Tharman Shanmugaratnam 总统达沃斯2024对话记录

《全球经济展望》——尚达曼总统在瑞士达沃斯 2024 年世界经济论坛上的对话记录

https://www.istana.gov.sg/Newsroom/Speeches/2024/01/19/The-Global-Economic-Outlook-Transcript-of-Dialogue-by-President-at-the-World-Economic-Forum- 2024

2024 年 1 月 19 日

Francine Lacqua：大家好，欢迎来到我们的全球经济展望小组。 现在，全球经济肯定会在 2023 年受到考验，这是以前很少有的。 通货膨胀和数十年来最激进的货币紧缩行动； 欧洲和中东的战争； 中国不断恶化的房地产危机以及华盛顿和北京之间日益加深的竞争。 这确实迫使企业重新思考供应链和安全。 现在，尽管存在这些痛点，大流行后的全球复苏实际上已经成功推进。 在美国，消费者超出预期并继续支出，促使许多经济学家放弃了下行情景和罕见的软着陆预测。 在中国，蓬勃发展的电动汽车行业以及稳健的财政刺激措施帮助领导人接近实现增长目标。 而世界经济的巨大新希望印度也弥补了部分闲置。 但根据世界银行的数据，总体而言，全球经济的增长速度低于前几十年。 这是因为大流行后的反弹受到高利率的拖累。 因此，我们正在关注贸易低迷和地缘政治紧张局势，这将对发展中国家造成最严重的打击。 因此，我们不想给您提供 2024 年的悲观指南，而是想看看未来的一些主要压力点和一些增长基础。 当然，还有很多选举和对未来轨迹的期望。 对于您的社交媒体，您还可以#WEF24。 这是我们的全明星小组成员：克里斯蒂娜·拉加德，欧洲央行行长； 德国联邦财政部长克里斯蒂安·林德纳（Christian Lindner）； 穆罕默德·贾丹，沙特阿拉伯财政部长； 新加坡总统尚达曼； 世界贸易组织总干事恩戈齐·奥孔乔-伊维拉博士； 以及凯雷联合创始人兼联席董事长戴维·鲁宾斯坦 (David Rubenstein)。 谢谢大家加入我们。

弗朗辛·拉夸（Francine Lacqua）：总统先生，让我从您开始。 2023年真的很惊讶。 预期上行？ 全球经济现在真的像我们想象的那样有弹性吗？

尚达曼总统：我们必须考虑韧性，而不是逐年考虑，因为我们面临的最大挑战是潜在的、缓慢变化的变化，这些变化将在未来几年以更根本的方式威胁我们。 我们知道它们是什么。 我们知道全球生态平衡的变化正在发生什么。 我们知道社会老龄化正在发生什么，但总的来说，我们在国际上还没有为此做好准备。 我们知道在逐渐走向两极分化的过程中正在发生什么。 这些是对复原力和人类安全的真正威胁。 我什至不是在谈论战争，包括我们看到的愚蠢战争。

Francine Lacqua：非常感谢您。 拉加德女士，您能和我们谈谈您在 2023 年看到的让您对未来经济充满希望的事情吗？

欧洲央行行长拉加德：首先大家早上好，感谢你们邀请我参加小组讨论。 因为我实际上是一个奇怪的小组成员，因为我无法谈论我花费 100% 时间的事情。 我是欧洲中央银行行长。 我们将于周三和周四召开货币政策会议，在此之前的一周内，我无法谈论我所做的事情、我的希望以及支持我们结论的分析是什么。 于是我苦苦思索了很久。 我试图找出 2023 年我们看到的一些趋势，这些趋势不会对我们下周的决定产生影响。 我们应该对未来有所预期，我想到了我称之为正常化的东西。 这就是我们开始看到的情况，特别是在 2023 年底，但这种情况不会成为常态。 所以从常态化到非常态化。 那么我这是什么意思呢？ 2023 年之前的那段时期是奇怪的、非同寻常的，很多人都难以分析。 2023 年，我们看到了正常化的开始。 例如，当你观察世界各地的消费时——我不仅仅谈论欧元区——消费仍然是增长的驱动力。 但我们所受益的顺风正在逐渐消退。 这个非常奇怪、极其紧张的劳动力市场，仍然紧张，但有所减轻，我们用来确定职位空缺和失业之间关系的一些指数正在逐渐发生变化。 因此，让我们在就业市场上加强这一点。 当我们观察世界各地的储蓄时，会发现储蓄很充裕。 超额储蓄。特别是在所有发达经济体中，储蓄都过剩，正在下降。 从这 10% 的超额储蓄来看，我们几乎接近于零。因此，如果将这两者结合起来——工作不再紧张，储蓄减少，显然消费不再像以前那样强劲。这是一回事。 第二件事也开始正常化，我希望恩戈齐能谈论很多，那就是贸易。在2023年之前的过去两年里，贸易下降，并受到商品与服务与商品的严重干扰。但现在开始真正回升。十月份，全球贸易数据数月以来首次上升，贸易格局正在发生变化。 但我会让我的朋友和恩戈齐来更好地描述这一点。第三个正常化，我不得不说的是，在全球范围内，不包括欧元区，全世界的通胀都在下降。我们在11月份再次看到了这种情况——总体通胀和核心通胀。这就是我所说的我们在 2023 年观察到的正常化。也许你会再给我一次机会来谈谈我们正在走向的非正常化。

Francine Lacqua：我们当然会讨论这个问题。Ngozi博士，您能和我们谈谈您在全球供应链和贸易中看到的弹性吗？

世贸组织总干事恩戈齐：好的，谢谢。我认为克里斯汀对我的安排很好。 让我们看看我是否可以继续前进。 确实，2023年的贸易量大幅下降。 实际上，对于货物贸易，我们不得不将今年的预测从1.7%下调至0.8%。正如您所说，上个季度，我们看到数量有所增加，贸易显示汽车和零部件带动了复苏。但总而言之，当我们看到前三个季度和最后一个季度时，我们仍然认为我们的数字将与我们预计的数字大致相同或略低于预期。我们对2024年更加乐观。我们预测将大幅复苏至 3.3%。 正如克里斯汀所说，也许正在走向正常化，或者你怎么说，但不是正常化。 由于贸易增长仍低于趋势，因此仍低于GDP增长。但我面临的问题是我们现在看到的地缘政治冲突——红海和苏伊士运河的问题。 由于气候变化，巴拿马运河也面临问题。存在如此多的不确定性，当然还有我们在世界各地看到的所有选举以及这可能带来的后果。我认为有很多不确定性使得预测变得困难。不过，我会冒一点风险，说我认为这会比2023年更好。我们可能不会低于3.3%，但比2023年我们看到的要好得多。除非爆发重大战争 出局，那么所有的赌注都落空了。

Francine Lacqua：谢谢 Ngozi 博士。林德纳部长，多年来，德国通过从俄罗斯购买能源并向中国出售汽车而在部分地区取得了繁荣。所有这一切都在发生变化，因为中国正在生产如此多的电动汽车。 两人如何结婚？

林德纳部长：鉴于去年我们所看到的历史性冲击，全球经济表现出了非凡的韧性，德国经济也表现出了韧性。想想你提到的能源状况。在过去18个月里，我们必须重新改造德国的能源基础设施和供应。因此，我们没有预期的增长前景，但我们的经济已经表现出了这种弹性。展望未来几年会发生什么，克里斯汀说，好吧，我们正处于正常化过程中，我想说我们正在见证一种新常态，2023 年标志着这种新常态。想想你们在达沃斯讨论的人工智能的崛起。 想想未来几年你将不得不应对的地缘政治紧张局势和分裂的威胁，因为大流行和能源价格上涨后债务水平更高，这缩小了我们为转型提供资金的财政空间。 鉴于全球经济的增长前景微乎其微，我们必须回答这样的问题：未来我们如何能够通过私人资本市场为转型提供资金，以及如何在世界各地消除贫困。

所以，对我来说，这不是正常化；而是正常化。这是一种新常态，我们必须为此做好准备。你问，2023年给了我希望吗？我会这样说—这是对行动的呼吁，因为我们必须重新安排一些政策，并且可能会看到结构性改革的新需要。 也许我们正处于新的结构性改革时代的开端。

