 Jeff, you have the floor. Great. So not surprisingly, since we've done this before, it flows in many ways from what Daniel was saying. There are a lot of issues we could discuss, and I hope we will, in international finance. International politics, international money and finance is particularly complex these days. We could talk about crisis management and whether or not they're prepared for another crisis. About as we did in the plenary session, the role of the dollar, the euro, perhaps other currencies, the politicization of finance with sanctions, how that relates to things like the rise of China, how all of that relates to socially responsible investing. So we could talk about all of those, but I think that if we did, if we did only that, we would miss the main issue that faces international finance today, not only international finance, but the international economy and anyone who believes in the desirability of an integrated international economic order. The main issue facing international finance and the international economy today is domestic and it's political. It is, as some have called it, a revolt of the masses, reminiscent of previous eras. To me, frankly, not that I agree with those who are representing the revoltors, many of whom I find revolting, but it is justifiable in the sense that there is a response or reaction to perceptions of that globalism or globalization or globalism, as Donald Trump calls it, has created extraordinary increases in income inequality, created pools of wealth that are undeserved, has contributed to the decline of communities of entire regions of countries. This is a perception that's very widespread. It's not just American. It's not just French. It's not just Brazilian. It's virtually global in almost all of the OECD countries and many developing countries as well. And I don't think we should fool ourselves, but the reality is that there's no question, at least in my mind, that international finance is a target, international finance and the international economic order and everybody that's involved in it. Whether that target is correctly aimed or not is another matter. But we have a precedent and the precedent is that of the interwar years in which mainstream political parties and mainstream political economic actors were incapable of finding a solution to intractable problems that affected the lives of millions and tens and hundreds of millions of people. And if mainstream political parties and mainstream economic actors don't find solutions, others will fill that vacuum. And I think the big question is, what will those in and around international financial institutions do? We have an early answer in the United States when, for the first time since the 1930s, we had two presidential candidates who ran on explicit campaigns, on explicit platforms of hostility to international trade, international finance and international investment. One of those candidates won the presidency. The other one is running for it again, Bernie Sanders. In response to the victory of someone who campaigned against globalism and international finance and international trade, the American international business community has essentially been silent. And the usual conclusion is, well, don't like those policies too much, but we did get tax cuts and we did get deregulation and maybe that's more important. And from the standpoint of any individual firm, that's probably true. From the standpoint of the international economic order and the international financial system, that's a terrible, terrible mistake that will lead us into, in my view, something like a repeat of the 1930s. So my question is, what are people going to do? When will the business community, when will international financial institutions start doing something about the fact that virtually every country in the world is facing, in some cases, majoritarian objections to the way the international economic and financial order is structured? Thank you very much indeed, Jeff. I'm not surprised by your analysis and also your, I would say, call for appropriate reaction. I must confess I was amazed myself to see that even Hillary, you mentioned, of course, Bernie, but even Hillary was very much signaling that she would go back in comparison with the previous drive towards liberalism and open market. But thank you very, very much indeed. Again, for all the participants, you take note and what we would need would be your reaction, your questions, because we are restricting considerably. And I also take into account the fact that you probably had a paper I wrote with a number of questions only as a suggestion for things to be examined more carefully. But thank you so much, Jeff, for your call for appropriate response to populism.