 Good afternoon. Welcome to this incredibly important panel. It is really about how we can avoid a deep recession and how we can build a recovery and the role of trade and investments in this. We know that during the three last decades, we have tripled the global GDP and trade has been an important factor in this. How will this look moving forward? Can we still rely on trade and investments being part of the solution or will we have to rethink globalization and the growth factors? We have an amazing panel to deal with these topics, starting with Dr. Ngozi, the head of WTO. We all know Dr. Ngozi. We have Prime Minister of Belgium, Alexander De Kru. We have also Larry Fink, Chairman and the CEO of BlackRock, largest investment company in the world. And then we have Robert Habeck. We all know also Minister Habeck. He is Minister for, among other things, also trade and economy and energy from Germany. So, Dr. Ngozi, we have all seen numbers coming out that maybe one-third of the world will be in recession this year. We also know that many leaders are thinking true now, how could the growth agenda look? Because it's not a priori given that there will be recession. It could also be a very shallow one. We can also avoid it. So, we are all thinking what how to create growth. And for those that heard also Vice-Premier Lee He, a few minutes ago here, he said without growth, no growth is like a river without water. And he also said that or it's like a tree without roots if you don't trade with each other. So, Dr. Ngozi, what's your recipe? I agree. I don't have a recipe. But let me say this. Of course, we can all participate in the doom and gloom. And you know, when we look at the projections that we have for 2023, we are projecting a 1% growth in volume of merchandise trade compared to 3.5% last year. But it's not the number that is a problem. It's the uncertainty around the estimates, depending on what happens with the war in Ukraine, how we come out of China's pandemic, etc., etc. We could, you know, even see a contraction. Or if we have a soft landing from the macroeconomic, from the monetary policy management, if we have interest rates that they are not going up so much, we have inflation coming down, we have a soft landing there, we have the war in Ukraine. If things work out well, we could see a situation in which trade grows even more. So, we shouldn't forget that there is an upside. So, that's the first point I want to make. I think the second point I want to make is that we should not, the one thing we cannot do if we want growth is to talk about fragmentation, decoupling, because there are serious costs to this. I always say that talk is G. But when we look at the simulations we've done at the WTO, if the world were to decouple into two trading blocks, it would cost 5% decreasing global GDP over the longer term. That's huge. That's more than what we lost in the financial crisis. So, and for emerging markets and developing countries, it would be even worse, like 12% double-digit losses. So, we should, this is one way, one thing we cannot do if we want to talk about growth. Now, if we, what can we do in order to restart the growth to recover? We have to strengthen multilateralism. We have to strengthen cooperation. We have to look at those parts of trade that are growing, and those are the, an encouraged services trade is the future. Digitally delivered services are growing, is growing in leaps and bounds. In 2005, it was about a trillion dollars. Now in 2021, it's about 3.5 trillion. That's the wave of the future. So, there is some optimism, some upside, and I think that trade can contribute substantially to growth. The second thing I want to saw, third thing, is people are talking about de-globalization and the end of globalization. One, let's not forget globalization had its problems, but it did lift more than a billion people out of poverty. Two, we need a new type of globalization, not the old type, what we are calling re-globalization at the WTO, that seeks to take advantage of the opportunities that we see now in the vulnerability of supply chains. When you're building resilience, use this to bring in those who were at the margins of the global value chains. Those countries and those peoples, decentralize and diversify your supply chains to these areas. And this is another way you can grow these economies and grow trade and grow the world. Let me leave it there for now. Thank you. Based on, yeah, and she deserves her applause. I agree. Don't be shy. Larry Fink, you heard what Dr. Angosi said, that further fragmentation of the global economy will come at a price. How do you see the role of private sector in creating and being part of growth model and or a growth compound moving forward? How do you see trade and investments being a part of that? Well, let me just add to what comment about the fragmentation. Fragmentation is also occurring because now we are hearing in every country the concept of national security, whether it's national security for chips, national security for energy. I mean, that phrase is being used repeatedly, obviously for reasons, you know, the war in Ukraine. But fragmentation is one of the causes of inflation