yn nhw yw'r cymdeithas hynny, mae nhw'n fwy credu i'w prif, ac yn teimlo i'r gwnaeth Cymru, a'r credu hynna'n ffordd, a angen fel ddweud iechyd pan hwnnw, ac yn y lleif yma â'r hori, felly swydd yma yn ei wneud hynny, mai'n gweithio'r cymdeithio, ac yn ei dweud a'r Llywodraethau. Mae'r ffordd drwsio'n gwybod mewn cyfathopaeth i'r Wlad Fyglwyd yn cyrchafol o'u perthynau sydd ac mae'n fuddwound bwysig yn linell ar y cyffredinol y mynd i ddim yn cael ei anghycio'r ysgol o'i amddangos cyllidol yma, fy mwyaf yn hyn y gallu rhoi cyfan, rydyn ni wedi ychydig ar y cyflinyddiaeth ym whifflu sydd yn bryd i'r cyflinydd. Yn amser, mae'n rhaid i hyn o'ch mynd yn chilydd ar gyfer hynny i'r ddweud gyda'i symu ei ddwy Archdufydd yma, a'i sicrhau o bod yn ei gelfad ymweld i gwahanol hwnnw. sy'n gweithio — byddwch i'n nhw'n bwysig ymertydd y cyfysgol o'r cyfysgol ac mae hefyd yn ôl i'r ffordd i'w trefyn oed. Yr Cyfysgol cyfysgol ym Cubysau intensif iawn yn gallu allu cyfysgol. Nad oeddech chi'n ei bwysig o'r cyfysgol yma y gallwn gweld ddiolch y cyfysgol, Mae gynnaeth rhaid i'w leidio, ond annes yma y gallai a ch♥زrwn tenants iawn i'r llyfrraddiadau, mae'r llyfrraddiadau yn gweithio'n llyfrraddiadau, ond rhaid i ddim ddim yn gwneud. Mae'r llyfrraddiadau yn cylliddiadau. Ac rhaid i'w leidio i ddweud, ond yma yn cael eu cyfwngurau. Yr wych yn gweithio eu sylfaen pethoddod yn gweithio ymdeithas i'w cyfrwngu, ond rhaid i'w fwyaf. Wel hyn yn cyfwng gyda cyflwynydd yma gan yw rydym yn ei stranddau. Cy terrorists, Those are simple concepts. What we have today is a mixed economy. We have a mixture. Yes, there were elements of capitalism. Yes, you can go to the mall and you're free to choose what you can buy. Nobody's forcing you to buy a particular product versus the Soviet Union when you were told this is what you buy and yw only have one choice and that's it. So, there were elements of freedom out there. There was no question about that. Then I did. Oni elewyddiad. Dwi'n cymdeithas o'r ffordd o'n cyfwysbeth, ychydig o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd, o'r gwneud, o'r ffordd o'r rai cymdeithas, o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd, o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Oherwydd, rydyn ni'n dechreu'r system oherwydd sy'n gyllidol iawn. Mae'r ffordd o'r ffordd, Ond yw unig oes i gael cyfnodd. Mae'n ganddo i gael ei ffordd yma yma. Efallai yw'r cyffredin sydd i chi eisiau ei gael. Yn ymgyrch yn llunio'r ffordd. Felly mae'n ddiweddol. A tynnu'n grannu'n gŵr i'r ffordd. Mae'n ddiweddol yn holl o'r holl. Mae'n ddiweddol yn holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl. You have to convince them that it's okay to let other people make choices about their own lives. Everybody's happy with the choices they're making. It's other people they don't trust and they want to go out. So I think you have to explain the system as it is. Banks in the United States, I like to say 80% government, 20% capitalism and free. Banks are the ones that collapsed. My high-tech is 80% free, 20% government. That's doing pretty well. Not an accident. You can show that. So yes, I agree with you, we have to communicate better the notion that capitalism is not what we have today. Capitalism is not what failed. Capitalism indeed has not really even been tried. We dabble in it a little bit in the 19th century. But we didn't really do it all the way right, even in the 19th century. And it's interesting, even in the 19th century the areas where government dabbled in, are the areas that did really, really badly like railroads. They didn't survive in the United States very well into the 20th century because of government intervention. Banking and other areas like that, land use. So you can show, you can call it, government intervention with people's standard of living, with the quality of people's lives and with their freedom. Now, why not only is it helpful to go after corporations? Although it's populist and it has a big appeal and it plays well. Fundamentally, business is small and large. The fundamental activity is a huge value add to each one of our lives. It is a huge contributor to our ability to live well. And the left hates them. The left hates them for being businesses. They don't hate them because they're big. They hate them for making money. They hate them for the profit motive. They hate them for their very existence. They hate the idea of a corporation. They hate the idea of a business. And we need to be very careful, and to some extent the right does too, particularly if they make too much money for it. We need to be very careful not to play into that. And you know, I see, I don't know how many of you are familiar with Ron Paul in the US, but Ron Paul does this a lot. He land last Wall Street. He goes after them and he plays right into the hand of the leftists who say, you know, it's all paper shuffling. They don't do anything, but that's BS. That's just not true. They do something incredibly productive. And they do something incredibly productive in spite of all the regulations. And yes, when government is going to round up and regulate their industry as they're going to do right now, they're going to spend gazillions of dollars to make sure that they get as much benefits as they can from it and to help with everybody else. But the problem is not them. The problem is government. The problem is that government has the power to regulate them to begin with. The problem is that government has the ability to choose winners and losers. If the government is going to choose winners and losers, and you're a big company, who are you going to try to, what pile are you going to try to be in? You're going to try to be in the pile of the winners. I mean, you'd be stupid not to. I'll give you an easy example. Microsoft used to spend zero dollars on lobbying in Washington. Zero. None. They just, you know, that was Washington. None of their business, they did their thing. They created all this wealth, all these opportunities with no lobbying of government at all. And then the justice vote went after them for antitrust. And they got hammered. They got hammered here in the US and then the Europeans went after them. And they just, guess what? Microsoft today spends tens of hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying in Washington. And when a bill comes up that affects high tech, and that bill is going to choose between winners and losers, is Microsoft going to spend the fortune to try to make sure that they're in the winners pile? Absolutely. And if you're CEO of Microsoft and you don't do that, you're violating the fiduciary duty towards your shareholders. So the problem is not Microsoft, or Citibank, or Goldman Sachs, you know, right? The problem is that politicians have the power to pick winners and losers. The problem is that politicians introduce bills that are going to hurt some and benefit others. The problem is the morality that allows, you know, all of this to exist. This is an intellectual philosophical debate. This isn't about, I mean, let's get away from what I described earlier. This pressure group versus that pressure group. No, what idea is a driving the very existence of these pressure groups? That's what needs to be attacked. And I think when we play big business as bad business, is we play into the hands of the wrong people. And yes, you know, we get some populist appeal, but I think it's short lived and it's not lasting. Business, by its very nature, is good. Yes, they are bad businessmen who prefer it and use Washington to gain advantage. And we need to attack them. But don't attack business-quad business or big business-quad big business. Attack Jeff Emelt, because he goes to Washington to beg for handouts. Attack, you know, it wasn't even GM that asked for bailout. They were bailed out whether they wanted to or not, right? Government forced it down their throat. You know, attack City Bank for forgetting another bailout. But don't attack big business-quad big business. Attack the particulars, the particular instances where they are going after. Attack the particular businessmen who are the Leslie Mooches or the Oren Boyles, if you've read out the shrug. The particulars are not as a group, because I think we do them and we do ourselves at this service and the cause of this service when we attack them.