 worse in the situation of the whole countries. And then so-called the, what is that? So-called the middle income people's dignity has been collapsed. And there are some more concern that with the new wave of globalizations, like artificial intelligence and automation, this technological advancement may bring more inequality into the future. Now, when you look at the international level, you will see the gaps between the emerging countries like China and India and also end developing, developed nations has reduced, well, it sounds good. But when you look at the other countries, they are left out, left behind of this trend. And countless people are still suffering the economic hardship. And some may choose the migration. So the question is, what kind of policies should be taken by international organizations or the government and the private sectors? And how we can ensure that globalization 4.0 will not leave anybody behind? That's our question today. And let's talk about these topics. We have excellent panel starting with you, Ms. Moon. She is, let me collect it, Ms. Lauren Spoon. She is the chief economist of OECD. And she has previously served as economic advisor to French president Francois Hollande. And to her right, Mr. Hikmat Ersek, he is a CEO of Western Union. Of course, everyone knows the world top provider of international money transfer service, right? And a large portion of Western Union's customer base are migrants working overseas. And he himself has this interesting background. He was born in Turkey and moved to Austria later. And Mr. Tadashi Maeda, he's the governor of Javik, Japan Bank 4 International Corporation. And his organization helps a lot of Japanese companies investing in overseas in the field of infrastructure and energy project. And last but not least, Professor Richard Baldwin, he teaches at Graduate Institute in Geneva. And he has published many books on globalization. And his recent one, it's quite recent, right? Yesterday. Yesterday. He is titled, the globalists are people, globalization and robotics and the future of work. Very interesting. Thank you. OK. Now let me start by asking each one of you, what is the greatest challenge by the globalization in your view, starting with you? With me. OK. Good morning. And thanks for this invitation. I'm such a prominent panel with perhaps a future president. Well, I'd like to point out two challenges. The first one is inequality, to which you alluded to. And the second one is the fair rule of the games. On inequality, there had been increasing before the crisis. But since the mid-2000, roughly, the bottom 20% of the population, in terms of revenue, have not seen their revenue kept at the pace of GDP growth. And I think that's a big issue that we've said, and we'll continue to say, it's fine. Globalization is good for all. But it doesn't benefit all. It's good overall. So that's the first challenge, is to make it work everywhere. The second one, on which I will spend a bit more time, is actually the rules of the game. And with digital, especially, we have a lot of changes. It's now easy for firms on the one hand to have very large market share across the globe, but also to be shopping for the best tax-wise, legal, regulatory place where to put the headquarter. A lot of profits are not paying their fair share of taxes across firms and countries. And I think we need to address that as well. Tackling taxation at the global level, designing new competition rules, taking into account digital, addressing corruption, and defining addressing regulatory arbitrage. OK, good. Mr. Elsek. Well, as a business leader, I look at that and see more in facts. And as we've seen, it is active in 200 countries for more than 30 years. We do see the impact of globalization. I don't see it really pessimistic. You see optimism. Because the globalization we know as it is, build a base that you can't stop it anywhere for future globalism. The people are connected as they've never been connected in the past. The globalization helped many people coming out of the poverty of old ways. The access to medicine has been never done like that. It has been in the past. What's globalization is happening now is that it's taking a break or a timeout, so-called basketball timeout, especially in the West countries. And I agree with you. The globalization had some impact on the middle class, had some impact on some people. But it's taking only a break. It's correcting itself. And I believe that the globalization in the past was driven by cooperation by governments and by corporations like Western Union, corporations like Google, Facebook, that drew the globalization. But now it's in the hand of individuals. Individuals. Individuals. So after 7 billion people, today the power of a mobile phone, the power of a smartphone, is huge. That was never been there. Today, the people in Bangladesh, fishermen, can go out and fish. And before it comes back, in the past, it will come back to its own village always to the same spot selling that. Now the fishermen, individual fishermen, is picking up the phone saying that, who gives me the best price? I go to the village. I've never been in that, not even 10 years ago. So the globalization really empowered many, many people, made many people entrepreneur worldwide. Today we can see it for Western Union that small entrepreneurs are trading in multi-currencies with their smartphones, really important exporting. So I see it in a more optimistic way. Challenge? Yes. Is this challenge? The political environment, the protectionism environment, I hate it. And business leaders don't like it. Since the crisis, there will be, in 60 developed countries, there are 7,000 rules to avoid global trade. 