 A lot of questions at the end, please. Just a moment, please. Wait until the microphone, or I'll take it off. Easy. Thank you. I was wondering if you could comment on Mr. Plague's new project, writing a Churchill, a memorandum. I guess the... Contemporary history opens many doors. That's a big problem. I want to ask you, I don't know, many, many channels to play. Or another historian is in the table. What do you think of the claim that Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany and the rest of Western Europe in the summer of 1941, as they had a lot of troops on the border and none of them in the defensive position. And there were claims that there were special parachute planes that they were having. And if in case Peter would have died in Prague or in any other way before 1939, how would that have changed? And do you think that the Second World War was unweightable if Peter was without a picture? Okay. We're now speculating not on what Hitler did in the other circles. But what Stalin would have done in other circles. And, of course, I can't help to rant fully. All I would say is that Stalin spent most of the late 1930s murdering the whole of the Soviet general staff. And I'm not sure the Soviet army was in any position to attack anyone. I don't know. I'm not sure the Soviet army was in any position to attack anyone, but they did attack Finland, and they got to Germany. I find it unlikely that the Soviets would have been in any position to attack the Germans. The other thing I would start with is that he was evil but not mad. He was a highly rational dictator. And once you sent your army to war, it is highly likely that if you don't lose the war, you will have some very successful generals. And we know that successful generals quite often do rather well in domestic politics afterwards. We know that Eisenhower, one of the successful men of the Second World War, went on to become American president. Now, it's a very set pattern that a successful general will do something in his life. In a democratic state, of course, he can stand for election and win. In a sort of a Soviet state, everything a very successful general would have done would have been to challenge Stalin. And so I find it unlikely that Stalin was interested in waging aggressive war at any time. He fought the Second World War, cued fence at the end of the end. And as I said, I don't think that the Soviets would have attacked. I could be wrong, I have no idea. I think Hitler might have died here. Green, Stalin might have joined the Cubans. They might have only set to change operations. I don't know what would happen in our circumstances. But I find it unlikely that they would have been a sort of attack. I might just very briefly add something to this. I've been reading the stuff on 1941. And I think it's a very far-fetched theory that Stalin is preparing to attack Hitler at that stage. I could think of almost no serious historian who accepts it. It was argued originally by Manfred Savore for very body-free reasons. But really almost no one accepts it. You can explain the layout of the troops and if it's entirely rational, then Stalin's way of thinking. I think the idea of preventing war in 1941 is excluded. Yes, they're preparing for something in 42 or 43. I have a question. But it's not 41. This question is directed to the President Wilson. Among the Austrians there's been a debate regarding the validity of fractionalism banking in a free market. And one of the writing arguments in answer to the need for more money in the accredited expansion is sometimes they don't need more money. Whatever money we have right now does the job. There's fluctuations in demand that the price is fluctuating, which is not an increase or decrease versus the problem. Therefore, we might argue that the optimal amount of money is what we have right now. And while I drew the writing stats on the basic figures on how fractionalism banking in the market, I would argue that the statement that we have the optimal amount of money right now is not generally the case or more specifically, that in a free market the money fluctuates in the supply is because the previous fluctuation of the money supply increases. If we have a mini-chain industry that the supply of money will change because in fact market demands that the supply of money changes and therefore just like with any other commodity there is no such thing as an optimal amount that in a free market such a concept would dissolve. What do you think about it? That's a good question. The point is that if it's any cheaper government made and I would also struggle is that any of the money supply would be equally good. So if any money supply is equally optimal from an equity point of view. Now of course the question can be how can you find an equity point of view? Is this one of your questions? It would be if we have a free market and we have a mini-chain industry and mints are minting could an Austrian stand up and say there is an example and could anyone else stand up and say there is an example of market failure. We do not need this in money. Here we are. That would be a long inference from the panacea, right? All the money supply is equally good. So it increases because of minting and mining going on and the use of money supply is as good as the old one. It's not better. It's not worse either. My question is concerned so I'll ask a few and make an observation. One is I've read some papers published by the Winner Institute of Riva. I have a