The capitalist approach is messy but you have dynamism on your side. Just come back to the big picture thing. Is America in aggregate a force for good in the world? Is it important for the world that America succeed? Is it important that American values, Western values are preeminent of the world? Is it important that the world not devolve into a complete Soviet communism everywhere? The other direction is literally fighting everything about our culture, everything about our history, everything about our system. And the fact that it has appeal is like a weird psychological defect some people have. They just always want central control. They always think it's better.

>> And by the way, it routinely doesn't work. Like it routinely fails because the world is too dynamic and that's not nearly a fast enough iteration cycle.

>> The thing that people want is exactly what we named the category. How do we build American dynamism? How do we build Silicon Valley in our own country?

>> Geopolitically, we entered a new era. We're in this exciting moment in time where both the need and the demand for new technologies is greater than it's ever been.

>> The creator of the concept of the five-year plan was of course Joseph Stalin. It was literally the Soviet Union run as 5-year plans. I'll bend a little bit. He comes from the People's Republic of Berkeley. The old model of World War II era, mass machinery and mass men to win wars. Like those days are long over. This should play greatly to America's benefit if we unleash our strength with flexibility, innovation, creativity, dynamism, and apply that into the battlefield of the future. Like, we really ought to win if we're really able to do that.

I thought we'd start with a bit of an opener. I want to ask Ben and Mark to tell us about the moment when we got conviction that this was worth creating its own category fund around. Ben, do you want to take the first step?

>> Yeah. Well, I would say that, you know, Mark and I kind of always were of the view in an abstract sense that we had to integrate the American business and American defense back together because we were falling behind. We we kind of knew the companies that we were investing in and we knew the companies that we were buying missiles and aircraft carriers from and like they weren't of the same caliber in terms of where they were on the technology curve and so we knew it was a kind of a national security problem for the country. Um, but we didn't, you know, we didn't have a plan. And then, as I recall, David, um, said, you know, there's this woman, Katherine Boyle, who I want to recruit, and she has this very, very good idea. Can you guys talk to her about it? And that's when she said, "Look, we should call it American Dynamism and we should build this thing." And it was a very easy sale for us, I would just say.

Yeah. And maybe I could just take a step back. So, some of you on this call are too young to remember this, but there was an earlier era in Silicon Valley. And it actually wasn't that long ago. And Ben and I were both lucky enough and maybe of the right generation to be part of it, which was, Silicon Valley and the United States, let's say, the mission of the United States as a country. And then, sort of the submissions of not just economic and technological success, but also military success and intelligence success and our ability to propagate our way of life not just in the country but around the world. There had actually been like a fairly tight degree of integration of cooperation.

And if you actually trace the history of Silicon Valley back before even before World War II there was a lot of the original defense technology work that happened in Northern California where we sit today. And then for sure through from the '50s through to the I would say to the '90s, it was just taken as given that this was inherently an alliance with a shared American mission. And so, many many great American tech companies, you know, including all the big names, from the '50s through the '90s all had very big government businesses, defense businesses, were very important to the national mission. And then, Ben and I in the '90s, when we built our company, Netscape, that was always front and center for us.

>> My first sales call to the Pentagon was in 1994. I don't think I actually owned a suit yet. And so 31 years ago, our company Netscape ended up being a major supplier of technology to the US.

>> Yeah. Actually both Mark and I had for years top secret clearance because of those deals.

>> Yeah. So we've been working in, we were working in Pentagon and in related agencies for a very long time, on the civilian side also. And we just sort of considered it kind of natural. And I'm really proud of the work that we did there and it turned out to be a very big part of our business also. And then extended over time to also governments outside the US that were American allies. And so for us this was always very natural and I think this was even everything I'm saying is almost like non-controversial up until probably the 2000s.

>> And then, basically for the last 15 or 20 years, by the way for a variety of reasons including reasons that people feel very strongly about we could talk about for a long time, but just a much greater degree of contention and escalating in some cases to just outright hostility kind of developed. And I would say in most directions from Silicon Valley, let's say large components of Silicon Valley, not all but significant companies for sure, hostility towards DC and hostility towards any sense of national mission, national purpose.

>> And then, quite frankly that feeling was quickly reciprocated by Washington back to Silicon Valley and there's plenty of people from Washington in the last 20 years who've made a point of how much they hate us. And so it just felt like we kind of entered this kind of de-evolutionary spiral over the course of the last 15 or 20 years. It probably, I think you might maybe you'd agree at sort of the peak hostility disconnection was maybe in the late 2010s, early 2020s.

