 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow. Let's see if I don't get it. All right, let's jump into it. We're going to be doing another news roundup. And remind everybody that the news roundups are funded primarily from contributions you make on a monthly basis, but also from super chats. Super chats, we have a target for these shows, $250 a show. And you can give a sticker just to support the show. You can ask a question and therefore shape the direction of the show. And get me to talk about what you want me to talk about by asking a question. All right, let's jump right in. In the state of Florida as a consequence of the new laws coming down from the Santas administration, it is now getting tricky to decide what to teach and what not to teach and how to teach it. In 2020, Florida passed a bill that was focused on excellent, it was called excellent student thinking standards of 2020. And as part of that, they encouraged the teachers to teach some of the classics and to teach more challenging pieces of literature, Shakespeare being among others. And now because of the don't say gay or whatever it's called law, there's now hesitancy about teaching Shakespeare because hey, Shakespeare is full of suggestive puns and innuendos. And if you don't remember the suggestive puns and innuendos in Shakespeare, then you should go read some Shakespeare. But one play in particular is problematic and that is Romeo and Juliet. I mean, Romeo and Juliet, it's a real problem because not only the protagonists underage, they're both teenagers, but I think any reasonable interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, they have sex, that's a no-no. And then, of course, they commit suicide. Another big no-no. So generally, I mean, Romeo and Juliet very problematic play in the world in which we live for pretty much everybody, I think. So they've decided in Lake County, outside Orlando, they've decided to, or this isn't Tampa, sorry, in Tampa, they've decided to exclude certain parts of Romeo and Juliet. So only include a certain excerpts and deny the rest. Now, the library has assured us that students can still check out a full copy of Romeo and Juliet and they can go and read the sex scenes in their own time. But in class, they will exclude the scenes that have sex in them. I haven't found a source for the other Shakespeare plays that are going to be censored, going to be restricted, where we're going to be deciding which segments where the innuendos are not acceptable, where the puns are too sexual. Well, I mean, what do you do? Certainly conservative parents have a right to not have sex in the literature, including Shakespeare, that their children read. But parents who would rather have their kids just read Shakespeare suddenly have a right to have their kids read Shakespeare. So what do you do? Well, what you do is you privatize the schools. What you do is you get rid of public education. What you do is you encourage school choice. So parents can send their kids to the school of their choosing. I mean, you could have the no Shakespeare or any other sexual passages school here, school, and then parents can send their kids to that school. And they can be safe from Romeo and Juliet. And the parents who, you know, we teach literature even if it offends school, and parents, some parents will send their kids to that school. Well, we need a school choice and the best way to have school choice is the most natural. The one that'll create the most competition and the most innovation and the most, you know, the highest achievement is a system of private education in which parents can choose the schools. You don't want your kid to study evolution. You want them to be trained in the arts of the caveman. Then, yeah, you can have your school. And if you want your kid to get a proper science education and a proper literature education, you can go to a different school. And, yeah, this will cause even more, you know, in the short run, even more bifurcation in American culture. But as some schools excel and others obviously fail in terms of the kids, I think more parents will become a little less concerned. And, yeah, Mary May says, I wonder if Ashford, Oregon is still having their Shakespeare Festival. I think it's Ashford. I hope so. The Shakespeare Festival in Ashford, Oregon is fantastic. I think we were there three times when we live in California. It's a beautiful, beautiful location. The performances are fantastic. They don't only do Shakespeare. They do other stuff as well. And it really is good. But yes, this is the right objecting. Ashford is probably pretty left-wing. So they're probably all in on the sex scenes, all in. So this is a right-wing thing to deny it. All right, that is the ridiculous state of literary education in the state of Florida. Not surprising given the anti-woke, the focus on woke everything. All right, Iran. A lot going on with Iran. Iran supposedly has already enriched significant amounts of uranium. It wouldn't take them much to take this uranium and turn it into a bomb. There is a real threat of that. I mean, of course, we've been talking about this for 20-something years. But I think the threat just gets bigger. The technology gets better. I mean, if all we know, Iranians just tell GPT-4, make me a bomb. And the bomb gets made. So the technology gets better. The knowledge gets better. And it seems like they've got this. In addition, Iran is actively kind of hijacking, kidnapping ships in the states of Hormuz, foreign ships. And so that has become a real issue. This is, of course, the major transport hub for oil coming out of Saudi Arabia and coming out of the rest of the Gulf. And the Iranians want to do everything they can to disrupt that. So