7,000 rules. I hate it. And I'm going to speak against that. But I'm more optimistic long term. OK. We talk about that later. Mr. Maizesan, what's your take on it? Yes, I direct to a point out of the two challenges. One is a declining of the aspiration of international cooperation among the key countries. In 20th century, we had the G-5 and G-7 and G-8 and G-20. And then last year, in an epic meeting, there's no, actually, the agreement has been made. And my friend, the president of the Eurasian Group, Ian Bremmer, he describes as, in our nation, is learning for his own sake. It means that G-0, there's no coordination process. And Japan is hosting a G-20 this year. That is very tough to find out the common agenda among the member of the G-20. And now, very fortunately, Prime Minister Abe keeps his position since 2012, so it's now his seventh year, the most stable. And in Japan, we don't have any logical. But we have a problem like aging society, declining of the population. And also that many of the senior citizens now feel left behind. And Asian senior citizens now be isolated. They cannot use their digital devices. And that's the problem. That's also a problem of culture in the transition from the 20th century and the 21st century. And globally, still, that's the people living in two-dollar, below two-dollar per day, still have 750 million population living in that global standard. And 1.7 billion adults do not have a banking account. But ultimately, they may have some smartphone and application, free application, to settle that in their own payment. Therefore, there's a good chance to spread or to reach those people who do not have a bank account. But we can correct the big data and then to give some right direction. That's a good chance for us. But the government will not be able to do it right now. So that's probably the business leaders like you. We're going to make such a direction. And the scholar, Professor Baldwin, and the international leaders, that's our hope. That's our hope. But the good thing for Japan is that we have kind of a good example of the senior society. So we still tackle the problem so that we can share our experience with colleagues. That's interesting. Japan is a little different from the other country because of the age society. Professor Baldwin, you researched on globalization long time. What's your perspective? Well, the fundamental challenge of globalization is that it creates more opportunities for a nation's most competitive citizens and its most competitive companies. But it creates more competition for a nation's least competitive citizens and least competitive companies. The real challenge of globalization is to find domestic complementary policies that the winners and losers can feel like they're on the same team and continue with it. That's a problem that's always been with globalization. What's really different this time is the speed. Digital technology is advancing at explosive paces. That our ability to store, transmit, process, and understand information is doubling every two years and changing realities. Things that seem like machine translation, unlikely just three years ago, is free right now on everybody's smartphone. And it's that speed which creates the fundamental challenge that's different between globalization 4.0 and the globalizations we've known in the past. That's interesting. The speed is just too fast so that the people cannot follow up. And when people got lost jobs, it's hard to get a new job. And this kind of artificial intelligence and automation will accelerate the job losses and also the inequality. And I believe what's happening in France, yellow vest movement, I think that kind of demonstration will be spurred or fueled by this globalization. What's your take? Well, let me rebound on what Richard was saying. In fact, it's the combination of globalization and digitalization, which is affecting people. And the role of the digital technology is even contributes more than globalization itself. So we have looked at this. And what's happening is it's the middle skilled routine job, which are being the most affected. And what you can see is regions lose manufacturing plants either because there is competition from low wage country. That was the past. But now with digitalization, they lose these plants because robots and automatism is taking the place of people. So there's a divide between the top skilled people who can benefit from it, the low skilled people who usually have care jobs like with the elderly and you cannot really replace with a robot. But the medium skilled people have really burned the mass of this adjustment. To me, that's one of the most important things. That and the fact that their revenue is not increasing anymore. But the worst is when you don't know what you'll be able to do in the future and what your kids will be able to do in the future. And for that, we need to look at much more than just for distribution where I agree with Richard that we need to focus on the people. And some countries have done it very well. I can come back on to this. But you also need to focus on their opportunities. Their equal access to education, to health, to transport. And one other thing, it's not only creating this divide between people, superproductive firms. And we can come back to this and regions. And for regions, we need to connect back to the rural areas to city centers because that's creating jobs that's attracting people. So there's a triple job of reconnection to do for the people with the right skills for the firm so that they can catch up, unless we need public investment. And for the region so that they link to very lively urban centers. All right. So what about the people on the street now? They have the good future that they can work? Yes, if we can do that. Let me take the example of Denmark. Denmark has paid special attention on iOS and Q to Richard because we talked about it before. But Denmark has paid special attention to make sure that when there is a displacement of people, because one sector is being affected either by trade, competition, or by digital, they put in place a system where they take care of the people before displacement arrives. So before the dismissal of people, they identify all the jobs at risk and the people at risk. Then the target, they ensure that they have a minimum revenue. So the target, especially the low skilled people and the low income earners, they ensure that they will have the right retraining because training is everything. So they identify them, identify the training they need. They put them in training. Then they assess the training. And at the same time, they put them