 O'r begwedd ymlaen. Felly rwy'n gweld Johnathan Mickie, ysbryd yn llwyddoedd lleidio'r dynistodd. Felly rwy'n gweithio i mewn i. Felly ddwy'r gweithio'r gwahoddi, os ydych chi ddweud i'r ffaith o'r gwahoddi, iddo chi'n deallu'r gwahoddi, wrth gw'i sgwpio'r gwahoddi, sydd gwyddi'r gwahoddi, felly ddwy'r gwahoddi i'n cael ei ddatblygu'r gwahoddi. Mae'n fwy o'ch cyfnodd, mae'n rwyfynu, mae'n ddiweddau, yn gynhyrch, yn y llwyddiadau. Ond oherwydd, dwi'n rwy'n dechrau, oeddwn i'n ddigwyddio'n ddweud, wrth gwrs, mae'n ddweud o'i ddweud o'r rhomongol. Rwy'n rhoi'n gweithio'n ddweud drwy'n dweud. Ond oherwydd, o'i ddweud o'i ddweud, mae'n ddweud eich cyfnodd ffyrdd cyfnodd a'r 5th anfertyd o'r ffrindwyr sydd yn ymgyrch i'r cyflwydoedd Llemon. Mae'r ffrindwyr wedi'u gweld ar y rhaid o'r cyflwyno ar y rôl. Felly, y Unifredig, mae'n anhygoel ar gyfer o'r ddebyg. Felly, mae'n ddweud y ddebyg o'r ddebyg o'r ffrindwyr. Mae'n anhygoel ar gyfer o'r leiseyfair. ac mae'n mynd i'w ddysgu'n ddiwedd. Ond yn ystod o fewn ychydig yng Nghymru, fel y gwasanaeth y 2008 rhaid, os ydych yn ymddangos, a ddim yn ymddangos i'r llwyddau hynny, a'r ffordd o'r swyddfa sydd, o'r gwneud i ymddangos. Ond rwy'n cael ei gael yn ymdangos o'r ffordd y fisi. Firstly, can people indicate how many people here have ever done a course at the department here or any other part of the University? Most of you, but not all. So for those who don't know, I'll say something briefly welcoming to everyone to University of Oxford, then say something about the department and then introduce myself. So for those of you who don't know about the University of Oxford, it gets more research funding than any other University in Britain. In case you didn't know, it does have the leading department for continuing education in Britain and not a lot of people know that, but it's actually not surprising and it's related to the reason why this event is being held today in particular, which I hope you all realise, September 26th is 135 years to the day since the University of Oxford gave that first public extension lecture and commitment to continuing education, lifelong learning, has always been seen by the University of Oxford as a very important part of what they do, unlike a lot of other universities across Britain. And in fact, does anyone here know why the department for continuing education is based in Rudy House in particular, how long we've been here or how it came about? It was because, after the First World War, the government established a royal commission to look into the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Asquith Commission, which sat for three years, 1919 to 1922 and concluded at the end of that that universities of Oxford and Cambridge should have departments for continuing education, and they should be as central as possible, central to the universities, central to the cities, which is why the university bought Rudy House five years later. I'm afraid it's always taken the university at least five years to get round to doing anything, but in 1927 they bought Rudy House in order to house its continuing education department, so we've been here ever since. The other lead, the second most impressive department for continuing education in Britain is actually in Cambridge, so I think that is no coincidence that came from that, that Oxford and Cambridge as the leading universities received by parliament and government as having the responsibility at duty to have well invested in departments for continuing education. Oxford University Press is also by far the most successful university press in the world. If the Vice Chancellor was here, he'd point out that it's more successful under just any measure than all the American university presses and Cambridge University Press put together. It's that successful. It's generally acknowledged that the two leading museum collections, university museum collections, have Harvard and Oxford, and I think it's generally acknowledged that Oxford is the leading collection globally of university museums, the Ashmoly and Natural History and so on, which I hope you all realise is all. Well, Ashmoly down at the bottom of this road, all free of charge. If you've not been there, you should definitely go and have a look. I should say about continuing education actually, the leading North American universities have the same tradition, so they almost all have very impressive continuing education operations. I'd say though that Oxford is certainly one of the top two in the world. I'd say the only university which could genuinely claim to have a better, more impressive department for continuing education is Harvard. Welcome to Oxford, which is a very good university state. Department for continuing education, we therefore, for those of you who see ourselves as an internationally recognised centre of excellence for lifelong learning, continuing education, both on professional programmes, explicit, so CPD professional training, through to programmes for people to educate themselves more on any subject which might interest them for their own pure personal intellectual interest. We work with organisations though, as well as putting on programmes for the public. We aim to put on programmes as flexibly as possible, both every evening for ten weeks, as well as intensively over a weekend in summer schools, and increasing actually on online programmes so that