ships are at risk of being hijacked and kidnapped and disrupted in all kinds of ways. And so we've got the nuclear program. We've got ships. We've got constant attacks on U.S. troops who, in spite of what we were promised by Trump and Biden, are now in Syria and Iraq and are being attacked by Iranian forces, Iranian-affiliated militia, terrorist groups, and so on. And then finally, Iran has five American citizens in prison. Some of them have been in prison for many, many years. I like the way The New York Times describes them. They're going to make American detainees. They're detained. I'm sure that's how they feel as they rot in some Iranian horrible prison with a bunch of rats. I'm sure they consider themselves, yeah, I'm just being detained. No worries. It's just, I'm just detained. Any minute now of God, they're being imprisoned. Anyway, five American detainees. They've gone, again, some of them being there many, many years now. So take all that and you say, okay, what should America do? How should America deal with this? Iran is being belligerent. Iran might be on the, you know, close to building a nuclear weapon. And Iran is detaining American citizens and they don't care and nothing gives. Because we know how America deals with these things. It deals with these things by negotiating. And there have been negotiations between the United States and Iran for many months now, going on in one of the Gulf States, I think in Qatar, but I'm not sure, in one of the Gulf States. And it looks like they're going to have a deal. And the deal is going to entail, so the first step of the deal happened today. The first step of the deal is that the five prisoners are going to be moved to house arrest from the prison. Okay, maybe now they're just detainees. And in exchange, the United States is moving $6 billion of frozen Iranian assets, the money, to a third party, I think to Qatar, to be held. And that money would be transferred to the Iranians only, only, they promise, only for humanitarian purposes. That money will be, as if money is not fungible. I mean, God, why does anybody even report this when it's so blatantly manipulative in a lie? At the same time, they're trying to cut a deal that would reduce the probability, supposedly, that Iran will continue with its nuclear development, stop the hijacking and kidnapping of ships, stop the attacks on US military bases in Syria and Iraq, return to Iran, some people that the United States has, quote, detained in the United States, different Iranians who have violated sanctions and other things, and maybe potentially release even more than $6 billion of Iranian money to be sent to Iran, all in a grand deal to placate and to appease and to please the Iranian regime into being nice with the mightiest military force in all of human history. This is what this country has come to. Again, not new, granted, not new, Reagan did arms for hostages way back in the 80s and almost every administration since then has appeased Iranians in one way or another, so this is no surprise, but it is pathetic and it is insulting and it is horrible. And ultimately, Iran maintains the option of developing a nuclear bomb and they know that the United States won't do anything about it and it gives them time to build those deep, deep, deep tunnels in which they can do everything and they can develop the bomb so that even if we want a military solution at some point, that military solution will not be possible. What will ultimately happen is Iran one day, we will all be woken by the fact that Iran has a nuke and at that point all military options are off the table and you get massive complexity of anything the United States or Israel want to do in the Middle East. So we're going to have that. It's a done deal. It's obvious that not a single American administration is willing to take this on, not a single American administration is willing to take the Iranians head on and bring about a change there in their policy or destroy their nuclear capabilities in such a way and that sends a message never to do it again. That is just off the table. It didn't happen under Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden and it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I would say the same thing about the Israelis with all the tough talk, with all Netanyahu's preaching and talking and all of this now for forever about Iran. We're going to get them. They can be allowed. Israel's done nothing. I mean they do little things. They assassinate scientists. They blow up things but in terms of actually going there and demolishing and destroying their capabilities, Israel has not done it and it has the ability. It has the capabilities but it is sitting pat as the United States sells them out. Tragic, tragic and infuriating and stupid and everything else. What is common these days to China, Germany and the UK? What can we say is the one commonality between these three powerful countries, two of them industrially powerful, Germany and China and the UK financially powerful? What is common to these countries? Well, what is common to them is economic struggles. All three for different reasons, no, not really all for the same reason really if you really go to the heart of it all for the same reason. All three countries have very slow economic growth. All three countries are stagnating. All three countries have real structural problems in the economy that make it very unlikely and very difficult for them to recover. Oil is not a problem for any of them although energy is a problem for Germany but it's not the heart of the problem, energy costs. All three countries are in economic decline. Germany is an economy that is very much dependent on manufacturing. The manufacturing