question and how did the interpretation of Riva as any of interest emerge? Because it seems as an outsider I read these papers and it seems that it's very credible that the term Riva or usually applies only to excessive amounts of interest or non-market rates however you say that and I have a follow-up as an American with all the Muslims I know of course American and I wonder the Muslim entrepreneurs and businessmen that I know how many Middle Eastern Muslims view them or do they talking about rising awareness of Muslim entrepreneurs and businessmen how are American entrepreneurs and businessmen Muslim or is that kind of the most accurate? Well I think the idea of interest in the modern world emerged in modern era like in the Middle Ages there wasn't a big difference it was huge that you lent someone lent you a lot of money and it gets ten times as bad or twice as bad there's no idea of inflation it's a very common process so I think in the modern age we started to see difference more clearly in the medieval times Muslims used these techniques and frankly in the Ottoman environment in Sheikul Islam he allowed the highest foundations for some limited interest thinking so even in the Middle Ages they saw a difference but they should be a bigger one in the modern age right now because in non-interest banking in formal venture capital you have those Islamic banks in Turkey we have a few Islamic banks but other banks are just normal banks and you just keep going whenever they prefer to and I think in a free market you can have all these options so you don't need to design a Islamic economy it's like a kitchen a part of the kosher as how Muslims look at well it depends on which Muslims do I think the fact that the Muslims in the US are the average Muslim in the US is quite different from the average Muslim in Europe and I think that's important in the US the Muslims even the Turks if you take a flight to New York from Istanbul a flight to Berlin you will see that the ones going to New York are middle class professionals or high school students and so on who want to go to Berlin, go there to work and go to a shop and maybe a worker and that's the case for most Muslims in New York came as manual laborers and the cool of that in the US would be Mexican whereas most Muslims went to the US to be middle class so one reason that the US does not have the power to do a pass in the same coolness there are some radicalized Muslims within the US for a reaction to the US foreign policy but in the social level we don't have a ghettoization in the feeling of alienation I think in the US society that's also related to the tolerance towards religion in general in the US so the idea of a Muslim businessman is not horrifying to many Muslims but that was also always limited to the classical shopkeeper but this idea of a Muslim businessman more modern entrepreneurial investing a lot of money that's something new and it's something we're criticizing it's more conservative in Turkey that Turkish Muslims are being hedonistic they're becoming consumers so there is an ongoing debate about the building of a successful capitalist culture within Islam and people have different ideas but none is it a wild reaction that there's criticism within Turkey itself for the more conservative side Ken if I could briefly briefly have something it's very striking in the 19th century that there are banks of the Ottoman Empire and it's the woman of the country that the banks are in the hands of other Muslim Greeks and Greeks not yet it's all about saying that there is that tradition in Islam but in the 19th century when the Ottoman Empire was still very much on the patriots very much so the bankers are Greeks or Armenians and 11 times that sort of thing but at the top the Muslims who almost got into that world it doesn't need some explanation in the Ottoman Empire non-Muslims became Muslims and when they were expelled or the Ottoman Empire lost them then Turkey became a country without any Muslims or peasants or bureaucrats because there was an idea for the veneration of states that you should get into states and become bureaucrats but you're not a peasant so Turkey had an effort to create its own Muslims with some would turn it down to the free market with the government fund it which we call white Turks they prospered under the ideology of the government now the thing is the conservative coming from inland Turkey is coming from a more real underdog experience and there are the ones which we call the conservative ones right now whereas in the big cities in Istanbul you would have the more westernized like a cigar sort of do the spent type and I told you you would have the more moustache because white goes from mosques and he's making light weddings and he says Prophet Muhammad was a merchant and that's a new type in Turkey and I think that's interesting for the history before the rest of the Islamic civilization because this is more interesting of course you can be a secular Muslim and that's nice but you're not very inspiring for most of the high Muslim out there but if you're a religious quite religious but also if you engage I have a question for you most religions except Islam they have scriptures and they have God and the position of God is that of an abstract principle in which all of this space of creativity and changing your views and approaching things has fine passes but as you said that in Islam Quran actually takes the place of God which is actually of Jesus of Jesus I'm not