people, not only in Oxford, across Britain but around the world, can do these ten week courses virtually together in small groups and discuss the issues each week with their Oxford teacher and with each other. More than 15,000 students a year do one of those courses or other, which is actually far more than the rest of the university together recruits each year to all the other university programmes. I came to Oxford actually to Baydale College in 1976 to do Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and Oxford is a strange university in a number of ways, one of which is probably one of the only universities in the world where you can't do straight economics as an undergraduate. Traditionally you had to do it with politics and philosophy, politics so you'd understand the institutional environment of the economy and how economies develop and philosophy so that you'd know how to think. Now you can actually do it in business because the universities have changed a bit, but you still have to do it in combination. I was a college lecturer in economics then went into various policy jobs, ended up in Brussels, Expo was the job title, not my description of myself, but I should say I wasn't responsible for designing the euro, I did a variety of nice jobs there. The next bit I would have kept quiet until recently when I decided actually to become an academic, I went to Cambridge, I would have kept that quiet, but actually our Vice Chancellor of Oxford Professor Andrew Hamilton, he's actually the first time Oxford's ever appointed a Vice Chancellor who didn't have a previous Oxford connection and he actually did his PhD at Cambridge so we're now allowed to admit and play company that we've been to the other place. I was, and funnily enough, there's links to the fact about flexibility in the department here. When I'm explaining university department to foreign delegations, I tell them which is true that up until 1990 you weren't allowed to work during term time if you're an Oxford student and American delegations in particular are always, you know, a gas at that since they've always thought you worked through education and that's still true actually in Oxford for undergraduate students. But in 1990 was the first time that Oxford allowed you to carry on with your job and do a postgraduate degree at the same time and people particularly Americans sometimes say well that can't be right because you can't have a business school unless you've got an executive MBA which by definition allows executives to continue in their roles while they're doing their MBA. But of course the point is up until 1990 Oxford wouldn't allow a business school either and neither would Cambridge. It was only in the 1990s that both Oxford and Cambridge finally decided that management of business was a legitimate area of academic endeavour. So I became head of the Economics, Finance and Accounting Group of the Business School in Cambridge. Then actually came the Sainsbury Professor of Management in London, head of the School of Management at Birkbeck College in London which is very similar to continued education where people were working at the same time and then dean of the Business School at the University of Birmingham and then back here. So that's my background but I should explain and put into context what I'm going to argue about the economy and what's wrong and what's needed to put it right. One of the things which is needed is better teaching and appreciation of economics as it used to be taught in Oxford with an appreciation of the historic and institutional importance and so on. I think one of the problems is economics as a discipline became much too narrow and they started believing their own models and thinking that the world worked in that way and actually doing it quite aggressively until the whole thing collapsed, probably which they carried on in the same way actually. So actually the reason I went into management of business schools was because I was interested, well I didn't think that way of doing economics was right and in management of business schools people tend to have a greater appreciation of how the world actually works and things which go on in the real world. I'm actually delighted to come back to continued education in Oxford because here we're able to teach economics in exactly the way, I think it should be taught the way Oxford traditionally always has done. And actually this is my most recent book which does precisely that, looks at as deliberately say the political economy of the environment rather than just the economics of the environment because to create a sustainable economy and you have to think about institutions, legislation, regulation etc. not just economics and prices and taxation and so on. And this also actually signals what I'm going to conclude at the end that I think for the future we need a real shift in the economy. It's an epoch type shift which might sound radical but actually if you look at the history of the world economy over the past 100-200 years it has come in really sort of 30 eras really, different eras of the world economy. We're a very successful one after the Second World War sometimes referred to as the golden age of capitalism up until the 1970s when there were all sorts of economic problems and then now we've had a 30 year period of later fair economics driven by the sort of models I was talking