The last example is something that I have dealt with extensively in my book, Democracy, The God that Failed, where I'm making an attempt to rehabilitate traditional monarchies as compared with democracies, not so much in order to show that that is the non-plus, non-plus ultra, but to show that monarchies are relatively superior over democracy. And then, democracy, traditional monarchies. Again, if you look at history, what we see there is of course, the time when monarchies were basically abolished or became merely ceremonial institutions, that is after World War II, compared that with the time when traditional monarchies were so to speak the dominant form of government, that is before the outbreak of World War I and even more so of course, before the outbreak of the French Revolution. The facts are clear, the democratic world that we have now 20 centuries, of course, wealthier than the monarchical world of the 19th and 18th century. The question however, is that because of democracy or is it in spite of democracy? And you know the standard line that we hear of course is, it is because of democracy, because democracy is of course the greatest of all inventions. Interestingly, by the way, this is a very new phenomenon that people believe in this nonsense. If you go back in all of political theory, you don't find a single major sinker who had ever sought more about democracy than democracy being some sort of moderate communism. So as was always considered to be the most lousy of all political organizations, it could possibly only work in very small places, even Rosal, the most phonetic advocate of democracy, so that it could only work in small places, because in small places everybody would control all the other people and the instinct of people to loot the property of people who have more than themselves could be curtailed by this direct social control. But this curtailing of course never works if you have millions and millions of people making up the society. So even the most dramatic advocate of democracy, Jean Jacques Rosal, would consider what we have now in terms of democracy as idiotic can be. So now only one argument to show you how wrong this interpretation is that the transition from monarchical governments to democratic governments is responsible for the increase in wealth. My thesis is if we would have retained traditional monarchies, we would be infinitely richer now than we actually are. Why is that? From an economic point of view, the transition from traditional monarchs to democratic rulers is nothing else but the transition from somebody who regards the country as his own property to somebody who regards the country as something of which he is the temporary caretaker. He is not the owner, he just takes care of it for a certain period of time. And now look at what the difference is between somebody who owns something and somebody who is a temporary caretaker of something. Just take the example of a house. In one case, I make you the owner of a house so you can pass it on to the next generation, you can sell it in the market anytime you want. And in the other case, I make you a temporary caretaker of the house. You cannot determine who will be the next caretaker and you are not entitled to sell the house in the market and retain the income that you receive from the house yourself. Now, will that make a difference in terms of how you treat the house or the example of kings and democratic politicians, how you treat the country? And the answer is, of course, that makes a difference as day and night. In one case, as an owner, you are concerned on the one hand. This, of course, I want to get higher rental income out of it. But my second concern is always, what will as a result of getting rental income out of the house occur to the value of the stock of the house because I could sell it at any time in the market? You would not want to engage in capital consumption, for instance. You would not want to increase your rental income at the expense of a more than proportional drop in the value of the house. You also are by and large interested in passing on to the next generation, something that has at least retained the value is possibly even more valuable than when you inherited it. This is what most parents do. What do temporary caretakers do? Temporary caretakers don't own the capital stock. Their interest is, I have to draw as much of current income out of this piece of capital regardless of what will happen to the value of the capital stock. Even if the house afterwards is a ruin, but I have drawn a tremendous outcome, either income out of it, then from my point of view, this is, of course, a great advantage. I must loot the country as fast as possible because what I don't loot now, I will not be able to loot in the future. The king does not have an attitude. I must loot the country as fast as possible because if I don't loot it as fast as possible, I will not be able to do it in the future as a matter of fact. If he doesn't loot it as much, the value of his country will be higher and his heirs will get something better. Just look, for instance, at the attitude that kings had vis-à-vis debt that they incurred to the attitude that democratically elected caretakers have towards debt that they incurred. Kings were by a large help responsible for the debt. Even their heirs were not in all cases, but in many cases considered to be liable for the debt incurred by their parents. They had mortgaged some of the property and people were standing there to take it away from them if they wouldn't pay up the debt. They did not prevent them to increase their debt, especially during wartime, but during peacetime they usually drew down their debt. If you look at democratic politicians, the debt, total debt goes up in wartime and in peacetime. They are not personally liable for it. There are always some suckers in the future that are liable for it. You would be literally stupid if you don't go continuously into debt as our politicians of course all do because the money that you take in, you can give out, you make plenty of friends, and in the long run we are all dead. Who cares what happens in the future? So democratic politicians are short-run people. They are like little children as I explained in my lecture about time preference. I have to have the fun right now, whereas kings tend to be behaving more like adults do. There are sometimes exceptions I will not deny, but there is a fundamental structural difference. If we would have never introduced democracy but would have stayed and kept traditional monarchies with strong powers of the monarch, our standards of living would be infinitely higher than they currently are. To this result you can also only come if you use economic theory. In historian would never come up with this idea. In historian just simply looks at 19th century poor, 20th century rich, 20th century democracy, 19th century monarchy, accordingly monarchy, monarchy crap, democracy great. That's it. That's how historians operate and I am telling you for somebody interested in economic theory history is a minefield of ridiculous interpretations over and over and over. They report the facts right but the interpretations that they give is sometimes you roll in bed and can't stop laughing. Okay, thank you very much.