 Hello everybody and welcome to this special CNBC debate at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Let me introduce you to our panel. We have Jiang Jiang Qing from ICBC Bank, Joseph Kimenez from Novartis, Christoph de Margeret from Total, Judith Rodin joins us from the Rockefeller Foundation, Chris Goppler-Kristner who comes to us of course from Infosys and Marissa Mayer from Yahoo. Welcome all of you to our conversation. So when we all came to Davos this year I think we thought 2014 would be a year of growth. 2014 would be a year of stability. There was a great deal of cautious optimism about what we might expect to unfold over the next 12 months. Here we have the opportunity to hear from our panellists how they think 2014 is going to play out for them in their own particular sphere of influence. And also maybe we can get a chance to reflect on some of the larger global trends that we see unfolding and which have been talked about here at this World Economic Forum this week. So I wanted to start really with a question about sources of volatility or disruption in your own professional fields this year. Marissa Mayer, if I could start with you on that. Well I do share the optimism that I think has really pervaded the meeting overall and I think that when you look at disruptions, disruptions really are around change. And in the field of technology change is always about innovation and when you look at where we are in the world today there's almost two billion mobile devices. There'll be an additional two billion in the next three years. There are literally predictions that there will be trillions of sensors in the world. The Internet of Things is upon us. Everyone having mobile devices is upon us. And we really are living in a hyper-connected reality which will allow us to create greater efficiencies, better connections between people in ways that we've never done before. And I think that that will be incredibly disruptive but I also think it can be incredibly positive. Let's move along. Chris? So I'm also very optimistic about 2014 and beyond. Having said that, you know, this year we were able to debate on certain issues which need to be resolved sooner than later. For example, the issue of unemployment and future of work. The issue of sustainability, climate change. I think we need to address those issues. Technology is going to create significant opportunities. Technology is going to continue to improve productivity in the future. The way we live, the way we work, will continuously change over the next 20 years, 20, 30 years. But how we as humans adapt to that and change, I think that is going to be very, very important. In terms of disruptions, you know, we are in a very delicate situation. Even small perturbations can create issues. So for example, in the last two, three days, we saw the issue of the Argentinian currency and the impact it had on some of the currencies of the emerging markets. And that's the connected world in which we are living. And that's a delicate balance. I don't know how we are going to bring stability to the entire system. There were discussions about it. But I think that's also a very important point. Chris, you've laid out a whole series of challenges and risks for us there. Can I just get you to focus on one specific thing that will be a challenge or a disruptor for emphasis this year? So for us, clearly the transition to the cloud and the impact it will have on the outsourcing industry will have significant impact on how the industry transitions over the next few years. Okay, Judith. I'm optimistic for business and feel there are challenges for government. The business optimism now that the macroeconomics look better, the balance sheets are repaired, stock prices are up. The focus on the microeconomics, I find very encouraging. So the discussions about unemployment, generally youth unemployment, particularly the discussions about how to grow more inclusive economies, all of those being led by business leaders, I think very, very encouraging indeed. I see fragility in governments that governments are the social unrest is right below the surface and on the surface for many places. And so how these two sectors interact and sort of can enable one another to either succeed or mitigate some of those challenges, I think is the issue for 2014. Kristoff. Well, I found the energy business sector relatively optimistic, the way I am, by the way, but with one, one still strong concern, which is we all now agree. And I don't think you would find any more CEO or company is not being totally certain that we are responsible of what's happening on the climate change. And we cannot be a part of the debate. But at the same time, we understand that we cannot do only what we call bottom up, but we need also top to bottom, which means regulations. But the problem is one of those regulations going to come. And for how long? And the big problem for any investor, not only in the energy sector is stability using your words. And we need stability to invest. We need stability to invest for cleaner energy. But I mean, if we are not told how we're going to be treated, and especially if we are treated as enemies, then I don't think it will be something which can work for the long term. So interesting. But you feel that's a very real risk again in 2014 that regulation comes that makes your business either less profitable or more difficult. Well, I mean, it's