 approach. Does anyone actually ring you to tell you it's going to happen or like who rings you when that happens? Do they ring you or is it countries that are worried about the effects or does nobody ring you? Do they just all deal with it bilaterally? No, we talk a lot. I am often consulted about well even my own personal views, how to solve things which is the best approach, what should we do, is confrontation the best way or conversation the best way. We informally discuss several things and I find that this kind of interaction is useful. I get to learn and understand a little bit what they intend, what the options are on the table and I'm in a position also to offer alternatives, different paths and that's a productive conversation. I think it's very useful at this kind of uncertainty that we live in. Now on the issue of globalization, what would you put right at the top of a kind of problem that needs solving? Well, I agree with what Brian just said. I think I would focus a little bit on the transformation or restructuring of the labor market. A lot of what you see politically in these countries, you know, populism is a consequence of completely different ways of finding employment and hanging on to jobs and this is going to be moving even faster than ever before. Just to give you an idea, some studies have shown that kids who enter elementary school today, about two-thirds of them will end up working in jobs that don't exist now. Now that is fantastic. I mean, how do you prepare for this kind of world? How do you ensure that somebody who lost his job in the steel market or some other manufacturing job, how can he be absorbed in another job? Because overall, the economies are creating more jobs than ever before, but the person who loses the job in manufacturing is not necessarily the person who will be hired somewhere else. It's a different set of skills. It's a different set of expertise that is required and that change is going to happen extremely fast. Today, people think, Brian mentioned the fact that imports and people moving around and that shifting the conditions of jobs, we understand that today about 80 percent of the jobs that are lost in advanced economies, they're lost to new technologies. They're not lost to imports. They're not lost to immigrants. They're not lost to anything like that. It's just automation, new, more productive ways of doing things. Now, either you realize that and you begin to be ready for it because this is not going to stop. This is not something you reverse. This trend is going to continue and it's going to accelerate even further. So how do you handle that? There are many questions and many, many, many answers to be found, but clearly you need to have more horizontal approaches with the educational system, even retraining the labor market, the labor force, even social security. Preserving a job, this is another study that I found very useful, holding on and preserving a job with protectionist measures tend to cost about 10 times the salary of the job that you are protecting. So it's much cheaper for the economy to retrain and to adapt to this new technology than to close itself up in order to protect jobs. So that's, I think, the big challenge that we have for us and I think governments need to act and they need to act fast. So let me thank you. So it's a generational issue for you. It's the people that were not brought up in the digital age that we need to worry about, but the next generation are going to be all right because you said that economies are producing jobs. I think the next generation is going to suffer this even more because their jobs are going to be shifting very, very quickly. The moment that you think that you are in a job and that your job is safe, you figure out something, it disappears because imagine when artificial intelligence comes into play. We're not even there yet, but to some extent, but when you really are, what are the jobs that human beings can still perform that will not be substituted or replaced by new technologies and automation? That's a big question and that's going to be a threat for the next generation. Thank you. If I can move to Michael Gregoire, who is CEO of CA Technologies and very much in the tech sector. Roberto has pointed out this shifting jobs and I know that you've been involved in thinking about how we reskill people and I'm sure we'll come to that as well, but it's not just shifting jobs. It's not just jobs. It's also we're watching as has been discussed already today, a steadily declining labor share of income. Workers are earning less and less, the bottom 50% and a steadily increasing inequality across most of the developed parts of the world. Is that sustainable to you? Do you think we should worry about that or do you think it'll equilibrate itself? Well, let me tell a quick story about your home country. Turn of the century. They had this thing in London called the red flag law and this is when automobiles are just starting to come into London and they had this law that someone had to walk in front of an automobile with a red flag and wave it and the whole purpose of that was to slow down the production of cars, slow down the production of innovation and that lasted for all of about two weeks. So this tsunami of technology moving forward at a constant accelerating pace is not going to stop. So given that that's not going to stop and we take a look at the wage disparity between people working IT and people who may have worked in perhaps blue collar jobs, that's capitalism. If you have a skill that is restricted and unique and is required, the market is going to reward that skill more than a commodity skill or a skill that is less attractive and I think you can't throw capitalism into the wash because of the situation we're currently in now. I think we have to embrace it, understand it and do something about it. So if you're looking for a new deal, I think that finding the right way of holding technology companies accountable without slowing down their innovation and I would propose a gift to get. One of the things that is very