Francine Lacqua：Al-Jadaan部长，与我们去年看到的弹性相比，您认为主要风险是什么？

Al-Jadaan部长：我认为我可能会根据我所听到的一些背景情况来阐述一些内容。 显然，你知道存在显而易见的直接风险，即地缘政治、分裂，以及债务状况，特别是低收入国家的债务状况

。 我们正在谈论它们，并且我们意识到它们实际上会带来加剧通胀和货币紧缩的风险。 但这些是我们需要立即关注的问题，但我认为我们需要确保我们也关注中期问题。我们从世界银行或国际货币基金组织看到的预测明确表明，与本世纪第一个十年和第二个十年相比，这十年将是世界经济增长潜力最低的十年。 昨天，阿贾伊·班加（Ajay Banga）在其中一个小组中说，我们得到了一份非常好的声明，他说这些都是预测，不是我们的命运。 因此，我们应该真正看看我们能做些什么来塑造我们的命运，通过采取真正促进增长的政策来改变我们做事的方式。 这些对于低收入国家来说非常重要。 低收入国家实际上正面临严重的债务紧缩。 为了让他们能够增长，他们需要投资，而为了让他们投资，我们需要重组他们的债务，让他们获得资金，然后他们可以推动自己的增长，这将有助于世界其他地区。

Francine Lacqua：非常感谢 David Rubenstein，2024 年你最担心的是什么？ 有很多事情需要担心。

大卫·鲁宾斯坦：嗯，我担心一切。 但我想说的是，我想传达的最重要的事情是，一月份对今年剩余时间将发生的事情所做的预测通常是错误的。 去年的这个时候，世界各地的其他论坛上，人们都预测美国可能会出现硬着陆，如果不是硬着陆，也会是软着陆，但软着陆意味着非常低的增长。 事实证明，虽然具体数字尚未公布，但美国到 2023 年的经济增长率可能会达到百分之二半左右，这比当时任何人的实际预测要好得多。 美国确实面临挑战，但通胀正在下降。 因此，美联储可能会在不久的将来相对降低利率。 在我们国家，我们有总统选举。 我想每个人都可能认识到这一点。 因此，我认为，美联储希望在总统选举全面展开之前完成降息，因为如果你有总统，如果你在总统选举之前就降息。 在总统选举中，这将被视为对入主白宫的候选人有帮助，因为理论上这会提振经济，因此共和党提名人对此不会感到满意。 因此，正如我预期的那样，美联储今年将降息三次甚至更多。 它必须在第一季度（当然是上半年）相对完成这些工作，这样你就可以预期降息，这可能会在总统选举年推动美国经济。 美国经济总体表现不错。 我们在总统选举年往往不会陷入衰退，因为国会花费大量资金，而美联储在总统选举年的货币政策往往相对宽松。 美国经济面临的最大风险是每个人都面临的常见风险，我们是否会在某个地方陷入战争或类似的情况，或者是否会发生流行病，但这真的就像我们照镜子，敌人是 因为我们真正面临的最大风险是美国政府的功能失调。 我们无法按时通过为政府提供资金的拨款法案，无法按时处理债务限额问题。 这些是让我担心的最重要的事情，美国政府是否会因为我们国家的政治问题而无法解决这些问题。 因此，就美国经济的未来发展而言，我更担心这一点。 我们将迎来总统选举年，几乎每个候选人都会说的所有事情对于未来将发生的事情可能都不是真的，因为他们可能无法完成他们所说的要做的事情。 但观看起来会很有趣。

弗朗辛·拉夸（Francine Lacqua）：大卫，许多领导人都对唐纳德·特朗普入主白宫意味着分裂和外交政策表示担忧。 世界其他国家有什么办法可以让特朗普证明他们的经济吗？

大卫·M·鲁宾斯坦：如果有人有办法做到这一点，我认为他们应该为其申请专利，并可能将其出售给其他人，但这很难做到。 显然，去年美国发生的最大的政治变化也是不可预测的，或者我应该说是不可预测的。 我认为特朗普家族以外的任何人都不会预料到唐纳德·特朗普会因各种起诉书而被起诉四次，罪名达到 91 项，而且他的支持率会飙升到他有相当好的机会锁定共和党提名的地步。 三月，是 

比几乎所有有争议的总统候选人都更早锁定共和党提名。 如果他获得提名，这将是共和党首次连续三次提名同一个人。 他显然拥有许多分析师所忽视的追随者。 我认为任何法庭案件都不会改变他的势头。 因此，我认为人们应该认识到他是一支严肃的政治力量，并且不应该低估他很可能再次当选的事实，尽管事实上欧洲的许多人（我们现在所在的地方）并不是他最大的粉丝。 因此，我不排除他再次当选的可能性。 乔·拜登不应该被低估。 显然，我们有两位年长的候选人。 人们建议我竞选总统。 我说我才74岁，你需要年纪大了才能跑步。 但我确实认为，严肃地说，这将是一场相对势均力敌的选举。 最后的评论是在我们国家最近两次总统选举中，50个州中有45个州在这两次选举中的投票方式完全相同。 只有五个州投票不同。 这五个州是亚利桑那州、佐治亚州、明尼苏达州、密歇根州、宾夕法尼亚州和威斯康星州。 这五个州是唯一在两次选举中投票不同的州。 目前，唐纳德·特朗普在其中五个州领先。 上次他输掉了所有这五个州。 希拉里·克林顿也失去了这五个州。 拜登上次获胜。 因此，如果一切都归结为这五个州，而现在，如果选举在今天举行，那么很难看出特朗普今天将如何输掉选举，但距离选举还有很长的路要走。 关于我们国家的总统选举，我能说的最重要的一点是，事情一直在变化，我们可能要到选举前一个月左右才能确定事情到底会怎样。

Francine Lacqua：林德纳部长，欧洲应该如何准备？再说一遍，作为财政部长，研究模型有多困难？ 这是给林德纳部长的，你知道，考虑到所有的危机、考虑到选举，要查看模型进行预测是多么困难，而且实际上你并不真正知道 12 个月后会剩下什么。

林德纳部长：我认为我们在欧洲谈论太多唐纳德·特朗普，我们应该通过培养我们的欧洲竞争力，为唐纳德·特朗普可能的第二任期做好准备。 做好功课是为唐纳德·特朗普可能的第二任期做好最好的准备，其中包括我们保卫自己的能力。 在经济形势和公平分担负担方面，作为一个有吸引力的合作伙伴，作为北约组织，我们能做的就是与美国建立良好的伙伴关系。 然后，如果我们有吸引力，如果你不必问我们的话，哪一届政府都没有关系，因为我们自己有能力最好的合作方式，并且完全实现美国选举的两种可能结果。 做我们的作业。

弗朗辛·拉夸：拉加德女士。

欧洲央行行长拉加德：我想跟进克里斯蒂安的言论。 我认为最好的防守就是进攻，如果这就是我们想要的方式的话，而要正确进攻，你需要在主场保持强势。 因此，强大意味着拥有强大的深度市场，拥有真正的单一市场。 我们应该期待意大利前总理恩里科·莱塔（Enrico Letta）就如何深化和改善单一市场的运作提出一些建议，他负责编写这份报告。 我相信，这并不像许多首席执行官每天经历的那样完全是一个单一市场，更重要的是，我们应该确保在欧洲节省的钱，所有与养老金相关的钱实际上都投资于资本市场联盟 它实际上有效地发挥了作用，以筹集我们向绿色经济转型急需的投资，绿色经济在一段时间内突然依赖化石燃料，但正如上届缔约方会议第 28 届会议所表明的那样，并在投资严重的情况下转向可再生能源 需要。

林德纳部长：只是一个小方面，因为我很感激克里斯汀提到资本市场联盟。 我担心欧盟的一些政策制定者倾向于追随美国对几乎所有东西进行补贴。 但我们必须避免补贴增加。 我们负担不起，下一届美国政府的信使可以继续提高对经济的支持。 我想知道这么高的补贴是否可持续。 我们要做的就是改善我们经济的框架条件，并进一步推动资本市场联盟的发展。 与美国相比，我们的竞争劣势不是补贴。 这是我们私人资本市场的功能。

