 So, if you listen to the economic news, if you listen to how people report on the economic state of the world, what you're constantly bombarded with is messages about how this tribe or that tribe are doing. Now sometimes the tribe is a big tribe. You hear constantly the idea that, I don't know, let's say the Chinese economy is going to be bigger than America's, and that we should worry about that because their tribe is going to be bigger than our tribe. And that should scare us somehow because it's always presented as this, who's going to be the biggest economy in the world? Now the fact that they have 1.4 billion people, if they just have a little bit of freedom, they're going to be bigger than us, right? But it's not supposed, it's presented as if there is this zero-sum battle between two economies, and the extent that the Chinese win, we Americans lose. Both on the left and on the right, you are now bombarded with messages about how trade is somehow hurtful to our tribe because somehow the other tribe is winning, is better off, they're gaining. We lose jobs to China, to Mexico, to Canada. We, how many here have lost their job? There's this notion that we suffer because other people gain, constant messaging around us. We worry about immigrants coming into the country, you know there's 7 million Hondurans on the way to America, right, in a caravan, about 7 million or so, right? No, it's less than that. Oh, it's only 7,000, seems like 7 million when you hear the hysteria. And really, you know it's presented as if the hysteria is all on the right. But if you actually read on the left, right now they're not talking about it, but when they're in power, they don't like immigrants either, because immigrants do what? They take our jobs, they lower our wages. The whole discussion of economics, the whole discussion of trade, the whole discussion of jobs is framed in terms of them versus us, this group versus that group. So we talk about economics, almost all the numbers that people talk about are aggregate numbers that apply very little to any particular individual, to any particular job. We talk about GDP is going up, is that a good thing? I mean maybe, but GDP aggregates a whole bunch of stuff that very few people actually know what it aggregates. Is your standard of living going up? Is that a concern? Or is the fact that America's GDP is going up, even though nobody understands what GDP is, or nobody's an exaggeration, but few people understand, is that supposed to make you feel good? We are doing okay. GDP, by the way, went up by very large numbers in the midst of World War II. As thousands, tens of thousands of young Americans were dying all over the world. As the whole production machine of American economy was building tanks and bombers and things that actually don't enhance our standard of living, GDP went up. What happened to standard of living, quality of life, plummeted in the midst of war, of any war. GDP, it looked great, because GDP, by the way, captures a huge chunk of GDP as government consumption, government spending. So the more government spends, to some extent, that affects GDP positively. So if government spends it on war, GDP goes up, even though the quality of life of you as an individual is going down dramatically. Not to say that I'm against wars, just so we're clear. Sometimes they're necessary, and sometimes you have to engage in them, but they're not enhancing of your economic well-being. So they're not pro, they're not positive, they don't have a positive impact on the economy. They have a negative impact on the economy, and if you want the details of that, you can ask me in the Q&A. You know, people talk about tax cuts, Donald Trump's great, he kept taxes. On whom? On some people he cut taxes, on other people he didn't. Taxes for some people went up during this thing, during the tax cuts. If you live in California, you live in New York, your taxes actually, and you're in the top marginal tax rate, your taxes actually went up. Notice that what happens in the world in which we live today is that economic policy is set to have one group set up against another group. Central planning necessitates that some people benefit and some people lose. And what we experienced today, and you know, Einwand talked about this, the mixed economy, what's a mixed economy? An economy, a mixture of what? What and what? Freedom. Freedom and control, right? Freedom of capitalism and elements of statism. That the mixed economy necessarily leads to, what's our theme here, to tribalism. Because if the government's going to regulate, if the government's going to control and they're going to regulate me, what am I going to try to do? I'm going to try to go out there and convince them not to regulate me. Now do I have power as an individual, as a small business? No. What do I have to do? Let's get all the people who are like me together in a group, and we're going to go and we're going to try to fight to reduce regulations on me. But the government's not interested in actually just reducing regulations. So what does my group land up doing? Almost always. It's not just fighting to reduce regulations on me, but to improve my regulatory environment, which usually means raising regulations on somebody else. Of course, if somebody else is going to do what, they're going to try to fight to reduce their regulations and impose them on me. And what you get in the world in which we live is constantly groups coming together to fight it out and to fight it out, not in the marketplace with a better product, with a better price, with more efficiency, with more productive capability, but with politics, with guns, with fists, with force, with coercion. And our political system is set up to do this. It's set up to encourage us to form groups that lobby for particular causes. And when we lobby for particular cause, unless it's really the cause of liberty, the cause of