even in short term of temporary fixed contract, some sort of apprenticeship so that they can catch up. They are never left alone from the moment that the risk is identified to the moment that they will find a job. And I think that's a superb experience we can all learn from. OK. We talk about the solution part later on in this session. Professor Richard Baldwin, in your recent book that you said that how automation will displace a broad jobs in the service sector, right? Can you elaborate on that? So the way I'd like to think about it is telecommuting, which many of us do now, half day, a week, or day a week. We work from home or we work on the road. That's called telecommuting. I just think it'll go international. People will work remotely, sitting in one country, working in offices in another. And the reason I'm confident to say that this will happen, because it is already happening in industries like web development. People will put together a multinational team on the screen, working simultaneously through collaborative software, designing a website when the programmer may be in Pakistan and the user experience expert might be in Canada. So I just think that will go a lot more global. And that is, in essence, digital technology mediating the arbitrage of wages across country. But this is mostly in the service sector, because the digital stuff is information, and much of services is all about information. And I would point out one technology in particular that is heavily underestimated, and that's machine translation. If you haven't tried machine translation in the last six months, you really have to. There's a revolution in it. And it's really very good now. Hundreds of millions of Chinese who could not join the global service market because they couldn't speak good enough English. Well, now they can speak good enough English. It's free. Skype, Amazon, it's on Outlook, it's a Google Translate. These things are being integrated into apps, and will change the reality. So in some sense, you could say what the 90s were about was low-skilled labor and manufacturing came online in India and China and transformed the realities in the 90s of low-skilled work in rich countries. This, I think, is going to happen in the service sector. Interesting. You may have something to add, right? You're absolutely right. The global service industry is really everywhere. You could be, as a corporate leader, I see that daily I'm flying from here to India, Pune, 800 engineers there. And what's happening, though, and especially in the Western, democracy, Western world, with the protective environment, increasing visas, and stopping these people, the knowledge. Actually, it's counterproductive. What's happening in the US that an Indian engineer can't get a visa anymore, or their spouse can't get a visa anymore. It's basically telling us, CEOs, don't create a job there. Create the job somewhere else. And I'm not sure that the protective environment wants that. And I think that's going to be a big issue in the future. Interesting. Now, your company is based in the States, and your president is moving toward the protectionism. Do you think that they will get more support because of the discontent of the people? Well, first of all, I want to correct. My company is based in India. It's my president, but I am not a US citizen. I just want to put things in perspective. Well, I think the current environment, protective environment, doesn't help companies like West Union being globally active. We do definitely. You have to understand, West Union, it's none of my country. If you put the US to the side, it's 15% of my revenue because we have also domestic money transfer there. But none of my countries are bigger than 5% of my revenue. Number seven countries, only 1% of my revenue. It's that diverse. So it's important that the connection is here. The protective environment, what's happening in the US, the taxes, or the kind of trying to stop the global connection doesn't help. And I think it's maybe creates short-term solutions, short-term attacks, short-term problems, but long-term, the companies will find always a different solution. We CEOs are dedicated to create jobs. Our CEOs are dedicated to make money. We CEOs are dedicated to trade. And you can't stop that. The world is built on that. And I don't think no wall is high enough, has never been high enough to stop that. The problem in the US labor market right now is that now the increase of the cost of the workers and also lack of the skilled labor right now. Therefore, normally, that business practice of the contractors assign a contract for the lump sum basis. They cannot accommodate such a sharp increase of the labor cost. Therefore, that's a cost overland. And then a lot of companies may have a problem, like Wishinghouse, for example, that they made a huge loss due to the lack of the skilled labor. That's eventually the kind of dis-mobilities of the skilled laborers in the US labor market will damage the competitiveness of the long term in the US technology. So that's why the very short term policies on the protectionism will not be good for US economy. Perhaps I can add two things on this. The first one is what you were saying on job, which I think is very essential, immigration. Let me give you two numbers, three, actually. About 65% of the increase in labor force in the US is coming from non-US citizens, so from migrants. 