>> Yeah. I think the Google Maven project was kind of a watershed moment where, you know, people had to take sides just kind of intellectually.

>> When Google pulled, they won a government contract for I think it was AI to be used in kind of drone technology or something like that. And then they basically pulled out of the contract due to a protest from a bunch of their employees.

>> Yeah. And not just and I think you confirm like not not just like a mild protest but like visceral emotional.

>> Oh like yeah it was like a revolt from I remember Sundar described it to me a revolt from the international AI community. And so it was pretty wild and certainly unprecedented.

>> Yeah. And so you know I think things sort of bottomed out there and then I think some of us and obviously there are new companies that have played a big role here but some of us like Ben and I who were involved in this in the old days, it was kind of a chance for us to kind of take stock of where things were, how things had gotten that bad, what went wrong and then start to at least try to figure out kind of how to fix it.

>> And so anyway, so that's why like I was so enthusiastic when David and then Katherine, you know, developed these ideas and developed this new mission for the firm. I thought it was just like an absolutely fantastic idea at the start and still do. And but I just wanted to go through that which is it's like a there's a back to the future component of it, right? Which is like it is like what we're doing and what others are doing in this space. It is new and bold and exciting and different and very different than the norm 5 years ago. And that's all real but at the same time there is a historical resonance which is it's also a return to the original values of Silicon Valley which is something I find to be just incredibly positive and important to be a part of.

>> Yeah. And two footnotes to that that I think are important. One is it actually started with the universities. So, professor Frank Turman and William Shockley who were developing these technologies and to support the war effort basically encouraged their students to not pursue PhDs and spin out and build companies to support the country. So, which is an ironic turn because those same universities kind of spawn the ideas I would say that led to their revolt at Google. And then the other footnote is Google has definitely since Google/Alphabet has reversed their position and now do work with the US government and the defense department. So we're in a happy place there.

And just to tie the threads together, can we spend just a couple minutes explaining why things went wrong? What are some of the headline reasons that the hostility developed so that we can then get back to the present and describe what changed. I want to hear from Katherine I think in particular on this because she was both an observer and a participant in it for the last decade plus.

Like I start by saying like look there are serious and legitimate differences in philosophy and worldview. I just I happen to watch I'm watching a lot of movies with my 10-year-old and we've watched the movie Real Genius last night. It's a movie in 1985 actually made by our good friend Brian Grazer. It's just like an one of my favorite movies. incredible movie, but it was sort of an artifact in the post-Vietnam era in which, you know, spoiler alert, the kids in the movie are going to basically a thinly disguised version of MIT and they're working on lasers and they discovered to their enormous horror that they're working on a weapon. And the sort of assumption in the movie is if you're working on a weapon, you're evil. They don't even like pause for a moment to like ask the question of like, well actually could this actually be like super helpful or like you know is this how does this fit into strategy or whatever.

There's been some of that in the ecosystem for a long time. By the way, Ben mentioned Stanford the pioneering role of Stanford in all of this. Stanford was actually forced in the 1970s to divest all of their military R&D and any R&D that touched the military into something called the Stanford Research Institute. So you know there was this, many top American universities forever for basically since Vietnam have not allowed like ROTC or like intelligence agency recruiting happening on campus.

And then in the last 15 years I think it just all got kind of wrapped up in the broader kind of national political drama of our time and you know basically people feeling like they have to take sides in all kinds of political issues and then I would say beyond that feeling like political issues aren't just political issues they're like fully moral issues and that you're immoral if you're on the other side. And you know, and by the way, there's also like a post Iraq, you know, component to it, which is, you know, can we really trust the system that took us into Iraq, which obviously had big impact on our national politics.

I would just come back to the kind of the big picture thing right which is like is America in aggregate a force for good in the world like is it important for the world that America succeed? Is it important that broadly speaking American values western values are kind of preeminent in the world. Is it important that the world not devolve into a totalitarian... it was important during the in the 20th century cold war that the world not devolve into a complete Soviet communism everywhere. I don't think any of us want to see a world in which we end up with kind of the same scenario with like Chinese communism.

