she takes it.
There will be a–if this fact
becomes public within the firm, which is quite likely,
everybody else will in some measure feel impoverished by it.
She’s making four times what
I’m making; surely she’s not four times
better than me, so the relative and the
absolute are always at play. Now let’s look through Clark’s
explanations–and I spent almost all of yesterday reviewing
Clark, and he’s kind of all over the place.
There’s some of everything in
this book, but let’s pick out some of his
main explanations for economic takeoff,
and for the fact that the takeoff occurred first and most
dramatically in western countries,
and among western countries, first in the United Kingdom.
His–there’s a recurring theme,
it’s in the beginning, the middle, and the end of the
book, about his speculative
interpretation of wills from England in late medieval and
early modern– and right into modern times.
The phenomenon he finds is a
fountain of wellborn children who cannot replicate their
parents place in society. The empirics on this are pretty
strong. That well to do families,
by and large, had more than two surviving
children reaching– more than two children reaching
adulthood, and indeed, the survival rate
among well to do children was quite a lot higher than the
survival rate among other children.
If you read all the way to the
end of the book you discover that if you compare this with
Asian societies such as Japan and China,
the effect is stronger in England.
From this he adduces several
consequences, the most obvious of which is
that many of these wellborn children will be downward
mobiles. The will marry beneath their
class, they will take up occupations
or roles beneath their parents’ class,
and Clark is–he’s trying to say two things at once.
One is that the culture–the
universalization of culture from the top could in some measure be
promoted by this downward mobility;
that children raised with high expectations and upbringing may
be cultural carriers which would infuse lower economic strata
with a more energetic, more performance-oriented
outlook. For that there’s no evidence in
this story, it’s just a speculation.
The other speculation,
for which there is also no specific evidence,
is a Darwinian genetics story in which–
and here Clark is–this is dangerous territory in the way
of politics. He seems to believe that the
genes carried at the top of the income curve may be better genes
than those elsewhere in the income curve,
and that the downward–forced downward mobility of progeny
from that top level gene pool might upgrade the whole society
in a genetic sense. Anybody want to comment on that
Student: I mean,
genetically speaking it’s just sort of silly,
because traits don’t pass directly.
You aren’t a clone of your
parents, or even just a 50/50 combo.
In terms of carrying skills
downward though, I mean that makes a lot of
sense. If you’re well educated and you
bring that down you might educate your children,
values, etc. Prof: That’s precisely
my own view, but does anybody want to defend Clark here?
Student: Well it could
be more of a bell curve situation, if you know what I
mean. The people on the higher end of
the income ladder have, over time, been privy to better
situations and better selection pressures leading to the
evolution of skills like analytical thinking,
intelligence skills that are necessary for the professions
that are characteristic of the higher classes.
Prof: Let’s have a vote
here. How many people think it’s
likely that there is some validity to–let’s start with
the cultural story and then go to the genetic story.
How many people find the
cultural story broadly plausible?
Okay, and how many find the
genetics story broadly plausible?
Fewer, but a substantial number.
And how many find it
implausible? Okay, I have no idea,
and Clark provides not one shred of evidence with which we
could test this. My own guess is that a few
hundred years is a pretty short time for carrying out the kind
of selection process he has in mind.
It’s also the case that the
association between parental–let’s call it IQ.
The twin studies actually do
confirm this– where identical twins are born
to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and raised by
Mr. and Mrs. Jones,
in IQ and several other variables, the association
between the identical will be greater than between them and
the siblings belonging to the new family,
so genetics is not wholly out of the picture.
On the other hand,
from a pragmatic point of view, which is where we’re going with
all this, the idea of–well what was Eugenics?
Does anybody–are any of you in
a history course, picked up Eugenics?
Student: Eugenics is an
idea that in some form has existed since ancient times,
but really picked up in the late nineteenth century,
and then especially under the Third Reich,
where it was essentially believed that people at the top
tended to have better genes, or in the case of the Third
Reich, a specific racial group, and therefore you want to
maximize the number of people with certain desirable traits
for reproducing, and minimize the ability of
people with undesirable traits to reproduce,
resulting in a better, stronger, smarter,
in the case of the Nazis, blonder, race.
that’s the gist of it. The heart of it,
which was most influential, had to do with trying to
prevent people who were mentally retarded from reproducing,
and a lot of that happened. The vulgar prejudices that lay
behind much of it, it was–much of it was
conducted by something called The Vineland Institute,
located near Princeton, New Jersey;
no guilt by association there. The Vineland Institute
published data showing that all the immigrant groups streaming
into the U.S. in the early twentieth century
were inferior to WASPS mentally, and they were very tough on the
Jews. The Jews are just not bright at
all, and they did this by administering English language
questionnaires to immigrants just after they got here.
The pragmatics of culture are
something that’s a lot easier to deal with, and which fits more
readily into the humanistic framework that we share.
After “the fountain,”
which really doesn’t fit into any of his categories,
Clark has three broad categories.
One is exogenous growth
theories–exogenous meaning economic growth caused by
something that is–that has its origin outside of the market
economy. One of these ideas,
which I think he’s right about, he doesn’t run with it very
far, but the emergence of the nation’s state system,
the rule of law, the existence of well
formalized property rights, all that stuff is pretty
powerful, and the western world was the initial focal point of
the Westphalian nation state system.
Clark is at pains to show that
that by itself isn’t enough an explanation.
In general, no one should
expect one story to explain the evolution of capitalist wealth.
This is way too complex a
story–way to complex a phenomenon for simple theories
to carry the day. A special case of that would be
wealth-maximizing law as illustrated a week ago in
Ghen v. Rich or in U.S.
