 Welcome to this CNBC special debate on Davos 2013, the global agenda and how the year ahead will roll. Crisis, what crisis? This is perhaps in recent years the first time we've come into a world economic forum without the dark clouds of some imminent problem on the agenda. In fact, it feels as though peace has broken out. The European crisis appears to be receding as a hot issue for asset markets. We see the United States debt ceiling being pushed down the road as an issue and the economy gradually recovering in the United States. And of course, the other part of that three-legged stool of risk, China, is showing promising signs of recovery. So what is there to worry about in 2013? Well, we all wish it were that simple, don't we? So let's introduce our panel and let's get into our conversation here. Joining me for our discussion, Federico Curado, President and CEO of Embraer Brazil. He's in the aerospace sector. Jogeta Label, Chair of Transparency International. Azutoshi Nishida, Chairman of the Board at Toshiba Corporation. Axel Weber, Chairman of the Board at UBS. And Li Daokui, Economist at Tsinghua University. And I am reliably informed a gentleman who will be going places in the PBOC at some time soon. But correct me, sir, if that information is wrong. But I don't think so. Let's refocus then on the issue at hand here. What are the risks for 2013? Well, right off the top, the World Economic Forum's own analysis once again brings up two very important challenges for the global economy and all of us going forward. One is the imbalance of income and the inequality that we continue to see. And the other one is fiscal imbalances. Now, we know that these issues have receded somewhat from the headlines as central bankers globally have flooded the markets with billions of dollars of liquidity. So are we being complacent? Or can we actually really start to believe that things are getting better for good? Axel Weber, I think I need to come to you on this one. As a former central banker now in the banking industry at a commercial level, what would your narrative or description of this moment of relative stability globally be? I think it's, as you said, in your starting moderation optimism. And the recovery is clearly there. There's the feeling around the rooms. The worst is behind us. There's a better mood now. We've seen really a rebound of the global economy. It's bottomed out. The US is strengthening. Asia continues to grow. European decision makers seem to be more united this time around and actually promise significant measures. But in my view, the mood actually bordered onto complacency. And to show how that evolved on Wednesday, people talked about the tail risk being reduced. By Friday, it was the tail risks are removed. And I don't think they are. I think it's pretty clear challenges remain. Expectations in particular to the role of central banks are too high. The role of central banks should not be overstated. I think some expectation management is in order here. They can provide relief for some time. They can buy time. But they cannot really solve the underlying deeper problems. And I think the time they bought and they clearly have and continue to do so. It has to be used to do credible structural reforms. Those are long-term solutions that need to be put in place. They will be painful. They will take time. And that was pretty much the message Chancellor Merkel delivered. I heard a lot talk about gross. And I heard a lot talk about deficits. I didn't hear enough talk about investments. And actually, deficits are OK if they are used for investments to make the future better. If they're used to fund growth that is unsustainable, we cannot actually justify them in an aging society where basically future generations are deprived of their future. So I think the mood has been good in brackets. Too good to be true. And therefore, I think some expectation management really clearly is in order at the closing session here. Thank you very much for the comments. If I can bring in Nishida-san from Toshiba because Japan has the latest central bank really to join the liquidity party. Now, I think Axel Weber is really on the money when he says the mood here among the business community has felt a lot better, even though some of the surveys done by the likes of PWC indicate perhaps business prospects may not be as good as last year when people tick boxes on forms. In the conversations we've been having while we've been here, business people do feel energized for 2013. Can I ask you, do you share that excitement about the growth outlook for 2013? And in the context of Axel Weber's rather somber warning about complacency, is it really a good idea that the Bank of Japan has engaged in participating in flooding the marketplace with liquidity? You know, when it comes to the Japanese economy, the new economic stimulus package will be introduced. This will effectively contribute to picking up Japanese economic stagnation. So from the recovery from stagnation will be seen. But even if Japanese yen is depreciated slightly, what is most important for Japan is to execute the new growth strategy thoroughly. In the past, many attempts failed, unfortunately. Probably more than 12 growth strategies were prepared. But none of them could successfully execute. So this time, new growth strategy will be prepared by new government by the end of June. What is most important is to implement this new growth strategy thoroughly. And so that the recovery from the disaster could be led to rebirth of Germany's economy. This is most important issue for Japan. And what about you as a businessman benefiting or seeing some updraft as a result of the actions of the Bank of Japan? Since Toshiba is