Google runs a regular seminar series on topical issues, which I spoke at last week. There was a substantial audience (see the quick scan of the audience below) and Google’s staff lived up to their hyper-intelligent and hyper-engaged reputation.
Steve Keen's Debtwatch Podcast with Stuart Cameron
I gave a presentation that combined my standard talk on debt and Minsky, with some exposition of the Circuit and Minsky models, befitting of an audience to whom simulation is no big deal–unlike economics conferences where such approaches are still fringe activities.
The discussion was also extensive, and intertwined with the talk, so it went for a long time–almost two hours. Most of the first hour was my lecture:
Steve Keen's Debtwatch Podcast with Stuart Cameron
And most of the second hour was an extensive discussion with Google staff that I had to call an end to because my voice was about to fail:
Steve Keen's Debtwatch Podcast with Stuart Cameron
Next week I hope to post the recent presentation to UNEP of my work with the CSIRO, which will showcase both the dynamic multisectoral monetary model of production I have built, and the CSIRO’s multidimensional-database-driven biophysical model of the economy.
On another note, I have written a feature for the April issue of Dissent (Number 32, Autumn 2010), discussing the usual vexed issue of Australian house prices. As part of it I gave my perspective on why Australia has to date come through the GFC so well, and one aspect of that was being on the receiving end of largess from China’s stimulus.
I noted however that China’s largess may be coming to an end:
China’s stimulus included a lending frenzy that only China could have inspired, since while finance in The West is largely an independent force to which governments kowtow, China is still fundamentally a command society: the best guarantee against criticism when things go wrong is to be able to prove that you carried out instructions to the letter and beyond.
I well remember a tour of China I organized for Australian journalists in 1979, just after the fall of the Gang of Four. An anomalous pair of statistics had turned up just before the tour began: Chinese light industry output had risen 17%, but heavy industry had fallen by 7%: how could these two contradictory things happen, our party of largely economic journalists wondered?
We got our answer from a meeting with the Mayor of Shanghai and an official who title was the “Economic Boss” of Shanghai: the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China had issued a directive to “promote light industry”. So what did they do?
“We stripped heavy industry factories and turned them into light industry”.
In China, if a communist party official tells a bank to lend, it lends. Chinese lending rose 95% in 2009 over 2008 levels, boosting its money supply by over 27%. That has undoubtedly caused unintended consequences that the Chinese government may well now seek to reverse—and its recent decision to increase the reserve ratio is a sign that this reversal may already be in train. If so, our Chinese largess could dry up just as suddenly as it began.
And today we learn that China has instructed its banks to stop lending…
To read the rest of the article, buy Dissent when it comes out in April.






January 20th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Good to see you aren’t slowing down any Steve. Regular readers of this site might enjoy this. The tide appears to be turning in the media a little.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-reasons-why-obama-is-failing-investors-2010-01-19?pagenumber=2
January 21st, 2010 at 1:15 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by greychampion, John Hacking. John Hacking said: Talks@Google: Google runs a regular seminar series on topical issues, which I spoke at last week. There was a subs… http://bit.ly/4ID81A [...]
January 21st, 2010 at 1:17 am
Hi Steve,
I’m afraid this JW Player thing is a pup. Is it possible to use something else?
Cheers
January 21st, 2010 at 6:31 am
What goes wrong Muzz? It works fine on my system, so I need some info about what happens on yours.
Does anybody else have difficulties with it? Comments please, even (especially!) if you haven’t posted before.
The player is running a Flash Streaming Video file, so there will be issues for sure if you don’t have the Adobe Flash module viewer installed.
January 21st, 2010 at 7:20 am
I have problem with the JW player too. It is hacking can only se the start than later everything stops, I have tested other videosites and these works fine so I feel that it have to be somtehing with the JW player.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:04 am
Steve,
Data Transfer rate (bandwidth used) is roughly 100-150KiB/s (I measured data transfer rate as 6..9 MiB/min using ifconfig called periodically) which is in my opinion way too high – it is approx. 800-1200 Kbps.
