 Hi, everybody. Hello to you on the live stream. You'd think you'd be sick of me by now, the third night in a row. So why don't we learn? Why don't we learn? It seems like every time there's economic crisis, in American history, we respond in similar ways. They fail. They don't actually produce the results the economists predict. And we come out of the crisis somehow, but it's not linked to what government is doing. And yet, every time there's another financial crisis, another economic crisis, we try it all again, hoping that this time it'll actually work. And we're really literally experiencing this phenomenon on an almost daily basis in the United States today. So QE1 didn't work, so let's try QE2 and make it bigger. And they don't want to admit they're doing QE3, but they're kind of doing QE3 right now. And they might even announce a QE3 any day now. So it didn't work once. It didn't work twice, maybe a third time it would work. In 2008, as the economy spiraling out of control, government decided to stimulate the economy. So there was the Bush stimulus package. People forget about Bush's stimulus package because it was small. It was only $300 billion. And we don't even pay attention if it's less than a trillion these days, right? It didn't do anything. From what we can tell, it had no positive impact on the economy. One could argue it had negative impact. So Obama comes into office, so what does he do? Well, we're going to try again. But this time we're going to make it bigger. We're going to make it $900 billion. And it fails. He promised us unemployment. Below 7% by now we should be, right? We're still at 9%. So what's Obama's solution? Solution applauded by many, many, many economists. This is not like Obama's some freak of nature. Well, I mean, he is a little bit. It's not like he's a complete freak of nature, and he's advocating for something that nobody agrees with. Economists, Nobel Prize-winning economists say, no, another stimulus would be good. Now, the Republicans won't allow that, so we'll call it a jobs bill. And we'll try to pass that because the previous jobs bills worked so well. But they didn't. But the mystery is even bigger than that because it's not like we just discovered stimuli, right? I mean, we tried this in the Great Depression. All of this has been tried before. And in the Great Depression, it didn't work. So when FDR did all those projects and all that government spending unemployment in 1939 was the same as when he'd taken office. Economic growth basically had been flat for that decade. Slightly up, but basically flat. Nothing FDR did during his administration actually got the economy going. And yet, we're duplicating it. We even duplicating it, one of the first things FDR did when he got into office in 1933 and 34, was massive financial regulations, the biggest financial regulatory bills in American history, including today, so that they were huge, right? That didn't get the economy going, so this time we're going to do Dodd-Frank. Maybe that'll get the economy going. We do it over and over and over again, and we don't learn. There's no learning process. There's no identification of what works and what doesn't. And the same, it goes in another direction as well. So we observe from history that in periods where we allow for freedom, where we reduce regulations, where we reduce government involvement, where we reduce the amount of control that government has over the economy and over our lives, that economically, things get better, that economically, wealth is produced. And we know from history that as we impose new controls and more regulations and more government intervention and higher taxes, and that the economy slows down. I mean, history's quite clear. The fastest rate of economic growth in American history were produced during the freest period in American history, at least economic freedom, which was from the Civil War to World War I, even before the Civil War in the North. When you have economic freedom, wealth is created. Incomes, average incomes in the United States, doubled between 1800 and 1850, and then doubled again from 1850 to 1900. Last 20 years, average income in the United States did what? Nothing, flat to down, flat to down. And I think it's down because I think the way they calculate CPI, misrepresent the cost of living. So actual real income is actually gone down in the last two decades. Yet, do we learn from that, that, oh, freedom worked. We should have our freedom. We don't. Example after example throughout history, in economics, we do not learn. So we know what causes inflation. We think we know, right? The Fed prints a lot of money, that's been shown. When the Fed, if the Fed, if you shut down the printing presses, it's known that inflation will price inflation and bubbles go away. I mean, it's been tried in lots of countries, we've got lots of experiments going on all over the world. And what happens when you print lots of money? And what happens when you shut off the printing presses? But this time, we're gonna print lots and lots of money and there's gonna be nothing bad gonna happen, right? We're creating trillions and trillions of dollars, the Fed is, and this time, there won't be any price inflation and there won't be any bubbles and everything's fine. You know, they ran this experiment, I've got a prop, Jonathan knows these, right? I think yours is only the 10 trillion. This is the 100 trillion. This is 100 trillion dollars. This is, this, if this was real dollars, I mean, American dollars, this would be more than the entire wealth of the whole world, right? Several times over. But this is 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollars. And of course, today you can't buy anything with