 So I was just going to pick up on maybe one of the instincts that Michael just mentioned or actually really add to that because I think it's an interesting framework. And that is I think the President also has a bit of an instinct for business, business interests, and for ways to stoke and spur economic growth. So let me talk a little bit about that. I would also say the President has a talent maybe for hyperbole, so I would also like to address that. So what I would like to do is maybe talk a little bit about noise and signal and talk about that in relation to U.S. economic performance recently and a little bit of foreign economic policy in the United States as well. So on the domestic economic policy front, I think that the Trump administration does deserve some credit for spurring strong growth in the U.S. through a number of steps, policy steps that they have taken. So just yesterday we saw the third quarter GDP report from the U.S. that was at 3.5 percent. That's a relatively strong number that came on the back of a 4.2 percent second quarter reading. So there's really no question that in the short term there's been a pretty strong growth spurt in the United States. We could talk about the stimulus that went into that, but I think there's also something to be said for things like the corporate tax reform, which I'll touch on a little bit, deregulation, and a number of things that the administration has done to be pro-business and pro-growth. So on the corporate tax reform I think it's worth mentioning. It was passed within the first year of the administration, passed and signed in December, lowered the statutory rate from 35 percent, which is one of the world's highest, to 21 percent, repealed the corporate AMT, supported business investment through a immediate deduction of business investment a phase out over five years. These were all things intended to push businesses into reinvesting in the United States, because that investment had been quite low for many years. And that's largely succeeded. I don't think it's succeeded as much as the administration likes to claim, but we have seen business investment growth at around 6 percent. The quarterly average over the last four quarters has been about 6 percent, which is pretty good, given that it was in the low ones before that. I will say the third quarter number was much, much weaker. So this is the story is whether any of this is sustainable. The third quarter number didn't look particularly good, so I do suspect that people begin to doubt how much of the business investment is really likely here to stay. Also on deregulation, I think you've probably been following a lot of this, but there are many people who do follow it, but there's been rollbacks to Dodd-Frank, there's been changes to the ACA, the U.S. Health Care Reform, changes to the consumer finance, environmental standards being rolled back, housing rules being rolled back. A lot of these are things that many people debate about the merits of them, but it's pretty clear many businesses really like them, and you can see it in things like business confidence surveys and others. And I think if you think about the whole package, it's not surprising that after-tax corporate profits in the U.S. were at about 9 percent in the second quarter, after being up at about 37 percent in the first quarter and 20 percent in Q4. So it's a really good time to be in American business. And I think the President is taking a lot of credit for that. The World Economic Forum I should mention just recently moved the U.S. to the top spot on its global competitive index. So I say that because I think that it's, you need to give the Trump administration credit, or credit is due. It's otherwise, it just looks very partisan. Let me now talk a little bit about places where I think they've not been as successful, where I think there's a little bit more smoke and a lot less fire. On the spending cuts and the personal income tax deductions, those have been expansionary policies at a point in the cycle where it was really not necessary to spend that kind of money. Very likely we'll have a significant amount of debt as a consequence and a lot of very little growth to show for it. The U.S. just ran a $780 billion deficit in the last fiscal year at a time when we were growing, as I said, at a very, very high rate. So what happens when we hit a recession is a very concerning prospect because in recessions that's just going to get worse. The Trump administration has also taken aim at governance inside the United States, talking about rightsizing government, talking about hiring freezes and pay freezes, attacking whole agencies within budgetary documents that are going up to the Hill. So there's been kind of an attack on governance itself in the United States, which I think is deeply concerning having just come out of the administration in August. It was a very difficult thing to watch. Very difficult to work for an administration that had you tagged as deep state and did not really care to hear your expertise. Let me talk a little bit about some failures, just outright failures. They have not passed the infrastructure bill, one of the very, the most bipartisan, probably one of the most pro-growth bills they could have done. They really do not deserve a lot of credit for any of the long-term growth that they've promised. My view is on the supply side, there's no way that this is gonna add up to 3%, and they've tried to balance the budget on 3%. So the best the US is gonna do is probably two to two and a half, and that has to do with productivity growth and labor force growth, both of which are not nearly where they were before. Promising 3% growth was very misleading in my view. And finally, let me just make one last point on the economy. I think the administration so far has failed to deliver on its core promises to its core constituents. So the Trump phenomenon is really built around a struggling white, lower-middle-class American voter who have been in a lot of pain over the last two decades. You have not seen their incomes rise. You've seen unbelievable amounts of social distress in their communities, including a report that just came out from CDC, our Center for Disease Control, with 71,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the last 12 months. So that's more than we lost in the Vietnam War just in the last 12 months. So some of these communities have been absolutely devastated by the slow growth, the loss of industry, and other things. They're angry, they're blaming everyone else, including foreign trading partners, which the president conveniently can use. But he is not delivering yet on wage earnings, our wage growth for those populations. And the reason this is going to be very hard to do is because we haven't raised productivity yet. So unless these reforms can really spur productivity growth, I don't see how we're going to get the wage growth that we need to really improve the lives of those key voters. So I'll stop there since we have- That's great. Thank you very, very much. No, I was very struck by that. I mean, I think the total in Vietnam was 58,000. So it's almost 10,000 more. Can I just ask you a quick question? We've talked a lot about the cumulative debt in Italy and Greece, but given what's going on with the deficit, I mean, how big a problem will this be down the road with this tax cut? I mean, people suggest American debt to GDP is getting up to that magic 100%. What do you think? I think if you look at the CBS, it entirely depends on the growth assumptions, which is why I went to that growth story. So the administration is telling a story about 3% growth. If you get those numbers, you can actually see debt to GDP stabilize and come down, although you have to have a lot of spending cuts to do that too, which I don't think are going to happen because they're so politically unpopular. So without that, without 3% and without spending cuts, right, we are getting closer to 100% GDP. And I think when the president has been critical of the Fed recently in terms of calling the Fed loco and other things, my personal somewhat cynical view on that is that he's trying to get ahead of the fact that there's going to be crowding out in bond markets as a consequence of the US trying to place a considerable more debt. So what you're seeing is the yields rising, which is raising the cost of borrowing for the government. Yields are now above 3%, 3.14%. And I think that pressure from the fiscal side is actually feeding into that. So to deflect that, let's just blame the Fed for raising rates. Thank you. That's really helpful.