Chicago has a problem until the year 2083. 

why not?

bc nobody knows@@pvzpokra8602​

It was the USA's fault.

Rollie, love you my dude, but technically, Obama was voted into office in 2008 but he wouldn't have been sworn in until 2009. Unless I'm being overly pedantic... critical?... picky? Probably picky over a comment that's likely a joke as it also includes calling Michael Phelps a fish. I need to rethink my life choices...

Letting Matt out of that contract was awfully magnanimous of you. Rollie Williams: officially less evil than Morgan Stanley!

You mean losing MORE money. Taking the deal in the first place was, apparently, an active loss.

@@Vykk_Draygo Nah, that's a passive loss. They don't really have to do anything to lose it. If they block off parking spaces, they're actively participating in those further losses.

Blimey. You'd think they'd have written a contract that explicitly says they don't have to pay those compensation, what with it being pretty damn obvious that would happen to some of the parking spaces just due to normal operation of a city.

​@@JohnDBlueYou make a good point, but how about I contribute 1 million to your re-election campaign. How does the contract sound now?

@@chitlitlah This is an active loss. The deal was designed to give public money away to morgan stanely. Parking meter money is public money which now goes to a private company.

Every time we cut between their footage and our footage, I was like "I gotta get a bounce-board"

@@ClimateTown You guys did a great job on this collab 😁 Great melding of your styles 👍

​@@ClimateTown hey I like the "person running through downtown American cities" style! It feels like I'm being led on a chaotic field trip by a professor

@@ClimateTown You didn't do the maths on how much illumination was required. You should have done a spreadsheet.

You must feel a little guilty then.

As somebody else that does financial calculations daily, I agree. Making things up is a sound methodology. We call it "expert judgment".

@@angryparrot it’s a question of being qualified to guess well enough

I had a grad school finance professor who said accounting has CPA, GAAP, etc.. Finance has MCU… make crap up.

@@jackgarn8392 That's just what people tell themselves.

and the precise, neutral label would simply be "capitalism".

​@@kylezoif by "precise" and "neutral" you mean "grossly oversimplified" and "clearly biased".

@@NoWay-xx2kh what you've said makes no sense. In what world is an economic model more biased than the term "corruption"? In what world is it more oversimplified???? This is pure stupidity. Say more!!

@@kylezo the parties involved are blatantly ignoring the profit motive, if the aldermen of Chicago were rational agents following a profit motive, i.e. "capitalists", they obviously would not have taken this deal. In fact, they would have done a *better job* representing the constituency if they had been *more* "capitalist", not less. The "pure stupidity" is blaming the corrupt actions of government officials on the economic system that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Politicians are incentivized to defraud their constituents under every economic system, it doesn't matter whether you're in Chicago or Venezuela. The issue is not the economic model, Morgan-Stanley isn't the "bad guy", the malicious and myopic aldermen of Chicago are the bad guys and they haven't acted in any way consistent with maximizing profits and minimizing losses. They left billions of dollars on the table for the opposing party to lap up, they agreed to burdensome and costly terms, and they afforded themselves no exit strategy. That ain't "capitalism" my friend, that's abuse of official power. A real "capitalist" Chicago would have spent years studying market conditions and seeking out competing bids, not 2 days barely skimming the only offer they got. None of this is Morgan-Stanley's fault. If the city of Chicago had acted in a way to maximize their own profits then this terrible deal never would have gone through. Blame the *people* who voted "yes" without thoroughly understanding the deal, not the economic system or the opposing party who merely sought to maximize the value of the deal. If *both sides* had sought to maximize the value they received from the deal (again, aka "capitalism"), it would have been much *more* fair, not less.

@@NoWay-xx2kh Go on, please.

It was the city council members. Someone should do a background check on each one who voted for it along with their linear decedents. I bet there was corruption involved and that could nullify the deal!

@@ryanreedgibson I'd like to have a lawyer opinion on that.