not something to do with less profitable, even if we don't like when it's less profitable. I don't think anybody like. But I mean, it's much more can you invest without knowing what will be the regulation, what will be the tax framework? We need one. And at least then you can decide you invest or you don't invest. But I mean, here today, if we don't know, we cannot. And 2014 is an important year because it's just before 2015. And 2015, there is a famous COP21, which is to take place in Paris. And we know that a lot of countries are willing for this date to prepare, and that's good news, a big event. It means that those regulations will be prepared in 2014. So it's in 2014, we have to sit and discuss. So you public public policymakers out there in the audience, regulatory certainty is the key as far as Christoph is concerned. Joseph, for healthcare, the disruptor in 2014 is clearly going to be technology. Healthcare is undergoing an explosion of data with deep sequencing of the human genome and the bioinformatics capability that is being built in a number of companies around the world. I think healthcare is going to be able to make advances in medicine that we have not seen in the last 10 years. So this data is enabling us to understand molecular pathways in ways that we have never done and draw linkages between diseases that I think are going to lead to breakthroughs in the next 10 years. Can I move it along to Mr. Jiang Qing, and ask you to put your headsets on because he will speak in Mandarin. So can I address that question to you, sir? What do you see as a source of volatility or disruption in your business? 我贊成省胜乐观的这种说法. 这个2014年对我们这个行业的影响, 我觉得有三个方面. 那么第一个方面呢, 我觉得还是存在着经济存在的不确定性. 今天我们大家对美国的经济的 复苏,强劲的复苏, 大家持一个乐观的态度, 但是就美国, 欧洲和新型市场, 大家对这个经济的复苏的这个 状况看法是有差异的. 那么在宽松的定量宽松政策退出以后, 对全球经济的这些影响, 还是存在着不确定性. 第二个对波动性的影响, 我觉得就是监管. 那么新的, 经有的监管的措施, 正在不断的出来. 比如说一个更高的资本要求, 要进行资本的一个压力的 策定, 对更高的一个流动性的 要求, 在不同的世界上, 不同的国家, 对监管的规则, 还是有些差别, 有些不同, 所以我觉得, 金融机构都要应对这一些挑战, 有些挑战对他们来说, 还是很困难的. 那么第三个方面, 我觉得还是有技术, 技术的变化. 现在金融业业来自 互联网行业的很大的挑战, 互联网金融的发展, 发展数据的这些运用. 当然对我们这个行业, 不仅是挑战, 也还有是机遇. Thank you very much. What I want to do now then is move along and focus on some global flash points that I think could be issues for business and society in 2014. And I'd like to start with the US debt ceiling if I might. Renegotiation is imminent. And I'd like to ask the US citizens on our panel here, whether we're going to see a more bipartisan approach to the debt ceiling negotiations. And are we optimistic that maybe this time round we get a resolution that is longer term rather than a kicking of the can down the road? Who'd like to start us off? One of your colleagues said on Squawk Box the other day that he should just leave that in the teleprompter for every two months because the United States will continue to kick it down the road. And I fear that that's correct. I don't see a true bipartisan resolution. I think that there will be less acrimony in this one. I think people frighten themselves the last time around in how difficult it was to come back from the brink. But I don't expect the kind of locking of arms and real solution driven collaboration that we might hope for from our government leaders. I'm not an expert on this, but I see as a government that's as partisan as it's ever been in my lifetime. And so I think that they are able to strike and forge short term compromises, but it's hard to see a long term resolution. Are the consequences of that that we have another year of President Obama's second term where there is a limit on the leadership that he is able to bring because of this ongoing dispute over settling the fiscal problem in America? Well, we've talked about certainty, whether it's regulatory uncertainty or budget uncertainty. I think uncertainty is bad for business. It's also bad for the citizens. I think none of us really wants a government that appears and is portrayed by the media as not functioning effectively, but uncertainty is really quite damaging and I fear that we are confronting that in all of our spheres. I think that's exactly the point that the uncertainty that it creates creates an overhang in terms of the business community wanting to lean forward in terms of making investments. So I think over the last few days we've seen a real shift in the discussion here at the forum from five years of discussing financial crisis now to the conversation shifted towards economic growth and slow economic growth. And I think one of the reasons why we're seeing the slowness is the uncertainty and that's what people want. If we had the certainty, I think you'd see more and more companies around the world leaning forward in terms of investment. Christoph? Well, I'm amazed because I'm not American, but I am in the world, so it's not an American problem. It's a problem in the financial community. I don't know why it has been so much emotional I mean, I understand in the United States as being citizens, you know, different parties, political aspects, but otherwise, I mean, can you imagine the U.S. going bankrupt? Can you? I cannot. Just simply impossible. Otherwise, I mean, if we could have thought that might happen, we will have stopped investing because all the world would have been collapsing. So, I mean, I have been very calm and the company, too. We didn't sell dollars, we didn't buy dollars. We have been just handling our life as usual because I couldn't believe it will happen. So