 Let me open it for questions. We have about 25 minutes. I'm cold, and I need some lights out there so I can see hands some place. OK, so let's start here. Please say who you are briefly, and if you have a question to direct to a particular person, do so, or to the panel as a whole. Thank you. I'm Meyush Trit from Israel. Meyush Trit, I'd like to ask you a question of depth, which I would like to talk about. In fact, the situation of interest is so low, sometimes even negative, pushes the people to invest their money or even take loans in order to buy stock markets because they're going up. What is your expectation for the future of the stock markets? Because I'm afraid that if it falls, it's not only falling of the stocks, but it will be full of the big depth. Create a big crisis, even bigger than 2008. I'd like to know what you think about it. OK, let me collect several questions and then we'll turn to the panel. Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much. I've got two quick questions. The first two come out, Irish. His comments reminded me, I think, back to the solo paradox of the late 1980s, when it was argued that there are computers everywhere. It's not being reflected in productivity. And I'm wondering if there's an analogy to be drawn there. And also, Professor Coop, because I remember reading and using a lot of the work you did on stagnant wages, which also started during that same period. So I'm just wondering if there's not an analogy to be drawn from what we experienced and what we're experiencing now. I don't know, so I'm just asking a question. The second one is the question of these trade deficits and protectionism in the United States. President Trump and his team, including Ross at the Lighthouse, seem to focus almost exclusively on currency manipulation and so on. Now, is this fair? I mean, you've got a $356 billion deficit, I think, in China. And these numbers, I think there are about four major ones that jumped out of Germany, China, Japan, I think, Mexico. But South Korea, they're after in Canada, who are actually lower. But I'm wondering, is this correct? Should they not be focusing more on American consumption habits or investment? Because it seems exclusively at that level to be focused on currency manipulation and on fair trade practices. Let's collect a couple more. Yes, yeah. I'm going to damage a researcher from the Central Bank of Morocco. If I would like to thank you for the quality of your presentation. I have a remark from the monitor of the IMF, which is inequality. We learned from this last edition that if inequality declined between countries, it was waiting within countries. And here, I want to ask you, do you share the recommendation to enhance the tax progressivity? And also, if you can recommend this proposition of enhancing investment in education and health, because it's an extant treatment. And there is also taxation, which is an exposed treatment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Tato, master from NECB Business School in Japan. I have a question to probably, for my minister, came out, Derbys. Hearing all these great stories and together with the current fashionable talk about industry for industrial revolution, I fear social divide or economic divide. Companies and individuals who can write on all these quick changes, change the concept, but companies and individuals who are not in power, talk about no chance of getting through some of this. Result could be social or economic divide within a community, within a country, within the region. How do you foresee the risks of this divide? Please come. Oh, thank you. OK, let me turn to the panel and ask for solicit responses. And then I'll go back to the audience. Camel, a few were addressed to you. Why don't we start with you? I totally agree. And in fact, that was one of the key points, I think, of my quick presentation, that inequality is a major, major issue. And the past trends, which have made intra-society very unequal, although between countries, global inequality may not have increased as maybe even decreased, but inequality inside the countries is increasing everywhere. And one of the reasons that I tried to, it's not the only reason, but one of the reasons is that those who are doing well are doing better, and those who are not doing so well are doing less well even than before. So today it matters a lot in which firm you work. They didn't take the necessary dispositions. It's educational and massive, of course, and health systems and so on. But there is a concentration of power and wealth and productivity growth in a small number of firms, many of them global firms, whereas a lot of other firms are being left behind in the dust. This will create social problems, I think, of a major magnitude which we are seeing happening all over the world. So I think that the inequalities side of the equation in looking at the world economy has to be underlined very strongly. The question of asset prices, because of the low wage growth, low inflation, I don't see any major push towards any rapid kind of normalization of monetary policy. So I mean, I think asset prices may perhaps have overshot, but I don't see a major collapse of asset prices in the global economy. I think income distribution and the social consequences of income distribution is a much more serious problem than the asset price problem. And I do congratulate the IMF for having taken on this problem. In the old days it was just a footnote, maybe, in an IMF report. But today the IMF is actually addressing this issue as a major overall microeconomic issue, which gives me some hope that policies will be addressed. One final thing, I think, it is in line with President Macron's policy also. You have to attack the problem before transfers and taxes. Transfers and taxes can correct things. But if the primary distribution is very unequal, it's very difficult to make it more equal with transfers and taxes. So the real issues are competition, entry, small enterprise, access to credit, education, health coverage, and things of that sort. Taxes and transfers are important. But if you don't solve these problems, you'll focus yourself in reducing inequality. Thank you. Others want to come in. Marie? Yes. Just follow up, obviously, Kamal and I agree on these issues, particularly on the inequality