In the last decade and a half, India and China have both engaged in extensive economic reforms, in effect bringing their joint population of some 2.3 billion into the worldwide system of capitalism and free trade. Those 2.3 billion people, many of whom are extremely well educated, are by and large willing to work harder and for less pay than are Americans. Are India and China's expanding and modernizing economies threatening America's long global dominance of science, technology, and industry? If so, what should we do about it? Peter Robinson speaks with Craig Barrett, Stephen Moore, and Peter A. Thiel.
Peter Robinson: Today on Uncommon Knowledge: are 2.3 billion people coming after us?
Announcer: Funding for this program is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation.
Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today: is the United States losing its competitive edge? Consider a couple of statistics. First, population. The United States, 290 million. India, 1 billion. China, 1.3 billion. Now, average rates of economic growth from 1991 to 2001. The United States, 3.3 percent. India, 5.4 percent. And China, 9.8 percent. Are we about to be eaten alive?
Joining us, three guests. Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Peter Thiel is president of Clarium Capital Management and a co-founder of PayPal. And Craig Barrett is chief executive officer of one of the nation's leading high tech companies, Intel.
Title: What, U.S. Worry?
Peter Robinson: Columnist Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, "We are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere and the other is a competitiveness and innovation struggle against India, China and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former, we are completely ignoring the latter." Are we indeed engaged in a dire economic struggle with India and China? Steve?
Stephen Moore: We are in an economic struggle with China and India but we're winning and we're going to win. We're well poised in the twenty-first century to be number one.
Peter Robinson: Peter?
Peter Thiel: It's complicated. We are in a struggle. We're doing well, but it's not a slam dunk.
Peter Robinson: But so far we're grading it. Now you have to say we're in the struggle and we're losing. How do you see it?
Craig Barrett: We're in the struggle and it's a struggle.
Peter Robinson: All right. GDP per capita. India, 470 dollars. China, 900 dollars. The United States, 35,200 dollars, which leads me to ask Craig what he's so worried about.
Craig Barrett: Those are gross numbers. You know, in China, it's dividing by 1.3 billion people. If you look at the Chinese middle class, the Chinese educated middle class, they have a higher standard of living and a higher per capita income and the education, which is comparable to much of the United States, and we're talking…
Peter Robinson: How large is that middle class?
Craig Barrett: …we're talking about several hundred million people.
Peter Robinson: The Chinese middle class of several hundred million people has already caught up to the American middle class? Is that…
Craig Barrett: On relative purchasing power, yes. Absolute dollars, no, of course.
Peter Robinson: But they live as well as we do?
Craig Barrett: They live as well as we do and their cost of living is less, but I don't think that it's the average income you ought to be focused on. It's the average education level that you ought to be focused on.
Peter Robinson: Okay. Couple more economic statistics here. Average rate of economic growth from 1991 to 2001. India, 5.4 percent. China, 9.8 percent. The United States, 3.3 percent. How can we possibly be winning?
Stephen Moore: Well, the fact that China and India--I agree with Craig--that they are catching up. I don't agree with him that they have a middle class like we do. They're still substantially far behind us, but they are catching up and I would say, Peter, that's good news for the American economy. The global economy is not a zero sum game. It's not as if as China gets richer, that therefore we have to get poorer. And just look at it this way; imagine that Craig is right and that over the next 20 years you see this acceleration in incomes that you've seen over the next ten years. That's going to mean you're going to have a billion Chinese consumers that are going to start buying automobiles and cellular telephones and all--and movies.
Peter Robinson: Keep going, keep going until you get to Intel processors.
Stephen Moore: Intel processors. And that's huge.
Craig Barrett: They are already our second largest customer.
Peter Robinson: China?
Craig Barrett: China has passed Japan.
Peter Robinson: Where's India rank?
Craig Barrett: Oh, India is farther down on the list. They're about five years behind China in terms of consumption. But China is the second largest customer of companies like Intel. Biggest customer for cell phones. Second biggest customer in the world for computers. They're already there. It's not an…
Stephen Moore: Isn't that good for your company?
Craig Barrett: It's absolutely.
