Rory Sutherland

And those are the two extremes.

But if you look at what objectively happened, even if they do many tens of billions of dollars, it's not as much as they hinted at in the press release that they put out under their name.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't like two phrases.

I don't like the word bailout, and I don't like too big to fail, because that implies it could fail.

And I think that some people have said that.

And I think it's just not useful or accurate language, right?

You're exactly right, Jason.

Basically, you've promised 10x growth, and now you're shock horror only growing 5x.

Right?

That's what failing looks like here.

I could not agree with you more.

It's like everyone's made plans on the assumption that you're going to get to $300 billion in X years, and maybe you're only going to get to $150 billion.

And by any rational reckoning, that's an enormous success and the best startup of an entire two decades.

But simply because you were spending like you got to 300 billion, you're going to have to pull back on spending.

Everyone who thought they were going to get money from you is going to have to pull back on spending.

And that does, you're exactly right, Jason, have a ripple effect because it's not the absolute level.

It's the first derivative, which is growth, and maybe even the second derivative, which is the rate of growth of growth that suddenly starts pulling back in.

Anyway, that's why it's not a bailout.

It's not too big to fail, but it is a big disturbance to the existing expectations on and spend on growth and all that.

I think it wouldn't be a good idea, and it shouldn't be necessary, which is not to say it won't happen.