When you talk about the sort of the changes that could come through
You actually say that regulation is actually a barrier. So it's not achieve regulation
It's it's other means to try and break these down
But first if we just go into regulation and antitrust and all these things in the same way that too much
Competition leads to a single winner potentially which is seen to be bad too much regulation can go the other way
I think in the 1960s it went to the extreme where small companies couldn't merge
How did you find that optimal level where you get sufficient?
Let's call it regulation antitrust legislation
That just kept the wing so you don't have too much competition because in very what happens we go too far that way
We go too far that way we're just caught in this never-ending
Swing so one of the things that I talk about in the book is the analogy of chemotherapy
there was a regulation is chemotherapy and
If you think of chemotherapy
People generally think that it just attacks cancer. Whereas in that it's a selectively toxic. I
Spoke to a friend of mine who is a one of the world cancer
Specialists and the MD Anderson clinic one of the best clinics in the world and I asked him to sort of
you know walk me through chemotherapy and you know, he pointed out that it's actually much more interesting than
Chemotherapy exclusively attacking cancers
Basically, what happens is you and I have stopped growing so our cells all the energy that we have is dedicated to cell repair
Cancers cancerous cells essentially are have been genetically programmed in a way to only grow that's what they do
They're sort of like startups right like they're in growth mode and they don't really use their energy to repair themselves
They just use it to grow. And so what chemotherapy does is it essentially attacks healthy and
unhealthy cells
but the healthy cells can repair themselves and the unhealthy cells when they start to replicate and divide they do so with damaged DNA and
Then they they die
And so if you think of regulation what it does is it's essentially attacking large companies and small companies in terms of imposing
compliance burdens
Accounting and tax burdens the big companies those they stopped growing
They've got loads of energy to spend and money to spend on compliance tax and so on
Startup stone and so there's quite a lot of studies that I cite in the book showing the the more highly regulated
Sector generally the more concentrated it is and that's one reason why the US healthcare system for example is highly concentrated in many areas
Because it's much more highly regulated the alcohol sector for example is very regulated, you know
Due to sort of prohibition and post prohibition the idea that you want to make sure people aren't getting drunk and killing themselves
Driving or is the restaurant sector it's not so you have two companies with ninety percent market share and alcohol
But you it's inconceivable that McDonald's or Burger King could ever get to 90 percent of the restaurant market, right?
And so regulation often does lead to more concentration and and it's because it wrecks
Regulatory barriers and if you think of banking for 70 years you had the glass-steagall Act. It was 35 pages
Very simple, very clear principles and that worked very well
Once dodd-frank came in it was 2,200 pages with a thousand pages more
Delegated to rule writing committees and there have been almost no new banks that have been created since dodd-frank was passed. And so
Extensive regulation essentially is tends to favor incumbents. And so I think that
Increasing competition is not just about antitrust. It's actually about having
principles-based regulation more sensible regulation
That favors competition and has clear principles based rules rather than extensive rule. So
That I think is one of the things that I'm sure like the the left will love the argument of you know
break up the big companies in the book and and the
Right way some people on the right will hate that and then I think people on the Left will hate my deregulation arguments
you know and
No one's gonna be happy reading the book
But but I hope though that it makes people think of the problem in a more nuanced way with the the companies themselves
there's always a sort of talk and you've seen it in the tech sector where the tech giant's they buy up the competition and
Half the time they buy them up and then they just let them die within their own behemoth cells
and so this is sort of but there's this thought that if you get the regulation
It's going to be really bad for the tech companies
But but it's standard all that when you actually split it up the sum of the parts. The individuals was much more valuable
so as it Rockefeller became richer yes not poorer effectively when so if people along all these monopolies
They should just stay long because when they get broken up and they get the individual bits, but they actually be better off
Where do you think there's gonna be a big downward pressure on the market?
So Ansel comes in so there's quite a lot of research that's been done on
And generally they tend to outperform the parents
I think when Greenblatt wrote that book, unfortunately, then it's not the trend came to an end, but people started spinning off
What are known as like garbage barges, you know?