Peter Thiel: Well, I think that part of it is very good, but there are parts of the world that actually do resemble more of a zero sum game. One of the big ones is the oil industry, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia. And basically, as China demands more and more oil, it's now the second largest oil importer in the world today, right after the U.S. Its oil prices are going through the roof, they're at record highs today and they're probably are going to go much, much higher. And that's going to help the Islamic terrorists that are the first part of the freedom quotes you started with.
Peter Robinson: 1960s, there were plenty of economists and businessmen who were worried about the Soviet Union, that we'd lose out to the Soviet Union. 1980s, they were worried we'd be overtaken by Japan. I cannot omit to mention that your predecessor, Andy Grove, and others in Silicon Valley kicked up such a fuss that, against his better judgment, Ronald Reagan signed that 1986 semiconductor agreement. We did just fine against the Soviet Union. We did just fine against Japan. What is different about, or distinctive about, the present moment?
Craig Barrett: Size and scale.
Peter Robinson: China and India are just much bigger.
Craig Barrett: Japan had a population half the U.S. They have an average wage rate, which is comparable United States. It was a very gentlemanly competition between the two countries, if you will. We could compete on merits, compete on capabilities. You're not talking about a country with four times the population of the U.S. Education of a great fraction of its people, appreciable fraction of its people comparable to the U.S., at wage rates which are much, much lower.
Peter Thiel: The key point is that in the 1970s in the competition with the Soviet Union, one of the reasons the U.S. ended up prevailing was because people were focused on it and they were really scared to death.
Peter Robinson: So what exactly do we need to fear from the Asian economies?
Title: Start Your Engines
Peter Robinson: The prosperity of China. You've already said they were already your second customers, so there's a sense in which if the rest of the world gets richer, so what? Isn't that better for billions of people?
Craig Barrett: Yes.
Peter Robinson: What do we fear?
Craig Barrett: On the one hand, increasing the customer base is excellent for the United States. Second hand, there is competition. There's competition for value added jobs, engineering jobs, technology jobs. If I think we have anything to fear, it's that innovation engine which is growing in Asia. And it's growing in Asia at the same time--I wouldn't exactly say it's atrophying, but it's not growing rapidly in the United States. So there's a relative growth disparity between innovation in Asia, investment, education, talented workers and market development, which is going to be in competition with U.S. companies going forward. That's what I fear.
Peter Thiel: But, truly, if there's one thing that's not a zero sum game, it is knowledge and development and science. I mean, as people learn more, it's not like it's a zero sum game. That's the thing that, I think, can be a win-win situation. The things that are not win-win situations are the oil situation and the larger geopolitical situation because if the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, then we can also support the largest military and that creates security in the U.S. If China ends up with the largest economy, you know, we better hope that China is a free and democratic country.
Peter Robinson: So you're worried about a geopolitical challenge?
Peter Thiel: That's the long-term challenge.
Stephen Moore: Let me address that, Peter, because I think it's really what we're after here.
Peter Robinson: So far, we have two separate fears, two separate things to be afraid of.
Stephen Moore: Well, the point is that, you know, if you look at the struggle over the '60s, '70s, '80s, it was will freedom and free markets going to work, or is it going to be central planning? The American model or the Soviet model.
Peter Robinson: Two different models.
Stephen Moore: And what's going on in these countries like China and India--even Mexico is starting to move towards market-based economies--is our model, the American model, the freedom model is working. So when it gets to this issue of the geopolitical struggle that you were talking about, Peter, as long as China keeps moving towards economic freedom and political freedom, then I'm not sure we have so much to worry about.
Peter Thiel: Well, the issue is whether they can have economic freedom without political freedom.
Stephen Moore: That's the case. It is. I agree.
Peter Thiel: China's copying not Hong Kong but Singapore. They want to be like Singapore.
Peter Robinson: Does the geopolitical aspect worry you?
Craig Barrett: Not particularly because, as pointed out by both the other panelists, capitalism has won and economy trumps all going forward.
Peter Robinson: You presume then that as China continues to open its markets and that economic development will tend to bring in its wake a freer political entity. To the extent they become more democratic, they become less challenging for us.
Craig Barrett: You see it every day, that China's entered the WTO. If you look at business startups, entrepreneurship, all you have to do is go to China if you want to see the leading edge on this. We are the biggest high-tech venture capital company in the world. Half of our investments on a runway, going forward are in Asia.