I think you can also just say you can have a lot of respect for the men and women in uniform, who put their lives on the line every day protecting and defending us. And, you know, it's I think it's a pretty reasonable stance to say that they deserve to be supported by their fellow countrymen like us. Yeah, and then you could just also have the view of like, yeah, I mean, look, we as the cliche goes, we live in a society, right? And part of the society is that the government is going to have certain capabilities and it's going to be better if they're better and worse if they're worse.

I think now is a good time for a lot of people to really kind of take stock of this as maybe some of the superheated emotions of the last eight years maybe are fading a little right now. And, you know, some people are kind of saying, well, actually, we need to think about what the next 30 years looks like, and we want it to work in a different way.

>> I I'll add two points to that because I think Mark's point on culture plays a huge role in this. But there's there's two things I've noticed since moving to the valley. I moved to the valley in 2014, but I moved from Washington DC. And one of the things that I noticed when I moved is that if you are in Washington DC, you ride the metro. Metro stops at the Pentagon. Every time you ride the metro, you see men and women in uniform going to work. So, it is a daily part of life that national security issues. When people talk about technology in Washington, they're talking about aerospace, they're talking about defense. I mean, they're talking about the companies that they see every day, the billboards for, which are very different than the billboards you see in Silicon Valley.

>> So I think that's a huge part of it is just culturally people are very accustomed to national security missions and needs and people in uniform in Washington DC and there's none of that in Silicon Valley. You could go a decade in Silicon Valley without seeing a person in uniform.

>> But to Mark's point on on culture, I've always said that I think The Social Network had probably the greatest influence of the 2010s in terms of being a defining movie of what technology means. And when you look at the kind of Bob Noyce generation of working with your hands, building the physical world, where those engineers came from versus the story of a Harvard dorm room that inspired generations of college students who were studying computer science in their dorm to come to Silicon Valley, those are two very different populations and they symbolize two very different things.

>> And so what I think is interesting is probably like the 2010s were really solidified by this sort of Harvard-esque social network culture that is totally different than the culture of people who are building satellites or building anything in the physical world. And we really didn't start talking about how those people are necessary for Silicon Valley technology until Mark's essay "It's Time to Build," until 2020 when we didn't have enough PPE for COVID. And so I think it was really just sort of the logical 180 to what have we done here? We're not all Harvard grads building in the application layer when we should be thinking about the things that we actually need in the physical world.

>> I grew up in rural Wisconsin. I actually grew up in rural Wisconsin kind of post Vietnam. And kind of very similar thing like if you look at where the sort of war fighters in the American military come from, it's sort of the center of the country in a lot of cases. And so if you grew up in one of those environments, it's just like an integrated you just realize that this is an integrated part of your society. Yeah, and then I come from a little bit more of that background and then I'll tease Ben a little bit. He comes from of course the polar opposite, the People's Republic of Berkeley. In which I'm guessing probably the uniforms you saw people walking around in your youth were not camouflaged. They were something else.

>> That is definitely true. Although I ended up knowing a few people who did go to the service. Probably because I played on the football team I ended up knowing a few people who did go to the service and I mean I think that's one of the things that always struck me as incorrect. I'll just say about the kind of anti "we're not going to sell stuff to the US military" and so forth. That's like, well, so here are friends of ours who are risking their lives to protect us, and we're not going to make sure they have the best, safest equipment and technology available. Like, and that's your moral position. Like, that always struck me as very weird, but you know.

>> Yeah. I remember a few months ago Paul Graham was trying to critique Palantir I think for sort of involvement in some sort of military activity. It is just indicative of kind of web 2010's insults that don't work anymore because the culture has changed so much such that you know within just a few years Palmer could be negatively impacted or let go from Meta for sort of political contributions to the wrong side or presumably the wrong side and now is a hero for his work in saving American defense. It's just indicative of how much the culture has changed the last few years.

>> Yeah, it turned out I'll just bash the counter arguments for a moment. Having been trying to be fair earlier, I'll be totally unfair. A lot of the arguments against, they're very thinly substantive. They're emotional in nature and very thinly substantive. And so my favorite story, Eric, of your example was there was a big protest against tech companies working with ICE in the first Trump term in 2016-2017 and there's sort of this revolt where a bunch of tech CEOs kind of did this posturing thing where they said of course we're never going to work with those horrible people who are trying to deal with everything on the border.

