 Well, ladies and gentlemen, we'll get started. It's almost six o'clock. Now, I've heard some of the rumors today about who the mystery guest might be. And I have to disabuse you of the idea that it was either Ron Paul or Tom Woods. I know we both heard both of those gentlemen speak many, many times. And this gentleman is, in many ways, more interesting, although perhaps not as well known to all of you. And he was originally going to be here in person, unfortunately, being a business person and a very busy entrepreneur. Things changed. And he will instead join us on a miracle known as Skype. Ladies and gentlemen, Patrick Byrne, CEO and founder of Overstock.com. Now, Patrick, we're not going to embarrass you, but we are going to read a little bit of a biographical sketch for some of the young people in our audience who might not be as familiar with you as we are. As I mentioned, he's both the chairman and founder of a wildly successful tech company known as Overstock.com. But he is in no way, shape, or form your average tech entrepreneur. He doesn't come from a Silicon Valley background or a Wharton Harvard MBA-type background, although he does have whole degrees from Dartmouth, from Cambridge, and just this little PhD thing from Stanford. But instead of studying Econ or obtaining an MBA, he studied philosophy and mathematics. He has a varied interest. He's very much a Renaissance man. He is involved in martial arts and is at one time, I don't know if still, involved with boxing, very interested in Eastern philosophy. And in his business life, he has really applied Austrian economics across the board, and in particular, some of Hayek's thoughts on the use of knowledge. And he gave a terrific talk at our research conference earlier this year in March on how he applied Hayek's understanding of what we don't understand in his own life and work. One of the most interesting things about Patrick is somehow, in a fair time, he runs a website called Deep Capture. And on this website, he effectively operates as an investigative journalist looking into some of the less salutary practices of Wall Street. And one of the most interesting things about Patrick Burns, from my perspective, is his audacious plan and idea behind using blockchain technology to completely revolutionize capital markets and the way you and I invest in stock or bonds and the way companies raise money by using blockchain technology to eliminate the middleman and allow peer-to-peer lending, in effect, which would be an upending of the capital markets to put it mildly. So with that, Patrick agreed to talk to us very briefly. And then I hope that we all have some great questions for him. So again, Patrick, thanks so much for joining us. What an honor. What an overage generous introduction. I hope you can forgive me for not being with you in person. I'm up my 83-year-old mother and lives in New Hampshire. And I wanted to come see her. She was widowed two years ago. So I had to be here with her today. It's truly a great honor to speak to you. I cannot, and I really do want to leave almost this whole 45 minutes for questions. I can give you a lecture on philosophy, but you're at the Mises Institute. You're getting the lectures already, and you're getting the truth already. Licent, it's not about giving her orders. It's also about information costs. The costs of centralizing information are higher than people understand until they have worked in actual organizations that have missions like fighting a war or making a profit. And what you find is that the Dilbert cartoons are quite correct. And if there's one book I can recommend beyond all the books you're being exposed to there, it is a book by Thomas Sowell. Actually, two books, A Conflict of Visions, and another book called The Knowledge and Decisions. Thomas Sowell was himself extremely influenced by a 1943 article by Friedrich Hayek called The Use of Knowledge in Society, which also influenced me. And when you understand the thoughts in there, you realize that the costs of centralizing information are much higher than people understand. And if their mental picture of the world is like the Dilbert picture with the pointy hair, they tend to favor institutions where knowledge comes from the knowledge frontier is move some central office, the pointy hair people sit and think cogitate, and they push stupid orders back to the frontier. And that pretty much describes the way collectivists want to organize the world. They don't want there to be peer-to-peer consent. They think they can save a bunch of time and costs if everything can be centralized. And you can get your mind over that hurdle. And really, the people who got it all were Hayek, and especially this 1943 article by Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society. And that and Sowell have driven the world view, whether we're talking about business or social matter. Life is all about avoiding the costs of centralizing information to some higher power who then spits orders out. So in a nutshell, that's my philosophy. And I'd love to talk about anything from business to politics to the crypto revolution is basically the whole card for we liberals. We've been fighting these guys for 500 years. We finally got the bomb. And the bomb is the blockchain, the crypto technology that underlies Bitcoin and other things that are going to be that are being built. And I'm building some of them. You're going to see in, I'll put it this way, unlike Al Gore, I was not around quite for the beginning of the internet. But I was around close to the beginning. And we knew that the internet was going to be like the Gutenberg Bible. But those of us who are involved in Bitcoin