sector, the industrial sector in Germany is in a crunch. It costs a high. Its edge in terms of global markets is not the quality edge. The productivity edge is not up there anymore. They can't compete the Asians for everything they produce. The auto industry is struggling and it's not clear what its future is as the world moves towards electric cars. Germany has a very aging population. It's why they're bringing in so many immigrants and allowing in so many immigrants. Of course the fact that so many immigrants are coming into Germany is creating real political angst in Germany and the rise of right wing factors. But across the board in construction, in industry and in retail, you're seeing significantly shrinkage. The one area that is still fairly robust is services. This is what Germany has resisted for years now. It's resisted the move toward services. The reality is that advanced economies like the United States, like the UK, like Germany should be focused on providing services, providing services where they have the edge and allowing other countries around the world to provide manufacturing. The one kind of manufacturing Germany should focus on and orient itself is around precision manufacturing where they have a real edge, a real comparative advantage. But they don't have a comparative advantage in most other things. But they've resisted that. They've fought that. They've not allowed market forces to actually dictate. And as a consequence, it's now hitting all at once and Germany has a real crunch, a real industrial crunch, a real economic crunch. We will see where that leads. But really, since 2019, Germany has almost not grown at all. So 2019 through COVID shutdowns, all of that to today, GDP has, I think, grown 1%. I mean, it's almost been flat. The only country in the West that's grown slower than Germany is the UK. The UK has just been a disaster. Brexit has turned out to be an economic disaster for the UK. Its focus has been on services, on exporting finance to a large extent, on London being this global financial hub. It was competing with New York. Brexit has halted the competition. It has made London second rate in some sense. It does not have the advantages it used to have. In being able to be the European hub of finance, the cost of goods has gone up because tariffs have gone up throughout the UK because now everything they import from Europe. Europe was basically the manufacturing base for the UK. Costs have gone up because of tariffs. And of course, UK exports are much more expensive because now they can't go into Europe at zero tariffs. So UK is suffering because of Brexit. It is also suffering because of a conservative party that basically has implemented policies of the left throughout the UK economy. They have some of the worst energy policies in the world and have expensive energy as a consequence and unreliable energy as a consequence in spite of the fact that there's plenty of natural gas if you allow for franking underneath the ground in the UK. The UK has maintained, in spite of the conservative party's promises, they have maintained the entire regulatory infrastructure that was imposed on them by the EU. So they have got zero advantages from Brexit and all of the costs are Brexit. But yeah, they're independent. They can make their own choices. They've got autonomy and they can control immigration. Yippee! In spite of the control of immigration. They've got more immigrants coming in to the UK today than ever before. Highest immigration ever last year. They're just aren't Europeans. Yippee! I mean it's such, Brexit has turned out to be such a disaster for Europe. And you know, the funny thing is, I know I say this all the time, but the funny thing is, I predicted this. I said Brexit is good if, if they live up to it. If they do what is necessary, what it demands, what it requires. And I also said that the likelihood of that is very close to zero, or very low. And that's why I was, you know, I was tentatively pro-Brexit, anti-Brexit. I was, you know, 50-50 because I didn't think they would do the right thing and I don't think they have and it's, it's super tragic because the UK story could have gone exactly the other way around. In the UK they've raised taxes, they've kept the regulation. Cost of energy has gone up. And the cost of everything has gone up because of tariffs. And they've managed to screw up the, the, the, the pound and create some of the worst inflation in Europe in the UK as well. And of course, China, we've talked about over and over again, China is struggling. I mean, it really, it's struggling even more than what we've said. It's got these massive debts that we have talked about on this show. At the local level, at the local government level, they're trying to restructure them. Beijing has made it now a priority. They're sending people down into the provinces to try to work with the provinces to do a massive restructuring. They have allowed the province, the province level, at the province level, governments to raise 1 trillion yuan, 139 billion in a special bond sale. But that is just scraping the surface. That's just a beginning. We're talking about trillions of dollars of problems, of problem loads, probably 13 trillion dollars of government debt at the local level. We're not talking about the federal level at the local level, 13 trillion dollars, 139 billion is not going to do much to help that. So massive problems, the real estate problems, everybody thought they were resolved last year. They were only growing and getting much worse. Now, a country garden holdings, which used to be China's largest property developer, it is one of them, but it used to be the golden company that used to be, they could do no wrong. They