about as being unrealistic which collapsed with the global credit crunch and we now need a new sort of 30 year year of sustainable growth, economic play, sustainable as well as environmental play. So five years since the collapse of the Lehman Brothers and generally taken as the financial crash already by 2007 you may remember there were some warning signals including in Britain the northern rock difficulties that the bank run on the northern rock where we had the queues all around the bank all night for people to take their money out. Something which we'd all been taught in the economics of the school had been solved originally because obviously when capitalism was developing and there was fast attempts to establish banks everyone was naturally suspicious about giving that money to this institution. Would the money be there if they went the next week to take it ice again so every time there was a ruwe that the banks in trouble, everyone would rush to get it ice and of course the bank would collapse. It was why they started having regulations for banks about how much money had to keep Ben and so on and those regulations were increasingly repealed under lobbying by the banks in the years, in a couple of decades leading up to the crash. 2008 was the crash where the debate I'll mention again in a minute was about laissez-faire economics which was then followed in 2009 by a global recession which technically was actually the world's first global recession since the 1930s. It was the first year since the 1930s whether the income or output of the entire globe shrank got smaller up until then during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, booms and slums had really been about a rate of growth rather than actual decline but also hadn't been spread globally in the same way. This was the debate we had on the current financial crisis as the death knell for laissez-faire capitalism and I was arguing in favour of that saying that it did sound that the death knell, not because I was naive enough to think that the people who have got the wealth and the power and who run the economy would admit to what they've been doing and the ways they've been making so much money were wrong and they would stop doing them and they would go back to have a sensible economic regulation and so on. But more twofold A that it signed the death knell and there had been a crash. There had caused a global recession. The banks had been failed out by the taxpayers and almost any measure certainly the myth and height of the financial sector and the economic profession about the sustainability of the boom up until 2008 that had been proved dramatically false so as a death knell in that sense but also because I thought and still do think that it should be the death knell because we want more appropriate and sustainable policies. The moderator is Colin Merger. The time is the dean of the business school here and Oxford side business school. He just written a very good book about the corporation where he lives more of the individual company and how historically companies were founded for a purpose not just to make money of financial gain for the owner but actually to build a railroad or sell food or whatever it was supposed to be trying to do and that had been lost and interesting. That's why the companies were given limited liability which meant we set up company and in the hope of making money and failed you didn't have to pay your debts in my tow which is quite a big gift to somebody who wants to embark on that endeavor but the reason company, the reason society's government did that which precisely because the companies, when they were asked permission to establish and receive limited liability said that what their purpose was whether it was to build a railroad or anything else. Anyway, and then that's me and then Linda Yu was on the other side of the debate but very good economist despite that. I go and say actually we did a lot of podcasts subsequently about the crash and so on and she actually wrote one of our most popular online courses in the department here on new economic powers on the rise of China, India and so on which remains one of, it's updated each year, it remains one of our most popular online courses. This was the debate. I'm pleased to say I won the debate in the vote on my vote, I think of all Oxford alumni, I think it was. So what did, of course, I would argue that it was that whole era, there was a 30-year era during the 1980s onwards which was an era of deregulation, privatisation, de-mutialisation, financialisation and greed is good from the Wall Street film, get the character who argued that greed is good it allows successful companies to take over on successful companies and everyone's better off for it and of course the bonus culture was used again today because the British government's trying to prevent any restriction, well the European restrictions on bonuses. I think that all led up to the credit crunch and interestingly some of this deregulation what was happening was that regulations were being scrapped where did those regulations come from? Some of the key ones, the most fundamental ones were introduced precisely because this laser fare had led to the Wall Street crash and the global depression and the Second World War so they thought, you know, no return of authorities, canes and others had across the world we must have a