Please compare the measurements with these recommendations:
http://www.whibb.com/youtube-bandwidth-requirement.html
Streaming didn’t work well last night when I tried to access it at about 11:45 pm – either the server was not able to stream fast enough or TCP connections were throttled by the infrastructure between the server and my client. Now (8 am) it is working but still there were gaps and I have to stop the playback periodically and cache the data to avoid having gaps.
Is the size of one 1h segment about 400-600 MiB?
Please consider shrinking the size of the image, lowering the quality of video or even providing a voice recording as a MP3 file and the PDF of a presentation separately. Voice can be streamed at 8KiB/s or less. People who do not have a good ADSL connection simply cannot access the stream.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:07 am
I think AK has found the problem, I got it to work somewhat in IE instead of firefox, but I have to pause it to be able to look, and it takes way to long to casch it.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:16 am
Thanks guys, I went for a high quality version and the main file was about 584MB. It works well on my system, but I have ADSL2+ and I’m only 500 metres from the relevant exchange.
I’ll produce a lower resolution version and post that shortly.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:32 am
The Chinese economy and especially its stats are not like anywhere else.
Michael Pettis’s blog is worth reading on China’s financial markets- http://mpettis.com/
Steve – may want to check the spelling of ‘largesse’
January 21st, 2010 at 8:52 am
Bloody Microsoft! I had an “e” at the end of largesse and it deleted it on me. That must be the American version.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:12 am
Man,
Talks of China and Google and suddenly Microsoft is causing problems
When will it ever end!
PS The Russians are moving over to the chimp model of stock picking – worked with Raven the chimp in 2000 with the Dot Com circus and now with the GFC.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1548081&_blg=1,1548646
Moz
January 21st, 2010 at 9:17 am
Steve,
Couldn’t agree more re: China. A disaster waiting to happen.
Real estate developers now trading between 4x and 10x book value. Real estate trading at a massive premium to the cost of production. China will not be recognisable by December 2010.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:44 am
I absolutely detest the whole idea of playing media in a “browser.”
The html source reveals the direct links to the files, and it is quite easy to download them (even at the lousy broadband speeds we have here), and play them with a real media player – a much nicer experience overall.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:51 am
China built and sold 940 Billion m2 of appartments 2009 = enough to house 37 million people at @ 25m2 floor area per person for USD $646 Billion = USD $51,500 per 75 m2 appartment.
At this build rate, within 4 years China will have built and sold new appartments to house @ 200 million people at purchase prices that will absorb 50 – 70% of a Chinese two income household and 1/4 of their total urban populations wage income will be struggling under the burden of this level of loan repayments.
How can the urban Chinese household possibly replace the US household as the new consumer economy under this massive financial burden?
“China’s real estate sector set several new records in 2009. Nearly 940 million sq m of properties sold, and the average price hit 4,695 yuan ($687) per sq m, China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) revealed Tuesday.”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/20/content_9350633.htm
January 21st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Another interesting read
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mckinsey-sovereign-deleveraging-and-untenable-debt-loads
January 21st, 2010 at 3:28 pm
This was something I learned from an expat living in Shanghai. One whose business it was to understand such details.
The Chinese government adds to GDP when a good moves from the factory to, say, a warehouse (!). That is, the good doesn’t isn’t necessarily consumed, indeed it may be sitting somewhere unused.
So, I suppose, those SOEs produce a bunch of stuff, put it into a warehouse, and it counts towards GDP. The mind boggles.
I have no reason not to believe this because I lived 6 years in Japan and was intimately acquainted with the ways in which official economic reporting can serve more as propaganda than to inform. Those Japanese unemployment stats that were the envy of the rest of the world for many decades? To take a single point, the Japanese govt would count an employable individual as being employed if they’d worked just one day out of a month.
Which isn’t to say that governments outside E Asia are unaware of economic reporting as propaganda. E.g. the US unemployment U-3 and U-6 numbers.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Nice talk.
