 Let me first put on my Che Guevara beret. Let me next tell my dean that as I'm resigning from the Carlson School after I argue for that, let me make the argument about why I believe that is in the interest of those executives themselves to limit themselves, to limit themselves in terms of their pay, in terms of all the different types of powers that we give executives, top management teams, directors, and for that matter, the great institutional shareholders of this world, the great insiders of this world, why it's in their interest to exercise a little bit of that Adam Smithian moral, that theory of moral sentiments, to show a little self-control. And then I want to talk about how we as citizens, as members of a community, can come together to, how shall we say it, nudge them towards that. And I don't mean that by setting, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all, ham-fisted federal regulations. I mean by making the markets work. And let's start at the end with how policy works. We've done, there's been a revolution for the last 25 years in this country in terms of empowering shareholders, in terms of giving them the kind of muscle, particularly the institutional shareholders, to step in and do more than just find out whether their lottery ticket came in, that lottery ticket in the form of a share in 3M or General Motors. But to go in and be active in terms of second-guessing the CEO, second-guessing the director, second-guessing others on that, I think that's really quite good. I think that's the kind of shareholder democracy that's built up and supported by rules that come in part from our public regulators like the SEC and our courts and their decisions. But what about the other stakeholders in this company? There's employees. We've spent 70 years since the end of the Second World War stripping individuals of their right to bargain collectively. We let shareholders do it. We have proxy fights, and I can hold your one million proxies and vote them all together. I can't come together and do that as an employee. And you might say, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. That's a democracy. That's our community choice for it. And what I'm telling you is the same thing that has made CEOs and directors accountable in the shareholder democracy can make it in the broader democracy with suppliers and consumer unions, local governments and the like. That is all part of it. I'm very confident that if we empower stakeholders with just the same rights, the opportunity rights, forget about the outcomes, and let them go and negotiate in the marketplace, let an industrial democracy work with organized labor, as we once had in this country 70 years ago, I'm very confident that in their self-interest, they will find a way for Madam CEO or Mr. CFO to, how shall I say it, understand what their own self-constraint will be, to figure out what it means to create a community within their corporation, to figure out that it matters to lift up the lowest and give them the opportunity to rise up in order for the whole company to go forward and, might I indeed say, to enrich the CEO and CFO. Join me in that mission. Thank you. So, obviously, since I don't think this should be a minimum wage, I can't then advocate for a price control and CEO pay. I don't believe in price controls. I don't believe in price controls whether they were passed by Nixon, the good Republican, or by anybody else. Price controls are wrong, rights-violating, government interventions, into the economy that are necessary, and they distort and destroy. And indeed, if we place price controls on CEO, anytime price controls CEO, that's fine. The Chinese would love that. The Japanese would celebrate, and they would take our best CEOs and, you know, they would move overseas. There's a, probably have to pay them premium to live in Shanghai, but not that big of a premium if you've been there. You'd realize it's not that big of a deal to move to Shanghai anymore. CEOs own what they make, and if they don't own what they make, some CEOs are overpriced, overpaid. I mean, there's a relationship, strong relationship in the finance literature between performance and CEO pay, but there's exceptions, there are always exceptions. Who is paying for that? Not me, unless I'm a shareholder, right? Shareholders get to decide how much CEOs get paid. Shareholders suffer the consequences of bad choices with regard to CEOs. It comes out of their pockets. It's none of our business. Certainly not a government's business. Corporations are not owned by the state. They're owned by shareholders. They get to decide these kind of issues. So it's none of our business how much CEOs get paid, unless we are shareholders. And then we have all the ability. We strengthen institutional investors. Institutional investors can walk in, fire the CEO, change the board of directors, and replace the compensation package. But they're not doing that very often. The reason is that American CEOs are paid fairly. One could even argue they're underpaid at public corporations because it turns out that in private corporations, in private businesses, where there is no separation of ownership and control, if you know that language, there's no issue of CEOs capturing the board of directors because in private corporations, the board of directors are the owners, CEO pay is higher than it is in public corporations. So maybe we're underpaying the CEOs of our public businesses. So again, you make what you own. CEOs make so much money because there's a shortage of people who can do their job. You guys are really, really talented. Not a lot of people can do what you do. That's just a fact. If there were lots of people who could do what CEOs did, the market would be flush with them. What would happen to CEO pay? It would go down. This is supply and demand. This is not hard. And today, the reason CEO pay has gone really exploded is because of globalization. A, companies are bigger. Look at Apple. Look at the earnings report that Apple just produced. You couldn't do that 30 years ago. Globalization made that possible. The fact that the Chinese are rich enough to buy iPhones made that possible. And yes, CEOs