more rational system of economic governance and introduce all the Bretton Woods as they're called because that's the place in America talking and meeting Bretton Woods systems of fixed exchange rates, the World Bank, free time development, the International Monetary Fund, etc etc. So those regulations were increasingly weakened or even abandoned such as the idea that the speculative bank should be kept separate from I Street Bank so it was abandoned so they could all get it together and that all helped to lead up to the crunch. Epidemised, as I mentioned, Northern Rock, that's the wine so I'll hurry up, Northern Rock collapsing in Britain and Northern Rock, you probably know was a successful, neutral building society owned by its members until it was demutrized from a private bank then got involved in all the sorts of speculative activities that the private banks did, went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the British taxpayer and Goldman Sachs in Greece, you may remember although it was a few years ago and I was reported, they were caught out sort of betting against the Greek economy doing forward sales and purchases of Greek bonds so that if the Greek economy got into trouble they would make a lot of money and what was scandalous about that is they were basically betting on the economic failure what was scandalous about that is it was them who had been advising the Greek economy the Greek government on their economic policies and precisely how to present their accounts and so on so they were basically betting that Greece would fail because the books had been cooked and they knew because they had cooked the books so that was a particular scandalous property earring however there is one other point I'd like to make this whole era which is one of the arguments used continuing favour of joining the deregulation was that the world had become a global marketplace there was nothing individual governments could do anymore to scrap the national regulations and join in as best you can and of course in all sorts of ways the world is more global I just mentioned our 10 week courses they're no longer just taught in Oxford they're also taught online so we've got students in Brazil or Venezuela or Hong Kong doing the course along with people in Oxford but that argument about globalization meaning that governments can't do anything I think we're oversimplified and a bit disingenuous oversimplified because actually a lot of economies are still quite different Germany from Britain from Taiwan or whatever but also it's not as if this globalization was something that just happened instead of governments could no longer do anything this globalization was something that the governments particularly the British government delivered important points in that free market, laissez-faire form so I've mentioned, yeah me and Linda you went on to discuss all these issues in a number of podcasts and all these are downloadable free of charge they should be accessible through the department's website but something called iTunes U as well as Google which has got free talks from all the leading universities across the world and I'm pleased to say that Oxford has got more material and downloads there than any other university and many of them are the most popular ones from this department most points about globalization in a book I edited with leading people around the world really exposing this idea that globalization means that nothing can be done and that's used as the textbook of an online course we do called globalization which I wrote, I mentioned Linda you has written one on globally new economic powers and I have done one on globalization so sister courses I mean just to show that I'm not just saying this all after the event just because the financial system collapsed in 2007 I got this quote from somewhere somewhere from 1999 that in fact the economy is becoming increasingly internationalized is not to take the form that this process is taking the free market laissez-faire agenda is one being pursued by those who benefit from such a deregulated when it takes all environment but it is not the only choice majority of the world's population is an inappropriate one and I think that remains true is demonstrated even more forcefully by the global financial crash so this is the online course we've got on globalization these are 10-week courses we've run each term so I'm starting in this term is one that's full up obviously because it's not starting until January now the reason to euro crisis you'll have seen that what Ong Nishaun laws has made into the Oxford diction rate so we can now refer to it a situation that's been comprehensively mismanaged by a string of blunders and miscalculations which is a fair enough description of the euro crisis but I think there's two key points about the crisis in the euro firstly I would say well again I told you so because I did in a book in 1988 I think the euro was again it was designed very much influenced by the economic orthodoxy as if markets just work perfectly and you can just put up a currency and everything would be fine understanding all the institutional factors the fact that different societies and economies are operating differently that's going to create frictions and so on so I think there was a it's another thing I think mainstream economics got rather wrong but secondly in terms of the