 Below everybody. A very warm welcome to you. My name's Larry Elliott. I'm the economics editor of the Guardian newspaper in London. And this is the Davos World Economic Forum, Open Forum for members of the public. This is being going for 10 years. This is the 10th anniversary of the forum and I'm really glad to see is this whole absolutely jam-packed with people. I hope a stimulating discussion tonight about remodeling capitalism. Before I introduce the panellys, I'm going to ask you, the audience, to do a bit of participation. Two questions for you. Do you think the current model of capitalism is working, yes or no? Show of hands, show of hands. Put your hands up. Yes, yes, it's working. OK, no it isn't. OK, so that's quite mixed with a slight majority in favour of no. OK, second question, second question. Can it be fixed? Can the problems be fixed? Hands up for yes, hands up for no. OK, right, we'll be coming back to the audience later on for their comments. Let me just introduce the panellys in alphabetical, if not in the order they are on the stage. I've got here with me, Jaffa Hassan, who is the Minister of Planning and International Cooperation of the Kingdom of Jordan. I've got Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition Labour Party in London. Nabi Palley, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Stephen Roach, who works for Morgan Stanley, but also is a professor at Yale University. Thomas Sedlcek, who is a lecturer at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, a former adviser to Vaclav Havel, and Juan Somavia, who is the Director-General of the International Labour Organization. And we have Maria from the Occupy Zurich Movement. Now, the way I'm going to organise this is that the members of the panel are going to have three or four minutes to answer the two questions that I put to you at the start. Is the current model working? And if it isn't working satisfactorily, what can we do to fix it? I'm going to be quite ruthless with the members of the panel, because I do want to get the audience to be involved. This is an open forum. And when it comes to your participation, I'm going to show an equal degree of ruthlessness, because I know these meetings have old. I've been in the audience myself, and people tend to stand up and make 10 or 15 minute statements. That is not going to happen either from the platform or from the audience. I will cut the people off if they try and do that. I hope you'll agree that's a fair and democratic way of doing it, because if one person just occupies the entire space, that's not very fair to everybody else. So, I am going to ask... Clara, you're going to have to stop talking now. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Stephen. I stand corrected. I'm going to ask Maria to open the proceedings with her views about these two questions. Maria, the floor is yours. Okay. I'm going to do it in German. You've got all your phones to understand what I'm saying. Merci für die Einladung auf dieses panel. Thank you very much for the invitation to this panel. We've been invited to ask about the thoughts of capitalism and the expectations of the 1990% of our government's banks and caring for the small man. I'm Maria. I'm the small man, and I represent you. Thanks for being here. I don't need to tell you much about the state of the world. Hunger, military power, discrimination, exploitation, destroying nature, poverty, perhaps you already know, that we live in an economic situation which produces all these states that I've been talking about. I have to say about the WEF improving the state of the world. The participants of the WEF have been looking at the state of the world and trying to improve it. But I don't see much result. Where were the WEF participants in Afghanistan in Eritrea in Haiti? The WEF uses rhetoric. Yes, we've had a crisis, and we must really now do something about it. It's nice for them to see it, but they say something about the crisis. They do very little about it. In reality, when they're talking about making the market more flexible, about reducing workers' rights, about protecting the financial markets, they don't speak about how to improve the world. They're trying to make the world more profitable. And it's hardy, therefore, surprising that WEF, there are representatives of business talking to each other, and the logic of business is to maximize profit. The logic of firms and concerns is to maximize profit. A firm is led by people, but it's a machine, and it's not one of the functions of businesses to improve the world. For the so-called global leaders who can meet here, I think it's perverse. It's not only perverse because there is so much horror out there in the online world. It's also perverse because that horror is being caused by the people who are meeting here in Davos. If these people consider themselves the global players of a world in which every day 40,000 people die of hunger, if these people have the capital to handle that, then it's not only they're not helping, it is, in fact, man's water. But this is an open forum. The open forum is the countermeeting of the WEF for the value of its way of trying to control criticism. It's a way of trying to get rhetoric into particular tracks. The open forum is what the WEF is, is what future generations are going to ask of how long this system could last, and they're going to say we don't accept it because they can't tell us anything about it. In the WEF, 0.001% take decisions which doesn't get in the people. They're not listened to, and the 0.001% are not determined by anyone. And people have to control their own lives, and that does not work here. When the people here discuss the future of 7 billion people, our future is something that we must take into our own hands. There are enough approaches to that, collective self-managed businesses, operatives, there is collective intelligence, there is a great deal of collective experience, and there's a lot more possibilities that we can try and try to develop. We live in a time in which all the social rights that we have fought for are being fritted away. We live in a time in which people throughout the world are playing up and standing up, seeing through the lies and starting to organise themselves. Dear people, the WEF is not the world. The world is not made up of rich, wise men. Stop expecting anything from panels. Stop expecting panels to explain the system to you what the problems are and how they can be solved. Stop making us small. You don't know what the world can look like and how you can live your own lives. Don't do that because what you want to do is to trust your understanding and your heart. What they're trying to let us believe is that the world can change by them, but transform it yourself. I'm totally over in a second. Great transformation is the theme here. Great transformation is the theme here. Let's not have a first step to change because everyone has something important to say and contribute. Stop talking about major changes. Let's start with those major changes. Let's take a first step here in this room. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're ready to talk if hope you are. Let's get on with it, shall we? Should we use the microphones as well? How are we going to organise this? Hang on. I'm quite happy to organise the meeting. I'll not moderate if someone else wants to moderate. I think we should continue from here. It's not going to work. We could sit on the end. I think we're going to... We've got someone from the Occupy movement. Hang on. Hang on one second. Hang on. Can I have one second? Who would like the meeting to continue in the way it's supposed to be organised? I.e. with the panellists up here and you listening and participating when you have your chance. Put your hands up. Who would like it to be organised in a different way? The people who want it organised in the way it was supposed to be organised win by a very large majority. That's the democratic choice of this meeting. Let's do it that way. In that case, you're being as undemocratic as the people you profess. We've just taken a vote. It's been the democratic choice of the meeting. That's the way we're going to do it. Look, this is supposed to be an open forum for the benefit of the people of Davos and the people of Switzerland. The people here want it to be organised in this way. We have to respect the views of the majority of the people. Otherwise, that's tyranny. That's not democracy. That's tyranny. We are face-to-face. Stephen, would you like to... Do you want to make a contribution? Look, we want to talk... Hello. Can we talk? Yeah, you. We would love to talk to you and engage you, but if we spend the whole time fighting over who says what to anyone, then we will not have a dialogue, we will not get to the issues. We are extremely sympathetic to a lot of the problems that are gripping countries all over