are gonna make more money when profitability is higher. It's also true that the market for CEO talent has expanded. That is today, the Japanese are willing to hire an American or European to run a company. So the Chinese. So many people in Southeast Asia and maybe hopefully soon in the future in Africa. That would be terrific if Africa was competed for our CEOs, which means they have now risen out of poverty and are now being successful. So there's a global marketplace. It's competitive and that's driving up pay. That's great. You should be rewarded for the talent. Why aren't we complaining about how much LeBron James makes? Right? I mean, in terms of sheer productivity, in terms of making stuff and building stuff, what has LeBron James done? He entertains us. And I'm fine with that. Good for LeBron, right? He entertains a global market. That's why he makes a lot more than magic made in the 1980s because the market was much smaller. Big market, you're adding value to more people's lives. And this is the important thing, I think, to note. In the marketplace, we don't steal our wealth. We don't steal our income. In the marketplace, we earn it. We earn it by creating values. And when people buy our stuff, they're not worse off of buying it. They're better off of buying it, otherwise they wouldn't enter the transaction. Voluntary transactions in the marketplace are win-win transactions. At least we enter the transaction with that intention. How much did I lose by buying an iPhone for $400? By the way, a huge increase in inequality when this happened. Apple got richer. I got poorer. But did I get poorer? I didn't get poorer. And this is one of the problems with measuring income inequality. I didn't get poorer. The iPhone is worth more than $400 to me. That's why I was willing to give the $400 bucks up. So my standard of living went up. And Apple did well too. Win-win. Caddy, I can start by saying my iPhone was bought for $250. But why go there on that thing? Let's talk about companies and corporations because CEOs are there. This is not, the resolution is not, partners should be paid some cap. Because my view is if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or the next great CEO wants to have unlimited rights to income, whatever he can or she can negotiate, then my view is go be a partnership. Go be a proprietorship. I, we have decided that we will give those companies a tremendous set of rights and benefits. We're gonna give them limited liability for the investors. We're going to give them a separate entity that can contract and be contracted with, suit and be suit. We are going to allow them in the words of Mitt Romney to let them be people too. At least for purposes of protecting us. At what price? Did we hand that out? Did we hand that to them the way we might hand other resources with us? No, it's part of a public contract. And it's not a demanding contract. We ask that they obey the law. We ask that they're responsible to their shareholders. We ask that they think about who else is part of the company. That's not socialism. That's rules and norms and conventions making for markets. That's what we should be looking for in this thing. If we can set the rules right, then we can let the, how should I say it, government-supported market work. Or to put it another way, if not, let them stick up for themselves. You want, don't want, you want to do whatever you want to get. You get liability insurance. You take care of the unlimited liability. You know, I love the game shows not where if you guess the answer right, you get money. If they get it wrong, maybe they should come back and take something from your house. Right? Or how about when you have your final here with Rajri, instead of you get a high grade, you not only get a grade in the course, but you get a piece of the tuition from somebody else next to you. That's fairness. There's a great deal in the economy. That's the way to take the caps off in this thing. We don't do that because that's not part of the norms, the conventions. That's not what we as a community have thought about. Every right has an obligation. And the rights that we're happy to create when they create value for all of us. Obligations that we're happy to carry, rights that are valuable. Thank you. I don't agree with the idea that corporations are somehow entities of the state and we have provided them with limited liability. Limited liability is a contract between shareholders and between creditors. And every creditor prices they credit based on their idea of limited liability. That's part of the contract that they've entered. The state recognizes the existence of nexus of contracts, but it doesn't create anything. It is recognition. It's an efficiency by lumping them all together and calling it a corporation. Corporations have responsibilities towards their other stakeholders. And a good corporation executes on those responsibilities. They pay their suppliers on time. They provide their customers a value and they get a price for it. Most corporations, I'd say really all corporations, pay their employees. And they pay their employees just a little bit more than anybody else in the marketplace would pay them. Otherwise the employees would leave. Just ask anybody in Silicon Valley where people flipping companies like that, why? Because somebody else is willing to pay them a little bit more. So every one of the transactions with stakeholders is a transaction which is a win-win transaction. There's no added responsibility above and beyond that other than for the corporation to produce, to do what it's set up to do. It's charter is to make money for shareholders. I run a non-profit corporation. Our charter's different. We don't have shareholders. We don't make money for them. You wanna set up a corporation with a different charter. There are plenty of options out there in the world. But public corporations, stock corporations, the way we understand them today, a run for shareholders to maximize shareholder wealth that should be their purpose, that is their purpose and that is their moral purpose. It would be a violation of their fiduciary duty to do anything else. Thank you. I'm going first.