already and this crypto revolution see this as bigger than the internet. And it's going to be more disruptive internet itself ones. I'll stop there and take questions. I think I see a new rock. Is that you, Mr. Ryup? Hello, nice to see you again, sir. Thank you for inviting me. And I'd love to take questions on any subject. Well, Patrick, since we've had a lot of academic talk this week, why don't we start with a talk with a question from me that's a little less academic and a little more real world for our students here. Can understanding Austrian economics make one rich? Well, you know, but it has sure been a big help. This has certainly been a big help. Because it will keep you from making bad decisions. Austrian economics can help you because it will keep you from making big mistakes. It is what it will do. And those are mistakes dealing with how you organize companies, how you organize work in a company. OK, with that, Thao has a microphone so he can go around. It's very important that we use the mic so that Mr. Byrne can hear us. So do we have an opening question for him? We've got some hands in the air. This gentleman in the red tie. Good evening, sir. What are some of your concerns regarding Wall Street then? Well, my biggest concern for 10 years has been something called regulatory capture, which is based on an article from 1971 by George Stigler. And the truth is you can tell history of this country as a history of competition between two power centers, Wall Street and Washington. And what has happened is Wall Street has gotten Washington under its thumb. Milton Friedman said, if socialism comes to this country, it's not going to come in from the left. It's going to come in from a bunch of businessmen who bring it in through crony capitalism. Well, that's happened. That's what's happened. And these guys are practicing something called a control fraud. And every seven or eight years, they have to be bailed out. Happened in 1981, happened in 1987, 88. Happened in 1997 with Russia. Happened in 2001. Happened in 2008. And one way or another, they're getting bailed out on your credit card. And that a control fraud, when you hire me to run something and you hire me to run your sandwich shop and I loot the sandwich shop, and then it bankrupt, and I just turn it back over to you. Well, Wall Street historically had a put where basically about half the money that half the profits that get generated on Wall Street get drained out through bonuses. And if I told you, I'll back you to go to Las Vegas and you gamble at anything you want. And if you lose, I'll pick up the cost. And if you win, I'll split the profits with you. Are you going to go and play the dollar slot machines or are you going to play $30,000 a hand backer app? You're going to play $30,000 a hand backer app. Well, the same principle applies on Wall Street. Given that society has given them this right to take risks and when they win, they keep half. And when they lose, you pick up on your credit card, they're just doing what's rational. And the way to take risk out of the system is to take away that social backstop that Wall Street enjoys. And everything that happened in 2008 was the order of course. It was just the order of course. Something bigger and uglier is coming. And all they're doing is reflating a bubble to delay it. There's been nothing fixed. Hi, my name is David. You have a bachelor's in Asian studies. What do you feel the East is doing better than the West? And what are we getting wrong that they are getting right? Great question. That's maybe one of the best questions I think I've ever gotten in a talk. No, I think that life, the two propellers on the ship of civilization are how we form human capital and how we marry human capital and financial capital. How you form human capital is education. The two civilizations that have that the best are Judaism and Confucianism. And the reason that those civilizations have been so successful and are so successful when they come here is because of their commitment to formation of human capital. And in the case of Judaism, there is one very good explanation. Well, there's a lot to explain why. But especially if you're being run around Europe for centuries, you don't want to invest in anything that the Cossacks can take away from you. You want to, well, if you become a landowner, if you become a factory owner or something, they can take it away from you. But if you invest in human capital, they can't take it away from you. So there's been this wonderful tradition. The Judaic tradition is education is such a part of it. The same is true of Confucianism. And they are so serious about education that I think that is their great advantage. It's not their social organization. It's not the Communist Party of China. It's none of that. It's that they are very good at formation of human capital. And what finally happened in the last two decades is the government got out of the way. And so they're having this great boom. By the way, just as a business student, we are used to hear a lot of theory and how to run a business. But I believe I learned more, listened to you for 20 minutes when you had your first talk at Mises and how you do with your employees and how they have a voice in your business. I wonder if you could explain a little bit, like again, how you make your decisions and how you listen, because most of the time, most of the business is more like a dictatorship or more of 51% want this. This is what we're going to do. And I think you have pretty much the perfect model. Thank you. I know the last thing I want to be is the Dilbert manager who sits in the corner and thinks he has all the answers. I know