 What we start with this afternoon is the Ludwig von Mies' Memorial Lecture sponsored by James Walker, and this lecture will be presented by Jay Houston McCulloch. Hugh McCulloch received his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1973. He taught for six years at Boston College and then moved on to Ohio State University, from which he retired just last year. He has been an NBER research fellow, an editor of the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. His research interests include money and banking, finance, econometrics, and industrial organization. He currently resides in New York and is a visiting scholar at NYU. I'm very happy to produce to you, Hugh McCulloch, who will address us on Mies' Essian Insights for Modern Macroeconomics. Thank you, Joe. I'd like to thank Joe, in particular, the Mies' Institute for inviting me to speak here. It's a great honor to give the Ludwig von Mies' lecture. I actually got into economics through many of von Mies' books. Like Roger, I got in through the Einrand bookstore angle as an undergraduate. I think the first book I read in economics was The Theory of Money and Credit, which is quite a trip. I didn't understand anything of it at the time. And then I read Human Action and some of his other books I liked were the Liberalism and Omnipotent Governments, a very interesting history of statism in Germany, actually, and Theory of History is a very important philosophical book. I never actually read socialism through, but it's kind of summarized. The idea is summarized in Human Action. It's a very important concept I'll be getting to in my talk today. I didn't make it to the South Royalton Conference. I did go to the following year's Hartford Conference, and Larry Moss gave a follow-up of his magic tricks. And I can see it was, indeed, a epistemological crisis, from a random point of view, to have Larry pulling all these stunts off here. Well, today I'd like to talk about, well, Mies' has had several insights for modern economics. I'd like to talk about four in particular that relate to modern macroeconomics. There's been an unfortunate tendency, I think, for Austrians to isolate themselves from mainstream economics. It seems to me they should be trying to incorporate Austrian ideas into mainstream economics rather than going off on a pure, separate path. The first thing I'd like to talk about is what we call the historical transmission of the value of money, which relates to the price adjustment mechanism. And a corollary is the concept of market equilibrium as opposed to the popular, quote, rational expectations equilibrium. I disagree with Harry about how great how Austrian the rational expectations is. Another very important insight is the concept of heterogeneous inconvertible capital, which actually is epistemological problems. In economics, the last chapter in that is on the inconvertible capital. It was a very concise statement of Mies' view on that. And this contrasts sharply with neoclassical homogeneous capital. I think it's a much better, much more valuable concept. And finally, the nature of the liquidity effect relates the Taylor rule to the quantity theory of money. Well, first, the historical transmission of the value of money. von Mies has had a contemporary named Helferich who argued that marginal utility could not explain the general price level. Helferich, this is a quote from the theory of money and credit, the 1953 translation of the 24 edition, pages 119 to 20. Helferich is of the opinion that there is an insurmountable obstacle in the way of applying the marginal utility theory to the problem of money. For while the marginal utility theory attempts to base the exchange value of goods on the degree of their usefulness to the individual, the degree of usefulness of money to the individual quite obviously depends on its exchange value, since money can have utility only if it has exchange value, at least paper money. And the degree of its usefulness is determined by the level of that exchange value. Money is valued subjectively according to the amount of consumable goods that can be obtained in exchange for it. Or according to what other goods have to be given in order to obtain the money needed for making payments. The marginal utility of money to any individual, that is the marginal utility derivable from the goods that can be obtained with the given quantity of money or that must be surrendered for the required money, presupposes a certain exchange value of money so that the latter, according to Helferich, cannot be derived from the former. So this is what I call the... Well, this is Helferich's argument and equations that marginal utility states that relative prices are ratios of marginal utilities. If you have two goods, i and j, there are endowments that kind of determine their marginal utilities and that is going to determine the ratio of their market prices. But Helferich said this is circular, phenomenal prices since the absolute price of good i is its marginal utility divided by the marginal utility of money to be spent on all goods other than good i, which I've represented by i hat here. Yet that marginal utility is determined by all goods by the prices of... By the same reasoning, by the prices of all goods other than good j, including good i itself. So there seems to be a circular... a circularity here. So I call this the vicious circle of Helferich. So here's a price of good i is determined by the marginal utility of money, the exchange for goods other than i, that in turn is determined by the price of good j for i not equal to j, which in turn is determined by the same mechanism from p i itself. So it seems to be a circular argument here. von Mises' reply was that those who have realized the significance of historically transmitted values in the termination of the objective exchange value of money will not find great difficulty in escaping from this apparently circular argument. It is true that the