弗朗辛·拉夸：主席先生，当世界运转良好时，新加坡当然是一个表现良好的国家

当中国和美国分崩离析时，两国的合作就不那么融洽了。 那么，您对美中压力有何看法？

尚达曼总统：美中关系是紧张的中轴。 但当你审视我们在世界上面临的最大问题时，你会发现它必须被重新塑造为伙伴关系的中心轴。 如今，他们从根本上将彼此视为对手，然后在该框架内寻找合作机会。 必须把它翻转过来。 从根本上说，它们必须成为合作伙伴，因为它们面临着相同的挑战——气候变化、全球秩序的丧失、全球贸易体系的崩溃。 他们俩都会遭受同样的痛苦。

两者之间的关系对于任何气候、和平和开放的全球贸易体系的解决方案都是绝对必要的。 在这个范围内，你可以争辩说你可以獾，你可以确保公平竞争； 您可以确保有一种符合开放和公平竞争原则的相互交往方式。 但我们必须扭转局面，从根本上的对手变成根本上的合作伙伴，然后就具体细节进行争论和谈判。 这就是所需要的根本性重新定位。 所以，这不仅仅是关系的暂停，而是关系的重新定位。

Francine Lacqua：Ngozi 博士，如果我们向前推进，我们需要落实三、四个支柱来促进增长。 我不知道今年是否会有很多干扰因素让我们离这个目标更远，但你会关注什么来恢复更长期的可持续增长？

世贸组织总干事恩戈齐：谢谢，我只想说，我强烈支持克里斯蒂安和克里斯汀所说的，我认为为任何可能发生的情况做好准备的最好方法就是专注于你无论如何都需要做的事情。 对于世贸组织的我来说，我并不担心谁会来或正在发生什么。 也许这有点言过其实了。 但在某种程度上，它关注的是我们需要做什么来加强和改革该组织，以便无论在什么情况下它都能够为人们提供应有的服务。 因此，如果我们继续这样做，我认为这是一个强有力的答案，在这方面有点冒犯。 但关于我们应该关注恢复增长的支柱是什么，我认为这是一次非常好的对话，因为我们非常关注可能发生的悲观事情。 但在贸易方面有一些值得讨论的光明前景。 首先，我想提一下，尽管我们谈到了所有不确定性，而且我在一开始就指出了这一点，但贸易在很大程度上具有弹性。 正是由于贸易，欧洲才能够从美国、海湾地区和其他地方找到其他能源来源，以弥补从俄罗斯撤出能源的情况。 正是由于贸易，35 个依赖非洲黑海地区的国家才能够找到绿色肥料的替代来源。 因此，贸易一直是恢复力的力量。 我们需要注意贸易中的一些亮点。 数字贸易和服务贸易正在快速增长，尤其是数字交付的服务流，每年以 8% 的速度增长，这是一件非常非常有趣的事情，因为现在我们都在谈论数字平台、人工智能，这是 这是一个积极的迹象。 我们应该准备好说我们如何支持这种贸易？ 我们如何确保它有利于中小企业、女性和边缘群体。 从 2000 年至今，绿色贸易增长了两倍，价值增长了两倍，达到 1.9 万亿美元。 那是另一个机会。 最后，我想说，重塑供应链，我认为这是一个机遇，而不是挑战。 当你将其视为一个机会时，它可以帮助我们寻找其他增长来源。 如果你只看我们谈到的一个供应链，即关键矿物和关键原材料供应链，我们有可能发现这些关键原材料存在于许多发展中国家，而这些国家并没有从一体化第一阶段中受益匪浅。 全球经济。 现在有机会通过发展这些供应链来引入它们，因为它们有两个优势，不仅是原材料，还有绿色能源。 因此，将两者结合起来，我很高兴地说肖尔茨总理和欧洲已经意识到了这一点。 你可以去非洲、拉丁美洲开发这些供应链。 为这些国家带来新的增长动力、创造新的就业机会、帮助人民摆脱贫困。 所以这些都是一些很好的机会和一些希望。

弗朗辛·拉夸：大卫。

大卫·鲁宾斯坦：在贸易方面，无论谁当选总统都不太可能签署很多贸易协定。 在美国，贸易或贸易协定这个词几乎是一个骂人的词。 现在，这个人，观众席上的一个人，迈克·弗罗曼（Mike Froman）

他在奥巴马总统领导下谈判了TPP协议，但该协议甚至无法在美国国会获得投票。 我认为当前的国会不会批准任何重大贸易协定，而且我认为无论总统是谁，这种情况在一段时间内都不会改变。 不幸的是，因为贸易常常被美国的某些选民视为有利于海外就业，但事实并非如此，根本不受欢迎。 就连希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)在竞选总统时也反对TPP，尽管该协议是由她曾任职的民主党政府谈判达成的。 关于美国、中国，美中关系是世界上最重要的双边关系。 毫无疑问。 但在美国，在总统选举年说任何对中国有利或好的事情，对美国来说没有任何政治好处。 因此，我认为拜登总统和特朗普总统不会说我们需要与中国建立更密切的关系，而且我会比以前对中国更好。 这在总统选举年是不会发生的。 希望选举结束后，APEC会议最近取得的进展能够看到一些成果。 但我认为在那之前你不会看到任何事情开花结果。 希望中国能再次向美国提供一些我们迫切希望拥有的熊猫。

Francine Lacqua：Al-Jadaan 部长，您认为我们现在需要采取哪些政策来确保在四五年内取得成功，而我们可能没有充分考虑这些政策。

贾丹部长：首先，我想跟进一下，昨天和一位美国朋友谈论了几乎相同的话题，我问他是否乐观，他说好，至少只有四个 年，有人即将到来。 因此，看看未来四年会发生什么将会很有趣。 但更严肃地说，我认为需要做的是如何真正调动自己的资源？ 结构性改革如何进行？ 我可以根据经验告诉你，我来这里并不是为了宣传沙特正在做的事情，但从经验来看，我们在过去七年里所做的事情实际上对我们有很大帮助，而且我们处理多次枪击的能力也有很大帮助。 当前面临的形势包括地缘政治紧张局势如何。 因此，结构性改革至关重要。 地方收入调动实际上对各国来说非常重要，显然，多边发展机构支持促进私营部门对发展中国家、特别是低收入国家的投资也非常关键。 我认为将会起到促进作用，而且我实际上对世界银行正在进行的改革非常乐观，实际上，世界银行正在将多边投资担保机构、国际金融公司以及他们自己的国际复兴开发银行和国际开发协会联合起来，以确保他们提供支持并促进更多的私人投资 在低收入国家。 我认为这是有希望的，并且希望今年能看到一些实际结果。

弗朗辛·拉夸（Francine Lacqua）：总统先生，您担心的是我们不关心的事情，我们并没有真正谈论。 这是财政支出。 我们现在是否正在为四五年、六年后发生更大的危机埋下种子？

尚达曼总统：我认为公共政策中最重要和最容易被忽视的领域是财政改革。 克里斯蒂安·林特纳谈到了已经非常高的债务水平。 因此，不幸的是，在许多国家，我们的出发点是错误的，因为我们必须应对未来的挑战，而这需要更多的财政投资。

我们忽视财政改革，因为谈论增加收入或增税从来都不是令人愉快的事情。 谈论重新调整补贴或重新调整支出从来都不是一件令人愉快的事情。 所以，我们正在愉快地滑向未来，修补边缘。 即使是二十国集团近年来最重大的国际税收改革——与重新安排和重新分配公司税有关的改革——与我们真正面临的挑战相比，实际上也只是一些很小的事情。 最大的问题是，我们如何应对气候转型？ 我们如何满足老龄化社会和破碎的社会保障体系的需求？ 我们如何应对人工智能时代的挑战，确保人们能够应对它并从中受益？ 这将需要公共部门进行投资，并与私营部门合作。

如果我拿第一期的话。 气候转型的现实解决方案不涉及全球协调的碳税体系。 任何现实或公平的解决方案都不涉及全球协调的碳税体系，世贸组织的恩戈齐正在与其他几个国际组织协调这项工作。 现在还为时尚早。 有人认为碳税是不公正的，这是不公平的，它会导致