very good at so if you put Quran in such a high place which is higher than scriptures as it is in other religions the thing is that they don't really leave any space for human creativity and independence there so my question comes back to the idea of your speech which is does Quran not make it takes over the place of capitalism because it replaces capitalism because it does not leave any space for creativity and freedom so it does not really allow any space for creativity in the secret game the thing is first of all what I've said in my speech Quran is equivalent to the idea of love-boss in the pork gospel as the word of God became flesh in the Muslim mind but actually that was the biggest in the game early in the old Islam and there were two camps about the nature of the Quran and one camp argued that the Quran is created is this. The created Koran can set, it says the word of God, but God spoke it at a certain time in history, at a certain context. The other people said, no, no, it is uncreated in the sense that it was with God since eternity, and it came down to 7th century as a block of word. I'm on the created Koran side, which says, I mean it's word of God, but God spoke into a context. So when God said this and this, I am according to that context and that culture and so on. So there is a different tradition, it says, there's a tradition arising from this interpretation, which is the non-literalist interpretation, and even in the medieval era there was Iman Shatibi who wrote the book about the Mankasit, the purposes of the Sherpa, and he said, there are little rules of the law, but there are intentions of the law, and the intentions are eternal, whereas the details can change, and he noted those intentions as a protection of five principles, life, religion, the intellect, property, and project. So that is a, so there is space for interpretation depending on how you look at the Koran itself, plus 90% of Islamic law is post-Koran. Koran covers every little area, it generally gives basic principles, so in most of the legal matters you don't enter into the entire church defined by the Koran. And even if you enter it again, there is a different interpretive tool, it's not that, it's a, well that's one line of course. Could I add some things about this? If you are an Orthodox Christian, or if you are an Catholic, then yes, you believe that God spoke to man through the Bible, but also through the church, the councils of the church, also reveal the word of God. But if you are a Protestant, if you are a very Protestant, you believe that the Bible is the inherent, inspired word of God, which is in itself the sufficient for salvation. So I would like to put this contrast between the Koran, which is a supreme document, and the Bible which is not a supreme document, there are many shades of Christianity, and the particular shade of Christianity in which I come, which I don't necessarily subscribe, put to the Bible in much the same position as the Koran. So there is not that much difference. It's difficult of my own topics for this distinguished panel, I have a question, first of all, I think that the instrument of sound, credit, time, market, and real estate is getting entirely substituted by instruments of the credit of the predation of Islam and Allah, that is not having a straight form of time market, but where every capital transfer has to be a giant venture, in a way, is a priority market economy possible without instrument of the sound credit of the least of the straight form of way. The second question is that Islam seems to offer a quite good basis for the criticism of pay-per-money, which is not paid by commodities. Has this perception already reached the public debate in some Islamic countries? I got the second question about the first question. It's a largely market economy possible without straight form of credit, because it's not allowed by the current interpretation of Islam. Every capital transfer has to be a giant venture, in a way, is a task, a commodity-based transaction. Do you think that the fact that Islam comes might be lacking, instrument of sound credit, you know, that's the way it is? Okay, first of all, I mean, I know, believe in something called an Islamic economy. So, there are people who believe in the Islamic economy, and they think that means that everything should be raised to capital, no one should take it. And I think that system is hard to really sustain when you're doing that in, well, in Malaysia, if they're doing something like that, but there's a non-Muslim kind of society in Chinese, which are contrary to the economy, and there's no clear cut to the example. But I think, I personally think modern interest is not saving the user. Many people think that way anyway. So, I think it's a cheap economy, and Muslims would prefer that way and use that. And I think that interpretation will maybe be a little and less and less popular as time goes by. The majority of the society use normal banking, and only maybe a tiny person in society goes to those Islamic banks. And even those who go say, well, we don't see much difference actually, but at least to obey the leper in law, we're doing this. And as for, sorry, I don't remember the second one. This is a criticism of paper money. Well, there is that idea that the paper came as a novelty, and some people are, but I don't see any Islamic justification for paper money or gold standards or even gold itself. There are some people who made that argument. There are some