Just wanted to ask why you consider ‘Australia’s path’ as unsustainable?
I define Australia’s path as boosting family income using fiscal policy, something neither Japan nor America seem willing to try.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
#16
Building 940 million m2 / USD $646 Billion of housing adds to GDP!
50%+ of 2009 GDP was urban infrastructure building!
Was/is it needed/utilised/consumed in the same way it would be in Australia?
Not sure about that!
January 21st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Peter #18
I think 50% of GDP (and close to it many prior years) was capital investment.
I think of this as maybe 3 things. 1) real-estate, much of which may be empty 2) factories, probably at least some (many?) unused. And 3) roads, power lines etc which have, at the current point in time, a higher likelihood of being productive investments than 1 or 2. There’s vast overcapacity in both factories and real estate.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Great talk Steve, thanks so much.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
winslowreconomics #17
Because we’ve financing that increased income with increased debt. Specifically we’ve had policies like the FHBG to encourage borrowing more against our houses. And other government debt financed stimulus spending, like the proposed national broadband network, the home insulation thing I’ve been badgered about a few times recently, tax breaks on education and small business spending…
When you have a crisis because you have too much debt in the economy, the way to fix it is not to increases the level of debt. It’s like drinking a bottle of scotch to try and fix your hangover. You might feel better for a while, but it doesn’t do anything to fix the underlying problem, in fact it just makes the problem worse.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
spike #20 thanks for your reply
Your example sounds a bit too Austrian for my taste as there is a limit to the amount of scotch one can produce/drink, I know of no such limit for government debt except for those imposed by politics.
To be honest I expected an answer with inflation in it.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:12 pm
@Steve
I recently received a book, and I was wondering if you were familiar it? It’s titled: “The Great Financial Crisis, Causes and Consequences” by John Foster and Fred Magdoff. They leverage heavily from earlier work in the Monthly Review under Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy. If so, I was wondering if you had any comments about it?
I mention it as it has a number of themes which you’ve talked about.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@winslowreconomics:
“I know of no such limit for government debt except for those imposed by politics.”
Might I suggest a google search for “Bond Market Vigilantes”?
January 21st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I’m not really convinced either way by the debt/employment causality.
It is difficult to measure as outlined in this article.
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm
If you were doing an experiment and actually controlled a variable and found correlation with another, then you could claim causality.
I think in this case the causality is in both directions. Both arguments make intuitive sense and are not mutually exclusive.
However given that the correlation is with private debt and not total debt, it is indicative that the causation employment->debt is stronger.
Compare government debt with private debt. I would think government debt is more employment stimulatory especially given that as claimed the private debt is sunk into real estate, even given that real estate money eventually turns into consumption and therefore employment.
Both sides of the argument make sense and are not mutually exclusive. However it is much easier for me to intuit a person getting a job and deciding to go into a mortgage rather than a person getting a mortgage and causing a rise in employment. Sure, both make sense buy which one follows the intuitive path of least resistance??
Take an extreme example as a thought experiment. A chicken and egg story. Say there are zero mortgages and zero employment. You can then have employment and no mortgages, but I don’t see how you could have mortgages and no employment.
The causality is in both directions.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Obama plan to limit the size of banks – report
“US President Barack Obama will tonight propose new limits on the size of US banks after spending billions of tax-payer dollars to bail out “too-big-to-fail” firms, a senior official says.”
No word from the Giant Vampire Squid, Goldman Sachs, yet.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Burrah,
Here is the Bloomberg link to their view on the story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aE_FU.hDsiao&pos=1
Personally I think legislation about what can and can’t be done is a much better option than over taxing institutions and attacking pay.
If they do it right (?) then by restricting operations they will reduce capacity to leverage up and use proprieety trading (amongst other things) to generate fee’s and huge income – therefore bonuses wont be as huge either.
The problem with over taxing and attacking pay is that it gets the backs up of the GOP and the right wing talk back scene and then you get the right backlash that has been the theme for the past few months – but if they limit the capacity of banks and other institutions in doing the things that got us here then there is not much anybody can complain about.