>> And I remember actually a friend of mine was running one of this kind of at the time one of the most like culturally advanced technologically advanced coolest tech companies in San Francisco and they had a contract, their services used by ICE along with thousands of other organizations. And his employees did the big outrage "how can we possibly do this". And so he actually went out this is I think 2017, he went out like during the heat when it was maximum level heat intensity of that time and he went out and actually got a former director, a guy who had actually been in the Obama administration as basically the head of border security, to basically come in and give an hourlong seminar at the company and just explain like here's what's actually involved at the border, here are all the things that make it complicated, here's all the stuff involving not just people coming across but also children and sex trafficking and drugs and all the other aspects of it. And he came in to do an hourlong talk and the entire company was invited and you know three people showed up.

>> Right and so like I think that, you know, that level of emotionality like it had its moment. And I think it's just over now. And I think we and, hopefully, a lot of others are just kind of back to basics, back to fundamentals. These missions actually really do, independent of the political mood of the moment. These issues, these people, these organizations matter and they deserve to be supported.

>> When I joined the firm in 2018, you have to remember what time that was, what era was in Silicon Valley. I think Silicon Valley lost its way as we've discussed in terms of focusing on defense, focusing on really hard problems. Hardware was not in vogue. The intersection of software and advanced hardware was not popular. And about a year after I joined, Mark asked me if I wanted to meet Palmer Lucky who is the founder of Anduril. I think Mark was skeptical that our firm would be interested in a deal like that for a variety of reasons.

>> But I went down to Costa Mesa to their office. We had fallen in love with the company. We thought it was amazing what they were doing. When I was there, actually, I met Katherine. She wanted to lead the series B when she was at General Catalyst. I wanted to lead the series B. We ended up splitting it.

>> Wasn't the best first meeting. I'll put it that way.

>> That's true. We basically started out, I think, with not knowing each other at all, competing to win a deal, having to split it. I think one of the worst things I did was that she had done so much work for the series B. She had done all the diligence work. She had done notes. She actually helped the company prepare for the series B. I had not done that work. And I think to add insult to injury of having to split the deal, I then asked her for her notes so I could write our memo, which is really probably one of the more embarrassing.

>> I sent them because I'm a good soldier.

>> A couple years later, I then continued to follow all of Katherine's writings. She was really, she used different terminology at the time but eventually she came up with the terminology of American dynamism. I thought that was a perfect phrase. In 2021 I think I invested in Flock Safety. That was at a time where Black Lives Matters was a big movement. People thought the idea of funding public safety and supporting the police was not so cool in Silicon Valley. But we knew that when we talked to people who actually were customers of Flock Safety and people in the communities, they loved it.

>> At that point, Katherine was really writing more and more about this idea and the importance in investing these areas critical to the national interest. And I reached out to her with Mark and Ben's support and said, "Hey, I think we should join forces. We should make this a full-fledged effort. We will make this a long-term commitment. We'll raise money. We'll raise a fund. The firm is totally behind it." I think she didn't believe me at first. She can give her version of it, but then she came around to it. At the end of 2021, she joined the firm and we launched the American Dynamism practice and it's been as they say up and to the right ever since.

>> Mark sort of defined the Chinese system, but he also sort of defined one of the major problems with procurement which is that the Department of War makes its decisions about what weapons it's going to buy on five-year cycles, 10-year production cycles, right? And it's very difficult to correct the ship because of the way that we've structured our procurement process going back to the 60s and the 70s. So I think there is something about the, if you look at the last 25 years, the second American century has been a story of American dynamism, innovation, creativity and how on a global stage that has actually led us from three companies in the top 10 to nine companies in the top 10 that are tech companies but the department of defense really hasn't benefited from that.

>> So it's actually just a historical tweak which is if you work with big companies a lot, one of the things you see is they often have five-year plans. They have five year planning cycles, five-year strategies. And actually, the creator of the concept of the five-year plan was of course Joseph Stalin. Like it was literally the Soviet Union run as five-year plans and actually in the between the 1920s-1950s that idea actually mainstreamed itself into Western society and into Western business and has stuck there ever since. And by the way, it routinely doesn't work. Like it routinely fails because the world is too dynamic. And, that's not nearly a fast enough iteration cycle. And yet people still stick to the five-year plan thing. And it's just like this, it's like the hand coming out of the grave, you know, kind of still strangling our ability to actually advance and be able to get our jobs done.

