 these proposals. I mean this idea, think about what she's saying. A society that allows billionaires is an immoral society. Why is she saying that? Because for homorality is about the least able. For homorality is about those with the greatest need. The standard for a healthy society is the well-being of those who are least productive. I say no. I say the standard for a moral society is the status of the most productive. Only a society that allows for billionaires to be created is a moral society. Because it means that it rewards ability. It means that it leaves individuals free to pursue their own talents, their own abilities, their own values, their own productive genius, and it rewards them based on how productive they are. So it's a just society. Indeed, capitalism is the only just society. The only just system. What she is proposing is immoral because it would penalize you for your ability. It would penalize you for your creativity. It would penalize you for your productiveness. It would penalize you for your virtue. The more virtuous you are, the more taxes you pay. At least when it comes to productiveness. That is deeply immoral. That is evil. And yeah, it's gonna cripple the economy. It's gonna misallocate resources. It's gonna mean less capital investment. All of that is true. And at the end of the day, the middle class and the poor will actually be worse off, worse off under her system. Although in some European countries where they redistribute a lot, the poor better off materially than they are in the US. But everybody is poor because there's less innovation and less creativity. That's all true. But that's not the essential argument. The essential argument is what you want to do, Elizabeth Warren, is you want to penalize virtue. What you want to do is you want to penalize ability. What you want to do is you want to penalize productiveness. And as a consequence, you're gonna hurt everybody. You're gonna hurt me. You're gonna hurt yourself. You're gonna hurt the people around you. What you want to do is take away freedom. What you want to do is create an immoral society. So until we're ready to call AOC and Elizabeth Warren, they are the ones advocating for immorality. Not because the poor get poorer under their system. That's also true. But because the rich get poorer under their system. Because the productive get poorer under their system. So defense needs to be a moral defense of wealth creation, a moral defense of the profit motive, a moral defense of capitalism. Not a wimpy, you know, she doesn't know numbers or she can't add or any of this nonsense. But actually attack them. You know, Americans still admire productiveness. Americans still admire success. Americans still admire entrepreneurs. But what they've been told for the last 10 years is it's those people who caused the financial crisis, those people are holding them back. It's those people that are causing stagnation in the economy. It's those people who are now stealing money, not making it. And nobody def, nobody counters that. Nobody counters that. So it's starting to believe it. And once they really believe that, then it's over, then the American experiment is over. The American, the value of America is over. And again, I think that we saw the beginning of that. We're seeing the beginning of that with Trump. Trade is a zero or some game. Subsidize, control. It's us versus them. Going after Bezos, going after Amazon. It's all kind of on the right already, Taka Carlson. It's in the, it's in already. It's in the water. Everybody's drinking. It's everywhere. And there are like five voices in the culture combating it on a moral basis. Somebody said that the trader principle, yeah. Yeah, you can't become a, you can't become a billionaire unless you trade. And by trading, you're, you're benefiting the people you trade with. It's win-win. The trader principle is a win-win.