maybe I am crazy, but maybe I see that the market has been using it and then playing and then making moves. I mean, it's a little of speculation and I hope that this time the leaders in the States won't help that to happen because they know that they cannot not sign or find an agreement. That at least my view. So I hope that this time, even if it cannot be done, I would prefer that they solve the issue. But in any case, we know that they will do in the least the case. They will say, OK, we'll find a solution next time, but we have a provisory agreement. So we've gone from cautious optimism about the economy to cautious pessimism about the US government being able to resolve its fiscal problem. Let's move on. Here at the forum, we had Mr. Rouhani come and talk to us about the direction he'd like to take the Iranian economy. His comments weren't welcomed by everybody. Clearly, Mr. Netanyahu disagreed with some of the positions that were taken. But I will ask you this question, Christoph. Iran does seem to be making some efforts to re-engage with the global community. Total had significant operations in Iran previously. Assuming that the sanctions come off, would you be prepared the next day to go in and reinvest in Iran? Well, I don't know why I knew that will happen. I mean, no question. I tried to pre-empt in answering to the debt. But seriously, Iran is part of the oil and gas world. I mean, there are plenty of oil, plenty of gas. We don't even talk about non-conventional, because we are not at that level of discussions. But what was interesting, and then you can believe or know that it will have an impact, why should they open the debate on new contracts in Iran for the oil and gas industry if they don't think they might find an agreement at the political level, which means nuclear. Because if they don't, the embargo will remain, and we just cannot negotiate and by definition sign any contract. So for us, it's very simple. Either the embargo is lifted, or there is an agreement at the political level, or no question. So now, will we be then ready to go and sign? Immediately. Well, it always takes time. We don't even know today what are the new terms. I mean, the President of Iran, he told us during a meeting he came to present his vision of the future. He told us the contract will be more attractive than the one you had before. I can tell you that's good news. I believe you've described those deals as sexy deals, those contracts as sexy contracts. Yes, I mean, they were not terribly sexy before. This time, we are told that they will be better. We will see. But I mean, they have, effectively, like for any country, it's nothing to do with Iran. I mean, you have to attract investors. And for the time being, we don't know what the terms will be. But we are willing, if the terms are acceptable, if the embargo is lifted, yes, by definition. Iran is a country in which total has been working for years. And I would say all oil and gas companies, including American companies, have been working in Iran. By the way, much more than total. And they made much more money than total in Iran. So let me just run this along the panel, just to see if anybody else wants to pick it up. Because in our interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, he described Mr. Rahani as a man that he could not do business with and the West should not do business with him either. Are we rushing a little too optimistically towards some quick resolution of the disagreements that we have with Iran? Because we want to see movement here and perhaps disregarding the fact that there is still no commitment to remove the nuclear threat and Iran actually has given very little so far. Who fancies that one? I'm not a political leader, but I will say that I believe that there's public statements and private diplomacy. And I think the kind of private diplomacy that appears to be going on right now is behind closed doors. We really don't know yet what agreements there will be. And I think political leaders thrive on their public rhetoric. They're playing to the hometown crowds. And I am eager to see what the outcomes and willing to believe that there could be outcomes in really deliberative private diplomacy. It may not work, but I don't take the public rhetoric as being the definitive statements of what's really going on behind closed doors. Okay, let's move on. We've got a lot of ground to cover here very quickly. I want to talk about the other big speech that really got a lot of international attention. And that was Prime Minister Abe who came and told us about breaking through this deflation ceiling and bringing more women into the workforce. All very admirable goals and ambitions that were stated by him. But there was a fly in the ointment, and I think it was his reference to the 1914 situation and how that may describe the current situation between the People's Republic of China and Japan. And I'd like to ask our Chinese representative from ICBC whether we need to be nervous that through full year 2014 it stops being a talking war and becomes something more serious. I've read press coverage of that speech. Those of us who know that Harvard history, we can see that the 10 years leading up to 1914, Japan launched a war on the seat. We called it Jiawu Sea War. China suffered heavy losses. Thereafter, Japan began its large-scale invasion of China. After the First World War, that was when Germany was losing