 I think that most of the pairs of democracy from lobbying are not something that's exclusive to big business. And I think that anything that were to address the problems that come from big business would address a much wider issue. As far as evidence of improvement to social welfare or for corruption, I'll admit I did not spend a lot of time looking at corruption indices, although I am aware that such things do exist. But I know that a number of globalized firms in local elections in South America and in South Asia and in Africa, if you want to get backed by, I mean, I just read a lot of BBC and whatever. And what I see in there is a lot of people pledging to fight corruption, because this is a major issue for the international community. And what was the third point? Oh, evidence of worker satisfaction. Evidence of worker satisfaction. I think that in that department, there's a lot of other variables that come into it. Are some businesses, I'm sure that it would be better to work at a small video rental store, for instance, than Blockbuster. But at the same time, I worked as a non-union electricians assistant for next to nothing under the table. And I also worked in a factory and saw union electricians at a huge multinational factory, making $30 an hour. Because there's more subject to OSHA regulations and oversight and things that are common for big businesses. So I think that there is a lot of evidence of that. Just want to make one point on the worker. Just the one point on the worker satisfaction. I mean, it's changing a bit, and it's a problem. And I hope it reverts back to how it was. There are statistics about how many CEOs actually come from within a company. And it is changing, I admit. But I know that for a long time corporations were the gem that you try to get into when you graduate. And that was the way to lead a successful career. And they have the corporations were the medium for mobility, in a way, because you could rise up the corporate ladder. And you could start as a worker and end up as a manager. And they had benefits in terms of giving them workers stock options and things. I mean, I know GE for my grandfather is an example of a little data. I mean, he started off a lower level engineer. And by the time he retired, he had 70% or 80% of his pay. And I think I might have a few of the stocks. And so corporations is an opportunity for people to have mobility and receive benefits that smaller businesses might not offer. When we started researching this debate, the type of concrete evidence that you asked for was exactly the type of evidence that we had the most trouble finding. Because the type of concrete evidence that your question, I think, implies is goes along the lines of wages and salaries and benefits of that nature. And while, on average, large businesses may offer higher wages or salaries to their workers, social welfare does not equal money and cannot be measured alone by GDP. So you need to look at things such as happiness index to incorporate social welfare. And another point is that large businesses can also eradicate low wage jobs by outsourcing them to other countries. And let's say if you're looking exclusively at America, big businesses only employ large salary workers while the low wage workers are working in factories in other countries. And just sort of to illustrate the point Ryan just made. Alternate does a lot of investigations into large business and corporate malfeasance. And one they did was actually, sorry to keep on ragging on Walmart, but Walmart's line of eco-friendly and human rights-friendly jewelry, which is kind of ironically called Love Earth. They don't really love the Earth. It's the main mine for this jewelry is located in La Paz, Bolivia. And they use a process called cyanide heap leaching, which releases one of the most toxic chemicals in the world into like local groundwater. And also the employees at the company have complained of insufficient pay, strip searches, lack of masks to protect from air pollution and supervisors who are always willing to show employees the door if they complain about any of these things. And also traditional holidays aren't observed by transnational corporations in other countries. And worker bonuses are usually not observed, especially in Bolivia and several other Latin American countries. They have a year bonus, like a year-end bonus called Aguinaldo, which is equal to roughly one month's worth of pay. And when workers at the Walmart plant, at the Walmart mine in La Paz complained about this, they were immediately let go. Let me ask a question now for the other team. It struck me, one of the arguments that was used by Angela, I think, regarding Microsoft having made a huge donation to Japan. And then the conclusion was, small business could not do that. Of course they could not because they're small. So the question is, once we analyze whether this is a benefit or not, we should take into account the donation as a proportion of something, as a proportion of total sales, total net worth, because by definition, a small firm would not be able to make that donation to Japan. But several of them, of course, could. So how do you react to this? When I was doing my research, I did come across that argument and one of the things that we have to realize is, yes, you have to look at donations as a proportion of something else, but you also have to realize that even in absolute terms, what the outcome is or the results of the donation, the impact that it makes is what we're really concerned about. And as a cluster of small firms, for example, yes, they can contribute to, or as much as a large company would in absolute value or more in terms of percentages to sales or whatever the denominator would be. The impact might not be as great as one large lump sum contribution that a large company can make because, for example, some small firms might decide to donate a proportion of their profits, but they would donate it to another organization like Make-A-Wish Foundation, another larger corporation that would then create the impact that these smaller firms cannot do just by themselves, whereas a large company such as Microsoft can make this one large sum cash contribution and then have those impacts be basically larger. And just to follow up real quick, I think it's also a matter of organization and how much organization would take to gather all the small businesses to come through and be willing to each donate the small parts. And I think about situations such as the oil spill by BP, and I mean, of course, that was a big business and it was awful that that happened. But I'm trying to think if it was a lot of smaller businesses each operating smaller rigs, I doubt it would be a lot more difficult to raise $20 billion for an escrow fund than tell BP, hey, you're responsible, $20 million and now it stole this out to all the victims. So I think it's just a lot easier to organize when it's just one big company rather than a lot smaller spread throughout. I guess I have another, perhaps fairly broad question or comment. I was fairly convinced by the argument, I think it was the pros we made here, that it may be a mistake to say either big business or small business. There undoubtedly is a kind of complementarity about some activities that can only be undertaken on a fairly large scale and where it would be somewhat silly to suggest that this should be carried out by a lot of small independent businesses and there are lots of activities that are probably better carried out by small businesses. But then having said that, there may be a dimension missing that has come up a little bit a couple of times during the debate and that is that we don't have just small businesses and large businesses, we also have government intervention of various kinds and the question is whether to some extent that is at least as important and I would like to maybe get a few comments from both sides on this. I mean, one could see it both relating to promoting clusters or regulating big companies or one could see it even as promoting growth. I think both sides talked about innovation and how their particular companies promoted fast growth. But if you look at it, maybe if one looks at, say, U.S. success stories, then many, if not most of them, owe a lot to state intervention at various stages. I mean, an obvious example is Boeing that came up several times, but even agriculture has that. I mean, I guess the only real sort of strong export sector that comes to my mind that may not owe a lot is Hollywood. So I was wondering if the two sides have any thoughts on how the state government fits into their vision of small and large companies? All right, I hope this can answer your question. Okay, in a capitalist economy, at the end of the day, small and big businesses are going to try and maximize profits and what we were trying to say is that big businesses, while just like small businesses are trying to maximize profits, their enormous wealth and power allows them to escape regulation, control regulation, and affect laws very strongly. So we would be in favor of government intervention and regulation, also just trying to make sure that state intervention can limit the power of big businesses. And I'd also like to add government research and development has come up with things like the internet and television and have aided greatly to our economy. So I think the state sector plays a very positive role in this debate.