Peter Robinson: Are you investing? You run a hedge fund. Are you investing in China?
Peter Thiel: We're not investing in China at all. I mean, we think that it's still a very corrupt political regime and that it's basically going to be a game of where the insiders are going to make out like bandits and the outsiders are going to do very well to get their money back. But I think Craig's larger point is well taken, which is they have a powerfully growing economy. However, I would not be so sanguine about decoupling that from the political issue because there was a Communist model that failed and a capitalist model that succeeded. But there was also a fascist model, which failed only because of World War II. The economies of the fascist countries in the 1930s were actually doing quite well.
Peter Robinson: Craig is suggesting economic freedom is more important. China will come along. And Thiel here is saying oh, wait a minute. They could become a rich economy and still threaten us.
Stephen Moore: It's a danger. I agree with them except I'm not quite as pessimistic. I guess I believe that freedom creates its own momentum, Peter, and that is…
Peter Robinson: If you start with economic freedom, you'll end up with political freedom.
Stephen Moore: Right. They're going to start demanding political freedom because you're exactly right. I mean, I've been to China. They don't have political freedom in China. There's still incredible repression going on.
Peter Thiel: They don't have it in Singapore, either, which is 30 years ahead of China.
Peter Robinson: Let's flip that last question around. Why shouldn't we be worried?
Title: Imitation Is the Smartest Form of Flattery
Peter Robinson: Against our population of 290 million, you've got India. They've got a billion people. China's got 1.3 billion people. You've got 2.3 billion people, who in the last decade and a half have gotten with the program of capitalism, free markets, international trade and so forth.
Stephen Moore: That's good.
Peter Robinson: Okay. Is it good?
Stephen Moore: Yes.
Peter Robinson: Those 2.3 billion people are, at least initially, willing to work harder and for less money than many of our workers and it doesn't seem to me at all implausible that their knowledge workers will be harder working, willing to take lower wages than ours. Why shouldn't we be afraid? Why shouldn't ordinary American wage earners be afraid?
Stephen Moore: Because this is what's been happening in the American economy for the last 50 years, is the low wage jobs are leaving the U.S. They're going to places like, you know, Korea and China and so on. But where we're winning, I think, is in the high wage areas of industries like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and financial services and banking. And so this is where I think Craig and I are in fundamental agreement, though. The one scary thing out there is that our education system is lagging so far behind in sciences and engineering and so on that we're not going to be able to create those high paying jobs if we're putting out people from college that can't even read their degree.
Craig Barrett: There are three things that you ought to worry about. One is education and if you want a higher standard of living, on average, you have to have a higher education level to be more productive.
Peter Robinson: Okay, you name the three and we'll talk about each one of them. Go ahead.
Craig Barrett: The second one is the United States government, which is the premier investor in basic research and development, has to continue to worry about this problem and continue to invest in R&D. If you look at the investment in the physical sciences, engineering areas that we operate in, that's been flat or in decline over the last two decades. NIH has gone up funding, but if you look at the rest of engineering and technology, it's down.
Peter Robinson: All right.
Craig Barrett: And the third thing is, I'd correct one earlier comment you made. You said there are 2.4 billion people. Add Russia and Eastern Europe and the other Asian countries, half of the world's population just entered the free economic system. Half. If you don't think there are going to be dislocations and changes when half of the world's population all of a sudden, over a short period of time, jumps into the world's free economic system, you're crazy. And the government here and the people here and the education system here have to recognize that and respond to it.
Peter Robinson: Go ahead.
Peter Thiel: One of the problems is that we know what needs to be done long-term in the U.S. You need a better education system, we need to be focused on competing where we can and working together, create win-win situations. The problem is that, in the short term, there are a lot of quick fixes like steel tariffs, like various protective tariffs and things like that. And I think the short-term benefit versus long-term cost is one of the main…
Peter Robinson: The short-term impulse is almost always protectionist.
Peter Robinson: And that has to be opposed.
Peter Thiel: And it's a political problem in the U.S.
Peter Robinson: You're a free trader.
Craig Barrett: I'm a free trader.
Peter Robinson: Okay, good. We have noted.
Craig Barrett: Seventy-five percent of my company's business is done outside of the U.S. I'm a free trader.