通货膨胀。 事实上，恰恰相反。 如果我们不这样做，最终受害最严重的是发展中国家，他们将是受气候变化影响最严重的国家。 如果我们不这样做，受害最深的将是普通、脆弱的社区。 我们需要的是一个碳税体系，加上对弱势家庭的补贴，以及为发展中国家提供的一系列资金，使他们能够参与气候减缓和适应方面的投资，从而使他们能够不断增长和发展。 这是一个真正的机会。 这是一个公平的解决方案，也是唯一现实的解决方案。 我们不能一直回避它。

其次，我们有巨大的机会调整补贴方向。 国际货币基金组织估计，每年大约有 1.3 万亿美元用于燃料补贴。 这至少是绿色能源补贴金额的五倍。 我们必须将这些燃料补贴转向帮助弱势家庭，帮助企业进行调整并刺激可再生能源和其他绿色技术。 这是一个重大的重定向。 这是公平的，有助于我们走向可持续发展的世界。 它必须实现。

第三个问题，也许是最被忽视的，是改革财政政策，以便我们充满信心地为老龄化社会做好准备。 这意味着要对我们的社会保障体系和医疗融资体系进行重大调整。 今天这是不可持续的。 在许多国家，太多不需要支持的人却得到了不成比例的支持。 太多最需要医疗保健系统支持的人没有得到足够的支持。 因此，必须重新调整医疗保健领域的补贴，以使最需要的人受益。 必须在预防性或先发性医疗保健上投入更多支出，以帮助人们尽可能长时间地保持健康，而不是等到他们最终住院时非常昂贵的时候，尤其是急性护理。

还可以改革社会保障以减少支出，方法是改革劳动力市场，让人们在愿意的情况下尽可能长时间地继续工作。

这些都是社会政策的非常重要的转变。 我们必须面对现实，我们面临的挑战与过去不同。 我们不会仅仅通过修补边缘来解决这些问题。 它需要提高税收来应对气候转型。 它需要重新调整补贴的方向，做到公平，并确保随着年龄的增长，没有人会受到影响。 我们实际上可以维持高质量的医疗保健系统和社会保障系统。

我们很少在国际论坛上讨论这个问题。 我们这里有五位现任和前任财政部长，他们在二十国集团和国际货币基金组织上进行了多年的讨论。 我们花了很多时间谈论货币政策，但很少花时间谈论为了更安全的未来而进行的财政政策改革。

大卫·M·鲁宾斯坦：我可以就财政改革这一点说一下吗？在美国，这很难做到，我们现在有 34 万亿美元的债务。 34万亿美元的债务。 它的利息已经接近我们的国防预算。 如果我们不在不久的将来解决这个问题，美元将会发生一些事情，美元在相当长的一段时间内一直是唯一的储备货币。 但如果美国不能采取一致的财政行动，到了某个时候，人们就会像多年前对英镑和荷兰盾所做的那样，当时这些国家借了太多的钱，他们的货币也将受到影响。 货币没有变得那么有价值，因此失去了储备地位。 美国目前没有任何真正的挑战来保留美元的货币地位。 但如果它继续做它正在做的事情，它就会发生。 我们的 GDP 的 122% 负债累累。 我们每年的预算赤字可能约占支出的 25%。 我们不能继续这样做。 但我认为美国政府中没有人真正认真地解决这个问题。 但在不久的将来，这将是一个大问题。

Francine Lacqua：谢谢 Ngozi 博士？

世贸组织总干事恩戈齐：嗯，也许你指的是我，因为尚达曼说话时我一直在点头。 这就是为什么他是最受欢迎的。 我的意思是，我们必须考虑在财政方面需要采取哪些措施来为绿色转型提供资金。 钱还没来。 数额巨大，需要数万亿美元。 你知道，以非洲为例，到 2030 年，每年需要 1900 亿美元来资助绿色转型。 现在得到了什么？ 分钟量。 它将如何筹集？ 所以我们必须考虑一些明智的事情，比如我们如何筹集资金，这就是其中之一。

第二是商业。 他们面临着很多监管碎片化的问题。 当今世界有 73 种不同的碳、税收和定价制度。 他们很困惑。 当他们从一个国家前往另一个国家时。 他们必须考虑不同的方式和不同的系统。 那么我们如何将它们结合在一起呢？ 所以我

如果我们有一个全球碳定价制度的共同方法或框架，我认为这将会有所帮助。 然后我们可以使用其中一些筹集到的资源来帮助资助那些没有资源的脆弱国家的绿色转型。 这就是为什么我如此大力点头，我认为发展中国家需要支持它。

现在，国际金融机构都在并行开展这方面的工作。 国际货币基金组织、世界银行、世贸组织、经合组织。 最后，我们聚集在一个特别工作组中，试图看看我们是否可以集中所有精力并开发一种通用的方法或框架。 我们知道，并不是每个国家都会制定碳价格或碳税，美国永远不会这样做。 他们已经、也将通过监管和补贴等方式来实现这一目标。 但一旦我们有了一个共同的框架，我们就可以根据这个框架来衡量我们正在做的事情。 更重要的是，我们可以转移一些筹集到的资源来帮助资助绿色转型。 谢谢尚达曼提出这个问题。

Francine Lacqua：我知道您必须在几分钟后离开，因为您有一个重要的会议。 非常快速地问你一个问题。 为什么这么慢？ 是因为我们被其他危机分散了注意力吗？ 您是否有信心所有这一切实际上都在朝着正确的方向发展？

世贸组织总干事恩戈齐：嗯，速度太慢了，因为我的意思是，当你谈论提高价格税时，它在任何地方都不是一个受欢迎的话题。 正如尚达曼所说，小组中有这么多前任、现任财政部长，我们知道这意味着谈论加税在政治上很困难。 逐步取消补贴在政治上也很困难。 当我担任尼日利亚财政部长时我们就尝试过。 我们希望逐步取消补贴。 我们走了一半，但这在政治上非常敏感。 这就是为什么当你谈论提高税收或逐步取消补贴时，你不会听到很大的热情。 但我认为世界上，我们需要做出一些艰难的决定。 你不可能拥有 1.2 万亿美元的化石燃料补贴，顺便说一下，其中很大一部分是在发达国家，而不是发展中国家。 然后我们正试图为损失和受损的基金寻找微不足道的资金。 扭曲贸易的农业补贴超过 6000 亿美元。 我们正在为损失和受损的基金寻找微薄的资金。 当我们拿到2亿的时候我们都很高兴。 我们需要做出这些艰难的决定。 但它们没有被完成，因为这在政治上很困难。 政客们会着眼于短期前景——他们希望连任。 正确的？ 那就是问题所在。

Francine Lacqua：非常感谢 Ngozi 博士。 你必须走，你必须走。 贾丹部长。

贾丹部长：我认为有几点。 我听了总统先生的讲话，我们在上台之前进行了简短的交谈。 首先，我想让我们同意气候变化是真实的，气候变化带来的风险是真实的，我们应该共同努力寻找有助于地球和人民生计的解决方案。 我想我们都同意。 我记得2014年达成《巴黎协定》时，发展中国家和发达国家每年承诺为发达国家提供1000亿美元的资金来应对气候变化，并帮助它们摆脱碳密集型能源的转型。 到目前为止我们看到了什么？ 几乎为零，几乎为零。 我可以理解总统先生对碳税的热情以及它如何改变现状。 但随后他将其与两件事联系起来：向有需要的人提供补贴。 我同意。 每当您提高社区或其他人的成本时，您就需要照顾不幸的人并提供社会安全网。 同意。

总统先生说，第二个警告是我们需要找到一种方法将部分资金流向低收入国家。 我们尝试过，但失败了。 现在，所以尝试别的东西。 与您之前尝试过的类似，但期望不同的结果。 这非常困难。 发达国家存在很多政治阻力。 我的意思是，在政治上，在内部，我们刚才听到了一些评论。 因此，说我们将免除税收，但随后我们将其中一些税收直接流向低收入国家，这将是非常困难的，在政治上极其困难。 所以我想提醒自己，当我们在这里享受热闹的会议场所时，非洲有超过6亿人没有基本的电力，不是间歇性的、基本的、绝对没有电。 所以对他们说，去吃蛋糕吧，你为什么要找面包，在我看来是虚伪的。 他们有自己的天赋，我们应该帮助他们从脚下获得天赋。 以天然气为例。 让他们为自己的转型提供动力，让他们利用自己的禀赋帮助他们利用自己的青年，赋予青年权力，重新调整青年规模，培训青年，这才是真正改变非洲和其他低收入国家的东西。 非常感谢。