involved in almost 30 for different businesses, from nuclear power business to small semiconductor business, situation is quite different from industry to industry. As long as social infrastructure-based businesses are concerned, these are going very well. But when it comes to digital products early like Color TV, personal computers, and also semiconductor business, which supports many electronic products, then the situation doesn't seem so optimistic, unfortunately, unless the consumption in European market and also in USA market could recover fully, will not be able to expect the great upturn of the business in those area. But for a time being, we'll try to improve our social infrastructure-based businesses much more so that those digital product area could recover. So Fred, let me bring you in and get another business perspective. And you come from the aviation sector from a Latin America viewpoint. Please help us understand the way that you currently see the challenges in 2013 around this issue of business confidence and how it relates to those three challenges that appear to have receded as real headlines so far this year. Well, receded or at least paused, put into the future, that created this sense of less despair, if you will, compared to last year. I see the world as an interconnected world, so I don't believe in any decoupling alternative. So even for emerging economies such as Brazil, but also even China and India, we just saw a panel a few minutes ago discussing that. Those elements that are still there, they represent a risk. And that affects directly and indirectly the emerging economies as well. The private sector, I believe, requires, as we have more and more confidence on the recovery and the solidness of the solutions. On the long-term recovery prospect, the investments will be made. The corporations around the world, they are sitting on probably an unprecedented amount of cash. So the question is stressed. So hopefully, all the good feelings that we sensed here this week, and I'm in agreement with what Mr. Weber said, maybe too optimistic, hopefully that optimism will translate into investments. Because I think the underlying issue is jobs. I think this is the actual most important point of the crisis in the world, is the unemployment. 202 million people unemployed in the world is a huge issue for everyone. Let me bring you in on this. Because we know that there are negative social consequences of such high levels of unemployment. Could you share with us some insight as to what risks we run through this year unless governments and businesses engage more meaningfully with the challenge of getting young people and the long-term unemployed back to work? Well, I think that when you look at the issues individually, we can see a lot of improvement in certain areas. It's when we look at the combination of each of the issues that are with us today, including the one of very high youth unemployment in many countries. And in some countries, people below the age of 30, the population below the age of 30 is 60%, in certain countries, up to 73%. Even if half of those are not employed, you can imagine what that means. But it's also some of the other issues that are on our table today. You mentioned inequality, of course. Financial crisis is not over. Corruption is a major issue. It feeds poverty. It seeds violence. It seeds illicit trade in drugs, in arms. That's another kind of issue. We've had civil war. It's not over. We have some new civil wars and social destabilization. So when you look at each of these and you add to that some of the pressure on our natural resources, if you look at the waterways that are shared today, it can be part not of a future crisis 50 years from now, but even starting as we speak. So it's the combination of those combined with the lack of trust in our leaders in industry and in government, which unfortunately doesn't seem to go away. And that trust has to be regained. And of course, there are ways, I think that this can be done. But you also had to that the instant connectivity of people and the fact that, which is creating people power of a very different kind. And where our youth, I think, are increasingly engaged and savvy, I met at the forum a few times with our young people. And I'm always so impressed with what they bring to us, which we are not using at this stage. And they're saying, for example, our curriculum was established a number of years ago before technology became what it is. We need now to bring that technology into reshaping the curriculum that we need to have as we go into higher education or even in primary or secondary school. Axel, I just want to bring that point to you because the case has been made that with through the worst of the emergency, the central banks have facilitated an uplift in asset prices that have brought equity market valuations back to where they were pre-crisis. But what that has done is it has made the owners of assets richer, it hasn't helped the poor or the unemployed. And in fact, we haven't really yet seen a sustained focus by policymakers on actionable ways to address the unemployment crisis, particularly as it affects Europe. Is it time in 2013 for policymakers to stop thinking we're in a crisis and start dealing with some of the consequences of that crisis which has been higher unemployment through austerity and people who own assets getting richer as a result, perhaps unintentionally, of the liquidity central banks are creating? Well, maybe in terms of the question you pose, I would phrase one point differently. Some of the austerity we're seeing is not a deliberate turnaround in fiscal policy. It's the result of having lost market access and confidence of markets