 So, a lot of issues which were addressed, normally there is the moment where a lot of questions are asked, not only questions but statements if I may, and I could also see a lot of body languages coming from the audience. I would recommend you to be as clear as possible in your exposition. We have a rapporteur and we have to facilitate his task. Let me only say from my own standpoint that we have a big, big issue which is monetary policies of central banks, all central banks of the world, and whether or not we consider that we are in a relatively safe side, as Jean Claude said, or whether it might be a little bit more complex and whether it is, as you said, maybe Larry Summers or Blanchard who's right. It is, of course, the jury is still open there but we could discuss that. We have the issue of cryptocurrencies and the digitalization of all the world of the real economy and of finance, which you address very, very clearly at the very start and which is an immense issue and I expect that some of us will intervene. I would myself, under your control, Abdulaziz, say that I would make the difference between the real cryptocurrencies, that are real currencies if I may, and the crypto assets that seems to me very much, I would say, speculative assets, respectable speculative assets, but not able to be real currencies because I am still of the old school of Aristote if I may, considering that a currency must be simultaneously a good unit of account, a good mean of exchange, and a good store of value. When I see the Bitcoin going up and down, up and down, up and down, it seems to me that it is lacking the good store of value qualification which makes a currency, if I may. But we have a lot of other issues. What I would recommend perhaps for the statements to be made would be perhaps to say, well, we have positives and we have negatives in my view in order for the communication to be as easy to understand as possible because we are in situation, in all dimensions of the situation, which comprehends positives and negatives, of course. So who would first ask for the floor, please, you have the floor. Thank you very much Jean-Claude and thank you all for those very informative and insightful presentations. You know, I spent a lot of my life in the International Monetary Fund, so it's hard to shake the habit of looking for risks. And I thought I might just share what I think are perhaps three or four risks that we could look at for next year. The first is that it's absolutely right, as Jean-Claude and others said, you know, you said at the beginning in the opening, Jean-Claude, that there is a, the numbers look good in the aggregate, you know, growth numbers look pretty good. But if you disaggregate, you find that there is a very strong and I think some people have called it a dangerous divergence that's happening. So the numbers for sub-Saharan Africa for this year, for next year are about between three and three and a half percent, which is pretty low for given population growth on average. Numbers for Latin America and South America are very poor. And what is more worrying is that if you look at the numbers not just for this year and next year, but for the next five years, they have been brought down quite sharply in many emerging markets. So really what has happened is that as a result of each crisis, 2009 crisis, this crisis, the long-term growth rate is brought down in emerging markets. And that's a dangerous long-term prognostic because convergence, you know, is becoming harder for a lot of those countries. So that I think is something we just need to bear in mind as we look at the next year. And the second risk I wanted to mention is that this year we have not seen the debt problems manifesting themselves in the kind of debt restructuring or debt defaults that some people feared at the beginning of the year. I think a year ago there was a bit more worry that we would see a few more accidents than we have. Next year we might be surprised the other way because interest rates are going to go up a little bit. Corporate debt is very high and in some emerging markets it's built up to levels that would be hard to sustain. A few low-income countries, maybe half a dozen, have debt levels that would be very hard to sustain. And we don't yet have a very good framework for dealing with debt. You saw the G30 report that came out, other reports have come out. So I think we need to be aware that during 2022 we may have more difficult issues dealing with the emerging market and low-income country debt than we have seen this year. So that's the second one. The third one I wanted to say is that, you know, it's a question of managing expectations. And I want to say two ways in which I see the risk. One, SDRs. So everybody very happy, 650 billion, big number. You know, the initial allocation was important for many emerging markets and gives them breathing time to use that because next year will be a difficult year for many of them. But if you look at the numbers now there is a big discussion say if you take Africa in Africa, got 25 billion of the original allocation. Low-income countries got, I think, 5 billion in Africa. So if you think of various proposals now of reallocating, let's take some of the SDRs that went to the countries that don't need it, let's move it. At the end of the day, the two ideas that are going to get approved in my view in the next couple of months will basically take about 70 or 80 billion dollars worth of SDRs and transfer them from national central banks to a holding account in the IMF. So it's going to happen. And then that money will be dispersed over five years slowly along with fund programs subject to policies, subject to debt limits. But the expectation is for much larger and more immediate reallocation. So we have to manage that expectation. And