freedom, then what by definition are we doing? We're setting somebody else up as a victim to suffer. Somebody wants to raise minimum wage right now. That sets up a certain group of employees, those who would benefit from the minimum wage, against consumers who are then going to get higher prices, and against whom? Against other employees who are going to lose their jobs because wages went up. So you've got, here you have all the different tribes fighting each other. And what's the right composition? What's the right minimum wage? Who should we listen to? Should we listen to consumers? Should we listen to inner city young people who are going to lose the job and never going to have a job again because at 15 bucks an hour they'll never have a job? Or should we listen to those employees who just got a raise from 10 bucks to 15 bucks and they're feeling good? Who should we listen to? Who's more important? How do we measure that? How do we figure it out? Anybody got an algorithm? What's that? By the numbers. By who gets to vote more? Maybe. Maybe by who needs it more or can convince more people who could create the bigger gang to vote for it. It turns out that we don't really care about the inner city kids who lose their jobs forever because they don't have any political power. But to tell the middle class that we just increased minimum wage to 15 bucks so they can feel better, they can appease a little bit of that altruism, to help a few people and evade the people who are suffering, that's okay, sacrifice is good in that condition. So it's not actually which group is the biggest, who can rally the biggest group around their cause, who can engage the biggest group, the most voters around their cause. And every decision, every single decision, government makes in the realm of economics today is motivated by these kind of ideas. Once you accept the idea that government is going to plan the economy, including allowing some areas to be relatively free but not every area, then by what standard should they plan the economy given that it's impossible to plan an economy, what's the standard? The standard who has more votes, who can put together the biggest gang, who can pound on the table, the loudest, there is no standard, there's no correct approach to central planning. It's not like the Republicans get central planning better than the Democrats. It's no, central planning is wrong. So as soon as you allow even a little bit of control into a free market, a little bit of central planning into a free market, what you establish is a tribal attitude. What you establish is pressure groups who then start fighting, who then start lobbying, who then start rallying voters. And what you get is that slippery slope that Ayn Rand constantly describes in her nonfiction writing, where one control leads to another control leads to another control and soon enough we are where we are today, where almost every element of economy or big chunks of economy are being controlled and being fought over. What's the alternative? The alternative is to focus on the individual and what is best for the individual and what is best for the individual. Once the rule of law, as Tara described it, Ter Smith described it, once the rule of law is established, what is best for the individual? To be left free, to be left free to be protected, to have property rights protected, but otherwise to be left free. And this is why Rand advocates for a separation, a complete separation of economics from state, not a better mix, not a freer mix, not less regulations, not less controls, but no controls, no involvement, no rule, so that every individual is free to pursue his life, to pursue the rational values necessary for his own survival, to pursue the productive resources he needs It's free in voluntary exchange, in win-win transactions where people are benefiting from one another, where his wealth is not taken or redistributed, that's creating other tribes, right? There's the whole tribal issue of some people money's taken and given to others, who's it given to? Who gets to decide which groups get it? There are like 300 different welfare programs in the US, all targeted at different pressure groups that have lobbied to get some of the goodies, some of the loot that the government has. But if you separate out, if you say you cannot use force to redistribute wealth, you cannot use force to control productive activity, you cannot use force to intervene in the process of individuals trading voluntarily among each other, and you leave individuals free to make those decisions for themselves. Well partially we know what happens because every country that tries this even a little bit, any place that tries this even a little bit, succeeds enormously. But also when you have that mentality, when you have that approach, then it's China a threat to you. What does China represent really? Like trading with China. Bad for America? Who trades? Does America trade with China? I mean a tribal approach says America has this huge trade deficit with China. We can get into economics or what that even means, but America has a trade deficit. We buy a lot of stuff from China. Now as far as I know, America doesn't buy anything from China, actually zero, because I don't know what America is, it's a border with a Sun geographic area with a Sun system of law, but America doesn't buy anything. I buy a lot of stuff from China. My favorite proper lectures is assembled in China. You know how many places have stuff in here that is part of the iPhone? From how many countries is there stuff in the iPhone? Anybody know? It's like 60 countries. In other words, 60 different companies, millions of individuals all over the world are making stuff, are producing. And it all gets put together into this little thing that arrives in my home, I guess, from China through some warehouse somewhere, right? Am I being exploited? Are we losing jobs to those 60 