 Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon for this important panel, Trade and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. There are a lot of angles to this panel, everything from traceability to transparency. Technology has the power to transform global trade in a lot of ways. To help set the scene for today's chat, I want to start off with Lynn Quirk directly. Please go ahead. Sorry. Yes. Oh, yeah. I was asked, well, first of all, thank you everyone for being here for your interest. I was asked to speak about the global trends that are impacting the trade landscape. I don't work on trade or technology, but I do work on geopolitics. So perhaps I'll set up some of these geopolitical trends that have an impact on trade as I see it. So in my view, the trade landscape has been shaped by various factors. First, the pandemic, which exposed the vulnerability of supply chains. Second, it has also been impacted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which underscored the risks of over-dependent on any single actor, and we saw that in terms of the over-reliance on Russia for energy. But I think these developments merely heightened the trends which were already in motion as a result of U.S.-China rivalry. And great power competition, in my view, has translated into a movement away from trade which has predominantly been on the basis of economic efficiencies to one where, as the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore recently said, geopolitical alignment and security prevail. And what this has meant in the context of the United States has been French-shoring or unshoring to reduce exposure to geopolitical rivals. And we have also, with the U.S. and some other countries, had renewed recourse to industrial policy. While the U.S. has always to a certain extent employed industrial policy, Washington, in my view, has embraced it with a renewed fervor as a means by which the U.S. can boost competitiveness and resilience in its competition against China. Now, why all this is happening? In my view, I think even from a few years ago, there was criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the sense that it wasn't using all the tools at its disposal in competing with China. So it would rely on its immense military, build up its military presence in other regions, but perhaps was less savvy about using economic tools at its disposal. And so we had analysts like Robert Blackwell as well as Jennifer Harris who published a book, which I find very interesting, war by other means, and in that book they exhorted the United States to reach for its purse more often and less for its guns. And so we see the United States deploying economic tools in its competition with China, and I think that raises a couple of issues for today's panel. The panel today, according to the synopsis of course, is meant to examine the economic benefits of the use of technology in trade and how to ensure that these benefits are widespread as well as sustained over time. And of course the speakers after me will discuss this. But I think what the climate of geopolitical competition gives rise to is two questions. First, what are the implications of economic efficiencies taking a back seat to a geopolitical logic that we see today? And what role can technology play to minimize some of these costs? And second, what of these very technologies themselves are the subject of competition? So in recent years, we've had Washington not only apply high tariffs to restrict Chinese imports and screen out in flows of investment, but also restrict tech exports and review and insist on reviews of outflows of tech investment. And so this has implications I think for what we're discussing today. I just want to get a few other voices into this as well. Jadid, if I can get to you, and I'm going to rip up the script just a little bit because of the geopolitical events of the last 10 days, which weigh heavily for everybody watching us from around the world. But it creates certain vulnerabilities in different pockets of the globe. And I want to get to vulnerabilities and supply chains from what you've seen in the data, I mean, building on some of the comments she made about the expression of US power and deploying sanctions and all that. What is your read on that today? Well, one of the amazing things we've seen around trade and supply chains that underpin trade is there's been a long march of using technologies to try to get to different parts of the world, source from different parts of the world, and really drive trade. And that's been a one way street, I think for 20, 30 years. The last three or four years, we've seen this a whole series of we often called a poly crisis. We've seen disruption due to COVID, we've seen follow on disruptions due to supply chains becoming very unbalanced. Inventory in the wrong place, containers in the wrong place. And I'm sure my colleagues will have something to mention around that. But what I've seen is my anticipated adoption of technology to help supply chains navigate these complexities. Went through a mini revolution in the last three years. So developments that would have taken five, eight, seven years, that we may have been talking about in 2030, happened in the last three or four years. And some of them literally in the last few months. And just to give an example on that is if you look at the supply side of supply chains where suppliers and materials are sourced, we've seen new developments in control towers, watch towers that allow us to track location, speed of containers in real time. We've seen the ability to track back through not just tier one, but tier two, tier three supply chains in the leading practice organizations. Something we would never have been anticipated at this period. So our ability to respond to events and alerts is unprecedented. But I have to say this is for the leading practitioners. There's a lot of organizations that underpin those multinationals that don't have that sophistication. So