Francine Lacqua：非常感谢。 林德纳部长。

林德纳部长：我希望没有人告诉我的联盟伙伴和内阁同事，我们在这里考虑提高税收[……]会给我国内带来严重的问题。 （但是）说真的，我想拓宽一点视野，我完全同意通过雄心勃勃的行动对抗全球变暖的想法，但应该考虑正确的方法。 我认为还有碳税的替代方案。 另一种选择是碳市场。 在德国，避免进一步排放的成本极其高昂。 我想知道我们在德国花同样多的钱是否会对世界其他地方产生更好的影响。 例如，投资非洲的电力生产是可再生能源，作为德国钢铁工业补偿的一部分，其排放可以用较低的投资在全球范围内产生更好的效果。 无论二氧化碳排放到哪里，这都是一个全球性挑战。 因此，也许应该要求经合组织为全球碳市场制定一个共同框架，就像他们在全球最低税收方面取得的成功一样。

如果允许的话，我想补充第二点。 为了满足我们从消除贫困转型到为老龄化社会做好准备的所有需求——我认为有一个解决方案。 考虑到人口结构和投资需求，我认为我们必须提高生产力。 这就是为什么我主张对劳动力市场和技术进行结构性改革，减少繁文缛节，在企业税收方面更具竞争力。 显然，我正在谈论德国的改革议程。 但我认为其他人也必须面临类似的挑战。 我们在德国，必须做好功课。 也许我们是一个模型的一部分，因为其他人也面临着类似的挑战。 我们必须解决我们的债务和赤字问题，这使我成为内阁中最孤独的部长。 但我们成功解决了债务问题。 现在我们必须加强供给侧。 我知道你们中的一些人认为德国可能是一个病人。 德国不是一个病夫，德国是，在经历了2012年以来非常成功的时期之后，以及这些年的危机之后，德国在经历了短暂的一夜和低增长之后，是一个疲惫的人。 期望在一定程度上是一个警钟。 现在我们喝了一杯好咖啡，这意味着结构性改革，然后我们将继续在经济上取得成功。

Francine Lacqua：非常感谢您，部长。 我们只剩下五分钟了。 因此，我将拜访拉加德女士、大卫先生以及总统先生和部长先生。

欧洲央行行长拉加德：非常感谢。 我想指出几个我认为如果我们能够兑现承诺就可以带来希望和信任的领域。 我想首先提出两点观察，作为尚达曼的后续行动。 尚达曼，你关于税收的观点得到了很好的理解。 但在这个小组中，我们的讨论没有提供一个很好的例子来说明它是多么困难。 因为税收问题呈现出巨大的异质性。 无论您身在一个国家还是另一个国家，您的税收负担都可能达到 GDP 的 50% 或 10%，而且您的起点完全不同。 所以应该考虑到这一点。

其次，目前经合组织层面经过艰苦谈判，达成了一些文书，以落实这两个支柱，其中一项规定了最低企业税，另一项则建议根据 活动产生的地方。 这些协议已在经合组织层面获得批准，只需批准即可。 所以它就在那里，让我们继续前进并采取行动，否则，我们将转向更加分散的税收。

我们在各处的碳税边境调整中看到了这一点。 这会增加我们所看到的风险。 这将我带到了我认为有希望的第二个领域。 我很抱歉恩戈齐必须离开，因为它涉及贸易。 无论我们如何谈论去全球化，每个人都会同意全球化对帮助数亿人摆脱贫困产生了巨大而积极的影响。 如果我们听听世界银行的阿贾伊·班加（Ajay Banga）的说法，我们所走的这条良性道路并不是最稳定的，最坏的情况是减少更多的贫困而不是减少贫困。 好吧，如果我们看看贸易、脱钩或去风险（无论我们如何称呼它），它意味着两件事。

第一，将会出现不同的、新的供应来源和新的贸易模式，第一，第二，因为与供应相关的脆弱性更大，从长远来看，成本很可能会更高。 也许这并不是一件坏事。 也许我们一直依赖这种效率原则，而不是安全性，有点过分了，假设一切几乎没有成本，假设劳动力成本必须最小化并随着时间的推移而降低。 好吧，这可以改变，也许可以改变

以便更好地使那些受益于全球化并摆脱贫困的人们摆脱贫困，消除贫困，使他们中的一些人面临再次陷入贫困的风险。 所以我在这两个方面看到了很多积极的一面。 我还有一些其他物品，但我会把它们留到明年。

大卫·M·鲁宾斯坦：套用主席先生的话说，我国问的不是世界经济论坛能为您做什么，而是您能为世界经济论坛做什么。 现在，我这是什么意思？ 论坛的目的，我不能代言，因为克劳斯才是真正最有责任感的人，能够代言。 但我可以说，目的是为了激励人们。 我们在这个小组以及世界经济论坛的其他小组中试图做的就是激励人们并教育人们。 希望当您回到自己的国家时，您能够了解我们在这里讨论的一些事情，您可能会受到启发，了解更多信息。 并尝试从我们讨论的问题中选择一个问题，让自己不仅受过良好的教育，比现在受过更好的教育，而且尝试在自己的国家做出一些改变，尝试提出其中一些想法， 因为我们在世界经济论坛中真正发挥作用的唯一方法是，我们有人来参加会议，而这些人正在观看直播，他们将采纳这些想法，并用它们做一些有用的事情 在自己的国家工作，教育人们了解这些事情。 那时我真的希望你们所有人都能从这次会议中得到一些东西，并说，我现在受到启发，想了解更多有关这个或那个问题的信息。 我将尝试在我的国家做一些事情，让这种情况更有可能发生。 谢谢。

弗朗辛·拉夸（Francine Lacqua）：谢谢您，总统先生，请用 30 秒或一分钟的时间，您对什么有积极的看法？

尚达曼总统：我完全同意我们需要碳市场。 这本身就是一项复杂的工作。 但我们必须发展它，并且我们需要使其全球化。 但它并不能替代碳税，原因很简单。 政府将不得不投入比以前更多的投资。 我们希望私营部门为大部分转型提供资金。 但由于新电网等项目涉及的外部性以及其他原因，大约三分之一的投资将必须来自政府。

它必须有资金，我们不能有神奇的想法。 为政府提供资金需要采取一种或另一种形式的税收。 另一种选择是越来越多的借贷，克里斯蒂安将首先同意这种做法是不可持续的。 所以我们不要回避这些问题。

我们真正的挑战是政治上的。 提高任何税收都是不受欢迎的。 但我们必须将税收和补贴一起设计，以使它们能够被接受和公平。 这才是财政部长的真正任务。 我们必须在全球范围内尽可能地协调这一问题，这样碳排放活动就不会从征收碳税的地方泄漏到其他没有征收碳税的地方。

我们可以而且必须设计税收和补贴，以便我们能够走在前面，在更高水平上进行投资，让普通民众公平并帮助为发展中国家提供资金。

我非常同意 Al-Jadaan 和 Christine 对于发展中国家机遇的看法。 事实上，我们有机会在世界上拥有大量阳光和风能的地区发展绿色能源驱动的工业。 我们有机会制定可持续的增长战略。 但这需要发达国家的投资和支持，包括大幅增强国际金融机构的作用。 我们必须努力实现这一目标。

我们的政治触角太短了。 我们正在关注一系列国家的下一次选举。 如果我们继续这样做，后果将是未来的政治家需要跨越的更大的痛苦和更高的障碍。 那么我们现在就开始行动吧。 实事求是，确保公平公正，避免给未来留下大问题。

弗朗辛·拉夸：非常感谢总统先生。 您有乐观的 2024 年指南和悲观的 2024 年及以后指南。 非常感谢我们所有的小组成员，如果观众也能留在座位上，我会很高兴。 还有小组成员，我非常高兴地欢迎世界经济论坛主席 Børge Brende 上台为第 54 届世界经济论坛致闭幕词。

