 So I was thinking about something, a point that you've raised a number of times about how businessmen don't want to harm their customers. And you've used, for example, the elevator example, like why do we need to expect elevators or why do we need governments to expect elevators? Because elevator, people who build elevators are not building them to kill people, you know, or people who build buildings are not building them so they'll collapse. And I've even heard, I've actually heard Dave Rubin use your argument on, when he was on Joe Rogan, I, 99% chance that he got it from you. And Rogan came back hard at it, at that claim. And I think one of the, one of the arguments I think you will eventually get in response is that, what we're not, what we're worried about isn't the true Scotsman, isn't a businessman. What we're worried about is the guy who is a crook from the beginning, he's set something up, you know, hey, it looks like the elevator's good, here's my money, bye-bye. And then the elevator collapses and he's got a different name, a different business. And Joe Rogan's point was, you know, his father is in the construction trade and they will cheat every chance they get. So I guess my thought is just that I think if this ever comes up, I think you need to be ready with the alternative, which is people like Rogan only see it as two-sided, which is government inspection or no inspection. Whereas private inspection is a way to do this, like in the construction industry, if I buy a house, I wanna see that it's been signed off by somebody. And then a builder will say, well, I gotta get somebody to sign off on this, otherwise my tradesmen aren't gonna, you know, I'm gonna fail my inspection and stuff like that. And it's just an interesting argument, but you know, we just really need to be clear that, okay, there are crooks because they will do crooked things. I mean, absolutely, there's no question. I'm just laughing because somebody wrote, and this is typical, right? This is the mentality that Trump has built skyscrapers, Iron Man revered skyscrapers. And by implication, by logic, Iron Man would revere Trump. I wanna yell when I hear stuff like that. It just drives me crazy. It's a little concrete bound, a little concrete bound. A little concrete bound, yes, and yes. So absolutely, look, my argument is never that there would be no inspectors. My argument is that if there is reason why there should be inspectors, then there is a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs to inspect, right? It's just like, I don't believe that if you get rid of the FDA drug companies, every drug company, every pretend drug company could just sell whatever they wanted with any label they wanted and just get out there. Maybe they could, but as consumers, we wouldn't buy it unless it had some seal of approval by somebody. And for example, I would argue that pharmacies wouldn't carry drugs that didn't have a seal of approval of some private lab that had checked these, and maybe two private labs, maybe three private labs, right? Who knows how the competitive environment would actually develop and how, and maybe the pharmacies themselves would develop the private labs themselves because they might be liable if they sell me a drug and it turns out that drug harms me. They, the law could develop in ways that would place liability on the drug, on the pharmacy unless the pharmacy did something to make sure that their drugs were safe. The same with the building. Imagine if you build a condo building and now it is expected that when you buy a condo and a condo building, you want to see, one of the things you wanna see is the inspection of the private inspection company that says that the condo building is safe. And now we as consumers have developed this habit of demanding that inspection or when you go and ensure your condo, right? Most of us when we buy a house or condo, we also, with it, purchase insurance. And indeed, if you get a mortgage, the mortgage company demands that you get insurance. Well, the insurance company would say, okay, I'm happy to ensure you, but how do we know this building is safe? Should we send an inspector? Has an inspector been there before? Can we see the inspection documents that show the inspection? So my argument is that the market is a beautiful mechanism that would create all these ways in which to indeed confirm that products are good, that products are reliable, that products are, you know, I remember I was a construction manager a long, long time ago, so I was in that business. And I was hired, my company, I was a junior person, but my company was hired basically by Intel to build its headquarters in Israel. And we basically built the first clean room in Israel. And we represented Intel and the contractor got the contract and the contractor built the building and we would inspect what they were doing. And like the contractor would say, we put in a five inch wall and we would go, no, it's four and a half inches. I want you to knock this down and build it again or the concrete again because it's supposed to be five inches. And I was representing the owner of the building, right? The owner, and certainly this was the first clean room in Israel. I know the clean rooms are rooms where they build chips and they have to be unbelievably clean because any little spec can get on one of those microprocessors. So this