Cosby, or any of hundreds
of legal precedence. Clark also briefly,
toward the end of the book, takes up the work of a guy
named Kenneth Pomeranz, and Pomeranz has a book called
The Great Divergence which asks the question,
why did the–well he begins with the proposition that from a
social and economic point of view,
China and Japan, both look a lot like Europe in
about 1800. There’s lots to quibble with in
that generalization but it’s not crazy.
Then he says,
“Well, Europe takes off well over a century ahead of
those Asian countries,” and he wants to know why.
His thesis is it has to do with
natural resources. In particular,
that large population centers like the cities of England were
located close to large energy resources such as the coal
mining areas of the Midlands in the United Kingdom.
Also of almost equal importance
for Pomeranz, access to vast agricultural
land in the form of North America,
and that about 1800 was the time when the exploitation of
the largely empty continent in the United States was feeding
resources into Western Europe. There’s some plausibility in
those ideas. Then Clark talks about multiple
equilibrium theories, and the idea here is–think of
time passing that way, and standard of living or
productivity going this way. The idea is that a country
could climb this small hill and get stuck here,
and then there would be some exogenous shock,
some huge event outside the economic system,
which would allow it to pass from that equilibrium to a new
equilibrium on top of the taller hill.
The world demographic
transition is such a story, and not a crazy story at all.
The notion that the falling
death rate created by better public health,
probably more than any single factor,
by clean water, and elementary vaccinations,
but clean water probably above all else,
and the eventual adjustment of the birthrate to that so that
you go from high birthrate, high death rate,
short lives, to low birthrate,
low death rate, long lives. That by itself is a–is I think
without question a powerful element in the story wherever a
nation state society has gone from poor to rich.
Then the endogenous growth
theories, and these are–the idea here is
that something happens inside the economy that creates a
dynamic change, and that dynamic change leads
to mass affluence. I think there’s a lot in this
idea which of course is not Clark’s.
Clark is merely cataloguing
other people’s ideas. The–does anybody recognize
either of these two handsome gentlemen?
I’d prefer the haircut on the
left. This is Joseph Schumpeter,
and this is F.A. Hayek. Each of them had an idea of
about market societies that has to be central to our thinking.
In Schumpeter’s case it was
creative destruction, and I’m told by the teaching
fellows that most of you knew that quite well on the mid-term.
Creative destruction is a way
of reshuffling the deck economically at short intervals,
so that, looking back at this story,
so that sitting still on this hill,
is difficult for any given firm and arguably impossible for
society at large once you’re into a capitalist market
economy. One way to diagram that
is–this diagram we have, the capital invested in a given
kind of product or production, rising from left to right,
and the productivity of that capital rising from bottom to
top, and each of these curves is a
production function representing a technology and a way of
organizing people and handling information.
The idea would be that change
occurs in the sequence 1, 2,3, 4,5, 6 here where there’s
a process of climbing to the right as we go to more
capital-intensive production, more capital per worker,
and then while Tal is doing that,
Jennifer is saying, “Well no,
we should reorganize this entirely.
We should use a different
technology, a different method of
attracting investments, a different method of
compensating employees,” and she shifts to the lower end
of three and then that gets carried to here,
and then a similar shift to the blue production function and
then up that, and so a kind of zigzag story
of change where people compete not within one production
function but between production functions and a chaotic pattern
of creative destruction occurs. What makes it creative is that
it is ultimately an upward movement in productivity.
A version of that story is in
Clark but he doesn’t really think in the dynamic way that
Schumpeter and Hayek, and others do.
Hayek’s story is the one about
the creative potential of a free society,
which I think you had a memo to write about,
and the notion there is that social learning will accrue.
That the society at large will
have a higher learning rate than any individual within it,
and that as each of us goes about her or his work,
we are spewing off insights for others.
Both when we succeed and when
we fail. When we succeed people will
copy our ideas. When we fail people will know
an idea not to try, and that over time society
actually smartens up. If you look at the first
chapter in the assignment for today in Clark,
he has all the factors of growth, as he conceives them,
in a very simplified model, and the residual–
the residual, which accounts for about half
the variance, it’s most natural
interpretation is it is social learning.
It isn’t the specific capital
embodied in a given workers education,
or in the factory plant and equipment with which that worker
is supplied by an employer, but in the less tangible forms
of social knowledge which the society is generating.
And Hayek’s idea,
then, is that over time social learning makes the whole system
smarter, taken as a whole,
and that learning to navigate unfamiliar information,
which arguably, would be something you’re all
doing right now, becomes not only an advantage
to the individual but to the society at large.
Well the most glaring omission
in Clark, in talking about the surge of wealth in the west,
is the joint stock corporation. The joint stock corporation
goes back of course many centuries,
but the kind of joint stock corporation which has become
dominant in the world, goes back only to about the
middle of the 1800s. In the UK it’s dated to The
Corporation Act of 1862, in the U.S.
I think you’d probably say
somewhere in the 1840s it becomes important.
You can find legal traces of it
much earlier in both cases, but it gets to be a big deal in
the middle years of the nineteenth century.
As we saw with the reading from
Alfred Chandler, the rise of the large-scale
railroad in the U.S. provoked the creation of the
equity and bond markets in New York,
and the feverish development of joint stock corporations in
virtually every field of endeavor thereafter.
These slides–I’m going to show
a series of proprietary slides constructed by Ibbotson
Associates. Ibbotson Associates is named
for Roger Ibbotson at The School of Management here.
Ibbotson became filthy rich by
being the first one to systematically compile,
analyze, and sell long trend data about stocks and bonds.
It’s only because he likes to
teach that he bothers to continue.
