 So the first point is to recognize that backlashes against globalization don't happen in a vacuum. They are a response to rising economic discontent. So it's interesting to compare what happened during the Great Depression. This is 1920s, 1930s to what's happening now. Just like now, even back then, there was rising inequality. There was a growth in what we call global imbalances, which we talk about now. So the global imbalances are now about the U.S. On net buying more from the rest of the world than the rest of the world buys from the U.S. Back in the 20s and 30s, it was reversed. It was the U.S. that was selling more to the rest of the world. And it was the U.K. that was buying more from the U.S. So what was the U.S. and U.K. back then is now the U.S. and China with roles flipped. So this is a discontent that comes, it's a common feature of it. You also had at that time an increase in market power firms back then as you see now. So there are these similarities. And usually in response to that it ends up with new institutions being created. The International Monetary Fund being one of those. But it's important to highlight. I mean, Mike raised many of the concerns with the system that need to be fixed. But it's also important to highlight the many benefits of the system. The benefits of the system in which there are many aspects of globalization. There is the economic climate. Even within economic there is trade. There's capital flows. There's migration. I'm going to talk about, because we don't have time to go, or everything I'm going to pick one and I'm going to pick international trade, because that's on top of a lot of people's mind. So when you look at international trade and if you look at what has happened post-1945 and particularly since 1980, is you've had the biggest decline in global poverty alongside this increase in integration and trade in the world. And that's something that has to be recognized. There's been an improvement in livelihoods for many, many people. There's been an increase in productivity and increase in efficiency. So there are many benefits to it. But yes, the system doesn't work perfectly. So that comes to my second point. My second point is that, you know, even at the end, we create the perfect order, the best possible, the most fair system. It is inherently a system that creates winners and losers. And the reason why is that it's the same as technology. Whenever there is new technology, as we have to worry about in terms of artificial intelligence, there are people who win and there are people who lose. It's creative destruction. So even the best possible order in terms of internationally set order is going to have its limitations. And so what it will need is that it will have to be supplemented with domestic policies that address the fact that there are some people who lose in this process of globalization. Just to be clear, whenever a new order gets set up, it is always meant for the benefit of humanity and for a better world and a better society. So in 1945, when you had the post-1945, when you had the new institution set up, of which the IMF is one of the breathable system, the purpose was to prevent countries going to war, to have economic cooperation, to make sure that people have better lives. Now we can disagree about the path to it, but the goals were always the same. So I don't think there's any disagreement there in terms of the ideology that this has to be for humanitarian benefit. What happens over time is that we revisit the different forms that globalization takes and we re-examine what works and what doesn't work. And so one of the changes that has happened with the fund is with regards to capital flows. There's a clear recognition of the fact that capital flows, uninhibited capital flows, are not necessarily good for all countries and at all times. And so that has been, that is something that we recognize. Now to come back to the question on the trade side, but just to be very clear, I'm not saying that the international policy works very well and it's all about domestic policy. I think both need to be addressed. So on the international policy side, I think what has worked quite well with the WTO, with the World Trade Organization, is the dispute settlement when it comes to very overt trade-related measures like tariffs, like quotas. In those cases, there is a system in place to address it. I think what the WTO and these institutions do less well is for the policies that take place within the borders of a country, so inside a country, and the impact that has on protectionism. And so it is a very good question to be asked and has to be explored more is that when countries use subsidies to protect their industries and this is not specific to any particular country, there are many countries in the developed world, in the developing world that use industrial policy to favor their industries. How do we react? How does the international order react to that? And I think it's in that second space that we haven't done as well. We've done quite well in the kind of more in-your-face tariff situation. The other point is in terms of domestic policy. And in domestic policy, I think we have to acknowledge that we all came to this very late. We waited for a lot of discontent to build up before saying, okay, well, we needed to fix domestic policies. And so what we need to do immediately is to make sure that we are there when the problem arises because we know that when we ignore it, it's no longer a problem of just a job and an income, but also it becomes a problem of health, the opioid epidemic in the U.S. So it morphs into a much bigger problem. And the solutions we have are a bit piecemeal in the sense that, yes, we have treated, we have assistance programs to reskill people. But that, we need a more holistic approach because usually when you want to fix problems of people losing jobs that are related to globalization, they might have to move, so the mobility is required. For that, you need to have policies for housing, for credit, besides policies for education and skilling. And just one last point about, I know, is this all gloom and doom for the current globalization system? I just want to tell you that we have, not we, there's a Pew Research Center that has surveys every year asking people their views on globalization. And it's very interesting, it moves so closely with the economic cycle. So between 2014 and now, when we've been going around the world talking about the issues with globalization, there's actually been an improvement in sentiment towards globalization and trade particularly. And why is that? It's because the world economy has done better in the last five years than in the past. So, you know, let's not throw out the baby with the pot of water is all I'm trying to say. But that said, we certainly need to have a vigorous debate on the next set of policy issues.