because when you overlay something more important than price, something called national security, you're willing to substitute or sacrifice price. And that is one of the causes of the inflation that we have. So fragmentation may be a good outcome if you're just focusing on national security in various forms. But if we want to have a world where we are lifting more human beings, we want to have a world that where price stability is more important, then we are going to have to be working in a more globalized world. Globalization is changing. It has not ended. It's being reevaluated, reimagined. One part is we are seeing, you know, one thing we learned during COVID, one thing we learned during COVID was the resilient supply chains didn't work. And so now the idea with most corporations is creating resiliency. Resiliency means more inflation. Resiliency means duplication. Now on the backside of that, it's going to be deflation every one week when we create multiple, you know, multiple factories worldwide. But we're in this transition now. And I think we're losing sight that transitions are painful, but generally the outcome of the back end of a transition is to be very good. So I'm still hoping to be quite optimistic about trade, quite optimistic about the role of the private sector. And indeed, the private sector probably is going to have to play a bigger role in trade than any other time. The reason why we cannot depend on central bank behaviors, you know, for 10 years we've had central banks that have been very accommodative. We had central banks providing liquidity through quantitative easing. And now central banks are now doing quantitative tightening. So we're seeing less liquidity. We're seeing central banks raising rates as a result of all this inflation. And I think what we learned in watching in September, what the U.K. did, there's going to be less fiscal stimulus going on. And as a result of that, I do believe the need for governments, especially here in Europe and in the United States, where governments be working closer with business to find solutions. So in trade, there's going to be many avenues where the private sector is going to be looking to put money to work, whether it is in infrastructure on a global scale, whether it is indeed carbonization technology as we try to get energy security, but in other forms than just hydrocarbons. And so the private sector has large pools of money right now. I mean, at BlackRock, our example, the amount of flows of capital that we saw last year were the second highest ever for us. So capital wants to find a home. Capital wants to find a home where they can feel comfortable that that return over a period of time is going to be achieved. And so let's be clear. I believe there's a greater need for governments to be working with private sector, especially in the areas of infrastructure decarbonization, because on the back of less fiscal flexibility, the need for private capital is greater than ever before. And the private capital is there as long as they believe over the horizon of the investment. The returns can be achieved. They're fair and just for the investors. And so I'm quite optimistic on the concept of working closer with more governments worldwide, both developed and developing countries to find solutions in those areas. No, thank you very much. And I think there is a lot of money in the U.S. now for decarbonization and infrastructure. I think there's a couple of trillions that your government has put on the table. I am very optimistic on the U.S. in its decarbonization process. The IRA is a transformational bill that really lists returns in all the forms of decarbonization. We're witnessing and having conversations with companies worldwide. We're looking to build additional factories within the United States. And now, getting back to world trade, we need to find ways to cooperate the United States with Europe, with Asia, on this process, on this pathway. I'm tempted to go to you, Minister Habek. What you heard Larry Finknow saying about also the huge investment that this IRA is going to lead to in decarbonization, new renewables. This is something that I think you also personally have been underlining the importance of for decades. Are you afraid that Europe can lose out here? What is the steps for Europe then to make sure that it's not only the G2 in this market, China and the U.S.? No, I'm not afraid that Europe will lose the competition, but the competition it is, to be quite honest. And Larry just mentioned additional factories will be built. If it would be additional factories, they'll be great, of course, and better decarbonized green factories in any form than fossil fuel factories for the next three, four, five decades. The concern, the European concern is that due to some regulations inside the IRA, it wouldn't be additional factories, but the plans for investments in Europe will be sucked away. And this brings me back to the trade question, if I may. I would divide two lines of arguments. The first one is, do we need more global trade, just fair global trade? Yes, absolutely. And I can remember last year when I was in Davos, or it wasn't last year, it was last year, but