92% in the EU. So it's massive. And you're right that it will create a problem. And related to skills, between 35% and 40% of those people are highly skilled. So it's a variety of worker with a variety of qualification and talent that will be missing. So that's one point that I totally concur with you. And the second is about the cost of protectionism. At this stage, what has been happening at the global level with the tit for tat tariffs has cost about 0.2 to 0.3 percentage point of growth for the US and a bit more to China. If the US and China increase tariffs by 25% for all goods takes change, it will be minus 1% for US growth. It will be even a little more for China. That's massive number. And it's not even taking into account something that I'm sure you can talk better than me about, which is all the uncertainties creating and the delay in investment plan and in recruitment that we are seeing. We are uncertain as CEOs when we do our plans. We are uncertain. We don't know where to start. That's a new environment. And if it's a global company, you do business plans. You want to invest, but you don't know what the rules will look like. And that's a big uncertainty. It's probably one of the biggest danger for CEOs, global CEOs, because you want to invest. You want to have the best return. You want to go for your shareholder satisfaction. But that uncertainty makes us also conservative. Let me jump in a little bit. And what I would say is that the things you were talking about, we're all talking about, is a very real disease in the United States, disease problems in the United States. But the protectionism is the false medicine. So we have a real disease and a false medicine. In essence, Trump administration is trying to use a 20th century tool to address a 21st century problem. And in deep down, they have not understood the problem. Tariffs aren't going to address the skills. Tariffs are not going to keep America into the industries and sectors of the future. Yeah, therefore, that's a very global supply chain. You know, the United States is not able to leave their own labors and own technology. So that's a supply chain that's spread over. That there are lots of the evidence and a good kind of background of the policymaking. That's the reason. So that we need to have to verify that those background information to be supported of the decision making of the policy. That's the key. In many countries, we have evidence-based policymaking. But in the United States, they have policy-based evidence making. All right, let's get back to the inequality issue for a while. You talked about what the solution of the inequality, how to prevent the spread of the inequality. You studied in your book. Can you tell us what the? So first of all, I think the basic idea is it's about domestic policies. So people have to change jobs. And they've had to change jobs in the past. And some governments have very good policies for that. And we just need more of it. So retraining, maybe you have to change houses. Maybe you need some income support for a while. Maybe we may actually have to have some clusters that are creating industries in places where people actually are, but it's active market policies. But I have to say, the OECD has done a lot more work on this active labor market policy. So I would defer to my back. Can you share with us what the OECD can do about it? So it's actually a hugely challenging period because of that. But I think it all started in 2009 with the first Stiglitz-Senn-Fitusi report, which said, first, change the way you look at the data. Don't focus only on GDP. Look at inequalities and not only inequality of revenue, but inequality of opportunities. And again, it's health, it's education, it's transport, and it's education throughout the lifetime. In Germany, they have a very good apprenticeship system and also vocational training, which is super important in other countries in Europe. Do not have access to. Look at this data. Look at gender gap, migrant gap, elderly people gap, youth gap. Try and span the entire dashboard of inequality indicators. Then the second, and I think it's something that we've improved a lot upon is the policy recommendation that we made before we're solely focused on GDP growth and productivity. Now, for each policy recommendation, we look at the impact on productivity, but also on how it affects the income distribution. If we take the medicine example of Richard, there's a detection diagnosis part. And for that, then you can do the right medicine. Let me take a simple example, the diesel tax. I think most economists would agree that if you want to, it's a tax which is designed to change the behavior of people, stop consuming diesel. It's not a tax designed to raise revenue. And when you look at other countries, and that's obviously the comparative advantage is to look at plenty of countries, the way to make this environmental tax work is actually to compensate the people who will lose from it. Because those people, when you look at the impact on income distribution, the people affected by a diesel tax, they are the low income earner. They are the guys in the suburbs or in rural areas who need that car. And that's a real shock to the way that they live. So in British Columbia, in Canada, they did that over several years. They looked at the revenue expected from this tax on diesel. And they said, why would you distribute this revenue targeting the low income earner households and targeting the corporate, which are ICMEs and have not got a huge of means. And by doing this redistribution, so they got zero out of the money, but they changed the behavior of people and they were able to increase carbon prices to level that they thought was satisfactory for the purpose that it looked with was changing behavior. It's an example, it's the same when you increase VAT or it's the same if you reform the labor market. You know you don't do that in a downturn because more people are going to get redundant. You do that in an upturn. And your target with education and active labor market policy, the retraining I was describing for Denmark, those that will be affected. The big change to me is we've gone from looking at the world in aggregate as economists, as looking at the individuals and their heterogeneity and how this is affecting them. Talking about inequality, that I argue that I said that 1.7 billion population do not have bank accounts. And two-thirds of this is women. Therefore that normally financial products normally that we government banks or those commercial bank households is not able to reach out to those people who do not have a bank account. However, that using for the microfinance for example that we actually invested into the microfinance fund last year for supporting the empowered women entrepreneurs. And the statistics say that the non-performing debt portion for both in terms of gender, male and female, female is way, way better. 