the other expectation as my last point that it's worth managing is that you know when we fell into COVID, everybody fell together into a deep black hole. Within two weeks, the whole world went from doing what it was doing to sort of at the bottom of the pit, awful, you know. But their small consolation was that everybody was in that space at the same time. And people were struggling to find a solution to it. Now we have the vaccine. But we are coming out of the hole at very different pace. Rich countries pretty much out of the hole now. We are all talking about the post COVID world. Other countries coming a little bit behind, but some will take two years before they get vaccinated. And the tolerance of populations who are at the bottom is going to be much less when on their phones, they can see every day how those that have got out are now enjoying themselves and living a normal life. But they are still stuck and they have to blame people. So the first group they hold responsible is their own governments. And we have already seen an erosion of trust between governments and people. It's already quite low. Riot has gone, but in Lebanon is just one example. I can give you a half a dozen examples where we have had social explosions, not caused by COVID, but exacerbated by the frustration of populations after living a year in this. And that frustration will only become more acute when they see others doing better. So I guess my last point was that I think it's important that we also recognize that the management of the social political expectations will become a source of uncertainty, which will then impact markets because you will see that many countries or some countries will not be able to contain the frustrations of their population in during the coming year. So I just wanted to put some of those risks on the table. That's very, very useful. You're absolutely right, of course, as you said. You have such an experience in the IFIs. Clearly, if I memorize the last messages of the IMF, this divide between advanced economy and the emerging one and the lower middle income is absolutely striking. The reviewing of projections was done up for the advanced economy and down for this other economy. So the divide in the world is alarming. That's clear. And I have to say that it's a question for the audience. I am absolutely struck by the difference of vaccination between, say, sub-Saharan Africa to oversimplify and Europe. I mean, it's absolutely incredible. And I am struck by the fact that I don't see yet, and fortunately, highly fortunately, I hope that there are good reasons for sub-Saharan Africa to resist the attack of the virus. But I mean, the dangers and the risks seem synonymous. Other interventions, please. Thank you. I would like to second very much what Massoud just said and argue that when you looked at the current situation, you didn't comment on long-term growth prospects. And I wonder whether I could say today that growth prospects after COVID are better than what they were before. And I'm talking about potential growth. And before COVID, we were actually considering that there were risks on the evolution of potential growth. There was a discussion about the trend of productivity that was very encouraging. There had been some coming back in the United States but still quite timid. So there were questions raised about the future of potential growth. And I don't see how the COVID crisis would actually make us more optimistic about that. So I think one of the long-term risks is indeed what potential will do. There may be one reason to be optimistic, which is exactly what Serge said earlier, which is if we shift our view towards sustainability, because there we have a lot of needs of investment, both to mitigate climate change, to adapt to climate change, and to actually provide protection of biodiversity and so on. So that lead me to the second comment, which is about debt. My own view is that we shouldn't be worried about debt if public spending well-well used. And that's a big question. Are we confident today that the kind of ease that fiscal policy gave us, which was very needed in the short term, does it bear long-term risks? And I would say it does, except if that spending was well used. And one way to look at it would be, does it make the transition towards sustainability easier? And I'm not sure. I think it's a question. But I think we should look at that. I'm optimistic about public debt because I think that public debt uses the extra savings that if there were no public debt issues, these savings would be used in speculative instruments. So in a way, the fact that there has been a rising public debt has been a factor of stability for financial markets. So then, of course, the risk is whether this money was better used by the government than it would have been by the private investors in speculative items. On speculation, I would like to rejoin to join what the chairman said about cryptocurrencies. I even found you optimistic when you said that there are cryptocurrencies. I see crypto assets, and I think that most of them are highly speculative and this is no money. And I would add to this three dimension of money what unifies the three of them is trust. And I don't see, I mean, we are in societies where trust needs to be based on something, a decentralized trust is speculative. So that's something that is very difficult to maintain. My final comment is a question because we have not discussed green finance. And I think that when we look at the financial systems, it probably will be a very important dimension. It is right now the fastest growing segment of financial markets. It's very small, but it seems to me that green finance is a link between what we need in terms of long-term growth prospects, what we need in terms of sustainable