I think in terms of awareness of the problem and the ability to respond, we're in a very different place than we were two or three years ago. The Suez Canal, which is close to here, used to be a huge issue. I've seen supply chains reconfigure within 48 hours. That's something we would never have anticipated previously. So yes, a lot of sad events at the moment and a lot of conflict zones around the world that supply chains are also having to respond to. But maybe before I pass on to my colleagues, I would say the ability for supply chains to flex in the event of a series of disruptions is something that has been well-practiced over the last two or three years. So we're in good shape. I mean, almost four-fifths of the 320 respondents recently surveyed by Bloomberg said that the recent shift towards protectionist policies like sanctions, export control, subsidies poses a risk to economic growth as companies seek to make their supply lines shorter, try and make them safer, while governments try and freeze out rivals. I saw you were nodding your head both of you. I'm going to start with the response from you. Yeah, so just a couple of points to pick up on both comments. One, sort of what happened during the pandemic and how we responded. Sort of one pretty staid answer that you're going to hear from most companies is that, yeah, we saw a lot of disruption and we figured out how to address the disruption. And so to make supply chains more resilient, we've had to think about, surety of supply is what we call it. Do we have too much dependency on one supplier, one country, what are the products that are most important to our shoppers and how do we make sure they're on the shelves? And so that's where you see a lot more diversification of supply. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I actually think it leads to more opportunity in different countries if we're doing it right and we're doing it in an inclusive way. The second thing I want to say is, I really hate the narrative that supply chains broke, that they were brittle and fragile, because what we saw during the pandemic is we had a failure to prepare, quite frankly, for the pandemic. We had a pandemic playbook, but we didn't have any masks in stock. And I'll give you an example though, how the supply chain responded. We are a big sorcerer, but we weren't a big sorcerer of things like isolate gowns or masks prior to the pandemic, but we were asked by the government to source these things because we didn't have them because we didn't have them in the stockpile. And so we had to go out to our supply base and try to figure out who's got isolate gowns, how do we get these gowns in? But what we found were suppliers that were incredibly responsive and said, you know what, why are we doing isolate gowns? Why can't we use gowns that we can code with an antimicrobial spray and reuse them and rewash them instead of throwing them away? We found those suppliers in Central America and we got them to New York City quickly and efficiently and fast. And so, when I hear this narrative that the supply chains broke, I don't believe it because it's not what we see. We see, yes, they bent. Yes, there were dislocations, but a lot of that was consumers acting in completely irrational ways and governments giving consumers signals like, oh, go shop for three weeks at once. It's really hard to plan for that. It's really hard to respond to that. But once we started to really think about how we work collectively at this, how we think about how supply chains can be more reactive and more adaptive, we did pretty well. And the thing that actually did sort of hurt us is where you ended, which is governments putting restrictions on exports of food and medical products, which is somewhat criminal if you think about it. If you have a reliance and trust in an international trade system and you don't know who to go to, and this happened to us, I had an order and a shipment of medical supplies, but the next day the government said, a, government said, we can't export them, we need them ourselves. So who do you talk to? Who do you get the license? Is there should be more practical regimes so that we can reinforce the trust in the system? Mona, with a bit of a global view as well from the World Bank. Yes, thank you very much. So let me start by stating that trade has been very important for developing countries. Export-led growth strategies really allowed developing countries, many of them beyond China, to grow very fast, much faster than otherwise, to create jobs and to reduce poverty. So for us, trade is the main driver for growth and development and we would always support an open trade regime that will maintain access to markets for these countries. So, and today clearly trade is disrupted for many reasons. And one is the geopolitics, which are creating some rhetoric about reshoring and so on. At the same time, some reshoring is happening because private sector wants to reshor because of the need to diversify or the sources of their products. They want to be closer to the final consumption or because of the new technologies, they don't really need to outsource very far from home and various reasons like that, which is certainly something that can continue to happen, but when it is driven by government policies that restrict artificially the flow of goods and investments, I think that becomes a problem because it is depriving developing countries from the investment that was coming and the trade opportunities that they were benefiting from. So another disruption is of course technology. Technology has opened a lot of opportunities for developing countries trade, including for digital services exports and digital services exports globally are now 12% of total exports. They have been growing since 2005 at the rate of above 8% per year on average and developing countries are benefiting from that from a very low base, but still their exports of digital services have been rising very, very fast and this is clearly an