it was in May. I was always asked when is Germany going to sign or ratify the CETA agreement and all the other things. And we did so. And we achieved it by changing the trade agency in Germany and in Europe, the agenda. And we now include climate issues and social issues in our view on trade. So the old world, if I can say so, was free trade is super. There was one part of the assignment, all the guys gathering in Davos who said, yeah, this is the way forward. And others, you know, I'm from the Green Party, we're a little bit more skeptical and say, you exclude everything that is going in the direction of sustainability, but these are not obstacles of trade. These are rights people voted and fight for. So you have to include that. And this is, I think, the future of trade. This is what Ursula von der Leyen said. And I think this is what the global agreement is. So if we can concentrate on this, we can foster the trade worldwide once again on another level. And it's fine that you are nodding because this is always bilateral agreements. Mostly it will be. And the second issue I would like to make is that I see a decoupling. And this is a threatening because we have, we have to, we are seeing a decoupling of economic growth and market driven economies and democracies. So I think we have to understand and to learn from my perspective. It is impossible to have an open liberal democracy without a market driven economy. But surely you can have a market driven economy without democracy. There's a decoupling. And this brings me to WTO, to the UN, to all the multilateral organizations. We can surely find ways of better, fairer, more sustainable trade agreements. And we can foster this. But we need grounds for debate what the global rules also values, values are. And this is, this is multilateral, can only be multilateral. And to solve all the problems, the global risk report mentioned pandemic, climate crisis, social crisis, we need global collaboration. So yes, to bilateral trade agreements, but in the end we need, we have to stick to the idea of multilateral institutions. Thank you. One thing that also Larry Fink mentioned to your Prime Minister, the crew was at least indirectly this notion of French shoring. So the decoupling means that you are then buying from countries that you are allied with. So for example, some manufacturing is moving from China to Mexico and then US is happy to buy. The security element now in trade. How do you look at that? And how to make sure that that doesn't become so big that it has real negative impact on global growth? Because trade has also had the mission of exporting deflation. For example, China has exported so much deflation. And when will we see that again? So what are the balancing acts here on nearshoring, French shoring, but at the same time not losing the baby with the bathwater? Well, I think that we've seen it over the last years. What happens if trade is being made difficult? Look at the amount of instability in the world it has led. I mean, during COVID we had moments where the trade lanes were less open and it's led to all types of problems. Supply chains were disorganized and all the western world was impacted, but especially the developing world, the impact was a gigantic one. So free trade is an element about prosperity, but it's also about security because the gigantic instability in the world today, one of the reasons is that trade is being made difficult. So that's one important element. The second element is that this trade agenda, it's about stabilizing the world, but it's also about decarbonizing the world. And there, honestly, I think the world can only be happy with the fact that the United States has moved to the right sides of the table. And we've been waiting for that. And I know that in Europe, some people are criticizing IRA and there are elements where we should talk. We should talk on certain elements which might look a bit unfair. But on a global scheme, we can only be happy with IRA because finally the number one economic powerhouse in the world says decarbonizing is part of our trade agenda. So welcome on our side, let's work together and let's see how we can make this work. Just a short question there. If you then see European companies moving to the U.S. because they say that they have better, it's lower taxes, it's more incentives available, what is your response? Well, I think the response should be our own scheme. We should make our own scheme and it should not be copying what IRA is doing. I mean, we have our own advantages and we should play on our own advantages. If you look at the technological side in hydrogen, in offshore wind and so on, actually Europe is leading in these domains compared to the United States because we've invested in them much earlier. So we should come with our own scheme which is more tailored to what our strengths are. And I don't think it's actually complementary to what the United States is doing. And it should be an answer to the forces that you see within Europe today which are forces which demand for derogations on the state aid rules. And that is a risk. I mean, the European Union works well because it is one common market where a gigantic