the smart people are on the front lines, the smart people with the ideas, the smart people who understand the marketplace and the customer. So my job is building institutions that lets that distributed intelligence express itself. So I have built various mechanisms that let innovation come from the front line, from customer agents, from people in marketing and so forth. The early days of the company, frankly, I did have to have the good ideas. I had to do the business plan. I had to do a lot of work. Now I'm like a constitutionalist. I just design the institutions that let the distributed knowledge that's latent throughout the 2000 colleagues get expressed so they can have the good ideas. They can comment and vote on each other's ideas. The better ideas bubble up through these systems. That's what sets the direction of the company. By and large, I don't have to even work anymore. I'm like a constitutional monarch. I get to watch, I just came back weeks surfing in Malibu. I mean, I get to, for the first time I'm actually enjoying my life in about 15 years because these terrific mechanisms are now in place for people to innovate without me. It's not me telling them what to do. It's them bubbling up these ideas and those very formal systems within the company now that let them do that and promote ideas. We're basically crowdsourcing the innovation. We built a system to crowdsource innovation. And believe me, they are much collectively, the wisdom of crowds is far smarter, certainly than I'm ever going to be and more consistently intelligent than anybody I know. It still needs, at this point, a monarch to sit in the back and once in a while say, you know, I think you got that wrong. I'm going to veto you. And I know something you don't. And it's just the nature of various things that I sometimes do know things that the mass don't. Because for legal reasons or whatever, they can't be told. So once in a while, I have to nudge my society of 2000 colleagues. But for the most part, I can now just let it run. And I just have to give them what they need and they get smarter and smarter and do more and more. Hi there, could you give a little more detail as to one of those mechanisms inside your company and how it works and how that differs from mechanisms in a more orthodox company and how they use information internally? Yes, well, there's a field that evolved in the last seven years called Enterprise 2.0. I highly suggest you study it. And there's a book called Enterprise 2.0. It's also just called E2.0. And the idea is online technology that lets people keep an organization flat without hierarchy. Because when you get hierarchy, you get Dilbert managers. Flat and people collaborate through technology. Very simple example is Wikipedia. But there are other, if you wanna get sort of on the leading edge of something that has not taken over America, corporate America yet, but will, I really suggest you write this down. Look into a field called idea management, idea management. And it is online systems that let people propose, it's, think of it as a super sophisticated suggestion box. But it goes beyond suggestions. People, a suggestion box, people write their suggestions and it goes into a box and the pointy hair Dilbert manager reads them and decides what to do. That's not idea management. Idea management is people are making suggestions but they're seeing each other's suggestions. And they're working to develop each other's suggestions like you would work together on a wiki and people vote each other's suggestions up and down. And then you can even, so suppose 200 ideas get proposed over a six month period through this system, I let the crowd figure out, let's say the best 10. And then I take those 10 and I say, okay, now you the crowd, you rank these, you tell me which are best and which we should do first and which I should put capital in. And they do that. Well, I'll give you another example. So can you hear me okay? Oh, by the way, it seems to be a better connection. Yes, we can hear you great. For some reason, when I move my mouse, there's probably some propeller head in the crowd who can explain why, but when I move my mouse constantly it keeps you folks from freezing. Here's another example. At the end of last year, I knew I wanted to give my colleagues a $4 million raise. The base pay was $80 million. I say, okay, here's a $4 million raise, how do you want it? People proposed about 20 years, improve our 401k from 50% matching to 100% matching. Oh, we want bigger bonuses or oh, we want just raises in the pay or oh, we want daycare, et cetera, et cetera. So they proposed 20 ideas. I gave them to the accounting department to price out what each one would cost. Then we came okay to improve the 401k matching cost $830,000. And this is that we put a price tag on each one. Then I gave them back to the 2,000 employee colleagues and I said, you vote on what you want, you rank them. So then they ranked them and we ended up with a social rank based on all the individual ranks and their voting. We ended up with a collective rank and then we just went down from the top. Okay, this one costs $300,000, this is $800,000. Until we got to $4 million, then I cut it off. I said, okay, that's what we're gonna do this year. Now, what do I care? It's the same $4 million to me, but they got to choose and I count on them to know how do you spend that $4 million to make them in aggregate best off, to most improve their wellbeing. So there's more and more decisions like that that are being made in our company, not by me, but by the people in general. And so again, what is the philosophy underlying this all? All comes from Hayek, all comes from