 federal deals that benefit individual countries, 24%, 26%, and then greater cooperation, but only bilaterally, 21%, and less cooperation, it's a zero-sum gain, 10%. Very interesting. All right, well, thank you, all of you. We're going to come back to you, because this is an interactive session, so we're delighted that you gave us your answers. So Cecilia, let's go to you first. So what's your definition? How do you characterize the global trade environment today? And where do you see it heading? And do you agree with the polling results here? Well, they were kind of contradictory, you know, at least the second question. Well, I think we have two trends in the global trading system. On the one hand, we do have threats. We have increased protectionism. We have the threat of trade wars between at least two big countries. We have countries who are acting on their own, disregarding global rules, and undermining the global trading system as it is defined. We have, and I'm sure Roberto will talk more about that, we have a profound crisis in the WHO, the multilateral trading system, that has served us so well, and still serves us well. It's a crisis, but I think it can be mended. So that is on the negative side. On the other hand, we have a sort of contrary reaction to that, which I think was partly expressed in the poll, because also a lot of countries saying that, well, trade is actually a good thing. Trade wars are not good. They are not easy to win. And trade can be mutually beneficial. So let's do good trade. And that's what we see, that the world is sort of engaging more and more in regional and bilateral trade agreements. We saw the TPP countries after the US withdraw, that they went ahead. And then there is also a lot of trade agreements between other countries as well, from the European Union side. We have an extremely ambitious trade agenda. We have agreements with Canada. We, the Japan Agreement is entering into force next week, which is the biggest trade agreement ever made between two partners. We have trade agreements done, and soon to be voted in parliament with Mexico, with Singapore, with Vietnam. We are negotiating with Mercuzur, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Tunisia, and a few others. And that's really good because, and we do that in a mutually beneficial, sustainable, open, transparent way. And we've also tried to engage very much, and I guess we'll come to this later in the debate, with the citizens to make sure that we also have the trust that is and was not there, making them more transparent, making them also inclusive when it comes to listen to advice of different stakeholders, not only business, business of course, making sure that they include chapters on sustainable development and reference to international conventions and so on. And so that's a positive trend. And with all these countries, we're also working to reform, strengthen, and modernize the WHO. So in other words, you see that as was the response in the first poll, that multilateralism is still very important in this arena, but as was indicated in the second poll, that also, that there are other avenues, be it regional associations, as well as bilateral deals. But they don't have to be in contradiction. You can be a profound believer in the multilateral system. And then, because it's not enough, you will do bilateral or regional agreements, but found it in the multilateral rules system. So that's not a contradiction. The contradiction was the last question that, well, basically it's not a good thing. We should only see what's good for us. But there are different trends here. All right. Mingpo, let's go to you. Let's get your reaction to the poll results. How did you see it? And also, I wanna get in the mix another question. You know that you have a number of economies that are refocusing to become more national. And as they become more national, what is the impact of that on businesses, basically? Can interests converge with greater openness and transparency still, even as they become more national? But first, give us your reaction to the poll results. Yeah, I'm not surprised that, because there is the reality, political reality and business reality. Actually, I'm the open up policy. China, I'm one of the typical globalization of products because I was born in a very small town in China. And I come to France 30 years ago and I founded Catholic Capital 12 years ago and I live in New York. So what I see in the ground, the political reality and the business reality is different because the company, the entrepreneurs should be global. It's by natural because your consumers are global and your competitors are international. So I'm not surprised that people still believe the globalization is still the way and to collaborate. Sometimes people think the globalization and the global partnership, it is a zero sum game. But it could be a win-win situation. I'm an investor crossing China, Europe and the US. I think I'm the only Chinese who speak English with such strong French accent. I only invested into a series, you know, in your pocket, all the Euro banknotes. The technology of onogram come from series. They want to go to Chinese market, since no. But since we become shareholders, I can tell you in a pocket, all the Chinese passport, they are the technology of onogram come from series, a French SME company. We are short of ecosystems. It is a leaf disease, diagnostic machine. They want to go to China, but we are short of million. We own about 300 clinics in China. And immediately we use this same technology, French company for Chinese population. And some, in the same way, Chinese company Cabille, they are in an infant pod additive. They just acquire a company to better serve the local market in Australia. You know, those kind of examples, we can see if sometimes you need to set up