>> And look, like just to double underline what Katherine said, right, the battlefield itself is changing. And so one of the things that you see for example in the Russia Ukraine conflict is an incredibly high rate of iteration, the battlefield techniques and use of technology on the battlefield. I mean I don't know whether they have a five-day plan or something in the Ukrainian military in terms of how fast they adopt new technology and adapt what they have. And that's what they need to be able to fight and if they didn't have that approach they would have lost a long time ago. And by the way the Russians are trying to match them on that.

>> And so the old model of World War II era, just simply mass machinery and mass men to win wars, like those days are long over. Even when you have like this very kind of contentious, even the modern version of trench warfare, still you have this very rapid iterative cycle time. And if, and again, this should play greatly to America's benefit if we unleash our strength which is if we take our strength of flexibility, innovation, creativity, dynamism and apply that into the battlefield of the future, we really ought to win if we're really able to do that.

>> Yeah, I would just add to Mark's thinking that going the other direction for the US is literally fighting everything about our culture, everything about our history, everything about our system. And the fact that it has appeal is like I think like a weird psychological defect that some people have where they're just they just always want central control. And they always think it's better. And this is, you know, a great investing strategy is to if you see a company with a five-year plan, short it. And it works every time. And yet they still do it. And it just comes it really has no basis in anything.

>> Yeah, I'll start and then maybe Katherine can jump in. I think energy is a great one. You can sort of zoom in at any level you want. At a macro level, we've just seen throughout history when you pour energy into a system you get just tremendous economic output, economic growth. If you look at where we are today not even looking forward we have this insatiable thirst for energy whether it's for AI compute or whether it's for people switching to electric vehicles or even moving to systems that are just electrified.

>> This has this huge consequence of creating opportunities for power generation, power transmission, power storage. And the question is are there going to be opportunities that we think are venture scale there? We think there are. We've invested in nuclear power companies, a company called Radiant Nuclear. We've invested in Exowatt. We've looked at lots of battery technology companies. We might just think there's great opportunities here.

>> Yeah. So, I think the thing that's really changed about aerospace that I think we're incredibly excited about is it used to be that everyone had to vertically integrate. And sort of space 1.0 was very much categorized with companies taking the SpaceX model. You will build everything yourself. It might take 10 years to get to space and that's okay. That is not the case anymore. We were one of the earliest investors in a company called Apex Space. I believe they are the fastest company to get from clean sheet design to orbit in 13 months in history.

>> But they had a different view which is that we only want to make the satellite bus. And if we can figure out ways to make the satellite bus cheaper, more efficiently, and work with all of the legacy primes and the new primes, to put their payloads into space, that will be far more efficient for these companies that are building different types of of payloads. And I think that thesis has been has been largely correct.

>> I mean the the thing that's really exciting about defense is for the first time you have sort of this I would say almost a golden triangle of the customer is desperate and moving very fast and the customer isn't just the Pentagon it's also Congress. David and I and Mark, we were just in Washington talking to senators and members of the House who were very engaged on this year's NDAA. How do we fix some of the core problems with procurement? And I think that I've never been so hopeful about these minor changes in procurement reform having a dramatic impact on all of the defense ecosystem.

>> Yeah, I think that um, you know, geopolitically we we've kind of entered a new era. And so if you kind of go back, you know, post World War II, we had kind of um bombed our big manufacturing competitors, you know, Japan and Germany kind of out of existence or out of the game for a while and America became the just the dominant economic power in the world for for decades. And as a result, we could be team America world police and just kind of, you know, provide defense to everybody.

>> Fast forward to 2025, we're $38 trillion in debt. And you know there's a very competitive superpower economically in China who has a I would just say a very different idea about the way the world should work and the way their society should work than we do. And so now we're in a position where allies matter a lot. And not only do allies matter, but we need them to be able to defend themselves and to work with us to kind of defend our values, our kind of way of life, our view of freedom.

>> Yeah. I mean, I thought the conversation that you all had in the last episode with Brian and Chris about what does it mean to participate in wars of mass is one that Silicon Valley really hadn't thought about until very recently. You know, if you go to Washington, there's all this talk now about what is what is known as attritable systems, which are systems where, you know, you're not spending millions and millions of dollars building out exquisite systems that that only are usable once. You're building out, you know, very cheap drones, very cheap hardware where if you lose them, that's okay. And the reason why that is so important is because I think a lot of the learnings of Ukraine, if you have an exquisite system that was hundreds of millions of dollars and it can be taken out with a thousand dollar drone, that changes the economics of war and it particularly changes the economics of a war of mass.