700% better than male. Therefore that they pay back and then they own small enterprises and then create more business and to income level will be going up. Therefore that using this devices like the smartphone devices. So that we can put some of the, not just only fund, but also that's the information about for example that's weather information. And also that's some necessary commodity like, like the, you know, for the fishers, fishermen so that means some of the devices for use for that to their own business or together. It's very micro-management. And then even in G7 actually that's the talk about Trump administration. They are now launched the new incident with two ex-challenges. It means that to empower women. So that they are doing some good thing as well. So we join. Right. My answer just to talk about the inequality issue in Japan, it's not, of course, we do have inequality issue in Japan, but it's not as apparent as the other country. But as you mentioned that, you mentioned that Japan is a little unique in the sense of Asian society and people are probably getting, dropping out of this digitalization. And what's your... Yeah, so that's the main issue that, you know, it's kind of some of the middle class in the 20th century. The generation, senior than I am, I'm 61 years old, that's my generation. It's almost dropping out from the new transition in digital economy in the 21st century. So many of the Batman pop stores, now you still use a handwriting, not using a personal computer. That's very, therefore, that the customers for their commercial banks, many branches, those people. So that they're kind of an endangered species right now. On the contrary, that's the younger generation who will be working their own room, not the commute for many hours, because commuting in Tokyo, it's a mess. Therefore that it's good for younger generation to work in their own home using a digital divide so that the government is not able to catch up that what kind of a social safety net we can provide for senior citizens. And also that, I don't say that immigrant, but as the many students, for your students who study in Japan, also that's who are now being kind of a part-time job in a convenience store at night time, for example. So that they're very serious. So that they are not voting right there. However, that they work, we have to support those people because they're part of the community. That's the issue. So that many different issues now we are now see. And in particular, that in transitions, we're actually we are now investing into that that some of the startup of artificial intelligence, for example, that many application by artificial intelligence. Therefore that the people, the fear that they will lose the job because of artificial intelligence. However, that we can foster more creativity for humans. So that a new team job like, you know, handwriting and input in the computer, those kind of the routine job can be replaced by artificial intelligence. That's a technology. The human that we have to use this. So that is a matter of the addition making of government. Can I pick up on that? Just the one way of saying it is that this automation is taking the robot out of human jobs. But what that leaves is a human in human jobs, more creativity. And I would like to point out one other thing about this artificial intelligence. Basically, it's experience-based pattern recognition that many semi-professionals professionals have. And AI allows fairly average people to be much more intelligent. It doesn't make intelligent people that that much more intelligent. So I think actually that AI will soon augment average people who have a lot of heart by giving them more head. But those of us who have lots of head, they're not gonna give us any more heart. So I think in principle, this will be good for equality. It just could be quite disruptive in the meantime, but as you say, it's giving skills to a whole group of people, skills that were impossible to have before. And that's, I think, gonna be transformative for people of sort of average skills and average talents. Even more than that, I think is needed. So first, I would just like to say one thing. Aging is not a Japanese problem. Aging is a global again problem, which is why it's at the heart of the Japan G20. I think what was just being said by Richard and you was super interesting, because when you, so we have this survey, which is called PIAC survey of adult skills. And the latest edition of it noted that 50% of adults in OECD countries lack basic solving, problem solving skills. 50%, it's enormous. And I'm not sure to what extent automation can help with that. And then more than between 20 and 25% of adults, like the basic numeric and literacy skills that help you, that are the foundation of learning. So I think the first investment that as much government as actually companies have to do is to ensure that people have those basic skills, because that's the foundation of what you can do in life afterwards. We're talking about skills. We wanna focus on the gap between the developed countries and developing countries. As I mentioned that some emerging countries like China and India benefited a lot from the globalization, but there are some other countries are not. Do you think that the gap widens under globalization 4.0? Well, so, no, I think it narrows. Narrows? In some sense, the comparative advantage of developing countries is that once you adjust for quality, it's very cheap labor. And up till now, the only way that they could exploit that advantage is by making a good and exporting the good. But with this telemigration or international telecommuting, they can export the talent directly. Now that, well, I believe, allow the emerging market miracle to spread much further. And up till now, it's been mostly based on either commodities, which a country has or it doesn't, or manufacturing, which has been limited to a very small number of countries above all China. But exporting services, whether it's helping you with your bookkeeping or arranging travel for you or helping you straighten out the contacts in your cell phone, many people in Africa could, in the same time zones, provide lots of services and offices