frustrating in a globalization world for tech companies is the whole concept of data localization. You know every government coming up with their idea of where data needs to be, what are the rules around that data and to the extent that a technology company needs to adhere to the sovereign nation that they're operating in and where that data is and nobody can really agree. To the extent that we can get some clarity on that, that would put more dollars available for innovation and drive new technologies, new applications and new systems in place and what should society ask of us is we have all of the training content for the skills that are needed today. The skills are going to be needed for two years from now and we're going to be in an ecosystem where we're building that training in perpetuity. So when AI comes in, when no code systems are put in place, when serverless computing comes on, when we move from data analytics to true machine learning to truly AI and cognitive systems, we are going to be building all of the training and the skills to do that. Why not have a public-private partnership on a global basis where we have to bring our training into the forefront so that the people that want to participate in that economy, they have every opportunity to do so. I think if we start with that, that might be an idea to get everybody thinking a little bit more about the skills that are required and then take a look at the curriculum that we're teaching. Now I got asked a question by a young reporter here in Brazil saying, you know, we feel that we'll never get a catch up. I said don't try to catch up, leapfrog. I mean the training and the education that's going on in most G7 nations, that curriculum is 30, 40, 50 years old. Why not stop and think about how you want to teach public education three to five years from now? Brazil, you know, is a wonderful country, very technically literate. Latin America, the third biggest internet economy in the world. Mature people and young people know how to use mobile devices. They already know how to use that. Kids know how to use iPads. They understand how to use that. Think about the education system knowing that they already have that skill built on top of that rather than teaching the things that, you know, my father learned and my kids are learning. It's not appropriate. Get a little bit more bolder. Absolutely. So I think that deals with the skills bit. But let me come back to the that's just capitalism because a lot of people, including some of the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, for example, is saying actually we do need to do something. We need to double earn tax credit. There are others saying we need to tax robots. There's the largest asset manager in the world, BlackRock together with McKinsey's and Tata, who are saying actually capitalism is at a disequilibrium. We need to think about both long term capitalism and about how we ensure that it's the capitalism that everybody buys into. You know, as a publicly traded CEO and 40% of our stock is owned by index funds, which BlackRock would be one of them. We all got Larry's email, but quite frankly we've been doing that for the last 15 years. Taking care of the communities in which you operate in, taking care of your employees is good business. And the extent that you can afford to do more of that, that's not to a disadvantage to shareholders. It's building yourself for long term financial viability. And I think that Larry's email that he sent to every publicly traded CEO was completely appropriate, but I read it and said, yeah, it's good. We already do it. So, but do you think all companies already do it? I think that if you want to be in it for the long haul, you know, we've been around for 40 years. I expect this to be around for a lot longer than that. If we don't take care of our employees and the communities that we work in, I don't think that you're going to survive. I think you're going to be at a competitive disadvantage. Can I say one thing about that? It's, you know, so we raise $5 billion a year, 95% of that is from the private sector. Corporations, employees, we work in communities, we work with corporations. And I need to be clear. I'm a capitalist. I'm a market driven leader of an NGO. And I think what Mike is saying and spot on is that long before there was CSR and triple bottom lines and so forth, the best business leaders understood that their customers and their employees came from the communities in which they worked. Globalization is changing the deal now because it used to be national economies. Now they're global economies and there is no global government. So the data rights thing, you could do that on labor rights, you could do it on education, you could do it on just about everything. Business goes first, civil society comes behind it, government is way, way behind. And it is way better for an individual or a family to have a good paying job than to be in public welfare. Having been in both, it is way better to have a better job. But our education systems are built for that last economy. And for the developed economies of the world, the inertia that exists in education systems and job training systems and government programs are so entrenched that, so Mike and his colleagues say, look, why can't we bring our training capacity out? We got to bust loose some of the education institutions that we have right now because they will not be preparing the workforce of the future. So let me turn to the audience to just one second and then I'm going to come to the foreign minister. But how many of you think that skills and training can solve the problem of that proportion of workers that at the moment have declining wages or stagnating wages? So it's been estimated in 23 of the 25 OECD countries, 50% of the workforce over the last decade have had either declining income or stagnating income. So which some would say is fueling populist responses. But skills and training sounds promising in a tech driven economy. So hands up, those of you who think that could solve the problem. Okay. And hands