 Well, market inequality, first of all, is the inequality of the income that people get from their market incomes, that the income they get from the market, that is their wages, the profits they may get, income from dividends, and well that's basically it. And so this is their, and this is all before tax. So that's what they get out of the market. And then they pay taxes, they get transfers of various sorts, pensions, they may get subsidies, food stamps or other sorts of subsidies from the government, and also subsidies from other people, gifts and so on. And the net result of those transfers, those taxes and transfers is net income, sometimes called disposable income, because that's the income you can actually use or dispose of. And the difference between, and so that's income, disposable income is what kind of people finally perceive in their bank account or in their pocket book as they can spend or save. And so we define the difference between market income and disposable income as redistribution. That's the redistribution that takes place through the tax system and through transfers. Now most research in the field until recently, I think, has not paid too much attention to this distinction. Although of course they're important. In the last five or ten years there are many important counter examples to that statement. But it's been hard to get good data on both market income distribution and net income distribution for a large number of countries. But what certainly people have observed is that you have to be careful about what you use. When we compare Latin America, you know, we think of Latin America as very unequal and Europe as relatively equal, or even the US and Europe we think of as being very different in terms of their inequality. If you actually look at market income inequality, those three regions look much more similar. Most of the difference between inequality in Europe and inequality in the US or in Latin America is not because of differences in market income. It's because of differences in how much the government taxes and transfers and how much that affects inequality. So the US and Germany look pretty similar on market income inequality, where they differ a lot more is in net income inequality. So it makes a big difference when you think about how countries look and how they are. And this redistribution is quantitatively important in lots of countries, especially in rich countries, but in many countries there is a big difference between what the market generates and what happens after taxes and transfers. Now one important point I want to make before I go on to why this matters is that it would be a mistake to identify market inequality with some sort of pre-government state of nature. Sometimes in our paper when we talk about it, it could be misinterpreted that way. And we do that because really because it's very hard to measure in a systematic and comprehensive way how the government is affecting market inequality. But we know it does. Obviously the provision of education, for example, is going to matter a lot for what market produces in the way of income distribution. If the society, including the government, produces lots of access to higher education, so the supply of skilled labor goes up a lot, that's going to reduce the price of skilled labor, relative to unskilled labor. And that's going to improve, it's going to reduce inequality of market income. But there are many other examples such as minimum wage laws, how unions are treated in the law, how corporate governance works, which is really in part a regulatory function, how the financial sector is regulated, how risks are controlled in the financial sector, all that may have to do with market inequality and is influenced by government behavior. But what we drill in on in our work, because we can measure it, is this marketing come versus the direct effects of the taxes and transfers which result in net inequality.