 Well, it's not a threat. It's a natural course of the development. China is already number two in GDP. And probably within the next 10 years or so, China's GDP would exceed that of the United States. So that, you know, China and eventually India would become the two big economic giants in the world. And we have to accept that reality. United States has been reading the world economy, you know, after the World War II. But now, you know, major player is slowly changing, you know, toward China and India and some other Asian countries. So it is the phenomenon called reorient, reorienting the center of their economic activities toward Asia. My name is Iske Saka-Kibala. I'm now professor of economics at Awemaga Queen University. And I think what has been called economics has had quite a success. Particularly, easy monetary policy has had a major impact on the Japanese economy. It depreciated the currency quite significantly, and it raised equity price by as much as 60%. Mr. Abe appointed Mr. Kuroda, Haruhiko Kuroda, as the governor of Bank of Japan in the March of 2013. And Kuroda aggressively eased monetary policy. That has resulted in favorable result for the Japanese economy. So that so far, economics has succeeded, I think. The gross rate has come down to on the average of 1%. The U.S. gross rate is a little bit higher, but for Europe and Japan, it's about 1%. And the inflation rate is also about 1%. So that both gross rates and the inflation rate has come down. And as I said, I'm not worried about it. It is a reflection of the maturity of those developed economies. And it's only natural that at a high level of sort of GDP, that gross rate would come down to 1%, and the inflation rate would come down as well. Between 1956 and 1973, we had high gross period. Abe's annual gross rate was 9.1%. Between 74 to, say, 1990, we had so-called stable gross period. Abe's gross rate is about 4.2%. But in the late 80s and early 90s, Japanese gross rate has become quite high. Per capita GDP of Japan has exceeded that of the United States in 80, 87. Of course, it depends upon the exchange rates. But still, in the late 80s, Japanese economy has become one of the sort of top 5, 10 countries of the developed world. And it has matured. So since 1990, Japanese economy has matured. And Abe's annual rate of gross has gone down to 1%. But it's only natural. At a high level of per capita GDP, gross rate of 1% is only natural. So I do not think it's a reflection of the past. I lost two decades. It is a reflection of the maturity of the Japanese economy. Well, in our Asian crisis, we did have some problems in Thailand because of the balance of payment deficit of Thailand. And it has spread toward the Indonesia and Korea subsequently. But my view is that the International Monetary Fund, particularly a dupty director of the Asian department by the name of Bijana Gebeli, has really failed to sort of manage the Asian sort of crisis at that moment. So many of the crisis which followed Thailand was a result of the failure of International Monetary Fund to cope with the crisis. That is somewhat different view from the orthodoxy in the United States. But people like Professor Stiglitz, Joe Stiglitz agrees with me that it was a mismanagement of the IMF of the crisis. So it could have been alleviated. It is true that Thailand did suffer from balance of payments crisis. But with the right policies from the IMF and the international community, we could have avoided the worsening of the crisis toward Indonesia and Korea. Take, for example, IMF at that time suggested to move from the fixed rate to flexible exchange rate. But if you move to the flexible exchange rate at the time of the crisis, what happens is, you know, dramatic fall of the exchange rate. That is what they have done. And they have closed some of their financial institutions. Again, at the time of crisis, closing the financial institutions will result in major financial crisis. So that my view is substantial part of the Asian crisis is because of the mismanagement of the policies of the IMF, particularly the Asian Department of the IMF at the time. But from the 1990s, both China and India has moved from the planned economy to the market economy. And China and India has started to grow at a very high rate of around 7%. And I think it would continue for some time to come. You know, Japan and Korea has already matured so that the gross rate for Japan and Korea would be between 1% and 1.5%. But China and India would probably continue to grow at 6%, 7% for some time to come. So that eventually, by 2050, China and India would become the two major economic powers in the world. I think it's only natural that, you know, China and India would continue to grow at a high level and eventually succeeded by Arab nations and African countries. Because their sort of absolute level is still low and they have a potential to grow if they manage their economy skillfully. So that I think the second half of the 21st century could become the century for African countries. You know, one sort of phenomenon which is taking place, you know, in Asia and in some countries in Africa is that the state plays fairly crucial role in the development. So state-led sort of a gross model may be the dominant model, you know, in the years to come, particularly in African countries. Well, something else could happen but, you know, they have moved to the market economy but still the importance of the state is quite crucial for those countries, I think. Originally, our basic sort of textbook was economics by Paul Samuelson. And Paul Samuelson's book is translated. And of course, you know, right now many Japanese writers write the textbooks. But I could say that it originated from the American economics or Paul Samuelson or, you know, those American, you know, economists sort of paradigm. And it has not really that change. Of course, we have added some sort of papers and salts. But it has become somewhat Japanese. But still, basis is the American economics, modern American economics. Mycloe economics has played an important role in the past and still continue to play that kind of role. But mycloe economic aspect has become increasingly important. You have to really look at the structure of the economy and how the structure is changing, how the mycloe sort of aspect of the economy is developing. Since, I think, the 21st century is the century where the major structural transformation are taking place so that the appropriateness of past macroeconomics may have declined somewhat. We need new sort of methodology to analyze the emerging economies.