>> Look, I think the great offshoring of manufacturing that happened over the last 40 years, happened as a result of a set of policy decisions, like a set of explicit decisions that were made. There are a set of policy decisions that have to be made and are currently, some of them are in the works now, to kind of reverse that. But, to your point, actually, I'll quote Heraclitus. A man cannot step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and he is not the same man. So what's not like even if you completely cleaned up all the regulatory stuff and legal stuff which I think we should, and you sort of corrected the incentives that drove everything out, I think what you're just not going to get practically is you're just you're not going to get the old factories back and you're not getting the old jobs back in the way that they were 40 years ago when they were lost.

>> What you would like in contrast, would be something much better. And the better thing, let's just take bicycles as an example. What you actually want is you want to be making electric bikes. You want to be making ebikes, which are much more sophisticated, physical artifacts that involve batteries and computers and chips. You want to have a new kind of product that's much more sophisticated, built in a manufacturing plant that is more sophisticated, and has a much greater degree of automation where you don't have human beings standing in line turning the same sphere every time for 10 hours but where what you have is a large number of jobs that are kind of call them blue collar plus jobs and then also white collar jobs and all the associated service jobs around those.

>> And I think those jobs, and by the way you can see this if you visit a Tesla factory today, you see this in action. This is how the world's leading manufacturers actually do this. This is actually happening. And so I think what you can do is you can leap forward on the nature of the product you're building, you can leap forward on the nature of the plant that you're building and you can leap forward and actually create much better jobs, right, higher paying jobs, higher skilled jobs that are frankly a lot more pleasant, that are a lot more interesting. I think that's the formula. And by the way, if we don't do that, all of those things are going to get made in China, which does mean over time, not just phones being made in China and not just drones being made in China, but also cars. And also robots. The great industry of the future that we could spend a long time talking about is going to be robots, right? AI in mechanical form, which is going to be, I think the biggest industry that's ever been built. And you know, right now, by default, China's set up to do that.

>> You know, like what an amazing story it would be for America in the 21st century, which is we re-industrialize not to build the products of the past, but to build the products of the future. And I think that's the opportunity.

>> Yeah. So we actually had this fight, this fight actually happened during the during the first cold war with the Soviet Union. And there was just this raging debate that started in the, you know, 1920s, but like was fully raging in the '50s, '60s, '70s, which is, you know, basically, democracy or dictatorship. And then, free markets or, you know, state directed capitalism.

>> And then the capitalist approach is messy, right? And it has boom bust cycles and it has companies go out of business and there's like sometimes there's too much competition and profits go to zero. But you have dynamism on your side, right? You've got freedom, exploration, creativity, innovation, free market competition and dynamism on your side. I think that question was asked and answered in the 20th century quite definitively.

>> It's not that the centralized approach doesn't have certain advantages. Like if you want to pump out 20 million tanks or something or if you want to pump out a billion phones, there is something to a top down centralized approach. Having said that, like I think we won Cold War I by doing it our way. I think we win Cold War II by doing it our way. Every time somebody stands up and says we need to get to be more like China, I always ask the counter question, where we need like more state control, more top down, more direction, more planning and all these things, I always just ask the opposite question, which is, well, no, actually, like what if we take the opposite approach? What if we become more like us? And what if we lean even harder into innovation and even harder into creativity and even harder into entrepreneurship? And isn't there so much more that we could do if we got to be more like us?

>> Yeah, I mean I think that we're in this exciting moment in time where both the need and the demand for new technologies whether it's in public safety or in the department of war or anywhere else in the government or just anywhere across the United States is greater than it's ever been. We're also at this major transformation moment. You know, Mark mentioned I think robotics is AI personified in physical form. I think it's going to be extremely exciting. I think it's a lot closer than people think.

>> We just see that we're just sort of entering this incredible moment in time where new technology is meeting these very, very legacy and old categories and I'm very excited about where it's going. We see more and more founders entering the area across all these different domains. And for us, to me it's just like this, we're just in the early innings of America sort of on a major comeback when it comes to introducing new technology into these key areas. I think it's pretty exciting.

>> That's a sounds like a great place to wrap. This is a great conversation on the history and philosophy and the past, present, future of American dynamism.