So I know there's a huge question, but what are your thoughts on striking the right balance where owners aren't going bankrupt and they're still investing and have the right incentives, but the distribution is a way that minimizes the harms that you've mentioned to people with poverty?

Yeah, this is one of those particular nuts that is really hard to crack.

My basic insight is that if there was huge sums of money to be made by being the landlord to poor families, there would be an awful lot more of us who were going into that.

You don't see people racing in to rent to people in poor communities.

And that's because... there's not a lot of money there, right? Like this is sort of the central problem and it's really unstable too.

So I've talked to, I've been a part of studies that have talked to like hundreds of landlords and many say, look, you know, honestly, I would take 80% of the rent of what I'm charging right now.

I don't want to, and it would be hard for me, but it would be better if I could be guaranteed I would get that over time.

And if your goal, question for you is, if your goal is just reducing poverty as much as possible, eliminating it even, how do you strike the right balance between letting the free market flourish and redistributing wealth? And relatedly, are there examples in countries where it's worked really well? Like, what would be that balance if your goal is just reduction of poverty?