countries because, no, I'm benefiting. And every one of those other countries, any one of those individuals working for all those 60 different companies or 100 companies or 3,000 companies, whatever their number is, in 60 different countries, every one of them has benefited from the fact that they've traded. Every one of those transactions have been win-win trade transactions, voluntary trade transactions in which both parties have won. And at the end of the day, you get one of these. So you take an individual's perspective, trade is wonderful. I benefit. I count the person I traded with benefits, all the people they traded with benefits. I love trade with China. I love trade with anybody and whoever can give me the best product at the best price is my friend, right? Benefits my life. I'm not hostile to people outside the borders because there's some border if they're productive and they're creating something that benefits my life. We're getting to the point where it's not just, you know, the tribalism goes like this, first it was by America and you should all read how he been swung his essay on by America is non-American, right? It's not American. But now it's not about by America. By America is relatively, you know, innocuous and individualistic. Now it's about by Atlanta. And soon it's going to be about by Midtown Atlanta, right? We're in Midtown right now. You know, you got to buy only produce that was produced right here in little gardens outside with vegetables that come from Midtown Atlanta. And if you get a kiwi, then that's from New Zealand and that's, you know, that's bad. But that's the level at which this tribalism, if you don't challenge to buy America, then why not buy Texas? And then why not buy Austin? And then why not buy your little local neighborhood? But again, the individualist approach is, no, I want to produce and then I want to consume the things that make my life better. And I will trade with anybody who makes my life better. And it, I don't care where the border is. I want to hire the best employees in the world. Why does it matter what color skin they have? Or what it says in their birth certificate, where they were born. Or when they crossed the border or how they crossed the border. I want to hire the best people. And everybody who is productive wants the best people to be producing because what happens if the best people are the ones getting the jobs? Then our standard of living rises, our quality of life rises. The products that we get, their price declines. We get new innovation and new creation and new things. Life is better when we respect freedom, when we respect the individual. So only if you get a system that actually separates out economics from politics. Economic power, what's economic power? How do you gain economic power? What's that? By production and trade. By voluntary production, voluntary trade, voluntary interactions with other people by producing something that people value. It's the only way to get economic power. Being successful at producing, being successful at trading. What's political power? It's the essential of political power. It's force, it's coercion. Two completely different things. And indeed, force can only do what? To voluntary trade, voluntary production. Can only hamper it. So those two need to be separated, completely separated. The realm of force should not be intervening in the realm of production and in the realm of trade. When you separate those out, it's the only way in which we can get rid of the tribalism that today is a part of everything that we talk about, everything that we do within the world of economics. It's only by abandoning the mixed economy. I think it's a feedback mechanism. We have to get intellectually rid of tribalism. But then you also have to get rid of the mixed economy because the mixed economy reinforces the tribalism. So there are two realms here that constantly reinforce each other, constantly you have to work against, both the intellectual and the political. And the political, we will not be successful until we completely separate economics from state. As long as government controls our economic destiny, there will be an incentive for people to turn to tribalism. And of course, if we're then also advocating for tribalism in and of itself in our schools and universities, then there's no way to reverse the trend from an economic perspective, political perspective. Both are reinforcing and that's what we're seeing today. We're seeing an acceleration in tribalism because both systems are working towards the same single direction. The political system and the educational system are both inducing, encouraging, incentivizing us towards a tribal mentality. At the end of the day, there is no conflict between rational productive individuals. At the end of the day, if we are free, there is never an excuse to use force against one another. At the end of the day, if we are free and we are rational, we view other productive human beings as our allies, not as a threat, not as an enemy. Thank you. I've left plenty of time for questions. I figured on this topic, there'd be lots of them and I'm right, all right, go. Sure. So actually, I just wanted to ask about that last part you said there's no conflict between rational individuals. Something I've been thinking about recently is there is, I feel in a certain sense, a conflict between people like, say, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, where they have these companies that are like ones going, they're both SpaceX and what's it, blue, what's it called? Blue Origin, right? And it's like, I feel like there is a conflict there and that's why they're kind of like tense and they're not like friends, they don't like hangout and stuff. Even though you'd think they would, right? Because like, you know, John Gull wants to hang out with all the characters, but they don't want to hang out. Well, maybe the other