the world, capitalist and non-capitalist. There are big issues. None of us are thrilled with what's happened in the world over the last several years. But if all we do is scream and yell with one another over how to talk, we get nothing done. So let's engage each other. We're doing that. We're doing that. Do you want to talk? Okay, but you are being very disruptive and most of the people here don't want to hear your disruption. They want to hear the issues. This is not about disruption. It's about substance. Can we do that? I can't hear you. I can't hear you. No, the panel discussions about capitalism and you were invited to contribute. Look, look, can I just say something? Can I just say something? Okay, look, we're already a quarter of an hour into this session. We can sit here for an hour and a half and just yell at each other and get nowhere and some people can go home feeling very happy that they've disrupted the meeting and they'll feel very good about themselves. The majority of people here, I think, want to discuss the substantive issues, which is something going wrong with the system. If so, what can we do to put it right? I think that's the bulk of the people here want to discuss those issues. We've got some good people up here. People who are very sympathetic to a lot of what the Occupy movement is talking about and we can have a really genuinely fruitful discussion where we talk to each other and try and get dialogue going. But if we just have a meeting which is totally anarchic where people just yell at each other and don't respect each other, then where is that going to get us? I mean, we've got people, Edmine Leban, on my right, made reforming and remodeling capitalism, part of his real purpose as opposition leader. We've got, you know, Wansa Marvia here, who this week talked about the need to create 600 million jobs in 10 years in a report from the ILO. We've got people from the United Nations, Gordon, we've got people from Stephen Roach, who's really, really top-notch economist, we've got Thomas Sedlercek, we've got people here who've got some real expertise and, you know, we can learn from you, but you can learn some things from them. And that's what dialogue is all about. It's talking to people, learning from people, but really, you know, hang on one minute, hang on one minute. But if we just interrupt each other and shout at each other and start with a fixed position that everybody on this panel starts with bad intentions, we really are not going to get anywhere. And I suggest that, you know, I will bring the audience into this discussion as much as I can, but let's listen to the people first on the panel and then we'll try and open. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I think the majority of people in this audience want it to go that way. OK, Juan. You may not think so because of my white beard, but I've been an activist all my life. And I know how to do... I know how to interrupt a meeting you don't know how much. I fought a dictatorship in Chile. I was in exile. I came back before the dictatorship was over. I was in jail. I know what you can do in order to make things not happen, and I know that what we need to do is to make things happen. And this, I think, is what our discussion is about. But let me begin with one thing. I think that we have to think of what are the values that we share. And I think that everybody in this room shares one value, which is a respect for human dignity. And if there is a problem today, is that we've lost respect for the individual and for the person. In terms of markets, we have become human capital. Can you imagine a more debasing way of describing all of us? You know, we are human capitals for the market that has now happened. And I want to talk about my issue, my issue. The essence of the dignity of human dignity has to do with human rights, and now we will talk about that. But there is one element which is common to exactly all of us. And that is the dignity of work. The young people want to make sure that they will have the dignity of work. The people at work want to make sure that they have a quality of work in which they are respected at workers. And the people at work for 30, 35, 40 years, whatever it's going to be, it's going to society. They can receive back once they have a pension. How is work treated today? Work is a cost of production. And it has to be as low as possible in order to be competitive. The worker is a consumer. Everybody in this room is looked at as a consumer by the economic model of capitalism today. You are the consumer. And if you're a worker, you get little paid. So, since you don't get well paid because productivity goes that way and salaries go this way, you get indebted. And you know that everybody in this room and throughout the world. So, what is the key question that we all have to coalesce about? Whatever our style of making our points, I don't have any problem with the sort of things that you're doing, it's not law, I know it, it's all right. But whatever the way of doing making our point is, work is at the heart of the dignity of the human being. We prove ourselves in the type of work that society permits us to have and the opportunities that may or may not be there. Work is at the heart of the stability of the way people want to live together. In a household, in a family, or whatever way people choose to live together. A family without work is a very unhappy family. A household without work is people on the street wondering what they're going to do next day. And we know because we all live in communities that a community at work is a community at peace. So, if you ask me, remodelling capitalism, I don't particularly like the word capitalism for a very simple reason. I think that our society is much richer, is much better, than simply using the word capitalism to describe what we're all about. How can we use the word capitalism to say this is a capitalist society we are not and certainly not. So, I don't mind whether we remodel it or we don't remodel it. What I want are values and I don't know how we're going to call them. I want values that are inserted in all of us and that we believe that we're going to fight for those values. And I just want to mention that I believe and I want to leave it here, Elliot, that I believe that we have to fight for the right to have decent work. And particularly the young. If you don't fight to say, look, you adults have prepared the policies are great because you've somehow engineered policies that when we come to unemployment, unemployment of the young are two, three, four times higher than adult adults. Great job. If there is unemployment, you make sure that adults have less unemployment than young people. These are the sort of things in which we need to do. But in order to change and get to these changes, there is one simple thing that is essential. We have to organise. We have to organise. There are a lot of deaf ears there and there are a lot of people that have the capacity to change things that are not doing it from political parties to business to civil society itself. So one can say, I don't like it or you can say, what am I going to do about the fact that I don't like it. And my challenge to you is to organise in whatever space you have in society, whatever it is make sure that you organise because the last thing that is going to change this world is to say I don't like it, to write it maybe to pronounce it maybe, to talk it when you meet with others and then to go home and say what the hell, what a bad world I'm in. Without organisation, we're not going to change it because the present structures of representation are not doing it and we need to move into a world in which voice and participation have a space that they don't have today. And that's what you represent and that's the reason I want to be here because I've been sitting there for a long time. This happened to be a temporary job that I have. My real job is being a member of civil society and fighting for the things that you're fighting for. Thank you. Geoffrey Hassan, one talk there a bit about young people and young people are obviously very, very important in part of the world you come from. They've got a very young population and they've lost lots of unemployment. Give us your perspective on this. Well, 70% of Jordan is under 30. So that's a significant number. That's most of the country. And if we talk about capitalism and how this is considered, I mean really greed is a key weakness that we have in the capitalist system and unchecked greed leads to unjustice and crisis and that's key and that's what we found today in many of the bubbles that happen around us and lead to crisis and further injustices. This is a question of needing to regulate the bad side of capitalism if you will. That's on one hand. On the other hand really capitalism is a very dynamic system and it needs to preserve and renew