and therefore having to basically scale back on expenditure schemes. So what we're seeing is partly the reaction of a deep crisis of confidence. Now, my view is, and it's similar to the company that I now help steer through troubled waters, we've changed our strategy. We made bold announcements in summer and actually our stock price moved up by more than 60% over half a year. Now, we understand and pretty much you see the same here, policymakers have made commitment, the mood is better, spreads have come down, so it's a similar situation. When I look at us at the bank, perfect execution is priced in. That's the same for policy, but if perfect execution is priced in, the risks are to the downside and that's what people forget. So what is needed is disciplined, on-track delivery of everything that was promised. As soon as slippage on reforms, as soon as monetary policy promises are not kept, as soon as anything happens relative to what is priced in and there's optimal at this point, you will see uncertainty come back. So it's similar to the corporate world that I'm dealing with and I think policymakers have to learn from that. What we saw last year was a lot of debate about the way forward and if you do that publicly, it's as bad as in a company. If you publicly debate what a company should do, you lose the trust of your consumers and of your stakeholders. If policymakers debate in the open, what's the best way forward? That's not a good way. What you need to do is you need to make clear announcement after having had a good debate internally and then you need to execute. So on the way forward, what we're seeing is I think monetary policy for where we are now at this stage of the recovery is starting to be too loose for that part of where we are. So I mean, I hear that central banks actually are continuing to add liquidity and the liquidity that's already there for three years, a zero interest rate environment, balance sheets that are 30, 40% of GDP that's at wartime highs. We haven't seen balance sheet relative to GDP as large since the Second World War. And what it does, it basically produces a difficult environment for investors. Yield curves are flat. Investors are really having a hard time to understand the true value of any assets they need to price and trade. And so there are some risks related to these ultra-loose environment. And as we go forward and keep these ultra-loose policies in place, those risks are increasing. And I think policy makers need to be aware of that. What they need to deliver is a credible commitment to keep policy lose as long as needed. They've done that. What we're now waiting for them is to give us a plan, a credible commitment on how they're exiting these policies as the economies are coming back. And that's the part I'm not seeing. That's the part we really have to ask from policy makers and to do the reforms they've promised. Buying time was one thing, using it for the right things in terms of reform scope for competitiveness, jobs for a rebound. That's what is needed now. Lee Dalquay, let me bring you in on this because in my experience of discussing these issues in Asia, particularly as they focus on Europe and to some extent now with the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff in the United States, I see eyes roll, hands raised, confusion about the policy mix that is being pursued that leads to such high levels of youth unemployment, people being thrown on the scrap heap of long-term unemployment, measures that apparently are designed to meet some criteria set by a group of policy makers but seem to have only negative social consequences. China wouldn't let this happen, would it? Well, the Chinese story is very different. In the Chinese case, fundamental forces for growth are still there so that this year we've seen a gradual, last year a gradual recovery and this year the momentum will carry through so for the Chinese case, in the Chinese case the fundamental question is whether necessary reforms will be carried out in order for the economy to be still able to roll down the road five years from now, 10 years from now, a good thing is that the new leadership came to stage towards the end of last year and the early signs indicate that they are clear commitments to put towards pushing through the reforms. This is China's part. I may also want to add something, follow up something on the previous comments, right? I do worry about potential risks in 2013, which I don't think we have discussed enough about. That is the US situation, right? In Europe we've seen some meaningful progress through promises delivered by politicians. In the US, my observation is that not even promises, right? Not even enough discussions are made, right? All we have seen is that the difficult problems are pushed back. Say several months down the road and I do worry the scenario of July 2011 may come back in 2013. If that happens, a nasty dynamics will travel through the financial markets and various negative consequences will be felt in many parts of the world besides the US. If you were a betting man, and I know gambling is popular, but sometimes frowned on in Asia, but if you were a betting man, what odds would you put on that happening? I would say there is, well, first of all, for the in China, inside China, I've been telling my friends and oftentimes policy makers, we have to be prepared for the worst scenarios, right? For this situation, for the world economy be thrown back into a kind of confusion due to the nasty discussions in the US about the physical consolidation or restructuring through the financial markets. Now, in terms of probability, I would say very safely, I would say 30% chance for this to happen in the US. I