development, and what we need to bridge the gap that Masoud commented on between social expectations and economic expectations. So do we believe in green finance and what is needed to increase the confidence in that movement? Thank you very much indeed. The idea that ESG was very, very important was mentioned. We, of course, are badly missing Bertrand Badre because he is the specialist in this panel of green finance and unfortunately he couldn't be there as I said. Thank you very much for your remark. I have myself some remarks on your many remarks, but I keep it now because I think we have to multiply the intervention. Madam. Me, do I need the microphone? I'm a bit intrigued with the issue of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin. I'm not a specialist, but it's a new, following the Second World War, John Maynard suggested that there will be one currency in the world. And he said, if there is one currency, there will be more equality between nation than no nation would dominate or would be a hegemon on the global economic market. And we know after First World War, the US took all the gold in the world. It had like two-thirds of the gold reserves in the world. And Bretton Woods decided that the currency, no, each country currency is dependent on a certain gold reserve because gold is a scarce commodity. What happened is the US started, especially with Johnson administration, they started spending, spending, spending. They could no longer link it to the gold. So it was no longer linked to the gold. So Bretton Woods was dead. And then we had the fiat money, which is the currency based on supply and demand like any commodity. And also with the US, with its race, with the Soviet Union, starting spending more and more, especially with the arm race with the Soviet Union. And as we see, the gap between nation is getting more and more. And in each nation, the gap between the poor and the rich is getting more because inflation touches the middle class mainly because if you have an asset, the asset grows in value. But if you live from paycheck to paycheck, your paycheck will be worth much less with inflation. Hello, I'm not sure, but what I'm saying, what the whole concept of cryptocurrency that it's decentralized, there is also the concept of scarcity. Do you think like one time if the cryptocurrency replaces central banks and it will be one currency in the world, like we won't use any more dollars or dirham or euros and everyone uses cryptocurrency, there will be more equality between nation and also there will be no more inflation, like you'll have a stable value of the currency. Will that be possible? I don't know, I'm asking you so- No, it's a good question. It's a good question. We could of course spend two hours now because it's a very, very important issue. In each central bank, you have a member of the highest level of management which is reflecting on the next cryptocurrency that would be issued by the central bank. So we in Basel, you have Benoit Coray specializing in optimizing the situation from the standpoint of the sanctuary of central banks and you have the private sector imagining cryptocurrencies. I would dare say that theoretically they are really currencies because they would be based upon the basket of currency and so the value would be, I would say sure, than what we have with the Ethereum, the Bitcoin and the like which are not at all currencies. The currency is a joke. They are crypto assets and of course you have assets that are purely speculative. They found some instruments that are purely speculative. Now I would say it's a dream to imagine that a cryptocurrency could be the global currency. I don't trust that for a minute. I think that it is very important that somebody is responsible for the currency and until we found out a better institution, central banks are there, they are there to take care of the value of the currency and the trust in the currency, the confidence in the currency and after all they are doing that not too poorly, if I may, when I look at what has happened, you mentioned inflation but the problem of the, at least the advanced economy was that inflation was not sufficient. It was not at 2% which is considered right or wrong to be some kind of optimum. They were too low and the materialization of a deflationary risk was there that the reason why they were so accommodating and their policy were so accommodating which has, of course, a lot of unfortunate byproduct also. All this is quite complex but what I would suggest is to have another look at the situation when central banks are committing themselves in the medium and long run to say we are anchoring inflation expectations on 2% and as I said, it's the case for a number of major central banks. It is the equivalent of an anchor. The anchor is the arithmetic anchor, 2%. And if a central bank loses totally its anchoring goal, then it loses its credibility and that is very grave, I have to say. So I prefer, to be frank, a planet where you have a number of central banks saying, I will deliver to my own fellow citizens something like 2% per year over a long period of time. I prefer that to a gold anchor that would be totally erratic also and could drive us to abnormal situation and certainly it is much better than some kind of crypto instruments that nobody is caring for. So I stopped there because as I said, we could discuss that for a very, very long period of time but I reserve the right to discuss with you in the corridor and I think many of us would like to do that including our rapporteur. Please, madam. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the interesting presentations. I'm not a money or finance specialist so I'm learning quite a lot. I work at Ifri on technology so I was interested to hear about crypto and Bitcoin but I would like to know as well from your various experiences how you approach the quantum revolution as quantum computers will probably, supposedly thanks to their computing capacities and especially be useful for factorization and pose serious cybersecurity threats in terms of current encryption mechanisms and so I was wondering how that's taken into account in your various institutions and as well as the uses maybe of quantum computers for financial optimization. So that's general question about quantum tech in your various capacities. A very good question indeed. I have to say that Scientific America and has an article on your, to try to elaborate on your question every month if I'm not misled. Who wants to take the floor to elaborate on quantum computing and the last very, very important breakthrough in this domain, Jean-Claude, no? I think that it was a very good question and we are all meditating on the appropriate response. No, we have a response there. Speak up. Medical doctor would happen also to be a mathematician by no means, especially some number theory and quantum stuffs. But what I can say is that there are threats from a cybersecurity point of view. However, there is a deep, deep mathematical result about the fact that P is not equal to NP. I won't go into the detail on this cabalistic way of thinking of mathematician, but it means that if this is a conjecture, it's not really settled today, but a large, large part, like 99% of the specialists think that P is not equal to NP, which means in our daily world that they should not be a break of cryptography security, meaning that we can settle, even with computing power, some cryptographic system that can't be broken by quantum computers, which is something quite relieving, I think. Thank you very much indeed. It is half reassuring because if it had been demonstrated, as you know, the guy would get a billion dollar if I'm not misled, no? So it's not yet solved. So the billion dollar offered by a foundation is not there. It's one of the seven very important mathematical problems that are unsolved, and one of them, one of the seven has been solved. So thank you very much, madame. Maybe briefly, if you don't mind on quantum. So it is expected that quantum computing would be more largely available in five to 10 years. So today you have post-quantum cryptography because what you need is to protect the data that you store, and that might be exploit later. We know that China is hacking data that are encrypted because they expect to be able to decrypt this data more rapidly than others. You have big progress in quantum communication, quantum censoring, and quantum computing. Today you have quantum as a service. So in some financial institution, chemical industries are using this. It's quite cumbersome. You must prepare your calculation quite in advance. You run extremely fast. And you see big progress, not to be from Australia, in quantum censoring that will provide the stability because you have a problem of stability in your quantum computers. So it's not such a theoretical issue. That's the only point I wanted to mention. Very inspiring. And so I must confess I had some mathematical education too. I remain a little bit skeptical after having read a lot of article on really the possibility of making absolutely fantastic bake-through, but we will see. And in any case, we know so little things on quantum mechanics itself, on, I would say, the way the world function and the nature with all her mysteries function. So we have to be prepared for any kind of new scientific discoveries. But thank you very much for your question. Other intervention, please. You have the floor. My name is Gil Geraint. I'm a private banker and I deal with high-net-worth individuals. And on top of that, I'm the treasurer of this World Policy Conference. We are facing at the moment in China a very big default. I mean, it's already called the Lehman process of China for $300 billion, which is ever-grand day. And the only solution seen at the moment is a 75% haircut. So don't you think that will affect the trust of the investors in emerging markets regarding the bond, the next bond issue? And they will look twice before investing despite the interest rate and the tenor? Very good question again for all of us, not especially the speakers, but all of us. My own sentiment in one minute is that there are a lot of problems in the domestic economy in China, a lot of abnormal level of debts in many, many entities, private and public entities, local authorities, and so forth. It's a problem which is very well-documented, since quite a long period of time, calls for restructuring, reshaping. And we will see what happens for this problem, which is really a big one and perfectly accepted by the Chinese authorities, if I may, as one of their major problems. Now, this is a particular point. I have a tendency to exclude a newly manned brother, because we had the experience of the manned brother. I had myself the experience of the manned brother. I remember talking to the Secretary of Treasury and to my colleague in the US. And at the very moment, they were hesitating. They had no private solution, so they didn't want to embark on a public solution. And they were clearly not in the central bank, but in the Treasury, under-assessing the immense consequences of the collapse. I don't suggest that they should have avoided the collapse. I hesitate to say that, because I would say more generally, the public opinion in the US was not ready for a big public money investment to avoid the catastrophe. So it was very complex economically, financially, and politically. All that being said, the experience is there, so I cannot help thinking that the authorities in China will understand that they have to, I would say, manage the situation and not let the thing go layman-brother-like. But