 Okay, how do you think about the advocates for expanded federal spending, Medicare for all, Green New Deal, Freedom Dividend, altruists, nihilists, simply envious and having a legal framework to redistribute wealth? So I don't think that necessarily, I think they're all altruists. There's no question that they're altruists. They're not necessarily nihilists, although some of them are, because, you know, Denmark has Medicare for all, or they're equivalent of. Green New Deal is just science fiction, bizarre nonsense. Freedom Dividend, you know, you could probably get away with, you know, which country like the United States. It's not like Medicare for all will destroy America, will destroy healthcare globally. But they don't even know that they can't, they can't conceive of that they can't hold that they hold it as like the NHS. It's functioning. It's not the greatest healthcare in the world, but it's okay. If it's good enough for the Brits, it's got to be good enough for us, like the king, I guess. I think they're mainly altruists and collectivists. And many of them, or some of them, the ones that are more nihilistic are envious. That nihilism and envy go together. Envy is the emotion driving the nihilism. And they want a legal framework to redistribute the world, to destroy it, to knock people down. But I think, so, some are nihilists, right? But I think the majority are altruists, collectivists who are ignorant, who haven't thought it through, but who can't think it through because like Ray Dalio that I have described here, people need healthcare. They really, really, really need healthcare. And look, other countries do it. I mean, this is what AOC does so well. Other countries do it. And we're richer than other countries. And I'm going to rich countries like America have 20% of its population need healthcare and not be able to get it because they're uninsured because insurance rates are so high. And unless you've given up on altruism, unless you've rejected altruism, how can you, how can you argue against that? How can you argue against that? I mean, you can, you can make sophisticated economic arguments about, no, those people are better served by a free healthcare system and in a free healthcare system, it'll also be universal. Really? You can guarantee that? How can we guarantee it? And by the way, you say, everybody's treated in emergency rooms. We've got a law for that. But that law is a problem. That law is wrong. That law is driven by altruism. So I really think philosophically it's altruism and collectivism and deeper down, it's not an explicit but an implicit rejection of reason. An implicit rejection of facts and science and reason, evidence, thinking things through. But economics is not easy as Henry has, let's say. Economics is about second and third level consequences. And sometimes, oh, we'll give everybody healthcare. That's easy. So we'll text people a little bit more. It works with Denmark or whatever. But then what are the impacts of that? How does that circle through the economy? What impact does that have on our standard of living? Are Danish people richer or poorer than us? What does that do to healthcare not only in the United States and everywhere given that so many of the healthcare in the United States, in the world is driven by innovation in the United States? All of that kind of stuff, it's pretty unbelievable.