The time scale here is 1925 to
more or less the present. The earnings of various classes
of assets are– I’ve traced here,
beginning in this case with treasury bills issued by the
government, and as safe as the government
is. Then municipal bonds,
government bonds of other kinds,
corporate bonds, so this would be debt taken on
by a corporation and it might be–
they might be junk bonds if the corporation is a little risky
and they might be blue chip bonds if not.
Then this is–the blue curve is
an amalgam of stock returns, and in every case we start with
$1 in 1925 and keep investing the money–
the way these charts are generated is we assume that
every dollar of dividend is plowed back,
and that we don’t pay any taxes. This would sort of be Yale that
we’re charting. You and I wouldn’t quite have
the same tax privilege Yale has, and the most striking thing
there is–what’s the most striking thing about that chart?
First of all there is some
magic in compound interest, right?
You can just leave your money
to grow, it really does eventually do that.
How about the blue curve versus
the others? Pretty startling–we’ve got to
get somebody else–yes Tal. Student: There seems to
be a rather large equity premium.
What I mean by that is that
there seems to be excess returns if you put your money in stocks
versus any of the other categories,
treasuries, corporate bonds. I mean, you’re obviously taking
on more risk in stocks versus the other categories,
certainly more than treasury bills,
but you could possibly argue that the difference in risk
doesn’t seem as great as a difference in returns over the
long run. Prof: Okay.
What’s the–the equity premium
is the punch line here, well said.
What’s the standard way one
might manage the risk of a portfolio?
Student: You could
diversify. Prof: Okay,
so we wouldn’t put all our money in mining stocks or in–
even in Apple, which is right now one of the
most expensive stocks in the universe,
but the equity premium is huge. Look here what happens–this is
1925, the Depression is here, the great crash is here,
these people got jolted. Of course the temptation when
that happens to you is to imagine that it’s going to go
right to the middle of the earth,
and therefore to sell at this point,
which lots and lots of people did, and of course the effect
was to ruin their wealth. Let’s take another set of these.
We let inflation go unnoticed
in that one and here we’ll show inflation by the red curve,
and then the T-Bills, government bonds,
large company stocks, small company stocks and you
get a huge premium there. Now the–back to the question
of the accumulation of mass affluence;
the power of large enterprise to generate enormous wealth over
long periods; this is a seventy-five,
eighty, eighty-five year period we’re looking at,
but patient–money patiently invested in joint stock
corporations is a solid strategy for the accumulation of wealth
within a given household or institutional portfolio.
It’s not anywhere near the
sexiest or the fastest way, but it is one of the most solid
ways, and the only conclusion I want
to get out of this is that in talking about economic takeoff
and the sustained growth in mass affluence,
companies, joint stock companies with limited
liability, are a big part of that.
Third and last.
With–remember the variable
here is gross domestic product per capita.
Part of that has to do with the
propensity to consume. In the Posner book about what
went wrong with the mortgage markets,
Keynes, Lord Keynes is mentioned, and Keynesian
economics, which are directed to the
question of stabilizing mass demand for products so that the
economy keeps going around and around,
is an important element. Well the joint stock
corporation was, from its birth,
really good at selling. The move, which would be called
forward integration, were not just going to make
cigarettes, we’re going to sell cigarettes.
We’re not just going to make
soap; we’re going to sell soap.
We’re not just going to make
cars; we’re going to sell them.
That forward integration–I’m
going to without comment now just show you 20 slides from the
middle decades of the twentieth century and then we’ll stop
briefly and segue to next– our next meeting.
Some of these are a little
pernicious. This one is not.
The–a repeated trope is using
products to solve marital problems,
and the large glove compartment on this Mercury will solve the
marital problem between these two.
When my grandfather died and I
was seventeen, I inherited a Mercury from him,
it lasted one year before I crashed it.
series of Palmolive’s here. They all have to do with men
and women. Women are the sales target.
Does Palmolive soap exist still?
Does anybody still use it?
That’s pretty nasty stuff right?
This is rouge not soap now.
You get the gist of it.
In the consumer culture that’s
embodied in these, and which is powerfully
represented all around us, we live in a very consumption
oriented culture, is arguably a misleadingly
favorable aspect of wealth. That is, an awful lot–if you
think about those ads and how silly it seems,
with seventy years hindsight, that using Palmolive soap will
save your marriage– I often guess that it didn’t
save a single marriage– that whole angle of kind of the
Hucksterish aspect of a capitalist society,
can give one pause. Now I’d like you to come to
class Wednesday having thought a little about a country and what
5% of its GDP would amount to in dollars,
and if you need to look that up you can Google it.
The easiest Google is CIA
Factbook, but the World Bank will give you the data too.
The World Bank or the WTO,
there are all kinds of organizations that produce these
data. Pick a country and think about
5% and think about how you would deploy the 5% if you wanted to
maximize the expected wealth of that society over,
let’s say, a twenty-year future. The reading is the more policy
oriented part of de Soto, and it should in some ways
guide and support your thinking, although you surely want to
think well beyond de Soto’s framework.
So I’ll see you on Wednesday.
Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course
European History. So we’re going to turn our attention now
to the Industrial Revolution, one of the most significant developments in human history. Like, imagine with me that it’s 1820. I got this idea from the economist Robert
Gordon by the way. You live in, say, England. You probably work in agriculture. When you walk to town, you’re either pulling
your own cart, or if you’re lucky you have a horse. You have no running water or electricity. When you wash your few items of clothing,
you do so by hand. You cook over a fire. You think of time not primarily in minutes
and hours, but mostly in relationship to solar cycles–how close it is to night, or to morning,
or to midwinter. And in all these respects, your life in 1820
is basically identical to the lives of people in 1720, or 1520, or for that matter 1220. That’s not to say life hasn’t changed
in those hundreds of years–as we’ve explored in this series, lots has changed–but as Gregory
Clark observed, in terms of standard of living, Europeans in 1800 basically led lives similar
to those of Neandrathals. Now imagine that you close your eyes in 1820
and wake up in 1920. By now, most people in England do not work
in agriculture. They may work in shops, or transportation,
or mining, oe workshops, or in factories. They measure time in minutes. Cars exist. Some people have radios, which transmitted
information through thin air. A few people even have refrigerators, which
dramatically decrease food spoilage and the risk of foodborne illness. Occasionally you might even see an airplane
flying in the sky. Oh, and also, your country has just emerged
from an astonishingly deadly war fought with highly lethal weapons such as chlorine gas,
weapons that people of 1820 could not possibly have imagined. Welcome to the Industrial Revolution. [Intro]
In this series, we’ve already talked about revolutions in agriculture that increased
European productivity and revolutions in trade that increasingly distributed goods among
people in towns and cities instead of having each individual family produce everything
it needed. And these forces combined to help create more
division of labor: like, farmers could focus on farming, and textile workers could focus
on textile creation, which was more efficient than having each family do every kind of work. So let’s begin in the eighteenth century,
when European industrial production is said to have begun. Europe’s population was growing after centuries
of non-stop wars, plagues, and the worst of the little ice age. Meanwhile, products such as coffee, tea, and
chocolate made with heated water killed bacteria, while products from abroad expanded and varied
the pool of nutrients, with corn and potatoes, for instance, generally more calorie-dense
per acre than wheat. In short, lives were getting longer and populations
rising. This meant that on average people had a little
more time to learn, tinker, and experiment. Many different artisans invented small improvements
to existing mechanical devices. Perhaps most famously, John Kay’s flying
shuttle increased the pace and productivity of weaving. Weavers then needed a greater amount of thread. So tinkerers made that happen by producing
inventions such as the spinning jenny, created around 1764 by craftsman James Hargreaves. The spinning jenny was a machine used by individual
women working at home. And it allowed a person, using just the power
of their hand, to spin not one bobbin of thread, but up to 120 at once. In England, Ellen Hacking and her husband
John were among those devising carding machines to straighten cotton and wool fibers for spinning. And at about the same time, Richard Arkwright
and his partners invented the water frame, another kind of spinning machine that used
water power. And when spinning machines could be linked
to a central power source such as water, many could be placed in a single building. So, the world’s first factories arose in
part from the pressure to increase production of English cloth for global and domestic markets. Did the center of the world just open? Is one of my Polo shirts in there? This cost like $41. Twice a year I go to a Polo outlet in Southern
Indiana and just buy as many of these things as they’ll sell to me. And look, I’m not here to advertise Polo
shirts, but this thing is incredibly comfortable, and also, it’s like dyed a specific color. Everything about this was completely unimaginable
in the early nineteenth century. In fact, you know what? It’s so soft to the touch, I think I’m
going to put it on. Is that weird. Oh yeah! I feel like I’m the bad guy in an 80s movie. How do I look, Stan? Oh, Stan says I look like Steve Bannon. OK. Thus ends that experiment, now back to the
show. Let’s talk about porcelain. Another tinkerer was the alchemist Johann
Friedrich Böttger who promised the king of Saxony that he could figure out how to make
porcelain. Porcelain was such an obsession that wealthy
people collected it and even those with far less would try to buy a piece or two—a cup
or plate—as we see in many Dutch, French, and other paintings. Two things you see a lot in European paintings
of the affluent or those who aspired to affluence: porcelain and pineapples, which were also
quite rare and expensive and difficult to produce domestically. Porcelain was also practical, because Europeans
did not know other ways to make heat resistant dishware for their hot drinks. So Böttger was virtually imprisoned until
around 1708 when he figured out how to make porcelain, although not as beautifully as
the Chinese or Japanese did. What we’re trying to get at here is that
while people love a great story of an inventor and their invention, the Industrial Revolution
was the story of lots and lots of people working together, making a series of incremental improvements,
rather than, like, geniuses from on high creating amazing things. The real genius of humans is collaboration,
and also spying. Like for instance, Industrial spies helped
with every development because other regions were far more advanced than Europe in manufacturing,
for instance, color fast dyes and heat-resistant dishware, fine weaving and spinning, or even
metallurgy. Arkwright, for example, mostly copied designs
from imported textiles. And it was those cotton textiles that caught
the imagination of consumers and filled pockets, first of the people who imported textiles
from India and China, and then of the daring manufacturers who were successful at copying
the lightweight, and colorful, and washable cotton clothing. But industrial production of cotton was really
risky—the rate of business failure during the Industrial Revolution was over 50 percent. Because of that, experimenting manufacturers
worked to keep labor costs as low as they could. One way was to use unpaid orphans from government,
religious or charitable institutions as labour. At a time when people didn’t know a lot
about steam powered machinery and its dangers, industrial accidents happened all the time,
and children were often the victims. Children worked incredibly long hours and
deaths were common. Little Mary Richards was caught up in a machine
and six- and seven- year old orphans working alongside her witnessed the quote “bones
of her arms, legs, thighs, etc successively snap… her head appeared dashed to pieces…
her blood thrown about like water from a twirled mop.”2
Now I know that’s very graphic, but I think it’s important to understand the extent
of industrial oppression, including the industrial oppression of children. Workers lost arms, eyes, breasts, and fingers
or were otherwise disfigured. Production and profits came first to avoid
financial ruin. And industry had other repercussions. It initially increased the demand for slaves
even more. Slaves produced food for workers who had left
farms for factories. Slaves also produced tropical crops such as
sugar, and tobacco, and coffee that boosted the energy of many types of workers. And slaves provided the palm and other tropical
