 Okay. Thank you very much. Bogota is not as large as Mumbai, certainly, but has seven million inhabitants and it has a very high density, about 220 inhabitants per hectare. I'd like to first say that if we have private property and market as the best way to manage most of society's resources, there is not much we can do about income inequality, but we can do a lot for quality of life equality, especially for children. Quality of life in terms of housing, of health, of access to parks, recreation, music lessons, sports, education. It is realistic to strive for a city where nobody feels inferior or excluded. I'd like to first mention that in the transition from 35% urban to 75% urban population in Latin American cities, population in Latin American cities grew by more than 1,000%. Population of Indian cities will be, I mean, India now has about 35% urban population, as I understand. Therefore, if the same were to happen, population in Mumbai would be 10 times what it is today in 40 or 50 years. Maybe that will not happen, but at least it will be three times more. But I don't see any reason why it would be very different than what happened in Latin America, but let's say it would be at least three times as much. There are slums in practically all developing country cities. Therefore, these long problems is not because we have had a bad government or a bad mayor or a bad president. The system of private property of land does not work for the case of land around cities, because if it was a matter of a bad government, maybe there would be some cities where the problem would not exist. Clearly, what it does not work is the system of private property of land that is not working anywhere in the world. This is in Dar es Salaam. You see, there are no streets, nothing. It's a very curious case of messiness. Or in Philippines, the Asian type of slums around railroads always. This is in Kenya, in Nairobi. The inputs for housing are land, construction, materials, labor and finances, which can be finally income loans, government subsidies. As countries get richer, all inputs become more accessible, construction materials, higher salaries, higher finances, but land does not increase. Land is as inaccessible as at $8,000 income per capita, and it is at $300,000 per capita, because private property does not work, and free markets do not work in the case of land around developing country cities. Right supply increases when prices go back down. This is the essence of the market of capitalism. This does not happen in the case of land for housing. We can increase prices all we want, and the supply of land, which is accessible to utilities, to jobs, to schools does not increase. Therefore, I don't understand why we still continue to adopt private property as the means to manage most land around growing cities.