question. Just a couple of kind of elaborations. One is the wage stagnation is very important. When coupled with inequality, there is a big difference between advanced and developing countries. The developing countries that are growing fast are seeing wages rise, even as inequality gets worse. So please, people feel, even the people who are losing out, so to speak, in relative terms, are gaining in absolutes. And that's very, very important for social cohesion. The problem in the United States, particularly in the United States, but also two in other countries, is that you have a condemnation of wage stagnation. And wage declines for some part of the population, like quite many, at the same time as you have rising inequality. So that's why the second is, on education, yes, of course, I believe in the importance of education. Education as a cure for inequality, we have to be very careful, because it depends on where the money for the education goes. In the United States, there's a superb educational system. But in many respects, it's also going to be a desesualizing education, consisting with huge differences in quality, in the very top, and in both what is available at the base, which has to do with the way a lot of high school education is financed at the local level in the United States. So education, yes, but it has to be targeted. One point, also, strictly on asset prices, especially with historically a big adjustment in the stock market by itself, has not actually induced, you know, typically has not resulted in such many examples of very large adjustments in the stock price, which have had relatively minimal effects on the real economy. And I could just come out that the adjustment to date has been gradual. If you see inflation pick up in the course of about a year from now or so, then I think we should be worrying more. Final point is that so far, a lot of the stock market purchase is by private institutions. People can take risk, even individuals. You take risk. There's only so much that there's a lot of the ball of margin, for example, for private exchange, for personal exchange. Then I think you have the effect of less. It's when you have very highly leveraged institutions like the banks that are taking all sorts of risks. It could increase the stock market, but it doesn't. I hope that you can get a major financial impact. Cataclysm. I have a comment about the relationship between technology and development. Someone just mentioned solos. Paradox, where we can't see any of the result of the technological advantage of the macroeconomic growth. But if you did study by Robert Gordon, he just showed there's some kind of an increase of the productivity, say, between, say, 92,000. So there was some kind of effect on productivity. Maybe technological development is not strong enough to just have a continued technological development. And another very important area, as I already mentioned, is the very serious big timeline between the timing of the technological interaction and the result of the economic activity. Because interstitial structure has to respond to have solved the result of technological progress. Now, just remember, major technological development, we often discuss today, like a deep learning of AI, or just expansion of international things. This happened in the last, maybe, five years. So we have to be very patient to just wait for the result of the technology to be reflected in the technology. And also, I just wanted to make a very brief comment on the bilateral trade, in fact, a minor deficit of us in the United States, in exchange. I have to just only comment. This is not the first time. Japan just suffered a lot of this discussion in the 1980s and 1990s. So when the trade issue became very serious, the United States is always just a major trade deficit and exchange rate. And of course, this is very dangerous. But at the same time, we have to be very patient to negotiate and discuss this issue. So I think the trade is very important. But this is, I'm not just very pessimistic at this point. But at least we have a basic, optimistic comment on the last point. I'll make a strong statement, which may not be true. It needs to be tested. And I do not think there are any precedents done from these protections. The reasons that I find obscure, he has a particular animus against countries that have big surpluses with the U.S., China, Germany, Canada has even been added to the list, Mexico, and so forth. But I don't think he's intrinsically detectionist. There are two ways to eliminate a bilateral surplus, which is the wrong policy, both wrong, but it seems to be in his mind. One is to restrict imports and the other to raise exports. And I think he'd be happy with either. Probably maybe, preferably, raise exports. He has appointed some people who are protected, but I consider that a major question mark in the talk, which I don't think he's taken into account, he's thought-rounded, and so far, taken to action, part from a band of TPP. And even in the renegotiation of NAFTA guidelines with the Republicans, remember this is a 25-year-old agreement and it was run, ironically, from much of the TPP negotiations. Now, I've been around long enough to deal with trade negotiations that have not done until now. So we have a way to see what's going to come out of this negotiation. But just to comment on that, it's certainly a source of uncertainty and the tone is very different from previous negotiations. That's turning, but I will not write him off yet as a protector, as he's leading down the road to protect you. Let me ask you a question regarding the low interest rate, which I remind me, I think, that one very important, very interesting speech made by Stanley Fish in July, a speech specifically targeting the low interest rate. He described the negative of low interest rate. Also, I identified the reason behind the low interest rate. I recall he mentioned a couple of things. First of all, it's the aid in population, population become all the only, which will create a demand very soft. Second reason, technology advance also creates some income equity. I can record one thing. When Facebook got IPO, the market value equivalent to GM, but Facebook only had 7,000 employees, while GM had 250,000 workers. You can see the asset concentrated on small things. That's also created some low demand. Here, I want to add one factor. Not many people mention it, because before the global financial crisis, one term used frequently, so-called great moderation. That means that time, growth rate is very fine. It's a good in advanced country, also low inflation rate. The one of the reasons behind that is at the end of the 17th of last century, China started to take open-door policy. 