I hope he drops the populist retoric and focuses on implementing the changes.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:58 pm
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth #24.
“However it is much easier for me to intuit a person getting a job and deciding to go into a mortgage rather than a person getting a mortgage and causing a rise in employment.”
That’s because both elements reinforce each other. Rising employment & wages encourages more borrowing against expected future income. The borrowed money flows through the economy raising employment and incomes… Until the music stops and everyone tries, or is forced, to reduce their debt. Then the cycle reverses.
Or at least this is the case when the ratio between incomes and new loans is large. Which it has been for the last 30-40 years or so.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 am
@ Steve
To further elaborate on #14 & #16
Most Australian investors should read this… China is our MOST (21.5%) important export partner.
http://www.pivotcapital.com/reports/Chinas_Investment_Boom_the_Great_Leap_into_the_Unknown.pdf
You can delude some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT not ALL of the people ALL of the time!
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 am
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth #24 and spike #27
Event A is a sufficient cause of event B, if occurrence of event A implies the occurrence of event B. Event A is a necessary cause of event B, if occurrence of event B implies the occurrence of event A. Correlation is NEVER causation, because it is a statistical and NOT a logical concept.
A 100 percent correlation would SUGGEST causation, but not necessarily. For example, presence of large numbers of firemen are highly correlated with large fires. It does not mean firemen CAUSE fires. Nor does it mean that large fires always CAUSE the presence of large numbers of firemen.
Statistics itself can only refute but never prove causality. Decades of econometrics, in spite of such pretense as Granger causality, have led to little advancement in the understanding of economics. Causality requires postulation of causal mechanisms. For example, gravity causes the apple to fall from the tree, improved exam results are caused by more thorough studies, etc.
The causal relationship between employment and debt appears quite complex. A government with a budget surplus can spend its surplus to stimulate the economy and increase employment without incurring debt. On the other hand, high debt levels are correlated with high unemployment in the US currently. We have to study detailed causal mechanisms through dynamic models that Steve and others develop and test their predictions against empirical data.
By assuming equilibrium, neoclassical economics has rendered the study of causal mechanisms irrelevant in economics, because causal dynamics must have worked themselves out to reach a stationary equilibrium state with constant parameters or rates. The concept of equilibrium does not need the concept of causality. Hence neoclassical economics has no concept of economic processes or causality. The GFC and the subsequent silence of mainstream economics with any solid advice, or for that matter any advice at all, are clear evidence that there have been decades of neglect and wasted opportunity to advance economics.
Hence, as far as I’m concerned the causality between employment and debt is far from clear, although Steve’s model(s) could provide some suggestions.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 am
Steve, thanks for the video. Its was great to see you describe everything in layman’s terms and get a overall framework of your point of view. I also had issue with that JW player, it was taking up 90% of my CPU running in firefox.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:06 am
#23 eternal student
“Might I suggest a google search for “Bond Market Vigilantes”?”
Yes, this is a widely held view that should be put to rest now that Bernanke has shown he can bend the yeild curve towards the zero bound. Bond market vigilantes are powerless to effect interest rates (short or long term) when faced with a determined Fed.
Exchange rates are another matter.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:43 am
Steve,
Once deleveraging starts, what factors determine how fast deleveraging happens?
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 am
Thanks for the China link PETER_W at #28
I would argue that China is a Chartalist’s paradise; they should all go and live there. On Bond Market Vigilantes; they do matter if people decide they matter. At present momentum is building against the money printers; hopefully the path chosen will throw them all under a bus – figuratively speaking of course.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:44 am
Welcome aboard winslowreconomics.
If that was all there was to Australia’s path, then I wouldn’t have established this blog in the first place.
