 I recall first meeting you and telling you as a graduate student that you were interpersonally not as daunting as your reputation suggested and you replied, well, the only reason my reputation is daunting is because I'm insistent on theory. You mentioned this a little bit in the past, but can you tell me again elaborate a little bit on this, why it's so central to a person who's trying an alternative approach to be sort of cognizant of this point? Yes, the importance of theory for me is that the theory should be consistent and coherent. And that means that you cannot develop a new theory by defects in the old theory. I mean, for instance, at some point Newtonian mechanics faces certain central issues, which cannot be explained away by adding ether and those who are attempts to do that, but you could see that there were further problems. And Einstein comes along and posits a new theory at the macro level, which is responsible for all the Newtonian results and yet can explain within itself something new, which couldn't be derived from the Newtonian framework. Now, since I was already clear in my mind that Neoplasma theory was the wrong place to start, my task was to show that if you start earlier with the foundations laid in an inconsistent manner sometimes in the classical tradition, that you could construct something coherent. But by that same token, you are not free to just modify a theory at the margin without being responsible for the implications. I mean, you modify something to develop it, to explain a result here, but it contradicts all the other results there, then that's not, in my opinion, a valid modification. And that's what people always found difficult in my analyses of modifications is that they were contradictory in other domains. Now, this is unfortunately how both the left and the right now operate. You take the standard framework, you add, if you are on the left, you go from imperfect competition, Kalecki and Markups, and you develop a theory on the basis of that. If you're on the right in the orthodoxy, you take perfect competition and then you add modifications, asymmetric information, bounded rationality, whatever, and these are all modifications of the same framework. For me, if you have an alternate framework, one of the tasks is to show that you don't need that. And where you do need is to introduce concrete elements. They have to be consistent with the underlying foundation, which means you have to keep that whole picture in mind. And that is a daunting thing, but essentially, that's how any consistent coherent explanation has to proceed. It cannot throw away one element at a foundational level in order to explain something else. That means that the theory is in trouble. So I'm very sensitive to the fact that you have to ask, how can you explain what you see, perhaps by introducing concrete factors without contradicting arguments that you have shown to be working at other levels? And the analogy I make is the following. If I take a tube from which I've removed the air and I drop a table tennis ball and a golf ball in that vacuum, they'll fall to the ground at the same rate. That's a law of gravity. If I introduce air, as I pump air in there, I will see that the golf ball will fall faster than the table tennis ball, simply because the presence of air modifies the action of gravity. Now, no physicist would say that this is an imperfection. It's a concretization. And that means that the concretization is consistent with the fact that gravity is still pulling, but there are other forces that may, in some cases, like a feather, perhaps even keep it up in the air longer. So that's how I approach all of that. And that's why whenever I find phenomena, it's not enough to explain them locally, so to speak. The counter-physics explanation works for me because it's consistent with all the other previous foundations.