a local factory in China or somewhere else. It's not necessary to show it your domestic jobs. Sometimes it creates the anti-jobs. So in a young generation of entrepreneurs, in particular in the innovation space, by construction, they are already international, global. And in their mindset, they are obsession how to satisfy the unfulfilled demand, where it is consumers, where it's competitors. The collaboration is really not a zero sum game. So you would say that even though there is this, if one uses the term, a kind of greater emphasis on nationalism in some quarters, that nevertheless, that there are these interests that converge and there is this kind of inclusivity and openness. That's what I hear you say. Exactly, exactly. All right. Roberto, the WTO is very much at the center of this game. And tell us, I mean, your views on where is the WTO headed? How are you addressing these challenges? You've had challenges certainly in the past at times with rules and countries abiding by rules, but going forward, what are the challenges that you're seeing? Well, I believe, first of all, that the challenges are bigger than ever before. I mean, let alone the WTO, if you think about the multilateral trading system, which was created after the Second World War, 1947, until today, we never had challenges this big. I mean, the challenges to the system are really fundamental. In my view, and I would agree entirely with the first question response about is multilateralism viable? I think it is. I absolutely believe it is. We're working to make it even more viable. Now, I don't think that a stagnant multilateral system is viable. It has to evolve. It has to be transforming itself. It has to be changing, adapting, responding to the global reality, to a world that is changing faster than it ever did before. Now, that was not happening. That clearly was not happening. We managed to deliver some pretty important outcomes recently, the Trade Facilitation Agreement, the Information Technology Agreement. We eliminated agricultural and export subsidies. Those are unprecedented agreements. But that's, although they're good, they're big, they're important, they're not enough. It's unacceptable that an organization like the WTO in 2018 was not talking about electronic commerce, was not talking about the digital economy. It's unacceptable. It's the core of global evolution today. So that's why the reform conversation began. And I think the G20 leaders in Buenos Aires made this point. The system is important. It is important to create jobs. It is important to create economic growth. But it needs to be updated. It needs to be modernized. And I think that's the challenge that we have now. Is that your biggest challenge that you would define as that updating? Is that what I'm hearing? I think either the system is updated or it will either lose relevance or disappear. It will be supplanted by other mechanisms that will come up. And that, I think, is a challenge for the global community. This is not a challenge for the WTO. The WTO and the global trading system is out of the picture. We're in for the dark ages. I guarantee you that. And I think it's a challenge not for us, not for the WTO. It's a challenge for the whole global economic community. Let me ask you one more. What's the best way forward to achieve that? I think it's to engage, is to give solutions, is to try to do something. And frankly, I have a lot of people here from the private sector. It is not enough to cross your fingers and hope that things will work out for the best. No, you have to participate in this conversation. You have to figure out what is happening in Geneva. And there is a lot happening in Geneva right now that affects you and which are the outcomes that you want to see from this conversation. Talk to your governments. Talk to other companies. Talk to companies from other countries, not only the ones that you agree automatically with, but talk to your competitors. Talk to people who are not your automatic, you know, people who think alike you, but who also want to have positive results that give clarity and predictability to the trading system. Christian, let's come to you. What's the impact here on the business community? You sit where you sit in terms of the flow of global trade, in terms of where it's headed and what the challenges that have been before trade. How does that impact business? What are your concerns these days? It's impacting business significantly. But before I come to that, I would like to go back to the first question, because on the one hand, I'm really glad about a 100%. The 100% is always a bit awkward, right? So the key issue I see with the 100% is if you ask the same question in the normal population, you wouldn't get 100%. And that's to your point. We have to far better bring our messages while global trade is important to the people who don't understand why it is important. We don't have yet, I don't know, how this question would turn out if you asked the population in the street. But I guarantee you, it would be less than 80%. It would be less than 70%. And I think our job is not only to update the system, but also to explain the people what the advantage of global trade is. Because we have, in my view, not a trade crisis. We can fix that. But we have a confidence crisis in the global trade and people feel disadvantaged because of that. And hence, I think that is really key to learn from this question in this room. Everybody understands this. Everybody is well educated, a lot of private sector people. But we get the backing of the people in the society. Now, on the business, to be honest, we notice that. If you are the leading bank in Germany, 80% of the revenues of the DAX30 companies is generated outside Germany. They depend on global trade. And we see that there are certain sectors, and not only in