 I turn to Pierre Jaquet, is president of the Global Development Network. Are you still in New Delhi, Pierre? No, I'm now working from Paris, but still with GDN. But you're still in the Global Development Network. And you are professor also at the position. You have the floor. Thank you very much. It's quite difficult now because I tend to agree with all the analysis of risks that have been made so far on the table. And if I want to be provocative, maybe the question to ask is whether we are focusing on the right risks. And before turning to that, let me start with inflation. And I'm not critical of what the central banks have been doing. I think they have acted quite wisely and they have shown a restraint that is quite actually loadable. The difficulty is that we have not really seen real inflation so far. We don't have any wage price spiral. At least in Europe, we have a very strong increase in the prices of food and energy. So there is a risk of inflationary spiral, but it's a risk. And given the action of central banks, I think we could be quite confident that the monetary policy reduction will manage at risk. However, monetary policy is not the ideal instrument for that. We have a supply shock and we are reacting to the supply shock by restricting demand, which can be quite costly for the economy. So we need to keep in mind the fact that we are in a bind there. If we want to avoid inflation, we are using an instrument that is not exactly the instrument that we should have in our toolbox to address the supply shock issue. This is compounded by the fact that I've not heard any convincing argument about the cost of inflation. There are costs, we all know that, but it's hard to find a very convincing analysis of this cost of inflation. I would say that for me, the costs of inflation are actually focused on the poor segment of the population, which is certainly a big concern. But beyond that, are these costs high enough to forget about all other risks that are there? And the reason I mentioned that is that for me, the major risks today are not financial, they are political. They are in the fabric of society, they are in the demand from various groups, not only the populists, to understand what the economy is about. And an increasing number of people think that the economy is about enriching the rich. I put it bluntly just to be provocative. And for me, it has become quite urgent to address that concern. So again, I'm not at all trying to say we should accept inflation, we should have... No, I like very much what has been done. But I'm thinking that when we project to the future, when we share our concerns, for me the concern is not inflation, because it is under control right now. It may become a risk, yes. So we can list that. But we talk too much about it. The main concern for me is not there, it is in the fabric of society. And I'd like to just put that on the table for discussion. And I'm probably more provocative than I really feel, but just for the debate. The second point and last point I want to make is about crisis. I would agree that we are facing a very extreme moment of convergence of several crises that are unique. But I'd like to point out that capitalism is about crisis. And there are two dimensions of crisis. One good, one bad. The good one is that they help us find the actual value of things over time. So you have crisis, you have bubbles in the stock market. And when the bubble explodes, it reveals the true value. So that's right, because there is no other way to reveal the value except that having over investment in a stock and then discovering that this will not be the activity of the future and therefore the price collapses. So these are the good crises. Of course, the speculative dimensions of the crisis is a bad side of it. And this is not new. So what is new is that each of the crises that we see have specific short term causes that will differ from the previous crisis. But what strikes me is the continuity of the profound reasons of the crisis, which are very simple. These are periods of over investment followed by periods of over disillusion. And it was written already more than a century ago. And I remember several, of course, we had Kindelberger and Minsky, but even Clemont-Juglar in the 19th century wrote extraordinary passages on this characteristic of human behavior. As long as we are not able to deal with that, we will have crisis. And I like very much what Jeff was saying earlier about regulation and this loop between regulation and innovation. We regulate that creates an incentive to innovate to go around the regulation and then regulation becomes obsolete and we have a crisis. So we need to re-regulate and it goes on. So it means that maybe when we think about regulation, we should try to think about a continuous attention to regulation, a sort of adaptive regulation that tries to analyze risk in an ongoing real time basis. And we don't have that because each time we are successfully regulating, we say, who are we regulated? And we forget the fact that this is a short-term response based on the last crisis and not going to be adapted to the coming concerns. So it seems to me that what this situation is creating right now is restoring the issue, the debate between markets and governments. And as a believer in the markets, I strongly believe that we need governments to help the market work properly. And right now we have a problem of regulation and we have a problem of valuation. And part of the social risk I was mentioning is due to a poor valuation of labor. And I think that the crisis, the pandemic revealed that a number of low-paid jobs have a social value that is way above the wages. And that is something that starts being mentioned in the debate, not only by populists. And it's a source of concern that for me, it should rank higher than inflation because inflation, we have the instruments. And as you mentioned, Mr. Sherman, we have also the vast financial stability board that is an excellent job. We have banks that are highly capitalized. So in a way, we have been able to manage not too badly that side of it. There may still be risks, but let's not forget the deeper risks that are there in the social realm. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. You were very provocative, I have to say, and that will trigger certainly a number of questions. I reserve the right to comment on what you have said, but not now. Thank you very much indeed, Pierre.