 So, this has been a really robust conversation instead of presentations. I would just like to close out this module by observing, again, I start where I end where I started and I come with an American perspective. But hearing the conversation at this end of the table here reminds me so much of what we are experiencing in America, the collision, if you will, of global capital, participatory democracy, and land use. I was part of a conversation in Chicago a few years ago when we had a major initiative there. We were funding around what is called our Hope Six Initiative, which is a national program to destroy public housing and, in its place, build what we call mixed income housing. Because in America, the notion of poverty concentration is a very bad thing. And so we are our government, in fact, presidential candidates of all stocks, all stripes and colors are committed to the notion of poverty de-concentration. And that implicitly means the conversation you are having about really what we call a one-for-one replacement. And that is every poor person in the community has a right to have a unit of quality standard housing replaced what they have and a guaranteed right to remain there. That's off the table. It's not a part of public discourse in the United States. So it's quite interesting to hear what really is the collision of this challenge that you have, as we have in the city of New York, because we too are surrounded by water and certainly in Manhattan have the challenge of several million people on just a few square miles. I also would observe that Enrique offers a different perspective, which is quite radical to an American sensibility, Enrique. I have to say, you seem to believe that the public sector has a leadership role to play. And in many quarters in America, that is not a fashionable theory anymore. And so the idea that the public sector has to have a long-term line of sight on land-use policy in a metropolitan way in many parts of my country is a very radical idea. I'm really pleased by the conversation and frustrated as well, because I think I probably speak for many of you in here. We could have heard this conversation all day long. It was so rich and so robust, and I just want to thank the speakers. And I also want to turn it over to Manjeet to take us out. I don't have much to say. I was fascinated. I wish we had more time. But one thing that struck me a lot between what Enrique said and what happens in India, and I keep wondering with the best people in the world, I mean, with all the resources in the world, why can't we act together? Why can't we see a better result? And at the end of the day, I think it comes down to caring. We need to care to do something. I think the passion that I heard is that it is a philosophy where people matter. And the state, I mean, what you did in Bogota was something you said, people come first. I mean, you took a choice on that matter. Now, in our system, it's the law, it's regulations, it's a whole plethora of webs that we have spun around ourselves, which then prevents us from moving fast enough into the results we would like to achieve. But I'm not sure. I'm fascinated with the idea of why we've not been able to make the progress with the speed with which we need to make it. You know, it's a speed. Dharavi, as you mentioned, it's four years since we did that. I chaired a committee to look at Bangalore Airport, and Bangalore is our brand city. And I chose the developer, which is Zurich, to develop Bangalore Airport. And I met the MD a few months later, and he said, NASA, you know, we were delighted when you selected us, but I didn't realize that that in India is where my problems begin and not end. And it took him four years to actually get that airport off the way. There seems to be something magical about four. It's four and a half times. Anyway, I think we'll leave it at that, and I'd really look forward to the conversation.