 Okay, let's try the next one. The government is wasteful. I mean, if you don't know this, you don't know anything, do you? I mean, everybody knows the government is wasteful and that the private sector is efficient. Barclays Bank announced 38.5 million pounds bonuses on budget day going to a fellow, one of them goes to a fellow named Rich Richie. His name really is Rich Richie, extraordinarily enough. Well, if this is not waste, what is? What is waste if it's not throwing money away on multi-million and multi-billion dollar rogues, as Gaia would put it. But those are the easy things. Those are the easy things to dismiss and to ridicule and to criticize. Let's move to something that's a bit more difficult. The competition fairy. Competition is good, right? We should be fostering competition. The problem with, if you overpay at the supermarket, the problem is we need more supermarkets. If you go along to your local shop and things are too expensive, then it's because there's only the one shop and they're taking advantage of you. So if we just had more competition, and in fact, Ed Miliband has said the problem with the financial sector is that doesn't have enough competition. We need more banks. We need to break the banks up. They need to be smaller. And that will reduce the scope of the problem. So the banks caused the great financial crisis of 2008. So what is the solution? Wait for it, more banks. So the banks were the ones that brought us all down and caused millions and millions of unemployed. And the solution that we've got to that terrible problem is let's get more banks in there. No, no, that is not the solution to the problem. The problem is that without public regulation on private wealth, the strong devour the weak. That is the problem. That is the law of markets. The banks are the clearest example. More competition in banks. Why did the Icelandic, entire Icelandic financial system collapse? Well, you won't find out by reading the report from a former colleague of mine at Birkbeck College named Richard Portis because a month before they collapsed, he wrote a report that said that they were sound as a dollar and which I guess might have been a bad choice of words. And that he completely endorsed them and he was paid a modest $125,000 for that report. The Icelandic banks were paying interest rates higher than banks in Britain. Now, how did they do that? Think about it for a minute. You go along and you're fishing around, you've got to know 100 pounds, 1,000 pounds to put it into a bank and the before interest rates dropped so low in one place you get 4%, in another place you get 4.2% and then you look, here's the place, it'll give you 6%. You can't raise productivity in banking. You can't raise productivity in the financial sector. They try and try. Okay, that's how you cut prices in other industries. You raise productivity. What do you do if you can't raise productivity? You have two choices. Either you're reckless and legal or you're reckless and criminal. And the Icelandic banks did, as they were reckless and legal, they made reckless investments that yielded returns more than other banks and sooner or later, those investments were gonna go bust and that's exactly what happened. But fraud itself, criminality, is the logical extension of the pressure of competition. The pressure of competition is not a benign thing when unregulated. It drives companies to do reckless, fraudulent criminal acts as a subprime crisis showed in the United States. Markets are the source of, it is a market that the 1% are strong. In unregulated markets, the 1%, the wealthy, the millionaires, the billionaires, that's where their strength lies. The weak in markets are the 99%. We are the weak in markets. John Maynard Keynes left a very important message in one of his articles, which you can read. I've left out part of it. At the end, he says, the love of money will be recognized as a pathological disease which needs to be treated by psychiatrists. And when we come to the day that we recognize that, there is some hope that we can implement economics of the 99%, not the 1%. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.