oils to keep machinery running as well as the raw materials for industry, especially
cotton. It’s important to understand that industry
thrived due to slave labor and inexpensive child labor, and also through the labor of
women, who were paid less than men. Over time, more and more people began working
in industrialized settings, or in economic sectors that supported industry due in part
to the development of the steam engine. In 1776, English inventor James Watt launched
a steam engine that improved earlier models. Now as far back as Roman Egypt and then Ottoman
Egypt and China, people had known about steam engines, But Watt’s engine was more efficient,
which made it useful in replacing animal and water power, not just in mines but also powering
textile factories, and then other machinery. For millennia, almost all human power came
from our muscles. Then we harnessed some animal power, and eventually
some wind and water power. But steam power completely revolutionized
how much work could be done on behalf of humans, and also of course changed transportation
when it was attached to covered and uncovered wagons and ships to make trains and steamships
and eventually automobiles. And the train created another kind of demand:
as urbanization soared around railway hubs, small and grand train stations were built
along with all the other buildings to house the railway’s primary and secondary employees. By secondary employees I mean, it wasn’t
just station-masters, ticket-sellers, and conductors, there was a need for shopkeepers,
and pharmacists, and construction workers, and teachers, and doctors, and and drivers
of coaches, not to mention sanitation workers, police, and urban administrators. Industrialization had a snowball effect and
it wasn’t gonna be turned back. And all this mean that everyday life also
transformed. Two classes became prominent alongside the
aristocracy and peasants in the social structure: the bourgeoisie and proletariat or working
class. The bourgeoisie initially referred to people
who lived in towns and cities or burgs/bourgs. But the term came to refer to those who owned
factories, banks, transportation networks, and large tracts of land for raising livestock
and crops. The proletariat comprise the many factory
and other workers who lacked tools or land to support themselves but instead rather labored
for factory owners and others who had the means to produce. In between were the rising professional groups,
called the middle class in Europe: the doctors, lawyers, teachers, and others with special
skills that serviced society as a whole. We will see this configuration change over
the next two centuries and watch tensions unfold among these groups, and at times boil
over. Women also experienced a transformation of
everyday life. In the preceding centuries, they had generally
worked on farms or in workshops alongside their artisan husbands or on their own as
hatmakers, and seamstresses, and weavers, and spinners. During the early days of industrialization,
women who had been spinning or weaving at home often switched to factories. And they did many other kinds of work; for
example, eighteen-year-old Ann Eggly with her younger sister worked twelve-hour days
in the coal mines pushing carriages filled with 800 pounds of coal (which was then used
to make steam power). She had done this kind of work since she was
seven. I don’t know if you know any seven year
olds, but they should not be working in coal mines. Now you’ll recall that the French and American
revolutions, with their emphasis on motherhood and laws stripping women of their property,
led to women being discouraged from work. But many continued to do so even when their
wages belonged to their husbands. Factories also created (and still create)
outwork done by women at home: polishing knives or painting porcelain buttons for example. But, ideology simultaneously shifted to say
that women were to be “angels in the household,” providing comfort from the horrors of industrial
life, a cultural norm that discouraged work outside the home. In the meantime, the classes became aware
of their individual identities. The French had outlawed guilds during the
revolution. Industrial and other workers formed their
own clubs to protect their interests. They created singing, gymnastic, and sports
clubs–this is why early English football teams had names like Royal Engineers AFC and
Civil Service FC. These groups often had a lively cafe culture,
where they discussed politics and read newspapers, often allowed to their comrades because each
cafe usually only had one newspaper. Manufacturers and wealthy individuals in cities
likewise formed groups based on their common class position; they founded chambers of commerce
to protect their financial interests and museums to show off their city’s achievements and
good taste. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. 1. Initially, the rise of factories saw those
left out of industrial work life, 2. such as artisans and small farmers, 3. protest by breaking machinery or threatening
to do so. 4. The “Swing riots” in Britain are one example
of what has been called “primitive” rebellion. 5. Instead of dealing with change by organizing
to benefit from and shape the change, 6. so-called primitive rebels went about breaking
things. 7. Wreckers of machinery were called Luddites 8. (as they still are today) 9. because menacing notes found alongside
sabotage were often signed Ned Ludd. 10. Ludd was an inspirational figure — a weaver
who allegedly smashed a textile machine in the 18th century. 11. But gradually, workers inside the factories
formed mutual aid societies 12. and eventually unions that negotiated
for better terms with owners. And when negotiations failed, 13. they went on strike as a group instead of
wrecking the machines with which they earned their living. 14. All in all, industrialization wreaked havoc
on people’s lives even as it provided many with livelihoods. 15. Towns grew astronomically: like textile center
Manchester England went from 20,000 people in the 1750s to 400,000 a century later. 16. Conditions in Manchester were abominable,
including the development of slums, and the spread of disease. 17. They came to lack fresh and safe supplies
of water. 18. Garbage and sewage, not to mention animal
excrement, filled muddy streets, 19. creating, in the words of one commentator,
“a universal atmosphere of filth and stink.” 20. and Conditions in other industrial cities
hardly differed. Thanks Thought Bubble. So, Industrialization spread from England
and the low countries where it began thanks to the capital raised by worldwide trade,
and because that trade made possible successful imitation of foreign products. But industrialization then spread. It traveled the continent through the 19th
century, although industrialization was less dense in eastern Europe. There, many peasants continued to live hand-to-mouth,
but as we’ve seen, so did the poor in industrial cities. So was the Industrial Revolution a revolution? Well, if a revolution is an event full of
impact on people’s lives, it certainly was. But often historians look at revolutions as,
like, ending, which the Industrial Revolution really hasn’t. Unlike the comparatively brief English Revolution
or American Revolution, many see the Industrial Revolution as continuing to make dramatic
changes in our way of life today. Today, we expect technologies to change dramatically
in our lifetimes. We expect to use different tools to communicate
and work than our parents used. But that expectation is only a couple hundred
years old. It makes you wonder. If you closed your eyes in 2020, and woke
up in 2120, how weird is the world gonna be. Ugh. Thinking about that is stressing me out.Next
time, we’ll look further at the cultural and political aspects of industrialization. I’ll see you then. Thanks for watching. ________________
 Quoted in Lynn Hunt et al., The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, 6th ed. (Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2019) 21.
