 Yeah, Jonathan, your turn. Well, first of all, Yaron, thank you for all these heroic shows you've been doing lately, especially on the GameStop issue. Really unique, interesting perspective. And as you said, you're providing a voice that no one else out there is and a rational voice. Rand makes a big thing about the difference between political and economic power. And one element of the GameStop story that I thought was so interesting was, as you pointed out, an investment in a hedge fund that lost a lot of money. Melvin Capital lost a lot of money. And basically investors, but it got played as a quote bailout. And I've heard from a lot of people on social media, I didn't get bailed out like this hedge fund got bailed out. It made me think, there's no distinction now in the public's mind between political power and economic power. And I thought maybe you could speak a bit to that. No, absolutely. Political power being the power of the gun, economic power being the power of trade. And as you know, I mean, as we can imagine, Melvin got 2.5 billion or 2.75 billion from Citadel and 0.72. We know 0.72 in Citadel didn't just give Melvin the money. They didn't just lend Melvin the money. They basically took a chunk of Melvin's business. They, if this was any other business, people would be upset because Citadel and 0.72 exploited Melvin's, what do you call it, bad situation to take a big piece of equity, to take a piece of it. But because it's finance, it's a bailout. But if it'd been any other business, it would have been an exploitation. Because I'm sure that Melvin got out, Melvin got clobbered, and Citadel and 0.72 came our way ahead on that deal. The fact is, Melvin is a very successful hedge fund. The guy who runs it is a veteran of the hedge fund business and has been very successful. He was a protégé of the guy who runs Citadel. And that's part of why the connection there, I think. So that's one sense in which there was no bailout. There was an investment, an investment in terms very, very, very good to 0.72 in Citadel. And it strikes me as bizarre that these people who are, so anti-hedge funds somehow think that these hedge funds would bail out another hedge fund. And bailout being, I don't know, a bailout. Think about what a bailout is. A bailout is the government takes taxpayer money, gives it to bankers, or gives it to a company with no expectation of any kind of return or any kind of profit. Believe me, Citadel and 0.72 expect a profit in a return for the money they put in. And I think just, and I don't want to monopolize the time, but that it's the concept there's a package deal here because we're including bailouts, like when government bailed out private businesses with a recapitalization, I think, is how you described it. You know, it would be the, and a private money. And in too many people's mind now, there's no distinction between private property and so-called public property, economic power, and... Absolutely, and it's being used as a package deal. It's being used to connote something that doesn't belong at all. A bailout is when a government is, is using taxpayer money to allocate taxpayer's money to private business, right? When the private business is in trouble, that's a bailout. You know, you can't, I can't even imagine what a bailout would look like in a private context. There is no such thing as an investment, there's a gift, there's a charitable contribution, but there's no bailout. Bailout requires government to take taxpayer money and give it away. So there's purposeful confusion between public and private. And I think absolutely right, Jonathan, there's purposeful confusion between political and economic power because when you have that confusion, it justifies more government intervention, more government involvement. And of course, that's what's gonna result from this. I mean, you can see both AOC and Ted Cruz agree that government has to do something about what is going on in financial markets. And isn't it amazing the, this ubiquitous hatred from the left and the right of hedge funds now, particularly, anything with a little bit of finance they hate and particularly hedge funds because the success on their big. So, and they make money. And yeah, truly, truly stunning, not surprising at all. Not surprising. And more specifically, they're seeing short selling as somehow predatory across the board. Everybody is seeing this as predatory. Well, that's true. That's been true for a long time. Short sellers have always been viewed as villains. During the 2008 crisis, there was a period where short selling was banned. They literally didn't allow short selling. And to this day, and they made short selling more difficult. So to this day, it's more difficult to short sell. It was already difficult before the financial crisis. So, no, short selling has always been viewed negatively, you know, betting on somebody failing is un-American, I'm told. And therefore needs to be restricted and stopped. Does that mean everyone who goes to a closing soon sale is a predator? Well, no, it's not exactly the same because your actions are not helping the closing happen. So if you stop going to the store because you don't like it, and it fails because you're not shopping there, that would be more of what I think they think of or... But yes, it's... And just quickly, for the record, hedge funds are always blamed. They were blamed for supposedly ginning up oil prices in the mid-2000s and crashing the stock. So it's all, you know, they're always to blame the profit seeking and it seems to be that's why. Unfortunately, historically there was actually one semi bailout of a hedge fund. And I mentioned this the other day on the show and that was a 1998 long-term capital which had positions that were leveraged. I can't remember, it was 90 to one or 95, some ridiculous amount. And they would have been fine, but because of the Asian financial crisis, there was suddenly all prices moved in all at once together and they just got wiped out. They got wiped out. And Alan Greenspan, the famous Alan Greenspan who unfortunately is associated with Iron Man, brought all the bankers and the kind of big hedge funds into his office and basically said to them, you know, I'm not gonna bail these guys out, but you guys should, you guys should really do it. I'm suggesting, says the man with the, you know, bazooka pointed at your face. I'm suggesting that you bail these guys out. And indeed they did bail out long-term capital. I mean, long-term capital ultimately closed, but they bailed them out. And that was the beginning of a lot of regulation, a lot of pressure to regulate and maybe the entrance of this idea that hedge funds are being bailed out. But in fact, of all the industries out there, hedge funds are at least likely to be bailed out. I mean, do you remember the days, Jonathan, where hedge funds were likely regulated, if at all? I mean, in the early 90s, in the late 80s, there was barely any regulation on hedge funds. And today, I mean, it's pathetic how much regulations you have and what you can and cannot say and how you have to comport yourself. And I mean, particularly if you register with the SCC, which you have to if you manage assets above a certain size, it just gets to be a nightmare. And it's taken a lot of the fun out of the industry. I know a number of hedge fund guys who have retired because it's just not as much fun because the regulations are so heavy. All right, thank you, Jonathan. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist, broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show you support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those please.