subjective valuation of money presupposes an existing objective exchange value, that means opportunity for exchange, but the value that has to be presupposed is not the same as the value that has to be explained. What has to be presupposed is yesterday's exchange value and it is quite legitimate to use it as an explanation of that of today. The objective exchange value of money which rules in the market today is derived from yesterday's under the influence of the subjective values of individuals frequenting the market. Just as yesterday's in turn, in its turn, was derived under influence of subjective valuations from the objective exchange value possessed by money the day before yesterday. So the... I added some emphasis here. So this is what I call the benign helix of Mises. My friend Jim McGill said this, you know, the diagram's a little screwy, but... Anyway, the... So here I've added time subscripts or time superscripts on all these prices and marginal utilities. The price of good i at time t is determined by the marginal utility of money at time t in exchange for goods other than i, but that's determined by prices of other goods at time some earlier time, t minus lambda, where lambda is the average lag of price information which in turn is determined by the price of good i itself the day before yesterday, time t minus two lambda. So basically you're... The only thing you know about in the present is what you're currently engaged in. Everything else you think you know about because of past experience with it. So this morning there was Magnolia Avenue out here in front of the Mises Institute. For all we know, right now it's a cornfield, but odds are that it's still Magnolia Avenue. That's the way things usually work. So usually there's enough continuity in the economy that yesterday basically it was the same people with the same tastes and the same endowments pretty much with just minor modifications. So pretty much yesterday's prices, today's prices, tomorrow's prices are going to be similar to yesterday's prices, maybe adjusted for of trends like inflation. So the... So this leads to what it means is theory of how prices adjust to a increase in the money supply. An increase in the community stock of money always means an increase in the amount of money held by a number of economic agents. For these persons the ratio between the demand for money and the stock of it is altered. They have a relative superfluity of money and a relative shortage of other economic goods. The immediate consequence is that the margin of utility to them of the monetary unit diminishes as when you get more money your margin of utility that money which you can spend on other goods the derived margin of utility goes down. And they will now express in the market their demand for the objects the desire whose quantity and physical quantity is fixed and so his margin of utility isn't going to change much. More intensely than before is the obvious result of this that the prices of the goods concerned will rise and that the objective exchange value of money will fall. So the injection of money raises prices that actually reduces when there's an excess supply of money the injection of money raises prices and will reduce the real value of that money somewhat and reduce the excess supply of money somewhat. But then he goes on that the this rise in prices will by no means be restricted to the market for those goods that are desired by those who originally have the new money in addition those who have brought these goods to market will have their incomes and their proportionate stocks of money increased and in their turn will be in a position to demand more intensively the goods that they want because the margin of utility to them of money has gone down because they got this windfall profit from the what they thought was a windfall profit. So these goods will also rise. Thus the increase in prices continues having a diminishing effect until all commodities to a greater or some to a lesser effect are reached by it. So this is in modern terms is basically a partial adjustment mechanism that the in the first round of exchange you go a little bit toward equilibrium in the next round of exchange what's left over gets reduced further and then further so their successive price increases which successively reduce this excess supply of money and eventually get the price level increase more or less in proportion to the money stock. So the so this leads to what I call the equation I call the moderate quantity theory of money this is a partial adjustment mechanism for the price level kind of based on this Misesian argument so in a working paper wrote back in nineteen eighty see there on my I'll check and see if it's on my make sure it's on my web page the inflation rate at time t pi is inflation is going to be proportional to the excess supply of money uh... it's going to be determined by three things the first is going to be the excess supply of money which is this Misesian effect of driving the price level up in addition uh... since we take those prices yesterday and adjust them for any obvious trends lot for inflation this is basically what uh... jim grant called uh... kentucky windage the other day I had to look that up uh... but with basically idea there is if you're pointing at a target and uh... the winds blowing you you do a scientific estimate of the wind velocity and adjust your rifle and then shoot it and it hits uh... hits the target uh... so uh... people use a seat of the pants adjustment for inflation uh... with informing their inflationary expectations informing their prices informing their expectations of the future prep purchasing power of money uh... of the prices of these other goods that they're going to get to spend their money on if they don't spend it on the immediate good uh... and then uh... a third factor is simply micro noise most of the price changes that take place are really just micro noise so uh... the