 Let's see. Where are we going? Sandwich monopoly. Yeah, I mean, this is the problem. I guess I didn't have enough stuff on the wall. That always gets a lot of people interested, but sandwich monopoly. So there is a private equity company called, funnily enough, Roark Capital. And it's called Roark Capital not by accident. It is explicitly named after Howard Roark. If you go to Roark Capital's website, you will find some reference to the fountainhead. So this is one of the founders of Roark Capital. He's a huge fountainhead fan. Anyway, Roark Capital has just bought subway sandwiches. They also, it turns out, own a bunch of other sandwich shops. They own, for example, Orbeez, Jimmy Jones, McAllister's, I don't know, McAllister's, Delhi, and Slotsky's. And Elizabeth Juan is up in arms. Clearly, this list provides Roark Capital with a sandwich monopoly. They control the sandwich space. I mean, it's true, there's some other delis and a few other sandwich stores, but very few chains of the size and magnitude of the ones that Roark Capital already has. And this is horrific. This is going to drive prices up because that's what monopolies do. And at a time of inflation, Elizabeth Juan is very concerned for consumers of sandwiches. Just so you realize that this is serious, the FTC, Lena Kahn's FTC, Lena Kahn being the lady who hates Amazon, is investigating. They're investigating Roark Capital's, and they might not approve this particular purchase. I think this will be a first in the history of the FTC in going against a purchase of a sandwich shop or any, I think, fast food shop. Of course, this brings to the forefront a lot of questions. Among them, very, very importantly, is what is a sandwich? For example, I mean, there is serious discussion right now about is a hamburger sandwich, because, I mean, let's face it, if a hamburger is a sandwich, then clearly there are other, you know, there are big hamburger chains that Roark Capital does not yet own. And then on top of the question of whether a sandwich, a hamburger sandwich is a hot dog, probably not a sandwich. These are difficult ones. I mean, is a hot dog a sandwich? There is a bun, there is meat, I mean, maybe, and in that case, they certainly know we're not, and are burrito sandwiches. Now we're stretching a little bit, right? You know, so what is a sandwich? Tacos? A taco sandwich? What about all the taco trucks? Are they sandwich stores? Are they competing? Is this an issue? And then what about the fact that grocery store sell sandwiches, convenience store sell sandwiches, coffee shop sell sandwiches, the non-chain delis, lots of them, particularly in New York, does they count? Is the category, particularly sandwiches, two pieces of bread with deli meat in the middle, not hamburgers, that are not sold by, I mean, this is just the arbitrariness, the subjectivism, the complete randomness. The FTC and Elizabeth Wands complete power lust, wanting to control the aspect of our lives. It is just absurd and ridiculous, but this is the essence of antitrust. This ridiculousness of defining sandwiches and what it involves and what it entails and all of this is just an illustration of the absurdity and ridiculousness in every antitrust case. It just sandwiches, it's just something it's easy for all of us to relate. But the same argument about how ridiculous this whole thing is is expressed in many other, many other, in pretty much every antitrust case, the same subjectivism, arbitrariness, and so on.