 All right, a lot to talk about. So we won't have any problem balancing each other. Let me be clear, just to clarify my view, I don't believe inequality is good because it's functional or because it provides incentives. I believe inequality is good because it is just. Because inequality is what happens when you leave people free. If you look around the room, we're all different. We all have different skills, we all have different talents, we all have different incentives, different motivations. Some of us work really, really hard and we get really great grades, some of us cruise a little bit in college. Would you want to give the people who cruise a little bit in college the same grades as those who work really hard and get straight A's? Do you want to give everybody A's even when some people are smart and some people are not so smart? The reality is we're not all equally smart. So inequality is a reflection of our metaphysical nature. It's a reflection of who we are and what we are. It's a reflection of our morality. The fact is we're unequal. Now, some of us even make choices not to be rich, like anybody who's chosen to be a university professor. Right? University professors, particularly- You're already rich, I don't know that. Some might be rich, some of us are not. We're not rich when we started. University professors don't make a lot of money, but they're really smart. They have high IQs. And they could have probably gone, we could have probably gone to Wall Street or somewhere else and made quite a bit of money. Economics, finance, we know math, we can do this stuff, right? But we chose to be teachers because we love, hopefully, I hope this is true of most professors, we love teaching, or we love research. We love the intellectual engagement. And we're willing to give up some money in order to do the fun stuff that we love. Life is not about money, but life is about inequality. Everywhere you look, there's inequality. It's who and what we are as a species, we're different. And if you leave us free, if you leave us free, then we're gonna have different outcomes. So to me, inequality is a feature of freedom. That's why I love it. It's not a bug, to use tech terms, right? It's not a bug of freedom, it's a feature of freedom. Because I love freedom, and that's my key. I love freedom. I don't want people taking my stuff away from me in the name of some morality that they decide is good for me. I wanna be free, and when you leave people free in any society, what you get is inequality. Now let me just address, so that's my moral point. My moral point is because I love individual freedom, because I believe individual freedom is the moral base. That's why I like inequality. Because it's the obvious necessary outcome of leaving people free. Okay, let's get a little bit of economics. What about these correlations? Well, look at the studies. Yes, Zimbabwe has very high inequality and has horrible health outcomes. By the way, how you measure health outcomes is very distorted, and what we're not gonna do a debate hopefully on healthcare, although we could. The United States might have lower life expectancy for a variety of reasons, but if you have cancer, or if you have heart disease, there is no better place in the world because survivability rates for cancer and heart disease in the United States are far higher than anywhere else in the world, far higher, not even close. So the reasons why life expectancy is not, we don't match other countries in life expectancy. But these correlation studies, and it is, it's correlation is not causality, but more than that, it's if you look at the studies and look how they group countries that are unequal and countries that are equal and what they're actually grouping around. They're very dubious. We can talk a lot about monopolies. I would love to stand here and defend Bill Gates. I have no problem, by the way, in a free market of somebody having a very large percentage of the market. I don't think that's an economic problem. I don't think in history we've seen economic problems in a relative free market come out of so-called monopolies. Corporation, I'll end with this. Yes, I love corporations. Capitalism is a system of cooperation. It's not the system of competition. The essential characteristic of capitalism is cooperation. You cooperate with cooperation within a company, but think about, you know who makes some of the stuff in this? This is an apple, by the way. You know who makes some of the stuff in this? Samsung. So they compete? It's good it's flow. It's good it's flow. Apple has protected us in the closing parts of the Samsung. Companies cooperate much more than they actually compete. The essence and the cooperation goes across with customers, suppliers, every way. The essential characteristic of capitalism is voluntary win-win cooperation. I'm out of time. Perfect. Good job. So, let's go back to the song. I'm kind of tendency to think of these things in more quantitative function of the student sort of ways of looking at it. Yaron comes from a libertarian sort of philosophy and I suppose he tends to think in terms of issues of ethics. So that's what you're referring to, and fairness and freedom. So I'll engage a little bit on that, but that's certainly not what I think is the most relevant issue in the discussion of, but it's fair enough, it's in the question there, it's in equality fair. It's a complex question. So a few years back there was a study of captured monkeys. And they had to exchange your rock for a cucumber or a grape. And these are monkeys, not even apes. And the one monkey that kept giving the trainer a rock and got a cucumber after twice of this happening, he gets pissed off and throws the cucumber. He went, all right, he's not stupid. There is an intrinsically unfair exchange that the monkey's capable of understanding. So I think you said that inequality is a feature of the species. So I'm assuming, you're setting the quality, and the difference, but not fair enough. And it's an intrinsic question of our morality, I think you said. So that will make us less than the captured monkeys. From what I understand, we evolved to have a sense of fairness. And I think when they teach political economy in this university, they teach about an experiment, which I forget the name, it's an experiment in which basically they give you $100 for one person, they have to give you the $100 and they make, it's a little game and they make a decision on how much money they give you back. And the notion is that they're not close to 50%, there's extensive studies of this. The old main of game. The old main of game. So somebody was paying attention in that class. And so good for you. So the middle game suggests that we are hardwired to think in terms of fairness. And the fairness is, it's not the fairness you suggest, the fairness of inequality is good, it's the fairness of some degree of equality is a good thing. And which again goes to the notion that, because we live in hunter-gatherer societies for millennia before we came down, right after we came down from the trees. And so that means that we are probably hardwired to think in terms of fairness and that kind of inequality. So when I think of fairness and freedom, freedom is