current crisis it wasn't just that the Goldman Sachs that cooked the books for the Greek government and so on it was fundamentally that the banks had been allied to get too big to fail so the banks were just ridiculously large compared to the economies they were operating in whether it was in Iceland or Britain and so it's true that the governments just couldn't allow them to fail it really would have caused a complete collapse of the whole economy so the governments did have to bail them out and that did, along with the fact that there was a recession which always leads to increased government debt as the nationalisation comes in did cause the sovereign debt crisis and the euro crisis so, economic prospects without wanting to depress everyone too much and I think there is a real danger about a lost decades that phrase comes from Japan where two decades ago they had a similar thing huge bubble crash and very slow stagnation really since then compared to their very dynamic growth up until the fact they got into that echo model of speculation and bubbles and I was saying this five years ago that the crash happened this danger unfortunately we already had a half lost decade and things are still not looking very promising and before to the 1929 watery crash and the Great Depression which fell into the Second World War and obviously things were pretty grim throughout the 1930s but at least in terms of the output of the national income there was some recovery so generally the economy had recovered by 1933 four years later whereas here five years after the crash output in national income in Britain is still below the level it was at the time of the crash which people just weren't expecting people just assumed that it would just recover like economies generally do recover so I think that's a real problem but more fundamentally there just seems to be a huge complacency that there are nice some regions things will recover in and so that will be okay whereas the problem I think is if it's a lie just to go back to the same old way then there will be another global financial crash whether it's in 10 years time or 20 years time and as we've seen in the past five years that's not something which can be easily afforded and here is an example of that thing where in good enough shape to start making the same mistakes again which is basically the attitude of order rooms in Britain and government so what next well this is a packed slide with five lecture topics each of which is in some sense but the key point I make is that I do need to repounce the economy the problem is everyone says that and then no one does anything but to stress the point I was making at the beginning that that's not something which can be done just by a little tinkering or building a few houses what's needed is a real epochal change as has happened in the history of economies before to get on to a completely different trajectory in this menu of deregulation and laissez-faire get back to economic sustainability but also embed environmental sustainability have a real green new deal along the lines of the scale of the new deal in America in the 1930s unfortunately that green new deal has been used as a phrase by the current government for policies they've got where I think you can loft your roof and they'll lend you the money to get back not surprising I think I just saw the figures where from this multimillion pound scheme I think 27 people have taken it up and also what they should be doing is just doing it free for all houses and properties across the country in a massive 10 year programme to not just boost economy but keep that going in a sustained way and on top of the need to move on to economic and environmental sustainability I'd say social sustainability as well I haven't mentioned inequality but obviously one thing which happened dramatically if you see it figures during that whole year of laissez-faire deregulation 1970s, 80s, 90s was this ballooning of inequality so that income and wealth inequality today is just massively higher than it was 30 years ago in this country but globally as well so a number of five key points there are obviously others which could be mentioned one is corporate diversity and the British economy in particular is dominated by large large companies obviously the six large energy companies have been in the news recently with the Ed Miliband's plan to stop them putting out prices any further for 20 months but just generally the economy is dominated by a few large energy companies a few large banks compared to other countries before by globalisation doesn't mean that all countries are saying so in Germany for example the financial sector about a third of the companies will be publicly owned by national government or regionally or locally about a third by different forms of mutuals or cooperative banks and about a third the sort of private banks that we've got that completely dominate the sector and in terms of private companies the very PLCs corporate governments needs to embed a long term a longer time outlook it shouldn't have this sort of quarterly financial report with a pressure on managers to keep the share price up the whole time for fear that they'll be taken over and the fact that companies it's so easy to take over a British company is again it's quite peculiar in this country most other economies don't operate like that invest in long