up, those of you who think it won't solve the problem. Okay. So a majority think it could, but there's quite a few that think it won't. Foreign minister, the foreign minister of Argentina, Jorge Furri, we're very honored to have you here with us. You're in a country that was long before the rest of this continent, if you like, at the front of the populist wave. Now you've come through it and you've got President Maki. How does globalization look from Argentina's perspective? Do you think we need a new deal? Are there problems? Is it? As I mentioned to you when we're discussing, I think that globalization is something that you cannot discuss. We are living in globalization. And I think globalization is an expression which is from the recent past, but already is in the past. We are living today in the technological revolution that is affecting all of us at the same time. And we have to be prepared. Michael was mentioning the idea of the new deal that we discussed when we were preparing for this panel. I think that it's not exactly a new deal. We have to deal with this new reality, which is the technological revolution in which we are living. And I have to prepare, depending where you are inside, in this sort of only economy that will be in not as a long time from now, the world. You were mentioning the governments, and I am here in the panel, and maybe I am the closest to be the government, and that the governments are very, very far behind, as in some ways are also the international organizations, because all the structures were prepared for the previous reality. And we have to adapt very, very, very fast. It's not only those which are losing the jobs, or they are not prepared to adapt to the new jobs that are coming out, but many, many structures are not responding to this. So the deal that I look forward to is how we, each one, or each group that forms our societies, prepares to this reality in which we live, and there are no wars to this reality. So the idea of, I remember that at the beginning of the 2000s, there were people in Argentina saying, how can we deal with globalization? So globalization sounded like a gentleman that was outside the door, and maybe I open, maybe I do not open, I will discuss with them. There was no way the globalization was just passing through us. So the same thing is now with this technological revolution. We are living, and this is a process of transformation of our society that in a certain way is fantastic, because we will be molding the new time and how they will, how we will live in it. For example, I don't think that in the future, maybe 40 years from now, we can talk about massive, or serial works, because there will be so many ways to attend, for example, doing the clothing that you use. It will not be a serial of shirts that each one will be doing his own shirt. There will be this press, I mean, the impressoras, I don't know, the printing machines that are doing, for example, bricks now, you will deal with the machines that will do whatever you need. So everyone should be prepared to this thing that is changing in the industrial or the production patterns. How will be the technologies? Education is very important, but not education, as Michael says, that we have to look to the education very, very much. It doesn't matter where the river's saying or where the paranoid is, because it will be education to be adapted to the tools you are using and the reference you have around you. That is what I mentioned to you at the beginning. If I look to my nephews, my nephews, as he said, they deal with all the tools of the new technology and they do not ask about that. They just use them. It is the properties for us, not for me, which I am very old, but the people which is between their 30s and their 60s that were prepared for a model of production, of living, of welfare, of government, of education, that is already falling apart. So they are disoriented and they say, please stop this. So the first thing we have to teach is you cannot stop this. So let you prepare and how I can help you to prepare for this. This is the role of government, of ONGs, of those who have the leadership in society, how to adapt to this new reality. Thank you very much. Of course it is not that everybody younger than us is a digital native. I think we do need to remember those who are excluded from that. Even in Oxford, United Kingdom, some 20% of high school children do not have access to the internet more than once every two weeks and yet it is required as part of the national curriculum. So we do have to remember that it is not just a generational issue, it is also an inclusion issue in our societies. It is part of what your initiatives are trying to reach out to, I think, Michael. So let me come to the audience for a moment. Our panellists have told us that the reason why we need a new deal on globalization is to deal with the social disruption, that was Brian's point, to deal with the restructuring of labour markets, that was Roberto's point, to deal with the need for new skills and training, but also to deal with new international agreements that permit digital commerce, that was Michael Gregoire's point, and to deal with the tech revolution, which is Minister Forree's point, and how we prepare, how we help facilitate groups to prepare for the technological revolution. Anything missing in that list? Is there anything that any of you would add to why it is that we need a new deal on globalization? Yes, yes. Could you introduce yourself? My name is Daniel Feffer, I'm chairman of ICC Brazil and we launched an initiative called ITTI, which is Intelligent Tech and Trade Initiative. Henry Kissinger said in his book, the technicians need to be more humanitarian. We are asking the world and bringing the question, how can augmented intelligence help find trade solutions? We know that no human mind had yet find a solution for this complex trade world. We know that the multilateral institutions need to be respected, that the proper forum to deal with our global problems, and how can we bring new solutions with new technologies, finding, bringing alternatives to the problems we're facing? It seems that we're flying an airplane without the instruments, and new technologies could be the instruments to help us fly in this global airplane. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any others? Yes, down here. Could we have a microphone? Thank you. I need that. I think Alicia Larsen, hello, how are you? I just want to add that we need provision of global goods that we are missing in the world, and one of them is climate security. I mean, climate change is a fact, and if we don't have a global deal, we're never going to get it done. Secondly, migration, the human mobility. The UN, the United Nations is now negotiating a global compact on migration, human mobility I think is another of the issues. And finally, which is my great expectation out of G20 is a new financial set of, I would say, rules of the game. I think the financial part of the equation is out of, you see, it's free flow of financial flows, which is fine, but we need some sort of global deal there, also on the fiscal policies to make sure OECD has been trying through the BEPS initiative. But I think that the last point is that we need to understand that globalization was about transnational forms of production. And now we are confronting a transnational form of dematerialization in the sense of Facebook, Google, that requires a totally new game out there, so we need to understand what's happening also on the globalization of the economy that is moving from production to something, which is from goods to bytes, or you see the digital world is bringing a totally new paradigm where I think we need, we don't know exactly what we probably, people like you, know where to go, but in many other, we are facing a new paradigm in many fronts, I think, but climate change, migration, human mobility, definitely is one of them. Yes? At the back there. Thank you very much, Philipp Hauser from the NG Group. Just to add one more dimension, because not everything is digital, we will still depend on material flows and to be just started to discuss decarbonization. So I wonder whether this task of sustainable landscape management, managing our landscapes and complying with the necessity to go carbon negative, the target to reforest 350 million hectares, whether there is not a very interesting alignment with generating jobs, livelihoods in rural areas, and using technologies, I don't speak about a traditional way of managing and reforestation, but using technologies and the people that we need to provide for with attractive livelihoods and jobs, whether we don't have an opportunity to at the one hand satisfy the necessity to redefine our resource flows from linear to circular, build the bioeconomy and have millions of people helping us with gardening our sustainable landscapes. Thank you very much. Any other comments on the problem side? We'll take one last one, yes you. Hello, my name is Herlon. I work for Wipro, an India IT company. Just to complement what you've mentioned about the re-skilling and training the people for the new roles and abilities required, I'd like to add the kind of scale being required. Any day, if you go to all of these IT companies and vendors, we have plenty of opportunities available, but that point is how to fulfill the right people with the right skills for the demands that we have to solve. So it's a completely different scale of re-skilled people quantity of available people for the game, for the subject. This is where we are all struggling. The growth is about who's got the right people, the right talent sources for the kind of demand that we are facing already, not for 10 years ahead nowadays. Thank you very much. So quite a strong sense in the room that the skills agenda is a really important part of a new deal. Something that's not been mentioned, but was mentioned at a different session at this meeting by a couple of CEOs who simply said, well, we do need to start paying tax. And it's at the top of the OECD's list of things that we need some global cooperation on. The Financial Times produced a study on Monday telling us that over the last decade, we've seen personal income tax rise by 6%, and the effective corporate tax rates on average across the OECD decrease by 10%. Many governments feel that we're in a race to the bottom in this game. So is that something that we need global coordination on? So I'd now like to come back to the panelists and ask them to give us one element of the new deal on globalization. So I'm giving you each a magic wand. It's so magic that it's invisible and you get to create one component of a new deal on globalization. So Roberto, would you like to kick off? Well, I think it stems from what I said before. I think you need to get ready for the digital revolution. We had the industrial revolution. I think now we're facing the digital revolution. That's going to change everything. And you have to get the next generation ready for that. It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be painless. But at least they have to be ready for that reality. You were mentioning when you came to London and how things changed so quickly. And I was thinking when I was in school early on here in Brazil, it was clear to me and to families like mine that you needed to have language skills. So you needed to interact more. So the priority in my family was to give language skills to the kids. So I had to learn English. So did my brother because the school was not equipped and the classes were not good enough, et cetera, et cetera. I think today it's a different kind of language that you have to learn. So if I had kids today and there are some countries who are doing that, I mean a mandatory discipline is not English or French or Latin or whatever it is. It is coding. So that kids begin to learn coding. Why? Because then they understand the logics of the digital world. But I guess my question to all of the panelists is are we not being too complacent about the political revolt that's on most of our doorsteps and that is right in front of us? That I live in a