 I expect, although the global economy is accident prone, that we'll see a very substantial fraction of the people numbering 5.5 to 6 billion in the developing countries now with income levels that are consistent with being an advanced country. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a natural instinct in that direction. People tend to think things are zero-sum games, especially when they're feeling under pressure. And certainly in terms of share, I mean, the advanced countries as a group will decline in share as these other countries grow at higher rates. Future economic giants, if they do well, will be China and India because their populations are 1.3 and 1.2 billion. So yeah, in the share sense, it is a zero-sum game, and we are going to all experience a decline in our share of GDP. And that's a long-term continuous process. What it doesn't mean, though, is that you can't thrive. I mean, you can thrive now as a small economy that's dynamic and innovative, as here in Ireland, you know, in the Nordic countries and so on, and that'll continue to be true. It's really a matter of, as they say, being on top of your game. Well, I think the problem was that the non-tradable growth occurred or was enabled in part by generating aggregate demand domestically that shouldn't have been there, that it was unsustainable, using debt, sometimes government debt, sometimes household debt, and so on. And that had the ancillary effect of sort of stalling the structural adaptation of the economy so that it actually generated employment on the tradeable side. That structural adaptation includes productivity gains and so on. So I think there's a natural mechanism whereby this occurs, but you can have a defective growth path that delays it for a fairly long time, and I think many of us did in many countries.