 Sorry, Doverm favored Jesus. So can I just ask you a question of which, it's a shul't, would come from being degree to an objectilist, is that one of the problems with people's understanding about what's happened in the financial markets over the last 18 months or two years, is the fact that amongst even amongst the supposedly intelligent members, the cut of the public, is the ability to make abstractions and can understand cause and effect, so your point about central banks pumping the world full of cheap money. Not just for the Federal observe, the Bank of England the Bank Najrpan which have unt dumb inter Paw tournament is that most people can't work out the connections, and it's not because they're stupid, it's because they're the narrative to want to use a terrible new labour expression, is that we are seeing the demise of unregulated capitalism, and of course anybody who works in financial markets will know that there's nothing unregulated about it at all. You've got startings up, you've got the European Union, you've got God knows how many regulations anyone's working in banks will tell you how regulated it is. So how do you think that the correct interpretation of events can be more effectively put across? Because if you open any mainstream newspaper or magazine or TV channel, the same old message is we are seeing the demise of unregulated capitalism. It's completely rubbish, but unfortunately it's very difficult to, and no one seems to be, or very few people apart from yourselves and a few others, seem to be trying to counteract it. Absolutely, and I think the way to counteract it is to speak up. And I think the first thing that we, you know, before we get to any of the more complex issues, before we get to the moral issues or anything like that, the first thing we have to make, the first claim we have to make, is there is no such thing as unregulated capitalism. There is no such thing, this cannot be afraid of capitalism because capitalism isn't healthy. The left has taken the word capitalism, I mean it used to be that everybody was for capitalism. Why? Because it was this mixed economy, you could have a little bit more socialism, a little bit less socialism, but if you accepted this mixed economy as capitalism, then nobody's against it. Everybody's for it, right? Because nobody's for pure socialism. And if the mixed economy is capitalism, Clinton was a capitalist, Obama would say is pro-capitalism, what we need is to capture what capitalism really means. So what I try to do when I go on television, when I write something, is first, this is what capitalism is. Capitalism means unregulated free markets. Now, how many of you think our market's unregulated? Nobody even, nobody really thinks that. But unless it's pointed out to them, their mind doesn't go there. Because you're right, the narrative is, to use that horrible word, but the narrative is, the no, this is how you're supposed to think about these things. What we need to do is change the narrative. We need to start asking questions and you can do it by just asking questions. Where is this unregulated capitalist? Where are these unregulated banks? Do you realize how many lines of regulation there are in the US bank regulation bills? That every aspect of a bank's functioning is regular, every aspect. From the fact that in the US we have deposit insurance now, of course you in the UK have unlimited deposit insurance. So we don't care where we put our money, which bankers put our money, because the government guarantees it also. We don't have to think about who's safe and who's not. Make us all green there right off the bat. Of course that creates huge moral hazard on the part of the bankers. The bankers, as they get into more financial distress, have a greater incentive to take on more and more risk, because it's not their capital, it's not their money anymore, it's depositors and depositors don't care, because they're going to guarantee it. It's a really interesting phenomenon in the US that I noticed back in the 80s. In the 80s the US went through the SNL crisis, the saving the loan crisis, where the saving the loans were going bankrupt and great. And what was fascinating is that the Wall Street Journal used to publish a little chart, which was which SNLs around the country were offering the highest rates on accounts, on checking accounts, saving accounts, CDs, money markets. And they would see of course people want higher insurance, people would send them huge quantities of money, because they were offering higher returns. Of course that chart was predictive, almost at 100%, which makes them go bankrupt. But then six months, most of the ones on this chart were bankrupt. So why were people sending the money to a bank institution in the Virgin Bank? Because we don't care, because it's all guaranteed by the government. Now what do you think those bankers were doing when they got this money, in those days they were paying 10, 12% on some of the money? Well they had invested in ventures that they expected to get 50, 20, 25% on. Now what kind of ventures get those kinds of returns? Very, very risky, I call it. They were basically buying lottery tickets with the money. And once in a while one of these banks won the lottery, and they're the survivors. Most of them lost the money. And that's why most SNLs went out of existence during the 1980s and 30s. But the mechanism to make that happen is creative. I said just pointing out, all these little regulatory aspects, what kind of loans bank can make, the very fact that the Bank of England and the Federalist set the interest rates, all of those we just need to keep conveying this message, what failed is not capital, what failed is not capital. Even if you don't make the positive point about what really caused the crisis is a central bank, just enough to get the narrative changed. And it's going to take a lot of work because we're outnumbered. We're just up. And unfortunately I've seen so many free market economists crumble with this crisis. Something changed their stripes or turned the other way. I happen to think that a big part of that is this small uncomfortableness with the idea of capitalism that causes people to switch very quickly.