in Europe. And many people in South America who've been primarily left behind except the commodities could provide these services in the United States. So personally, at least for the middle class people in the middle-class, in middle-income countries, I think this is a huge export advantage. It's in essence taking advantage of globalization the way India has, much less the way China has. And I think it'll spread beyond. And since it's micro-micro, you don't need huge multinationals. You don't need huge ports. It's basically anybody with a cell phone, a good connection, and a laptop can join this export revolution. So I think that will lead to go on. It won't help the poorest countries, but the middle countries, I think we'll see a big gain from this. And you agree with that? Yeah, I do agree with the individual that you empower them and they will be a part of the global connection. And I believe also that the emerging markets have a kind of a better start in the new globalization than developed countries. There's other two other things also. I will make a point on aging population later, but today what we see is a big issue between state capitalism and state democracy. The developing countries tend to more to state capitalism and they have a five, six, seven, 10 years program and they execute. In the democracies, in the West democracy, that in liberal democracies, every step will be questioned because it's a way how we... So state capitalism doesn't care. They have a program they execute and it's a competitive environment. And more and more developing countries go to more controlled capitalism than on a free capitalism. And that tension, it's a big tension. I don't know, I'm not a politician, but as a business leader, we don't know how to operate in that environment and that's something... May I... Sure. In the state capitalism. Normally the state capitalism, for example, in China see that it's a prayer to be a state or an enterprise. Now it's not true. I know. Now it's not true. So that's even a private, pure private, the country is now forced to work with those data to the government. And the government is trying to control and without the care of, for example, that privacy, gathering the data without paying attention to privacy. And also that in terms of speed of decision-making, it's much quicker than the normal liberal democracy. Therefore, there are some risks that globalization, digital economy, be good for totalitarian regime because in terms of decision-making speed. That's a really problem. So that we have to pay attention. And on China, for example, that very rich people using a private jet, you know, there's many private jet holders in Chinese. However, that's still there. More than 200 million people do not have any mobile phone in China. It's the largest number in the world. And then India and Pakistan. Therefore that this in China because of this data kind of inequality of digital economy, is the gap is being widened in China. Can I pick up on what President Erzaka said? And you a little bit as well. Is it emerging markets need a plan? This thing is happening super fast and you're talking about the form of governance which lets them get a plan and you're talking about how fast to make the decision. But the key is this thing will not fix itself. People will, you know, eventually they'll get connectivity but governments can do things to help people get ahead of this curve in emerging markets even more than in rich countries. Because, well, for one thing, they've got so many young people and so much talent that's basically underpaid and underemployed. So getting a plan I think is, you know, a good recommendation. But there's a big difference between having a plan and controlling a plan. And that's a big thing. And where I have some issues with too much control is really overcoming the freedom of the people and stopping the entrepreneurship long-term. Short-term, you may win. You know, if you have a five-year plan and the infrastructure, you will build the road. There won't be a question. You will build the airport. There won't be an environment question. And that will help that environment probably to short-term to develop the area. But, you know, in the long-term, you may destroy the environment. Maybe the road will destroy the environment. So that question is a big, actually a world problem that we have to solve. And, you know, that's in my mind. If I may add, I think the state capitalism, which should be indirectly target, perhaps, or perhaps it's not the one, but at least we all know one. But it usually involves subsidies in various forms to state-owned enterprises, for example. It usually involves loans that we don't really necessarily know everything about. For example, to emerging market, which is creating some uncertainty, it usually involves some regulation or some kind of protection from the outside world that's distorting competition. So I'm not saying that all the sectors should be open, but what I'm saying is this particular form tend to lead to unfair competition, and that adds to the resentment of other countries. And we fall back into the trap that the protectionism, that we have the trade tension we've seen so far, have been creating. So we need a plan, I think, to help developing economies with migration, with climate change, and we can talk about that later. But some of the emerging markets are already too advanced to actually stick to this type of strategy. But when I talk about state capitalism, as I'm talking maybe, we can, words and definitions are always, I don't know, I have to say that more and more emerging countries are voting for a controlled environment. I mean, if you look at what's happening in Brazil, if you look at what's happening in Turkey, if you look at what's happening in Russia, all these governments came by voting, the people voted for them. So there is a tend to, and these people will tend to control the environment more, will go to more state capitalism, they will like to have the long-term vision then. I think I disagree. Do you have a lot of governments which are not, which have not been in history great government and that have been voted initially? I think these