I think you’re missing the point that Chicago did this *because no one would give them a loan*. Governments always tend to sell stuff way under market price, because: 1- They are market averse, using anything even close to a market to determine the real price is suspect in the eyes of voters (even if it would likely mean more money). 2- No one has any incentive to calculate the appropriate price. 3- The actual incentives are completely backwards. For the any administration money *NOW* is worth infinitely more than money in 10 years, because most administrations don’t last that long.

about 7x better

​@@ryanreedgibsonI'm not sure about the nullified part but I know it's hard to prove corruption in the United states because corrupt people are in charge of laws. The other thing is they said the counsel had 3 days. Nothing in government starts and ends in 3 days.

Absolutely. A law with financial obligations like this should require regular "renewal" votes.

Some businesses just are never profitable in 10 years. I would be down for enforcing golden handcuffs for every deal. Something like at anytime if the future government decides to undo a deal then they can pay the money given to the government and cost of developments on the property

@@jimmypatton4982 That's a recipe for dramatically raising the cost of those deals for governments. Who would enter into a contract with the city if they took all the risk of establishing a functioning enterprise only to have the city turn around and pay them only costs without even compensating for future revenues and the prior RISK of failure. If I buy a plot land from the city for 100 million and spend another 50 million developing it only to see it all fail, is the city going to buy it from me for $150M? Of course not. But if I succeed and ten years later it's generating tens of millions annually and growing, then the city can just pay me back $150M (which is worth less than what I paid because of inflation) to take over an established profitable business. This is armchair governance at its best.

The big miss here is that, if the government had intervened, we could finally have known what the administrative equivalent to “What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” is.

1000% agreed, no politician should be able to tie the hands of their successors or years and years to come

well we can't start getting into whether the system is actually democratic or not, otherwise we will have to start critiquing capitalist corruption of democratic systems which will lead us straight into socialism and thereby communism which, while better for literally all people, is definitely super evil.

Or give voters more power to end decades long contracts

​@@aceman0000099The fact that there's no political mechanism for an exit seems WILD. Even the most locked in laws in Washington have methods for being amended or overturned. Seems undemocratic to let one politician at a point in time lock GENERATIONS of people into an agreement like this.

@@aceman0000099 Thats not possible given the contracts clause in the us constitution. I don't know how I feel about that (it has some upsides like not letting states revoke employee pensions) but in practice it's not something that can be changed.

@@Zyphent Yah, but that's kinda what we are locked into with the contracts clause in the constitution under long time SCOTUS precedent.

How much would you recommend the game? I got it, got really annoyed by the tutorial and never followed up on it again.

Having only played the base board game without expansions I thought it was great! If you like engine building games or can appreciate pretty birds it's dope

@@hieronymusbutts7349The game itself is a blast - highly recommend - but learning the game led my family to a huge argument because the tutorial was so bad that we couldn’t figure it out lmao. The game itself isn’t even that complicated! I don’t know why the tutorial is written SO badly

​@@hieronymusbutts7349 We have conservatively, $2,000 worth of board games. It is my favorite game of all time.

@@hieronymusbutts7349I’ve had plenty of fun with both the physical and Steam versions. If you’re a fan of engine-building board games or interested in birds/ecology, I’d absolutely go for it. The Steam version recently released the Oceania expansion after way too long, and I love its presentation and atmosphere.

That's what you get by speaking louder

YEAH!!! [Rollie puts on sunglasses] [Energetic riff plays]

Michael Parkenberger, I can't even 😂

Well he kind of was a visitor.

@@chocomalk not to his own channel. read the full sentence next time.

The only incorrect math is in the document trying to justify the deal, since government doesn't take any risk since it can print money. But gotta make it look like a Rubik's cube to make it look like a neoliberal dream must be true.

@@VeteranVandal MMT is controversial and not universally agreed on, but even if you do, that only applies to the federal government. City governments borrow and are unable to print their own money

The other factor to consider would be any legal responsibility to balance the annual budget and provide statutory services. Very often municipal and local governments have little to no choice but to settle for a 'money now' option because they have a short term responsibilities that legally must be met, long term be damned. The 70 year outlook doesn't matter if you have to balance the books this year.

Yes, that seems like a much more plausible scenario. Also, the people of Chigaco should revolt against this. Basically selling your city off for 75 years is not in any way a reasonable option, and the contract should by some means be cancelled.

​@@VeteranVandal This is about the City of Chicago. City councils can't print money.