its legitimacy and this has happened over and over and over again and today we're in the process of significantly needing to renew that legitimacy but in order to do that and to survive today we need to build a culture of prosperity rather than culture of profit and I think one of the major issues that we have had in new emerging economies and we've moved fast and we've moved by the book and we've privatized quickly and we've welcomed investments and we've doubled investments more and more and that's very important and that's significant but the key challenge today and throughout the Arab Spring is that people are not seeing it, the great majority the young don't feel that their opportunity has been fulfilled, they don't feel that they have really had what they expect and expectations are very high. Expectations are very high and it's becoming harder and harder to fulfill those expectations because the state in many ways had given up to the private sector given up to the market economy to play the role that it used to play because it couldn't afford in many ways to continue in that role and now we discovered that actually many of the things that had to be done are not there. We discovered that to remain competitive you need to have a far far better education than you used to 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago and if you don't get that quality education, not just the education if you don't get that quality you will not have the edge and if others in society go to private schools and private universities or study abroad and come back with those skills you do not stand a chance in 10 or 20 or 30 years to go where they are going and these are the key problems, these are the key issues that are basically expressed every day among the youth in the Arab Spring and it is absolutely important to do them the dilemma for us as governments is to do the inclusive growth part to make sure that through efficient social policies we are able to maintain efficient market economies but these social policies really have to be efficient because we cannot afford to have just social policies. What one big change would you like to see if you could change the current model in one way what would it be? I think the 70% youth in Jordan have to be equipped to a knowledge based economy that is education and it is not just quality education it is education that is fully engaged and built into the sectors into the factories the faculties have to be into the factories and majors have to build into sectors that are competitive otherwise youth will not only have its dignity by not finding the opportunity but will not be even able to have an income and this is another key problem that is really a major issue. Edmillaban. Larry thank you the first thing I will say is it is always difficult when you are in a big historical moment to understand the moment that it represents and I think the people in this audience have to understand the scale of this historical moment because we are seeing a massive crisis in my view of a particular type of capitalism a type of capitalism based on finance a type of capitalism which has hugely unjust rewards and a type of capitalism that has huge concentrations of unregulated private power so my answer to your first question is the system is not working and I think this system is in significant crisis why do I say that because I think that the system has produced effects that not just the people who camped outside St Paul's Cathedral or here in Zurich or here in Davos or elsewhere are annoying about but the vast majorities of our population make them think that this system is not working for them so the first thing to say is the system is not working secondly can it be fixed I think you have to be completely honest about this it depends what you mean by fixed capitalism is an incredibly creative system it creates huge amounts of wealth but it is also an incredibly destructive system and it creates huge injustices now personally I think that we can fix the system or at least make it far far better than it is and I think we know what the tools are to make it far better than it is it is about a progressive tax system it is about a much fairer distribution and income it is about saying that these big concentrations of private power particularly those concentrations of private power that are exploiting ordinary people need to have much greater sense of regulation and it is also about a system where finance is not a servant of itself but is a servant of people and a servant of proper job creation let me just say one last thing because I think this is a significant thing and the beginning of the meeting I had people from Occupy obviously unhappy about the nature of the meeting I think those people shouldn't underestimate the impact they have had on this debate because I think that they have helped to move this debate and where this debate stands because I think it has brought into very sharp relief the sense that many many people have that the system is not working for them and it has forced the media to take more seriously than it would otherwise have done this agenda but and this is a very very big but the question for that movement and the question for all of us who care about this is can you turn expressions of anger into expressions of action and I think we have actually a unique this is going back to my original point a unique historical moment to do that final thing I'll say why do I say that because people from right and left are having to acknowledge this you know here in Davos not exactly the world economic forum not known for its great sense of humility about capitalism and about itself is having to say we too get this agenda that is very significant but it is an opportunity that has to be grasped not an opportunity that should be allowed to slip away because these historical moments can come and then the moment can slip away and it has to be seized thank you now now well Maria told you that she's a small man representing you let me tell you I'm a big woman representing you and I'm not surprised at all that there was a division in the house on the first question on capitalism because the lines are surely blurred when communist systems are exporting billionaires and capitalist systems are importing food the global economic food crisis an economic crisis and the occupying wall street and street protests during the Arab Spring tells us that the age of economic impunity is over more and more people are demanding greater accountability on the part of governments and on the part of international institutions and the private sector prior to the Arab Spring financial institutions and development agencies described the economic progress in this region particularly for instance on Tunis they said excellent growth they're providing employment for everyone they're meeting their MDG goals where were they looking because that's not what the people on the street were saying here is the first Tunisian who set himself a light because he couldn't find a job so there were all these ills and this was the assessment that was being made to me the voices on the streets and the protests indicates what we have always said that you have to have a human rights based approach people must be the center of economic policies whatever system you call it that means delivering on civil and political rights economic social and cultural rights where do I get this from the universal declaration imposes a obligation under human rights law on all states as the core responsibilities in governance to ensure freedom from fear and freedom from want civil and political rights economic, social and cultural rights and what people are demanding today is delivery of their rights they are no longer prepared to trust invisible institutions or unaccountable institutions to guarantee their economic well-being what they are asking for is participation in these processes now all these standards that I am quoting are what the member states created states all 193 states created these standards so they are our standards and they must be implemented are they not being implemented how widespread is the acceptance of the actual terms of universal declaration of human rights how many countries would you say how big a part of the world doesn't actually apply those well I'm looking at it globally which is my mandate statistics given by OECD the organization for economic cooperation development for Europe they said that this year is the biggest gap between the rich and poor so I don't see any delivery there on economic rights and well-being for the poor I support the call for participation by all concern and particularly the marginalized those with less economic status women, children they want to have a say in economic and political matters and this is the wake up call that we are receiving in 2011 and it can be done because businesses must be socially