Mises. The idea that the knowledge, the true knowledge is out there, is out there among my colleagues. It's not with me. Innovation, again, these examples of innovation. There's only so many different projects we can do in a year. Let them tell me, let them propose projects I've got the staff who can figure out what each one will cost and so on and so forth, but truth is, I don't know which is gonna work. I don't know what projects are gonna work and what are not. And so, I mean, I have my own guesses, and like, but I have found when I turn that over to the group, the result is more intelligent than the executive team can do. It's more intelligent that I can do by myself. And like I say, I keep the constitutional right to Trump when I need to Trump, but I would say that 95% of that decision-making is now being pushed out to the crowd. And while that may sound collectivist to you, it's not collective. It's not collectivist in any sense. It's very much, in my view, a proof of this concept of Hayek and Mises and Thomas Sowell, that the real information doesn't sit in my corner. It doesn't sit with one small group of elites. It is scattered, it's latent knowledge that is scattered throughout the system. And you have to have mechanisms. You have to think of mechanisms that can liberate that rather than think you're gonna be the smartest guy in the corner who knows more than everybody. Hello. My question is, what if you were in the opposite shoes of what you're in now? Say you were a middle manager or not an executive and you want to drive some of these change ideas that you have had success implementing. How would you do so? I would understand really that the people, if I'm a middle manager, I've got some set of people who report to me. And I would think very much in terms of not being authoritarian with them, but how to have the relationships and to lead them in a way that their good ideas can be useful, can be useful to the comfort, can be, how do I liberate the good ideas of the people who report to me? And I can tell you, this is a really key point. In the new world, everything is organized in terms of teams. It's all about teams. Google, Apple, Amazon, everybody works now. The old image of a corporation, of a bunch of chimneys with bosses at the top is not how leading edge corporations are organized anymore, because we suffer this problem of central planning. What these companies do is they organize their work as much as possible into teams. And the teams, they call them at Google, I think they call them pizza teams, because you don't want a team that's bigger, a large pizza can serve. The reason is that once you get, and that's about six people, once you get more than six people on a team, you get both free writing behavior, and you get these problems of the costs of centralizing information. So if you wanna be prepared to work in entrepreneurial leading edge companies, you gotta understand that your work is going to be organized in this way. And you wanna get on those teams. And the truth is these companies, yes, they always have the part of the company that's the old fashioned, normal way of organization, but the leading edge, the innovation is always done within these teams, always. Everybody has gone to this model in Silicon Valley, because it's so much better. What that means is the skill set that is in shortest demand that people like me are always looking for are people who can lead a small team. And it's harder to lead a small team successfully than you might imagine. The first step in leading, being able to be a good team leader is being able to be a good team member. You're not able to be a good team member, you won't be a good team leader. And so there's a set of things that make you a good team member. And you know, those things are, they're the things that your grandpa taught you at the hardware store or whatever. They're things like showing up on time and doing what you say you're going to do and always doing your share of the work and a little bit more and things like that. And believe me, that is what, hey, that's in quite short supply. Somebody who has, I mean, a simple word for that is character. Part of his character, it's in short supply. Secondly, it's what will make you stand out. It's what will make you stand out is having that set of characteristics. Is what makes you stand out, lets you be a good team member and lets you get selected to be a good team leader. And once you're a good team leader, you never forget the people who got you there and you understand that it's the people under you. It's the people who report to you that you're supposed to be leading actually are the ones with the knowledge and it's looking to them. If you're trying to figure it all out by yourself and believe me, there are times in my career where I've had to figure it all out by myself. Life's tough. You want, so it's about being a good team leader and that comes with being a good team member and being able to listen and look for ideas among the people you work with. I was really hoping you could briefly elaborate for us some of the technical details of how the blockchain can replace Wall Street and the nature of the obstacles that are in the way of this 21st century revolution in capital markets. That's a great question. The way I think of it, and this is why the blockchain is, I'm not even sure in our movement and our pro-freedom movement, people are really understanding at the significance of the blockchain. There was, if you Google my name and Wired magazine, you'll see a number of articles where I explain this, but the real article you should look at just came out a few weeks ago and it's in Politico. So if you