opportunity for them and they are trying to take advantage of it. And the last disruption is coming from another challenge we are all facing, which is how do we deal with climate? And we are seeing a lot of developed countries imposing cross-border measures on trade that is not taking into account the impact that it's having on developing countries and there is a risk of seeing a lot of small and medium enterprises in developing countries basically drop out of the supply chains that they were part of and therefore being affected by this. We'll get back to sustainability because it deserves sort of a separate discussion. I just want to zero in on the definition of trade tech because before we came on stage you were saying, not sure everybody's on the same page around trade tech. What does it mean to you? Well, there are multiple technologies that underpin effective supply chains. So we've seen a lot of digital technologies that support that. We've seen control towers that monitor the flow of goods. It could be on the supply side in terms of procurement and supply side replenishment. It could be also on the demand side, trying to understand consumer behavior. Can we use those technologies to also predict demand as we move into a more predictive analytics world? So there's technology about understanding supply and demand but there's also the fundamental technologies that allow manufacturing to take place. So for me there is no such thing as trade tech per se. There's a whole myriad of technologies that support the effective manufacture distribution of goods and services. And often services are wrapped around goods as we go forward. If you see some of the latest developments in supply chains is many manufacturers would start worrying about their products when it left the factory four walls. Then they started to worrying about where it was in their warehouses and distribution centers. And very often now we see them connected to the end user in the consumer. So the first mile, second mile and the last mile have all become part of the broader supply chain. I think going back into the trade conversation, one of the broader concerns is the raft of regulations that are coming forward. Now many of them are well-intentioned. I'm actually pleased to see some of the traditional principles on which trade was initially set up on around making sure access to resources, access to products and services was as equitable as possible. But we slightly, in my view, moved to a very cost-centric and we were talking about that in the introduction about it's becoming an efficiency gain. So can we start to actually think about a better trade where we bring in other dimensions? However, if that becomes a fragmented execution, I think it has two negatives. One is obviously an efficiency and productivity drop for the big players, but it could end up excluding small and medium-sized enterprises. It could end up excluding those countries, perhaps, without the infrastructure to respond to regulatory change quickly or where regulation is not suited to their particular needs. I mean, let's flesh that out a little bit. You work for one of the largest employers, probably in the world. How many people work from Walmart? Over two million. Two million. Okay, so with that kind of customer base, you've got very complex supply chains. What are you seeing in terms of the regulatory network, as it were, and sort of what he was talking about just a moment ago? Yeah, so I think the goals are right. We want more inclusive and sustainable trade. Everybody does. And I think we have the tools to do it. Technology helps, marketplace, e-commerce marketplace has really shortened and made much smaller the gap between informal to formal. Smaller suppliers can actually become, you know, mini multinationals by accessing marketplaces. That's great. Sustainability standards and thinking about climate and scope three and really measuring what our impact is on the environment. We absolutely support that. What I worry about with some of the corporate due diligence legislation requirements is that they're so prescriptive, they're essentially asking the end of the chain, the retailer, to trace all the way down to the beginning of the chain, such that we need to trace everything that comes out of the ocean and the ground. And not only for a sustainability perspective to know what the carbon emissions are, but also to make sure that the workers in the supply chain are treated fairly and decently. So what that means in practice is, if I go into a tuna factory in Thailand and I say, how are you tracing your raw materials? How are you making sure that the tomato paste that you're using to make this spicy tuna mix is coming from a place that is not subject to forced labor? They need to go back and trace that and they need to show the documentation. The same time, they need to make sure that the workers in the factory that may be migrant workers are being recruited fairly and that they're paying all the fees and they have the documentation. And we need to know the carbon footprint of your emissions. We don't have a good technological system right now that is open source, that is verifiable to be able to track all that data and then show it to the border authorities who want to know where did this product come from? Can we make sure it's coming from a place that the workers are treated fairly? And then to actually then sort of report on it for any scope through reporting. And then actually after we sell that tuna can, we need to sort of report on what happened to the tuna can for further scope through reporting. So we've created this for the right reasons, the importance of making sure we've sustainable inclusive supply chains. We don't have a good technological solution because a lot of that data is paper and it's very hard to verify but then we actually do have some verification systems that are like isotope testing and DNA testing that are gonna verify without the ability for us to actually use a blockchain