worry, at least from me, very conservative, very cautious perspective. Axel, can I bring you in on that? What do you think, 30% chance we revisit the crisis? Having been a former central banker, I really don't like discussing probabilities and risks. So it's not natural to me to put odds on things. And if there is a downside risk, you assume it's 100% and you deal with the downside risk just to make sure things don't get out of hand. So, yes, there is an issue, not just in Europe, there are issues in the United States and sort of around the turn of the year in relative terms, European politics looked a lot more relatively more competent. But the issue really is, look, there is a deeply divided debate in the US about big government. It's not about the end of the year. It's not about the debt ceiling. It's really about the only thing between, and that's the situation often being portrayed like that, the only thing in the United States between what many perceive to be big government is the debt ceiling. So it's an instrument that's been used by both sides for a very fundamental debate. How much Medicare, Social Security and entitlement programs can you afford in an aging society whose demographics have turned and the current environment isn't fully reflected that. That's a much more deep debate and it's not about March and lifting the ceiling. It's more about can the US develop a credible entitlement and Medicare and basic Social Security environment and at the same time deal with the dynamics of aging in a medium to long term. And that is a debate that I don't expect any time soon to be resolved and that's why I expect for some time we'll see a lift up of say the debt ceiling by small amounts just pushing that debate out to have it orderly but not really a big resolution. And that's been already clear at the election. I mean, it was a pretty close election and there are different views in society in the American civil society on which direction to go. We in Europe have a pretty undisputed European model that involves a lot more of social cohesion and inclusiveness when we talk about growth. Unfortunately for Europe, we talk about zero growth so inclusion is even harder to do. It's all about rich versus poor, north versus south, old versus young. And that's a very divisive discussion if the cake at all doesn't grow. Totally different in China. If the cake grows between 7.5, 8 or 9%, it's all about inclusiveness of growth, not leaving anybody behind. There is just no legitimacy problem in China for an emerging middle class to be affluent. The issue is can they manage as an affluent emerging middle class to take those that are standing outside and on the sidelines of society and economic dynamics, can they take them into that path? And that's the urbanization debate they have in China and it's a totally different economic environment and political debate. And I think our societies need to deal with that as going forward. That's the big moral obligation we all have to make growth inclusive. And I think that was a debate that started here. I've seen it in some of the sessions and it's important to continue that. Just before we leave this area, is there one actionable on this issue of inclusiveness to address social issues of the austerity that we're saying that a panelist could share with the audience that really we should be focused on for 2013, that we need to get on with. Craig. I may contribute with the Brazilian recent years experience. The classical debate about making the cake bigger before distributing it better or distributed before it gets bigger. I think it was somehow answered with the social programs in place in Brazil, the hunger, the food program. And after decades, we grew a lot due to the inclusion of about 30, 35 million people into middle class, so living poverty into the middle class. So it is at least one example of how inclusion actually cross feeds an economical model. I'm not saying we don't have, we have no problems. We do have issues, of course. But I think it's a good experience and it's real. It's there. And it is an improvement for society for sure, brings social, releases social tension. And it's fair, of course. So let's talk some more about the search for growth and let's move off the problem, shall we say, of fiscal imbalances and to a certain extent put aside the question of unemployment. What I have heard a lot here that I haven't heard in many previous recent Davos is, is Africa is no longer a frontier market. It is a growth market. It is ticking along at five to 6% as a continent and we need to be there. That's the business community's view that's been coming across loud and clear. On the other side of the coin, what I've been hearing is more instability in the Middle East. The Israeli election outcome has thrown some doubts into people's minds about what 2013 will bring. The tragedy in Algeria, again, has made people refocus on risks rather than opportunities in that particular region of the world. I wonder if I might run along the panel and get some thoughts on one, Africa, and whether it now is really time to go in if you're not already there and to whether you're still willing to go back and try and invest in the Middle East given some of these issues that have come to the fore since the year started. Let me start with Japanese friend, Mr. Nishida. I may not be the right person to answer that question because we are not so active, unfortunately, in Africa so far. Of course, there will be a good chance, you know, for our growing in that area, but including the social infrastructure related businesses, we are investing in a fairly limited country like South Africa, you know. When it comes to Middle East, then of course we have