those sectors which are always mentioned, be it the automotive or automotive supplier sector, there are certain declines. That is one issue, which is certainly already playing in. And we have seen it in the second half of 2018. And that is also one of the reasons why we have seen a little bit of the uncertainty in the capital markets in October, November, and December. People are waiting and seeing. The real problem about this whole question is that the kind of the perception of the problem, and that means the confidence is losing, and that means that a lot of business leaders are now reevaluating their investments going forward. And that means they also delay investments. They are stopping investments. They wait for political solutions. And that is actually something which you don't yet see in the numbers, but which you will see. And hence, I think, updating the system, coming to agreements, doing the mixture of multinational agreements, but also bilateral agreements is so important to reinstall confidence. Because if the confidence is gone, then honestly, I would say we are heading to the title of the session, that global trade is at a tipping point. Last but not least, but let's also not leave Davos, because I think last year at this point in time, people were almost too bullish about 2018. Now when I talk to people, in my view, they are almost too cautious about 2019. The fundamentals of the corporates and the fundamentals of the economy is still good. We have to use this momentum in order to now, exactly what you were saying, updating the system. We have to engage. And then I think, honestly, we have a fair chance to farewell. Are there opportunities for business, then, in this environment? That's what I'm hearing you say. Yes, there are. And actually, it is exactly the opportunities which we heard before. We need to think about certain bilateral agreements. We should not, obviously, stop thinking about multinational agreements. But as long as we step into these discussions, as long as we can make and convince the people what the advantages of global trade, honestly, then I don't think that it will decline, then we have a chance to do additional business. All right, great. And David, same question. The impact on business. And let me also give you the opportunity also to respond to the poll. Everyone here has done so. But what do you see as the opportunities for business and the impact on business as a result of where global trade is at this point in time? All right, well, first good morning, everyone. And I always like this format because I feel like I need to be rotating around in order to see everyone. But a lot of familiar faces in the room. So since I saw the question, I assumed at least 90% were going to be in favor of multilateral trading because just knowing the people in this room. And then I see one of the big proponents right to my left here, Ambassador Stu Eisenstadt. And I know how he feels about trade, but many of the other people in this room. And the thing that I've noticed about the last few days here is you can get in these rooms and you can talk about these challenges and they can start to build upon itself and it gets bigger and it gets bigger and it gets bigger. And so it starts to get cloudy and then you go outside and the sun's shining. And that's the way I feel about the situation. Now there's a lot of progress that's been made. Are there headwinds? Absolutely, there are headwinds. But this morning before we came in here, we were talking among the speakers and I recognize Commissioner Mausram as a trade superstar this year for these deals that she's been able to negotiate. And you think about prior years and look at the number of deals that either have been ratified or the one that's been ratified next week with Japan or the others. There's a lot of good news there with NAFTA there was some apprehension. There was some concern, right? If NAFTA had been terminated, it would have had a big, big effect. There was no doubt about that. But we did reach an agreement and I believe that this agreement can get ratified throughout the three countries. That's another step. Would we have liked for it to be in less pain? Absolutely, you know. But we've got the agreement or should have the agreement once against ratified. So there again is another. So not in denial, but when I talk to it, we connect millions of businesses throughout the world, right? And when I'm talking to these CEOs, including this week, there's a lot of them that see opportunities. Now they're worried about headwinds with the US China. They're worried about headwinds with Brexit. But there's so many opportunities and the reason I think there's so many opportunities is e-commerce. E-commerce is growing tremendously. E-commerce is gonna find a way to connect the world whether we get these trade agreements right or not. I mean, it's just, it's an overwhelming force that's going to continue. Now we can help that a lot with these different agreements. I couldn't have been in any more agreement with what you said that we've got to have a global e-commerce agreement. Now along the lines of the trade facilitation agreement, which I told you last year, I thought that you were the trade superstar last year because get that trade facilitation agreement was so important. It's a good start. And now we need to get this next one and to hear you say it right off the bat, I'm wanting to clap for you because it's just so important to the world. But we've got to get past some of these headwinds, but I'm telling you, there's still lots of opportunities out there. But it's going to happen. The e-commerce is here. Actually, this is one of the good news with WTO because the huge frustration that e-commerce is not on the agenda led to some countries coming together and saying, okay, let's see if we can move forward