 Thanks, Dan. Shall I just speak from here? Whatever you like. I'll just speak from here. And I assume, okay, Mike's working. Before I started, I do want to say when I was interviewed to be chairman at George Mason back in 2001, Tyler Cowan asked me, he said, well, if you're chairman, who are the three people you'd like to bring to the faculty who are not currently on the faculty? And I said, no particular order. I said, Rush Roberts, Deirdre McCloskey, and Dianne Klein. And I got two of the three. That's two of the three. Rush has since left. We all became this close to getting Deirdre. But I'm really delighted to be Dianne's colleague. His work, as you can tell just from this symposium, is interesting. It's pioneering. It's certainly outside of the box of what most economists do. And I can't help but think that that fact in some way has some relevance to explaining these patterns that we see revealed in the questionnaires. So I want to congratulate Dianne. It's a great symposium. But I have to qualify my congratulations because it's not a great symposium for me because I can't find anything worthwhile to say that hasn't been said by the contributors, including Scott, or at least strongly implied by them. It's unsurprising that support for the welfare states highly and positively correlated with support for government regulation in the economy. And the reasons detailed by many of the symposium's authors, again, including Scott, are credible and pretty much complete. But let me at least try to say, offer a take that's somewhat different from the ones that I've encountered. So here's my proposed mental experiment. Dianne started with one. Here's my proposed mental experiment. I suppose you take all these 219, 229 economists and you ask them one additional question. You take these economists and you ask them to respond to Hayek's increasingly famous claim that he makes in his last book, The Fatal Conceit. And I'll read this Hayek quotation. It's a bit wordy, but he was Hayek. And just ask these economists to react to that quotation. Here's the Hayek quotation. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. It's a typical Hayek quotation saying, look, the curious task of economics is to explain how little we know about reality. And what would be the reaction or the lineup of reactions of these economists to that quotation? I assume that some would be in fist pumping agreement. That would be me. Well, I wasn't in the group, but I would agree with that claim. And I'm sure that there would be a lot of economists who would be befuddled by the claim or even invigorous disagreement with Hayek's claim. Because I'm quite confident that the more strongly an economist opposes both regulation and the welfare state, the more strongly he or she endorses Hayek's claim. The more readily he or she sees the wisdom in Hayek's admonition to be humble about what we can design, what we can engineer from above. Opposition to both the welfare state and to government regulation can, and I believe it typically does, reflect in large part the understanding that reality is vastly more complex than proponents of the welfare state and of regulation supposed to be. Let's call, we need words, Dan is a stickler for proper terms. So let's call those who are skeptical of the welfare and the regulatory state marketists and those who support the regulatory state and the welfare state statists. Now, I can speak with more authority and confidence about marketers because I'm one. I have been for all of my adult life and because most of my colleagues throughout my life are marketers, so I'm quite prominent. So I know marketers better than I know statists, but I read a lot of statists. I read The New York Times regularly. Not just the times. And so I think I have some good idea about what status, how statists think. I'm not sure I'm doing psychology here or not. I'll leave that to the audience to judge. So here's one difference between marketers and statists. We marketers understand, or we think we understand, that the margins on which private people can adjust their actions are many. The number of margins on which people can adjust to changes are just huge in number. And that's true whether the changes are brought about by the market or brought about by the state. And not only is the number of possible margins of adjustment large, many of these margins are so small in size or so fleeting in their existence that they're undetectable by outside observers. Status in contrast seemed to me to suppose both that the number of margins on which private people can adjust their actions is relatively small and that these margins are mostly detectable in an objective way, measurable, by outside observers. This difference between marketers and statists results in marketers, at least compared to statists, being less pessimistic about markets and more pessimistic about state action. So why more pessimistic about markets? Because with many margins on which to adjust, private market actors have great scope to find or to craft market outcomes that are closely tailored to each actor's individual preferences. Why more pessimistic about state action? Well, the large number of such margins and the invisibility of their details to everyone who's not on the spot combine with the subjectivity of each person's preferences to make it practically impossible for government officials to assess how well or how poorly markets are working. Too much is unseen. Indeed, too much is unseeable to render imposed collective decisions likely to improve the general welfare. So my thesis is this, marketers understand, appreciate and respect the enormous complexity of reality, statists don't. Statists believe reality to be far simpler than it really is. Perhaps statists are misled into their misconception of, notice I'm on my elephant, status are misled by their misconception of reality, by their theorizing, for example. The variables, for example, conventionally used in economic models to express economic relationships and connections are easy to mistake for being realistic and exhaustive representatives of real world entities. You draw an economic model and you think you have a picture of the economy, just one that's smaller than the larger economy. Or perhaps people just don't think very deeply. Perhaps they're misled by words often used to describe collections of people, low skilled workers, the steel industry, retailers, college students, smokers. And being misled by these words, they miss the multitudinous differences that often separate the individual entities within any one of these categories from other individuals within the same category. Whatever the reason, the simpler one supposes reality to be, the greater of the prospects one supposes for outsiders to grasp reality fully enough to engineer it into a better state. That's true whether we're talking about making people richer through the welfare state or improving economic outcomes through government regulation. Let me end by offering a related hypothesis. The simpler one supposes reality to be, the more readily one forgets Thomas Sowell's observation that there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs. Or put differently, the simpler one supposes reality to be, the more prone one is to fall for a good guy, bad guy account of reality. All problems are easily identifiable and are caused by evil doers, if you think reality is simple, and caused by deceitful business executives, hate-filled racist homophobes, stingy middle-class voters. And the solution is to send in the good guys, to defeat the bad guys, to exercise the devil, and to undo his deeds, to replace Satan, if not with angels, at least with noble public servants, bent on saving the day and doing what's right. When an economy is seen as a relatively simple mechanism, when society is viewed as one views a passion play or a Hollywood movie, in which a bad Hollywood movie, in which good and evil are unambiguous, and in which evil persists only because too few good people have yet to spring into action, then there seems to be a natural urge to call in a superhero to obliterate the evil and the misfortune. So I think that the, I think a decent hypothesis is that people who believe the world to be simpler, who don't appreciate the complexity, tend to support state action because it's easy. You create an entity to deal with these relatively simple problems. People who are on the market side have for whatever reason, I don't know if it's psychological, it's due to training, due to upbringing, but understand at some level the enormous complexity of not only economic reality, but of social reality writ large, and that makes people much more skeptical of the ability of government to improve things, whether it be in the welfare front or the regulatory front.