John

And there's a narrative that the

The change in discussion around a SpaceX IPO is because previously SpaceX was very capital efficient, just it wasn't that expensive to develop.

And even though it sounds expensive, it's actually very capital efficient in how it runs.

Whereas now you're going to need more capital than just can be raised in the private markets.

Like if the private markets can accommodate raises of, as we've seen from the AI labs, tens of billions of dollars, but not beyond that.

Is it that you'll just need more than tens of billions of dollars per year and that's why it's taken public?

You know, there's a price to pay for these things.

Make some general statements for us about the depth of the capital markets between public and private markets.

But isn't it also the case that things that tend to be very capital intensive, if you look at, say, real estate as a huge industry that raise a lot of money each year at an industry level, that tends to be debt financed because by the time you're deploying that much money, you actually have a pretty- You have a clear revenue stream.

Exactly, and a near-term return.

And you see this even with the data center build-outs, which are famously being financed by the private credit industry.

And so why not just debt finance?

Here's a very simple lens.

We can categorize technologies and how hard they are.

And one categorization could be, look at things that China has not succeeded in doing.

And if you look at Chinese manufacturing, still behind on leading edge chips and still behind on...

leading edge turbine engines and things like that.

And so does the fact that China has not successfully replicated TSMC give you any pause about the difficulty?

Or you think that's not true for some reason?

So you think it's just the sanctions, essentially?