 It seems really fair from the point of view of equality in front of the tax system that we have a way of taxing those unrealised income. There's also a description of five or six common goods with an S. And those are a clean environment, a good health for everyone. I noted the regulation of the digital companies and innovation, better equality of course and finance unleashed for socially good projects. So all those are key common goods for the future of our society and therefore for the common good. The President talked about inequality as a common bad and there was also a risk of increasing that common bad in the world during the pandemic. We were, I think, within the rich countries, both the US and in Europe, reasonably successful at using social programmes and large expenditures to keep a certain amount of global solidarity together. And in particular, the fact that we were able in Europe to the paid furlough to continue to employ people and pay them even as there was less demand for the goods that their company produced. The poor countries of the world had a very different experience from the rich countries. Many of them actually locked down very quickly. India locked down with four hours of notice to just close the country. Once you close the country, there were people stranded in the big cities with no support. There are often people who work on daily wages, who send most of the wages home to the village, who live on the construction sites or in the shop where they work. And those people were just stranded. They had no way of surviving. This welfare system was not designed for that. So the welfare system is present, but it serves mostly people who are at home. The question is whether you should expropriate patents. And there I will distinguish between two populations, the rich world and the less developed countries. Because in the end, the pharma companies will do the research, only if they can recoup their investment through revenues. And if the rich world doesn't want to pay revenues on pharma, not huge prices of course. We have compulsory licensing which allows you if the pharma is too greedy to actually expropriate the pharma, but not systematically expropriate the pharma. Now for LDCs it's different because for LDCs they don't have much money. And of course they should have that for free. So I will distinguish between two things. The rich world has to pay because otherwise they won't be anything. We could spend 20% on our people but we can't spend 1% or 0.7% on the rest of the world. 1% would pay for all the vaccines and some social support in the poorest countries and everything else. I find it a little appalling that hasn't happened. On the other hand, this highlights the fact that it's not that hard to make it happen. Financial. It seems fair. They're really fair from the point of view of equality in front of the tax system. And as Jean said, economists don't like loopholes. That we have a way of taxing those unrealized income. And some countries like the Netherlands used to have a tax on unrealized income. It's very difficult to put in place administratively. So if in fact you're thinking of a wealth tax that is above a certain amount of money, you're paying let's say 2% on your wealth, this is equivalent to about a half of the income that is generated by their wealth or even a third if it's 2%. Would it mean that rich people are against common good? I think in the end, I mean of course they can promote the common good by giving their wealth away. That's what Bill Gates and others have done. At the same time, it's very useful and they have done a good job. For example, with Gavi, I mean because they oversee actually the production process and they make sure sometimes that it's going to good use. But at the same time, you cannot generalize the system too much because otherwise really that means that those billionaires are actually doing the public policy. So there should be some of it but you have to do also. The government has to do its job.