and Japan took more territory from China. During 100 years it was an invader. It wasn't a victim of invasion once. If you know the history, then you'd be aware of that. We now have heard his speech and we can see what he's doing. And you look back on that part of the district when Japan was the Nazi equivalent in Asia. In the Second World War, that was what Japan was. The Nazi in Asia. China is a peace-loving country. We have never invaded anybody in our history. We've never bullied anybody. Your question was whether there will be a real armed conflict. I think it depends on Japan entirely. Can I ask then, is there any room for words of compromise that might actually ratchet down the current heating up that's going on between various diplomatic representatives around the world from your two countries? What will it require for both sides to actually adopt a more conciliatory tone? I'm a banker. You've asked me more than a couple of political questions. I'm not an expert on the topic. But I think as a Chinese, I do have a view. I think actions were taken by Japan first. Many of the bad things were done by Japan. Then can we talk about it? For example, during the Second World War, tens of millions of Chinese died in the Second World War. They were killed by the Japanese invaders. After the Second World War, the tablets symbolizing their souls were put into the shrines. That hurts the feelings of Chinese people. So if you look at it on the one hand, this is what you're doing. On the other, you say we are willing to talk. Why don't you talk to us? I think the key is Japan. In Chinese, we have a saying, to untie the bell, it requires the person who initially tied it. Thank you. Chris, if I can bring this conversation to you. One, are you concerned about the potential impact of that on India? Two, this is an election year for India where it does appear there may be a change of government. I just wonder in what you do, whether you see significant risks from either of those things for you. From a business perspective, stability at Japan that is growing is very, very important for not just India but the rest of the world also. The growth rate coming back into Japan, economic growth coming back into Japan, I think has had positive impact. And I think we need to sustain that. And that's how I would look at this. And I think every government would want stability, every government would want to make sure that we are able to sustain this going forward. Regarding the elections in India, till the elections are over, there will be uncertainty. Indian elections are always chaotic. It's 1.2 billion people participating in the democratic process and typically a high percentage of people would, 65% of the people participate in the election process, very high. It's not very clear what will be the result because six months back we wouldn't have said that a new party which was just formed would actually form a government in New Delhi, the capital. So there are uncertainties and I believe that whatever happens there will be stability beyond the election because if I look back to the last three governments at the centre all of them completed their terms, five-year terms. So there will be stability and that will be good for India and good for the rest of the world because India will start growing beyond 5% after the elections. Thank you very much indeed. There's just one final risk that I'd like the panel to consider and I'll take anybody who wants to talk about it. Europe has started to show some signs of growth. It's patchy but there are things happening but there are obviously other things taking place behind the scenes. The ECB is going to be conducting stress tests and we'll then take up regulation of the banking sector and we know that credit extension is contracting in the Eurozone at the moment. Does anybody on our panel fear that Europe slips back into recession this year and that becomes a negative headline for 2014? I think part of it depends on what happens in the rest of the world economy. I think you could see that if there is a slowdown in China then I think there could be a slowdown in Europe in terms of whether if you're projecting 1% growth Europe could flatten. I think what's key in Europe for my industry, the health care industry, is to ensure that there is a strong reward for innovation. So as budgets, government budgets around Europe become tighter for health care, we know that as you're innovating and you are investing in high-risk activity which is discovering and developing new and innovative therapies, there needs to be a reward for that innovation. So the question is whether that innovation reward will still be there and then making Europe a good place for investment for the health care industry which can then help drive some additional growth in Europe. Christoph, am I correct in understanding that you said Europe should be reclassified as an emerging economy? That doesn't suggest a tone of optimism. Must be a problem of translation between French and English. It's true that I consider the moment when I said this that there was not sufficient debate about Europe and I think Europe is part of the world. Europe is still the biggest economy as a whole but is it the whole that the problem? But it's as important for Europe to recover that it is, in my opinion, for others to have Europe recovering. And saying this is true that I would say exactly what you've said is