this because they stop printing currency completely. By the way, the economy's doing much better now that they're not printing currency. But when they were printing currency, they printed so much that they had such hyperinflation that they had to print 100 trillion dollar notes just to buy bread. I mean, it's, luckily they didn't, I think this is the largest bill that they printed. Does that, is that stopped anybody from, you know, abusing the printing process? I mean, you could all give the Germans kind of learned their lesson. For some reason, Germans seem to learn one lesson and they just learn it, right? So they're anti-inflation, they don't print money and that's part of the problem in Europe right now is because what all the countries in Europe would like to do to bail Greece and Spain out is what? Is print money. And right, use that money to buy all the bonds from Spain and Greece and everything. And the Germans are saying, no, we don't believe in printing money, but they're like the only people in the world. Certainly, Bernanke believes in printing money like crazy. And of course, he tells us this time it will be different. They always say this time it will be different and we all buy it, we buy it. Hook, line and sinker, we buy it. And yet the economic facts time and time again contradict that. So the question is, why? Why is it that we are, you know, almost destined to continuously repeat our errors over and over and over again and learn nothing in the process and just get sink deeper and deeper and deeper into the muck, which is where we're heading. And, you know, it's becoming pretty important that we figure this out because the country is in deep trouble and from a physical, macroeconomic perspective, this country is in deep, deep trouble. We've got huge quantities of debt. We have no way to pay for all the promises we've made. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, are running unfunded liabilities of between 66 to 116 trillion dollars, depending on who you read. It really depends on what your estimation of future interest rates is gonna be. But 66 to 116 trillion dollars, you can't tax that. That's bigger than that bill. We have 15 trillion dollar economy just to give you a sense, right? So our debt, our obligations, just to Medicaid, Medicaid, and Social Security is six times greater than the size of our economy. You can't ever pay that, but we've made these promises and nobody wants to admit we'll never pay them. We've made the promises. And nobody's questioning that, almost nobody. We've got just in terms of debt that we're accumulating right now and deficits that we're accumulating right now, you know, we're not that far off from Greece or won't be in a few years if you just look at the numbers. You know, in terms of percentage debt to GDP, we're just a few years away from being like the Greeks. Now, America's different than the Greek economy. We actually produce stuff. We actually create stuff. Most of Greek, you know, a huge percentage of the Greeks' population works for the government. That's not yet true in the United States. But we're moving that way. We're moving that way. So it's really important for us to figure out, well, why is it that people don't learn and what can we do to change that and what is right? What would work to get the U.S. economy moving again, to get the U.S. economy growing? So what's the problem? It's the basic E3 with people who don't, you know, who repeat mistakes. One is that they just don't know history. They just don't know. Nobody teaches them history. You talk about the Great Depression, nobody knows. I mean, people have vague notion of a dust bowl and people suffering in it. What do we teach about FDR in schools? That he was a hero. That he saved the U.S. from the Great Depression. That all his programs actually worked. So people are really, really, really ignorant. They're confused by their teachers. So they don't actually know the facts. Now, when you don't know history, you are destined to repeat it. So the first thing you have to do in order to avoid repeating mistakes is to recognize what actually happened. And none of that is happening today. We don't teach the Great Depression. We certainly don't teach the economic history of the 70s. We don't teach the economic history of that. You know, what do people think about when they think about the 19th century? I get this all the time. What's memorable about this period of industrialization in the U.S.? Child labor, right? Pollution, monopolies, rubber barons, bad stuff. So this great era of industrial production that made possible everything we have around us is taught to the kids today. And I think for a very long time, this isn't new. It was being taught for the last 20, 30, 40 years to kids. That this was an awful era. That this was a horrible time. That people suffered. That capitalism destroyed their lives. That we're still paying the price for all the evil created back then. If you saw the debate last night, that was David Callaghan's point. The 19th century was terrible. It's only when government got involved did things start getting good. Now if you learn that history, then you're going to keep repeating it. If you learn the government intervention improves things, that's the historical fact you're taught, then you're gonna advocate for more government intervention. And that's what we teach our kids. That's what we teach our kids in high schools and that's what we teach our kids in colleges. We actually start teaching them this stuff in kindergarten just to make sure that they get it. And we've repeated over and over and over and over again just to make sure. But it's really, really important. One of the only ways that we're gonna really