Hi I’m Sophia Karlberg, managing director at nilsinside, and this illustrates a Carnot heat engine consisting of a gray cylinder which is a closed
system containing an ideal gas as a working
volume the cylinder has perfectly insulated
walls and a perfectly conducting base and
ideal and theoretical situation. It’s moving boundary on top is a perfectly
insulated and frictionless piston. The red body is the source maintained at a fixed
heigh temperature the sourse has infinite thermal capacity so any amount of heat can be taken out without changing the temperature of the
source. The blue body is an infinite sink at a lower
temperature. Any amount of heat can be added to it without changing its
temperature. In-between the source and the sink is a perfectly non-conducting area
Nil which thermally insulates the working volume inside the cylinder
from its surroundings. The working volume in the cylinder absorbs heat from source and rejects heat into the sink.
The pressure/volume changes moves the perfectly insulated friction
less piston. To get a continuous supply of work the working volume is
taken to a series of operations called the Carnot cycle. On the other
hand you need to add work to move the
cylinder back and forth in the cycle to the source position, nil position the sink, the nil position again and back over to the source to complete a Carnot cycle Let’s heighten our perspective and
introduce what I call the Carnot revolution. The Carnot revolution is a practical implementation of the
Carnot cycle that consumes less energy than the old forth and back thing. What could be better than moving the cylinder in a circle? The
heat flow to and from the cylinder is restricted by the area of the perfectly conducting
base. Better than inventing a cylinder with a perfectly conducting base and perfectly insulated walls and to
avoid fiction is moving just the gas! Simply! So now I’ll introduce the rotating shutter! The
shutter opening contains the gas of the working volume
and it exposes the working volume directly to the source surface, to nil surface, the sink surface, and the Nil surface again, and back to the source again to complete a Carnot cycle. Next step is not so easy to see, but we’ve
just skipped the restricted area! We have expanded the cylinder to include the
source, the sink, the shutter and in the nils inside the same volume, and connected an external moving boundary. In this new expanded system the working volume is always in direct contact with the
surface of the source, the sink and the insulation in-between the source and the sink. Always! Now we may use all possible area available within our system to transport heat directly to and from our working volume, and the perfectly insulating base is the
surface area of the insulation, nils inside. The shutter itself is never in contact with the surface.
There is always a very thin layer of gas between the
freely moving shutter and the surface, acting as an insulating lubricant. This thin layer contains only a very small fraction of the
working volume. Most of the gas is though in the opening of the rotating shutter. Now we see 3 separate closed systems each with its own working volume. You might connect each of these to their own double acting piston rotating the same
shaft to deliver an impressing steady torque! So what we now have seen is the unique Karlberg Energy converter with lots of area for heat
transfer to convert heat differences to power in big scale. Rotate the shutter with a controlled spin and it
simply transform heat differences into pressure pulses with the corresponding desired frequency. A moving boundary in form of a piston is only one of several options. This
Karlberg Energy Converter is a true sustainable
solution that you will see, not only in cars, trucks and ships, but it will also be
used in large power stations down to power and heat generators for, for example, individual homes. The energy converter may be powered by solar, geo-thermal and biomass heat, and also from waste heat recovery. It can convert waste heat from for example data centers, power stations, industrial processes etc. In fact, it can convert any industrial or agricultural waste heat into very useful energy! This is innovation (!) aimed to tackle the energy trilemma!