But most large governments could always have the money now, they'd just need to borrow the money rather than selling stuff

I completely agree. This needs to be reviewed. The people shouldnt be suffering so much from one persons callous greed.

There should be a class action against the city council. It would lead to investigations on corruption and if corruption is proven, it would nullify the contract. Given the cost of the deal for the city, it's worth it.

Though by being such a spectacular failure, it at least makes a great historical example for other cities to learn from. Hopefully none of them ever try to pull a stunt like this, or at least negotiate much better terms

There's one thing worse than qualified immunity that SCOTUS pretty much invented during the Civil Rights Movements. That thing worse is sovereign immunity but at least it goes all the way back to English common law. There's pretty much no hope in trying to prove they acted in bad faith and incompetence is a perfectly valid reason for them to have done what they did and suffer no repercussions. Really I think their best hope to invalidate the contract would be if they drastically changed their downtown core to try reducing car traffic and then argued in court that the contract as it stands is against public policy and the public good. @@InXLsisDeo

Not by Mayor Daley and the Daleyville city council. Oh, and who hired Mayor Daley after he left office?

@@Kirbychu1 don't plan on anyone learning from it. The people who made the decisions got what they wanted out of it. They didn't care about the rest of us.

french

@@rainbowllamas7423 fr*nch 🤮 FTFY (i'm french pls no h8)

"Edit me like one of your French girls."

@@philp4684 Take all the thumbs up, your damn dirty ape!

I like Matt's style...

I believe they used a virtual production set, like in The Mandalorian, to make it seem like Chicago was a real place

as somebody who lives in chicago and not england, i'd like to clarify that chicago is not actually an island in the middle of the atlantic ocean, and is really a city on land with inhabitants who go forward in time

Yeah, the suave style of failing fits well with the Parker fails. Best bait of the physical quarter indeed,

Roping in the math nerds and the climate policy nerds in one swipe is an unprecedented business decision.

Interesting; I didn't even think of Climate Town as being a smaller channel until I read this comment. So, being the nerd I am, I looked into it. Rollie has about half of Matt's subscribers (536K subscribers vs 1.14M) after a third of the time Matt has been on RU-vid (joined 2018 vs 2009) and the channels get comparable view numbers, with Climate Town's being a bit higher consistently. I think both are now pretty solidly established as big names in educational RU-vidrs. 😊

Yeah, I think at this point they’re both pretty well established. About a year ago climate town was just starting to get consistent traction, whereas Matt has been well-known across several channels for like a decade and is one of really the original RU-vid science/math educators. Now it’s about time for Rollie to pull a Steve Mould, and after starting to collab with Matt quickly blow up to 2M+ subs

Best way to put it

That's just the Greek for P

So, Matt saying "Pi has a different value in Vegas" wasn't exactly accurate, but it turns out that pi does officially have a different value in Chicago.

I feel like the auditors just wanted to seem smart so they used pi & i in their equations

This is one of the reasons we have naming conventions for this type of stuff.

Does this beat the statement Pi = 4? 🤣

It's even better as it's kind of a running joke on Climate Town.

didn't you notice these "idiot" Aldermen are now living in nicer mansions ?

Governments have no incentive to look after your money. They get paid without your consent. Good on morgan stanley for making use of these morons.

*bribery

@@DudeWhoSaysDeez it is Chicago I suppose

there was a "third" party analysis... problem is that the third party was also working for morgan stanley... ooooooooops

@@SharienGaming “My accountants says it’s a good deal for you.” Yeah I bet they do.

I can see how they took the deal without a third party. The people signing the contract get paid, and the people of Chicago are made to pay it back. What baffles me is that the people of Chicago haven't collectively banded together to destroy every parking meter in the city

It's nickname the Windy City doesn't come from its weather.

Better than swimming with the fishes.

@@gapsule2326 - Oh, swimming is fine. You just don't want to end up _sleeping_ with them.

@@RFC3514you’ve clearly never seen the Chicago river

It's my money, and I want it now. Leave it to Illinois and Chicago specifically to be bought off cheap, and screw the citizens yet again.

it has to be and it wasnt a mistake just corruption lol

Saw the title, made the exact same assumption.