we will see, of course. And you're absolutely right to ask the question. In any way, we have to be fully aware of the risks that are at stake. Masoud was very clear on that. We have assets and liabilities in the present situation. We have positives and negatives, and we must be as exhaustive as possible if we want to be fair. And we have still 30 minutes, but no more than 30 minutes. We have to be concise. If I may, I take advantage of the fact that I don't want anybody to ask for the floor at this stage. And under the control of the speakers, on crypto, we said we mentioned, I think, quite a lot. But again, all central banks are reflecting on their own cryptocurrency issuing. And it is for the commercial banks very, very important because if you have the central bank giving you an account in cryptocurrency, then what about the deposit in the commercial banks? So it totally changed the business model of the commercial banks. So it has to be looked after very, very carefully by the central bank. It is what they are doing, by the way. They don't want to destroy the banking system. But they cannot let blockchain and all the technology that Abdulaziz has mentioned, only in the hands of those that are inventor of crypto, I would say, assets that are largely speculative. Another word, perhaps, on ESG because we had no time to address it too much, this is very important. There is an immense problem at the global level. Whether or not we will have, as regards the new non-financing reporting on climate and on ESG, some kind of core of regulations, standards at the global level. As you know, there are a lot of meditation on that. G7 has been on that. The G20, the IFRS are reflecting on the setting up of a new board that would be specialized at a global level in this kind of standards. I expect that the decision could be taken quite rapidly now in the occasion of the next COVID, not COVID, the next green meeting at the global level. And we will see exactly, but this is a very important issue. And of course, the way investors will take into account ESG, the green finance, which can grow very rapidly, but also the green washing, which has been more or less underlined as a problem and the green bubble and so forth. I mean, we have an immense domain there to reflect upon. I think that what we said on potential growth, if I may, my own reflection would be, productivity progress had a very, very important slowing down more or less in 2006, 2007. It was before, in a way, before the subprime, before the former crisis of Lehman-Border. And we are in that situation since then with some signs that we are getting out. We were getting out immediately before COVID. I hope very much that we will, we are getting out. Some we are arguing that we were experiencing the famous solo paradox, namely that there were a lot of investment in digitalization, but no results in terms of productivity growth. I trust that it is likely that we have a phenomenon of that kind. It was very abnormal to see at the moment where there was a technological surge that all productivity progress were slowing down. In any case, it is also the, in some way, it's a multi-dimensional problem, but responsible for the extraordinary low inflation and extraordinary accommodating policies of central banks. So we have a set of characteristics of the functioning of our economy, which was really very adverse. And one of the positive or negative for the future is whether or not we get out of that. If we get out of that with more productivity progress, more growth, then we are on the positive side. And we will have a post-COVID, I would say, evolution of growth that would be much more flattering. The negative would be that no, it does not change. And there are eminent economists that are claiming that in the US and elsewhere. And then we would be in a very negative position because the 10 years since Lehman's brother are not sustainable in the very long run. That's absolutely clear. It's not sustainable. So what is not sustainable will not be sustained. And new crises will occur. Central banks cannot be eternally extraordinary accommodating. That's also one of the reasons I am a little bit prudent on the interest rates. I hear that we are tranquille and the interest rates would be low for 10 years. Not sure. They are, again, positive scenario and negative scenario in this respect. I don't think we should be too confident. In any case, of course, if inflation gallops, then the interest rates will go up and up and nominally will go up. Not necessarily the real interest rates, but certainly the nominal interest rates and markets are very sensitive to nominal interest rates, obviously, at least at the moment of the transition. So I stop there. Only to conclude my very short remarks. That is a big question. It is not because there is no debt problem today in the eyes of the investors that you won't have debt problems tomorrow. I had known myself a moment where Greece had no problem to finance itself before Le Mans and even after Le Mans. Nine months after Le Mans, Greece had no problem to finance itself. The market, we should never forget that, is totally binary. It's up or down. It's one or zero. And at the moment, the new government in Greece happened to be there and said the situation is graver. It was the start of a total catastrophe. And when you have one country or one entity that has problems, and there we have the Chinese entity question, if you have a problem, then there is a contagion. Contagion is unavoidable. Human nature is probably behind, but then we had Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and we had five countries that were tranquil for a long period of time and were trapped in a sudden stop of financing. So I exclude really nothing personally. And I think that all entities, private and