responsible and they must respect human rights thank you very much Steven you worked in Asia for a long time would this discussion be somewhat different if you were holding it in Shanghai rather than in Davos or Mumbai I think that's a very important point Larry is this working? I'm an economist and yes I spent the better part of my career working on Wall Street while on Wall Street I was very vocal in warning of periodic bouts of instability imbalance and excess I cannot say that my warnings were heated or listened to but it never stopped me from trying to get to the bottom of what I thought was a very unstable combination between financial markets and real economic activity as an economist I think it's critical to just point out one obvious fact the income inequality which has become the standard of the Occupy movement as they've raised their protests all over the world is global in scope we in the west do not have a monopoly on rising inequality whether we are state directed or pure market based capitalist, non-capitalist America or China income inequality is higher than it's ever been in modern times I would argue that it's less the system and more in the way that we have governed our system we have in many cases let regulators, policy makers politicians be subjected to ideological capture and that has blinded them from imposing the discipline that a system like ours needs in the last 20 years we've let in an increasingly complex world interrelated markets driven by high speed technology veer out of control we've let regulation be replaced by self-regulation in the last 30 years I've counted them up you can do the math yourself we've had a major crisis about once every three years and the countries involved in the crises are across the ideological spectrum from capitalist to non-capitalist to the United States to Asia and now of course Europe the answers have been very very elusive especially for my profession the economics profession economics owes its origins to the problems of allocating resources in a fair and efficient way that generates increased economic welfare prosperity and presumably equality we've lost sight of that the economics profession has nothing to say about the problems of income inequality that embarrasses me as a professional economist I take major exception to a profession that does not hold itself accountable to real-time problems what needs to be done I'm not presumptuous enough to sit here and tell you that there are five things that need to be done I myself was very much involved in the United States when I was in college protesting against my own sense of inequity during the war in Vietnam and social problems that swept America during that period so I definitely sympathize very much with the frustration and the isolation disenfranchisement and especially the high levels of youth employment we can say that education is the answer and I'm an educator now and I believe it's the answer but it's not as easy as that it's matching skills with opportunities that change at hyperspeed in this world what I do believe most strongly in though is that we need better systems of governance to run our markets, our companies our economies, our monetary policies and our fiscal policies we've dropped the ball today I spent a lot of my time talking to central bankers and the fiscal authorities around the world we've got deficits that are shooting up as high as they can go we've got interest rates set by central banks at zero they don't know what to do they come up with new and creative policies they call them quantitative easing I worry that policy is unhinged and the crises that we've suffered 11 over the last 30 years are an indication of more to come, this is not a stable system it's a system in need of more disciplined governance is that because of the nature of financial markets globally after the last crisis for example after the last big crisis in 1930s Roosevelt came in clamped down on the finance on Wall Street pretty hard he created firewalls between retail banking and investment banking and generally the rhetoric was incredibly strong as an inauguration speech he talked about kicking the money changes out of the temple his sort of stuff would be meet and drink to the protesters today I'm not here luring Did you detect any willingness on the part of policy makers to take that sort of tough action again or are we just going to have the financial markets running the show, causing no, the financial markets are sort of very much back on their heels the pendulum power is shifted dramatically away from market makers to market those who are individuals citizens who are affected most by the markets the point is that the pendulum of regulation swings over long periods of time back and forth and it usually takes an appeal like this a crisis like this to change the value proposition that governs the way resources are allocated and as Ed said we are living in the middle of that right now and what we don't know are what the new rules are that will provide a more equitable and a fair outcome on the new rules we know that self-regulation was not the right answer during a period of complexity rapid technological change in markets that were prone to excess and that's a lesson that we need to learn okay thank you Thomas you're going to check I'm also going to do it in German 4 minutes can somebody make like this I will tell you when your 4 minutes are up okay okay this is from the start in 4 minutes I've always wondered what it's like when a lot of people are listening to you when I was saying they were the first thing I'd say is that I'm disappointed where is the problem why are you afraid of emancipating yourselves why do we take this discussion just accept it and to see it and listen and to hear what other people have to say where do you see the dangers what is the problem it's simply to simple to listen to people who have ddeallangodd, mae'r hefyd yn weithbysgu ysgol erdeg yn y same syniad mewn hiad. Metr y dyma hanfethau am yr amser. Mae'r hefyd wedi'i'n viadau'r hyn yn ddod o'r sgol yma. Mae'r hefyd yn digwydd o'r hyn derbyn. Mae'r hefyd yn ei hyn yn angen nad ydynt yn roedd o'r hefyd yn cael ganddiad. Mae'r hefyd mewn hyn yn cael amgymfroedd hynny фos bydd angen mewn cyfroedd. I want people, I'm not expecting people to tell me what the problem is and then solve it for me. And I think we need to have a different way of solving problems and causing problems. So the panel here, as I see it, is made up of people who have been invited here, but who are really creative thinkers. That's what I expect you to do. But that's perhaps the connection on my part. Let's come to the important point. Why has the system failed? The system has failed. It failed a long time ago. I don't think it's failed absolutely in 2011. It was a new crisis in 2011. It was a new crisis in 2011. There was one before that. It was a good crisis. So we know we're going to come thicker and faster. We've got a new crisis, because there is a series of crisis. Maria has said, in the next phase, that 30,000 to 40,000 people die every day. 40,000 people die every year by the direct hunger. The direct results of the money that should be hunger, and people have a capital to solve that to fight against it. And not doing it. And I simply think that the coming generation is going to do it to us. Yn d各位 Rwy'n gweithio, yokio y gallwch dasgfaeth. Yna y rhyw yng Nghyrwch yw? Mae Herbryd ychydig yw? grants sentenced, all those. I know this is better than the free candle that we're producing today. I think it is not a question of resources, it is not a question of resources, it is a question of how many people are now-were. We're thinking on it, and a lot of people will have their thoughts with figures on it, and okay, I will continue to make a panel, I'll continue to go on like this, personally, I won't say to my dad where you're not so who were important, I thought that you were. I grew up in Switzerland. Thank you very much for your intervention. What one or two things would you do to sort out the problem? You've given us a description of the problem and obviously there is a problem, we all agree there's a problem. I just wonder what you would, if you had the power, you had the ability to solve things. What would be the things that you would do in order to solve the problem? I'm a country to other people, I don't see myself as an expert, and I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. All right, what were you saying? Okay, thanks. Of course, I have ideas. I've been around for the past 24 years and I have always thought about how society can function, which is not based on exploitation and hunger. You want to hear, you want to hear my voice. I think communism has clearly failed. And generally, the lack of private property, I think it's something that we need to look at, the privatisation of resources, because a private system is based