make a dent out there in the culture is that we have to return to the facts. We have to educate people about what actually happened, what actually works and what actually doesn't work. So reason one is that people don't know history. It's the one that's easiest to fix. I mean it's hard because you need a lot of people talking about history, but history is relatively easy. Reason number two is that people don't know economics. It's complicated and it's hard to explain. So it's when Krugman who has a Nobel Prize in economics gets up and says the stimulus package didn't work because it was too small. If only we'd spent double, it would have worked. People go, well, maybe he's right. How do I know? How does this work? We don't know, right? And stimulus seems like it makes sense. We're not buying, business is not producing. Maybe if the government gave us money and we went and bought, then that would stimulate production and the economy would get going. Right, so there's kind of a logic there. We get money, we spend it. We know that when we spend money that that kind of creates jobs because people have to service, you know, create the stuff, build the stuff that we're buying and that does it, right? So at a certain level, there is logic to stimulus package. And whoever contradicts stimulus, I mean, almost nobody out there in the media says, explains why it doesn't work. Because even the Republicans who oppose stimulus packages don't get it, they have no clue. Because remember, they're the ones who fast the first stimulus package. And if they were in government right now, you think McCain wouldn't have passed the stimulus package? It might have been smaller, it might have been allocated differently, but I'll put money on it that McCain would have passed the stimulus package. I mean, who bailed out the banks? I mean, our memories are short, but it was Bush, not Obama. Lots of Republicans voted for it, including some ones that consider themselves pretty radical. So who out there is explaining that no, stimulus package don't work, why? Why don't they work? Because the money has to come from somewhere. So it's not that the government has this pool of money out of nowhere, and there's no cost they're distributing. So yes, it could print money, but if it print money and distributes it, what happens? No, ultimately, prices will go up and you'll pay for it that way, right? Our standard of living will go down because prices will go up. They might go up in certain sectors, they might go up throughout the economy, but that will distort it. It's not real production, it's just paper money, they just printed it. They could tax it, but then if they tax it, what happens? You're taking money out of the private economy and then putting it back into the private economy. So at best, at best, if there were no transaction costs and this was all seamless, you get the same thing you had before. But of course, you get a lot less. Why? Because there's all these unproductive people in the chain that siphon off money, so by the time it actually gets to people, it's a lot less. But it's also inefficiently spent because government bureaucrats are deciding on how to spend their money instead of you. So every dollar that's used to stimulate actually produces a lot less than a dollar. So they talk about the multiply effect, they're talking about, oh, every dollar produces two. Well, that's just magic. I mean, if that worked, that would be kind of cool, I guess, but it truly is magic. It's metaphysically impossible. It doesn't work that way. Every dollar taken is less, much less. It actually destroys jobs, stimulus destroys jobs. The third way they can do it, which is the most popular way today, because we don't tax, right? That's the one thing we don't do. We don't increase taxes, at least not obviously. We don't do it in subtle ways. So the third thing they do is they borrow. And borrowing's cheap and easy because the Chinese are buying it or somebody's buying it, right? And it's fairly cheap, so it seems like that's costless. It's pretty easy. We get this money that we borrow and we put it into the economy and that produces stuff, does it? Again, who lent it to us? Somebody who has dollars. We took dollars out of the private economy and put it back into the dollar economy. Nothing happened. I mean, something happened, negative. The people who have the dollars, who lent us the money, what would they have done with their dollars if they hadn't lent us their money? Invested it, spent it, done something with it. Nobody sits with dollars in their mattress, lent it to companies that actually produce stuff rather than to a government that redistributes it. So these are relatively easy concepts, but they're also complicated and it's easy if Krugman was standing here. He would poke huge holes in what I just said. He would come up with all kinds of convoluted reasons why I'm wrong and why he's right. This stuff is hard. Economics is not easy. I mean, it's not rocket science, but it's not easy. And when they print money like they are today and prices are not going up, then they say, look, there's no inflation. I'd say just wait. Or the money's going somewhere and in this case you've got bubbles in a bunch of different places like the bond market. We're just talking about shorting bonds. You didn't get that advice from me though. I don't want the SEC down my throat. So it's complicated. It's not easy. It's to explain economic phenomena, to explain economic ideas right is difficult and we have to recognize that. It's not self-evident to people that the economics of capitalism, economics of freedom, how they work and what they mean and that it actually does what it's supposed to do. And it's not obvious to them that