public, and all countries have to remain quite vigilant and not to lose the fact that their credit worthiness depends on the confidence of investors and savers in their own country and the world over. So it is very, very important. But I spoke too long and we still have a lot of time. So who wants to take the floor? Yeah, do you want, Serge? Serge? Sir Chairman, if you give me the floor, I will naturally take it. Thank you. Now, a number of things. First of all, yes, I agree with some of the remarks made by the Suds and regarding the question of the question of the concern about the recovery. I understand that. However, Sub-Sahara is diverse, as you know. In our very region, I have to say that I'm puzzled by the optimisms of the different ministers of finance when I sit in the Council of Ministers of Finance. I'm really puzzled by the energy, the willingness of doing things when you look at ministers like Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, Senegal, they're very optimistic. You see, so there's energy that needs to be captured. And I have to say that it is amazing. All right, this is one. The second thing is, you have mentioned this question of SDR. The SDR allocation, it is an interesting thing because if the SDR allocation are not subject to reforms, they will be considered as helicopter money, you see, easy money. So, you know, it should be a give and take. Otherwise, you know, why should I reform my economy when, you know, at some point, I'll get some money free lunch, you see? So that's why I think it is a way through. It is a real way through. So that's why we need to see the strengths and how strong the hand of the different head of states from the G20, namely President Macron, the chancellor, whoever the new chancellor would be and the new U.S. administration. We need to see how strong their hand will be facing this situation. And I agree that the allocation in terms of quantum for Africa is way too low. No doubt about it, no doubt about it. Any other question of stability? SDR, yes, fundamentally, yes. It is a true yes. And prior, before joining the West African Development Bank I can tell you, I was pitching, I can give the name, I was pitching total in London and I was pitching them about there. It was a green bond. They were thinking about it, that was three years ago. And I have to say that pitching total for a green bond, it is by itself something that needs to be considered, by itself. And we have the same discussion with BP, with Shell, et cetera. So by itself, by itself, it is a proof that something is happening and needs and things need, from that perspective, things needs to happen. So I agree with you, fundamentally, I agree with you. Climate, EEG, and I agree also with you, Bertrand should have been with us. I think his expertise, we are working with him at the West African Development Bank and I can tell you his expertise in that matter is really serious. That is for me. Thank you very, very much indeed, sir. Abdulaziz, I know that you have new rendezvous, but we would be very happy if you can give us your last message. In the GCC here, I mean, there is a big strong drive to also for employment for nationals, because in the UAE, in the banking sector, we have, you know, 30% of employees are national, rest are expatriate. But I think our government also should realize that moving forward with all these shift in consumer behavior, consumer behavior, automation, digitization, I think in the next 10 years, 50% of our employment in the banking will disappear. So we, and that will also be applied to a lot other industries. So what are we going to do with the surplus of employee who has been, you know, good in their job, but the job is no longer is available. So, okay, yes, investment banker, maybe they are protected, you know, but I think most of the retail banking, most of them, even commercial banking, automation just, digitization is taken over. So I think that's an issue for our government also, and we have to prepare the people for a transition. And for that, we need growth. Thank you so much, Abdulaziz. We appreciate enormously your presence and your messages, and we will continue to meditate for a few minutes on this last message. Thank you very much indeed. Well, clear enough, of course, digitalization means a formidable transformation of our economies and our services, and we have to be fully aware of that. And it's not only commercial bank, of course. It's all the service industry and, you know, perhaps less as Abdulaziz but perhaps less investment banks, but, but, but. Madame, you have the floor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for a very interesting intervention. And also the comments made, and I fully agree with Malcolm Trude, has said that we have to really think about the threats there are. It can be a very bumpy road. And actually, after these very good growth years, which we are experiencing now and next year, all the old problems and challenges are there, and that concerns especially the European Union. And a good question is, when it comes to debt burdens, what will happen in Italy? Will Super Mario, is he able to make it or not? And that is not only the case of Italy. I think many countries, also my country, Finland, struggle with low productivity. And the COVID crisis has been a very good excuse not to implement those structural reforms which are needed. So, and now with the new chancellor, probably, from a new party, SPD, from Olaf Scholz, is very kind of obvious that between him and President Macron, there will be some changes, maybe not changes in the growth and stability pact, but at least in ways how we interpret it. So, there are kind of many question marks also in Europe, and especially when it comes to implementing those structural reforms which are needed in most of the