solely on growth, and that is simply ludicrous. So I think we need to go towards an economy where people have, according to what they want, not an economy in which we produce what people think they want, but they never knew it. I think we have that kind of consumer society. We've produced a society based on consumer values. People have to have an iPod or an iPhone every three months, and they want the newest version, which is not the same as the previous one. There's no point in that kind of system where everyone wants a new iPhone every three months, so people make an iPhone, a new iPhone in three months. We could have goods, we could have services, which would be based on what people actually want. Hang on one second, I think we'll just let the rest of the panel have a word if you don't mind. Ed Miliband, hang on one second, you'll have a chance to speak. Are you part of the Occupy movement as well? I think it's only right that other members of the panel have a say as well. Ed Miliband, what would... I think I'd like to go around the panel and ask what specific things... I asked a question of the chat from Occupy. It's quite a difficult question, because it's always easier to say what the problem is, rather than actually lay out some solutions to it. It might well be, I mean, one might say it's more collective bargaining. One of the problems is that workers are unable to get the full or even part of the fruits of their labour. I'd quite like to go round from people to say what they think should be done. Everybody in this room knows there's a problem. We can talk about income inequality and we can talk about the fact that private sector debt has become public sector debt and the bank has been bailed out by the taxpayer and so on. But actually, I'd quite like us to start moving towards some answers rather than some questions. You want to be Prime Minister of the UK. What sort of things would you want to do? I'll give you three very quick answers to that. First of all, you've got to do something about the runaway distribution of rewards at the top of our society. Now, how do you do that? I said you need a more progressive tax system. I think that's important. I think you've got to find different ways in which you can control what the top executives get, because the issue of the top 1% is massive. I think there are ways you can do that by changing the rules. The rules that apply to boards and who's on boards. One proposal we have, for example, is that every publicly listed company should have a normal employee in the board. But if you can't look at an ordinary employee of your firm in the eye and say, actually, this is a justified salary, then you shouldn't be getting the salary. So it's one very specific thing. Secondly, you clearly have to reform the way that the banking system works so that it properly serves industry. How would I do that? I think you've got to look at some of the models that are already out there, for example in Germany, where you have part-public, part-private relationships in the banking system. So you don't simply leave it to the private banking system. Thirdly, as I indicated at the outset, I think there are particularly in areas where there isn't proper competition. I think you need much greater regulation. In Britain, that's about the energy companies, the train companies, lots of organisations that have been privatised, but in my view don't have proper regulation. So that's not a transformation, but I think there are three things that could make a difference. Thomas, you're not going to get away with just handing over your mic for the entire... You're doing what you hear just for that, and we haven't heard from you at all, so what would you do? You know, when my iPhone doesn't work, I'm not expected to repair it. I go to the experts. So I appreciate in this the Occupy Walter because you've made this a mainstream topic and I think it's important. And you are just saying, really, what sociologists, philosophers, critical economists and anthropologists, just to pick few, have been saying for years that globalisation has its dark sides of the moon. It's not just sunny side up all the time. And it was some sort of a miracle that globalisation produced by and large, at least in our quarters of the world, happy, happy results. And thank God for this wake-up call that's happening. But the problem is following. Okay, let's help, not Greece, not Wall Street, let's help the third world. Who's on the street left again? Who's on the streets of Athens? It's the Greek left protesting that their income is going to go down 5%. Well, it has to go if somebody other's income, in the short run anyway, is going to go up. Solutions. Okay, obviously, there is something terribly wrong with the whole idea of interest rate. I don't have anything against capital. I think we should have private capital. But interest rate is spooky. This is a message that we're hearing from Moses, from Aristotle, from Holy Koran, from Vedas, from Sumerian. Don't use interest rate. It enslaves you. It enslaves people. It enslaves Greece. It enslaves Hungary. And if we continue doing what we're doing, it's going to enslave a hall of Europe. It is not China that we should be afraid of, that they will catch up with our growth. It is ourselves. China has nothing to do with Greece. China has nothing to do with Ireland. China has nothing to do with Hungary. China has nothing to do with Japanese problems. So redistribution of wealth happens largely because of interest rates. And you can enslave the world, which is what we have been doing, thanks to that. So my first point, we don't understand the interest rate, to speak very specifically. We don't understand what it is interest rate. Clearly Greece has been getting extremely low levels of interest rate. We now know because we can't take the bankruptcy of Greece because it would collapse possibly the hall system. In other words, the hall system was said wrong. If we would have said it again from the benefit of hindsight, we would have much higher interest rates. First conclusion, second conclusion, it was all a hoax. Interest rate, what you read in the Financial Times every day, it's calculated to the one percentage point of a one percent. This is called a basis point. One hundredth of a hundredth percent. We calculated it exactly wrong. It was all a hoax. It doesn't work. We don't understand it. We're writing it crazy. This is one thing that we either should understand how it really works, which will take many, many years, we didn't figure it out in two thousand three hundred years yet, or stop using it as excessively. Second point is we need to forget about growth in Europe. We've been selling stability. We've been selling our humanity and we've been buying growth at the expense of ourselves, our future and others. We have to sell growth and buy stability. The world has grown by four percent last year as a whole. China has grown a very poor part of the world. We should be happy for that. India has grown a very poor, poor part of the world. We should be happy for that. We didn't grow. We don't have to grow. We've been growing for many years. We've already been there. We've been efficient. We have been efficient. We've had low levels of unemployment. We've been there. We've done it. We have the t-shirt. We didn't do anything good with it. We didn't help the world and we are obviously not fit to meddle with that. We should actually be happy with what we have, concentrate on the rest of the world, and deal with unemployment by working less. So the German model, Thursday, there is not enough demand for the shoes you're producing. Go home Thursday evening, decrease twenty percent of your pay. You have to take that pain and spend the weekend with being a hippie. