So, so you mobilize this metaphor of the d- derivatives to help us understand the financialization of cultural industries like film, television, and video games, where creative products are increasingly treated as assets whose value derives from broad market dynamics rather than artistic labor.So in what ways does the history of, of derivatives trading from its role in the 20-2008 financial crisis to the function as a motor of wealth creation since the 1980s illuminate the risk and opportunities of applying similar logic to cultural prediction?

Yeah.

So I gave this kind of history of capitalism from the '70s to the, like, dot com boom and bust and rise of platform capitalism.

But there's sort of another thread in that as all this sort of offshoring was happening and that, you know, people were investing in telecom stuff.

There was also a rise of, you know, finance and financialization in the 1980s, often, um, associated with the bond market in, on Wall Street and a series of mergers and acquisitions.

A lot of it came out of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and a lot of deregulation that happened in the financial industry in the 1980s.

But, uh, the generative force was such that there was a new energy to creating new financial products and things like derivatives were, um, new financial instruments that came in, uh, developed in the 1980s to, uh, monetize risk where, you know, historically you would buy a stock or bond.

In, in what ways does the financialization of cultural production through asset management and investor priorities further diminish diversity a- and heterogeneity in the public sphere? How might this reshape the democratic function of culture? And what are the implications of treating cultural industries as highly consolidated financial assets for both cultural workers and audiences? And how this has shift from, shifted the altar, the, the meaning of art, creativity, and, and public value