 Oh, I just lost a minute of my time, so I better speak a little more quickly. So I am a venture capitalist. In fact, word capitalist is in my job description. I'm a raging techno-optimist. We invest in entrepreneurs to change the world day in and day out. But there is one shadow of technology that increasingly has worried me and made me think that perhaps there's an opportunity to get a market mechanism unstuck. And that has to do with some of the side effects of accelerating technological change. I'll just have one graph behind me as I speak. It's the version of Moore's Law that I love from Ray Kurzweil, a logarithmic scale showing computational power over 100 years. A log scale meaning a straight line is an exponential. Here we see a double exponential. The only takeaway I want you to think about as I go through my talk is that the pace of technology progress is decoupled from the economy. Great Depression, World War I, World War II. Humanity's capacity to compute has compounded, unabated and should in the future. So if we look back 100 years, we see a trend line unlike any other. Let's just assume it continues. If it does, the proposition I want to propose is that the accelerating rich-poor gap that we see around us today may not be a cyclical phenomenon that's rectifying. It may be, in fact, a secular trend that is just going to continue forever. Why might this be? Well, as every business becomes an information business, it looks more like the kinds of things we invest in, more like a software business with network effects and winner-take-all dynamics and power laws in the distribution of everything. Website traffic, income of the people that work for these companies. They all follow a power law. They all benefit from network effects. There's only one or two winners in a category, not thousands, in any sector that you might care to be in. As every industry becomes an information business, from agriculture to information services and banking, it innervates the economy. We all become globally competitive. The regional shelters of competition disappear and every kid on the planet competes with every other. And that's a wonderful thing. That's the American dream writ large. When 3 billion people come online for the first time with smartphones over the next two years, as Peter pointed out in his book, Abundance, this is going to be a boon to entrepreneurship and ideas. But it's also going to be an enormous pool of competitors for what few jobs may exist in the information economy. Now, if you think far enough in the future, think about 500 years. Robots will do every task that a human does not want to do and they'll do a better job of it. There need not be jobs in the sense of labor that you pay for, just like there were not jobs in ages of slavery or serfdom. You had a leisure rich that did science and whatever they did. They didn't even think they had a job and they had slaves. We're never going to hopefully have human slaves in the future. That would be uneconomic. We'll have robots and eventually AIs doing the vast majority of tasks and humans will be left to do meaningful work. This may be a nirvana, but then again it may not. How do we get from here to there? Iterations on the economy as it is today, on capitalism as it exists today, within a democracy may not get us there. A patch without thinking about the big picture could be a problem. So instead of ringing my hands and saying, oh gosh, this is something we should just ignore. It's not really for polite company, it kind of makes people feel awkward if they have a lot of money. There may actually be some solutions, some technologies and ideas that take this, I thought, in mind and realize that some signal we're seeing today is going to be large in the future. So by analogy, you might say, well, we should have an extra price focused on clean water, but it's all the more important when you think about climate change. When you think about the 500-year trend, you realize the importance of what you might want to do today. So let me share perhaps some ideas on what that might be. It could be ideas in radical philanthropy. Clearly, the Gates pledge and things like that have had an impact on mitigating the symptoms of a rich, poor gap acceleration. They don't really change the rate at which technology executives accumulate wealth, but they take the pressure off what otherwise may be a particularly stressful situation if they live large like rap stars in LA. You also might think about changes in policy and economics. This is sort of the mega trend that underlies just about all the geopolitical tension and strife that you see in a lot of political debates and economic debates, but sort of the elephant in the room that people don't talk about. Well, maybe we do need to talk about it. Patching the tax code may not get us there. We might need a radical overhaul of some sort looking to a future where you have 80% unemployment. But what does that mean? The whole concept of unemployment may need to change. We've already spent much of our time online editing things, contributing to the collective information and resources on the web, and we don't get paid for that. That's not a job. Many of the people in this room probably don't think of much of what excites you as your job. And lastly, I want to share one last specific idea. It was something I thought was going to be a business that I might want to pursue, and I still do. But perhaps it's better as an X-Price to sort of rejigger people's thinking in a bold way or to get out of a market failure of sorts. And that is, if you think about a future where you don't need to work, what does that look like? And the only thing you want to guarantee is that as you lift the bottom of the pyramid for all but transform it into a spike, where the American dream starts to feel like a lottery, that you don't leave 99% of people fearing for their lives. So the bottom of the Maslow's higher care needs, food, shelter, clothing, and health care, access to education, you want that to be available for free for everyone forever. I think in an age of abundance, physical things would cost a dollar a pound. So the food, shelter, clothing, I think is being handled, the MOOCs are dealing with education, we need something in health care beyond the tricorder prize. We need someone to figure out how to provide free health care forever and make that work. And I think, and this could be a brainstorming session offline, that can be done. There could be a prize that shows how you can achieve that and yet have a business and or self-sustaining mechanism be it a non-profit to make that possible using big data, contributing information over phones initially just with text and AI and a non-human solution set deployed as a service globally to help provide human health for the vast majority of illnesses and conditions that exist in developing world and the developed world. And it eventually would, within a few months, outperform, if it could get started, all existing medical information systems because it would have more data than everyone else on where things have outbreaks, what you do, and what actually works in real data across millions and eventually billions of people. So I just give that as one example of something that may seem interesting on its own. But if you think about it, we should pour a gap, someone has to solve that problem if we're going to have a peaceful transition to the world of abundance that Peter D. Mendez describes in his book. Thank you.