 Well, when the transition economies got started, there was a transformation of public assets into private assets, very large-scale privatization in Russia and in Eastern Europe, less in China where land, both urban and urban land, remains entirely state-owned and the rural land, there's no market, people have some kind of ownership but they can't buy and sell the land, right? So there are some differences there. But what you're trying to do is to take companies, housing, a lot of physical assets and move them from the public sector into the private sector and it was handled better in some countries than in others and unfortunately in Russia, for example, a lot of billionaires were created rather quickly, people who had favored outcomes in the privatization process. So why does wealth inequality go up in different transition countries? Because for different reasons, it can go up if you somehow give what were state assets to a small selective group of people, which is roughly speaking what happened in Russia, or you can go from a communist situation where there's very little private ownership of anything and so the Chinese case is one where you open up the market, you allow people to build up their personal assets and they start from a situation of relative equality but because some people are better entrepreneurs than others, there are unequal outcomes and wealth is formed through the accumulation of profits and saving from year to year and so it's quite natural that if you start from a very equal situation, you unleash the market, you will have increasing inequality. Well, I think it's significant because people are thinking globally more and more. We're facing issues that affect us all, take climate change, for example, and I think these things are in a sense drawing us together and making us realize that we're all in the same boat. So, people are more interested in what these differences are and then when you begin to look into it, you discover there really are these enormous differences between countries. It has all kinds of consequences. For example, if you think in terms of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the moment, a large part of the problem is that the countries where this is happening are some of the absolute poorest countries in the world. They don't have the capacity to deal with the problem and they're not receiving very much help internationally. So, this kind of thing I think is making people more aware of why it's a problem. Yes, it's fascinating. On the global level, what's happening, the big thing is that a very large number of people who are at the bottom of the world income and wealth distribution are moving up. They're coming up in the distribution and when we look at the numbers, we look at our charts, we can see this very large movement. It's almost a vast change. And in global terms, that's very equalizing. So, it's true that within both of those countries inequality has been trending up. But on the global scale, that's less important than the fact that large populations of relatively low income people are moving up in the distribution. So overall, although in every country, or most countries in the world today, people see rising inequality in their own country, it's kind of paradoxical that globally income inequality at the moment is actually going down. Well, I think it is a matter of concern and it is a matter of concern to the governments and the people in those countries. So, if you take China, for example, both the government and the academics and other organizations and agencies in China have been concerned with rising inequality, they're monitoring this, they're thinking about what to do about it, they're wondering if their growth strategy should have taken these aspects more into account. So, yeah, it's definitely a matter of concern, but we're learning what you can do. And the Latin American example is very interesting because in Mexico and Brazil and a number of other Latin American countries, they've got new approaches to helping out low income people. Don't just hand them money the way we've often done in the developed countries. You give them money under certain conditions. They send their children to school. They come to school and they have a certain attendance record. The parents are required to do various things and it's very supportive and encouraging and the results are pretty impressive. So, these new ideas are a little bit like microfinance, which is a little bit controversial, but I think overall has been a positive development. So, people are thinking of new ways of approaching the inequality problem within countries. Well, I think it's very important and this is another fascinating phenomenon. So, what happened and why we had the crisis and so on had a lot to do with inequality. Inequality started to rise in the U.S. in the mid-1970s and just went up and up. And it leads to various things. So, I think it's very important that people at the bottom see the lifestyles of the people higher up in the distribution. They aspire to have the same kind of living standards and so on as people who are moving up more rapidly than they are. And so, this feeds the desire to borrow, remortgage your house, and so on. So, in the period up to the crisis we saw a great deal of borrowing and then the other aspect of it is that politicians in that case responded to what people wanted in ways that they thought were helpful and lots of people thought were helpful at the time making it easier for people to borrow, get a mortgage, get settled in a house and so on in the U.S. And the whole thing blew up as we know, right? And I think that if there hadn't been this strong increase in inequality that had been going on at that point for almost 30 years, this whole subprime borrowing mess may well never have developed. And, through other aspects, the increase in inequality meant that there are high income people who've got a lot of spare cash, they have to invest this money, this help to drive interest rates down, of course many other things were happening to interest rates but it did mean that there are loanable funds that have to be lent out to somebody and then on the other hand you have the lower and middle income people who are struggling who take advantage of consumer credit and their ability to borrow to buy houses and so on to kind of recycle this excess income that's coming from the top of the tree and again that fed the problem. So maybe we've learned something from that experience and we can avoid some of these difficulties in the future.