You got it

Yeah, as soon as I saw the title I immediately thought that...and a bunch of our other problems but those are slightly lesser.

Heard the story on Matt's podcast.

I am sure it was a great deal for everyone involved in making it...

Leases often last even longer. Gas companies usually lease land instead of buying because they know they won't be drilling at that location forever

City councils are sallaried.@@XMysticHerox

Something something… Hong Kong?

@@spelcheak The unbelievable part of it is that Hong Kong's 99-year contract was specifically intended to be such a long time that it's practically forever. And Chicago just did essentially that... for their parking meters?

I guess you are a bit of a math guy?

not just bikes segment would just be saying to move to the Netherlands lol

Not Just Bikes did collab with Climate Town! A 3-way collab with all of them would blow my mind, lol.

I was just saying how funny I thought it would be if they took the money and used it to put in bicicle infrastructure so everyone could switch to bikes and nobody would need to pay for parking. Not Just Bikes has got me orange-pilled for sure 😅

😊😮

Thank you I was just about to comment this.

Clearly he meant to say 2008 was when Robert Downey Jr. was sworn in as Iron Man. Also, Michael Phelps is not a fish. He's a human man.

Nah. This was right after the crash. All assets crash in a recession but unlike stocks you can't see that happen in real estate instantly. What happened was when they offered the parking for lease all they got were low-ball offers and they just took the highest bidder without doing the math themselves. Wall Street calls this "distressed investing."

You thought it would be a Parking video but didn't realise it would involve a Parker...?

I think everyone knows it as "the CSI Miami sunglasses song"

I follow Matt and I'm pretty sure he was in America for other things too 😊 He's had another video from America recently I'm sure they're mindful of it. I hope they're mindful of it!

CMYK but the K stood for Parker

Lose the conspiracy theories. No one elects mayors based on their qualifications to give investment advice

you have to be a complete idiot to believe that corruption of democracy and capitalism don't go hand in hand@@samsonsoturian6013

A real "back of the brown envelope" calculation

@@CK-ceekay shut up

-almost unREAL!!

It's a legal contract. You would have to take them to court, but making a bad deal isn't against the law. People deserve the government they get and they deserve to get it good and hard. Start electing better politicians.

No, not at all. Imagine a world where each new session of government is now entirely unbeholden to agreements made by the old government if it decides not to follow them. Can't raise revenue with bonds. Those become meaningless. Defense pact with allies? Worthless peace of paper. And better not hire a company to do anything that lasts longer than a year like, say, build just about anything. Because apparently you can just decide not to pay.

So life under Trump. Gotcha!

probably their only way out would be to reduce non compliance fines to 0, then wait for people to stop paying meters and for Morgan Stanly to back out of the deal themselves. Morgan Stanley cant do enforcement themselves, so they are still beholden to the police and courts to enforce non paying fines.

@@Kconv1 Lotta big brains in the comments thinking they outsmarted a multinational financial company's lawyers with five minutes of thought.

Care to share a source for that? You know, for my lazy friend.

Unrelated but happy birthday🎉

The contract says that for any road closures, the city must pay Morgan Stanley the full value of all parking spaces on that road for the duration of the closure if I remember correctly

They have to compensate Morgan-Stanley in full for any parking spaces replaced.

​@scottdebrestian9875 you wouldn't have to get rid of any of the meters to make it more pedestrian and bike friendly. A really smart thing would be to get rid of cars altogether and have a service that takes you from place to place preferably using driverless cars that basically roam the city.

Sure, it's not like a multibillion corporation has a financial interest in preventing that from ever happening.

@@Epoch11ok this is a really good idea minus the driverless car grift part. Put dedicated bus lanes or massive bike only streets but with no driving lane, then leave the metered parking spots that are illegal to drive to or at least very inconvenient. Hahaha let’s creatively revenge screw over Morgan Scamley

No, it's not an excuse because this deal also involves paying the new owners lost revenue any time the city does anything that harms their expected revenue projections, construction blocks a road? Pay up. Public event restricts parking hours? Pay up. Modify the city to reduce traffic and therefore parking? You guessed it, pay up. Yes, this deal is even worse than the video portrays.