10 years in India take that. Also that time, Soviet Union collapsed. Almost two billion people more or less gathered into global integration. Which great demand for advanced countries? Now these dividends have been tremendously reduced or disappeared. I guess that's the very important. Then I answered the question regarding the trade deficit. I guess the trade deficit of US, the reason is very complicated. But one factor we don't forget. US had a trade deficit with 100 countries. Not only with China, with Germany. Yes, China and Germany occupied large share. But the US had a trade deficit with more than 100 countries. So yes, I don't deny that some room for US to negotiate some deal with some country. Which can reduce the deficit. But another factor we understand, saving and investment. The difference between saving and investment lead to the difference between export and the import. That means the saving rate in US relative to investment is very low. That means the investment needed in US in some way creates trade deficit. That's something I guess we should locate a little bit comprehensible. Not only focus pay the deficit. That's my question. I'd like to add one more comment about the trade deficit in South Korea. So the key word is aging, population. So we conducted a empirical study about the reasons why many economists enjoy the trade surpluses. And we examined the relationship between the surpluses and the population. So the two variables have very strong, positive relations. The Korean society is experiencing very, very relative aging problems. I think in 10 or 20 years, maybe Korean economy will suffer from a kind of trade deficit because of the aging issues. OK, thank you. I'd like to make one further comment about the trade issue. It's another identity to our attention to the identity between a trade surplus or a deficit and excess savings over investment. Another identity is that for every trade deficit I'm using trade in a comprehensive way in Korean services. There's a capital account surplus. And you think about that for a minute. If we want to reduce the US trade deficit, which Trump says he does, it means also reducing the US capital account surplus by an equivalent amount apart from the measurement. And that means less foreign investment in the United States. US has an enormous amount of foreign investment in the US net. Some of it goes into US corporate bonds and US government bonds. A lot of it goes into equities, including the very companies we've been talking about, Facebook, Google, and so forth. And one way of putting it, which economists have not absorbed yet in my judgment, is that the US has a comparative advantage in producing new firms. And the new firms are, if they succeed, of course, many of them don't. But if they succeed, they are attractive around the world, not just in the United States. And as long as this process continues, there's going to be a net capital info into the United States. And with the floating exchange rate, there go trade debt. Now, I don't know if any of firms' advisers have pointed out to him that eliminating the trade deficit means eliminating the net capital info in the United States. We have enough time for one question. I see from the clock up there. And one way back there for Yuri and Dr. Hall. I'm a little puzzled by your... Identify yourself, please, Jeff. Jeff Frieden from Harvard. For Yuri and Kamal, I'm a little puzzled by your view on the debt issue. It seems to me that the question is not whether nominal interest rates are low. What's the relationship between the growth in debt and asset prices? The fact that interest rates are low in our area is irrelevant to the asset liability next. The fact that interest rates are low, in fact, and in terms of interest rates are low, it means that the growth in our area so we've lost more on why there's not a problem. And then the second question for Kamal, I'm a little confused about your notion that we should focus as a policy variant on pre-tax, pre-tams, transfer, income distribution. That's a 40-year process. Reversing it is probably a 20-year process. It seems to me that if the problem is income distribution, saying that we should focus on its pre-tax, pre-transfer is the formula for not being able to do anything in the short term. I do believe it is very important to focus on the pre-tax and transfer distribution issues and what creates it. For example, monopolies, our initiative here, pre-tax, pre-transfer. If you put all the burden of correcting the maldistribution of income or the very unequal income distribution on taxes and transfers, you run tremendous political problems and also inefficiencies in the whole system of tax taxes and transfers. So I do believe that real-wage growth, competition, productivity growth is much wider, more widely shared. These are things that will create a healthier income distribution. I'm not saying one shouldn't work on taxes and transfers. I don't think I want you to put the whole burden of it on taxes and transfers. And I think this is really a very crucial point because in Europe, for example, you already have 50%, 55% of GDP worth of expenditures by the government. I mean, how can you reach 70% without creating major inefficiencies? On the other hand, if you democratize the production process and allow small firms to do well, allow easier entry, put barrier to monopoly profits and monopolies, you can do all these things with much more inefficiency characteristics to it than via just taxes and transfers. The other question, I don't know who you're answering. I'm not sure I'm the student, honestly. Can you repeat the question, Jeff? Oh, sorry, sorry. We're going to have a discussion over dinner because we just can clarify his question. I'm going to bring this session to a close. And it just remains for me, I hope, on behalf of all of you to thank our panelists very much for the very interesting conversation. Thank you.