Peter Robinson: All right.
Stephen Moore: This is what everybody's so concerned about who's listening to the show is oh, my God. My job is going to be outsourced to China or India or Russia.
Peter Robinson: And how do you answer somebody who's worried about that?
Stephen Moore: And I would say, look, you know, we are still a country that imports capital from the rest of the world. We're importing hundreds of billions of dollars of capital from the rest of the world into U.S., which is building plants and equipment.
Peter Robinson: Which is to say that people abroad still consider this country the best place to invest…
Stephen Moore: …a good investment climate.
Peter Robinson: …or a good investment.
Stephen Moore: So not only do we have to do the things that Craig and Peter were talking about with respect to education, but I would say, look, let's go to a flat tax...
Peter Robinson: Craig Barrett has three issues on his agenda. Let's look at the first, education.
Title: Running On Empty
Peter Robinson: Craig Barrett, writing in the Wall Street Journal: "Economists have long predicted that education will be the fuel that drives the global economy well. Many nations have already begun to rev their engines while America's is stalled.". Explain yourself.
Craig Barrett: If you look at the educational performance of the young people coming out of the K through 12 system; there's no other way to describe it than we're the bottom of the barrel. We talk more about education in this country and do less about it.
Peter Robinson: Primary education. Doesn't the picture tend to reverse when you look at secondary education?
Craig Barrett: We have the best secondary education system in the world. American universities are still at the top of the pile. Now it's going to be more competition going forward from places like China, but our university education system is still superb. The problem is in the K through 12, we do an excellent job filtering people out, filtering most of the people out, from wanting to pursue jobs in technology, engineering, science.
Peter Robinson: Give me your number one reform.
Craig Barrett: Well, can I have two?
Peter Robinson: All right, all right.
Craig Barrett: I'm an engineer. I can't solve a problem unless I measure what I'm trying to solve, so quantifying the performance of the education system. Essentially, what's in No Child Left Behind is appropriate. You have to measure the problem. The second one is we need to do a better job preparing teachers to teach topics in K through 12 and especially in the area of mathematics, science and engineering.
Peter Robinson: How? Government mandates that?
Craig Barrett: The government can mandate it. The government can catalyze it. The government can make grants to people to major in those subjects; can forgive college loans if they teach in those areas.
Peter Robinson: All right.
Craig Barrett: You need to have math and science teachers who are certified in the topics they're teaching, not what we have today.
Peter Robinson: Peter, reform education for us.
Peter Thiel: Well, that is a tough one. You know, I know when I was at Stanford in the late '80s, we were talking about school vouchers. I still think that would be a good idea.
Peter Robinson: You're nodding?
Craig Barrett: Absolutely.
Peter Robinson: You just gave us a couple of government programs. He's giving us a kind of free market program.
Craig Barrett: You only gave me two selections.
Peter Thiel: I still think it's a good idea. At the same time, I think, it's been 20 years and there's been a whole generation. And we knew it was a good idea 20 years ago. So, you know, it's a tough one. The silver lining…
Peter Robinson: Hedge fund managers are constitutionally impatient, have you noticed that?
Peter Thiel: Well, 20 years is a long time. The silver lining, though, I would give you is while I agree that education is important, a perspective to keep in mind is the U.S is able to do far more with less educated people. So if we compare us to Japan. Japan has an educational system that is second to none and yet.
Peter Robinson: Still lower worker productivity.
Peter Thiel: And less product, because people are forced into one particular job for their entire lives, the big company mentality. And we don't have that in the U.S.
Stephen Moore: I'm not quite as pessimistic about the education of our kids. You're right, the education system is totally broken, but one of the things that excites me, just watching my own kids and their friends and so on--we're a middle class family. Every kid has a computer. I mean, Craig, they're learning stuff on their computer.
Peter Robinson: Do they have Intel processors?
Stephen Moore: They have Intel, you know. So you don't even need schools anymore practically. And these kids are learning everything they have on their computer sets. So that's one reason why I'm not quite as pessimistic. And the other thing is you're exactly right.
Peter Robinson: Do you wish seriously to assert that the high tech revolution will take care of the problems in our schools? Is that what you're saying?