So you take your terrible division and spin it off?
but generally spin offs have done better historically and part of that is that they can develop and so for example
I was in San Francisco speaking to a friend of mine who works at Google and he was saying look unless
product reaches a billion people Google has no interest and so because of that often you have companies that have like
you know need massive addressable markets or they
You know Google does search ads if you're not in the ad business like forget about it
right and
What you find out is many of these smaller companies essentially or innovative activities within larger companies are not pursued or followed or developed
because they don't fit that central mission of the company and so
Standard Oil similar 18t when it's broken up the world and many of the parts ended up becoming worth far more
And and you ended up with innovation in telecommunications
so I think breaking up some of the large monopolies today would in fact be very good and would
Improve competition significantly and you would probably see a lot more
startups and Google itself
There's a website you can find
Called Google cemetery and it has an extensive list of all the companies that Google is essentially either shut down or ended some of them
Were internally generated others were bought in
But that's what tends to happen with large companies often that buy smaller companies
I was seeing this death of competition in a way or reduced competition because of this as you mentioned earlier
we've had a significant reduction in the number of listed shares since some ways would you argue and it seems that
the growth of
Passive investing in this of dying off of active investing is partly explained by this and actually passive investing in some way
There's a logical response to this reduction in available shares
But then passive investing itself perpetuates the benefits for these large corporates because all capsule is going to them
Directly indirectly. So is that is that fair to say that passive investing is the core most illogical result of this process?
So the asset management industry itself has also become a highly-concentrated
So if you're looking at you know, whether it's Blackrock State Street, what you've seen is some of its passive, you know
They're not taking an active role but you've ended up with very few people having all the assets
this is pretty bad because in the old, you know, if they were let's say for
Probably there more than four airlines
But eight airlines you would own an airline and you would want your airline to do well and to gain market share you didn't want
A competitor to get a dollar, right?
Because that was not your dollar you wanted to capture that dollar in the market
The problem happens is when you get
Essentially what's known as horizontal shareholdings where you know in the old days JP Morgan would own five railroads
They might have different names, but they were all ultimately JP Morgan's railroads, right? And so he didn't care
you know, he didn't want a competition because you know
he wanted to make sure that you know each dollar that the sure that the railroads had was ultimately his and what happens with the
Current horizontal shareholdings is essentially it reduces the impetus for competition
So buff it rather than buy one airline when they all merged bought them
all right, and the clear message was he did not want all the airlines competing against each other right and and therefore
We know when he owns one. The dollar of earnings for the other airline is also very good
And he doesn't want to any way compete for that dollar
He's happy to let them have their local hub
and that's the problem that we see right now, which is that if you look at the you know,
Major banks and you look at many sectors the top ten shareholders are the same across all competitors, right?
It's not like you have boards that are actually pushing for companies to expand or take market share or invest
So in the old days this is called
Organizing where you'd have one main guy or own lots of companies now
essentially you could argue that Blackrock State Street and others in Berkshire Hathaway have essentially Morgan Eyes de merica
and within that as well when you see this, it may be a
An oligopoly maybe four or five companies
Although they don't ring each other up and fix prices. There is a sort of sense almost by osmosis
There will be a price leader. So prices are fixed, even though they're not physically discussing it
So once you get to a certain level is it that that the pricing power is there?
even if there's not the illegal actual physical verbal agreements
Yes, so in chapter 2 in the book I go into quite a lot of detail that there's there been
Hundreds of cases of prosecution for collusion. This is you know where I would call you up and we would secretly agree
You know what, you know, the price of widgets should be next year
but what actually happens much more often essentially that there's tacit collusion meaning that the the industry has
Relatively few players and that's the key. So the
Oligopoly a problem. Is that once you get very few players?
you end up in these repeated games where it makes sense not to compete with your competitor and
And then what generally happens you have one firm?
That might be the biggest they then become the price leader and no one tries to take market share, right?
So you they hike prices and it's not like the rest of them keep price is the same and try to capture some market share
everyone immediately hikes prices in lockstep
And if you look at for example the the market for insulin, you know
It's uncanny over the last decade basically have two companies moving prices in lockstep
You know down to the day
Over a long period of time but this happens in many different industries
and so the the move to oligopoly the oligopoly problem itself creates essentially tacit collusion where
Airline CEOs can go on the conference calls and say you know what?