It has been 6 to 7 days since it has rained the soil is still moist Smell it once you will know how soil should smell It is a fungus called actinomycetes the soil is healthy if it is there You will know its presence only when it rains It is H2O3 monsoon rain water is H2O3 the fungus is activated only by H2O3 It is always activated in my farm It is always activated in my farm Visitor: They say there should be lightning for that… Lightning is not for that Over 1 acre land there is 34500 tons of Nitrogen present Over an acre till sky the N2 is 34500 tons N2 cannot enter the plants The heat of lightning is 2800 degree centigrades that heat N2 will change into NH3 Only in the form of NH3 plant can absorb it then gradually it combines with oxygen in the soil NO2 or NO3 will come out Once it becomes NO3 It cannot enter the plant It is not about absorption, NO2 kills the microorganisms NO2 kills the microorganisms If soil is like this look at the moisture after one week of rain it was 2 cms rain the reason is the way soil is covered the way soil is spongy that’s why first you should build bunds so that rain water does not escape you should plant trees in border so that your soil is not blown away by wind then top soil is protected at least the remaining soil is safe then to enrich the soil you can add poultry manure it is not goo but it is cheap and highly nutritious then, I strongly oppose it to put urea, but you can pour 2 bags of it because the soil has to be repaired you have spoiled it all these years little more urea will cause no harm so you can pour 2 bags of urea two plants called Dhaincha and Sunn Hemp they are available in department universities and stores you have to plant Dhaincha first it needs moisture After fifty days when the buds come till the come, it is vegetative growth it stores its food from bud to seed production it releases food once the seeds come nothing is left so as soon as the buds come using a rotor till them and mix it in the soil if you keep the soil moist for 10 days like this for 10 days or you have to water the soil You should leave it to decompose take the other seed, sunn hemp, sow it repeat the same process dhaincha manure is enough after repeating the same process you soil will become not very rich but moderately rich the soil carbon will become 1% it should be 3% the soil in my farm has 5.5% carbon 16 times more than my neighbours it took me 24 years to reach that if you need it quickly you should sacrifice 5-6 months and add green manure visitor: they say you can plant millets and cut them and mix it in soil do it for the second time but for the first time you should plant dhaincha not only millets you put all that we eat like fenugreek and cumin, it may or may not give fenugreek some coriander plants 60% cereals 30% pulses remaining spices if you grow all that its even better the ratio in which we eat the same ratio you should plant food grains, pulses and spices, it is even better Visitor: In tumkur side we get a lot of coconut coir if we use that for mulching is the soil affected there is no negative effect it retains high moisture it has 30% of potash in 5-6 years, due to microbes, water, earthworms or termites it gets decomposed certainly no negative effect termite is a better friend than earthworms it is as small as a cumin seed 2/3rd of its stomach is filled with 400 crores of parasites If they survive, termite will die If termite lives, parasites cannot live the poor thing eats dry leaves like this dry substances or it eats cowdung Nutrient ratio in such food is 1000:1 in 1000kg leaf only 1kg nutrient is present no organism can live consuming such food the termite chews it into pieces the 400 crore parasites inside they do not have urinating organ the nitrogen has to go out through sweat termite absorbs that waste and mixes it with the food it has eaten the it becomes more nutritious parasites also live and termites also live Visitor: there is no competition among trees, even though it is dense that’s why have grown so much they are not fruit tress visitor: you say that if you plant all over they wont come what happens is all over field they get such nutrition it is difficult to get in this trench till two feet soil is nothing but manure look at this my soil is that rich due to all this decomposing matter that too few days ago I filled it with some 400 bags of leaves, filled in bedsheets rotored leaves you can see them now not bags, 400 bedsheets full of leaves it was full till here we had turned the sprinkler on then we removed the sticks and used rotor 90% of it is submerged 5% of it is still floating it will decompose soon why should I give manure to them? what is the need to increase humus? but the problem with sprinkler is it will only sprinkle in one direction if its too windy it will only sprinkle in one direction if its too windy the other side suffers and evaporation when such a volume is sprinkled water vaporises and if your water is hard it will scorch the leaves that’s why drip is better than sprinklers water in 9 o clock of Bengaluru weather if the crops are not dry, then its moist at 2 clock in the afternoon it is bound to dry, however moist the soil is so in Bengaluru weather, at 9 o clock if the crops are not dry moisture level is good If want to know it more accurately plant sunflower plants every 100 feet if it does not become dry at 8 o clock moisture level is good or else croton, a decorative plant it is also sensitive towards moisture if it does not dry, there is enough water Visitor: these guava fruits they are so much in number should we pluck them? should one prune it? I do nothing at all we feed small fruits to cows we sell the big fruits I do not go behind money, it comes behind me many people do not like my principles they wonder why I do agriculture I do agriculture to be happy. That fern was lying on the road I brought it and planted it now one plant gets me a 1000 Rs For every Ganesha chathurthi and Christmas, each leaf fetches 6 to 8 Rs It is not at all pampered The humus in my soil is enough for it Visitor: What about humic acid? should we use it? In agriculture, any external addition is bad There was a great man called Rudolph Steiner in Germany He is also a naturalist like Fukuoka A PhD graduate, left his government job as he could not stand it He has given some 8 famous lectures In one of them he says “A farm should be a self-contained body” Nothing shall come from outside If at all anything has to come A new variety of plant or seed, once” You can sow a seed that you do not have you can graft a plant that you do not have If you keep spilling money for everything for humic acid, growth promoter for decomposer what not, money is a game nowadays. Money makes you do such things So any external addition is not needed Farmers should learn to do it themselves But we farmers… Its so hilarious the recommendations of our agri-universities 50 kgs of Nitrogen per acre 30 kg Phosphorous 30 kg Potash is recommended It might get consumed, I do not rule out but If there is one lightning storm 1000 of tons of Ammonia gets into soil by dissolving in water As I said before there is 34500 tons of Nitrogen per acre N2 It becomes Ammonia all that falls on leaf, soil and water can you keep a count on it? How long did the lightning strike? How can these foolish people recommend us to apply 50 kilos of Nitrogen? To kill the soil! To kill the soil and exploit the farmers money And then comes phosphorous We have enough of it to last for the next 20 years The remains of our dead animals in their bones you can get it from leaves and crops too obtained from microorganisms But unfortunately it needs a microbe Phosphorous solubilizing microbe We have killed it by poisoning the soil They give a biofertilizer for that, that is even more hilarious Give PSM and then add DAP! and kill the microbe! Government funds are looted Farmers are profited with backaches Loss for the soil If you had left it to itself Or if you had not used fertilizers you would get ample amounts of phosphorous Potash Tobacco plant It has 33% of potash in it 2 kgs of ‘kaddi pudi’ ( a byproduct from stalks of tobacco’ If you soak it in 10 litres of water you can use it for 2 months, by spraying 2ml per litre we don’t need MOP