Google my name and Politico, you will see this article. I'm just about three or four weeks old. I'm told it was being read and talked about all over Capitol Hill that there were senators walking around quoting this article to each other for a couple of days. Here's the key and this journalist, first journalist outside of Wired who got the philosophical significance. So here's the point. For 6,000 years, we've always faced this choice. If we wanna have consensual exchange, there's always a question of trust. Trust. If I want to sell you my camel and you're gonna give me a gold coin, I have to know, can I trust that you did not debase this coin? So they're a business model. A business model of whoever has the monopoly on violence in some area can monetize that by saying I will print gold, I will mint gold coins and put my face on them. And if anybody tries to debase that coin, I kill them. That's just a business model. It's a way to monopoly, it's a way to monetize my monopoly on violence. Now we happen to call that business model a government. Now it's just a business model. There's other, so the point is, do we have consensual exchange, or do we pick some central institution that you and I don't need to trust each other? We all just need to trust it. And if we each just trust it, it facilitates our exchange. So there's one that's like, I could sell you a piece of land that I'm sitting on and I could say, this piece of paper means you own this piece of land. You don't know whether to trust me or not. So we invented this institution called a land titling office that says, let's just put the, you don't trust me, I don't trust you. There's one office that keeps all these pieces of paper and that's how we control things like the transfer of land. Again, the central institution has created to solve this problem of trust. On Wall Street, when you see a movie, you know that behind the scenes, there were grips and gaffers and lighters, little people who do the lighting. You're not aware of them. You're just watching a movie. Well, similarly on Wall Street, when you buy some stock, you may, you know, you type it into your E-Trade account, your E-Trade account gives you some shows, you got some stock. You know that there's something going on behind the scenes and you almost certainly don't know what, but you assume there's some plumbing that is making all that work. That plumbing works a lot differently than you think it does. It turns out there are central insta, there's a central institutions that got created in the 1970s, all with allegedly the purpose of of accomplishing that that's called settlement and accomplishing settlement. What happened is, even when I was a child, if you went to Wall Street, there were people called stock joggers who were running around Wall Street with sacks of stock, so as sacks of certificates, so as people traded, as the brokers traded, there were these guys on bicycles who ran up and down Wall Street with sacks of stock certificates. In the 1960s, those, the guys on, the volume quadrupled in the 1960s and the guys on bicycles couldn't keep up anymore. So they created a system that you can't believe. It's called, and I won't go into the details. If you want the details, look it up on Decapture or some of my other talks. They created some centralized counterparty clearing and what it means is throughout the stock settlement system, throughout the capital markets, there is fractional reserve banking going on without a reserve requirement. That's what happened and it gets very, very technical to explain over a Skype connection. But what it means is as of the, as of 2008, it was quite possible that Merrill Lynch was sending you a certain, a statement at the end of the month saying you own 100 shares of IBM and they were sending someone else a statement saying you own 100 shares of someone else's statement but back at Merrill Lynch, they only had 100 shares. They were telling five different people they owned it. On most days, that won't make a difference but deep down, that's a big game of fractional reserve banking. And what it really, what was really happening was there are ways that the system was getting looted, just absolutely looted. And everything was being made fungible and so forth and the system was being looted. And just like if somebody practiced fractional reserve banking without telling anyone and you're depositing your goal, someone could loop that vault for a long time before the vault, before people start realizing it. That happens whenever you have central institutions, I think you get ways that things that can be looted but with the blockchain, this is why the blockchain is sort of maybe the most revolutionary thing in 5,000 years because for the first time in our history we can have consensual peer-to-peer exchange where trust is not an issue. So think about that, for 5,000 or 6,000 years we've always had to have central institutions to facilitate our exchange because we can't trust each other. I mean, we can trust each other, but we don't need those central institutions anymore. Well, a whole bunch of those central institutions are corporate or things like a central bank, but a whole bunch of them are government too. There's a bunch of offices of government that are really deep down just filling that business model and suddenly we can disrupt it. And what's amazing is we don't need anyone's permission. We really don't need anyone's permission, it's so crazy. And I swear the first mainstream journalist who finally got this was just a few weeks ago in Politico.com and he wrote, forget Bitcoin, this is going to disrupt history and he wasn't exaggerating. This thing is gonna disrupt