 I kind of lost my question, but so what you're saying is that no one should take the hands-off approach and allow the re-market to determine the natural life cycles of industries and companies. And we should, as a society, accept the short-term consequences for the long-term gains of new industries and greater growth in society. And the consumers will be able to determine whether these new services will work through the newer vipirates. But the consumers and users only see the last step in the stage. How do you stop companies from taking shortcuts upstream to prevent a better world of society? So what kind of shortcuts? Give me an example of a shortcut that's detrimental to society. Something that will be a cost-saving measure that, let's say, I don't know, instead of dumping my waste to a safe waste yard and stuff in the river. Well, I mean my solution to that, this is often called the problems of the commons, right? How do you protect the commons from abuse and from people using them badly? I mean my solution to really all problems of the commons is not to have any, privatize them. No commons. No commons, right? So if the lake is private, you're not going to dump your waste in my lake. If the streams are private, you're not going to dump your waste in my stream because I'm going to sue the hell out of you if you do. So I suddenly have an incentive to monitor what's going on. If there's a piece of land outside there and people are just dumping their garbage in it, it's probably owned by the state and nobody really cares. But if private ownership, if private people owned that land, they wouldn't let people just dump their garbage in it, right? Because what do we take care of the best? Our own stuff. Like when the Berlin Wall came down and people went into Eastern Europe and saw what was going on there. The thing that shocked people the most, more than the poverty, more than the awful products they were making, more than anything, the thing that shocked them the most was how filthy everything was, how dirty it was. And there's a reason why communism, socialism, breeds filth. It's because nothing is privately owned. And if stuff is not privately owned, we don't take care of it. The way capitalism works is through selfishness. It's through taking care of your own stuff, taking care of yourself. That's how capitalism works. You go to work because you're trying to make a living. You don't go to work to benefit mankind. You don't go to work for some social agenda unless you're working non-profit or something. But even then, you need to get paid, right? So you're going to work to make a living. Hopefully you love what you do. Hopefully you're going to work because you love it. You enjoy it. You're having fun doing it, right? And then maybe as a third goal, you're going to work because you want to change the world. You want to make the world a better place or whatever, right? But see jobs. None of these entrepreneurs wake up every day saying, I want to make the world a better place, right? I want to go and do fun stuff. That's what they wake up. And then secondly, I'm going to make a profit doing it. And thirdly, the only way to make a profit, you can ask me about this, is to make the world a better place. Because if customers don't think they're better off using my product, they're not going to buy it. The only way people are going to buy my product is they believe they're going to be better off as a consequence. So capitalism is a system about the pursuit of self-interest. It's a system that is geared and motivated and driven by self-interest. And the way that is self-correcting is to make sure that everything is in some of these self-interest, everything good. And so how do you make in some of these self-interest not to have this piece of land dirty? You don't make it private. See? And it used to be that way. I mean the East Coast, almost everything is privatized. I mean not the rivers and lakes, unfortunately. And the way that 75% of all the land is owned by development. But it used to be in the West that the rivers used to be owned privately. So there's a whole, I mean you can look this up, I mean you're a lost student, right? There was a whole, during the late 90s century, a whole body of law, common law, that dealt with what happens if my cows poop up here and you're drinking the water down here. And how do we deal with those constitution privately? Not government regulations control, but just privately. Now imagine that was really applied across all the rivers and all the lakes in the United States and imagine if that body of law didn't stop developing sometime in the early part of the 20th century because basically all the rivers were nationalized, all the lakes were nationalized and now it was all political issue, it wasn't a legal issue. But imagine if that legal common law had developed to really figure out how do we deal with private property when it comes to waterways, when it comes to these things that people use. I mean I think we're in a much better situation today than we are where it's all political and when it's political, how do we make decisions? I mean the difference between private property disputes through the common law and how that decision making goes, versus how do you make decisions when it's political? Fear. Well fear, but who's making decisions? It's democratic, right? But what drives democracy? Whatever the majority is voting, because often most people don't vote, right? In most local elections, most small elections, judge elections, things like that, how minority of people vote. And then who is getting influenced by politicians the most? People with the most mistake, the people with the loudest, the people who have the biggest, you know, maybe the biggest wallets, maybe it's just the biggest voice, maybe it's the people who can rally the most voters but it becomes democracy, becomes pressure group politics. It doesn't become, let's figure out what the best solution is. You know, you went into the last time politicians sat around the table and said, let's figure out the best solution to this problem. I can't think of a time in modern American history where that's happening. Usually it's this pressure group wants us to do this, this pressure group wants us to do that, that pressure group wants us to do the same. How do we balance all the pressure groups and how do we minimize the damage to ourselves? That's how politics works. And that's why I think the U.S. is in the position to say it. We divided ourselves into little tribes based on the political pressure group. We believe that it's going to give us the most leverage so we can influence policy the most, not for the good but just for the most, for our little group. And politics is a complete disaster today. There's no sitting down and thinking about how to solve problems.