the Keynesian economics doesn't work. Now if you really study it, it's obvious it doesn't work. It's kind of silly to even think it does work. But a lot of people are bought into that silliness and there's a lot of construction around it that makes it really difficult from most people to untangle. So you've got two reasons why people continue to do. So there's a certain legitimacy in people's minds, not in reality. In people's minds the idea that this time it's gonna be different, right? This time it's gonna be bigger. This time people will behave differently. This time the world is different than it was last time. So this time the stimulus will work this time the regulations will do what they were supposed to do. Regulations, you know, Freddie and Fanny before the crisis each had a regulatory agency just for them. One for Freddie, one for Fanny, right? And that didn't work. Every bank in the United States was regulated by five different entities, right? And that didn't work. But this time we're gonna do it just right in the incentives and get just aligned and it'll work this time we promise. And even if you believe that the regulators didn't do their job, that that's the problem, right? And there's a certain credibility to that. They certainly didn't because to some extent they are in the pockets of the industries they work for. They regulate because that's where they're gonna find their jobs later on. Why do we think next time they will do their jobs? So it's continuously this notion that it doesn't work but next time it will somehow. But you see it's complicated. So people can buy into it. And they need education. They need education in history. They need education in economics. Because once you're gonna explain economics, you know, basic economic principles, then it's not hard to see the ridiculous nature of so much of what the government is doing and so much of what the Federal Reserve is doing and so much of what economists advocate should be done. So those are two of the three problems that we face. I think they're both relatively easy. The third one is a much bigger challenge. I think the most fundamental reason people don't learn from history, they are destined to repeat mistakes, is philosophy, is their ideas. And this is not just in economics. This is not true just of macroeconomic, microeconomic policy. This is true of life. People don't learn from experience. People think that people do, but they don't. And the reason they don't is fundamentally they understand their experiences based on their ideas, based on the philosophy that they hold. And their philosophy shapes the way they interpret what happens in the world. So, and I've talked about this a lot. In ethics it's easy, right? And if you've heard my other talks about capitalism without guilt, and that's what the whole talk is about. It's about this idea that if you believe that self-sacrifice is the essence of virtue, if you believe that we're just here to serve our brother and to be our brother's keeper, then you are biased. You're going to be biased that every time you see somebody pursuing profit, every time you're gonna see somebody pursuing their own self-interest, you're gonna be biased to think there's something bad about them. That something they're doing is corrupt and evil. That something that they're doing is causing problems. And you're gonna reinterpret history just like the left does and to some extent, right? Reinterpret history to see those things happening throughout. It's always gonna be about greed, about profit, about businessmen out of control. And the explanation is that, yeah, we could get rid of financial crisis and economic crisis. If only people were more altruistic and better. If only we could be a different species. What would they call it, Star Trek, the Borg? Then you wouldn't have financial crisis, right? Because we'd all be thinking exactly the same thing all the time. So they wanna redo human nature, but they've adopted this morality that colors, everything that they say about them, why did they hate the 19th century so much? Because it was a century of individualism. It was a century of people pursuing their own happiness. A century of people pursuing their own wealth, people pursuing their own interests. The government didn't tell them what they couldn't, couldn't do. They went out and did stuff. And they just, people just find that repellent because wait a minute, that's not how you're supposed to behave. You're supposed to take care of your family. You're supposed to stay in the same town forever. You're not supposed to move and travel and emigrate and build stuff and be on your own and go out into the frontier. I mean that's fun and scary and pretty selfish. And selfishness is bad. So the way we view ethics shapes the way we interpret and explain what happens in history and what happens in the past. And it explains economics. So why is Juan Buffet so anti-capitalism? Because normally people come up to me and say, look, this is pretty easy. As long as, you know, as long as 50% of Americans get stuff from the government, they're always gonna vote Democratic. The rich always vote Republican. They're fewer rich than they are. The rest of the people, so the rest of the people are always gonna vote to take money from the rich and give it to them. Juan Buffet's the rich among the richest of the rich. And indeed, where does Obama raise all his money? In Wall Street from rich people, not from poor people. So how does this, so this class stuff, I mean, it's Marxist nonsense. It's not true. People do not vote based on what class they're in. Juan Buffet's the classical example. So why does Juan Buffet so anti-capitalism? Because Juan Buffet is committed to philosophy. He's