countries, is there enough willingness really to do that or not? Very good remark, obviously. And what strikes me as regards Europe is that we are more or less communicating as if there was a single recommendation for all countries, a single motto, if I may. And, of course, there is a single monetary policy, but the recommendation for each particular country should be very different because Finland is not Germany, and Germany is not Italy, and Italy is not the Netherlands. For instance, for me, it's very clear, Germany is in a situation of enormous amount of current councillors, very good fiscal position before COVID, and has room for maneuvering and should utilize some room for maneuvering for the sake of Germany and for the sake of the system as a whole. Italy and France, for instance, have to be cautious and prudent in my opinion, and it's not at all the recommendation that we would give to Germany, and Finland has its own problem, and structural reform, by the way, are of the essence for all European countries, it seems to me. At least all those who are not at full employment, and it's the case of Finland, if I'm not misled, it's the case, of course, of a number of other countries, and the first goal should be to arrive through structural reforms and good management to full employment, but that's another story. We have another, yeah, please, madam. Thank you. I'm not an expert in finance or monetary, but I would like to build on some of the questions and some of the things that were mentioned in here, build back better, you know, and build, and I look at it from the perspective of livelihoods and people's kind of, you know, dignified way of living. And of course, we talked about inflation, and my colleague, Daniel, mentioned how much as well it will impact people's livelihoods. There are, you know, high-level monetary policies, decisions that could be taken at the depths as well, you know, levels and how high they are, and of course we heard the example of Lebanon, which is striking about how much all of the policies or maybe gaps in policies where it led. So what I would like to ask here is, given your experience, is how people in a participatory way could engage in accountability measures towards, for example, central banks and others. Of course, there is the regulatory frameworks. There is, of course, the systems and, you know, all of that, but what kind of, you know, engagement or role could be taken to monitor such policies, but also to ensure that they are linked to social protections policies that helps people. So in a way, mechanism of accountability for decisions that could harm people's lives. Thank you for your question. I stand ready to respond to your question, but we are at the end and I wanted to be sharp in the course of our very, very stimulating meeting. So what I would do at this stage, perhaps, to give the floor to Jean-Claude, to Jacques, and to Serge again, if he wishes, for the last word, and I would say a few words myself and respond to your question. So, Jean-Claude, what would you say to comment on the very, very stimulating questions and observations? I was, as you said, today very optimistic, and all of you have shown the risks. And I must say that I share your views about the risks. That's all. No, you said that we had to remain vigilant if I'm not misled, so you accept that there are risks. But we have to remain extremely careful. And of course, this pandemic crisis has created an enormous inequality among the countries, among the countries, among the people who are in bad conditions and poor, and who are poorer today, even though there has been social measures by the governments, and among the world between the rich countries and poor countries. Indeed, the growth of countries which are poor is a problem and is getting to be a real problem, and we should help to finance these problems. I must say, at the same time, I remain optimistic for one reason about the debt. I remember three or four years ago all of us were concerned by the debt. Today, we talk about the debt, but at the same time, the debt is managed extremely well thanks to the low interest rates and to all the inflows of money that we have. So, in life, I think we have to remain optimistic in a nutshell, because if we are not, then we are depressed, which is another cliché. Okay, this is a nice way of concluding your remark. Jacques. Yes, so as far I'm concerned, maybe as by profession, I'm more inclined to be cautious and to be pessimistic. We didn't speak about the unwinding of all these estimated packages, interest rate holidays, loan deferrals and so forth. So, when this program came to an end, we might have also socially and economically some negative impact. So, I think we shouldn't underestimate also the consequences of the phase-out of these stimuli and support packages. And it is a pity indeed that our colleague, our expert for energy transition is not with us. It's true that for banks today it's extremely difficult to navigate because the framework have not been stabilized yet. Taxonomy are not yet finalized. We have to avoid by all means greenwashing. And also what we understand, what is under preparation is more in terms of taxonomy is more to the attention of investors, asset measures, and it gives definition and picture at a certain time. But what we would appreciate as lenders, as bankers is to accomplish the transition, to accomplish the energy transition of our counterparts, not to take a picture at a certain time what is green, what is not green. And notably for these sensitive industries what is important is the progress made, the roadmap design to all the iteration towards energy transition. So it's very complex today from a regulatory perspective and difficult, a lot of communication. And we have to be very self-mentioned that when you pitch