on a plurilateral, full agreement with WTO rules and transparency and openness and come together. And that work has been led by Australia, Singapore and Japan. And tomorrow there will be a decision by 66 countries to launch these negotiations. And these are rich and poor, a variety of countries. And we hope that others will join. And that would be a plurilateral. And the first negotiation round is already scheduled for March. So it is happening. And that is good news. It shows that it's still live in the multilateral system, even if this is a little sidestep. And there are other discussions ongoing as well. So, Christine, it might happen. You're shaking your head. You want to jump in on this particular point? No, I'm not shaking. No, no, no. You're shaking your head in agreement. No, I'm completely in agreement. I think this is exactly the right point. But if we talk about, I'm a little bit doubtful. If we talk about e-commerce, if we talk about the whole digital world, then you know what? It brings up a completely different topic because, you know, my home country is always criticized for having the biggest account surplus, which is true. And we can honestly, we can attack it. We could do more investments also domestically and we need certain investments domestically. But what nobody is talking about is actually the digital deficit Germany is running with the rest of the world, in particular also with the US. So I think when we talk about trade, when we talk about deficit and surplus and who is wrong and who is right, then let's always also talk about the level playing field and let's include everything. And then I think we also have different numbers because the digital deficit Germany is running compared to the US is 30 billion euros a year, which is huge. If you net this one, actually with our account surplus, we are talking completely different numbers. And that's what I mean. I think we have to engage. We have to make numbers transparent and then come with the politicians and the business leaders to agreement. And then honestly, I think the door is open for the trade. All right, well, thank you for that. Let's go to the audience now and take some questions from our audience. We would welcome it. We have a number of people here who definitely are very immersed in trade. Do I have to call on people? Yes, sir. And do you mind use the mic? And if you'll introduce yourself. Ken Goldman. Thank you. We actually, no one's really talked about, from my perspective, what really gets in the way of trade. And when I think about it, and I'm gonna keep this totally non-political, but when I think about how do you make things equal across equality across the board relative to tariffs and other non-tariff aspects? And has that not been, we can all talk about, which I've all heard it was here say, it's so great to have trade and all this stuff much later on and so forth. But no one's really talked about what really gets in the way of free trade and so forth. And reality is trade has not been equal across the various countries. All right, let's make that premise. All right, let's take that question and then we'll go to you, sir, if you wanna pass the mic behind you. But who would like to take that question on? There are, from our perspective, there are a number of things that can get in the way of trade. I think one clear development in today's world is that if we went back to the fall of the wall, back to 1989, nobody was challenging trade. Nobody was challenging the positive effects of trade in the economy. Today, because of the structural changes that you see, it's in certain economies, in certain countries, you're beginning to see questions about the disruptive effects of trade and a more nationalistic approach. It's not across the board because people confuse things. Sometimes they say, well, there are many nationalist tendencies coming in different countries, et cetera, but their posture regarding trade is different. It's not uniform. If you look at the US, it's one thing. If you look at England, it's another thing. If you look at, I don't know, Mexico, Brazil and other countries, there are different ways that they see trade. What I think we have now is a disconnect between the political cycle and the economic cycle. You have a political cycle of two, three years. For a politician, the disruptive effect of trade, the way that is easier for him to communicate to the voter is to say, I'm stopping imports or I am protecting this sector more than previous governments did. That's an easy fix. You find a foreign problem and you blame it on that. When in fact, the real problem is domestic. The real problem is domestic. Somebody lost his job with trade, fine. Three other people got new jobs because of trade, but they're not concentrated on the net two gains. They're concentrated on the one that lost their job and that's very vocal. So the government has to be undertaking educational programs, skilling programs, training people and frankly, some social security net to help those who are dislocated and then find a position for them somewhere down the road. Now, this is a too complex a conversation for the voter. So it's much easier to say, well, trade is a problem. Let's fix that and that's it. So I think we have to have a stronger and more deeper conversation about the real causes of disruptions and the benefits of trade, which is something that you were saying just a moment ago. We have a duty to inform people about the real benefits and consequences of trade. Mingpo, you wanted to make a comment. And then we have, by the way, we have four other questions from the audience. Go ahead. No, I echo what Christian said. We should really get a right education. Come back to the fundamental common sense. What it means, trade, okay? The trust, even within a country, the trade sometimes is not equal. Look