uh... this paper I tell a story about what this coefficient would look like it would depend on the elasticity of marginal utility with respect to real wealth of the road over and and also real wealth over the tote relevant horizon and also this average like a price information so this uh... is a big alternative to the real adjustment mechanism that philip kagan put forward in nineteen fifty six and that people like chow and goldfield of used to estimate the demand for money as long as the money supply is constant it's basically the same equation is the basics the same price adjustment mechanism but uh... with the money supply changes the real adjustment mechanism actually predicts that the price level will perfectly track the money supply which is totally unrealistic and not at all what we want in a partial adjustment mechanism this is a much better equation than this popular real adjustment goldfield proposed a nominal adjustment equation which makes sense in a fixed exchange rate regime but uh... not when the money supplies exogenous uh... this is essentially equivalent to very much like the so-called p-star model of hallman porter and small it was in the a year nineteen ninety one so they don't they didn't mention mesas but seems like a very mesesian argument they have that basically the price level just the monetary disequilibrium they threw in some lags of inflation which are going to pick up the expected inflation so uh... so i think this is a much better approach to the inflationary dynamics and another corollary of this uh... historical transmission of the value of money is uh... the concept of market equilibrium uh... according to fashionable quote rational expected extremist form of quote uh... rational expectations equilibrium uh... each agent knows all information about everyone else's tastes everyone else's endowments everyone else's production opportunities plus current policy plus policy makers intentions about the future and then they calculate the equilibrium uh... from all this knowledge so that's basically the extreme form that mutha proposed in nineteen sixty now the from mesas socialism economic calculation argument points out this is totally unrealistic mean uh... even government agency with thousands of economists in super can computers can't perform this calculation here joe schmoe is supposed to be cal performing this calculation when deciding whether to take a eight dollar job offer eight dollar thirty-cent job offer or whether whether or not to take a given job offer so uh... that for some purposes this could be a useful exercise when you can make a toy economy and a toy policy and say well this policy makes sense if people really know how it's going to work and that's a useful exercise but as a description of how the economy actually works it's it's totally unrealistic and uh... fritz macklip once uh... unpublished notes point out that uh... the uh... this whole term rational is misleading in this context rationality does not imply omniscience that uh... uh... uh... it's an abuse of terminology to call this uh... rationality the uh... i'd argue that the quake will be ream expectations is a better name for it because it is sometimes useful exercise so you shouldn't say you're gonna assume rationality you should say you're going to assume indigeneity or equilibrium this the uh... recently sergeant and others who were among the original proponents of this uh... admitted that this is too extreme and uh... we're starting to advocate with the call bounded rationality uh... i'd say that's another misnomer because if you're if you're only thirty percent rational then you're seventy percent mentally incompetent on the other hand if you're thirty only thirty percent omniscient then you're seventy percent human i'd say bounded omniscience is a better term for what sergeants talking about them bounded rationality the uh... i bump into sergeant and why you occasionally haven't uh... grilled in on this yet the uh... uh... the mesas offer the alternative that uh... people don't know with the how the economy works they just observe past prices uh... vendors observe quantities they've said that they themselves are able to sell and they trust that future prices will be similar or least extrapolated for obvious trends uh... and then uh... if the economy is static everyone has the same tastes same endowments every period the market will actually find the equilibrium if the economy is changing all the time which it really does least the market is moving toward the equilibrium reasonably efficiently doesn't really get to the equilibrium but it uh... moves us toward it as well as can be uh... without anyone knowing what that equilibrium is so uh... but the expectations of these agents are basically empirical not omniscient uh... agents determine forecast tomorrow's price of gasoline the same way economists do they drive by three gas stations to take the median price that's probably but the price of gas is going to be tomorrow and uh... so uh... uh... austrian economics is usually with prices of being theoretical rather than empirical but it's really a theory of empirical agents i'd argue because the agents themselves are purely empirical you say well water was a dollar a bottle yesterday it's probably going to be similar to that the uh... it's like it's slow down a little bit i'm running the third uh... mesessing insight uh... is uh... the concept of heterogeneous inconvertible capital uh... this contrasts with the so-called uh... with the neoclassical growth model according to which uh... uh... consumption plus investment the change in capital is output minus depreciation so here uh... capital is just a homogeneous mass uh... uh... and uh... it's identical regardless of the intended product of what specific product you're trying to produce or even uh... the date of the output that you're trying to produce in fact in this formulation it's exactly the same good as aggregate consumption so i