reasons they don't hang out, but are you suggesting the competition means conflict? I mean, it seems like conflict, they are at conflict, you know, not maybe not with force. Yeah, I mean, so I think that the number of issues going on, again, we live in a mixed economy, so it's hard to separate these things out, but take blue and SpaceX is a good example. In a sense, there is a conflict there and the conflict is what? Who is the funder of all space stuff? Where does all the money today, or almost all the money, not all the money, but a big chunk of the money comes. If you want to go to the moon, if you want to go to Mars, where's the money going to come from, it turns out, from NASA, from the government, and there's a fixed pool over there and these two guys are going to have to go after this fixed pool, not by convincing people, you know, by convincing their client that they are the most productive and they will serve them best and they will offer them the most, you know, the best service, but by, you know, using politics, because NASA doesn't distribute money based on, you know, efficiency or productiveness or value, but based on political. Yeah, they can't. But you've also got two different, I mean, I think Elon Musk and Steve and Jeff Bezos are also very different types of capitalists, so they're very different types of businessmen. You've got one who's built from nothing, built, you know, one of the great companies of all human history, really from nothing, basically bootstrapping it all himself with shareholders and investors and so on. You've got another who's basically built a series of company with exception to PayPal, who've all depended on government funding, have all depended on some form of cronyism, so you've got two very, very different types, so you can't, you know, not that I'm comparing them as archetypes, but you're not going to see, you know, Hank Rydden hanging out with Boyle, right? Even though they're both in the steel industry, right? Yeah. One is a real businessman, one other is not and unfortunately, Elon Musk has become much more like Owen Boyle than Rydden, so, but I know lots of people in tech, in particular, who are in competing companies who hang out all the time, I think CEOs, I mean, you've seen, I don't know if you've seen videos of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates doing Q&A's together, I mean, you know, no, I don't think competition is the same as conflict. I don't think real competitors who are really in the market competing with one another hate each other, I think they respect each other and they admire each other and they actually do, on occasion, hang out, although these guys are so busy that it's a very little time to hang out. Right, right. Hi, Dr. Yaron, so I have a question. In matters of, like, the doctrine of the common good and the public good and pertaining to, like, law, citizenship or taxation, so does that fall under the premise of, I mean, a tribalistic premise or, like, a collective thing or neutral? Yeah, I mean, for the most part, the way, almost always, the way the common good or the public good fall under collectivism. I mean, the idea is that there's something there, some entity that is the common, that is the group that has, that supersedes what's good for individuals, right? And so the whole idea when people talk about the public interest and the common good is a collectivistic premise that places this entity. Of the public, above the rights of the individual. Objectivism views it differently. The public is just a collection of individuals. The only truly objectively thing that is good for the public is respecting the individual rights of individuals. But the standard is never the public. The standard is never the common or whatever they fill in. Or the United States of America or any, it's the individuals within it, it's the individuals that comprise it. And the only thing in the realm of government that relates to that is the protection of individual rights. If you protect individual rights, the public takes care of itself, in a sense, right? The good is for the individual and if you aggregate the good on individuals, then you get a so-called public good. But you have to remember that public is just a collection of individuals. And when you place it as some mystical thing that you are maximizing for, you've eliminated individuals and you're then willing to sacrifice some individuals for the sake of this mystical entity up there. And that's necessarily what happens, right? Who is the public? Well, the public is always those who pound on the table loudest. The public is always those that are willing to lobby the strongest, are willing to make the most noise, willing to inflict the most damage on politicians. They turn out to be the public, even if they're a small minority. They represent the public, the public good. And you land up benefiting them at the expense, at the sacrifice of individuals who are not part of that group. And in the end, and this is what always happens when you set up, when you set up win-lose relationships, which that is, some people lose, some people supposedly win, those are always lose-lose relationships. Because even the people who supposedly are lobbying and they're getting a benefit in the short run, lose in the long run, because in the long run there's less freedom. And therefore, even just from an economic perspective, they're going to be poorer, they're going to have the goods that they buy are not going to be of high quality, it's going to be less innovation, less progress. And ultimately, one that's slippery slope where there'll be a real crisis and real economic problems that they will suffer from. Say, benefit in the short term, it's like a Bernie Madoff who benefits in the short term from having the money, benefits in quotes. But long term, it destroys his life, it destroys his life. At every point, he's never really benefited from