for total it's not obvious or BP and so forth. These measures or national oil producers at the moment are working very hard to design a very serious, rigorous ESG framework. But we are in need of regulations and clarification for this green financing. Thank you very much, Jacques, indeed. And I understand pretty well that for seeing from your own standpoint the challenges are enormous. What would you say, Serge? One last word, sort of present. Two lessons learned from our past experiment from the last crisis. The first one was that the financial system could have been better regulated. Thank you, remember that period. And the second one was the financial institution back then were undercapitalized. When you look at things today that's no longer the case. And this has been very a powerful shield in this crisis with an exception. Emerging countries, emerging countries. So I believe that based on this experience we should extend this to the emerging country world where when you look at things in details institutions are way, way, way to undercapitalize. So to face the situation, the new situation which is more commitment for the people, more commitment for the population, sustainability, sustainable growth. We need financial institutions that are way, way, way better capitalized. That's my motto. I think you have all understood that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Serge. So my own last word because we address so many issues, only to mention the fact that it's true that market economies and the entire world proved resilience and that perhaps give some flesh to the idea that we can remain relatively confident. We had the... I was myself president of the Paris Club when we had to reschedule Latin America, Africa, Soviet Union and so forth. And we went through that terrible experience. We had the dot-com bubble explosion. We had the Lehman Brother. We had the Euro crisis. We had... We have COVID. And we found out pragmatically the way of coping with this situation. Some were thinking that the Euro area would totally collapse and be blown up. I was convinced that it was plain wrong. By the way, after Lehman Brother, four new countries got in the Euro area, four new countries, and no countries left. So those in, say, on the other side of the Atlantic that we're absolutely sure that everything will be blown up were wrong, obviously. And, of course, were wrong because there was appropriate decisions taken, appropriate, I would say, way of coping with a very grave situation. So there is resilience. But, of course, we have to know that there is no time for absence of vigilance. Everything can happen anytime. And we have to be prepared for the unexpected. And I'm sure that we have been quite exhaustive in listing the risks today, but we will have new events or risks tomorrow. We were not mentioning at all geo-strategies, which is nevertheless one very important meditation in this colloquium. And, of course, we could have dramatic events that would totally change our perspective. Now, I respond to your question. The central banks are independent, which does not mean that they are not responsible. And all central banks, to my knowledge, are very often in contact with the parliament, the representative of the people. It's true in the euro system because each national central bank has to make reports on the national central banks. And the present of the ECB goes at least six times a year in front of the European parliament. Different commissions and the plenary session, which is quite impressive, I have to say. The plenary session in the European parliament, you have the feeling that it is science fiction. There are so many MPs. So that's one. Second, the treaty itself, of course, calls for the central bank to deliver price stability, at least the Maastricht Treaty, and to support the policies of the European Union when price stability is ensured without prejudice to price stability, et cetera. So that makes also the central bank, and it has been the case, I have to say constantly, to have this addition of responsibilities. Now, the central bank is responsible before the people. And the most grateful, I would say, observation I can make is that at the beginning of the euro, a lot of people were extremely skeptical and convinced that it would be a failure, convinced that it was impossible to think that it could be a credible currency and so forth. At the moment, I'm speaking, in the last survey, 75% of the people that are in the euro area approve the euro, 75%. More than 80% in Germany. More than 70% in France, in my memory. So in a way, the central bank proved that it could inspire the confidence of the general public, of the men and women in the street. And that, of course, is very interesting. Now, we are living in democracies. New questions are coming permanently, and that's absolutely right. And central banks have to reflect on whether some of their instruments are not creating inequalities, whether it's right to embark on asset purchases when you have no more, I would say, interest rates possibilities. It's been the case in all major central banks. I consider that the question is perfectly right. I also consider, of course, that had they let deflation to materialize, then the general public would have been in a dramatic situation, and we would have had, you know, something which could have been worse than in 2930s of the last century. So all what you do has, you know, good and bad consequences. You have to balance that and be sure that you take the right decision. But at the last resort, in an independent central bank, it seems to me that you are responsible in front of the public at large. That's right. That would be my last word, and it is two minutes after time. So thank you very, very much indeed for active and vivid participation. Thank you.