innovation is what we have to reinvent and by definition innovation is invention. And if we continue in our old model which is to try to compete with emerging countries which are not emerging anymore like China and India, we will not win and we can use words like they are not respecting the rules, blah, blah, blah. No, they will be cheaper and as good. So the only chance we have is through innovation to find new products, new services which will be done at all levels by the European industry. I think those are longer term things. I think one degree of uncertainty that's reduced is that we're no longer talking this year about whether the euro will survive and I think that that's critical because again as we peel away these layers of uncertainty about how Europe really recovers and what systems it uses, the banks are challenged as they start to need to implement Basel III recommendations and we are going to see a different kind of regulatory framework that will be tighter and tighter. But I think the uncertainty about the euro is real positive. See reinvention I think is a theme for everybody, every government, every country and as individuals also because the world is changing and the world will continue to change quite rapidly. This will have impact on how we work, it will have impact on social structures, organizations which are hierarchical are becoming much flatter, the world is becoming more networked. So all of this will require reinvention of many things. We have to reinvent education. There are many things we need to reinvent. I'm just going to move on to technology in a second but I do have one more question for you Christoph and I don't want to go back to perhaps ancient history but is it the case that France actually is the problem in the euro zone right now? Well I mean all countries is first its own problem and the problem for others and that's not philosophy. You know you can criticize your neighbor, say okay I mean no name but I mean one who is very strong in renewables and also using coal or lignite. That's not the way we will get out of it. The way is just to see what we have to share in common and not to fight against each others. So today France has problems but maybe we are also seeing signs of recovery. So instead of looking at who's next I will not say this, I said Europe as a whole is strong or can be strong and it's not only the problem of euro because euro we can debate but I think it's largely behind us, euro not gross. The real problem is gross and gross today is not enough to cover the problem of unemployment and employment is a major risk for Europe and that means for all of us. It's also linked with poverty with exclusion so we really need to find solution and the way is definitely again innovation and innovation is doable because we can, we have the talent, we have the skills we have the labour but we need to find new, I would say I said it, products. If we compete on solar cells if they are not of higher quality we will not be able to sell anything. So let's move on because I do want to talk one of the other big things that's come out for me this year has really been the potential for a technology backlash and it seems to me that in a number of areas health, security, whether that's government spying or security of personal data and in the question of unemployment technology figures somehow and it's not always represented as the good guy in the room. So Judith I just wanted to start with you and pick up on that employment issue because it seems to me a lot of people say technology improves productivity but leads to unemployment. I think back a hundred years ago when people were wringing their hands around the industrial revolution as an employment killer because it was the technological innovation so I think we're at a turning point we are seeing some jobs going away because of technology but I'm optimistic that we really at this inflection point will see new kinds of jobs we never thought about online work creating different kinds of employment in different ways that people are employed but you are right the unemployment situation and particularly the youth unemployment situation which is a quarter of the world's population needs to get solved and I am hoping that technology can really be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And I would just jump in there we had a really interesting session where we talked about the types of disruptions that would come and there's a notion that yes technology is going to disrupt but disruption usually results in productivity gains and in the creation of wealth so the real challenge is can we take those productivity efficiencies and that wealth and fuel it into investments towards communication systems so we can for example in this space of global disasters or natural disasters communicate to people can we fuel it into education to help educate people so we can solve the unemployment problem can we fuel it towards inclusion because if we can we can create a flywheel because communication, inclusion, communication are all things that are caused by connectivity and to get good systems for those three things you need connectivity so if you start and say the connectivity is going to cause productivity and efficiency gains the productivity and efficiency gains are going to get invested in education, communication, inclusion are going to end up being even more connected and hopefully get this nice