it. And the same with these groups that get stuff, they know they didn't produce in order to get that stuff, they know they didn't deserve it, they don't own it. So it doesn't mean anything to them. So in the end, every lose-win-lose is a lose-lose, even in the short run. Thank you. Hey, Dr. Buck, my question is about you said how war doesn't help the economy if you want to ask about the details, acts in the Q&A, so that's my question. If you could end off the question with, what did the deregulations under Truman in 45 and 46 actually look like? Because I always find it so mind-boggling that two years of relative good and made up for 15 bad. And I just would love to know the economic history of that. I don't know everything that Truman did right after the war, but I think the main thing that happened right at the end of World War II is that government spending shrunk dramatically. I mean, it was a massive percentage of GDP. I don't remember the numbers because of the war effort. And then suddenly, all their money, in a sense, got returned to its owners into the private sector. And it got applied instead of to building tanks and bombers and guns to productive activities. So you got this massive influx of capital that was being, in a sense, destroyed during the war effort. Again, a necessary war. This is not an argument for pacifism, but a necessary thing. But now all those resources got applied to the actual private economy. And there was a lot to do. There was a lot of stuff to build. There was a lot of demand at the time. So the US economy did very, very well afterwards. But because it wasn't really deregulated, that is because in the late 40s and early 50s, they didn't actually challenge FDRs, everything that FDR had done during the 12-plus years of his administration. They had to be a negative outcome. And the negative outcome manifests itself ultimately in the 60s when the welfare state has expanded. Again, that slippy slope when it's expanded. And then with the inflation of the 70s and the stag nation and stagflation. So we paid the price in the 70s for what FDR did in the 30s. And we paid it throughout to some extent because economic growth would have been even faster and even greater. But it was visible in the 70s. And I would argue, and I don't ask me to explain this, but I would argue that the 2008 recession is a consequence of FDR's actions in the 1930s. Because it's that regulatory regime set up in the 1930s that leads to the S&L crisis, that leads to the 70s, that leads ultimately to the collapse of FETI and FANY. The first, which one of them, FANY, I think was set up under FDR. So all of that legacy of statism that was established in the 1930s, we're still paying for them. We'll continue to pay for it until we dismantle the whole thing. Thank you. One of Einran's strongest political points is that markets and anarchy are incompatible and that we need a monopoly on force to enforce people's property rights enabling trade to flourish. International politics, however, is essentially anarchy. There isn't a monopoly of force. And so you have powerful actors that themselves are not rights-respecting, such as like Saudi Aramco and Russia's Gazprom. They might be able to provide you with the best product of the lowest price. My question is, is there a role for a rights-respecting government to bar its own citizens from dealing with unsavory actors like that on the international stage? So yes, but you have to be very careful on what that means and how you define it. And look, this is a whole area of foreign policy, which I think is crucial and important that there's not a lot of writing on and there's not a lot of real analysis on, but absolutely. And I've categorized countries, I think, into three. And this is my category. This is not objectivism. This is me. Into three categories. There are countries that are enemy countries, clearly threatening to you, and they want to take your stuff, and they want to kill you if they have a chance. And I would say it is the responsibility of a rights-respecting government to bar you from trading with those countries. You should do nothing that enables those countries in any way. So I would take today North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, our countries we should not trade with. And if you want and ask me what to do about Saudi oil, I'd be happy to answer that. So that's one category. There's a second category of countries that don't expect the right to their own citizens, but are not a threat to you. They're not at war with you in any kind of sense, are not threatening to you. And I think the government's response should be to say, look, these are countries in which they have no respect for rights. But you get to decide, as individual citizens, whether you trade with them. Because benefiting them is not hurting the individual rights of Americans because they're not a threat, a direct threat to the rights of Americans. And then there are relatively free countries in which, and there's all kinds of legal implications in what the government would do in each one of those situations if they confiscated your plans or everything. I think there's a lot of work to be worked out in the realm of foreign policy and figuring out in the theory of how to apply politics to foreign policy that would deal with that. But absolutely, the government should embargo, should ban, and this is my point about China, because people talk about China. China violates intellectual property rights of American companies. And therefore, we should raise tariffs on them. In other words, we should raise taxes on Americans because the Chinese are violating the property rights of Americans. How does that work? That's a puzzle, right? My view is, if you can show that product X was built because of stolen intellectual property, then you should ban product X from importation into the United States. You're not allowed to trade in