did phenomenally well. They are looking at a potential bankruptcy. They've lost $6.2 billion in this last year. And they're going to report more losses at the rest of this year. So they are really, really, really struggling. And of course, the stock has now become penny stock, right? A stock denominated in less than a dollar on the Hong Kong stock exchange. It has fallen just recently, 14.4%. But it's tumbled more than 70% from January, right? From January, it's tumbled 70%, 70%. This is one of the biggest property developers in all of China and one of the most prestigious ones. One of the ones who considered more safe last year when they went through this. And they finally, well, not finally, but China has extended the smallest amount of monthly loans since 2009. So banks in China are not giving out loans. Now, maybe there's no demand for loans. But one way or the other, there are no loans being provided to small to medium-sized or large businesses. The smallest since 2009 in the midst of the Great Depression. This is again a sign of contraction of the economy. My guess is, not a guess, pretty educated guess, that the Chinese economy is going through a serious recession right now. A serious recession right now. The numbers might not have reported, but that's because you can't really believe Chinese numbers. And then finally, to tap it all off and to suggest that the future is not that great for China either. Births in China. Births in China are again plummeting. They will have fewer than 8 million births this year, which is demographically a disaster and well below what they expected. So the Chinese population is shrinking. The number of Chinese newborns has been cut as shrunk by 40% in the past five years. So all these countries are in significant economic problems. The United States, relatively speaking, is doing amazing. It's doing much better than China. It's doing much better than Germany, much better than the UK. And in spite of all the doom and gloom by various forecasters out there, and in spite of the fact that Biden's president, it's doing okay. It is a little surprising that Biden is getting zero credit for it. Not that I think he should, but usually the president gets credit for a good economy. But if Biden is not getting any credit, his approval ratings are still pathetic. But I don't think he should get credit for it, by the way. But I don't think any president should get credit for the economy. Trump should have gotten credit for his economy. I think the economy is way below its potential. And of course the problem in China, Germany and the UK is the same at the end. And the problem for all of them is lack of freedom. Lack, too much regulations, too many controls, too high taxes. Not so much in China, but too many controls, too many regulations. Too much government policy, trying to dictate business, too much central planning. That is the problem in all these economies. And until the world learns that economic growth requires liberty, requires freedom. Requires freedom at the very least in the economic sphere. Until they learn that, we're likely to really, really stagnate. And of course we don't know that in the US. So the US is doing better than everybody else, but it should be doing much, much, much better than it is. Sadly, it is not. And sadly there's nobody in the political world arguing for economic freedom. Okay, two science related stories. One is the Biden administration is investing $1.2 billion. Investing, I hate that term. The Biden administration is spending $1.2 billion of your dollars, my dollars, to build two industrial size plants, that commercial scale they call them, to vacuum carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So this is a technology that sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere. I don't know if these particular plants turn into water or what exactly they turn it into. This is the goal. One of them is run by Occidental Petroleum. I guess this is a carbon offset for all the fossil fuels they generate. And the other is a non-profit research organization. And they're going to build these two plants. Half of the money is going to come from the US government, the Biden administration. Half of it's going to come from the company's own resources. And the Biden administration attends ultimately to spend double this, 2.4, and build four of these plants. So they're still waiting for two others. I mean, I think this is a great idea in terms of building these kind of plants. But you know that if the government is involved in financing this, this is going to be a disaster. This is going to distort and pervert. And it's not appropriate in terms of the use of taxpayer monies. Get out of the way. People will find solutions. Companies will solve these problems. If the government just gets out of the way, stops interfering, stops trying to impose industrial policy on everybody. $1.2 billion of the, I think it's the Inflation Reduction Act, now going to sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Again, not a bad idea. Government should stay out of it. I mean, there are probably five, six, seven different technologies to do this. We don't want the government choosing which technology is the winner. All right. Final story, good news. Driverless taxis. Driverless taxis. Next time you visit San Francisco, now I know you guys all hate San Francisco and don't want to go there. But next time you visit San Francisco, you can order on, you can get an app and you can order a basically taxi, which will be driverless. It will come. It will stop by you. The door will open and there'll be nobody inside. No driver. The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates self-driving cars in California, voted