a close relationship with many countries in Middle East. So we may be able to find out a growth chance, including power business. For example, thermal power plants and also nuclear power plants, you know, over there. What we are looking for right now is Asian countries. Athean countries, they are growing very fast. So we definitely need to cooperate with them so that we will be able to support them so that they could construct a very well, you know, arranged social infrastructure since they are also facing environmental issues. From our point of view, Japan is slightly advanced in controlling the environmental issues. So we will be able to transfer those technologies to them and we can make new businesses over there. That's what we are thinking right now. Okay, so Toshiba continues to focus on growth in the Southeast Asia region. Fred, can I bring the conversation to you? Africa, the opportunity is pushing into African markets just another example of the search for growth and the willingness to take on more risk for that growth because traditional markets maybe are not growing any longer. Well, particularly in the aviation sector, you know, a five to six percent growth perspective in the continent, especially in the continent as large as Africa, which has relatively poor infrastructure. It is a plus for aviation because airplanes will be the fastest way to move people around and probably the easiest, requires the last investment to be the growth engine of a movement of people in cargo. But I've taken a broader perspective on Africa. I believe, and I participated during this week in several sessions with African ministers and I think there's a clear consciousness from the various people that I heard about the need to really strengthen the institutions in Africa. Before this is in place, at least that's their perspective. There will not be a big inflow of investments into Africa because of course, you know, having the fundamental institutions working properly is a basic assumption of investments. So there will be my comment particularly the aviation sector, positive, but I think there is a lot of homework to be done until you see massive FDI into Africa. And do you have a view on the Middle East and the challenge for 2013, for business in that area? Yeah, in the same line, of course, when you have geopolitical tensions as we do it, as we see there, this tends of course to make people more cautious about investing locally. I think it's inevitable. Fugeta, can I bring you in on this? Because we know both regions are plagued by issues of corruption. It's something that we see all around the world, so let's just not isolate these two regions, but without deep-rooted institutions, the kind that Fred is talking about, it can create the breeding ground for inappropriate activity. Absolutely, and of course, a lot of what the resources that the world wants now are in Africa, because they have not been exploited so far, and the way that this is done can make a huge difference. Either one can exacerbate corruption, rob Africa of its resources, and leave very little behind, or the enterprises and governments together, and multilateral institutions have very essential values right up front of transparency, of ensuring that all that is being paid to governments locally, taxes, royalties, concession fees, are disclosed publicly, and expect that the governments will also disclose their revenues. We talk about inclusiveness before, to ensure that this leads to the inclusion of the communities where this is happening right from day one in the development of the agreements, or the national government, so that the people are able to see what it is that they will have in return, but also what it is that they can contribute, and you were talking about inclusiveness before, and this is where I think that you cannot leave people behind, you cannot leave women behind, and you cannot leave young people behind, because through the development of these resources, you can really bring a different kind of social infrastructure, you can deal with corruption, prevent it, and deal with it, and you can also ensure that the physical infrastructure, which is so important in many of these countries, is also there for everyone to benefit from. Thank you very much. I obviously don't need to point out the China-Africa connection. So Mr. Lee, can I bring you in to comment? I found the discussion very, very interesting. Sounds like feasibility study. Sounds like nothing has been happening in Africa. To the contrary, lots of things have been happening in Africa, and mainly positive. I've been to Africa and in forums like this. My favorite friends are African friends. I often talk to them, and also in other fora, talk to my African friends, asking what's going on, and what are the problems. Seems to me, it's very clear. Seems to me what's going on there is that first actions are already there. Investments are already there. I'm talking about not only investments in mineral stuff, but also infrastructure. And these investments are generating spillover effects upon ordinary people. Of course, there are problems. The problems, in my view, first order problem is not transparency or feasibility. The first order problem is how to mobilize local people, the local population, make sure they are employed rather than for the Chinese companies to bring Chinese employees. That's secondary. But I think, first of all, actions are there. Hopes are there. That's most important right now. What will 2013 bring in the ongoing relationship with China and improvements in infrastructure? Given that we've seen some settling down of high commodity prices, the same profit imperative may not be there to drive investment. Well, I