country where a majority of people just voted for Brexit. I live in a continent in which every single election has had a majority of people voting against the political status quo. This feels like it feels like saying people need education and digital is absolutely right. But it's perhaps not addressing the fact that many people across many countries are saying we don't like the status quo and we're going to vote against it. And don't we need a political ambition both in the public and private sector that answers that? If I could just one thing. It looks obvious today. It was not obvious two years ago. I'm saying just two years ago what we're taking for granted here in this conversation was not talked about at all. I was in the G20 summit in Hangzhou and when I mentioned the fact that 80% of the jobs are lost to new technologies, it was a shock. It was a shock. The leaders everybody was asking me where did you get that number. I said that number is out there. Just look at the studies. Nobody was talking about that. It took I would say some elections and some voting in some countries to bring people to do some soul searching. What is happening? I mean why do people feel left behind? What's going on here? I mean countries that benefit immensely from globalization, from e-commerce, from new technologies are rejecting those things. Why? This conversation is new. I was in a meeting where I had maybe 40 or 50 ministers, finance ministers in the room. We were talking about this digitalization and these problems that we are just mentioning now. One of the ministers said this is not a problem in my country. Come on, it's a problem in every single country in the world. If you don't realize that, we have a problem. So what's your solution? Because the digital education bit is fine, but I wouldn't go to demonstrations in any of the countries I've mentioned and say please don't worry I'm going to give you digital education because I don't think that would calm the masses as it were. Let me take a shot at it. The biggest threat, my view besides military threats around the world conflict is the concentration of wealth in the world. The Chinese have figured it out. Globalization has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty and Alexis de Tocqueville wrote once that it's not the people living in abject poverty that governments have to worry about. It's those who get out of abject poverty and start to see what they don't have. If the concentration of wealth doesn't start to diminish, if middle classes, personal income doesn't start to rise in a real way in developed countries, what's also different today than 10 years ago is digital technology allows these demonstrations to turn violent when they're ready to turn violent. So what's your solution? So I'll give you one phrase and then I'll come back to your tax question. So everywhere we go, wherever we work, we're working on big issues, housing, education, jobs and it's always systems change. The systems are the problem. They were built for the old economy and they're taking up all the money and I would include in that the tax system. One of the reasons that, but I would also include in that the education system. You know this point about AI and digital technology being part of the answer on training, it's true. Digital technology among other things blows apart business models and so the solution, you know, so all these jobs are being destroyed. They're also being created. They're just not being filled because the systems, the education systems, the training systems, democracy is on the run because including in the United States, 30% of all millennials in the United States think that an autocratic government might be better than a pure democracy because digital technology, the deal there used to be in all representative democracy is we would elect you to go the next level to represent us and then the next level and if you're not going to do it, we're just going to go around you. We're going to organize ourselves and it's happening. If we don't start redistributing wealth either through taxation, it's not one word, it's the problem of taxation, job training, upskilling and let me just last thing I'll say on this one for the political leaders in the world, stop playing to the lowest common denominator in your countries and in your constituents. Those that care about this issue of, you know, the fact is we've got a global economy and a shrinking world, we have to come up with a compellingly simple way to talk about it. So people can get it and get on board. Everyone thinks it's being done to them. I find political leaders are going back to short term safety and that starting to create fear and marginalize and that along with the concentration of wealth is a big threat in the world right now. Do our political leaders minister lack vision, lack boldness? I think about the example in my head is a bankrupt Britain in 1945 with a scared and anxious population and even under those conditions they came up with an incredibly bold plan of national housing ensuring every child in Britain would have a decent house, decent healthcare and access to a decent school. That was huge vision. This was at a time when Britain's debt was 250% of GDP and yet the government made this investment and it all worked out beautifully. But I'm not hearing establishment politicians have that kind of bold vision. I'm hearing populists throw in big ideas. What do you think? I will catch on with your question a little bit dated in my answer. No, I will go first for my wish list. I think what would we need? I think we need a new narrative about the time we are living. Each revolution produces the new realities which include a new set of values. We will have to discuss the values of the society in which we will be living, in which institutions should be demanded to change and they are being demanded to change. He was making now a description about how functions democracy in layers and goes up and things like that. But today technology makes many people not to go through the channels of what we recognize as democracy. You