However our path also continues an attempt to revive the trend for private debt to grow faster than GDP (as it has for the past 45 years), to continue developing a “services-oriented” sector (with a mining base) rather than a manufacturing one when services are heavily dependent on the continued growth of the finance sector, and trying to government-deficit-stimulate the economy while ignoring the (for the moment, potential) impact of private sector deleveraging.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:13 am
Re #22 Spike’s reply focused on the limits to private debt winslowreconomics, not any question of limits to government spending.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 am
Re #33,
I don’t think there’s any necessary pace at which it occurs, but in Australia in the 1890s–when government intervention to try to attenuate problems can be largely ruled out–the rate was 4% p.a. In the 1930s, prior to the onset of WWII, it was 3%–and then accelerated to 12% p.a. during the War itself for an average of 8%.
The problem with it when it does occur is that it is initially a cumulative process and starts at its highest pace relative to aggregate demand. So a 4% reduction in 1892 caused a 4% fall in aggregate demand below the level that GDP itself generated; in 2010 that same rate of reduction would cause a 6% fall in aggregate demand.
The process slows down as debt levels fall, but in a falling debt world the attitude to debt shifts so much that even when the contribution has dropped to very low levels–say 2% when debt has been reduced to 50% of GDP–”animal spirits” are rather repressed all the same.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:27 am
Hi ES (RE #23).
I haven’t read it (too busy working on my own plus other tasks!), but I regard their work on debt as prescient even if I disagree with their underconsumptionist foundations.
I will attempt to read such works at some stage in the next 2 years…
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:37 am
Outstanding stuff, Steve.
Drink more water. Your voice is drying out, not wearing out. Is my thought.
I thank you for the mention of going after the debtors rather than the banks in terms of stimulus. I missed that in the material you suggested. It is relevant to the HOLC model (Home owners loan corporation… the New Deal agency that forced write-downs)
I’m relaying the audio onto iTunes unless you tell me not to. I listened to it without the video and it made complete sense. That will be up Saturday and Sunday US Pacific Coast time.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:49 am
#39
Thanks demand side–appreciate the posting. I am going to link to a smaller video file in a few minutes and I’d appreciate feedback from people here about whether it’s any better suited to the bandwidth issue.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
Re #33. I’ve changed the link to a slightly smaller set of files; can people who had bandwidth problems please check whether these are any better? I can reduce them further if necessary–I’m just experimenting here.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 am
#35 Thanks for the welcome, hope I don’t wear it out too soon!
“However our path also continues an attempt to revive the trend for private debt to grow faster than GDP (as it has for the past 45 years)”
I was reading a detractor, out on the blogosphere, as saying you miscalled the housing bubble burst in Australia. My interpretation is that you fell victim to a shift in fiscal policy, something your model will have a difficult time predicting without addressing the impact of political directed fiscal shocks.
I also seem much more pleased with Australia’s success at avoiding the bubble collapse then you are. Given America’s lack of success with top-down bailouts, Australia’s bottom up approach, not only worked, but could work again and again given the unlimited spending ability of the government.
I am curious as to what the long-term effects of such a policy would be. I don’t believe Japan provides a good guide as they were never successful in increasing incomes. Australia seems to be blazing a new path and I’m not so sure there is a problem with it. Does Australia have the crime and wealth inequality endemic to America?
The worst I can say is there may be a suboptimal allocation of resources towards nonproductive sectors of the economy. Perhaps Australia is not perfect and you have proposals to make it better, but from where I sit, it just doesn’t seem that bad.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:38 am
Steve,
The second podcast is not working (the link is broken, starts with “%5Bpodcast%20format%3D%22video%22%” and there is a kind of broken html tag just below the third one – search for a tag “/podcast]”
The size of files appears to be reduced roughly by 50% (the big one has now length=”356623586″ )- it works better for me but I have a good ADSL+ connection. I would keep reducing them until the quality is really affected.
Somebody with a real web design experience like Alan Gresley would be a better advisor than me…
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:42 am
Re #42.
The main cause of Australia’s housing bubble reviving after prices started to fall in 2008 was the doubling of the “First Home Owners Grant” (from A$7,000 to $14,000), aided by State government boosts that in one case took the government handout to encourage young Australians into mortgage debt to over $30,000.