do see that 2013 will be one year of continuous change in this regard. That is for Chinese investments in Africa to be gradually more integrated into the local community. I don't expect drastic changes in this regard over one year. There are forces on the ground to gradually bring the Chinese corporations to the realization that they have to hire more local people. They have to generate to more social investments. So I do see positive changes, but these changes wouldn't be there overnight. These changes are already in process gradually. Excellent. Sorry, did you want to come back in? I just want to add that there are two very interesting tools that now exist. And one is the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, which hopefully would go beyond oil and gas but include mining and forestry, where one would hope that the industry is working in all of these countries, not just in Africa and the governments, would agree to this agreement, which is an agreement of full disclosure of working together. The other one is the Responsible Mineral Development Initiative of the Forum, which now is in its third iteration being modeled in different countries. And I think these are very interesting examples of tools that already exist to improve that situation that we're talking about. I don't disagree with this theory. However, my observation of economic development in action is that you have to start somewhere. You first have to have investments, then you generate discontents about corruption, then you develop the institutions to fight against corruption, rather than imposing conditions of cleanliness before making any investments. You have to start somewhere. I would just like to add that if you don't build transparency and a prevention of corruption right at the onset, once it comes into the fold and gets infiltrated, it becomes extremely difficult after for even institutions that are meant to fight it to be able to really succeed. So here we have a good discussion. Let me bring you in with another perspective. Everyone's saying that there is hope. Yeah. There is a hope? Yeah. There's big hopes in Africa. I agree with that. But I really don't see things as linear as you described. I think things, they have to happen simultaneously and without a profound change. And there has been progress? Absolutely yes. But we obviously talk to different audiences. And I have people. I'm not an expert in Africa. I say that upfront. But there are several concerns about the current model. And I just don't see a picture as beautiful as you described. OK. So let's agree to disagree on this point. And let's move on. Axel, I want to bring you in because I know the banking industry in particular is very engaged with the opportunity that it sees in Africa if it's not already there. But I know most international brands already have a presence in that region. But could you also compare and contrast maybe a little bit with the Middle East? Well, I guess, you know, if I look at Africa, really what we saw here and heard was the 5% to 6% growth has been a silent revolution. It's not been talked about a lot. And really, as we heard in the Crystal Award ceremony at the start, inclusion in Africa is largely about dealing with issues that many of our countries don't have. Dealing with the HIV threat. And basically assuring that there is a basic health care and Medicare for the population there. It's very, very important. Infrastructure building is going on. Institution building is going on. Mobile communication makes, even in remote places, education accessible. So the future of Africa is the development of its human capital. And they've started that and we're seeing it pay off. And I think that's very encouraging. And all of these things need to be done. The other issue that was discussed here on inclusion, women empowerment, gender diversity and dealing with that, increasing women's share in income in a sustainable way, attacking gender stereotypes at work, all of that is very important in our societies. It's making money work with families in Africa that is very, very important there. And you know, one thing that these economies respect a lot more than we do is the circular economy. So dealing with the environment, respecting planetary boundaries, inclusiveness of crows, eliminating waste, that's all issues that will be very decisive for Africa's development. We've gone a long way in not dealing with that in a reasonable fashion. So and to my own industry, to banking, yes. But look, if I look, we're starting in banking in Africa. Basically our base in Africa is South Africa. We're dealing across the globe with a small client base. The industry, the financial industry has different challenges and we heard that. Using, for example, credit card payment to bring means of payment to a broader audience that doesn't necessarily have day-to-day access to cash would be very important to be able to bring consumer services to these areas. Straight through internet payments, these are all things that will change the face of Africa and of remote areas and we need to develop that. And I think the banking industry, that's an area where we can show that the type of products we develop are actually good for your well-being of the citizens and they can be used to improve living standards and access to education and other areas. So I think the banking industry has a long way to go after this deep financial crisis to really prove to societies the value added of what we're doing and I think we've only started on that road. And we've seen a lot of regulation and it's the right thing to do. There was capital, liquidity standards. A lot of things have been done but not everything is yet dealt with. The