stolen goods, right? Stolen goods, it's a crime. So you can't buy product X if product X was built and that should go to court and you should be, I have to prove that product X was built because of something they stole from me. Now, I don't know that we go to war with China because of it or embargo China, but you suddenly embargo the goods. You don't allow the goods into the United States that are stolen. We do that with Louis Vuitton bags, right? You don't get it so much in the US because the US is better on this, but in Europe, everywhere you go, on the pavements they're selling Louis Vuitton fake bags, right? Now that's illegal. So we get it when it's a bag, but we don't apply it to technology, we don't apply it. So we just have to be consistent about the application of laws against trade and stolen goods to trade with China, right? So I don't think you have to embargo, and if you did that, by the way, they would stop stealing intellectual property because there would be real consequences to it. The problem is today we turn a blind eye and we pretend that tariffs is the way to deal with it and at the same time we're best buddies with the dictator of China and their murderer from North Korea. So what message are we sending? None, right? Or a message that will do anything if we can bargain or if we treat Donald Trump nicely enough. Thank you. So I'd like to shift gears a little bit to something a little more developmental and institutional, since you've traveled to many places that are still developing to the point where America is. Corruption's very kind of a big issue in these countries and that's related with tribalism. A contract may be awarded on someone being in your tribe rather than on merit. Beyond just corruption alone, to what extent do you think that the plights of these developing economies is due to tribalism? I mean, it depends on what countries, the different countries are different, but certainly there's a lot of tribalism when you travel around the world in terms of who gets the economic, who has managed to capture certain economic benefits within these countries. So there's certainly families, there's certain ethnic groups, there's certain tribes where they are in power, they've attained power somehow, and all their cronies, all their family members, all the tribal members, all the ethnic group members are the beneficiaries of certain benefits. So I think a lot of these countries suffer from this tribal mentality and again, because their mixed economy is even worse than the United States, it's all about power and it's all about guns and it's all about those kind of aspects and that's how you gain economic power is by gaining political power. But you have to be careful because not in every case that's the case. So for example, if you go to a place like Indonesia or Malaysia, most of the economic power, most of it is held by the Chinese, the local Chinese there, and they're a tiny minority. And it's not because they have gained political power, it's actually because they've been incredibly productive and they've built and they've created and they've built businesses and indeed they get, they're the first one who gets attacked as soon as there's an economic crisis, they take a few Chinese and shoot them because they've got the economic power, they've obviously stolen it from everybody else because everybody thinks in terms of tribes. So if you see a bunch of Chinese who are rich and everybody else is not so rich and you assume now because everything's tribal that they got it by abusing the system through cronyism but it's not always the case that that's what they did. So you have to be very careful in not falling into the counter-tribal, assuming things are tribal because they look perceptually to be tribal. But yeah, I mean, look, you go to Montenegro, a country with 400,000 people and you go, why are you a country? Oh, because we've got our tribe. And we've had this tribe for 1,000 years and so who cares? I mean, why is there a country called Montenegro? What was so bad about hanging out with all these other people from all these other tribes and having a better trade relationships and engagement? So the world is filled, the more you travel with the world, the more you see, particularly Europe. Europe is very, very tribal. And it's part of why they don't assimilate. It's why you don't see assimilation in Europe. And because the Europeans themselves are so tribal. It matters so much whether you were born in this side of the Rhine or that side of the Rhine or the side of the Danube or that side of the Danube. It boggles the mind, right? What's the differences between these people, even in culture or in anything, right? But no, I'm German and I'm French and we are. Mortal enemies because we've always, you know, it's, and I think to say something controversial for change, right? One of the great benefits of the EU, and I know the EU, it's not sexy to be pro-EU, is to get rid of a lot of that and to put everybody under one banner and say, no, here's one system of law for all these countries and to help with your tribes. Let's trade and let's allow the free movement of labor, the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods and, you know, have one system of law. Now it's sad that the people running the EU, a bunch of statist, fastest socialists, right, who want to control everything. And now they get to control a bigger piece of chunk of land, right? That's the negative. But the positive is that you're breaking up, you know, this tribal mentality that is Europe, which I think has led to World War I, led to World War II, led to all the wars before that, and has led to the death of millions and millions of people and will lead to millions and millions of people dying in the future, because as Europe returns to that tribalism, you will get, things will get much, much worse over there. It's insightful, thank you. Sure, thanks.