is the first clean room in Israel. Nobody'd ever built clean room before. So there was a lot of this, no, this is not to spec tear it down, build it again. And that's your job. And for most contractors, there's always somebody on the other side doing that. And again, if a contractor will want to sell a building, if he wants, then he better have the elevator inspected by somebody, probably an insurance company, probably an inspector hired by an insurance company. Most contractors, I think all contractors buy insurance to cover the building under construction while it's being constructed, just in case there's an earthquake or something like that. That insurance company would send inspectors because they don't want to ensure a building is being poorly designed and built. So there are multiple ways in which you can do this. And again, I think this is true even of nuclear power plants. It built into the way we do things is a strong incentive by certain people involved in the project to make sure it's safe. Not everybody has the same incentives where somebody has an incentive around safety. Insurance companies, banks, bondholders, mortgages, users, end users all have an incentive that this is safe. Market mechanisms would come around to provide them with assurances for the safety of the product. Otherwise no economic activity would actually happen. We'd get stuck. An interesting example of that in the real world is underwriter laboratories. I don't know if you're aware of that, which came about in the 1890s due to risks of electrical fires because electricity was completely unregulated and was killing people because it was unreliable and different standards. And so it's a completely, it's still a private company to this day, but a lot of electric goods in the US, if you buy it, it's got a stamp on it. Yeah, it regulates all electronic products and it's private and the government has no involvement as far as I know in regulating. And if you look at the number of people dying from electrocution over the last 100 years, it's an amazing graph because it's steep downwards. It was a lot of people dying from electrocution. I know my parents' generation, people were dying of electrocution. Today almost nobody dies of electrocution. So it's a constant improvement caused by an industry and a private regulator that are interested in continuous improvements and continuously making these things safer. So yes, I was gonna say, oh, one other thing I wanna say, and that is that when you think about the bad guy, the crook, right, the guy who's setting up the company who's gonna run away afterwards and all of that and is gonna build the elevator and run away, what I find interesting is that there's almost no doubt that that crook is much more likely to get away bribing a government inspector than he is a private inspector because the government inspector bears no liability. If the government inspector gets something wrong, so what? Nothing will happen to him. And a private inspector would lose his job, lose his business, lose whatever credit he had, he would be wiped out. A government inspector's not. It reminds me of, you know, in California, when I listened to NPR, they used to do these shows on food safety and they used to go and interview farmers and every time they'd be like an E. coli outbreak or something like that. And it was very clear from when you talked to the, from what the farmers were saying in these interviews that they were far more worried about the inspectors coming to them from the grocery chains who were buying massive quantities from them than the inspectors coming from the FDA. They thought the inspectors from the private grocery chains were much tougher and much more rigorous and much scarier in a sense than the government inspectors. And that doesn't surprise me. One has something to lose if they get it wrong. They really lose business, they create liability, they really have a challenge and the others don't have anything to lose. A government job that has, that will, they'll never be fired from. Certainly not because they got one issue wrong. Yeah, I mean, the bribery issue really came out in Turkey, right, with the earthquake where it seems to be clear that they had in a lot of places very stringent earthquake regulations and the builders bribed their way around it. Yes. And a lot of people died. Cultures that have less respect for the law, less respect for the government, less respect for the rule of law are going to, you're gonna see more bribing, you're gonna see more of this. And cultures in America, you probably see a lot less bribing. There's still bribing going on. There's no question about that, but you're gonna see a lot less bribing just because we just have a culture that has respect for the law and respect for government officials. So, but absolutely, somebody will take care of this and I trust that somebody, if they're private, a thousand times more because they're self-interested because they have dollars at stake. They have, what is, what is, what does he call it, something in the game? Anyway, skin in the game, that's Tel Aviv term. I agree with Tel Aviv completely. You want to create contacts in which people have skin in the game if they're decision makers and you wanna align incentives and the best way to align incentives by having skin in the game. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.