industry needs to develop credible standards and fill the gaps that are still there. We need to show, for example, that in terms of compensation and conduct that we develop our own standards that are accepted by society. There's a big gap on that now and I fear very much if the industry doesn't move on those issues and drags their feet it will be a very, very big backlash that we're seeing in the civil societies if that's not coming around. Now, there's a challenge for the industry that we need to deal with. So I guess all of us have different challenges but believe me, being in an industry that comes out of a crisis of a century, the feeling of a lot of work left to do and big changes needing to happen is still there. If you'll just excuse me for personalizing this for a moment, you'll know Edelman put out a survey on trust and bankers, I think, come in, what, just a little below governments. But central bankers, I think, probably somewhat higher than both and in your career change, you've effectively now brought yourself into the group below governments. You know, at the first 20 years of my professional life I was a university professor. That was even above politician central bankers and bankers so you could sort of characterize my career. Continuously picking the wrong choices and going down the social acceptance letter. I'm okay with that but really, you know, not joking, we need to, and the one thing you do see is behavior standards and also ethical background and the way we are perceived in society is quite different between the three groups that I talked about. And I've been a member of all of those for some time and it's pretty clear, as an academic, the one rewarding thing that I always felt which drove me into that profession as a young man was, when you are teaching at university 19 to 22 years old, who have sparkling eyes because they have a great future, that's where you can make a difference. And again, if you're interested with keeping the currency stable, that's where you can make a difference for a lot of people because it's the poorer parts of society. It's those that have small incomes that suffer most if the purchasing power of their money is eroded. So I feel all of these jobs have reasonable mandates that serve the larger society. With banks, it can't be all about profit making. It has to be banks need to prove their value to society moving forward. And if you look at the last crisis, it wasn't the kind of things that were criticized that had to do with retail services and what we provide as client services to retail clients. It was the self-interest and it was the investment in proprietary trading that got out of hand. It was the explosion of trading books rather than the banking books where we provide credit to fund investments in the real economy. So I think banks need to go back to basics and just to put in a word for UBS in Switzerland, which is always a good idea because in Switzerland, the perception of UBS is not very good at this point. We're about to change that and it'll take time. The point is going back to those basics is part of what our new strategy is and that will prove it's a long race. It won't be a quick fix. It'll prove that banks have something to offer for the social society. Let's just say on this issue of trust for a little bit longer here and I want to bring you in, Huguetta, just to help us understand where in your organization, you rank various bodies, various entities in terms of the trust index. I think what we do is to really get from the people of our countries what are the institutions that they feel are more vulnerable to corruption, for example, which are the ones that are more transparent or instead of hoarding information into their fold. I mean, there's no question that when you look at governments around the world, those that are more transparent those that put integrity as a fundamental issue. Those that have higher environmental stewardship, respect for human rights, who are more inclusive in terms of ensuring that you hopefully have less inequality, more inclusion of women in the kinds of ways you were talking about and young people, where the rule of law prevails. I think that and where there is accountability, where the governments do not feel that the resources, the information belongs to them, as opposed to saying we're only the custodians of the resources of the people, of the information of the people and therefore this is our basic rule. And I go back to the beginning of Devils and to words from Klaus Schwab, which I thought was very important, when he said, you know, we are the trustees of our common future. We are all stakeholders and we need to have moral responsibility to our endeavors. Otherwise, human mankind cannot survive in the way that we want it to survive. Thank you. Thank you for that. Nishita, can I just turn this on its head for a moment? So who do the companies trust? You as a corporate, who do you trust? Who do you trust? Because we talk a lot about people don't trust companies, people don't trust banks, people don't trust governments. You're a company. Who do you trust? That's a very difficult question to answer. Do you trust your government? Do you trust the people to make the right decision when they walk into the electronics store? As long as corporate management is concerned. If you don't trust your employees, you will not be able to expect any good result from them. So this is a must, you know? Trust, mutual trust between management and employees. This is a driving force, especially in case of Japan, driving force to expect better improvement, better result and good success. Thank you very much. That's a very good answer. So we're very close to the end of