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. Before I go on, there's a lady in the audience who's been very patient. I'm going to ask the rest of the panellists in a minute for what? Do you want to get the mic to this? Is there a roving mic? The second row from the front. If you can keep your contribution nice and short, that would be very good. Thank you very much. Well, I would like to ask the people who are here in the Occupy. You say you want to change the capitalism, right? So you want to fix it or you want to change it completely? And what? To going back to socialismos, the socialismos that never work in any part of this world? Because that's why I see. You're totally against it. But for what? I'm just a 18-year-old girl. But where I come from, the socialismos didn't work. I'm from Bolivia. If somebody knows where Bolivia is, it's in Latin America. There you go. You say. I don't know my country. I'm making here my exchange year. I know I can see the reality of my country. I love how the Swiss government is. But here people live in a bubble because they have no idea what a crisis a really crisis is. People here say that there is this problem with the president of the bank, the Swiss president bank. And it was like a big crisis. A big crisis is when dead people, bodies, and votes for socialists for a bad government. And that's why. That's a socialismos. Why? Because they are like blind because of they want power. And that's what these socialismos bring. I was like listening to the guy there. And he was like, yeah, people can like with the capitalismos by like an iPhone every three months. Because these people work for it. And instead of I see like every day like protests like back home. Go on, carry on. I'm not stopping you. Carry on. May I answer you? Hang on one second. I'll let her in a minute. Because these people, and instead of working, working for the people that they need. They're like making protests and stopping my whole country for that. And that's true. That's really true. And I think if we want to develop like unfortunately my country is not the best because we have been managed in a bad way. But when it's like the capitalismos, like okay, I'm going to put like this example. In Cuba, Diabana, how is it now? They say like a socialismos. And now how Cuba is. Can everybody, somebody of you have been in Cuba? And it's a beautiful city. Diabana is so beautiful. But have you ever, ever, ever seen the suburbs of that city? Have you seen how poor that is? You think that's fair? It's not fair. It's not fair at all. Why? Because people are so blind and like they want just power. And they want just that. Why? You can see, Hong Kong is a capitalist city. And how big is that city, comparing to Cuba? Excellent. Thank you very much indeed. Hang on a second. Could you just briefly reply? I mean I'd quite like your views on what you think should be done. I mean we're trying to get the panellists to say what the solution should be. I'd like to talk about the solution too. That's why I'm up here. And it's the same thing I wanted to say to answer her. Do you want to do it in German or in English? In German. Can you keep it nice and short though please? We're running out of time. I think that I would suggest a different way of thinking to talk about solutions. We need to think about them differently. We're talking about systems. We're talking about socialism. How can we fix or organize capitalism? We're talking about systems. And I don't understand why we are forced to adopt the system that's been forced upon us. I would suggest that we think about what we want. We think about that in ourselves. We need an economy. We need heat. We need to eat people in Bolivia need heat and food. How can this be done fairly? How can it be organized? How can we organize it in ourselves? Societies throughout the world, I don't think that we are too far, but I think that we have an answer yet. But I think we are noticing that there are people who want their voice heard, who have had their voice heard. This was the message of the Occupy meeting. This was the message of the Arab Spring. People want to be heard. These movements have to work together with people who are living in society, whatever their political leanings. That's what I want. I want people to speak to each other and organize themselves properly. Somebody should be here for Occupy. Okay. Thank you very much indeed for that. Let's start, Stephen, and come around. Okay, solutions. I would offer just two simple things. Again, I'm the dumb economist, so I'm going to say things that really bear on my area of expertise. I just want to pick up on one thing that Thomas said, growth versus stability. We cut too many corners going for growth for the sake of growth, and we ended up creating in many economies in the developed world as well as in the developing world periods of false prosperity that have come back to hawn us. So I think if we actually introduced stability mandates into the way in which fiscal and monetary and regulatory policies are set, we could build better safeguards into our system. We do not do that now, and there's been enormous pushback from the power structure to even talk explicitly about the concept of stability. So I would endorse that point. I think it's critically important. Secondly, it's been observed and it's glaringly obvious all over the world that one of the most serious problems is soaring at levels of youth unemployment. And this needs to be addressed. We don't know the causes of it. It could be a number of things. But we do know that solutions come in education and in programs that directly employ the unemployed youth, the future of all of our economies. How do we afford it? I don't have any answers. I would say that we could give serious contemplation to unwinding the excesses, especially in the United States, that we spend on military spending and divert that to supporting the unemployed youth of our world. Thank you. I'm going to ask Jafar and Navi to make a couple of brief points. I know there's some people in the audience and I'd just like to have the panellists fuse on what they would do and then I'm going to throw it out. Well, we cannot ration the reward, but we definitely have a responsibility to provide opportunity. And that's where the real problem is. Today we're working on a quality of life index for different parts of Jordan. And the results will come out and I'm sure there will be very, very big differences in different areas when it pertains to quality of life. And that's where government should really intervene. The financial situation and maybe for Europe, maybe for the US, all the regulations were very important. But the problems that led to the Arab Spring were there far, far before that. And fixing the financial situation is not going to fix the problems that the Arab Spring is about. If you had seen the Human Development Index that was done on the Arab world over the past seven, eight years, it was a red flag all throughout. But nobody did much about it, or the efforts done were not enough. So really it's in the handbook, but right now we're just hearing the voices that were due to the failures of proper management and proper implementation. Thank you very much. Five simple answer. I think governments should listen to the people and listen to their demands. For instance, right now, corporate conversations, military expenditure remain very high, yet countries all over the world have adopted austerity measures, cutting down on jobs, on educational opportunities, old age pensions, and all kinds of social benefits. And if you ask the people, they'll have a clear answer on whether that is fair or not fair. And government has an obligation to protect people from the decisions of economic and financial actors that harm the human rights of people. I have been to Bolivia myself, and I have seen the degradation to the environment caused by huge multinational companies that are exploiting the natural resources there. And that's what I mean. You ask ordinary Bolivians and they will tell you without hesitation. They prefer clean water than these multinational mining in that country. So that's the bottom line. So far... Is democracy failing then? Because Switzerland is a very democratic country. There are referendums on virtually everything. The US is a very democratic country. The UK is a very democratic country. We vote every five years for our parliament. Is the democratic process not working in large chunks of the world? Where it's not working is where the stress is on growth, economic growth as the only indicator. Whereas the human rights base approach will tell you that it's not just growth. It has to be equitable development, sustainable development with the full participation of the people. Just a question here. I don't know the answer, but I look at China. China has grown more rapidly than any large economy in modern history. They've taken more people out of poverty than any modern economy in modern history. They have raised per capita incomes tenfold in the last 20 years alone. There's still a lot of poor people in China. But for them, growth, at least in that period of time, did improve the welfare of more people in a poor society than we've ever seen. So I take your point. But what consider the alternative if China had not grown and stayed in a very unstable and unchaotic and poor place as it was in the late 1970s. You seem like you're quite suspicious of the no growth approach. I think growth needs to be based on solid fundamentals. When you get into trouble with growth is when you roll the dice through financial engineering, you create false growth, unstable growth, dangerous growth that ends up then destroying much more than it would have created. I think this is the point that Thomas was trying to make. We both want stable growth, but we're not anti-growth. Good, there were a couple of people in the audience and then I'm going to ask some... Hang on a minute. There are some people in the audience. I know you've come up on stage and welcomed to