 Let me turn to Monsieur Côte-en-L'Ême. What could you tell us, Monsieur? Thank you and good morning. I cannot tell you if we need a new order or if we can tweak the existing order, but I can tell you what I want in it. And I'd like to make this morning two very concrete proposals that I think can contribute to the common good. And I will start, number one, with macroeconomic and financial stability. And in a way, how can we revive the Pittsburgh G20 summit? Spirit at least. Something that would have been very useful going back to 2008 is the idea of what I would call a global financial contagion model. So in other words, how can we anticipate domino effects across many counterparties, countries, regions of the world? Some work has been done already at a country level, usually at the request of a central bank. I'll just name Brazil as an example. You could argue that in the EU, EME, which is the European Market Infrastructure Regulation framework, would have most of the data to perform such an exercise, but we need to actually do it and then do it globally. I think that would be very important. More generally, I think it would be very useful to have what I would call a extreme risk merger of the entire world economy across many dimensions, not just market and credit risk, but also climate change, cybersecurity, operational risk, you name it. Nothing new in a sense. We know we can reuse the models and the stress tests that are already applied to institutions deemed too big to fail. And once you have what's called in the jargon of the regulators a stress value at risk for the entire financial system, you should have the ability to essentially slice and dice amongst all institutions and risk factors so that you can attribute risk where it belongs. I think that would be very useful. Of course, that will require us to stress this all financial institutions, not just too big to fail, and that includes shadow banking, that includes sovereign states themselves, and that includes FinTech. We shouldn't be taken by surprise when a cryptocurrency exchange collapses, right? I mean, there's something that doesn't work here. And so to conclude on this first point, having a common risk framework helps us find common interests, which I think is the key to international goodwill, not treaties, not really rules, not really pressure. You name it. So to me, common interests can change the balance of power very little else. So number two in my wish list, and it's quite different, but it's related, equality of opportunity for companies, countries, and of course individuals. I go much deeper on these issues in my letter's book, Le Capitalisme Contrôle et la Négalité, but here are a few important points. First, and I'm talking about companies first, did you know that 1% of companies control 98% of the patents that are actually useful? It's a staggering number. And so if you look, for instance, at the fascinating example of generic drugs in the United States, it started 40 years ago. Today, 90% of prescriptions are done on the basis of generic drugs, so you may say, well, it's a great success, right? Unfortunately, cost of prescription medicines have continued to increase overall, and you could argue that innovation has been deterred by essentially price-gadging. What happened? Well, patents were too much abused. So this is, to me, a perfect example of excessive rent, and that amounts in a sense to what we call in the book to private taxis, especially if you look at the net effect, because what you see is a rent going from all of us to, say, the top 1% of people, right? So that's highly regressive, and that number exceeds the tax redistribution from the top 1% to the rest of the population. So net-net, you have a fairly regressive impact. Equity is also about fighting externalities. First of all, climate change, and the question is, do you do it according to, say, a Nobel Prize winner? William Norders, by creating a club structure with penalties for countries outside the club so we can meet our carbon emission goals much faster than today, or should we create a compensation scheme for poor countries like the phone proposed by the COP 27 just two weeks ago? In fact, I think we should do both because then you can provide fairness to the system, but at the same time, without perturbing the price signal too much. I think that's important. And then a final word about equality of opportunity for individuals this time. The key to me is optimized human capital over the entire life of people, and that is tricky for governments because they need to do more long-term planning, always something difficult for governments. So they need to be firm their ability to monitor the performance of public policies better, both in terms of return on investment, so you can prioritize what you're doing, but also in terms of fairness of the welfare system. And I will stop here. Thank you very much. I take your message as concentrating on maybe let's continue to have a G20, a financial stability board, and all that goes with it, continuing to function. And it would be part of your message on maintain rules at a global level. And let's not destroy what exists and still exist at the moment we are speaking, even if it is not perfect. And I take your point on fairness for firms, fairness for individuals. That's a very important message.