people who say in Prophet's time there were no paper money, it was just gold and silver, but there was no salthons in Prophet's time as well, or no hotels and so on. So, I don't think, I think it's a rational argument. It's not a religious argument. And I think the problem in Islamic, you know, in some interpreters or scholars or foretellers of Islam is that they think that religion defines everything. Like, religion defines, doesn't define traffic law. And if you want to extract traffic laws from the ground, you really cannot from this area. So, it is actually much more limited. And, of course, religious answers have been given to lots of questions in history, but they were actually human answers, inspired for religion, but given after all by human beings who were scholars who taught within their context. And instead of just arguing what an Islamic economy should be, I would rather prefer to argue, well, there's not no such thing. There are principles, there are values, but the implementation of those can change in an area of time. And that idea is also, you know, becoming popular among some Muslims, especially, I would say, in Turkey, the more the most strange. You mentioned that the issue of the money is the violence against the public. Indeed, two persons may not have the same resource and contact, but according to the central part, in the return society, even certain contracts will be passed. So, if one side of the contract agreed to be cheated from the side of the bank, so what would be the effect of the return society primarily from the point of view of the freedom of contract? Of course, you can put your signature on that, any piece of nonsense. You can write on the sheet of paper, I hereby agree that you are the king of China. I hereby think that I have invented a square circle or something. You can write some things and put your signature on that, it's in the way that you think is going to do this. But this has of course nothing to do with the problems that we confront in legal scholarship in which we insist on the principle that a contract, in order to be valid and enforceable, must stipulate something that is possible. It's not possible that the same physical object as you have pointed out, belongs to two persons at the same time. So, in practice, what would this mean? I think that of course, in a free society, people are free to put their signature again under any nonsense that they might come up with. It's a different question whether they would find a court accepting this and enforcing such a type of contract. The question is, Islam and capitalism. I remember that ten years ago, Harold and Matthew published a comparative study about the relationship between the kind of good performance and religious belief. And the outcome was more or less that every kind of religious belief in a modern day promotes growth. Negative correlation is between religious feminism and the common heroes of economic performance, which is quite obvious. On the other hand, I said that I think that it's easy to explain because every religion promotes certain values which are adaptive and promote some social relations. On the other hand, I think that we have to distinguish between Islam and Christianity regarding the concept of religion, because there is a distinction between the Quran as the word of God as such and the Bible as the gospel containing the word of God. So I mean, you have four Gospels, what different accounts of the history of Buddhism. You have a lot of space of interpretation and history shows that this, let's say, boundless, or really boundless possibility to determine the faith gave the possibility in church to incorporate, for instance, the religious system of the Roman Empire and the religious system of the modern times. In the Islam, the Islamic religion, I think that this boundary is a much more narrow, so the space of interpretation is much narrow. I don't want to say that there was no attempt to go beyond this. Islam, in my opinion, was something like this. The Turkish history, the Afghan history shows that as well. But the conclusion would be that Islam is the more efficient from the economic point of view, the more it is heretic. Heretic. Is it a heretical idea? Excuse me? What was your emphasis on the idea of heretic? I didn't get that. To go beyond the autocracy of understanding of the Quran. It needs to go beyond the autocracy of understanding of the Quran to be efficient. Well, first of all, I agree with you that Islam, it's wrong to come from Islam to Christianity. Very important differences. If we really need a parallelism between any of those big reasons, Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. With its emphasis on law, with its very strong monotheism, it does a rejection of the doctrine of Trinity, in a theological sense. Maybe the first five books of the Torah can be that compared to the Quran as the ultimate revelation which God gave to Moses. And Moses is similar to Mohammed. He search for people of Ramadan. And then Jesus says, even in his message, you can't avoid the Muslims including Jews. Christians understand them. And actually maybe today, the historical experience of Islam is a bit like the historical experience of Jews when they first faced enlightenment and modernity. So you had a different, you had a reformation in the sense that some remain orthodox, some become conservative, you even had a reform in Judaism. Something like that will happen to Islam. Maybe it is happening right now already. And