or distributed ledger or some other technology to make sure that what they say is what they say. There are a lot of smart people here in the room so let's see if we can come up with some ideas. Maybe the World Bank has some ideas specifically. I mean, you lead and there's investment and competitiveness, what kind of innovations could help kind of break the mold there? So we're actually working now with SMEs and countries that are affected by such policies and try to help them first to decarbonize their production and second to help them show that they have complied especially when they're very dependent on exports to specific markets that actually have these either carbon cross border measures or that have these new due diligence acts or deforestation acts and so on. So this is becoming pretty overwhelming for SMEs, for small and medium enterprises in developing countries and there are different financing means that we can provide and we're trying to be innovative but we are still in the exploration mode trying different tools before we get there and also again, putting in place a compliance framework and a certification framework around that so that they don't spend time unnecessarily being lost about how to go about that. And this is really costly. Who's going to pay for it is something that one has to think about and perhaps some cooperation between developed countries and developing countries on these issues would be helpful. Lena, I can see that you've taken notes and you've got an iPad at the same time so you're a couple of steps ahead but I want to find out what you're writing down. Taking notes of what everyone is saying. Do you have any strong view to a certain angle? I think, because I work in the security community for affairs and security and what really strikes me is sort of the two different conversations that one has around trade in the security community on the one hand and then in the business community on the other hand and so the business community is about let's talk about trade efficiency, let's talk about how trade can be made better to be made more inclusive, et cetera and the security community is worried about obviously national security concerns, sometimes at the cost of the economic efficiencies. So they're perfectly willing, so for instance the United States, if we look at the recent speech by the national security advisor at Brookings Institution, this was in April this year, he was a national security advisor and he was talking about economic policy and I think either explicitly or implicitly he made two points, one is that trade has failed, the middle classes of the United States and we need industrial policy to correct some of this and second, given the geopolitical climate, we have to accept that some, there's going to be some trade-offs in terms of economic efficiency for national security goals. You were saying that trade failed the middle class? This is not my view, but I think even if we looked at, before President Biden became the president, so as a candidate, he was writing pieces together with his team about how we need to make trade better for the middle classes and so foreign policy now in the United States is driven by a desire to make it better for the middle classes of America and what this has meant in practice has been renewed focus on industrial policy which some economists might feel are distortionary. Can I do a rapid poll here? Who thinks that trade is let down the middle class in the US or otherwise? If you could raise your hand, if you agree that it has failed, does anybody think it's failed? We've got a couple here. Okay, the rest thinks that it's worked, okay. You're one of the people who thinks it's failed, yeah. If that was just to make sure I get back to this one. No, no, to be serious, I mean there's a sort of an assumption, I think maybe in the conversation that the trade we've got today is good and it's as good as it gets. I think it can get a lot better. And so I think the danger of driving purely an efficiency cost conversation has probably led us into supply chains that yes, they've been able to flex but weren't as resilient as they probably should have been. So I would say there is a better trade to be gone for and technology has its role to play. I think regulation has its role to play but it needs to be done in a more smarter way than it's probably coming out. At the moment we're seeing, we're just looking at some of the regulations that European manufacturing firms will have to look at. I think there are 17 new regulations that I could look at and they're not even European, they're some from France, some from Germany and so on and so forth. So how does a supplier, it doesn't have to be a multinational who's serving multiple clients across the globe, handle that complexity. Now technology can help and we've just looked at, just completing a project at the moment and the dynamics of that is really interesting. First of all, it's a pre-competitive collaboration. It's not a one firm solution, it's competing firms coming together to develop necessary infrastructure. So in pharmaceuticals, for example, certificates of analysis ensure the quality of the product. It is what it is and it's up to the spec. On a single item, you might have 35 different formats that a manufacturer has to deal with. And some will have hand signatures and some will have type notes and so on and so forth. So we've been developing some infrastructure across multiple multinationals to make that a smoother way of introducing into the manufacturing system. So I think technology can play a role. I think it can handle some of the complexity that's being created, but is all of that complexity necessary? So that would be my sort of take on the tech. Can I ask you a question? Can we just go to her first? Yeah, about... Just one, yeah, go ahead, Mona. I mean, on this question about trade having heard the middle class in the US, I just want to say a couple of things. Trade has made things so much cheaper for the