We don't plan on expanding more than one percent this year, right and what they're really doing is telling their competitors
Look, we're not going to go after you will market share. This is what we're doing just to let you know
And it really goes back to I point out the minimax theory that john von neumann
Articulated which essentially is people. Don't try to maximize their maximum gain. They try to minimize their maximum loss
right and the analogy is of a mother with two kids gives them one piece of cake and says
you know to one child you cut the cake and the other one chooses it right like
You're not cutting it to get the biggest piece. You're trying to make sure that you don't end up with the smallest one and
you mentioned that regulation is an issue lobbying is an issue a share buybacks part of this problem of a
Part of a problem creating the problem of another symptom so many people think that share buybacks are the problem itself. I
Argue that in the book my career and I re that the share buybacks essentially are a symptom. They're not the disease
The question is why do what a company has have so much cash, why are corporate profit margins so high?
And in the book I go through many of the studies why you end up with higher profits and more concentrated industries
But the whether you paid out dividends or share buybacks, you know
It's just a financial engineering question. The buybacks essentially are the symptoms not the cause and if you did have
More competition you would have more mean reverting profit margins. You'd have lower profit margins in many industries. You wouldn't have these sort of abnormal
Monopoly profits and therefore you wouldn't end up with the extreme share buybacks
and obviously if you have little competition you also end up with less investment and you know
It's sort of covered in other parts of the book
But you know when you when you're not investing and you sit on that cash you have to do something with it
Neither you'll dividend it or do share buybacks. So it's the symptom not the disease
And when you look at the sort of the histories
Let's see going back to the 1800 the robber barons and then the Sherman Act
1890 and so on you had this little bit decline into this what you might call the golden period of
antitrust, and then that died in 1982 in that golden period
Walking at you point in that period that says look he was better then
Because again if I'm an investor and I'm concentrated investor
I pori be a bit worried about going back to that period I'm the first antitrust laws really only focused on trade unions
So there's he's sort of this period where you know, was it good. Was it better?
Can we actually sort of say look he was better for these reasons? So good companies tend to do well and almost any environment
I mean one of the reasons why stocks did poorly in the 70s
I don't think had anything to do with antitrust and had much more to do with high inflation
You know that is it a killer for stock markets
So I know people would say well the 70s were bad for stock the stock market therefore
We can't go back to that. You know, I think it's very misguided view
but if you're looking at the overall economy the 60s and 70s were certainly a
much more equal
society in terms of looking at sort of labor share of GDP
And you also had higher
Real economic growth and you had higher productivity growth which has basically been on the decline
And so I think that when you're looking at some of the more macro outcomes those were certainly better in the 1960s and 70s
Well 50s 60s and 70s
and so those are the things that I would point to and you know, the the problem is basically once the
Merger guidelines were changed in the 80s
And then you had an also an explosion of patents essentially in the 1980s and 90s and then it's continued and gotten even worse
You you essentially have more and more parts of the economy or essentially
Monopolies created by patents and copyright and you have essentially increasing concentration
And so it's no surprise that you know pick ADIZ book was as well received as it was because he was pointing out
This is leading to essentially a much higher level of inequality but good stocks tend to do. Well, you know no matter what
You know, it's the the problem the 70s was really inflation in terms of the the actual sectors
We mentioned a few you talk about the funeral sector you talked about tech in particular, which is obviously their headline
but within the US
Which of the industries which have really really kind of should be in the spotlight?
and also there's this difference between a lot of people look at this and say well that's not a monopoly but you make the very
Clear distinction that local monopolies do exist
So you might have the four or five railroad companies which yes an oligopoly but actually lots of local monopolies
So which are the ones in which the industry is in the US which have really been at this game for the longest I go
Through the book monopolies do appellees and oligopolies
And as you pointed out you have things that may appear competitive but actually are local monopolies
So for example, like aggregates, you know or waste management, you know
Generally, like if you have a contract for waste management for a town, you know
There's only one company doing it or if you have a local
Aggregates pit and a cement those aren't big transported for and you have a local monopoly a likewise Funeral Homes
For example, I point out that people don't generally shop for for funerals for obvious reasons
They're in great distress. And generally the body is going to be taken care of relatively close to the hospital
and so within that you'd have essentially a local monopoly first for funerals and so service corporation, for example
you know has their funerals are about 30 percent higher than independent operators, and they have actually local monopolies many parts of the US, but
Hospital mark, it's 90 percent of US hospital markets in this urban hospital markets are highly concentrated
So you generally don't have almost any competition when it comes to going to a hospital, right?