in China, everyone know Alibaba.jt.com. But three years ago, they are Pinduoduo just born from Norway. And today, they are one of the key, second biggest economic platform in China, founded by very young entrepreneurs. They are taking care of the countryside. People, I come from my village. I have eight brothers and sisters. I'm number seven. My brother and sister never use e-commerce before Pinduoduo, because we use, we chat environment, and we put people to purchase together, you know? So even within a country, but globally, I think the trust has come from sincerity. It's a question of surviving because I'm immigration everywhere I go in France, in the US. So my obsession is what you want and what I can contribute or how I can help. If I treat you well, in no reason you treat me badly. So I think we should come back to maybe some fundamental common sense. I don't know how organization works. But I think the people, if you use the simple term and come back to the human being, heart to heart, I think we can build a relationship as I have built in France because I have French family, China Development Bank, but French Southern Fund, European Investment Fund, all together in the same fund, support Chinese company, French company, US company. Thank you. Just quickly, I know you want to move to the next question, but I do feel like I need to defend trade a little bit. And now has it been equal and has everybody benefited equally? The answer is no. And we've got to, it's one of the discussions of these additional trade agreements and a lot of discussion of how we need to educate and reskill people for 21st century jobs. A lot of the jobs they've gone away were 20th century jobs. But the thing we cannot forget, and I thought that you were getting there too, is there are millions of people that are alive today because of these trade agreements and the progress that we have made since World War II. There are hundreds of millions that are living middle class lives that would not be living those lives without the progress that we have made. So it is not a perfect system. There is no doubt about it. It is so much better than it would have been if we have not done these things. But now let's look at making it even better, right? And I believe that we can. So it's a little quick commercial. Appreciate you letting me take the time to do that. Absolutely. Sir, you have the next question. And I'm gonna suggest that after we hear your question, we also hear the next one, Ambassador Eisenstadt. And then we have two over here. Sir. Hi, I'm Jay from India. I think there's different perspectives. And if I look at the perspective of a citizen of a country, is he more concerned about his ability to earn or is he more concerned about his spending power in terms of less expensive goods and services that may come as a result of trade is one aspect. Second thing is shipping things around the world increases efficiency, but it also harms the environment. So what am I more concerned about as a citizen? And finally, in a trade system, there's always gonna be winners and losers between countries and also within countries. Question is how many of each? And is it actually increasing inequality or decreasing inequality? And if you don't mind, we're gonna get that answer to your question. Can we pass the mic over here to Ambassador Stuart Eisenstadt here? Oh, thank you. I wanna just start with two negatives and then positives playing on what each person has said. On the negative side, the multilateral system suffered a grievous blow when we were never able, after 10 years, to reach a Doha round agreement. It really was the end of the broad 190 country effort. There's simply too many disparate interests to do that. But having said that, that does leave an opening for a whole range of bilateral, plural, agreements that are consistent with WTO rules. And I applaud Commissioner Mousstrom for leading the way. Second negative is when the president says that trade deals are bad, the deficits are negative, imposes unilateral tariffs on our allies as well as our competitors. It sets a very bad environment and reinforces the notion that trade is a zero-sum game and that somehow it's a negative for workers. And that's where I think Mr. Huing is so right that we've got to explain the benefits. But third, and here on the positive, and this is where I would come to Dave Abney, I think that there is a pulling back now from the negativity by the administration. We now have an improved US-South Korea deal. We now have, as Dave Abney said, a NAFTA 2.0 agreement. It won't be easy to get through Congress, but I think we will. There's a pullback from the standoff with the EU on steel and at least the beginning of some effort at a bilateral agreement. And I believe that the pause that President Xi and President Trump put on at the G20 with an agreement by March 1 to try to reach an understanding that with all the differences that exist now, the fact that there's no text exchanged, it's so much in the interest of both sides that I think by March 1 there'll be a modest deal announced. Both sides need it. The President wants it for his reelection. So I think if you talk a lot of the clouds away, and here, Dave, I come back to your more sunshine thing, I think without being unrealistically optimistic that we may see 2019 being a much more favorable trade environment than we've gone through in 2018. David, let's begin with you maybe in responding not only to Ambassador Eisenstadt, but also to our colleague from India, his points, because he responded to you. And I will partially respond back because you have so many parts of your question. I'm not going to remember them all. But let's start with the consumer and what he or she may would expect. And I think the first thing you have to look at is the ability to buy and to purchase