think if this is a bag of uh... it's a useful toy economy to try to solve but it's is as if the only economy is the only good in the economy besides labor was bags of wheat you can either eat the wheat or you can plant it and if you plant it it'll come up next year uh... you can devote a lot of labor to scratching the ground well and planting it well or you can so you can have variable proportions of capital labor uh... but it's a very uh... trivial economy now in uh... this essay Inconvertible Capital in the epistemological problems of economics and elsewhere in human action and so forth in the theory of many credit he uh... insists that uh... what takes boom but verx concept that capital is the produced means of production and also boom but verx concept the production takes time and may have several steps that involve the production of uh... capital types that are specific to the uh... particular type of output that is intended and if you start with a capital mix that's appropriate for one output mix and then change your mind and want to build another output mix after you've already built the capital that was appropriate for the first one uh... that's going to be costly and uh... in itself this is a macro a micro problem but the macro economically uh... there the inter temporal mix of output also matters and the capital mix that you were going to choose is to some extent specific to the inter temporal choice of output that you want uh... and uh... if you have a uh... the uh... inter temporal mix is going to be governed by real interest rates a little r here so disequilibrium real interest rate do for example to stop go credit expansion uh... is going to cause malinvestment in the wrong inter temp in the wrong mix of capital it's not too much capital or too little capital but the wrong mix of capital because it's targeting the wrong point in the future so this malinvestment austrian malinvestment concept that mesis keeps mesis and hyac keep talking about is not even an issue in this neoclassical growth model because it only is one kind of capital it's all of them it's all just one kind of stuff uh... you could have a little bit you could have too much consumption not enough investment or vice versa uh... but uh... you can't have the wrong kind of capital so uh... uh... mesis was not very graphical at all it wasn't graphical at all in his pure theory of capital hyac tried to uh... show graphically what was meant by this but he wasn't very mathematically adept either uh... didn't really succeed in that and getting across what was meant here i don't think so i think a uh... a better way of looking at this is in terms of the uh... production possibility frontier or ppf this was used in a temporal context by Irving Fischer uh... in his uh... theory of interest which he dedicates to boom bavaric and john ray and basically is just boom bavaric in diagrams uh... so i'd say at least in this book irving fisher is an austrian economist uh... the uh... production possibility frontier itself was developed by edgworth was more of a violation uh... but it was generalized uh... to a it's just a general linear production model by the austro-hungarian mathematician john fun neumann who uh... was instrumental in developing linear programming in fact the the shadow prices in linear programming are basically the imputed values mangarian imputed values from a production uh... context so uh... his his linear production model includes incorporates complementarity substitution joint outputs uh... and uh... is really just a mathematical statement of manger's production model uh... but it's uh... it's hallmark is that he has production activities uh... his production activities that use inputs subject to linear constraints and then produce outputs linearly and uh... the fact that you're bumping into these linear constraints means that first off marginal products are going to diminish in the manger type way uh... isaac wants are going to be quasi concave in the usual manner uh... and production possibility sets the set under the frontier is going to be a convex set so the convexity is all over the place here uh... basically using a mangarian uh... argument i don't know that he actually read manger but he collaborated with auto with oscar morgan stern and uh... was himself lost or hungarian so i'm assuming he did read manger uh... anyway so the production possibility frontier uh... edgworth gave some specific examples funneling on so model shows us very very general uh... so generally this frontier bows bows out away from the origin uh... producers will try to maximize the the value of their output by picking the point on this that maximizes the uh... the value of the output why is expensive is going to be as costly you'll pick a point like a if x is relatively costly you'll pick a point like b in order to maximize your profits you try to get to the boundary of this frontier the boundary of the set which is the frontier uh... the usual story or edgworth story is that okay was just capital labor and there's two production functions one for x one for y with different capital intensities and so you get this frontier but there's still only one kind of capital in fact no production of capital suppose the production has two steps uh... this is capitalist production in the first step that carries you from time from time one to time two uh... you use your initial endowment at time one to produce capital types which become available to time two and at time two you use these capital types to produce either x and or y uh... at time three if this is the time one production possibility frontier at time two you no longer have all these production possibilities you have a subset of them if you're shooting for point a you can still produce point a because you produce the capital appropriate for it but basically everywhere else the production possibility frontier will have shrunken and uh... you're not locked into a you still have