And then I point out that in the book as well that if you're looking at drug scores, right? You essentially have a duopoly
Between CVS Walgreens right and if you look at a drug wholesalers
There's three drug wholesalers right there three former benefit managers
So the US healthcare system is among the worst and I certainly hope that you end up with more competition the local insurance markets
They basically are highly concentrated almost all our duopoly in terms of its the state level
and so these are the ones I think that should be most ripe for a
reformed they're obviously vast powers of lobbying allied against it, but the insurance
markets, for example
have their their state a little fiefdom built through the mccarran-ferguson act and I think would take quite a lot to change that but
The book goes through many many of these that you wouldn't might not have even considered
as
Monopolies and I certainly hope they get broken up and changed. There was the five areas which you identified as being problems productivity
She was startups your jobs lower investment
Less diversity
wages and inequality
but what do you see as the solutions that how what are the things that we're going to see that really changes that and and
These things often take place over five to ten years the big changes that we see but how we gonna get them sooner
in a meaningful way, I
Don't think that antitrust itself will solve all these problems
But I certainly think that it it can contribute to an improvement and I think that antitrust is broken
But I think that the loss of competition also is broader and encompasses regulations
So in the last chapter the book I point out that you know, a few solutions are one of preventing future mergers, you know
We shouldn't allow industries to get down to three and two, you know
Or even one player. So we have to make sure that we're not allowing for more concentration
There are many mergers that have happened that have reduced competition
Those should be broken up, you know and and reversed many come to mind. Like for example Google buying double-click, right?
That's not one that should have ever been allowed or Facebook buying Instagram and whatsapp, but you could go into many other
Industries, so you have breaking up past mergers, but then on the regulation side
I think what we have to do is to regulate more intelligently, and so I think that for example
Dodd-frank itself should be reformed and made simpler. I
Do like many of the ideas behind it? You know, we should have lower levels of leverage
We know we make sure that banks are safer
but all this could be done in a much simpler way that you know does not create an
instrumental barriers to entry and so
Regulation is also a part. I think for example if you're looking at some of the large tech platforms
Interoperability, right and what when people can port their phone numbers, you know in many countries suddenly
Prices started falling in telecoms, right? So allowing the customer to be locked in is another key issue
So I think that it's not just antitrust, but when you think very broadly about how do you restore competition?
I think you know on the medical side
Patents should not be endlessly extended through, you know reformulation of drugs
They go into that and the book and so it's a it's a wide array of potential solutions
But all of which I think would make everyone better off
Obviously, they'll be fought because people who are currently gouging consumers and enjoying these set profits are not going to want it
lawyers probably in the most to gain out of this but another group that
Has probably been
Behind a lot of the Meuse that have created the unwanted competition is economists
Particularly Chicago School, you mentioned Bork and you say that capitalism is too important to be left to economists
Why is it that economists we then end up sort of being on the wrong side of this versus what sort of feels much more?
Natural and kind of correct in the marketplace. So I think many economists are actually doing a wonderful job of highlighting these problems
so there's like loads of new studies coming out and it's a very
Sort of it's a it's a growth area to look into the promise of concentration
When I say that, it's too important to be left to the economists
I think part of it is that the antitrust laws were written by Congress and
were meant to be
Implemented to you know to pursue the way we wanted markets in the economy to run
What's ended up happening is essentially that all these decisions on who should merge and who should not merge?
These are now in the hands of bureaucrats essentially in terms of the FTC working in close collaboration with economists
Right who have a vested interest in making sure that mergers get through and as you know talked about earlier
Most of the merger models and simulations in terms of these price savings they're going to happen or total bullshit
and so when I say that should be allowed to the economists is ultimately the the
Acts were meant to reduce concentration to avoid monopolies and effectively what's happen is we sort of out sourced
mergers to people going through the revolving door or the K Street law firms in the economist like
Charles rivers dissociating compass Lexecon and others so I don't think the problem is all economists
But certainly when you end up with a very small group of people who stand to benefit greatly, you know
They'll defend their area and they want all the sort of non specialists stay out
And so the irony is that you know, the the book was endorsed by
Mike Spence is a Nobel Prize winner or Angus Deaton. Who's a Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Rogoff, right?
So the economists outside of the antitrust world see that there's a very clear problem
People within the antitrust world who you know are looking for what Nassim Taleb calls the retrospective bribe, right?
They want to get hired by, you know, the compass and Charles River work, you know K Street law firms. They think everything's fine, right?
