 The idea that you should be studying the wealth of nations, not the GDP of nations, nor the human development index of nations. These are ad hoc measures that have been used to judge the progress or regress of nations. But good welfare economics founded on proper ethical principles tell us that we should be studying wealth. We should be estimating the wealth, which is a stock, whereas GDP is a flaw. Now the findings are quite staggering actually. Wealth means the value of all the assets that an economy possesses. And the capital assets, not only buildings and roads, that's manufactured capital, but also human capital, that is health, education, and obviously natural capital. Because you could have GDP increasing while wealth declines because you're mining your natural capital. The interesting finding was that health is extremely important. In the following sense, that when you estimate wealth, an overwhelming bulk of the wealth estimate is in the form of human capital, in the form of health as opposed to education. One reason is that people care about their health. So if you go by what people demand in terms of protection against death, then the value of health is very high. Now having said that, our estimates, the reports estimates of natural capital, nature, ecosystems and so forth, is extremely weak. It's weak because the data aren't there. Governments haven't collected data on the state of their natural economy. So what the inclusive wealth does is to look only at carbon in the atmosphere, because a lot of work has been done on that, forests, but only as a source of timber. Not about all the other services forests produce in stabilizing water, maintaining soil, and all the medicinal herbs and so forth, all the stuff out there protecting habitats and so forth. None of this is measured, so it's not included. So my guess is that once in the next 10-15 years, once we have a better handle on natural capital, that means nature's capital, then a good deal of wealth will be in the form of natural capital. At the moment, it's a very small fraction, and the reason is so many items are missing. But what was surprising was how dominant health becomes. So that is a finding, because in national accounts we regard expenditure on health as consumption goods. But in fact, as I see it now, it should be seen as a capital good, capital asset, because people value that asset. They want to live longer, be healthier. So my guess is that we are going to transition towards, we'll make a transition towards wealth accounts, but it will all be very less firm than GDP accounts. And the reason is that GDP is based on market prices, observable prices, whereas the account that I've just now given you of wealth requires not only market prices, but prices that you have to estimate on the basis of social values. So it will always remain a matter of some contention, but I think there is no avoiding it, because the fact is that citizens want to know what actually is going on in their economies in order to judge whether the policies that are being followed are once they approve of or disapprove of. And at the moment, citizens are not given that information, not because of any conspiracy. It's just that the evolution of economic statistics has moved in such a way that we now have to shake off our reliance on GDP as an indicator of progress or regress.