have the bloggers, the influencers, the people who create the idea of what is good, what is bad, what to be done and they do not do through the channels that we were prepared to deal with including taxes. Because the way we tax or we do the taxation, it is responding to the structures of production that maybe are related to the 20th century, maybe even closer to the medieval times. But now we are doing electronic things. The currencies are disappearing. I do not use any more the paper money. The coins are disappearing. So how will we deal with this? Because I do not like to use the word control. Because you do not adapt controlling the things. You adapt participating in the things. So this time, when it is revolution, you have to be courageous. The answer never is the fear. When you are faced with the challenge, you should not return back. You should jump over to what is coming. So those who say, try to protect us, be nationalistic, okay, that could be the crown for a very, very short while. Populism gives, say the people, don't worry. I will give you whatever you need and I will produce. So you have to have the money. So you have to be immensely rich. Either you have to be good to have enough money to produce. Argentina for 12 years was populist. First we took the money from that one, then we took from the other one. When we take from the pension fund, then we take the central bank. One day they say there is no more money. So if there is no more money, you cannot give to anyone whatever they are, all of us, we want things. So you have to be aware of this and this is related in this moment in how to be competitive. And being competitive is related to be able to deal with the new reality of production and technology. Many people say, I'm not prepared to do so. How can I do that? I'm not. So we have to help them not to leave anyone behind. So we have to have these values, which are very much embedded in society because society gets, when we saw Ireland, this very young boy dying in the coast of Turkey, we were everyone touched very much because the sense of the world around is that this cannot happen to a single human being, though there are thousands of people being killed or harassed by war, famine, migration or whatever. But in the societies we will be living, we are enabled by technology to be worried by each one. So that's the reason I said before. We are going to come into a new society in which the individual will be relevant, too proeminent and we have to deal with the values to keep the ties of society going around. The question you made at the very beginning now, I think that there are new, if that was intelligent in 1945, there are another kind of questions for the time we live. And we have the tools and the capacity to do the response. But this society in which we are going to jump will pay a lot of attention to values, to ethics, to the new phenomena of what it will be or what it will mean being a human being. Thank you. So a pretty radical update of our systems required. Mike, can I come to you and say if the politicians aren't going to have a bold vision, can the private sector, you know, is there, if you were to use your magic wand to describe a new license to operate for big, successful companies, what would that look like? Well, if I had a magic wand and it was truly magic, I would do something a little bit more aspirational. I would try to have a magic wand of dignity where we give every citizen and every society what I think they really want, which is dignity. And I might not be right about this, but I think dignity comes in a challenging job where you can see yourself doing a good job in a future. And if we had a way of tying that into some type of private sector, government program or system, whatever you want, but if we could find a way to have global dignity, I think a lot of the problems we have in the world would go away. So that's really 30,000 miles up, but if you brought that down to what the private sector can do towards that end, what would it be? You know, I think, once again, we have the data, obviously. We have the vision and the strategy to grow our companies, which any CEO is going to have a pretty good view of the skill set that they're going to need in the next three to five years, especially in tech. And we start nurturing those skills internally. But if we were in a situation where we could start nurturing those skills broadly, I think our companies would grow faster. And once again, we'd be able to reach out to a different constituency that might be disenfranchised and not feel like they're part of this fourth industrial revolution. Include. Be inclusive. Thank you very much. So we're out of time. But I think our discussion today has told us that actually quite a lot of people in this room think that there is a need for a new deal on globalization. And our panelists have given us a lot of reasons for thinking that. Their elements of a new deal have ranged from getting ready for the digital revolution, so lots around educating, making sure the next generation are prepared, updating our systems, both in the private and the public sector, a radical update from the 13th or 16th or 18th century, as Minister Fordy put it, to the 21st century, making our systems fit for purpose. Particularly, as Brian said, on tax and education, and as Roberto said, on labour force restructuring. And then Mike just reminds us that at the corner of this, and part of the revolt, is not just about economic distribution. It is about dignity. It is about where people are finding their places in our societies, and in political systems, and in communities, and in the workforce. And that surely a new deal on globalization almost needs to start there, with the biggest goal that's been pointed out on this panel. And to think about what it is that's giving people in our societies, in all parts of our societies, that kind of dignity, and working out what that means for each of the stakeholders in each of our societies. Thank you all very much for participating in this panel, and can you join me in thanking our panellists?