market such as Germany works perfectly together with a smaller market like Belgium because it's one common market with common rules. The answer can never be that we are going to loosen the state aid rules because then it becomes the race of the deepest pockets. And by definition, Germany has deeper pockets than Belgium. That's not the game what we might get into. That should never be the answer. The answer should be, and I think President of the Commission van der Leyen gave some hints this morning here in Davos, on what this scheme should look at. To conclude, the answer is not less trade. And the answer is not less investment. The answer is more trade and is more investment, but also better. And that's the key component. It's better trade and better investment. And schemes such as IRA and European scheme should be the right answer to that. Thank you. I see you're reflecting a lot, Dr. Anglosi. Are you hearing the same as me that industry policy is back? Because what we're talking about here is the traditional tools of then incentivizing behavior that you want and you use then governmental funding for that. Would be great to hear your reflection on this, because there are borderlines between state subsidies and R&D and incentivizing. Where do we stand? No. It's U.S. and Europe inspired by some other big economies and vice versa. First question. I was also mentioned with multilateralism and WTO's role here. Isn't it a great paradox that if you were to export green technology, you probably would have to pay more in VAT and tariffs, I mean tariffs and etc. than if you want to export technology related to coal. Is that something you can fix if the countries want to support you at the WTO? Because as Minister Habach said, trade cannot only be about trade. It also has to be about inclusion, the green transition, and make that part of the agenda. Well, thank you. I mean, this is not an easy question. I always say that the future of trade is services, is digital, it's green, and it should be inclusive. That's the future of trade. So if the future of trade is green, you can only, you have to, when countries or members take steps to try to see how to decarbonize, to get to net zero by 2050. I think you can only be supportive. All of us are supportive of that objective, and trade should certainly be part of it. I think that the challenge comes with how, and one has to tread very delicately here. Certainly the balance that you talked about, what one does not want is if we are going back to industrial policy, quote, unquote, we should not see a race, a subsidization race. Are we there today? Well, we are watching to see if we're there, and hoping that that's not really where we are. So how we manage that. It's very important to give incentives to decarbonize, to work with the private sector, as Larry said, research and innovation, to encourage a dissemination of technology all around the world, because we are all in this together. So all that is good. So it's a question of where do the subsidies go? How do they encourage everyone to be part of it, and what's the balance? Because if it's a race, then you know that, of course, emerging markets and developing countries will not be able to compete in such a subsidy race. So I'm hoping that what we are seeing is going to be a balanced and nuanced approach to decarbonizing, and not something else. Thank you. I'm looking at you, Larry. Maybe you can comment on what Dr. Angosa said just about the industry policies and the fine line there. And secondly, if you could also elaborate on the French shoring piece. How far do you think the U.S. has the world's largest economy? 25% of the global GDP and 5% of the global population still. So it's a very, very important part of our economy. How far will the U.S. go to French shoring? Is it 10% of national securities? If we can continue to trade for 90% as usual, then I don't think we'll have that much impact. But if we increase that to 30%, 40%, then I think we might can argue that we're shaving off a lot of growth. And I also comment on French shoring after Larry does. Yes, of course. And then the two other gentlemen also want to come. I'm not sure it's just French shoring. I think the dynamics of trade is evolving. It's evolving to have your manufacturing closer to your demand. I think that is one of the major components. As you start thinking about more resilient, more redundant supply chains, the time and distance of manufacturing to the destination is now becoming a bigger issue. The dependency on a few ports has proven to be not a good outcome. And so when we think about Mexico specifically, Mexico's advantage is that it has lower wages in China. And as an educated workforce, it has a pro-business engagement at the moment. You can transport goods via train into the United States. And so all those elements is not just French shoring. It is just the dynicism of trade. And I think this is going to occur more and more. Mexico is not going to be the sole beneficiary of that change. I think Eastern Europe is going to be a beneficiary. I think Turkey is going to be a beneficiary. Unquestionably, Indonesia and Southeast Asia will be beneficiaries of the new design of