three to one to approve the use of driverless cars in San Francisco 24-7. There will be cars at night and during the day on the roads of San Francisco with no drivers. This is in spite of massive protests and complaints by first responders and by various citizen groups and of course by taxi drivers and on and on and on. In spite of that, the leftist California Public Utilities Commission allowed for technology to move forward. I mean, I think this is amazing. There's no question this will reduce traffic accidents in San Francisco dramatically. Particularly it will reduce fatalities from these kind of accidents and ultimately it will make driving more efficient, more productive in San Francisco. Hopefully the next step is to allow the sale of driverless cars to individuals who can then use them to move around. I mean, this is the future if we allow it to happen. This is a step in the right direction. For those of us who love to drive, it might be not as much fun, but this is the right thing to do. This is an important technology. It's of course all possible because of AI and yeah, I think this is truly fabulous. Two companies, one owned by General Motors called Cruise. The other owned by Google called Waymo will be competing. Both of these companies have their own taxi service so you'll have competition. The prices will go down. We're literally talking about hundreds of these. So at any given time there should be 300 vehicles from Cruise at least at night, 100 during the day and Waymo 250 throughout the day. So you're going to have about 500 cars, 350 to 550 cars at any point in time during the day in San Francisco. So why did they do this? Given the protests, I think because the California government is beholden to tech companies, it's an example of cronyism working for the good. If we just listen to the people, the people don't know what's good for them, right? What they want is more regulations and more controls and limited the use of technology, more restrictions and everything else. Luckily, tech companies have a little pull to counter the impact of the anti-tech people and the Luddites and what we got in this case, it's unusual, but in this case we got a positive outcome. So California leading the way in the world really with driverless cars and yeah, this is good. This is a very, very positive step in the right direction. I'm enthused and if I'm in San Francisco, don't plan to be, but if I'm in San Francisco, I'm definitely, definitely going to use a driverless car. It's going to be spooky. It's going to be weird. But hey, you only live once and you got to try it out. I wonder if they want to the airports. I'll have to find out if they want to the airport. But I'm excited. I'm going to be in south San Francisco next in October. I wonder if you can get one of these down by the airports in that area. I'll have to check it out. Yeah, no driver talking to you. Yeah, this is good. This is good. Maybe they'll put a chat GPT in and you can talk to the chat GPT so you don't feel lonely. All right. Why would I get stabbed in San Francisco? God, you should look at the crime statistics. I mean, I'm not saying San Francisco is safe, but it's so not high probability that you get stabbed. It probably is minimal. I mean, again, people exaggerate these things unbelievably. Exaggerate, exaggerate, exaggerate because James says, for $50, thank you James. And by the way, we're way off target. So second time this week. I don't know. I'm getting worried about you guys. James says, did you see my email? I'm curious about the UK. You did not recommend the military yesterday. You did not recommend the military yesterday. What are the careers? Oh, the military did not. What are the careers? Can people enter to get a men's responsibility and gain significant leadership? Do you think the Middle East will always have war? Always is a very long time. So I don't really think always is good for anything. Will the Middle East have a lot of wars in its foreseeable future? Yeah, I think so. I don't see any place where religion, fanatical religion is on the rise or has a presence. And as a political presence, it's going to see violence. And I think the Middle East certainly has that. People who hate each other, tribalism, the Middle East is super tribal. You're going to see violence. So all of that is good. It's good for more wars. So I don't see peace in my lifetime in the Middle East. What are careers? Can people enter to get a men's responsibility? Well, I mean, any career, really, you can have a men's responsibility in the tech world. You can lead a group that builds the next, I don't know, the next robot that revolutionizes the world. So certainly in tech, in any field, where can't you find leadership? It's just a matter of, again, it's you. It's what you do with the opportunities you have. But any business, I think the business world is ripe for responsibility and leadership. And I think the business world is constantly looking for people who want to take on responsibility and leadership. So I don't think that the military is unique in that. And while I get the appeal of the military, I do. Again, once you recognize that your bosses in the military are completely irrational and treat you like a sacrificial lamb for the slaughter and don't really care about your life. And this is all life or death the military is. I just find it difficult. I find it difficult to recommend. You know, again, you have to choose based on your values and your interests. But that is a big no-no to me, that I know the US military will have no qualms about putting my life at risk for nothing. For nothing of importance. For nothing of importance. Did I see your email? Did I see your email? I don't know. I can't recall