consumer in the US, especially the middle class. So I think we need to look into this. The second point is that countries evolve in their comparative advantage. So you don't want the US to be producing t-shirts anymore. There are really moving up the value chain, producing more sophisticated products, innovating, and this is where their resources should go, including by strengthening education, for example, by improving health and not really being stuck in the present, because they're not competitive in what others are doing right now, that they should move on. Third, for the countries themselves that are exporting developing countries, I think that because trade has made many things cheaper, including capital goods like machines, it opened a lot of opportunities for developing countries to upgrade and mechanize much faster than they would have ever been able to do had they only relied on US technology because it was, I mean, it is more expensive. And therefore it allowed a lot of developing countries to move up the value chain, leveraging this cheap machinery and technology much more, much faster. So I think we need to really understand all this. Give that another look for sure. Yeah, just unpacking that statement has trade failed the middle class. I think trade did exactly what it was meant to do. If we look at comparative and competitive advantage, we were able to leverage the rules-based international trading system for the last 70 years for policy certainty, for growth, for lifting. I mean, what workers are we talking about? Think of how many people were lifted out of poverty because of trade. Trade worked. What didn't work were the policy reactions to trade. We under-invested in infrastructure. We under-invest in education. We under-invested in the reaction to trade so that you have a frustration in the middle class that they don't feel like they had the opportunities that they had before if you are a low-skilled wage worker because you're competing with the world on wage. So we should be able to hold two ideas in our head that we can trade and we should have the right policy reactions to invest in our workers and our people so we can become more competitive. I worry about this narrative because it sort of says everything we did wrong, we did it for too long. If I heard for too long one more time by the people who actually negotiated these trade agreements, I would be, you know, it's so frustrating because what we should be saying is exactly what you said. Should we make it better? Yeah. Do we know how to do that? It's not hard. Invest in your people, invest in your infrastructure, have good rule of law. This is the same thing for emerging economies. There are economies that we really don't trade with. We really don't trade with. Why? The boats don't come on time. The people don't show up. There's no trust in government. There's no rule of law. There's no inputs to create vertical supply chains. You don't, you have barriers on inputs, right? You're gonna have high tariffs for importing. It's not hard. We can, we have success stories from trade. Look at the Asian Tigers. I mean, there's empirical evidence that we can cite. Yes, and so with these success stories, why has it been so difficult to make a case in the United States that trade works? Perhaps the policy reactions to trade do not work. And so as a, because this alternative argument hasn't found traction, the United States has pulled out from trade agreements and it's hurt the U.S. economically. It's hurt it in terms of its international standing. So what do you think are the chances that the United States, I'm sorry I'm asking a question, but what do you think the chances are that we can see the United States in the future move forward with a positive narrative on trade, recognizing that there were perhaps inadequate policy responses to some of the negative downsides and then charging ahead and forging ahead in terms of renewed, energized trade policy? So I think, I don't think it's gonna happen any time soon, we have an election coming up and we don't do good policy making usually right before elections. I think we're just seeing pendulum swings and I think when you see what we've seen in the past what has worked is competition. When we talk about trade in terms of competition, so if you think about why the U.S. started to negotiate free trade agreements again and why we reinvest in the WTO five, 10, 20 years ago, it was because the Europeans were creating, why do we have NAFTA? It was because of the European Union. So when we feel like we're falling behind then we will if we're not engaged in the global economy, if we're not taking advantage of a rules-based table trading system because it's like democracy. I'm really not sure what the other systems are that are better than I think what we'll see is the reaction that'll come back and people will come back slowly but we won't call it trade. Will we call it now? We call it supply chains. So supply chains are the new trade. So to add to this, I think there are two forces. One is what we know the comparative advantage of open trade, how it benefited everybody but also how to make it better as we just discussed many ways of doing it better because also there is new technology, there are climate issues, there are labor issues and so on. But then there is another side to it which maybe wasn't there before, which is the politics. And I think, which is your area, the geopolitics are now so intertwined with trade policy that it's not all economic rationale that is driving decisions. And also because of COVID and the aftermath and all these shocks that we are experiencing, I think there's a realization that there is vulnerability in being too dependent on few countries for key commodities that are important for the future and therefore there is a need to backtrack and rethink certain things. So that's all fine. As long as we don't throw the baby with the bathwater, so let us maybe carve out these sensitive issues, deal with them separately, but