substitutability you can still change your plan but uh... you can never get back to point b it's foregone because you produce the wrong mix for point b in fact you can show from this that the goods are normal the prices will actually have to overshoot if you were uh... if uh... if you were expecting these prices to prevail on the market you would aim for point a consumer tastes really were for point b so these would be the equilibrium prices if you were expecting the wrong prices in shot for a you will produce a then the consumer case will put you on this production possibility frontier and even x will become even more costly than you then it would have been if you had known the shot for point b then it was appropriate for point b so there's an actual overshooting of the price uh... when you correct this way uh... so this work this is just micro from one period one goods at one point in time but the same thing well if you were shooting for point b then you'd have this green production possibility frontier and could then could not produce a uh... so it's important to shoot for the right target to start with now intertemporally uh... Irving Fisher used the same context to show the intertemporal production possibilities uh... in this is theory of interest he uh... did it for two points in time then for three and end points in time uh... you need at least three points in time for this to be relevant uh... so let's uh... say there's three points in time t one t two and t three uh... consumption aggregate consumption c one c two and c three in those three periods here c one c two c three uh... new pretty much no matter what the technology is any linear constrained technology is going to give you a convex production possibility set uh... and producers will try to maximize the present value of output given period one interest rates by picking some point like point like point a here on the surface uh... now when we move forward to time to uh... in order to at point a you have to conduct certain production activities in time one and time two your time one production activities are going to produce a mix of capital goods which are appropriate for the particular point you're trying to hit as a little better point out of the technology may be quite different for c three production that is for c two production so you might want uh... produce fancier capital equipment or something for more sophisticated capital equipment if you want c three and if you just want c two uh... uh... so uh... when you get to period two uh... you've already chosen your c one there's nothing you do to change the amount of c one so it's given so if you were shooting for point a back in period one you've already produced that amount of c one but you can still trade off c two against c three so in period two only this section through the original p p f is going to be relevant so i'll just focus on that take that slice of this original we're taking the c one choice is given now uh... and now we can uh... trade off c two against c three this is the mix that was originally planned this is the section through the period one production possibility frontier but now if capital is heterogeneous of capital homogeneous you can still c one determined period two capital in your you still have the same p p f but the capital is heterogeneous and in convertible to some extent when you get to period two a is the only point you can still follow through with you're not locked into a you can still move away from a but you can't get it back to the original p p f because you have the wrong you have the mix of capital that's appropriate for point a so uh... so if it turns out that because of uh... taste you really want to be consuming up in here down in here uh... that you uh... have imposed a cost on the economy by shooting for the wrong point originally by having the wrong interest rates originally uh... uh... so i developed this in uh... a paper i had in uh... the journal monetary economics back in nineteen eighty one uh... misintermediation in business fluctuations which is on my web page i call this the austrian capital effect because it's the uh... it comes from the this heterogeneity of capital that means is talking about uh... and shows the cost of not of uh... shooting for the wrong intertemporal production point originally so this is central to the uh... austrian business cycle theory uh... argue in this paper that it's uh... it would be a problem even in a uh... uh... moneyless economy in which financial intermediaries don't scrupulously match asset and liability maturities uh... but uh... the uh... so again this malinvestment is not an issue in the neoclassical models this is completely foreign to them uh... but still it's just an objective thing that they should understand be able to understand and agree that this is uh... more realistic than the neoclassical model whether or not you then you can start talking about the austrian business cycle theory so uh... now this uh... the interest rate that's relevant here is the terms of exchange between period two and period three uh... so it's the the the interest rate in period two for loans that mature in period three those loans existed back in period one as the forward interest rate between period two and period three so uh... uh... analyzing this really involves the term structure of interest rates there isn't just one interest rate there's back in period one there was a whole term structure of interest rates for loans mature in period two or period three those are not necessarily the same interest rate and what's relevant is the ultimate interest rate relative to that forward interest rate implicit in the term structure now again the austrians just talked about one interest rate there's no term structure in the austrian literature but uh... the really logically should be a term structure here to to make sense of uh... or to analyze this kind of problem had a uh... student uh... kevin glow from china