"The Global Economic Outlook" - Transcript of Dialogue including President Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the World Economic Forum 2024, Davos, Switzerland

https://www.istana.gov.sg/Newsroom/Speeches/2024/01/19/The-Global-Economic-Outlook-Transcript-of-Dialogue-by-President-at-the-World-Economic-Forum-2024 

19 January 2024

Francine Lacqua: Hi everyone, and welcome to our panel on the global economic outlook. Now the global economy was certainly tested in 2023, as it rarely has been before. Inflation and the most aggressive monetary tightening campaign in decades; wars in Europe and in the Middle East; the festering real estate crisis in China and the deepening rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Which is really forcing companies also to rethink supply chains and security. Now, despite these pain points, the post pandemic global recovery has actually managed to roll on. In the US, consumers defied expectations and kept spending, prompting many economists to ditch their downside scenarios and forecasts on rare, soft landing. In China, the booming electric vehicle industry, along with a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus helped leaders stick close to their growth targets. And the world's economy great new hope India also took up some of the slack. But overall, according to the World Bank, the global economy is dragging along that growth rates slower than previous decades. And this is as a post-pandemic rebound is weighing down by high interest rates. So we're looking at sluggish trade, geopolitical tensions that will hit developing countries hardest. So without giving you a pessimist guide to 2024, we want to look at some of the main pressure points and some of the growth foundations for the future. And of course, there are many elections and expectations on the future trajectory. For your social media you can also do #WEF24. So this is our all-star panel: Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank; Christian Lindner, Federal Minister of Finance of Germany; Mohammed Al-Jadaan, Minister of Finance of Saudi Arabia; President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the President of Singapore; Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director General of the World Trade Organisation; and David Rubenstein, co-founder and co-chairman of The Carlyle. So thank you all, for joining us.

Francine Lacqua: Mr President, let me start off with you. 2023 really surprised. Expectations to the upside? Is the global economy really now as resilient as we think?

President Tharman: We have to think about resilience not on a year-to-year basis, because the largest challenges we face are the underlying, slow-moving changes that will threaten us in far more fundamental way in the years to come. We know what they are. We know what’s happening in the shift in the global ecological balance. We know what’s happening in terms of the ageing of societies, which we are by and large, not prepared for internationally. We know what is happening in the gradual drift towards polarisation. These are the real threats to resilience, and to human security. And I'm not even talking about the wars, including the stupid wars that we see.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much for that. Madam Lagarde, can you talk to us about what you saw in 2023 that gives you hope for economies in the future.

ECB President Lagarde: Well, good morning to everyone first, and thank you for having me on the panel. Because I'm a strange panellist actually, because I cannot talk about the things that I spend 100% of my time on. I'm the President for the European Central Bank. We have a monetary policy meeting coming up on Wednesday and Thursday, and during one week before that, I can't talk about what I do, what I hope for, what the analysis supporting our conclusions is. So I thought long and hard. And I tried to identify a few of the trends that we have seen in 2023 that will have no impact on our decision next week. And what we should sort of anticipate for the future and I came around to something that I called normalisation. That's what we are beginning to see, specially in the end of 2023, but towards something that is not going to be normality. So from normalisation to non-normality. So what do I mean by that? The period before 2023 was strange, extraordinary, difficult to analyse by many accounts. And 2023 we have seen the beginning of normalisation. When you look at consumption, for instance, around the world - I'm not talking just about the euro area - consumption is still a driving force for growth. But the tailwind that we had the benefit of are gradually fading. This very strange, extremely tight labour market, still tight, but a little less, and some of the indices that we use to identify the relationship particularly between vacancies and unemployment, are changing gradually. So let's tighten this on the job on the job market. When we look at savings around the world, there was plenty of it. Excess saving. With that excess saving pretty much in all advanced economies in particular, is coming down. And from this 10 per cent excess saving we're getting close to virtually zero. So if you combine these two - jobs less tight, savings diminishing, clearly consumption is not as strong force as it used to be. That's one thing. The second thing which is also beginning to normalise, and I hope, and Ngozi will talk a lot about that is trade. Trade went down and was massively disrupted by this goods versus services versus goods over the course of the last two years preceding 2023. But it is beginning now to really pick up. In October, we had global trade numbers that for the first time in many months was up, and the pattern of trade is changing. But I will leave it to my friend and Ngozi to describe that better. And the third normalisation, and I have to say that is that around the world, not including the euro area, around the world, inflation is coming down. And we have seen it yet again in November - both headline inflation and core inflation. So that's what I call the normalisation that we have observed in 2023. And maybe you will give me the floor another time to talk about how it is not normality that we're heading to.

Francine Lacqua: We'll certainly talk about that. Dr. Ngozi, could you talk to us a bit about the resilience that you've seen in global supply chains and trade?

WTO DG Ngozi: Well, thank you. I think Christine has set me up nicely. Let's see if I can move on that. It is true that in 2023 trade was considerably down. Actually for goods trade, we had to revise our forecast down from 1.7 per cent for the year to 0.8 per cent. In the last quarter, as you said, we saw an uptick in the numbers and trade showed the recovery led by automobiles and components and parts. But all in all when we look at the first three quarters and the last quarter, we still think we'll come in at about the number we projected or slightly less than that. We had been more optimistic about 2024. And we are forecasting with a considerable recovery to 3.3 per cent. So like Christine said, maybe moving towards normalisation or how you put it, but not normal. Because trade growth is still below trend, it is still trending below GDP growth. But the problem that I have is the geopolitical conflicts that we now see - the problem in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We also have problems in the Panama Canal because of climate change. There's so many uncertainties and of course, all the elections that we see around the world and what that may bring. I think there are a lot of uncertainties that made forecasting difficult. However, I'll take a bit of a risk and say I think it will be better than 2023. We may not come in at 3.3 per cent - below that, but much better than what we saw in 2023. Unless a major war breaks out, then all bets are off.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you Dr Ngozi. Minister Lindner, Germany has prospered in parts for many years from buying energy from Russia and selling cars to China. All of that is changing also because China is making so many EVs. How do you marry the two?

Minister Lindner: Given the historic shocks we have seen in the last year, the global economy has shown remarkable resilience and the German economy has shown resilience as well. Think about the energy situation you have mentioned. We had to re-invent the German energy infrastructure and supply in the last 18 months. And so we have not the growth perspective we are expecting, but our economy has shown this resilience. Looking to what will come over the next years, Christine said ok, we are in the process of normalisation, I would say we are witnessing a new normal and 2023 marks this new normal. Think about the rise of artificial intelligence you all have been discussing here in Davos. Think about the geopolitical tension and the threat of fragmentation you will have to deal with over the next years, as the higher debt levels after the pandemic and energy price hikes, which have shrunk our fiscal space to finance transformation. And given the very little growth perspective of the global economy, we have to answer the question how we will be able in the future to finance transition by the private capital markets, and how to fight poverty around the world.

So, for me, it's not normalisation; it is a new normal, which we have to be prepared for. Has 2023 given me hope, you ask. I would put it this way - it was a call for action, because we have to rearrange some policies and probably will see a new need for structural reforms. Probably we are at the beginning of an era of new structural reforms.

Francine Lacqua: Minister Al-Jadaan, what do you see as the main risks, you know, compared to maybe the resilience that we saw last year?

Minister Al-Jadaan: There are a few things I think I would just put possibly from what I’ve heard a little bit of context. Obviously there are the immediate risks that you know will be obvious, which is geopolitics, fragmentation and obviously, the debt situation particularly in low income countries. And we are talking about them, and we realise that they actually pose risks that will add to inflation and monetary tightening. But these are the immediate ones we need to attend to them, but then I think we need to make sure that we also attend to the medium term. The projections that we have seen from the World Bank, or the IMF clearly suggest that this decade would be the lowest growth potential for the world economy, compared to the first decade of the century and the second decade. And yesterday, Ajay Banga said in one of the panels, a very nice statement that we've gotten, he said these are projections, they are not our destiny. And therefore, we should actually see what can we do to form our destiny by actually changing the way we do things by adopting policies that will actually fuel growth. These are very important and, again, in relation to low-income countries. Low-income countries are actually coming under serious crunch of debt. And for them to be able to grow, they need to invest and for them to invest, we need to restructure their debt and allow them access to money that they can then fuel their own growth, which will help rest of the world.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much, David Rubenstein, what do you worry about the most in 2024? There are many things to worry about.