people are turning towards this type of institution because they've been immensely frustrated by how globalization and digitalization has shaped their world. I don't think this planning is the answer. I think the answer is first and foremost, education, certain that firms at the global level pay the fair share of taxes where they vote on them too, but not this type of response. But it's happening. But that's why we need to address the root causes of what's happening. All right, you agree. As you mentioned, we talked about the migration issue, migration and climate change. Talking about the migration of Mr. Essek, you have the background on the migration. And do you think that what's happening in the state and looking at what's happening in the state and in Europe, do you think that the society is moving away from inclusiveness? Definitely. So migration is such a complex and big problem. First of all, there are about 258 million migrants, 260 million migrants worldwide. And if you add them together, there would be six or seven biggest nation. And that would be a power, though. They don't have a flag. They don't have a constitution. They have no rights and they are lost. So I think, that's why I took that subject also, I'm speaking on behalf of many migrants. There are two types of migrants. First, the first migrants, forced migration. You know, if you don't move, you die. And I think we as a global citizen should take care about that. The second one is really attracted migration. Which countries, because of my aging population, because of changing environment, really need migration. And what's happening is that the second part is just ignored. That the value of migration is ignored. It's not only the people moving in a country, but also the money they send back home to support them. There's about 630 billion dollars sent every year. Can you imagine that if you don't have that anymore? It's really not for a country like Liberia. It's a disaster for a country like Mexico, for a country like Philippines. A Filipino nurse who works in Saudi Arabia at the hospital helps there, makes maybe $1,000. Half of the salary goes back to Philippines. And the number one reason why our customers send back money is education. They support their children that they can have a better life than they had their life. And if you don't have that $300, for $300, you can go all year at school in the Philippines. It's a life-changing event. And I think we have to see that as a bigger picture. And stopping migration, I mean, you can't, I understand that, not every nation have open borders. That's why there's nations there. But I think you have to approach that as in a positive way, not blame for everything the migrants. That's happening today. For every economical issue, migrants are, it's migrants fault. Brexit, migrants are fault. Yellow West, migrants are, what migrants fault. Terrorism, migrants fault. So that's something that we have to change the conversation, really talk about the positive way of the migration. And if you think about that just the last one, 40% of the Fortune 500 companies in the US were built by migrants. And the nation was built on migrants. You have some take to it. And I completely agree with you. First, so the first category of migrants, you talked about its refugees and climate change will push this number. It's very difficult to see by how many because you have projection which go from 25 million of refugees coming from climate change to 1 billion by 2050. But what we know is it will be massive and we need to coordinate that one reason for acting at the global level on this flow of refugees that we see. The second thing, and I really like what you said about skills because as you say, economic migrants and the first one who arrived in Germany in 2015, they were highly skilled people because it takes an enormous courage to leave your country cross the water on the boat and arrive somewhere to build up something. And usually they are very much entrepreneur. Now it's, there's also the question of people getting back and not all the brain drain coming out of developing countries. And you have some international program of cooperation which is called the Skill Mobility Program where you have an agreement between the host and the home country to take people in the host country, provide some training and education and the cost is shared with the developing market and then the people go back. And I think that's super important. And you've been very modest with Japan. With Japan is really changing in terms of migration and opening its border, at least in part to address aging problem but I think that's a big change. We do not say that's migration but now the government decided and so the diet approved that the border control act had been relaxed and then we are going to have more influx of the population, many of the skill labor students and students who live in Japan to give them more opportunity. And the issue is that because we have, for many years that we have been a homogeneous society. So many fears of what's happening in Europe is of the migration, the issue is that it's kind of a crash of the culture between the indigenous people and the migrants. So that it's either way actually that some of the bright side and the dark side, obviously that, yes, in Japan that we are now very gradually open but the good thing for economic sense that because of this decision that many foreign investors now change its attitude to make investment into Japan because of this. Many, some of them will be, some jobs will be replaced by robots and AI but for example the caretakers, for example for the senior citizens that the robot cannot do that. More of the human sense is needed. Therefore that they are opened up, more society and to make some more harmonization of people who come. So that's the key. If I may add something, the harmonization, I think integration is the key. How the programs of the governments are integration. I can tell you one thing. My father, Muslim, my mother, Christian and my wife is Hindu. You can imagine the integration problems I have in my own family. Plus my son is dating a Jewish girlfriend. So some say that you're