With the with the sort of us and you've been talking specifically about the u.s
Firstly is this only a u.s. Male or is it global is a global issues it in the UK xored in Europe
Is it in Australia and secondly?
Is it likely that the US is going to break up?
it's it's kind of monopolist because
If you look at it from a kind of global perspective the US had done pretty well over the last ten years
The US equity market and yes, it's been concentrated
But again, it goes back to if you come came in from the outside world
And you saw as you go the US looks great, but Napoles look great because the US has outperformed almost everywhere
so isn't a good thing in some ways and
Will the US authorities really want to break what looks like a relatively good system or do you need other regions to say?
Hey, you know, this is a problem. So one of the reasons that I focused on the US was the u.s
In a way is the the leader and the most advanced right? So for the u.s
First created antitrust and exported it to the rest of the world and then the u.s
Essentially had the counter-revolution and exported that to the rest of the world. So I think that whatever battle is happening in the u.s
That's going to end up playing out elsewhere the u.s
Certainly is the most advanced in terms of going down. The consolidation route Europe is less consolidated in many ways than the u.s
Is some emerging markets are highly concentrated and they also interestingly tend to be the most unequal in in terms of Gini coefficients. So like
Chilles known as the Chicago experiment essentially where a lot of the University Chicago people went down and advised Pinochet
Right, so they have very high industry concentration and extremely high inequality
So when you look around the world you often do find these very interesting
relationships
Some countries like Australia are highly oligopolistic and monopolistic and it's not surprising also that you end up with
sort of higher degrees of
profitability in some of the sectors and very large transfers of wealth from people who are outside the sector to the sector and the financial
industry in particular, you know due to the the four banks, so
That's you know, one of the problems other countries like Canada Australia, which are very oligopolistic often have higher tax rates
And so they don't deal with they don't have antitrust to increase competition what they're doing is saying, okay
You can pay people very very well in these industries
We're just gonna tax you at a pretty high rate, but my view is you know
Rather than go for the very high tax route. Which Piketty argues this let's create
Let's increase competition to make sure that you don't have like some very fat
Monopolies or dois police and so it does go go around the world the u.s
Just happens to be sort of the farthest along and what is the perfect?
environment do you think we're where this kind of really works because it still goes back to
put regulation or antitrust laws in place and
we clip that top end of
Competition, but how what what are the features that you envisage would be?
Perfect competition. We know what perfect competition should look like, but real world perfect competition. How'd you get it?
So I I'm not precise. I'm not in favor of a perfect competition, which is also like another textbook extreme, right?
I'm very much in favor of you know, people who come up with great ideas get patents they can then
you know have
Very high profitability for a period I'm not against that at all if you happen to create a new market
You should enjoy that, you know
Until you get competitors, you know and that creates essentially monopoly type profits until competitors emerge
I don't have a problem with that. My problem is essentially with
mergers that reduce competition materially so taking out competitors from the market, but what's interesting in the book I talk about
You know earlier chatting about prices going up
There's a lot of work that's been done by John Koch at Northeastern University
showing that when you get below six players in an industry you end up with price increases and a pricing power and so I
Argue that we shouldn't allow for mergers and industries below six players right now
If you want to increase your market share by being better go for it
You know try to become number one and you know, take everyone else's market share
But we shouldn't have mergers between players and under six industries. Sorry six players per industry. So that that is what I wear
I think you know you can draw the line in terms of mergers
But it doesn't mean that you couldn't have one company dominating an industry if they're doing it through best service
The problem is what when I talk to people almost no one can point to industries like well
They have a monopoly because they're just the very best, right?
Generally what happens is companies merge, even in the case of Google and Facebook
The reason they have a duopoly in the ad market is due to purchases of direct competitors
Do you have a view code? Does this have any impact on princes the bond market?
Because it feels like over the last
20 years 30 years when this has been in place or if in fact have been seeing that sort of eating away at
potential economic growth in order to fuel excess profits
So the long equity long bond trade which has worked kind of pretty well over the last thirty years
We're just coming in for a little bit of a little bit of us a tricky patch now
But if this doesn't get broken up, does that suggest that bond yields should actually stay relatively so much
you're not saying they stay down but
Relatively subdued so I'm not certain how this plays out in terms of the level of bond yields, but what's certainly interesting?