some people even have argued that the Muslim position vis-a-vis the West is a bit like the Jewish position vis-a-vis Rome 2000 years ago, in the sense that they had a herit, a dictator, and installed by Rome and they were fighting and there were different reactions, zealots and Pharisees and that's interesting, aren't they? But to come back to a point, is there, do we need a heretical position on the orthodoxy to, you know, move on with something like this? I would not say heretical because those are already in the tradition. But yes, there is, I think there is some need of a renewal, a revival within the Sunni tradition. Because the Sunni orthodoxy has been formed in the second, third century in a specific context, in a specific environment. And those interpretations of those scholars, the earliest scholars, became unquestionable norms. And actually there is an effort to question them since the late 19th century, late 19th century Muslim liberals from the other empire or Egypt or from the Arab world, like Afghani in the Arab world or in the other empire people like Naam Kevan, they discovered, they said, much of the things which are in the West, like freedom and, you know, free markets and economy and progress and rule of law and constitution, these are, they said, are actually compatible with our core values, but we got buried in time. That was their argument. The problem is that in the 20th century, because of the confrontation with the West, many Muslims just were pushed to the other side. They became communists or socialists, simply they were fighting the West, and they thought, this is a way to resist the West. If you let them, I think alone, I mean, I think there is room in their sources within the tradition itself to come back with some of the liberal ideas. And it is not an accident that in the turn of the 20th century, all prominent Muslim thinkers were liberals who said, the West has great things and we should learn from them. You just roll back to the 1930s and you find many of them or many of the people who replaced them becoming more and more strident against the West, because they lost account of faith, they were colonized, and they saw, you know, all those, like, Western intrusion in their countries, and West became the enemy rather than a successful model you can learn from. And I think in countries that did not have the same experience in Turkey, Malaysia, you are actually seeing it something different. You should not expect a liberal, this is not an extreme to come from Gaza, this is not an information. They're fighting and that's the only thing they know. Or from, like, tribal areas in Pakistan which has no access to anything, which is modern. But from places which you have a Muslim society which is modernizing in its own way. And that should be allowed. The problem is that that was not always allowed either by the West or by secular dictators who said, all should be trashed out and we should totally become French wannabes and that's it, that was another feeling. And the model of racism like that. The student of Sapa is one of those that I can comment from, you know, and recently the finance minister of Malaysia called for a role in dinar but also he called for this to be the unit of account and the unit of settlement in their international trade. And he made a suggestion to the organization of Islamic nations that they adopt this kind of thing. My question to you is whether you think this has any traction whether you think this has any potential in the Islamic world. And you know, in the Middle East there are a lot of Islamic nations that have no access to anything in the Islamic world. And you know, in the Middle East I'd like to ask a comment as to what do you think would happen if such a thing might occur? Well I agree with all this. I don't think so that much. At least from my experience in Turkey that's not a debate or an issue here in the Islamic community in Turkey. Probably there would be people who would theoretically argue with that but also places like Turkey would be so integrated into the western or the global economy that instead of initiating such a radical change they would probably adopt to what is already out there. So I think well that's an interesting idea but I don't see it very likely to become the we would be doubted of you all across the board maybe some of us would support that. Would be the likely effect well I don't know if it would be incentive for investors all over the world to hold at least part of their portfolios in such countries that benefit from such a currency because as a medium of reserve it's far superior to western paper currencies so it would be beneficial for savers all over the world and would benefit those countries but also with strong economic influence. It would become a unit of account which the dollar could be benchmarked on the euro whereas now the euro is really benchmarking the dollar and they both get money so when they both get together nobody knows it. So I do think that there would be also psychological effects which would come out out of the Islamic sphere so it could be on that. My question is where are we at? I was a little bit surprised to hear I don't know about the situation in the western waters I don't need to call myself a socialist and I was all seemed to me like very strong for the creation of the state power but there is more than one dual dual world but there is the there's more than one dual dual world but there's your world at the end of this