you, but there are people who have been asking to speak for some time. So I'm going to ask... Nice and short and sharp if you can. Hello to everyone. At first I'd like to say that I'm a journalist. So all what I want to do is just ask. Ask questions, no answer, because I believe media should... You can ask the questions, go on with it. So there was a speech about Havana in Cuba. I would like to ask you. Okay, there are some poonies, but what about the sanctions to Cuba? Imagine. Also we saw people clapping that we are now in a situation we have to stop our economic growth. Actually we are not in the situation we can grow. But I would like to ask you, are you ready to feel that the growth will not continue? Because I'm afraid a lot of people don't know answer and we have to have place for experts. That's all, thank you very much. I think there was somebody just behind there. I have a question for Mr Miliband and also Mr Roach. Just on steps to action, do you think there needs to be reform in the electoral finance system? So at the moment corporations have a very heavy influence on who gets elected through campaigning and things like that. Do you think there needs to be more regulation in there so that people can take strong positions against companies? And Mr Roach, about the recent decision in America Citizens United about the ability for these corporations to spend billions of dollars on electoral campaigns and that's being called free speech. Do you think there needs to be reforms in these areas as well? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else, one more question I'll take in this round? Is there somebody right at the back? Sorry, I do apologise. Someone right at the back. Let's not discriminate against people who are right at the back. I'd like to talk to Maria. I was very happy to see someone on the stage who belonged to the Occupy movement. I was very happy to see a man from the people talk to you. But I'm a little disappointed that they blew their chance. They blew their opportunity. They didn't take the opportunity to show us what their views were. I'm quite happy to change the system. I think it's quite good that we should work together. But I think we should show respect, whether you're a socialist or a capitalist or a communist, working together or changing a system can only start if you respect the other person. And that I think is something that I'm missing here. You haven't told us what the solutions are or practically no solutions. And you want to change the system, but you don't know what to change it for. You want youth to be behind you, but I think the way in which you're disrupting the panel here is not the way of doing it. You really can't be taken seriously. So if you have an opportunity again to talk to a public of this kind, then please use that opportunity and give us your views, respectively, and also connect and communicate with the people in the panel on the roster. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Can I ask Ed and Stephen to answer the specific question that was put to them, the one about campaign finance? The answer to the question is yes. I think there does need to be campaign finance reform, both in Britain and the United States. I think that would make a difference. I think as an observer of what happens in the United States, it seems to me to be an even bigger deal in the US than it is in the UK, the scale of campaign contributions and the need to raise finance. So look, in the British case, I would like to move to campaign finance reform. I think you do have to find a way of having some state funding if you're going to do that. I think just at the moment getting people to pay money from their taxes to fund political parties is kind of not really on, but I think that over time we do need to move to campaign finance reform. I think I'd be very willing to find that. Excellent. Thank you very much. As a UK taxpayer, it would be money well spent. Stephen. Well, I would go further. I realize, Ed, that it's very expensive to run a campaign, but tough. You want to run for office, you've got to be able to raise your funds. I would absolutely forbid any form of business from contributing to a political campaign. Campaigns should be about appealing to the votes of the people, not about appealing to the votes of business, and that's where we've gotten into trouble. Well, you want to decide something? I'll ask for the contribution. No, no, no, it's fine. I'll ask you in a second. I know you want to decide something. I just wanted to go in the line of what was said before about that we cannot continue with growth, but we have to have clear what it is, and I think it's about human and sustainable development, both together. And the reason I'm saying this is that this is the only way to get out of the hook of a growth system in which, as Steve was saying, the type of finance excesses a part of growth. The non-respect on the environment is part of growth. Incredibly, the fact that you have half of the world working population is in vulnerable jobs. That's part of growth. So how can you use the concept of growth that is now being utilized as a success? And then you say 7%, 8%. I understand what Steve said, and we can look back and discuss whether it was good or bad. The fact is that the Chinese have decided to change that and to move into much more social justice. So today I'm looking towards the future. So no use discussing towards the past. The fact is that unless we change that, and that's where our capacity to think and to work and to produce energy together in order to create the space for the thinking around this to change, it's not going to happen. One of the things that's become very fashionable recently is the idea of sustainable growth or green growth or environment. Is that just a contradiction in terms, is there an alternative to the traditional growth or cost model? No contradiction whatsoever. Because you define the growth comes from investment. And you define the type of investment the society wants. The problem is because of some of the things that Steve was saying in a totally deregulated system in which you have to let the market take all of its decisions. Obviously it's not going to happen. But you can create a space in which the regulation of all of orienting investments toward good societal objectives. And for that you need the type of dialogue we have here. The ILO happens to be a tripartite institution. And in order to move forward we have to listen to workers, to governments and also to business. I happen today to believe that there is too much importance given to multinational companies and to large companies who define the policies and extremely little to the only ones that are going to create the jobs that the young people around the room have access to in the future, which are the small and middle enterprises. So you need a rebalancing between capital and labour. The amount of rebalancing is enormous. But we are only going to get to define them if we can find ways of our societies to think together and to make the political system move in that direction, to make the business system move in that direction and ourselves to change our own thinking about our consumption patterns, the way we look at what work should be about, etc. So this is what I feel is the essence of the reason of coming together, that we create the strength, the energy I was saying in order for these types of changes to happen. Sorry, this is what I wanted to say now. I'm going to ask one of you two to contribute now, either Maria or your friend, because we're rapidly running out of time here. And what I'm going to do is ask one of you to say what you'd like to see done. And then I'm going to ask all the panellists what one thing they've picked up from this evening, what one lesson they've learnt from it, what one interesting thing they've learnt from it. So we've got about eight minutes left. So if I let both of you speak, we're going to run out of time. So when I go round the panel again, I'll ask you for your one thing that you want to take away from this meeting. So one of you must choose who you want to... Yeah, I'd like to answer the question that the girl behind asked me. You're going to speak in German? Okay, yeah. Yeah, I'd like to answer that. Because you talked about respect, and if we're disrupted, there's no respect. Respect doesn't mean sitting up here and talking to you from here and telling you what the solutions are. Respect means doing exactly... talking to you, talking to each other, thinking together about what the solutions could be. That is basically the idea of the Occupy movement. We're not a political party. We're not telling you this is your ideas or you can follow our ideas or you can follow other ideas. The aim of Occupy is to empower you to think for yourselves, to come up with your own solutions and to act for yourselves. So the criticism