virtuous cycle obviously the converse could also be true if we don't fuel towards the right type of investment I think it's incumbent on leadership across all segments to really work to make sure that the productivity gains we see that the wealth creation we see from that connectivity gets used to solve some of these global problems so I want to add to this actually if you want to take advantage of technology build this virtuous cycle you also need to think new models new models for organizations new models for how we are going to leverage this so for example a company like Apple has 80,000 employees has millions of people developing apps they just created the platform and people develop applications so the impact of Apple is huge because of this and there this is not direct employment indirect employment they are not employees so we have to think about it and just as in the Industrial Revolution we came out with new models for organizational structure hierarchy, leadership etc for the knowledge era we need to think about what are the structures that are relevant entrepreneurship I believe innovation, creativity entrepreneurship are going to be very very high in terms of the skillsets that are required and then the new models that are needed for business and organizations absolutely agree but my dilemma and I'll bring this to you Joseph because this is part of the same story in a way inequality was the number one risk highlighted here and it was referenced in terms of wealth growing rich and the poor getting poorer but I think it's also inequality in many other areas inequality of the benefits of technology being shared equally inequality of healthcare outcomes because technology that allows you to have glass lenses that tell you whether you're diabetic or not will be limited to a very small wealthy group of elites one suspects very early on it will be many years before it works its way down the food chain so do we need to be concerned that this year there will be growing unrest about the inequality of outcomes you know if you there was a lot of discussion over the last few days about health as a driver of economic growth and it was the linkage between healthy populations and economic growth if you think about emerging markets there are a hundred million people a year in emerging markets that are pushed into poverty because they have to pay out of pocket for medicine or for therapy that means that they're not in the middle class driving economic growth so a lot of the discussion focused on how we as a multi sector approach can address inequality in healthcare in particularly in the emerging markets in a way that will help build the middle class and drive economic growth in terms of technology as it is about at least for healthcare building healthy populations in terms of technology and how that impacts healthcare healthcare building sustainable health systems around the world is critical because we've seen the increase in cost and it's not going to get better because with the aging population there will be increases in demand for healthcare around the world so to Marissa's point about a virtuous circle of investment one of the big issues with healthcare today is hospitalization costs well there are many people who go to the hospital who don't need to go to the hospital and technology is now through wearable devices allowing us to remotely monitor patients they can stay at home and those that need to come to the hospital can come to the hospital but this could be a way of really reducing total healthcare costs around the world which then can be reinvested for growth in other areas of the economy briefly so I'm going to disagree with you because it's whether the glass is half full or half empty if you look at the number of people who have joined the middle class in India in the last 20 years more than 250 million people have joined middle class and have access to better health have access to better education so yes there is still a large population which are not touched but we also need to look at the improvements that have happened in the last few years Marissa I want to come to you on the question of security security of data and governments and regimes that might use the internet and other forms of technology to suppress dissent and we saw plenty of that happening in 2013 and I still think it's happening in some parts of the world at the moment how do we resolve this problem that we have where we want to use the technology for good but accessing it reveals a lot about us that we might not want revealed the Germans are now talking about putting servers only in Germany for German data traffic that to me seems to go against everything that we've benefited from as we've opened up the internet to the world I do think there's a real threat and a lot of people are referring to it quite poetically as a threat that the cloud might get pinned to the ground we've worked so hard to achieve a world where we have the efficiencies of scale that come from being able to have your information in the cloud and being able to access it from anywhere and it's really important that we think through carefully all the ramifications for example fragmenting the cloud or making the cloud something that's owned by particular countries as opposed to where the users themselves own the data I personally at Yahoo we believe that our users own their data and the right way to handle that data is to