David M. Rubenstein: Well, I worry about everything. But I would say the most important thing I want to convey is that predictions made in January about what's going to happen in the remainder of the year is generally wrong. Last year at this time of the year and other forums around the world, people were predicting the US would likely have a hard landing, if not a hard landing a soft landing, but a soft landing implies very low growth. As it turns out, while the numbers aren't really in yet, the US will have grown probably around two and a half percent for 2023 which is much better than anybody really projected at the time. The US has its challenges for sure, but inflation is coming down. And as a result of that the Federal Reserve is likely to reduce interest rates relatively in the near future. In our country, we have a presidential election. I think everybody probably recognises that. And as a result, the Federal Reserve wants to get its, I think, wants to get its rate cuts out of the way before the presidential election is in full steam, because if you have president, if you have rate cuts in right before a presidential election, it will be seen as helping the candidate who's in the White House because it will gin up the economy is the theory and so the Republican nominee would not be happy with that. So, the Fed is going to get three rate cuts in and or more this year as I expect it will. It will have to get those done relatively in the first quarter, certainly the first half so you can expect to see rate cuts and that will probably drive the US economy during presidential election years. The US economy is generally does pretty well. We tend not to be in recessions in presidential election years because Congress spends a lot of money, and the Fed tends to be relatively easy on monetary policy during presidential election years. The biggest risk for the US economy is the usual risk everybody has, are we going to be in a war somewhere or something like that, or is there going to be a pandemic, but it's really like we look in the mirror and the enemy is us because the biggest risk we really have is the dysfunction of the US government. Our inability to pass appropriation bills that fund that government on time, the inability to deal with the debt limit issues on time. Those are the biggest things that worry me whether they at some point the US government just can't get these issues done because of the political problems we have in the country. And as a result, I worry more about that than other things in terms of the US economy going forward. We will have a presidential election year and almost everything every candidate will say it will probably not be true about what will happen in the future as they probably won't be able to get done what they say they're gonna get done. But it'll be interesting to watch.

Francine Lacqua: David, a number of leaders have expressed concern of what Donald Trump in the White House means for fragmentation, for foreign policy. Is there any way that the rest of the world can Trump-proof their economies?

David M. Rubenstein: If somebody has a way to do that, I think they should patent it and probably sell it to somebody else, but it'd be very difficult to do. Clearly, the biggest political change that occurred in the United States last year, also was unpredictable, or unpredicted, I should say. I don't think anybody outside of the Trump family would have predicted that Donald Trump would be indicted four times 91 counts on various indictments and that his popularity would soar to the point where he has a reasonably good chance of locking up the Republican nomination by March, which is earlier than almost any contested presidential candidate has been able to lock up the Republican nomination. If he is nominated, it would be the first time ever that a Republican Party has nominated the same person three times in a row. He clearly has a following that many of the analysts missed. And I don't think any of the court cases are likely to change his momentum. So, I think people should recognise that he's a serious political force and should not discount the fact that he could well be elected again despite the fact that many people in Europe, where we are now, are not really his biggest fans. And so, I wouldn't rule out his possibly getting elected again. Joe Biden shouldn't be discounted. He, obviously, we have two older candidates. People have suggested to me that I should run for president. I say I'm only 74 and you need to be older to run. But I do think to be very serious, it’ll be a relatively close election. The final comment is in our country in the last two presidential elections, 45 states out of the 50 voted exactly the same way in each of those two elections. Only five states voted differently. Those five states are Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Those five states are the only ones that voted differently in those two elections. Right now, Donald Trump is ahead in five of those states. He lost all five of those states last time. Hillary Clinton lost those five states as well. Biden won last time. So, if that everything will get down to those five states and right now, if the election were held today, it'd be difficult to see how Trump would lose that election today, but it's a long way away. And the most important thing I can say about presidential elections in our country is things change all the time and we won't know for sure probably until about a month before the election where it's really going to go.

Francine Lacqua: Minister Lindner, how should Europe prepare and again, how difficult is it as a finance minister to look at models? This is for Minister Lindner you know, how difficult is it to look at models to forecast given all the crises, given the elections and actually you don't really know what you’re left with in 12 months.

Minister Lindner: I think we are talking too much about Donald Trump in Europe, and we should prepare ourselves for a possible second term for Donald Trump by fostering our European competitiveness. Doing our homework is the best preparation for possible second term of Donald Trump and this includes our capabilities to defend ourselves. Being an attractive partner on eye level when it comes to the economic situation and when it comes to a fair burden sharing and as a group of NATO is the best we can do to be a good partnership with the United States. And then it doesn't matter which administration, if we are attractive, if you do not have to ask us because we have capabilities ourselves the best way to cooperate and just as completely for both possible outcomes of the election in the United States. Doing our homework.

Francine Lacqua: Madam Lagarde.

ECB President Lagarde: I would like to follow up on what Christian is saying. I think the best defense if that's the way we want to look at it, is attack and to attack properly you need to be strong at home. So being strong means having a strong deep market, having a real single market. We should be expecting some suggestions by Enrico Letta, former prime minister of Italy who is in charge of producing this report on how we can deepen and improve the functioning of that single market, which is a huge economic zone in the world, but which is not completely a single market as many CEOs I'm sure experience on a daily basis, and we should more importantly make sure that the money that is saved in Europe, all the money that is associated with pension is actually invested in a capital market union that actually functions efficiently to rally the investment that we badly need for the transition towards a greener economy which relies suddenly for a period of time on fossil fuel, but less so as was indicated in the last COP 28 and moves towards renewable where investment is badly needed.

Minister Lindner: Just one little aspect because I am grateful that Christine mentioned the Capital Markets Union. And I'm concerned that some policymakers in the European Union that tend to follow the United States to subsidise almost everything. But we have to avoid a subsidy raise. We cannot afford and couriers of the next US administration can continue to raise a support as an economy. I wonder if it's sustainable to pay so high subsidies. What we have to do is to improve our framework conditions for our economies and to make further progress and Capital Markets Union. Our competitive disadvantage compared to the US is not subsidies. It's a function of our private capital markets.

Francine Lacqua: Mr President, Singapore is of course a country that does well when the world is working well together less well, when China and the US are falling apart. So, what's your take on this US China stress?

President Tharman: The US China relationship is the central axis of tension. But when you look at the largest problems we face in the world, it has to be refashioned into the central axis of partnership. They look at each other fundamentally as adversaries today, and then they look for opportunities to cooperate within that framework. It has to be flipped around. Fundamentally, they have to be partners, because the challenges that they each face are the same – climate change, a loss of global order, a breaking up of the global trading system. Both of them will suffer from the same.

And the relationship between the two is absolutely essential to any solution to climate, to peace, and to an open global trading system. Within that, you can argue you can badger, you can ensure fair competition; you can ensure that there is a way of dealing with each other that is consistent with the principles of openness and fair play. But we have to flip things around from being fundamentally adversaries to being fundamentally partners, who then argue and negotiate over specifics. That is the fundamental repositioning that's required. So, it's more than a pause in the relationship, it really has to be a repositioning in the relationship.

Francine Lacqua: Dr Ngozi, if we move it forward, there are three, four pillars that we need to put in place to foster growth. And I don't know whether this year there will be a lot of distractions that keep us further away from that goal, but what would you focus on to bring back longer sustainable growth?