goods. And so that's jobs that I'm talking about. And when you look whether it's the United States or anywhere else, but in the US, 95% of the world's consumers are outside of the US. And with e-commerce, it is very possible. And we haven't talked about this yet, but it's extremely important. Small and mid-sized businesses run the economy throughout this world. And now with technology, this digital revolution, there is absolutely an opportunity for these small mid-sized businesses to participate throughout the world. We have to get the agreements and do the things that will help do that. But I think first is being able to look at the opportunities and that creates jobs. And then, yes, people are always gonna be interested in the cost, but I can tell you that when you start putting tariffs on things all across the world, you're not doing anything to reduce cost. I mean, you're really not, right? You're driving costs, and sometimes you're driving costs to the very people that can least afford to pay it. And so we have to be very careful about that side of it, too. So, and we do have to have extensive training programs and making sure that the people have opportunities to participate. But we also, and this would be probably the only critical thing that I will say about trade today is we have to do a much better job of spreading the message of the benefits of trade. There are so many people that can talk about the toxicity of it, right, and all the problems. But there are a lot of benefits. I don't think we've communicated that message as well as we've got to continue to do. All right, I... Can I just make one statement, Chris? Sure, you go ahead and then... I think your second point is a little bit like what we said before, that we have to far better communicate the benefits of trade. I think, in particular, if you talk to young people, trade versus the environmental disadvantages, that's something which we also have to pick up. And I believe if we can cast not only the story, but if we convince the people that trade overall is beneficial for the economy of this world and that overall, on average, people will actually benefit from this. We also need certain agreements that part of this benefit is reinvested into environmental issues so that you connect these two. You cannot drive it separately. And therefore, I think you have a perfect point, but we can even link it to the benefits of trade if some of the benefits is reinvested, and that's what we need to do. I wanted to comment on that as well, because I also meet a lot of young people, and I think this, I mean, if you... Global climate change is the issue that they bring up. And of course, trade has to play its part on that, and I mean, you see different consumer patterns. In Europe, there is a more focus on local consumption, on certain goods, which can be consumed locally, but obviously others that it can't. But trade can be a part of this. We were quite advanced in agreement on environmental goods within the WTO. That is now paused, but I hope we can relaunch it. And the idea was to facilitate trade in technology that was good for the environment. They would take away tariffs and to facilitate that could be suing systems or cleaning systems or what have you. And we have, from our part, and I know that others have as well, in our trade agreements, quite ambitious, that we want to work to protect the environment, we want to uphold certain international agreements, that we want to make sure that our trade is as green as possible. We have, I mean, from trade agreements comes a lot of other political cooperation, of course, in science to see how we can make transport more environmentally friendly. And that, I think, we have to invest on. But it doesn't mean automatically that trade is bad for the environment. And then just to ambassador Isarstadt, the DOA round failure is, of course, still with us. And when we talk about reforming the WTO, there's a lot to do. There's the process. There's the new issues. There is how we work. There is trust. But we need to see how we can break the deadlock from DOA, the development issues. We need to find a new method to do that. And that is very much part of the discussions on reform that I'm involved in and many other countries as well. We haven't found the way yet. But of course, we need to address new issues, e-commerce. But we cannot forget the old issues, like development issues in the DOA round because that is key to gain the trust of all the members of WTO. Roberto and Mingpo, would you like to also respond to both of these points, please? I think what Ambassador Isarstadt would conclude with is, I would agree with his conclusion that the environment for trade in 2019 is better than in 2018. Many challenges still, but I agree with that overall assessment. But going back to the question from our Indian friend, I think sometimes things catch, they're catchy. For example, say an imported product is damaging to the environment. I don't have any evidence whatsoever in anything in the literature that I read that supports that. Quite the contrary, I've read many, many papers and studies that show that the products that actually find their ways into the trade flows are usually much less harmful to the environment than the ones that are produced locally. Because they have to observe standards, they have to observe standards of the consuming country, of the country that is buying the products, they are usually produced with technology that is more sophisticated to make it into the global market, technology that is less harmful to the environment. So this whole argument that there is an impact on the environment, I stand to be correct, but I haven't seen one single credible study that shows that on how many benefit. I think David made the point that hundreds of millions of people recently have been