Music *somber piano music plays* Music *faster orchestral music plays* Music *triumphant music concludes*
In the year 744CE, Marwan II ascended to the throne of the caliphate. Little did he know that he would be the last Umayyad to do so. After ninety years of corruption, the throne was being pulled from under the Umayyad dynasty, once and for all. By 746CE, A man named Abu Muslim had taken control of Merv from the Umayyad governor and was now in full revolt. By 747CE, he had secured Khorasan and Persia. The Abbasids and their black standard were now moving towards Mesopotamia. They used a black flag in opposition to the Umayyads’ white flag. In 749CE, the Abbasid army crossed Euphrates and entered Kufa. By this point, the Abbasids were confident of their victory. So much so that Abul Abbas as-Saffah, the great-great grandson of Muhammad’s Uncle, al-Abbas, was declared caliph in Kufa. Marwan II tried to mobilize an army to defeat the Abbasids. The armies met at the Battle of the Zab on 25th of January, 750CE. Marwan’s army was defeated by Abbasids. This was the final nail in the Umayyad coffin. The revolution was more or less over. Marwan escaped to Egypt but was caught and killed. By April of that year, Damascus was secured by the Abbasids. The Umayyads were no more. Well, at least for now. #Foreshadowing. During the revolution, the Abbasids painted themselves as the exact opposite of the Umayyads. Where the Umayyad bureaucracy was made up mostly of Arabs, the Abbasids recruited soldiers of all ethnicities and ranked them by merit. Abu Muslim went up and down the Silk Road to find soldiers who would join them. He did all of this in secrecy before his attack on Merv. The revolution grew for more than forty years inside the Umayyad Caliphate, like Hydra inside of SHIELD. Even Abu Muslim’s name wasn’t real. We still don’t know what his name was. Or even if it was one man or many. Abu Muslim just means “Father of a Muslim”. He advocated for a member of Muhammad’s family to take the throne. The name of that member wasn’t revealed until the Umayyads were overthrown. That’s how secretive they were. Anyways, As-Saffah, whose name literally means “The Blood-shedder” took the title of the Caliph and established the Abbasid Dynasty, which would hold the title of Caliph till after the Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Umayyad princes were massacred in large numbers. They were chased and killed wherever they were found. The graves of Umayyad rulers were desecrated except for Umar II. The Abbasids even promised amnesty for Umayyad princes, gathered some eighty of them and massacred them. One prince, however, the great-grandson of Abd al-Malik named Abd al-Rahman escaped through Egypt and Africa. He was around twenty year of age at the time. He made his way to Al-Andalus or Hispania. After the muslim conquest of Spain, the Muslim population there was mostly Syrians and Berbers. Syrians, as you might remember, loved the Umayyads and Abd al-Rahman’s mother was Berber so he was able to secure enough support there to overthrow the governor there and establish an independent emirate. He created a safe haven for the supporters of the Umayyads and his own family, including his sisters, wife and children, whom he had left in Mesopotamia. On the other side, As-Saffah spent the next four years consolidating his control over the empire. In 751CE, the Abbasids met their Chinese neighbours in the Battle of the Talas River. The Tang Empire had been a powerful rival to the Umayyads in Central Asia. In As-Saffah’s attempt to consolidate his rule in Khorasan, his armies met the Chinese Army. The battle resulted in a victory for the Abbasids who moved to take almost all of Central Asia. As-Saffah died of Smallpox in 754CE, leaving the empire to his brother, Al-Mansur. Al-Mansur is often regarded as the real founder of the Abbasid Dynasty because of all the contributions he made to the empire. First thing he did as caliph was have Abu Muslim killed because that’s what you get for helping douchebags overthrow an empire. Abu Muslim had solid support throughout the empire due to his role in the rebellion. Al-Mansur took him out for a walk and had some of his guards kill him. After dispatching Abu Muslim, he dispatched an army to take back Al-Andalus. The Abbasid army surrounded Abd al-Rahman in a fortress in Carmona, in modern-day Spain. Abd al-Rahman knew that there was no way out so he handpicked some 700 of his men and lit up a fire and ordered his men to throw their scabbards into the fire. He told his men that he would rather die fighting than die of hunger so, he open the gates and attacked the unsuspecting Abbasid army. The Abbasid army was taken by surprise and Abd al-Rahman actually managed to defeat them. He cut off the heads of all the leaders of the army, preserved them in salt and sent them to al-Mansur, who was on a pilgrimage to Mecca at the time when he received those heads. There were even tags attached to the ears of each head to identify it. HOW GAME OF THRONES IS THAT?! On 30th of July, 762CE, Al-Mansur commissioned the construction of a new city. He chose a site north of Ctesiphon, which had been the Persian capital before the Muslim overthrew the Sassanid Empire. It took around four years to finish the construction. Baghdad was founded. At the core of Baghdad was a round city called The City of Peace which housed the Golden Gate Palace, which housed the Caliph. Eventually, this city would become the biggest city in the world, the center of learning and culture with more than a million inhabitants at its peak. The empire was starting to shift from an Arab empire to a more Persian one. The Abbasids were Arabs but it was the Persians who had helped bring them to power so they made sure not to alienate them. Arab bureaucracy was replaced by a Persian one. A new position of Vizier was established and more power was delegated to local Emirs and away from the caliph. Al-Mansur died in 775CE, his son Al-Mahdi took over the empire. During his reign, Baghdad became a metropolitan city. It attracted immigrants from all over the world. These immigrants brought with them, their cultures, religions and ideas. One of the most important ideas was Paper. See, Chinese actually invented paper but it wasn’t used anywhere else till the Muslims met the Chinese in the battle of the Talas river. Muslims conquered some previously Chinese areas and took paper from them. Eventually, paper became so important that Baghdad had a whole street dedicated to nothing but paper. All these factors combined made the perfect breeding ground for an intellectual revolution. This was the birth of the Islamic Golden Age. See you next time.