Economists, and I think people who come to be familiar with economic analysis of law, look at regulation, I wouldn't say skeptically, but inquiringly, asking what is the problem it is solving? Where is the market failure? Why do we not just let the market work unhindered by this regulation? And there may be a good reason. There may be a market failure that has to be corrected. The regulation may be good at doing that. It may be something that's not very good. It could be reformed or improved. So an open mind would ask those questions about any regulatory regime. The result of those questions being asked in the 1970s was almost elimination of economic regulation. Price controls and entry controls, not letting people go into the field at the federal level was almost completely eliminated. Airlines were completely price deregulated, buses were inner city buses,, interstate barges, oil pipelines, almost entirely railroad rates as well. Every so often we get some suggestion that prices be, a maximum price be set by law and something can't be, uh, offered for more than that. Often it's rent control. Indeed, rent control came in during the Second World War, uh, and some places never got rid of it. New York City being the most well known where it's very widespread. What does rent control do? Well, it gives an incentive for people who are in a rent controlled apartment to stay there rather than move out to a non-controlled apartment and have to pay the market rate of rent, which is higher. Rent control is keeping it down. So what do you find? You find a single person who's, let's say, a widow, whose husband has passed away, whose children are grown and moved out, occupying a five bedroom apartment on the west side of Manhattan at a controlled price that makes it sensible for her to stay there rather than move out. It's totally inefficient. It elicits subterfuge in which the tenant will sublet the apartment or the landlord will rerent the apartment at the controlled price with a subterfuge. For instance, called key money, in which you say, well, you have to buy the key from me in addition to the rent. Or you have to rent the furniture or buy the furniture in addition in order to make up for the lost rent from the market rate down to the controlled rate. It means it's a disincentive for somebody to build apartments because they might become rent controlled as well. So it actually compounds and exacerbates the problem of a scarcity of housing by disincentivizing the construction of new housing and incentivizing the inefficient occupancy of the existing stock of housing. Simple economics of what happens with rent control or any kind of price control. It's inevitable. It creates queuing, because the supply is not expanding to meet the number of people demanding housing, and so they have to wait in a queue under unwanted circumstances, doubling up or what have you. It doesn't benefit anybody except Haphazardly, those people who happen to have been there when the rent control is imposed. So it's not a presumption or anything like that against regulation. It's simply an inquiry made by people who want to know what is the consequence of the regulation. Because we've gone through, we've had a lot of experience with regulations that had untoward consequences. Not just unanticipated but untoward consequences and sometimes consequences that either made the situation it was addressing worse or made it better but at a cost that was not really justifiable.