term training research around innovation where again one difference in Britain is that you as a board of directors decide to do that by writing a company the danger is a big other company will see those investments and take you over and asset strip that part of the operation investment people describe that as high commitment work systems that means really most motivated people by making them feel engaged including through the use of employer ownership like at John Lewis or other companies which have got an element of employer ownership and a cooperative culture between companies but universities elsewhere which again other economies like Germany do much better than we do some of this was looked at and set out in the reports of the ownership some called the ownership commission set out to look at these issues of ownership and corporate ownership in Britain it was chaired by Will Hutton who used to be an official observer and when he was chairing this he was head of the work foundation complete coincidentally since he moved to Oxford head of Hertford College thank you Hertford College unless this report is a big report but it is downloadable free of charge by the way I am also present at Kellogg College which is the largest graduate college in Oxford and the reason is the largest is it was set up to look after students who wanted to carry on working while they did their postgraduate degrees in Montymonte in Sustainable Development Everton Space Healthcare and so on it proved so popular by now by far the largest graduate college and I've got a centre for mutual employer and business there where this and a lot of other reports are all downloadable free of charges as PDFs if you know where I am if anyone wants paper copies I can send them to you just let me know afterwards on email me and finally I think we do need a revolution as I was saying so the bad news is it's not going to be simple or easy to get a real change of mindsets across the policy making groups in society but Oxford should be taking a lead and the good news is I think we are in particular in particular this department with the courses you've seen and in particular the online economics courses where I mentioned the globalisation of economic powers introduction to macroeconomics microeconomics and this latest one which is starting in a week's time first time is on employee ownership which I would highly recommend it sounds like quite a narrow topic which is a very good course which starts off talking about what went wrong with companies leading up to the credit crunch and what sort of different companies could be evolved in the future looking at examples like John Lewis but also the monitor gone region in Spain where you got 100,000 people in the employee owned companies linked together I had just checked it's starting next week there are some places available but the deadline is this coming Tuesday to do it so if anyone wants to do it you need to register about Tuesday at the latest maybe before other people are going to register before you so I'd urge you to particularly register on that one but also do any other courses so thank you all very much if there are any questions maybe take one or two questions and then carry on over a glass of wine we've criticised the euro but the fact is it is 10% higher against the pound than it was 15 years ago when it was launched you yourself said that the prime cause of the problem in Greece with the euro was coming from the United States with bent figures from the American business and I mean the British economy is not exactly a master display I mean if we are doing that well out of the euro why have we been hit so hard we should be benefiting from non-Euro membership precious little sign of that and of course they talk about the euro as though not being a single economy the UK is not a single economy you go to Blackpool or up to Cumbria and tell them the economy is recovering and make sure you've got your medical insurance first and there are wide disparities within the UK look at Lincolnshire house prices compared with London yep no all good points but I think on the euro sort of more fundamentally about how it should be designed and so on I think there should be greater recognition that you do need to think about in economic terms and industrial policy fiscal policy across the area as well not just the monetary policy surely the answer is you need a single fiscal policy dating in regions you know rather than have each country doing their own thing and half them filling the books yep yep no I think that's right surely there's a much more fundamental reason for the crisis and so much as if you look at the latter half of the 20th century you've got most of the really powerful earning ability of the world to concentrate in a very small part of it and then suddenly China and India start producing vast numbers of engineers and vast amounts of innovation thereby creating vast loads of wealth into them which they don't allow us to go and have a little spending spree on isn't that a more fundamental basic explanation for it surely you can't really blame it all on the bank that's more of a symptom rather well certainly a factor and it would certainly be better if the world economy was more regulated to prevent those huge imbalances having grown up so I'm going to think those do need to be tackled as well but nevertheless that affects the