trade. So I don't look at it as just, I wouldn't even call it French shoring as much. I think the resiliency of the United States, having two oceans, having two allies is a strong geopolitical advantage having Canada and Mexico. But I think more of South America can be a beneficiary of this concept, especially Brazil. So I think that's just a natural phenomenon that's occurring. And I don't think we're biasing because we want to have a friend. I think it's always good to have closer, doing your trade with closer allies. So let's be clear. I think that is a good outcome in any circumstances. But look, I think private capital seeks the highest and fairest return. And so as long as we are living under the laws of the world, the laws of where the money is being created from, all the money that BlackRock manages, none of it is our money. And so we have to be responsible. And as a fiduciary, making sure if we're investing for a pension fund from Germany or a pension from Belgium or a pension from the United States, we have a responsibility of finding the best return that we believe will have the safest opportunity for that. And that's what we do. We do believe, though, that working alongside with governments on building a more resilient world, it can be a good component and can create the durable and resilient returns that our investors are looking for. But let's be clear. What we are trying to do at BlackRock for our asset owners, it's not philanthropy. What we're trying to do is making sure that as the largest manager of retirement assets in the world, we have an enormous responsibility in making sure those retirement assets are durable and sustains inflation, sustains geopolitical risk that over a long period of time, people could have a retirement that they live in dignity and with safety. Thank you. So we'll go shortly to Dr. Ngozi. Then we'll go to Prime Minister De Kru and then Minister Habak. We have seen an involvement evolving this with trade. It started after COVID with this like this notion of just in time was not sufficient anymore. So we launched, it was launched just in case and then the French shoring piece came. And you look very worried, Dr. Ngozi. Maybe I should smile. We'll smile more. Maybe I shouldn't try to read the people's body language. No, I just want to say on the look, we have to admit there's an issue. We've seen the vulnerability of supply chains during the pandemic, the war in Ukraine. So we have to admit that the concentration of manufacturing or concentration of raw materials in very few countries is a problem that we need to deal with. We need to build resilience and diversify. So for me, that's not the issue is how. How do we do this? And I think the question of building resilience, we should have a broader mind frame and approach to it than we normally would. That's why when people talk of French shoring, I get a little nervous because I don't know who is a friend. And a friend today can not, maybe tomorrow will not be a friend. Also, when you say that, I never hear any countries in Africa mentioned. Larry said Indonesia could benefit and Brazil, but there's potential for green hydrogen in Namibia. And Morocco is doing very well and Tunisia could be a place. So when people talk of French shoring, they immediately think of Europe, the U.S. and some of the other large emerging markets. So I just want to plead with us to diversify because some of these other places, when they have the right environment for investment, could equally be candidates for building resilience, for diversifying supply chains. And business was doing it anyway, moving away from China because the costs of production in China were rising, people were moving to Vietnam, Bangladesh, other places. So let's just open our minds when we talk about this French shoring to be more inclusive. That's all. Open our minds. Yeah, in Europe, there's a lot of discussion today about what we call strategic autonomy. And to me, it is not so much about autonomy. It is much more about strategic. We as a European continent, we have no ambition to be autonomous. I mean, we are the number one trading partner in the world and we should remain the number one trading partner in the world. But on some domains, we should manage it in a more strategic way. And diversification indeed is the element. I mean, as a European continent, what have we found out? We were dependent on Russia for energy. Big issue. It's not the fact that we're dependent on importing energy. That's not the issue. But being so dependent on one country, obviously, turned out to be a big problem. Let's be fair. For our security, we're very dependent on the United States. And the United States are our friends. But being too dependent, even on a friend, is not a good thing. Even within NATO, NATO would function better if we both pull our weight and on some technologies to dependent on China. And so the element of strategic autonomy is more about where do you, how do you manage this? And for example, in semiconductors, that is a case in points. Semiconductors, a lot of the fundamental research, for example, is not in Belgium. We have an excellent research center. Everyone is doing their research