then safeguard most of the multilateral trading system and the trade regime. Yes, and I think this is where businesses can really contribute to it because first of all, businesses can kind of be, they can recognize of course that there is a geopolitical competition going on and accept that there will be some inefficiencies in the system, but then kind of work with the government to say, okay, we recognize that you need this for national security, but perhaps we can minimize the economic cost by doing ABC. So don't just regulate without consulting us. Please speak to us. You're smiling. We have conversations like this. Yes, and so, but I think that there needs to be a lot of that going on. Otherwise the regulations are going to be too wide and perhaps counterproductive. And I think the second thing that should be done as well is that businesses and governments who are concerned about the way that trade is going should be raising instances where the trade policy that say the United States has implemented has actually been counterproductive and have worked against US interests. So for instance, when we see the so-called decoupling or de-risking from China, that has allowed some of the manufacturing to move to third countries, but then they are using Chinese goods. They're repackaging it a little bit, sending off to the United States. And as a result, I think China wins because here you have these countries then approaching China, forging stronger ties with China. And consequently, even the national security objectives that were the target or the goals of US economic policy have not been achieved. So I think that's really unfortunate. We saw the shocker announcement just the last 24 hours from the US government that they were going to ask Nvidia to no longer push out some of its chips into the market in China. That's going to have a ripple effect not just on Nvidia stock, but just broadly on supply chains that suddenly overnight such an important link can be disrupted. You had a view on this as well. So I think trade policy and industrial strategy always went hand in hand. And I think if you have an absence of an industrial strategy, you have a non-functioning trade policy and then you have these trade tensions. The other side of the trade coin is the supply chain. So depending on your trade policy and your industrial strategy, you have the supply chains that are coherent with that. So I think the sort of example of a trade policy that results in blocking certain sourcing locations results in the supply chains reconfiguring to flex around that constraint. So I think there's a really sweet space around trying to develop an industrial strategy that nurture the supply chains that give you the resilience in key product categories that actually encourage development in key pop markets around the world. It's been very polarized the Southeast Asia development. What about Africa, for example? What about the Middle East that we're in? Great locations to actually start to develop providing they do those basics that were mentioned and they're not difficult to understand basics but if they're not there, you can't easily source from those locations. So I would just say trade and trade policy, the flip side of that coin is supply chains. They are extremely intertwined and I think there is room for industrial strategy. I think having a completely hands-off approach which is maybe where the recent environment has taken us, I'm not sure is the right approach. I think they ought to be an industrial strategy, whatever location you're in to encourage those supply chains which can benefit from that particular context, those particular skills and that particular infrastructure to indeed leverage those assets. Don't disagree. I mean, I think we need smart trade policy. I don't disagree. I think the challenge I have is I'm not entirely sure that government is best place to choose winners and losers on trade. I think sometimes react to the last crisis as opposed to having a lot of foresight and thinking about what's the next thing and by the time we get the policies in place, I fear we're going to have a glut of semiconductors really soon because we're so focused on critical minerals and semiconductors and what aren't we thinking about? So how do we have a flexible regulatory approach, a flexible incentive approach that we're actually being smart about the future as well? And I just want to put a plug for developing countries. So as all of this is cooking at the level of developed countries and the powers of the powerful countries of the world, we don't want to leave behind the developing countries and all the regulations that are being put in place, we really need to look at their impact on developing countries and we want to keep opening the door for them to take advantage of the new technologies of trade and so on. And here I have some data, for example. I was talking about how digital services trade has been booming, including for developing countries as a group, but in terms of digital, although 84% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa have access to 3G service and 54% to 4G mobile internet service, only 22% use mobile internet for productive purposes. So they're not really leveraging that. There's still a lot to do on the digitalization in developing countries, whether it's the infrastructure itself or the regulatory framework to enable the use, the data flows, the e-signatures, e-contract, the e-finance and so on, and the digital skills that are needed for people in Africa and elsewhere to take advantage of this big opportunity. So let's not forget those. Otherwise, the digital divide and the divide in general is going to wipe them. We have to leave it there. I'm told we're out of time. We covered a lot of ground in this energetic discussion. So a very big thank you to our esteemed panelists and thank you for being such an amazing audience. Thank you. Call a moderator. It's a call a moderator. Good job. Thank you guys. We should rethink.