Is that the real rate of interest has an enormous impact on?
Collusion, you know between market players and the ability of companies to buy each other
So when debts cheap in a company a can buy Company B
And so you've ended up with merger waves so merger waves tend to happen during bubbles people can use their stock is acquisition
currency
It also happens when rates are relatively low and people companies can then borrow money cheaply to buy competitors
So those are two things driving merger waves and then also when real rates are low
It means that the payoff period can be longer in terms of collusion
When real rates are very high companies generally don't want to clewd because you need a very high initial payoff
you know to make that clusion work and so that's the
Very interesting thing. I have a chart in there on global
Real rates which of course have been very low which encourages collusion, you know and allows companies to borrow to buy each other
So I think to the extent that you end up with higher bond yields higher rates going forward that would
Make it more difficult for companies to merge and would be a damper on on the collusion ask
You've shown that from your own work
The concentration of industries outperforms the broad index and I think it was strata gas
You did the lobbyists index where those companies Lobby the most
outperforms the broad index
Until we see any major changes in this structure
Would you recommend basically still be the wrong concentration and long the lobbyist as an investor?
Would you still kind of take and you're almost I want to be immoral here and sure in more grameen and continue with those concentrate?
I think you'd have to do it on a selective basis
I think there's certainly unfortunately what we've seen in the last couple years is that
sort of growth forces value stocks or high quality versus low quality stocks and reached extremes and
you know as we're seeing this year a lot of the tech stocks are getting beaten up people are waking up to the fact that
Facebook might be broken up. Certainly. There's a move in Congress to do that
and
also
what you're finding out is that you all totally can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and
Some of the pharma companies have discovered this where you know, like for example Valiant you can hike prices
You know quite a lot when you have a monopoly, right?
They have some chain patents on a particular drug or a monopoly on that drug
Ultimately, though there's a backlash and ultimately you can only take that so far and so I think that investors need to think very hard
About what you know, what is the source of that?
Sort of dominance that they're getting is it natural. Is it unnatural and and are they?
Essentially going to raise the ire of regulators or not and at the end of the book you talk about
ways that we can
Try and make a difference. I mean a small ways between a from a corn you get the oak tree
What are the things that you think can be done?
So this shift rather than going on the street to our pickaxes and our sides and all the rest of it
You think there are a few things that we can do everyone can do slowly but surely to sort of just start chipping away
what are those things so in some cases the
consumer has no choice when it comes to like high-speed Internet in the US or you know when it comes to
Insurance markets, but there are many places in the US economy where you can decide every day. It's an election
You can decide where you spend your money. I I would recommend that
investors and consumers
Back David's versus Goliath, you know that you can decide we know where you spend your money
That's a choice that you can make every day in terms of search. For example, I personally use DuckDuckGo
I have no interest in the surveillance capitalism of Google and Facebook, you know
which basically appear free but you're handing over very valuable person betta so there there are alternatives to you know, some of the
Programs and companies that essentially are built on
surveillance of the user and obviously
you know people need to get politically active and let their congressman and
Representatives know that this is something that they care about and I think
they already are coming to that view and I think that we're gonna hear a lot more from Congress on this bring the men to
My where do you think?
How long from now what's your what's your time frame?
What you think it's gonna all happen what and so you know if you think of World War two, for example
There was the Battle of Midway was essentially the turning point, right and that was, you know, very early on in the war
Essentially, but but once once that had happened it was quite clear that Japanese it couldn't win in the Pacific and then the question was
What kind of loss were they going to take and I think that if you look at antitrust right now
all the money is stacked on one side of the table and you know, but I think the
it's extremely popular to
Get some reform and if you're looking at the pop culture or you look at John Oliver is running segments on antitrust, you know
The show Netflix Patriot Act. Basically that pop culture is moving and ultimately the
regulators and
Congressmen are gonna want to get ahead and pretend that they're leading the parade rather than be run out of town
It's the great thing is what you're saying is that capitalism is good capitalism works
It's become a bit grotesque, but it will probably self correct rather than implode. So therefore it's actually quite an optimistic outlook
We've got yes the u.s
in the past in other countries there been moments where things have been extreme and you've had
People like Teddy Roosevelt and I certainly think that we're going to see more of that, you know, we receive a reform, you know
Rather than a revolution
Jonathan thank you very much indeed. Well, thank you. Thank you