provide transparency, choice and control have users understand what data is there how it's being used both by Yahoo and by the government which is one of the reasons why we called for more transparency but also giving users choice they can make a trade-off in terms of do they want to have their information used this way if they don't they can opt out of the service they can change the configurations in the service so it doesn't necessarily retain that information about them and just giving them a large element of control in terms of where that information is directed and how it's used Can we persuade technology companies to instead of giving us lengthy terms and conditions that nobody actually reads because they just want access to the product so they tick the box anyway just to have a very simple one or two word question that says do you want us to store your data or not and then we can tick the box because you get the sense that people pay lip service to the idea of data security and then they load up loads of sneaky ways of actually making sure they get as much information on you as possible Well I think the answer is yes terms and conditions need to be simplified so they can be better understood I think they can get too simplified at which point in time they actually become obscuring again where if you just say okay well here's the data we're collecting and you don't necessarily say how it's being used and let people make trade-offs it doesn't have the nuance for example social security numbers or government IDs other places in the world it's funny when you look back at their genesis there was a huge amount of fear around them would they be used to identify you would they be used how would they actually be used and the truth is in many of these cases the ability to vote the ability to participate in society the ability to actually stand up and be counted and all the things that come with that actually outweigh some of the privacy you give up by having a government ID that when you look at that those are systems that are generally 80 to 100 years old these online systems are much newer but if you look at the same piece I think that we're at the beginning of a very long evolution in terms of how information is used and the benefits that people get from it and so I do think it's important for each person to be aware of what information is there what the trade-off is what they gain from it because there are a lot of things to be gained and whether or not that trade-off is worth it for them or not for the place and it should be an individual choice in terms of how the information about you is used and the information that belongs to you is used So I agree in the concept that the data belongs to the individual I think that's a very very important point just like we look at physical wealth attached to a person or an organization entity we need to look at that data belonging to that entity having said that let's say in Davos the individual has some challenges you know has his privacy broken who did they go? the local police or the court or something like that they need the capability to help that individual now that is where you will have to balance between the capability that exists in the state to help the citizens of the state versus the benefits the technology will provide so this is something which we have to discuss and debate maybe there are some international agreements that are required or we need to figure out whether copies of data we still get the benefits of the cloud but copy of data that belongs to the citizens of that country is also available within the country for national security reasons for criminal investigations things like that I'm wondering how the technology companies think about Jared Lanyer's controversial new book in which he proposes that if the person really owns their data they ought to be able to sell their data to the company and actually monetize it I think that's actually a really interesting concept because if you have and there is real value in that data if you have that value you should be able to monetize it another interesting idea that came up in the sessions as part of the agenda that I think is intellectually intriguing it would be quite tricky to achieve could we get to your point on a simplified terms and conditions that's simplified but could there be a global internet users bill of rights in terms of what you should you expect do you have the right to monetize it a full acknowledgement that governments will need access to some types of data but what kind of transparency you can have into those types of requests you can imagine a very simple 8 to 12 point bill of rights that could lay out the basics for people and really establish some good ground rules is it your view that access to data has gone too far at this point and that we need to roll that back somewhat no I don't I think that when you look at some of the really amazing things that can happen I think that part of it is you need to start to look at all the signals and figure out what you can ultimately determine I know one of the most amazing things I saw in the past few days is that Philips has a smartphone application where you can take your heart rate through a video image of your face hold it in front of you and it just looks at the micro flushes in your face and it can tell you your heart rate and I think until you start really giving people the technology and