the program and I just want to wrap up here. I started off by saying, what do we need to worry about in 2013? And I think we've had a really good conversation about a lot of the issues and agendas that are out there for 2013. But I want to focus on maybe some things that are just off the radar screen for most of us, but because of where you are, you can see these things coming or perhaps you can prepare for them in case they do come, although they may never. And I'd like to start, Mr. Lee, with you at the end. And I'd like to, if you don't mind, just throw in the idea of social media because I'm very intrigued about the developments that are taking place in China and the encouragement now for citizens to spy on party officials who may be doing inappropriate things and use social media as a mechanism for reporting that information. I think this is something that's almost happening organically rather than being encouraged, but it is an interesting disruptor. It's an interesting development. But if you don't want to deal with that one, feel free to pick your own. Absolutely, social media is now a means of progress, of change, definitely. Nowadays, hell you, in China, in a podium like this, a Chinese official would not dare to show his watch because people are watching. What kind of watch? Whether it's a switch watch or it's a Japanese watch. If it's a switch watch, maybe it's beyond the person's official income, then corruption investigation can start. Very simple example of social media changing the behavior of government officials. So here, let me go back to something. We have to start somewhere. Economic development has to start somewhere. You first have to invest. You first have to empower people. You first have make people have a sense of improvement of their livelihood. Then you generate discontent. Then that push through social media and new technology the progress of institutions. Is it always a healthy thing and does it create negative feedback about trust? And God forbid that I bring this up, but even this esteemed forum gets its own fair share of negative social media comment at times and people talk about it being a jolly of champagne and canapes for people who think they run the world. Are these conversations on social media necessarily useful in encouraging communities and people to do the right thing and feel the right way about how their lives are run and how other people live their lives? Certainly, I think they are dangerous. The dangers are in the government reaction. It takes two parties to dance. It takes two parties to make progress. The general public are making good use of the social media technology. However, many local governments are not realizing that they have a responsibility to respond positively to the discontent voices through social media. And if they are not responding effectively, then distrust can spread very quickly like cancer. Otherwise, if they respond positively, then positive dynamism can emerge. Axel disruptors, what do you say? Anything that we need to worry about this year? I think we need to worry about a lot of things. My biggest fear is that 2013 could be a replay of 2012, another lost year, for example, for Europe to recover. Remember when we came last year into January, February, March, markets were risk on, markets were going pretty well, investments were booming, it was record profits at the start of the year, the typical start of the year, good part was there. With the Greek elections, the French elections coming up, changing perspectives for policymaking, the whole picture in Europe changed and it needed the ECB to step in and calm the mood in July. We have the French election coming up, we have the Germany election, there's all sorts of political risks out there that could easily change the perception if they lead to a major difference in our countries and it where governments commit Europe to go and therefore we shouldn't be complacent. I think we haven't really fundamentally improved that much, we're more united in promising progress but that progress needs to be implemented, put to work and put on the ground. So I am not at all relaxed. We need to watch all of these things out there. There's a huge number of tail risks out there that we need to watch and we need perfect execution, as I said before, of all the European and the US fiscal plans and monetary plans for this year to work out better than 2012. If I can bring the other panelists to pretty much a one or two word answer if they want to comment on this, disrupt us? I would say that I think that the civil unrest can spread if one is not very cautious about it and I would say we haven't talked about the importance of local governments where this is a new frontier where we need to spend much more energy on as not only at the national level and so to me this is something that can create major problems and to ensure that the people that are unemployed, that unemployment does not increase, that we can reverse that trend. If people feel that they are disposable assets, I don't think that they will just sit back now with people power and the tools that we have for them to connect with each other. Well, thank you very much to our panel for enjoying us in this conversation. You know what, let me just do that again. That wasn't very good in TV terms, so I'll have another guy. You can do that. I can do that. It'll be edited. Although people will be watching this live, so you didn't hear me say that if you're watching live. So let me now just thank our panel for their contributions in our conversation about the global agenda. It's been a real pleasure having you all with us. Thank you very much for tuning in to this CNBC special and we'll see you next time.