 So, there was this very interesting philosopher called John Rawls, and John Rawls had a nice interesting definition for what a just society is. And he said, if there was a society that you knew everything about it, and you would be willing to enter it in a random place, that's the definition of a just society. And he called it the veil of ignorance. So, for example, think about income inequality. In economics, we have this thing called the genicoefficient. You have the wealthiest, the less wealthy, the less wealthy, and the poor. The question is, how much wealth does each of those part of the populations have? And in countries where the distribution is very skewed, it's a very high genicoefficient, where it's more equal, it's a lower genicoefficient. Now, if you're very rich, you might want a distribution that is very skewed. If you're poor, you might not want such a skewed distribution. Now, if you don't know under the veil of ignorance, what do you want, right? Now you have to consider all the possibilities, and that's what's so beautiful about the veil of ignorance. So, recently we did a study with about 7,000 Americans, randomly sampled across the country, and we asked them, what society would be such that you would be willing to enter it in a random place? We didn't tell them about roles, but we defined that. And what's interesting is that the US genicoefficient is very high. The income inequality is very high. The wealthiest 20%, on 84% of the wealth in the US. And what's more disturbing is that the bottom 40% own 0.3% of the wealth. So the wealthy are very wealthy, but the poor are incredibly, they basically have nothing. So we asked people, please build, we gave them some web tools, and we said, please build a distribution that you would be interested in willing to live on. So the genicoefficient, let's say, is like this. People don't understand it. They think it's like this. But when we asked them to build a wealth distribution, and they would be happy to live in that country, it's even more equal. So it's kind of interesting that Americans are actually much more equitable under the veil of ignorance than we think they are. But the most interesting thing was that the differences between Republicans and Democrats were very small. So for example, in one of the questions, we showed people a distribution of wealth. And one of them was based on a better and more equal distribution in Sweden. And one of them was based on the US. And we say, where would you rather live? 92% of Americans preferred the improved Swedish distribution. For Democrats, it was 93%. For a Republican, it was 90.5%. So what it means is there's a difference between Republican and Democrat, but it's tiny compared to the real difference between the inequality in the US and what people think it is, and what they want it to be. So on one hand, this is a very depressing result because it says Americans don't understand the country that we're in, and they really want another country. On the positive side, it means that Americans actually deep down inside want a distribution that is more equitable. And perhaps what's happening is that politicians and politics is just using labels that are obscuring reality. The moment people are talking about death tax and inheritance tax and death panels and all of those things, people have this impression and normally think about their values. But perhaps if we could change the discourse to be more about fundamental values, they would be better. I'll give you one last analogy for this. In psychology, we often do blind tastes. Imagine you have two beers, if you have the label of the beer and the price of the beer, your understanding of the beer would be different. The label would change your impression of it. But what the role's story does is to strip away all of those beliefs. You just really have to confront your deep down belief. And I think that if we could do that in the political process, if we could get people to confront their deep beliefs about what's fair and just and so on, and only later tell them, hey, you prefer Sweden. What does it tell you about your politics? Maybe people would make better political decisions as well.