there. But then if we need the semiconductors, they're being produced in one part of the world, where you could ask questions from a strategic perspective, it's safe what we are doing for the moment. And the EU CHIPS Act is an answer to that, and the US CHIPS Act is an answer to that as well. And that then links to an element you mentioned about industrial policy. And this is a topic where, five years ago here, I'm sure industrial policy was not really a very sexy topic. I mean, no one would really talk about it. Today, it's top of the agenda, and it should be top of the agenda, because we see that so many industries have become very strategic. It does not mean that we should do it on our own. We should remain open to the world, but we should do some more thinking, some more what-ifs, some more scenario-building on how things could evolve. And there may be a lost element. There, the WTO has a pivotal role to play. But multilateral organizations such as the WTO, they are as strong as how strong we want them to be. I mean, it's us, the members of that organization, that give them some autonomy, or do not give them autonomy. And that's an appeal to all of us. In this world trade, which is shifting in towards something much more strategic than before, organizations such as the WTO should have the firepower to be able to manage that new reality. Thank you. Mr. Habek, I just heard from Prime Minister Alexander the crew that Europe was far too long put all the eggs in one basket on the natural gas from Russia, 40%. He was also saying that, at least the way I interpreted it, that I had put a lot of eggs when it comes to security in Washington, D.C., and that was, of course, a big debate in Europe also during the former administration. And thirdly, Europe is also very much relying on export to China. So what is your view on this and the whole French shoring and how to bring this forward? And Germany is very influential here. It's the fourth largest economy. So we're talking about really economic powerhouse. Yes, and maybe I can start with one correction that is not very delightful for me. It was not Europe that was reliable, that relied on Russian gas. Mainly it was Germany. I was trying to be diplomatic. And this was a big mistake. And looking back in history, it's hard to understand how this mistake could be made because the decision to build Nord Stream 2 and to sell our gas storages, some of them the biggest ones to gas from and to sell some of the oil refineries to Rosneft was made in 2015, one year after the occupation of Crimea. So this is astonishing looking backwards. And it was Europe that paid the price for the German dependency of Russian gas. And therefore, of course, an obligation arises that Germany has to contribute to Europe's growth worlds and help other countries as well. The good thing is maybe not the good thing, but one thing is that we have managed to make these crises. And it was a threatening crisis in the last year. Manageable in a way. It's not over, of course, but the storages are full. We just discussed it 90% in the mid of January. This is something. And we have achieved three energy terminals and 10 months building time. So our airport in Berlin took 10 years or something like that. And this was unexpected, but it is possible. It was possible. And therefore, now we have a stable situation. The gas price is now 55 euros. This is unexpected, I would say. It gives us the hope that we can manage and reduce the recession that is threatening Europe and Germany at the most. But coming back to your question, I would say that now we have reached exactly the point where it hurts a little bit. Because in an idle world, there are no such things as bad political intentions. All countries will contribute to a multilateral world and talk to each other, don't use weapons, don't have armies, and don't use the economic situation for an advantage against others. But we've learned, talking about energy, it's obvious, but the same could go at least for digitalization and telecommunication that this is not the case. And I would also argue in an idle world, state aid or subsidies in a market-driven economy only always the last answers of an off-state. Only reserved for these areas where the market is not covering the demand and the supply. But this is not the case. We see it now. And the discussion about IIA and Europe is mainly which subsidies are fair and which are unfair. So subsidies and state aides are given for the advantage for the own economy. And this goes always also for Europe. Therefore, we need the control of the single market and the DG competition. But the decision must be faster and stronger. And if it takes two years' time to take a decision, this is too long. So I think this is what I would like to understand what the president said the other hour here on the stage. And last thing, coming back to what the prime minister said in an idle European world, my idea would be that we have a common European fiscal policy, not only money policy but also fiscal policy. But this we don't have. And therefore, of course, national economies, national states, national ministries for economic affairs are doing their job in a way. And I would