brought out of poverty because of trade. And we made a study in the WTO recently. What would it mean to the world if all countries brought their tariff levels to the maximum that they have in the WTO? You know what would happen to global growth? It would be reduced by half. Half. Half of global growth would, poof, disappear. So that's the impact that you would have if you don't have trade in the equation. Is it the silver bullet that they solve all the evils? No, of course it does. And it has to be mixed with a bunch of domestic policies that complement that to be supportive of the effects of trade. But clearly, many more people benefit from trade than are harmed by trade. And finally, inequality. I saw a paper recently about inequality. That trade increases inequality. And I asked the economy, I want to read that paper. I'm not an economist. I studied some economy in college. I'm an engineer. I'm pretty good with numbers. I guarantee you that. And I was reading the paper. And the conclusion of the paper was that the industries and the companies that traded, they paid better. So the salaries would go up. But I said, is that bad? That you're raising the income of those? Well, and then the economists were saying, but mathematically, it increases the inequality. And I said, yeah, but is that bad? I asked my question. What happened to the others that are not trade related? Was their salaries going down? They said, no, actually, they're going up too. And I said, why? Because they said, well, because the guys who earn more, they spend more, they create more dynamism in the economy. The other industry is benefit too. Not as much, but they all do. So I said, so let me ask you the question. So the question is, everybody's better off. Yeah, everybody's better off. But mathematically, there's more inequality. Yeah, so trade is bad. I mean, really, I think that's the kind of thing that we don't have really to look into these things in a more critical way. Any perception are right and a certain reason. So our work, the trading, I give you what you need. You give what I need. You are a glass of water. I make you better, you make me better. You are a glass of water. My glass of water, we mix together. I serve you exactly the same quantity of water, but it's no longer the same. In yours, they are mine. In mine, they are yours. Common interest. We have to explain to the population, trade is good, but how to do it? We have to probably make an emotion because the political reality and business reality, there is a gap. And we have to bridge it. Through my personal example, I got together Chinese Southern Fund, French Southern Fund, European Institution, families, over sectors, almost one third of the French government are my European. When they come to my investor meetings in China with the ambiance, people gather together. They just forget, you are Chinese, you are French. Let me show you one anecdote. When I started my business in France, I sell granite before business, private equity. I founded the granite business selling tombstone. I travel in every small town in France. Marc-Brie in France, they never seen any Chinese. But I prohibit my salesman pronounce continent, pronounce shipping, all those vocabulary. But just to show we do what we say, we are sincere, we bring something new. I can tell you, we transform the industry. And no one still consider me in France as Chinese. Thank you. We're gonna get three questions and we have to close with these three. You have a question, you have a question, sir, and she has a question. Please introduce yourself. Thank you, Nelson Cunningham with the Piquarty Associates in Washington. I wanted to ask a question about the elephant missing from the room. And I mean that both as a tired metaphor and also maybe as a partisan descriptor. With the cancellation of the US government's delegation here, Ambassador Lighthizer will not be joining you for the trade ministerial that typically occurs on the margins of Davos. I wanted to ask both Director General Acevedo and Commissioner Malstrom what the impact is of the absence of the elephant on your meetings this weekend. We'll come to that and that's directed to both of you, sir. And if you'll introduce yourself. Hi, it's Sean Don and I write about trade for Bloomberg News. I just wanted to go back to the digital world a little bit and any commerce and so on. These talks, as you said, Roberto, are coming maybe a few years later than they should have. I just wonder how worried you are about the world of digital protectionism. We talk about protectionism in terms of tariffs in the world today. We don't talk about so much digital services taxes or the Great Firewall of China as a big protectionist barrier. And secondly, how worried are you about the digital world kind of cleaving into different spheres of influence? Certainly China has, the digital world is operated behind a closed wall for many years and that has led to the rise of Alibaba and so on. Okay. And then over here. Heather Long from The Washington Post. I wanted to ask the commissioner, Malstrom, how confident you are that the EU can avoid auto tariffs. You know that I've heard a lot of sentiment this morning that 2019 is going to be better than 2018 for trade but that auto tariff report is due in a month and we'll see what happens. In fact, when she arrived, she's been asked that question several times and I've been standing near her. Why don't we begin with you? Yes, that question and Brexit is the most frequent questions I get. But we didn't talk about Brexit, that is good. Auto tariffs and a light, well, we don't know. We're following this very closely. We have made our position perfectly clear from the European Union side. The European car business has made their opinion perfectly clear and I understand the American car business as well. They don't