another word that you used. And I have some time. So, and that comes very often in terms of the discussions, for example, of free trade, which I think it's a terrible misnomer. People that think about free trade, and I don't know your positions maybe are very radical in terms of this, but people that are in favor of free trade, they don't necessarily, they're not often against, you know, saying, look, we are gonna decide that you cannot sell us poison. So there is a minimum of regulation that says, you know, the things that are gonna be sold in the market have to have some minimum standards. And that's already managed trade. So we're deciding that for future sanitary rules we're managing trade, which seems to be a reasonable thing to do. So the question we're discussing really is where do you draw the line, you see? So obviously there is an issue of how much equality you want and how much inequality you want, which seems more reasonable debate from my point of view than how much inequality is fair and how much it can hurt. And again, it goes to the issue of causality. I think we go back to those issues that, you know, you sort of wave and dismiss the data set, you know, all the data, you know, it's correlation not causality, forget all of those studies. And there is a lot of problems with studies that's, you know, it's obviously true. But the correlations that I'm suggesting are fairly strong. And, you know, again, and indicate, for example, think of this, let's forget Zimbabwe, which is probably, you know, an outlier anyways and the U.S. is an outlier. But let's think globally. What's the period, you guys know what's the period in the whole history of humanity that we grew faster? It's a period called the Golden Age of Capitalism. So it's a period from the mid 40s to the early 70s. That's also the period in which the welfare state bloomed. So we had more government spending, significant redistribution policies in terms of health, social security, and so on and so forth. And yet, we didn't have a problem in terms of, and I'm precise at five minutes. All right, well, we're still going? So there's a lot there. I don't believe fairness is hard-wired. I believe people's attitudes towards fairness change all the time. And indeed, attitudes towards fairness in Europe are very different than attitudes towards fairness in the United States. A very different attitude towards fairness, I suspect. I don't know this in Latin America, but certainly in Europe, about fairness. Attitudes in Europe and the United States, attitudes towards fairness are very different. And attitudes towards fairness in the United States have changed over time. When surveys were done 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 100 years ago, asking questions about what other people made, people tended to have the attitude, I don't care, or good for them to be enriched. We have become systematically over time more envious society. I believe that has to do with the rise of a certain philosophical attitude in this country that's more collectivistic, more egalitarian in terms of outcome. And again, we've seen this in this last election. We're both candidates, I believe, of both egalitarian and collectivistic, very collectivistic, both of them. So that we stop caring about the individualists. We're not any more individualists, which I think is the core individualist, not a sense of being on a visit either, but in a sense of primarily caring about your own well-being. We stop being a society of individualists, which was the way this country was founded, and it become a society much more like Europe, which is collectivistic group, think I care about my position within the group, rather about my position vis-a-vis relative to my talents, my abilities. I would like to see us attuning to becoming individualists instead of being servants of some collective, which psychologically, I think, distorts our perception of fairness. I am for absolute free trade. FAAD is wrong. The only role of government in my view is to protect us from fraudsters and crooks and criminals and terrorists. But to protect us, to physically protect us, yes, if you're selling poison and pretending it's food, then you should be banned, but that's not managed trade. That's just basic function of the courts and government. 40s and 70s growth, first empirically, economic growth was much faster from the Civil War till 1914 till the break of World War I than the 40s and 70s. Average growth then was higher, but 40s and 70s did not see a massive role of government in spite of the rhetoric. 40s there was a massive role of government because of the war. So a lot of money was put up. But standard of living in the United States, GDP went up during the 40s, which is bizarre. It tells you to suspect GDP numbers, but it went up dramatically during the war. Standard of living collapsed. There was no welfare state in the 40s and 50s. Remember, the welfare state is a creation of the late 1960s. It's a creation of the Johnson administration, 65 to 68. So you had Social Security, but no Medicaid, no welfare state, no massive redistribution title under welfare state. That's all Johnson's great society, 68. And guess what happens right after that? Right after that you get the 1970s, a period of stagflation, massive inflation, horrible economic growth. I always am bewildered by people who look back at the 70s and say, what a wonderful period of time for America. It was one of the most horrible periods in entire American history. It was a dark, violent, horrible era in America. This is why they were willing to elect somebody who was as radical at the time as Ronald Reagan was. It was a depressing period. I lived in the US for a little while in the mid-70s. Wouldn't want to go back then in any respect. Then New York was a dump. Nobody went out at night because it was dangerous. The economy was in a tank. American corporations were losing business in mass in those days to the Japanese. Of course, we demonized the Japanese in those days. We wouldn't let them buy assets in the United States. They were the bad guys, trade barriers. Ronald Reagan passed the number of trade barriers against the Japanese to protect our industries. Now we're doing the same thing to Chinese. They are overpaying for our real estate just like the Japanese overpaid for their our real estate back then. There's nothing about the 1970s to glorify, really nothing, except the music. Music was the best. Popular music was very good in the 70s. So, modeling. Hopefully not disco. No, no, not disco. No, but yeah, yeah, then I correct myself. Not disco, not disco. But hey, we had Pink Floyd. Yeah, that was good, it was good. It was good to be in the 70s. Pump was awful. Off topic, all right. So, if you really want economic growth, a formula simple, it's cut government. Reduce government spending, reduce government regulation, reduce taxation, particularly taxation that is attempting to manipulate. That it is attempting to give favors to some at the expense of others. Which is what Reagan did, tried to do in his tax simplification act. It wasn't that simple, but he tried to do that. All right, so if you want real economic growth, every country that's deregulated cut taxes has done very, very well.