manner of it breaking rather than the fact that it breaks I suppose well I think if we'd continue with the sorts of global regulations previously then those sort of imbalances wouldn't have been able to build up, there would have been pressure on the Chinese to have imported more themselves to reduce their balance of payments surplus I don't see how that would have worked I mean you've got the big changes of things like the separation of risky banking from safe banking and that doesn't really affect the fact that the big amounts of excess spending are actually coming from things like the generous government programs and protective barriers that prevent trade blows in both directions north south and east west and so forth yeah I'm not quite sure what there are sort of regulations that you're putting in the core of it like proper capital adequacy and separating the merchant banks from the or the risk-taking banks from the savings banks but that wouldn't really have changed the fact that the money was put that China was earning was pouring into America and wouldn't I don't see why how that would have imposed a force to push the money back and make them spy our stuff yeah there's two things these huge flows of financial capital finances is a new thing since the golden age of capital that was part of the deregulation and so on and there used to be controls on all those flows and at the time it was said that when you remove those flows okay you see a huge movement of funds just like when you remove a dam you know everything will sort of sell and then things would go back to how they were and financial flows would just be for real activities people are going on holiday wanting to build a factory in Portugal and that was a huge surge when the controls were removed and it's got more and more and more each year around setting out that you have more and more of this speculation and that is the point you make the fact that China is selling so many goods getting all this money and so putting it back into America and the other desert countries so one point is you know it was a new idea deregulating can go back to the ideas where you could have these huge amounts of capital sloshing around but what Cain said he didn't quite get his own way because the Americans were calling the shots but his whole point is that you shouldn't allow those imbalances to develop and if a country is getting a big surplus to train itself like China was they should be obliged to reflate their economy and spend more domestically and start buying more things themselves rather than having to sell them to abroad We can't be obliged to the Chinese to do very much but we can I don't see how the regulatory issues that you put in the core of managing it could have obliged our end of things to stop those flows short of capital controls and so forth that would simply have slowed everything down and made everybody poorer and stopped the Chinese from growing so fast I think it all depends who we talk about making everybody poorer because precisely because of the capital flows because of the financial crash we are now truly poorer because we don't produce anything for people to buy because we put all eggs into the capital flows going to another country and are taxing the profits from that and I think that there's more I think Edmle Le Van did have a point when he said that we can't compete with the race to the bottom I think that we really do need to reintroduce capital flows and that barriers against capital flows and that we have to somehow rein them back in to investing in the infrastructure in Britain so that people can be trained up to such an extent that China would want to buy our products Okay, let's continue this debate over a glass of wine but will you try to get in at the back? Yeah, I think you were trying to get into the back of this sort of Milton Friedman oldest flat I think the capital flow was this idea this Friedman idea that the world is flat and we should pursue this idea and now we're connected the internet is connected now we're all connected so let's get this capital flowing but that didn't work out so an author like maybe perhaps like Panjit Gamowat as a writer who's written in that area has sort of semi disproved this that cultural divisions and economics and governance and all these things and the world isn't flat and I think that's what you're trying to there's this massive flow of capital and why couldn't we stop all this but there was an idea that was circulated to every MBA program around the world globally and people were buying into that concept maybe perhaps they would disagree with me but at the time Okay, we run at a time so why didn't you take your question if you don't mind Okay, well thank you all very much this sort of mentality that was circulated was this idea that wanted to see that kind of look for the barriers that they found to be and the risk and the experiment that they had at least where they were at Gamowat is one of the barriers there are some barriers to Andrew Chris, I think where actually the worst in the city of the press we think hedge funds are horrible and it's very admissible and certainly a... Who developed the perversity though? Well I think the hedge funds are rather... Over the core of the perversity who do you think developed? Which perversity do you mean? Like if you want to talk about hedge funds who do you think?