very philosophical. He's very ideological. He is a student of John Walls. And you read him and you can see Walls all over the place. And what did Walls advocate, at least, you know, from a standpoint of our society should be structured. Walls advocate for equality. You shouldn't advance unless everybody advances with you. The only legitimate equality is if everybody moves forward together, not maybe not at the same pace, that's okay. But everybody has to move forward together. And the fact is everybody doesn't. You might make money by firing half your employees because you have to cut costs and that's the only way to reach profitability. There was soft, you're better off. In Walls' view, that's wrong. And Juan Buffet believes in that view. He doesn't stop it, by the way, from firing people. But politically, that's what he advocates. He advocates a philosophical view. He believes in equality. He also believes in, and this is deeper than ethics, but he believes that he doesn't deserve the wealth that he's created. It's not his. Falling Walls, Walls was a Harvard philosopher who died just a few years ago. He was very, very influential. But Falling Walls, Juan Buffet believes that he's lucky. He was born in the right century, to the right parents, with the right genes, to do what he does. He takes no credit for what he's done. It's all genes and environment. And if it's all genes and environment, and he didn't do anything special, then he doesn't deserve it. So he should pay more taxes. We should redistribute his wealth. It's not his. He didn't deserve it. He didn't really own it. That's the logic. So people are driven by philosophy. They're driven by ideas. If you believe that your life belongs to others, if you believe that equality is the standard of morality, or that sacrifice is the standard of morality, then the fact that economics, that free market economics works, is irrelevant to you. It doesn't make any difference. Because you're not about working. You're not about anything working. You're not about creating wealth and prosperity and happiness and freedom. You're about equality. Which turns out is the exact opposite of all those things I talked about. If you believe, epistemologically, let's go to epistemology, if you believe that human beings are basically irrational, if you believe that we're motivated predominantly by emotion, that rationality we're incapable of, or it's really, really rare, that we learn about the world through our emotions, or we learn about the world through some kind of mystical revelation, then what is history? How do we know it? Who's gonna tell us about it? Our emotions? Revelation? Where's it gonna come from? How do we know what's fact and what isn't fact? What's true and what isn't true? We're much more likely in those circumstances to buy in completely, wholeheartedly, into the way history is taught today and into the bogus economics that is taught today. They're an authority figure. They must have got the revelation that you missed. They're the philosopher kings who see the light and you don't. So if you believe that people, as I think a lot of people in our culture believe, that they're fundamentally irrational, fundamentally emotional beings, then freedom doesn't work and can't work and you can't understand how it would work. Freedom requires a belief in man as a rational animal. It's capable of rationality. And it's exercising that rationality when he's free. And if you dismiss that premise, you can't defend the economics. You can't defend freedom. You can't defend all the other stuff and you can't even teach history. But it's worse because today in American colleges, they even challenge the very notion that there's such a thing as knowledge. That there's such a thing as truth. So if there's no truth and there's no knowledge as most modern philosophers claim, then how can we learn anything from history when history's just a subjective emotion of some tribe experiencing something? Which is based on your ethnic background and whether your mother beat you or not. It's, there is no facts. There is no truth. That's how history is written written today. I mean, modern historians today will tell you there is no such thing as history in terms of objective facts. There's your interpretation of history and my interpretation of history that I'm gonna interpret the history the way the American Indian, I think the American Indian would have if they were post-Contian, whatever. But that's post-modernism. Its knowledge doesn't exist. And that's what we're teaching at our universities. That is the dominant thing we're teaching in our universities, in the humanities. So all the other stuff about economics and history is irrelevant because if you believe there's no knowledge, there is no economics. And anything anybody says is right. And anything anybody does is okay. And whether something works or not is a fluke. Because what goes out with knowledge when you throw out knowledge, what else gets thrown out? Almost necessarily. Principle. Any kind of system, any kind of principle gets thrown out. There's no knowledge. I don't know when I jump off of this that I'm gonna actually fall. I mean, it turns out that usually that happens. Most human knowledge is inductive knowledge, yet we've thrown out induction in our schools. We don't teach it. We don't regard it as important. And yet when we say we learn from history, what are we doing? We're inducing. We're saying this works and this works and this works. We understand the cause of why it works and we can derive a principle for why it's working. But if you reject induction, you reject logic, you reject knowledge, economics is gone. So, ethics is important. It shapes how we view history. Pistemology