Stephen Moore: I think that technology's having a hugely beneficial impact on the ability--I mean, in the future, you're going to have schools that are like virtual schools, where you have, you know, your personal computer in front of you and you're learning from the best professor.
Peter Robinson: And that'll keep us ahead of China and India?
Stephen Moore: I think it will. The other thing we haven't talked about, which I'd add to Craig's list, is we have one advantage over all these other countries that you didn't mention, Craig, which is we can import this human capital, which other countries can't.
Peter Robinson: Okay.
Stephen Moore: We can take the best minds of China and India and Mexico and bring them here. And we've been doing that.
Peter Robinson: Steve says that we can bring the best minds here, but that's no longer so easy, is it?
Title: Visa. Can't Leave Home Without It
Peter Robinson: Thomas Friedman in the New York Times once again, he's writing about a trip he made to Silicon Valley: "Executives complained bitterly that the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here. Instead, they're studying in England and other Western European nations and even China."
Stephen Moore: That's not exactly right. Actually what's happening is they're still coming here to get their degrees, but then they can't get visas to stay here, so there are hundreds of thousands of very highly technically trained scientists and engineers who can't get a visa to stay. It's ridiculous.
Peter Robinson: Is this just a little problem that the new Department of Homeland Security is going to work out in a matter of months or a year or so as they sort out the war on terror? Or is this actually a kind of systemic thing that's undermining our ability to compete?
Peter Thiel: Well, it's an easy problem to fix in theory. In practice, it may be trickier because of the political dynamic, where a lot of people in the U.S. are scared and insecure and that leads to anti-immigration policies. So I think you have to keep in mind on the political dynamic but yet, the policy is very easy to fix. You just grant more H1B visas.
Craig Barrett: I agree with that, but I want to correct something I think you said, or someone said, which is that it's just staying with a visa after you've been educated. If you look at the applications for entrance to universities and the acceptance and the ability of people to come from foreign countries to the U.S. for our graduate schools, which has been the source of this foreign technical talent, that's down. And that's continuing to go down. And some of our best friends…
Peter Robinson: Because of the war on terror?
Craig Barrett: Getting a visa to come here.
Stephen Moore: It's not easy to get in.
Craig Barrett: You go to Australia today, you go to the U.K today, you find major advertising and marketing campaigns. Why go to the U.S.? Why battle to get a visa to go to the U.S.? Come here for your education. Now what that does is it siphons away some of the best students. It also creates, then, the lifelong contact of those students with the country where they've been educated, even if they go back home. That's depriving the U.S. twice.
Peter Robinson: Third topic here is big government. He's already said that he wants more basic research funded. You have an interesting twist on this, Stephen. I quote you from National Review: "A strong argument can be made that the rush to reregulate corporate America is precisely what is holding us back." Would you care to explain this?
Stephen Moore: Well, I think you see this--it was something we were talking about off the show--was this new regulation with respect to corporate finances, Sarbanes-Oxley. And this is a bill that has imposed, you know, potentially billions of dollars of costs on corporations. It's made it difficult for corporations to recruit people to their boards and so on because they're so draconian. I think that kind of reregulation of corporate America can be very harmful to our ability to compete. And if we're going to--look, if we're going to have our corporations like Intel be the best in the world, we've got to make sure that we're not overregulating them, that we're not burdening them with lawsuits, that we're putting kids in--when they get out of school that can read their degrees. All these things are pretty easy to solve. We know the solution; we just can't get the political system to respond.
Peter Robinson: Even as China and India are progressively getting their government out of the marketplace, freeing up the markets, ours is proliferating regulations and, over the long term, that is a serious matter that undermines our competitiveness. True, false? He's shaking his head.
Peter Thiel: If it's true, it would definitely undermine our competitiveness. I think at the end of the day, we're not going to be able to regulate much more because of the competitiveness. And that's why, if we're aware that we have to compete with China and India, that is going to prevent the government from getting…
Stephen Moore: Certainly you think the trial lawyers are--I mean, do you all agree the trial lawyers…
Peter Thiel: It is a huge problem, but it's not going to get any worse from here. It's at an absolute limit, the system is completely broken.
Craig Barrett: I hope it doesn't get any worse.