seeing your email right now, but I so I don't know if you want to make sure that I saw it. Send it again. You're on at your own book show dot com. So oh, I remember. Yes, the email. Yes. All right. The email about the UK and the video about the UK and why everything's expensive in the UK. Yes, I haven't got to watch it to watching it yet. But I did. I did see it. I did see it. Thanks for reminding me. I need to, I need to set myself a reminder not to not to forget that one. All right. Let's see. Jane. I'm just writing James G. Email video UK taxes. That'll remind me. All right. Let's see what else did the I think I answered everything. Let's see. John says those who engage in an insurrection against the US in eligible to stand for public office does amendment 14. Section three of the Constitution question Trump's eligibility to run for president. Have you seen the New York Times article? I haven't seen the New York Times article. But this is the problem that he hasn't been, he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection. I don't think he's accused of insurrection. He's not even accused of the January 6 specifically. So if he loses that trial, so if he's found guilty of working to undermine and to reverse a legitimate election, would that make him eligible? I don't know. I think it should. Look, what the whole Trump phenomena right now illustrates is the cowardice of Republicans. They had an opportunity to impeach him. They had an opportunity with themselves at this plague. They had an opportunity to impeach him over January 6. They should have. There's no question they should have. They'd impeached him on January 6. After January 6, he wouldn't be eligible to run for president again. And they would have solved this problem. This is all an expression of just the pathetic cowardice of the Republican Party. So I have no opinion about the Constitution and about the relevant statutes under which Trump is being prosecuted and what would happen. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a constitutional expert. James asks, how much is a show or show segment about UK housing market, UKs in turmoil and full of opportunities from a firm's USA perspective? You know, if it's a full show, I charge $1,000 for a full show. So if you think it's shorter than a full show, and this sounds like it would be, I don't know, $500, $250, something like that. So let me know. I'd have to do some research because I don't know enough about the UK housing market. I mean, I know essentially, but I don't know enough about it. And I think you have to separate the UK housing market from the London housing market. You know, England is, UK is quite a poor place when you take London out of it. Oh, Apollo, when are you going to do the review of Megan's book soon? I promise, soon, I promise. I have to read it and it's just been, yeah. Florida has a significant amount of its insurance from a government company. After the Hawaii incident, do you think more private companies will cancel the estate and lead to more government insurance? Yes, I think both Florida and California now have a huge amount of their catastrophic insurance policies. California for earthquake and fire and Florida for hurricanes done by the government. The government is basically priced out private insurance. The government through its regulatory bodies doesn't allow private insurance to price these insurance properly programs properly appropriately in ways that allow the insurance companies to make money to make a profit. So yeah, so if you don't let us price it, then we're leaving. And you saw, you've seen insurance company lease Florida and leave California and all that's going to remain a government insurance policies, which means the taxpayers get to pay when the next hurricane hits, which happens anyway, because you've got, you've got, what do you call it, the federal disaster relief funds. So, and you got state disaster relief funds. So people have a growing and more and more incentive not to buy insurance and just depend on government law just until we stop that government does not bail anybody out. Anybody out after disaster doesn't bail them out. No money, zero, zilch, nada. You won't get a healthy insurance market. Gail says, why do you think CO2 sucking plants is a good idea? Because if CO2 is warming the planet, which I think there's a positive probability it is. And warming the planet is a mixed thing and we want to be able to control it. Then instead of limiting our production of CO2, it makes a lot more sense to suck the CO2 out, particularly if you can turn that CO2 into something that is useful. Like, I think I talked about this on a show, PVC like water in the desert. So, to the extent that we want to be able to have better control over climate, having a lever over CO2 in the sense of sucking CO2 out is not a bad thing. Particularly if you can make money at it, if you can actually produce something valuable by doing it. All right, everybody. Thank you today. Thank you for all the superchatters, in particular James, who came in with 50 bucks. And I will see you all tomorrow, few p.m. Eastern time. We will do our show. And not sure what the topic will be. I'll let you know soon. And yeah, if you want to support the show, we didn't make our goal today, which is not good. But if you want to support the show and you're not listening live, you can do so at your one book show dot com slash support. You can also do so on Patreon. So please consider becoming a monthly supporter of the show, which makes the amount of money we raise superchats less important the more I get on a monthly basis. So please consider doing that value for value. Trade. Thanks, guys. I'll see you all tomorrow. Hopefully, bye.