that we're not proposing solutions, well, we're so used to people telling us what the solutions are. So that's not the idea that we have. The solution is not to sit up here and to tell you what the solutions are. What we need to do is to change the whole process of finding solutions. What we need to do is to sit down and decide what is good for all of us together. Okay, thank you very much, Mariam. I think what we are trying to do is have a respectful dialogue, listen to each other and push the process forward. So I would say that we are actually trying to do that. That's the whole point of this meeting is to try and actually together find some solutions. I'll take that one question. Bring the mic to the chap at the front here. And then I'm going to have to start rounding things off, I think. Thank you. I was listening to what you said and I think the major issue that we have today is that we are, I mean we have a problem with economics and we have a problem with a specific system that we call market economy. And of course I mean some people would say okay let's switch to socialism, let's switch to plan economy, maybe this will be the solution. But I think that if we want to stick the way, I mean to the system that we have now because I mean to some degree we enjoy it, we have a decent life. But if we want to somehow fix it, we have to think about the limits of economics. And that's what I'm missing today in the political discussion. We are not, we always think about where is the next, I mean where is the solution within our theory or our system that we support, the capitalist economy, the market economy, what is the solution? And we sort of, we fail completely when we have to address the other question which are the limits where doesn't it perform as we want. The limit where, the politics in its essence comes to bear in the sense that, I mean politics in a way that we want to have human rights, we have some rights and this has to be at one priority and not just having a highly efficient market. Isn't the process really one of trial and error that you try something, if it doesn't work you try and amend it or do something differently if the system, if the way we're doing things at the moment called a system, isn't the point that you say, well actually, we're not happy with this, it's not working, if you look at a business, if something's not selling, they change the product range or they do something differently. Surely that's the same dynamic applies to politics, if something is not working you try and analyse the problem, think what the solution could be and you change because otherwise that is the only way you're going to do it, isn't it? Of course, but I think that then we remain in a system in thinking in this system and we just keep running in that system. So I think the major point is has to be where, I mean just to understand it better because apparently we don't understand it. My last point is that, very quick, is that what we see in economics is that suddenly they discover that there is behavioural finance, they discover sociology, they discover philosophy, they discover all the other subjects and they study which were existing all the time but just... Well that's a good thing, surely isn't it? That's fascinating. They took a long time but that's a good thing, okay. Well done. Okay, thank you. Right, we've got three minutes and I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven panellists so I want them to say what they think is the one thing that's come out of this even, one thing they want to take away, or the one thing they want to change. Youth unemployment. That's obviously the problem. We can't just complain about it. We've got to convert that into opportunity and we've got to fund it. There are ways to do it. We waste a lot of funds on things that are antithetical to youth unemployment. Okay, thank you very much. A parallel growth index. Look at quality of services, quality of housing, quality of schooling, quality of health and translate growth into a parallel system that you're looking at. Thank you. Mary? Well, we all can articulate what's wrong with the system. Let's use right language to spell out what should be done about the system. Okay, Ed. I want to pick up on this gentleman's point because I actually think that maybe what you were guessing at was the limits to markets. It's not about the limits to economics but the limits to markets. And the most important thing I take out of what you say and the most important thing is the limits to markets. Limits to markets in terms of the way we provide healthcare and education and pensions and limits to markets in the way that markets work so they have proper regulation. And what is the answer? What provides the limits to markets is democracy. That is the thing and that is what has been lost over the last 30 years and that is what has to be regained. Okay, Thomas? I think we're lying here to ourselves using the very tool which is called language linguistics. We have this thing that we read, which means we must grow. Otherwise, shorted it up, we collapse, we seize being Europeans, we need to be bribed by at least 3% of new money so that we don't smash each other's heads. This is what you read in the newspaper. This is not true. We don't have to grow. What it means, the sentence, we must grow, it simply means we want to be richer. That's the only thing it means and that's the problem. We want to be richer. We are filthy rich already. So, if you want the others, anyway, I already said that. Here we are trying to look for capitalism with human face. I come from a communist country. We tried to do this communist perestroika to find communism with human face. It failed. Let's hope that the system that relies on innovation will be ready to innovate itself and that we will be able to find soul for this body that got out of control because when you separate the body from the soul, from the intent, from the heart, you get a zombie. Thomas? So, we need to return the soul into the economics so we don't need the government to repair it. We don't need the NGOs to repair it. It would be wonderful if we could actually incorporate the values within the prices itself. So, let's hope for capitalism with human face. Sorry, I don't know your name but please speak and be quite good at the time. I would encourage to start talking about real issues like being to profit from someone equals having an interest rate, equals having growth and equals having growing debts. These relations are not so much talked about. It's not so much talked about what money actually is, who is creating money and who is creating money. It's not talked about that. If we talk about capitalism in crisis we should talk about capitalism itself. We didn't talk about capitalism a lot. We were very abstract without looking into them. We should also look into the concept of work as you started somehow talking about in the beginning, dignity of work does not mean to be employed. Employment means I work for someone else. We should start working for ourselves for the things we really want. That means all the people in the world would like to contribute to this human race, to this planet. They would like to do something. Money is just an old system to make them able to do something. We could have a whole new debate about money, I think, which would take quite a long time. Let me say that I was extremely enthused by this meeting and I'll say why right away. But before that I think that there's one concept that emerges from what we've all said but it's one that's not really very much used today which is social justice and the notion of social justice behind any one of the options that we can make, I believe, needs to come back. The reason I'm very happy is that we began a little bit difficult but we wound up dialoguing and what I want to say is that if we can not ever resign dialogue because that is the source of the agreements that we need to find in order to get a better society and I'm very happy finally that you're here, that you've been up here, that you're sitting there, that we're listening to each other and that consequently we conclude that these are extremely complex issues in which we don't obviously any of us have a simple solution but by listening to this other but maybe we are today better informed. I certainly have been happy to listen to all of you and to all of you up here so thank you so much that we were able to finalise this in the way it has been happening. Thank you. Okay, it just leaves me to say thank you very much to all the panellists on the panel, the people who have come up to participate as well and to you, the audience for being here tonight I think it's been a really fascinating hour and a half we've actually had a really good dialogue and come up with some serious suggestions for how we can actually improve the state of the world and that's what this is all about.