Check the fourth graph on this post on that front.
Interestingly, the biggest revival in employment over the last year has occurred in Victoria, which is the state that gave the greatest level of largesse to borrowers to entice them into mortgages: fully half the increase in employment over the last year occurred there.
I am pleased that we avoided the level of downturn I expected, but I am not pleased that one of what I see as the 4 pillars of that was encouraging the debt bubble to revive. 2 of the other 3 pillars-interest rate cuts by the RBA that are largely passed on to borrowers because of the prevalence of variable rate mortgages here, and China’s enormous stimulus from which we directly benefit via minerals sales–are not permanent. That leaves just one, government deficit spending–and though the Chartalist case that this is unlimited in a country with a sovereign currency and central bank is correct, the political reality remains that governments will not sustain this.
Chartalists have certainly been trying hard to get their argument across, but they have had no more success in penetrating government thinking on this than I have had. So I expect the Australian government to succumb to the argument for deficit reduction at least temporarily–enough to let debt deleveraging become potent once more–before possibly reversing direction again. This is the start-stop process that Japan’s system has been stuck in for 2 decades.
That’s my main concern winslow; the key cause of the crisis is excessive private debt; an antidote is government spending to counter de-leveraging, but if this simply amounts to a near-zero-sum game, then stagnation will be the outcome.
I might leave it to Brightspark and others to address your final point: we have de-industrialised here from a lower level of industrialisation (and national ownership of industry) than America. Even if industry is “inefficient” because of scale problems here, it is a more effective redistributor of income from our genuine strengths (minerals) than services that are finance-dependent. A neoclassical ideology has been very effective in destroying our manufacturing capabilities, while letting finance-based services flourish.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:47 am
I’ll fix that now Adam, thanks. And I’ll reduce the file size further.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am
They’re all working now; I’ll also produce a further reduction in file size and post a separate entry with links rather than editing this one.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 am
#44 Thanks, agreed.
” Even if industry is “inefficient” because of scale problems here, it is a more effective redistributor of income from our genuine strengths (minerals) than services that are finance-dependent.”
Not sure I have the background to agree/disagree with this statement.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 am
winslowreconomics 47
If the foreign currency we earned from the mining actually paid for the products of the “inefficient” industries which we import, (the condition imposed on the “invisible hand” proposition by Adam Smith) you may have a reason for not being sure.
But we have never earned sufficient and we have borrowed for 50 years to enable the continued purchase of these products which would otherwise be produced by our formaer “inefficient” high technology industries. Now we have a mountain of foreigh debt, and only the remant shell of technological capabilities.
There is no reason to have any doubt Steve Keen is 100% correct. We have been tranfering “wealth” wealth which is now in more and more doubt every day from productive effort to destructive FIRE businesses. Now we all pay.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 am
Gidday everyone from Kiwiland…the podcast works fine for me on audio and not so fine on video…never mind, cannot call New Zealand band seriously broad anyway.
I thought I would post a link to a blogsite that just published a McKinsey report called ” Debt and deleveraging : The global credit bubble and its economic consequences.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mckinsey-sovereign-deleveraging-and-untenable-debt-loads
Not very fond of Mc Kinsey myself….but seems they are taking at least note that something is wrong in classical instruments (as the complete BS of Modigliani and Miller on the indifference of a corporation to the debt/equity mix in their capital structure…particularly if that corp is a bloody bank!)and some of the data might be useful…if you ever have time to read them before 2 years Steve.
BTW…I manage money for private banks in NZ, still have some ethical principles as feeling a strong committment to the fiduciary duty of preserving my client’s capital…and completely skipped the 2008 credit disaster thanks to reading what you publish here.
cheers
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 am
Thanks gunny57. I’ve downloaded the full report and scanned it; looks good but as noted, the one resource I really lack is time!
1/4 of the way to producing a more compact video of the talk, which I’ll post sometime this afternoon.