kevin or fun glow who finishes dissertation in twenty thirteen went back to china and kind of uh... analyze this using u.s. data u.s. output data and uh... so the latest development on the austrian capital effect ironically was done by uh... kevin who i'd learned shortly before he graduated is actually a member of the communist party so the communists are at the forefront of austrian capital theory now times have changed uh... okay so uh... the uh... or should have mentioned uh... the chicago graduate so you should feel free to butt in with questions of clarification as i go along i should have forgotten to mention that uh... and so any questions before i move on here the uh... so finally uh... uh... another that's inside again for me this is the uh... nature of the liquidity effect uh... there's a uh... mainstream widespread mainstream misconception that the uh... liquidity effect of a monetary expansion uh... is a reduction in interest rates that are required to induce agents to hold the new money given the price level and the demand for real money balances given that that probably is has some interest elasticity uh... so at lower interest rates people want to hold more money you increase the money supply so interest rates have to go down to where people want to hold that money now uh... visas instead would say that this uh... that the uh... liquidity effect of a monetary expansion through the banking system which is why it usually works is the reduction interest rates required to induce agents to borrow the new money with the primary intention of spending it either on consumption or investment so it's really the loanable funds model the roving fisher boom of eric loanable funds model of uh... interest rates that's going on here banks create new money by making new loans to get people to take out those new loans they have to offer lower interest rates uh... but this is not an equilibrium situation it's a disequilibrium situation uh... and what they've done is created an excess supply of money in excess of people's demand for it so it's not it's it's not a doesn't does not reflect in equilibrium in the supply and demand for money as it is this equilibrium supply and demand for money it's an excess supply of money which will persist as long as the real rates below its equilibrium value and vice versa so this excess supply of money starts pushing prices up through this price adjustment mechanism uh... as it does the real value of the new money falls the real value of the new loans falls the uh... interest rates necessary to sustain that money to get people to borrow that money goes back up to the equilibrium value so the uh... as long as the excess supply of money persists the real interest rate will be artificially reduced and below its equilibrium value and vice versa that the uh... you use the interest rate as a target as an instrument instead of the money supply by pushing interest rates down your uh... if the Fed pushes interest rates down the Fed does that by buying treasury bonds which is basically lending money to the money markets the banks build on that by making loans to their customers which is more loans when they do that they are creating new money which is an excess supply of money and um... that will be inflationary so uh... this kind of gives you a rationale for how the tailor rule works suppose the Fed doesn't know what the demand for money is quantifying the demand for money is tricky just measuring is tricky and uh... it changes over time so estimating is tricky uh... suppose the Fed completely gives up on monetarism say we don't know what money demand is we don't have a major money we'll just look at interest rates as long as the Fed knows the equilibrium real interest rate in principle it can control the excess supply of money by manipulating real interest rates as given inflationary expectations by manipulating nominal interest rates now the big if there is the Fed has to know the equilibrium real interest rate which it doesn't know either the way to find the equilibrium real interest rate is to pursue a neutral policy and see what the market comes up with and you don't know whether your policy is neutral and the way to find out what the demand for money is to pursue a neutral policy and see what price level the economy comes up with so either way you have to know whether your policy was neutral which you don't really know and uh... it takes there's a long adjustment mechanism so uh... it takes a long while to figure out what that equilibrium is even if uh... but in any event so uh... but at least in principle the uh... Fed could reject monetarism and use Taylorism to to manipulate real interest rates it to manipulate the excess supply of money through the interest rate uh... so I have been teaching this in my money in banking course of a chapter in fact called money in credit i got the bar of the title from uh... fun mesas uh... with uh... some fancy diagrams of bank expansion and so forth showing how this excess supply the net demand for credit and so for how this uh... where this excess supply of money fits in and okay so uh... so conclusion uh... again as I mentioned uh... I think Austrian economists should seek to integrate Austrian theory into mainstream macro and not to isolate themselves from or Austrian theory for mainstream macro and from the macroeconomist point of view even even those macroeconomists who do not endorse mesas policy recommendations like no intervention in business cycle theory and so forth should pay heed to several of his economic insights which are uh... just basically useful for mainstream macro even if you don't buy the policy recommendations so the paper the slides are on the mesas website updated the slides this morning her last night late last night so if it says it has a little date in the bottom corner that's the current version of the slides i'm working on the paper so the paper should be on the mesas website soon out uh... so thank you