Stephen Moore: But that's a big net cost that we impose on our businesses that these other countries have much more rational…
Peter Robinson: But this is of an interesting dynamic that Peter has just suggested, that this is self-correcting.
Craig Barrett: Well, capitalism trumps all.
Peter Thiel: As long as we know it, as long as we're aware of it.
Craig Barrett: Capitalism trumps all in the world's economic infrastructure. And if you don't believe that, just look here in California. You just had a recall election in California. Capitalism trumped the incumbent governor and got him voted out of office. Why? Two decades of oppressive environmental, business, economic restrictions on the growth of the economy here. Choking it, and finally the people rebelled. And if they can do it in California, my goodness, they can do it anywhere.
Peter Robinson: If capitalism is self-correcting, then we don't really have to worry, right?
Title: A Slap in the Face from the Invisible Hand
Peter Robinson: This is going to correct itself over the longer term. All three of you, is that the case?
Peter Thiel: No, no. Absolutely not. It only will correct itself if people are aware of the problem and they do things. Problems don't automatically solve themselves.
Peter Robinson: During 195--I can't remember the year, but it was during the Eisenhower years. Richard Nixon visits Moscow and he and Khrushchev get into a kind of informal debate and Khrushchev famously pronounces we will bury you. No leader of China or India is going to be stupid enough to issue a direct challenge to the United States like that. By what mechanism is the political system in the United States going to recognize that it's under threat?
Stephen Moore: An electorate won't tolerate falling behind. I mean, this is one of the reasons that we're Americans.
Peter Robinson: The British electorate doesn't seem to mind it.
Stephen Moore: Well, but Britain is a very different country than we are.
Peter Robinson: Okay, go ahead.
Stephen Moore: And the point I made at the outset of the show is the American economic system of free markets is working. And my point is, who's the best at practicing the American economic system? We are. And I do think we're going to move towards these policies.
Peter Thiel: I think it's a close call. We've seen steel tariffs. We've seen reregulation in lots of industries. It is a very close call.
Stephen Moore: It's like two steps forward, one step back.
Peter Thiel: Or two back and one forward. It depends on whether you think people are going to think for the long term or the short term. And I think the jury's out.
Craig Barrett: Well, I get bothered when I look and see the federal government still putting 20 to 30 billion dollars a year into agriculture subsidies and only putting 5 billion dollars a year into basic research in the physical sciences. If you think that agriculture is the driving force for the U.S. economy in the twenty-first century, that's the right investment.
Stephen Moore: It was 100 years ago.
Craig Barrett: It was 100 years ago. It is not in the twenty-first century. We have our priorities backwards. And somehow we have to get that moved around. Now the only way that'll happen is the populous has to get that message, government leaders have to debate that message.
Peter Robinson: So is Intel--do you have a little arm for corporate philanthropy where you're going to be funding a think tank? What do you do?
Craig Barrett: The one extracurricular activity we have at Intel is, in fact, education and it's improving both K through 12 education and providing research dollars at the university level, providing education to underprivileged kids. We've put over 100 million a year into that. That's our one outside activity.
Peter Robinson: Gentlemen, alas, it's television, so I have to ask the final question. Ever since the middle of the last century, at least the middle of the last century, that is, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has led the world in scientific research, in the commercial applications of technology, in overall technical and economic dynamism. Will the United States continue to lead the world by the middle of this century? Stephen?
Stephen Moore: I think we will, and we have to if we want to remain number one. And that's going to mean improving our education and getting the foreign talent to come into this country that helped build the Silicon Valley that Craig Barrett represents.
Peter Robinson: Peter.
Peter Thiel: Well, there's nothing automatic about history. History is made up by the choices people make and it's in our hands to decide.
Peter Robinson: But you could quite easily see us going the way of England, a long, slow, comfortable decline?
Peter Thiel: It could be that. Or it could be that America wakes up and stays number one.
Peter Robinson: Craig?
Craig Barrett: As my boss, Andy Grove, liked to say, only the paranoid survive. We are not paranoid about this topic in the United States today and we have to get paranoid if you want us to be the leader 50 years from today. We have to do a lot more than we're doing now.
Peter Robinson: Craig Barrett, Peter Thiel, Steve Moore, thank you very much. I'm Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge. Thanks for joining us.