want these tariffs because they are wrong in substance and they will be bad for our economy and for the US economy and they're wrong in form. They will be if they are imposed on us, they will be so under section 232 which is national security. So that is implying that the European Union is a national security threat to the European Union. We can never accept that. We are friends and allies and we are not a national security threat. So we hope that this will not happen in the agreement signed by President Juncker, President Trump from July this summer. We tried to find common ground where we're advancing. We have made some very important progress there and there's a process that is positive, I think. And it said also that we would not impose tariffs on each other on this. If that is violated by the US, we will have to respond. I don't want to do that, but we will have to do that. But we are confident that we will not be touched upon this. Ambassador Sleitizer absence is unfortunate. I mean, it's all related to this shutdown business and so on. Of course, there will be someone representing the US there. I think the Geneva ambassador from the WTO. The discussion tomorrow among the trade ministers will focus on the reform of WTO and one of the key issues there is the appellate body crisis. The appellate body, which is there as a second level to enforce the rules, which is key to all of us. It's important for the US. It's important for us and a number of other members. And the US is blocking the appointment of the arbitrators there. This is one of the key issues where the whole membership wants to solve it. We have made some proposals and the US is still blocking. So the absence of a political level is, of course, unfortunate, but there will be someone there from the US. So we need to break that down. Roberto, I think also the question posed by Sean was directed to you. Yeah, there were a couple. There was a question about the elephant. Yes, the elephant as well. And just the other day, somebody asked me, what about the elephant? And I said, looking trade, we have a herd of elephants. Exactly. You have to be more specific about which elephant you're talking about. But anyway, I think it's a pity they're not here. But particularly because Davos offers also a possibility of many informal contacts and conversations by at the margins of the meetings. And those often are more productive and important than the meetings themselves. But like Cecilia said, there will be somebody here making the case for the US. So I don't suppose that we're going to hear something earth shattering in the meeting, unfortunately, maybe. But it's natural that they're not here. They're not here because they don't like trade. And they're not here because they don't like the meeting. They're not here because they cannot be here for whatever reasons. I suppose to come. It's unfortunate, but it's not going to be catastrophic, I would say. On the question about digital protectionism, I think as the digital economy grows, you'll see that happening. I mean, when it's below the radar, governments don't take the time or they don't bother to regulate too much or to see that, for example, as a source of revenue. Now, as it begins to boom, as it begins to be the bigger portion, maybe soon, of what we do and what we buy and sell in the real economy, I mean, those things are going to come up. It's inevitable that they're going to come up. Now, we have to make sure that they come up in a reasonable manner, in a manner that does not impede development, growth, job creation, and it will not stifle development and economic growth. How do we do that? I don't know. That's something that we need to talk about. This is what we're trying to talk about, particularly in terms of trading the WTO. As to your second question, frankly, I didn't hear it too well. I didn't understand. If you could repeat that. Yeah. Are we already seeing the digital world cleave into different spheres of influence? China is operating behind the Great Firewall. The EU has GDPR, which is very advantageous. There will be different models, and there will be different concepts of doing digital business. And that's natural. That's OK. What we have to do is to ensure that for the future, those different models, they don't conflict in a way that avoids cooperation, that avoids synergies between the different models. And each one is going to try to make that their models are the ones that prevail. That happens in every industry. Remember, the automobile industry is the same. The bumper in one country has a particular specification that bumper, that's the way the world is. That's reality, I think. And as the digital economy continues to grow, you'll see more and more of that. We have two minutes before we wrap. And I was going to just go around with each of you one very brief question. And that is, we're reassembled next year. So one year from today. It's the same group. We're here and with the same audience. What's the one change, the one wish that you have that you obtain between now and next year? Well, I would say concrete, substantive progress in the WTO reform. OK. Trust. You have to bring trust. That's good. Right. We have to far better explain to the public the benefits of trade. Right. You certainly got that point across today, David. I would like to see this e-commerce agreement through the WTO process, like the trade facilitation. It's just so important that the world is changing so much from an e-commerce standpoint. Getting that agreement, I think, would answer some of the questions about the WTO process. I just think it would prove very relevant. And Roberto. I want to see their wishes realized. Great ending. First, thank you. What a distinguished panel. Thank you so much. And thanks to the audience for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.