life who reacted against socialist totalitarianism or perhaps should react against totalitarianism but there's also the younger world of the 1930s who was a state socialist if you read the road to within here it doesn't really talk much about the self-sufficiency and independence it's not it's not a left-hand attract or reward it's in the 30s very much touched by state socialism but now of course all were to some extent recounted at the end of the life and who is it? Jane Priestley retracted a lot of socialist which is an old age map and my view to mention became quite a strong anti-socialist and it is possible that many of the socialist figures of the 1930s and 40s would have grown out of it if it had not been encouraged by socialist masses but going back to a question I think all world must in 1930s at least be regarded as part of the state socialist left I'm actually very impressed by Gustavo's discussion about the similarities between the Judaism and Islam it was perfectly right I mean they were in terms of the legal content of the election but they were almost identical I was also impressed by Sean's comment that the Bible is treated within certain parts of Christianity it really is the word of God in the same way that the Quran is and one might also point to the fact that Christians, Jews and West had prohibitions every bit of script against interest as we find in the Muslim world first prominent Christian theologian took a distinction between commercial loans and loans for human being quoting to the tractor trying to elucidate the passage of your monomy against increase at the expense of your neighbors Calvin and then others in the 16th century actuals including some Jesuits who came to make these distinctions so if you find a very similar history of restriction and in some ways the Muslim notion of hot value you know the way you sort of fabricated a kind of means or almost a sort of confusion some sort of means by which you can carry out a loan and very often you don't look at the recipient or anything and so forth just a kind of white loan this is going to help in the Muslim world and then take it over by Christians later but have you said all these things why is it that Muslims do not make a sort of leap in the 18th century into a kind of modern capitalist economy which people do in West I would also add the fact that the Jewish situation is different although they were very similar to the Muslim people we were talking about very small communities which didn't be brought into the West and westernized something which made the Muslim situation a Muslim in the United States so we're dealing with small numbers perhaps it is easier to westernize as opposed to people living in a society with tens of millions of people who are held together by these legal restrictions in any case I sort of throw my question open to everyone and I'll care to answer why does the Muslim world not make that sort of leap into economic modernization that you find being made by Christian speakers I've got something I hope for some interest you can surely ask the same question about the Catholic world in the 18th, if you're talking about the 18th century but again you're right to say that the Christian world was hostile to interest but it's quite an interesting thing that after the Catholic Reformation it's the church of the monasteries which take over that institution which we all know in the Protestant world and they call it in all Latin languages it is called Mount of Piety and that thing was taken over by the church and you find this extraordinary thing being the entrepreneur Italy or Catholic Belgium or France as well all go to Protestant countries and the Protestant countries are the ones that are involved whereas a very large part of Catholic Europe languishes for a very long time and there is that parallel with what happened with Islam and it is specifically again Mediterranean to do simply with the fact that there is normally a condition if I could supplement what Professor Stone has said I don't think it's at all fair to say that Christianity in the 18th century jumped into modernity whereas Islam lagged behind but jump into modernity happened it happened in Britain it happened in Holland and so much better than it in France it didn't happen in many other places the Catholic world was largely behind so the Spain was and once you look into the Orthodox world in Russia it was in at least as many new positions as Islam so rather than ask the point is that all of the humanity lagged behind Britain, Poland and Sunset France both of the exceptions Islam was not the exception at all it is remarkably well with the general tap of human civilization the invention of the sun it was rather than particularly good not bad the exception is those three those three Atlantic states from perhaps the early or the middle of the century well I agree with both the comments the question is how the West progressed whereas Islam was just going its own way but here's the question the north of Europe was in great modernity and others started to catch up Japan obviously and China in a bizarre way the system Muslims can do the same thing and there are examples as I said there is no single Muslim world like Turkey, Malaysia, Dubai these are actually promising examples but I think in the Muslim world there is one conceptual issue and that is to learn from the ways of the ones who think who are actually theologically wrong I mean the infidels, the others who are not blessed with the