 You know, it's inarguable the Apollo missions were, you know, if there is a sort of archetype of smart private public partnerships, amazing public policy, I think, you know, I think very few people would dispute it successfully because, you know, the mission was accomplished. But I suppose I've got a question which is to what extent is it transferable to various contexts. So you can see how that works in a sort of geopolitical rivalry context. You know, there's the United States and the Soviet Union, you're trying to get somewhere first. But in something like housing, you know, there are entrenched interests which don't really want to solve the housing crisis, because the status quo suits them, or perhaps more, you know, sort of easily understood, you know, climate change, there are massive hydrocarbon companies, there are massive consumer lobbies or even, you know, the car lobby taxi, you know, taxis in London are a major sort of actually London cab basically want to be a price cartel. There are major interests, which you might agree with them, you might disagree with some of them. But that's a bit different to the Apollo missions in so much as it's about competing interests rather than, you know, all of us want this one thing, let's push towards it together because that doesn't necessarily hold for climate change or for elderly care of the housing crisis, does it? Yes, I mean, the book is not trying to unpick everything. What it's saying is we have lots of money out there being spent by governments in terms of procurement. By the way, procurement is a huge percentage of government budgets, you know, like in the UK, the whole innovation budget across government is 10 billion, just the procurement budget of the Ministry of Transport is close to 40 billion. So four times the whole innovation budget across the government. So if you can transform things that governments are already doing, innovation policy budgets, industrial strategy budgets, procurement SME, small, medium enterprise financing, and transform it to be more purpose oriented, that's sort of what the book is really focusing on. However, I also spent a lot of time throughout the book from the beginning to the end, reminding the reader that the kind of challenges we have today, which I do think we should always remember, that we signed up to the SDGs, the 17 sustainable development goals, which brought broadly defined some of the biggest challenges we have around poverty, around climate, around gender parity and so on. You know, those challenges are what I call wicked. They're much more, they're much harder than going to the moon. That's why a colleague of mine, a wonderful academic at Columbia University, Richard Nelson, back in the 70s, he wrote a book called The Moon and the Ghetto, you know, basically saying, hold on a second, we just got to the moon and back and we still have ghettos. Why? And the answer is very deep. You know, partly we just haven't treated with the same level of urgency or social problems. But even when we have, remember Johnson's War on Poverty, it's just so much harder because it requires everything you just mentioned, you know, political change, regulatory change, behavioral change. Fundamentally, a lot of the, again, issues that I talked about in the book about public-private, that's not a technical thing. That's about the social compact. Who negotiates that? So yes, it's hard, but I do think that the mission-oriented approach, focus more on that word, not so much on the moonshot, and I, in some ways I regret using that word because of how it was then bastardized in the UK and Dominic Cummings had actually brought me into Downing Street a year ago saying, love your stuff, we want to do it. I was like, uh-oh. I mean, they had already started designing their own way and I kept saying, hold on, hold on, you're doing it wrong. But you know, this concept of the moonshot makes one just kind of think potentially that this is a deterministic, technocratic, you know, just spend a lot of money on science and somehow we're going to solve problems. That's not at all what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is we need to put our social problems at the center of how we design our economy, our society. We need to treat it with a level of urgency. We need leaders who prioritize it and it can actually talk about it in really ambitious ways. You know, I had Kennedy, you know, today's Kennedy said, we're going to fight climate change, not because it's easy, but because it's hard. Yeah, that's a good start. Then tell us what else you're going to do. But at least start with that, right? It's not just going to be about a carbon tax. What's interesting is that if you unpick all those different types of policies that I mentioned already exist because the book is not actually about saying we need to spend more. It's about spend completely differently and that's differently. We probably also have to invest a lot more, but, you know, focus on the goals. So climate change is SDG 14 or life below water is SDG 13. If you can transform these broad challenges into really concrete goals like this by the way these examples I'm giving you are in this report that I wrote before writing the book for Europe, arguing the European Commission that we needed a mission oriented approach. It was voted on by the Parliament and the European Council. So now missions are now a legal instrument within the European Commission to help direct innovation policy. Oops, sorry, towards big goals. Those types of very concrete, sorry, those broad challenges need to be rendered more concrete like we're going to have 100 carbon neutral cities across a region or we're going to get 90% of the plastic out of the ocean. And the key point I'm saying is don't think of this as just a public or a private thing a don't think of it as just a sectoral area right this isn't just about renewable energy say with climate. If you're going to have a carbon neutral city you're going to need investment innovation new collaborations and real estate and energy and mobility systems and construction materials and the social sector and food and so on. The main challenge, you know, and it is a bit of a nitty gritty point so maybe some you know some people might say alright this is boring but to me it is about changing capitalism redesign everything government does to foster that bottom up innovation to fuel activity towards that goal. Now the fact that it also requires new incentives including tax right we're still taxing today materials, less than we tax labor right if you want to reduce the material content of our economy which is central to actually reducing our carbon emissions, the tax system can help you incentivize that. If you have capital gains tax as low as it is right now what is that incentivizing short term ism right you can just make money quickly by buying and selling existing assets if you want to foster long term ism the business sector you need to again have a tax system that has things like the financial transaction tax but also within capital gains is rewarding those who keep their investments for a longer time say 10 years not just two years. The tax system is really central in all the social problems that we have, but that doesn't mean that we don't need an investment pathway and a new design of public private partnerships and serious capability within government so they don't just outsource their brains to the private sector. And of course we need a private sector that is less financialized the topic of my previous book, but even that why would that happen we need incentives for that. You know one of the reasons why we ended up back in the day with an extremely innovative private sector laboratory called Bell Labs many books have been written about Bell Labs it was fundamental to the IT revolution. Globally is government actually created an incentive for AT&T at the time to retain their monopoly status they had to to retain that contract, reinvest their profits into the real economy into innovation and big innovation beyond telecoms. Bell Labs was the answer. Imagine today if we had that you know if we had requirements that any company whether it's big pharmaceutical companies or big energy companies and so on that receive public benefits, whether it's a patent, which by the way is a contract that government gives you for 20 years or accessing public resources like in the United States $40 billion a year is given basically to the ecosystem of health innovation for the private sector to benefit from. Imagine if all of that kind of public subsidy public investment public bailouts which we have more and more of were conditional on profits a being reinvested back into the economy as opposed to extract it out to the financial sector and be invested towards helping you know really important goals be met the green transition but also more inclusive economy in terms of you know treat your workers well pay your tax and so on. And that's where I think covid's been so refreshing in some ways as tragic as it still is. We've seen some countries be much more ambitious in terms of the conditionalities on the bailouts we didn't see this with the financial crisis so France has created conditions for both the auto and the airline industry to access recovery funds if they reduce their carbon emissions so airlines and autos. Denmark and Austria have put conditions on you can't use tax havens. If you're going to access recovery funds. Elizabeth Warren in the US was arguing that companies receiving recovery funds wouldn't be able to just use you know their funds on share buybacks which you might know have just escalated massively in the last decade for trillion dollars have been used by the top global companies just to buy back their shares to boost stock options and executive pay. Anyway sorry I'm rambling a bit but none of these dysfunctions in our capitalist system like ultra financialization or inevitable they've been allowed to happen create conditionalities in order to really foster the building back better or the stakeholder capitalism agenda that the world economic forum likes to talk about that is not going to happen if it's just up to one's own free will it has to be nested within the design of the partnerships in the ecosystem. And interestingly the Apollo program has you know lessons on that it wasn't about the technology necessarily it was about the partnership.