really protected but the integration is a big issue with cultures and the nation and especially Japan when you work on that, I think the integration, I understand that cultures will be the key to be successful on the immigration problems. Do you think anything that OECD or international organization can help to solve the immigration and refugee issue? So there are I think two things that we can do to help. The first one is give facts, establish the diagnosis, come back to what you were saying, what numbers, which countries, what type of skills. The second is design policy for integration because we completely agree with you. For example, there's a misunderstanding that most government, they take only single men because they think that way they restrict the number but it's a mistake. People are much better accepted when it's the whole family that come because they feel more comfortable with it and we've seen lots of villages, communities, ready to take families and much more skeptical on singles. So it's addressing this type of misbelief and the third is again, I think global coordination is super important whether it's at the G20, the OECD or an international forum but being able to talk and solve which an agreement, achieve an agreement between the host and home country is essential. It has started. I think we should be positive about it and but we need to do more on this and just one additional thing. As I said, the large wave of those is coming from climate change. This has been the object of discussion here quite a lot but addressing it at its root making sure that the money is being spent in Africa which is the most affected by it or in some other regions in Asia. For example, they are Somalian which will disappear under water. So this investment, it's also a way of addressing the causes of migration at their roots and we should progress on this. It's also one area where cooperation has worked so far, right? We have a cop and nearly everybody is ticked by it. Paris Accord? Yes. But one country has dropped out. I know but you have the power of persuasion. With just one liking at the end, they will join the club and some states, including the one you're in, I believe are still committed to do it. Oh, I see. Colorado? There are certain issues or agenda that the international cooperation is needed. The single countries, even the United States are not able to solve any issues like the global warming and also that pandemic and so on. Therefore, we need to select those agenda one by one and to keep a momentum of more international cooperation. Not just only that they belong to the Paris Agreement or not. It's not such a simple issue. Therefore, the United States, for example, that in each state has their own policy in terms of the emission of greenhouse gas and therefore that the big gap between the West Coast and also the Midwest, for example, and a co-mining state and also that the West Coast. Therefore, these are the politics that we have to keep, make consensus among the different stakeholders. But the world is going in the wrong direction when European Union is where it's built on consensus, it's breaking apart. And that's an issue. I agree with that. There are global issues, not only environment issues, there's epidemic issues, it's global warming, age and population, global trade, robotization. These are not country issues. These are global issues and needs a cooperation in which we don't see it. The global corporations do that. Companies do that, but not governments. I sort of disagree. Because the governments are not doing everything, but there are quite a few things. First, there is this climate agreement. Second, I think the most striking for me, it's the taxation agreement. Or there are about 100 countries have committed, and that includes the US, to fight base erosion, profit shifting and to actually exchange information about companies where they produce, where they employ, where they sell. I'm sure 10 years ago, nobody would have believed that this agreement was put in place. It's working. Governments have already collected about $93 billion of taxes that were escaping and there's probably another $100 to $200 billion to get. So that's an area where they're able, because it speaks to people as well, it's very striking, but they are able to cooperate. I agree on that, but I disagree. All right, sorry, we're running out of time. So this is gonna be the last question. Just ask, if you have to sum up in one keyword that what is needed to, so that the globalization 4.0 will not leave anybody behind and go to the better future. What would it be and why? Just 30 seconds each, please. Cohesion. Cohesion. Mostly domestic. Both globalization and automation changes the way things are and it creates winners and losers. It works because it's painful and it's painful because it works. What we need is policies to keep the winners and losers together. Is that short enough? No, you disagree. Very good. Sir? So my sense is that it's a compassion, actually that the feel, that the sympathy to the other people, this is a big key. Therefore that compassion is a very good point for the humans. It's a machine cannot do that. Therefore that we need to pay attention to the ethnic minority, LGBT, for example, that those are a very key issue. So compassion is a real human. Compassion. Is that it? Empowerment. Empowerment. Empowerment of individuals, empowerment of seven billion people, future eight billion people to be soon. And empowerment, making them owning the things, not taking the power away from them. That's great. Ms. Wen? Cooperation because I don't think we'll achieve any of the three effectively if we don't cooperate all together at the national and at the international level. And also cooperation between the government and the private sector. And that requires a lot more dialogue, I think, than we have had so far. But we should all be optimistic about that. Optimistic? Yeah, oh, optimistic. But it fits together the words so well. It was almost as if we planned it before, but... No planning. No planning. No planning. Well, thank you very much for this great discussion. Thank you very much. Thanks for all coming. Thank you.