revelation you have from the Muslim point of view how do you accept the fact that they have done really well in something and then take it from them and still feel loyal and proud of your tradition and that's a question I think many Muslims have been struggling in the true 19th century and this becomes worse when the other the successful other become an enemy in the sense that policy is virtue, it's arrival it's intimate that's why I think the Arab world became a Soviet main in the 20th century Soviet atheism is much less friendly to Islam than the European society or even atheism, the Christian Europe but they were forced to the political confrontation makes it even harder to accept something you have one to be the exact opposite you want to defy them and reject them and so on and that's about psychology but also some of the policies of the West also sometimes exacerbate that psychology in this part of the world we have about six people waiting to speak and we have only 10 minutes so so the topic I'd like to put in front of me now is modelist plays potential next book which you may greatly answer this reputation each one of them now has something to say about the context that might be in modelist plays next book the triggering event for counter-racial history might not be as neat as a motor accident but let's suppose that these stupid hubris of Britain and everything in the First World War did not happen from some the topic that might be addressed in this novel include not only no entry but Britain far less slaughtered, far less conflict in what is what started the First World War and to that the United States does not enter the First World War and to that the Bolshevik Revolution does not happen and to that we do not have the slavery of Germany of the Treaty of Versailles and to that we therefore do not have the Weimar hyperinflation and to that because we do not have the status of blowout of the First World War that the central power of the central banks was less enhanced and to that we do not have the fiat money boom of the 20s nor do we have the great depression nor do we have the rest of Hitler nor do we have therefore the Second World War now this is a topic that perhaps should consider as its next novel and I like that the panel has something to say about this especially certain numbers of panel as a counter-factual of the 20th century history and indeed perhaps the Nobel Prize in Economics was the libertarian prize rather than a prize for the next sophistication in second dimension I agree with the First World War the great war was the great catastrophe of the 20th century however once you tried to write a fiction in an alternative world where the First World War didn't happen it does become extremely difficult because our thoughts the words we use, the things we use all the things around us have been determined by events that did happen after 1914 and to conceive the world in 2014 where the great war didn't bring down is not even possible unless you're not with the Richard Blake but feel Richard Blake's power to give you an example it's simple to imagine that the internet would not have evolved in this parallel world it wouldn't be called the internet that is an American word and it's unlikely that America would be quite so dominant in technology without the destruction of Germany so for that reason alone Richard Blake decided not to go to a world in which the great war didn't happen it's much easier to extrapolate 20 years of ancient writing that to extrapolate I want to have one important topic without that I would suggest that if they want answer or give their comment if they want and after that we will have so anyone who can comment on this question and then we close but one more in this counterfactual history is the assumption that the counterfactual of the government intervention is the lack of any government intervention so we can pretty well imagine that the lack of the counterfactual to wars and the government intervention that we saw in other interventions I think this is what we could supposedly to an even extent knowing that there isn't a beginning something like a government that its nature and tendency is to expand or the libertarian prices as a matter of fact there are a number of libertarian prices by looking for music institutions in order but the matter of fact there is that the point where capitalism and ocean economies they do not claim to be prices about economies in general so they will hide their ideological bias quite a bit hello thank you well with these counterfactual kinds of things one of my comments would be that that so many of the issues that we think of as arising in World War I were really well entrained before the war to accelerate these kinds of things but they were already in existence so you might imagine things rolling out a little bit differently but it might be surprising how many kinds of patterns and so forth would remain the same I think about these issues to do with Iran since I've been thinking about this a lot and they're kind of irrespective of World War I and it altered the altered the thing but it's almost like the Marxist view of Hitler if not Hitler then somebody else who could fill that role in the Marxist kind of interpretation in that sense I think that's real possible who knows any other comments on this or more in that case I thank you all and please keep in mind that we are very much in a hurry to get the political stuff and I know the buses to go on for today so please