like to egg in brackets in an idle European world. My idea is that one day or the other we have a common federal European republic. But brackets closed. This is not for today. But see, it's highly political. And therefore, we're not in an idle political world. And my idea is coming back to what the prime minister said, yes, we need some resilience capacities in critical sectors. It would be stupid to rely on, in this complicated political world, where interests are gaining and globalization is under pressure, to say the least, of interest fears and geopolitical rooms for maneuver. And there I would argue that we need some knowledge and some capacities in all critical areas. This counts for digitalization. This is the reason for a digital market act. But the same goes for some ground knowledge and capacity for batteries, for raw materials, for semiconductors, and for solar panels. And of course, medical production and so on and so we don't have to stick to the green economies. So therefore, the open fair trade is not the last answer. It's the right answer, but not the last answer. We will always be challenged with the need for some own production capacities for a critical infrastructure to have a resilient economy also in times of crisis. Thank you. Fascinating discussion. We have three minutes left and we will have an award prize also, an award ceremony. So we will be sitting here during that. But we have three minutes. So Larry, one and a half minute and then Dr. Ngozi and then we'll go to the award ceremony. Larry, you want to give a short closing comment? Well, you know, when I think about the need for global trade and the need to have a more resilient world and world economy, I actually believe the only way we're going to achieve that is we have more governments focusing on the concept of hope. If you look back in the last three years, I think the word hope has been forgotten. We're seeing a declining birth rates worldwide, accelerated during COVID. We have more polarization in the world politically. We have more anger. We have a war. And if we're going to really re-engage growth, people have to have a belief that in investing money today for something that you're going to get back in 20, 30 years, you only do that if you believe tomorrow is a better place to be. If you don't believe tomorrow is a better place to be, and obviously a lot of families are questioning that, you keep all your money in a bank and you don't invest. And we're seeing more and more of that throughout the world right now. And so the key for the private sector is for leaders of businesses to try to find more ways of hope. But I would urge more governmental officials to think about that word too. It has been absent in our dialogue for the last three years as we focus on mortality related to COVID, and we focus on a war and we focus on other issues. And it's put us a lot of fear in a lot of people, and we need to find a way to reinstall hope for more people in the world that tomorrow is going to be better. Thank you. The crew has asked for 30 seconds, and then a minute for you, Dr. Kalsit. 30 seconds. I mean, one of my previous functions was Minister of Development Corporation, and I spent a lot of time in African partner countries. And we have our budgets of what we call ODA, it's official development aid. And all that is interesting, and you can do interesting projects. But the number one reason that lifted a billion people out of poverty is not ODA. It's not what governments do. It's trade. And it's because there's a profit to be made. And a profit is not bad. I mean, and I'm not advocating for monopoly profits, I'm advocating for fair profits. But having a business case and having a stable environment and having trade is the number one reason of how we lift people out of poverty. And there is still way too many people in the world who live in poverty. So if you don't believe in trade, I mean, at least for that, let's do it because it's proven the number one way how you get people out of misery. Dr. Ngozi, with that comment, you don't need this last comment, do you? I don't. I was about to say that that's a really nice wrap up, but I'll add one sentence to it. It's just to emphasize that for all the problems of the global commons we face today, we cannot solve them without multilateralism, without cooperation, without coming together. And trade is really a strong part of the solution. Whether we are talking about decarbonizing the world, you cannot do it without trade because you can't transfer the technologies, solving the pandemic. Much as we solve vulnerable supply chains, we also saw that trade helped us get goods from one part of the world to the other technologies for vaccines. So if we want to recover and we want to recover strongly, we need trade. That's, that's, I'm strongly supporting what the prime minister said. And so we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Thank you. Thank you. I think this has been a fascinating discussion. And of course I'm totally biased since I've been the moderator, but I even learned a lot. And this is Davos discussions at his best because it had its own dynamics. And I think we, we moved some steps forward.