history and how I see it is like we've been in a fight, the people who are about consent, which are liberals, us, we've been in a fight with authoritarianism, one flavor or another for 500 years, whether the authoritarianism be socialism or fascism or social, social, social justiceism or what I call social fascism or so on and so forth. We've been in this fight and in this fight, our side just got the bomb. We have the bomb, we now have a technology that lets us have consensual exchange, not needing central institutions to keep everything honest. And since I understand why central institutions have been created for centuries because you actually do need in many kinds of exchange, you do need some central institution to make sure people when they transfer a piece to land, they really do own the piece of land and such, all that can be reduced now to the blockchain. I've been out in a company in Silicon Valley on and off for six months that have 160 projects on a big board about what they're going to disrupt. And so Bitcoin is just the beginning. Bitcoin disrupts fraction reserve banking and central banking. How about land and tidal land? We can replace all the land titling systems in the world with an open free blockchain based public ledger, a public ledger of land that control, that governs land transfer. Just that function alone, you know how much government is actually involved around the world in that function? There's a wonderful book by Hernando De Soto called The Mystery of Capital, which is about, he believes capital really forms once you have good land titling. And he documents in places like Peru and Haiti for people to get title. They may have been living generations on one piece of land. And yet if they try to get a title to it, it takes them 20 years and 200 stamps from 200 petty bureaucrats along the way. And as I assume everyone understands, if you're grown up, anywhere those petty bureaucrats exist, they want to pay off. So it takes in Haiti, it takes like 35 years to get title to a piece of land that your great grandfather may have lived on and your grandfather and your father and you, still takes 35 years and 200 little payoffs. Well, you can do all that now in the blockchain. You can do all kinds of things on Wall Street now that are done by great big corporations that are all extracting a little rent that's along the way can be done now for free within the blockchain. And that's what I'm focusing on. And there's 160 of these functions that have been thought of that can be disrupted. And like I say, some of those functions are being done now by people in three piece suits in Wall Street. Some of those functions are being done by guys in two piece suits in Washington. Some of those functions are being done by guys in black robes behind benches. Some of those functions are being done by guys with badges and guns. Suddenly all these, all these, the work of these central institutions that are ultimately about enforcing the rules of our consensual exchange can be turned into buggy with manufacturers. We don't need them. And as I said in this political.com article, we've got to remember that these central institutions didn't come out of a burning bush. They're not things, I mean, we tend to reify. They need to think, well, it's gotta be or not we, but people often think that it has to be that way. Doesn't have to be that. They're just things we created. We don't work for them. They want us to think we work for them. We created them in order for us to be able to do this, this exchange we want to do. Suddenly we don't need them anymore. And you know what? In the last month or two, they got the joke. They have gotten the joke. The CEO of J.P. Morgan, a real schmuck named Jamie Dimon. He wrote a letter to shareholders in April that basically freaked out. He told his shareholders Silicon Valley is coming to eat Wall Street's lunch. Since he did that, everybody on Wall Street in the last three months, every day it seems there's another announcement of another corporation of UBS, of NASDAQ, of New York Stock Exchange, of Credit Suisse, of J.P. Morgan, of Morgan Stanley, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Everybody's saying, oh my gosh, we're forming our own group to study this and get involved in this and stuff. Well, a year and a half ago, we started on it. We've been very aggressive about protecting our intellectual property, about developing and patenting. And what people are learning really in the last few weeks is how far ahead we are. But anyway, the point is I'm not doing this because I want to create a new monopoly. I want to create a bomb that through which we can use to blow up. These central institutions, you know, Wall Street collects 40% of the profits made in corporate America. It's made on Wall Street. We used to laugh at the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union had 20% of their people involved in planning. 20% of the workforce was involved in planning what the other 80% did. Well, we're now paying 40% of all the profits of corporate America are going to the guys who move the capital around. And believe me, they don't deserve anything like that. They don't know what they're doing. And we're able to liberate all that, the significance of this invention. Like I said, I was around almost for the beginning of the internet. We knew the internet was going to be like the Gutenberg Bible. It was going to be so profound. But I can tell you the people who are involved in this crypto revolution all get, this is going to be more politically significant than the internet itself. Well, we are out of time. How to big round of applause and thank you for Patrick Berg. Thank you.