is important because it shapes whether we think history is even a field of knowledge or whether there is such knowledge as history or economics. And of course, the same is true of metaphysics. Metaphysics is a study of what is, right? Now, I believe that reality is what it is, that it exists. It doesn't depend on our consciousness to exist. We don't make it up. It's there whether we close our eyes or not. But if you don't believe that, and again modern philosophy doesn't believe that. If you're making reality up, then what is, is. You remember Bill Clinton? See, I don't think Bill Clinton thinks he lies. I think he thinks he's making up reality. I think he was a really good student. He's supposedly really, really bright. That's what everybody says, right? I think he thinks he's making up reality. Because that's what his professors taught him he was. We're all making up reality. There is no reality, real reality. Even a metaphysics we're challenged today. And again, if you don't have a solid metaphysics in a sense of A is A, it actually exists. It's real, and you have reason and the ability therefore to observe it, then knowledge is impossible in economics and all of this are futile. And all our attempts to teach economics and to teach history and to do Austrian economics and this economics, it's futile. We're talking to the wall. Nobody's listening. They can't. They don't have the cognitive mental tools to listen. To really understand you have to have what? To change somebody's mind, they have to be thinking. They have to be using reason. But we don't teach anybody to think. We barely believe in thinking anymore and philosophically we don't believe in thinking. We don't believe in reason. We don't believe in rationality. We don't even believe in reality. So you're literally not talking to anybody because for somebody to exist on the other side there has to be a reasoning mind and if there's not a reasoning mind it's gone. And this is why, this is why it is so important that we focus on the philosophical arguments. It's so important that we start with really basic philosophical education. It's not enough to talk about economics, to talk about history. It's not even enough to talk about morality. Even morality, when I do a lot of talks about ethics and how they apply, I'm assuming people out there accept certain premises which I can guarantee you at the debate last night they didn't. That reality is what it is. That reason is our basic tools of survival. That knowledge all comes from reason. That there is no other source of knowledge. That knowledge exists. That there is such thing as truth. We assume that but that's a difficult assumption to make and that's what we have to educate our kids for. That's what we have to educate the culture about. To educate them about the efficacy of reason. And then once you get that, I think the rest is actually quite easy because facts are on our side. History actually does support our case. Economic theory is actually being worked out already. You know, by really great economists. We know how the economy works. We know how to get it going. We know what doesn't work. We know how to destroy it. We know what to do. But first you have to have that cognition. You have to have people thinking. You have to have them philosophically on at least a similar page to you. And this, at the end of the day, is the real importance of INRAN. Everybody is, or most people, not everybody. Most people are attracted to INRAN because of a political message. Maybe because of an ethical message. But what INRAN provides us is an entire philosophical system. An entire philosophical system for living life, which means for living in reality because there is a reality. And it's only when we can communicate effectively that entire philosophy and get people to buy in to that philosophy are we gonna make real progress towards capitalism and towards real freedom. And that means that we have to argue against the notion that consciousness creates reality. Reality is what it is. A is A. The Greeks got a 2000 plus years ago. The law of identity holds. Things are what they are. Not what you wish them to be. Not what you'd like them to be. Not what Krugman says they are, but they are what they are. And we have this incredibly powerful tool, which is human reason, which enables us to understand reality, to know reality, to integrate the facts, to come up with principles. Principles, what a notion in the world we live in today. Truths that are always true because reality is what it is and the law of identity holds. And that if I jump off of this, I'll always fall down. At least as long as I'm on this planet. And we have to reject the idea of revelation and the idea of emotion and the idea that truth doesn't exist. All of that needs to be explicitly dealt with, explicitly rejected, explicitly turned away. And of course we have to advocate that because reason is our tool for knowledge, our tool of survival. And only we as individuals have reason that we own our own life, that it's our life to lead as we choose to. That morality is not about sacrifice. It's not about a brother's keeper. It's not about others. It's about making the best of your own life. So to complete kind of the political revolution that was the founding of this country, what this country really needs, what this world really needs today is the philosophical revolution that Ein Rand is giving us. So let's, as we fight for greater freedom, as we fight for capitalism, let's remember to fight for philosophy, for Ein Rand's philosophy, for objectivism. That at the end of the day is what's gonna save this world. That at the end of the day is what's gonna teach people to actually learn from history. Thank you all.