the data to experiment you can't get really interesting innovations like that but what if Philips then sells that information to an insurance company that decides on that basis that it chooses not to insure me or it actually increases to pay for that insurance as a result well again this comes back to the terms and conditions and possibly to that bill of rights should it be developed so you understand as a user wait is this just for my use which right now it is just for your use right or is it something that you could elect to send to an insurance company or is it something that would be compulsorily sent but I personally think it should be your election Mr. Jack I wonder if I can bring this question to you and really just get your perspective on whether you think access to data in the marketplace in which you operate mostly is appropriate government access to data is appropriate and whether you think that the Chinese situation compares favorably or otherwise with the situation that you find in the US or elsewhere I think personal data is part of their own personal property it's like your deposit at a bank without approval from the person that owns it it must not be used where in the financial sector we have very strict confidentiality measures your deposit clearly is confidential you will not want that to be known so that's a protection of personal data in China information protection it's not it's quite good but we see that there are breaches of confidentiality in China we also notice that there are cases in which there were attacks on the network in order to obtain personal data that's not what we would like to see going forward we've heard from many speakers here already there will be cloud computing further into their development but there's a prerequisite that's crucial that is to protect the safety of your data if we can't do that no one will want to save any data that's important on the cloud thank you very much I'd like to move away from technology but I'll start with Mr Zhang one of the other big messages that came out here is when do CEOs become comfortable enough with the recovery to start going out and spending some of that money that currently sits on balance sheets and I'd just like to ask the leaders of businesses on the panel for 2014 will you be investing significant amounts in the business or spending some of the money that currently sits on balance sheets and Mr Zhang let me start with you we have been rather stingy not spending a lot of money even when economy was very good we were a bit like that investment depends on return if there are good opportunities we'll seize them also we need to look for assets that are currently undervalued that's also a good opportunity after several years have done to an in global economy we do see assets that are quite attractive because they are not highly priced so I think it's an excellent opportunity let's seize the opportunity when recovery is really under way such opportunities might disappear Joseph Novartis is in a quiet period until next Wednesday when we announce our earnings so I can't talk specifically about 14 but I'll talk in general in generalities we are investing obviously in the business but we are I am not leaning forward to an aggressive new investment in all areas like we would have if we were to see stronger economic growth so what I am waiting for and looking for is to look for that uptick in what this forum was all about which is how can we start to drive more economic growth than we are seeing today okay Christoph we are in a strange situation first I mean a company Vital doesn't invest on a year per year basis so we invest for the 20 years to come and what is expecting from us our investors we are expecting that we count down a little bit our investments so the funny thing if I can say is yes we will be reducing a little bit the size of our investment not because we consider that 2014 is a risk just because we have to go down last year because I can still talk about 2013 but not yet of 2014 I don't know the capital expenditures of the group organic investment 28 billion dollars so we have to reduce this by a few billion dollars which still mean we have a long term view on energy for size or renewables like solar we have to continue to invest largely and for the long term okay Judith do you want to participate on this one I will just say that if we talk about inclusive economies and there really is a focus on both unemployment and inequality then we need business to step up more and take a fewer more bullish we can't expect business to sit back and wait for economic growth you are the engines of economic growth and so let's make sure that smart investments fueling the economy is part of how you define your success for 2014 so we believe 2014 will be better than 2013 we get that feedback from our clients because that's what is going to drive us as a B2B business so that's what is going to drive our outlook and we are optimistic Marissa well for Yahoo we are embarking on a renaissance and we are really trying to find new growth and in our business new growth comes from innovation it comes from entrepreneurship so for us 2013 was a year of investment we made more than two dozen acquisitions and in most cases with the exception of Tumblr and what that's really provided for us is two dozen or more entrepreneurs who are bringing new ideas fresh technology to the problems that we work on each day