WTO DG Ngozi: Thank you and I just want to say that I strongly support what Christian and Christine said, I think the best way to be prepared for any eventuality is to focus on those things you need to do anyway. For me at the WTO, I don’t fret about who is going to come or what is happening. Maybe that's an overstatement. But in a way, it's focusing on what do we need to do to strengthen and reform the organisation so that whatever the circumstances it will be able to deliver what is supposed to deliver for people. So if we keep doing that, I think that's a strong answer, a bit of offense, in that regard. But with respect to what are the pillars we should look at for restoring growth, I think that's a very good conversation, because we focus a lot on the pessimistic things that might happen. But there are some bright shoots that kind of want to talk about on the trade side. First, I want to mention that in spite of all the uncertainties that we talked about, and I pointed to in the beginning, trade has been largely resilient. It is because of trade, that Europe was able to find other sources of energy from the US and the Gulf and elsewhere to make up for the, you know, withdrawal of energy from Russia. It's because of trade that 35 countries dependent on the Black Sea region from Africa, were able to find alternative sources of green fertilizer. So trade has been a force for resilience. And there are some bright spots in trade that we need to be conscious of. There is digital trade and services trade as is growing fast, especially digitally delivered services stream, growing at 8 per cent per annum and that is a very, very interesting thing because now we're all talking of digital platforms, AI, and this is a positive sign. And we should be preparing ourselves to say how do we support such trade? How do we make sure that it benefits Small and Medium Enterprises, women, those at the margin. Green trade has tripled, from 2000 to now, tripled in value to $1.9 trillion. That's another opportunity. And finally, I want to say that the reshaping of supply chains, I see that as an opportunity and not a challenge. And when you see it as an opportunity, it could help us look at other sources of growth. If you take just one supply chain that we talked about yet the critical minerals and critical raw material supply chain, we have the possibility that these critical raw materials are found in many developing countries who did not benefit as much from the first phase of integration into the global economy. There is now a chance to bring them in through developing these supply chains in place because they have two advantages, not only the raw materials, but also green energy. So combining those two, and I'm glad to say that Chancellor Scholz and Europe has caught on to this. You can go to Africa, Latin America and develop these supply chains. Bringing new sources of growth, create new employment, lift people up from poverty in these countries. So those are some good opportunities that are out there and some hope.

Francine Lacqua: David.

David M. Rubenstein: On trade, whoever is elected president is not likely to enter into a lot of trade agreements. The word trade in the United States or trade agreements is almost a curse word. Now, the man, somebody who's in the audience here, Mike Froman who negotiated the TPP agreement under President Obama that couldn't even get a vote in this in the United States Congress. And I don't think any major trade agreement could be approved by our current Congress, and I don't think that's going to change for a while, no matter who the president is. Unfortunately, because trade is often seen by certain constituencies in the United States as favouring jobs offshore, and not really is very, not popular at all. Even Hillary Clinton when she was running for president was against the TPP even though it had been negotiated by a Democratic administration in which she had served. On US, China, US China is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. There's no doubt about it. But there is no political benefit in the United States about saying anything beneficial or good about China or in a presidential election year. So President Biden and President Trump, I don't think or either one are going to say we need to have closer ties with China, and I'm going to be nicer to China than I was before. It's just not going to happen during a presidential election year. Hopefully after the elections are over, the progress that’s been made recently at the APEC meeting, can see some something blossom. But I don't think you'll see anything blossom before that. Hopefully the Chinese will provide some pandas again to the United States which we desperately would like to have.

Francine Lacqua: Minister Al-Jadaan, what are some of the policies that you think we need to put in place now to make sure that there’s success in four or five years that we're maybe not thinking about as much as we should.

Minister Al-Jadaan: First of all, I would like just to follow up and say was talking to a US friend yesterday about almost the same subject and I asked him whether he is optimistic, and he said well, at least it is only four years and someone is forthcoming. So it would be interesting to see what is going to happen in the next four years. But more seriously, I think what needs to be done is looking at how can you actually mobilise your own resources? How can you do structural reform? I can tell you from experience, and I'm not here, really to promote what Saudi is doing but from experience, what we have done in the last seven years, actually helped us significantly and our resilience to deal with multiple shots that we are facing, including what the current situation geopolitical tension. So structural reforms are critically important. Local revenue mobilisation is actually very important for countries and obviously, the support of multilateral development institutions to catalyse private sector investments in developing nations and particularly low-income countries is very critical. Catalysing that is I think will be, and I'm actually very optimistic with the reform that the World Bank is doing and actually bringing MIGA, IFC and their own IBRD and IDA together to make sure that they provide that support and catalyse more private investments in low-income countries. I think this is promising and would love to see some results actually this year.

Francine Lacqua: Mr President, you worry about something that we don't, we're not really talking about. And this is fiscal spending. Are we sowing now the seeds to have an even bigger crisis four or five, six years from now?

President Tharman: I believe the most important and most neglected area of public policy is fiscal reform. Christian Lindtner spoke about the already very high debt levels. So, we're unfortunately starting from the wrong place in many countries, because we're going to have to address challenges in the future that will require greater fiscal investments.

We're neglecting fiscal reform because it's never pleasant to talk about raising revenues or raising taxes. It's never pleasant to talk about redirecting subsidies or redirecting spending. So, we’re merrily gliding into the future, tinkering at the edges. And even the most major international tax reform of recent years through the G20 - to do with rearranging and reallocating corporate taxes - was really about something very small compared to the challenges we really face. The big issues are, how do we address the climate transition? How do we address the needs of ageing societies, and broken social security systems? And how do we address the challenge of an AI era, of ensuring that populations can cope with it and benefit from it? It’s going to require the public sector to invest, working with the private sector.

If I take the first issue. There is no realistic solution to the climate transition that will not involve a globally coordinated system of carbon taxes. There's no realistic or fair solution that does not involve a globally coordinated system of carbon taxes, and Ngozi at the WTO is coordinating this work with several other international organisations. It's still early days. There's a perception that carbon taxes will be unjust, it's unfair, it'll lead to inflation. In fact, quite the contrary. If we don't do this, the countries that will suffer most ultimately, are the developing countries, they're going to be the worst affected by climate change. If we don't do this, it's ordinary, vulnerable communities that will suffer the most. What we need is a system of carbon taxes, coupled with subsidies for vulnerable households, and a stream of funding for the developing world to allow them to engage in investments in climate mitigation and adaptation that allows them to keep growing and developing. And that's a real opportunity. It's a fair solution and is the only realistic solution. And we can't keep ducking it.

Second, we have a huge opportunity of redirecting subsidies. The IMF has estimated that about $1.3 trillion is spent each year on fuel subsidies. That's at least five times more than the amount of subsidies that goes into green energy. We've got to redirect those fuel subsidies to helping vulnerable households, helping firms to adjust and to spurring renewables and other green technologies. That's a major redirection. It's fair, and helps us move to a sustainable state of the world. It has to be achieved.

The third issue, maybe the most neglected, is reforming fiscal policy so we prepare for an ageing society with confidence. It means rejigging in significant ways our social security systems and healthcare financing systems. It's not sustainable today. Too many people who don't need support are getting disproportionate support in many countries. And too many people who need support the most in health care systems are not getting enough support. So there has to be a reshaping of subsidies within healthcare, to benefit those who need it the most. And there has to be more spending on preventive or preemptive health care to help people stay healthy, for as long as for as long as they can, rather than wait for the very expensive occasions when they end up in hospital, particularly for acute care.

Social security can also be reformed to reduce spending, by reforming labour markets to allow people to stay engaged at work if they wish for as long as possible.

These are very important shifts in social policy. We have to get real, the challenges we face are different from the past. We're not going to address them by just tinkering around the edges. It requires raising taxes to take on the climate transition. It requires redirecting subsidies, to be fair, and to ensure that as we age, no one is vulnerable. And we can actually sustain high quality healthcare systems and social security systems.

We discuss this rarely at international fora. We have here five current and former finance ministers who have gone through years of discussion at the G20, at the IMF. We spend a lot of time talking about monetary policy, we spend very little time talking about fiscal policy reforms for a more secure future.

David M. Rubenstein: Can I just say on that point on fiscal reform - in the United States it’s very difficult to do, we now have $34 trillion of debt. $34 trillion of debt. The interest on it is approaching our defence budget. And if we don't resolve this in the near future, something's going to happen to the dollar, the dollar has been the only reserve currency for quite some time. But if the United States can't get its fiscal act together, at some point, people are going to do what they did to the British pound and the Dutch guilder years ago, when too much money was borrowed by those countries, and that their currency didn't become as valuable and therefore lost its reserve status. The US doesn't have any real challenge or right now to reserve currency status for the dollar. But it will if it keeps doing what it's doing. We have 122% of our GDP in debt. And we are each year our budget deficit is probably about 25% of our spending. And we just can't keep doing that. But there is nobody in the United States government that I see is really seriously addressing that problem. But it will be a big problem in the not too distant future.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you Dr. Ngozi?

WTO DG Ngozi: well, maybe you're pointing to me, because I was nodding so much when Tharman was talking. And that's why he's a favourite. I mean, we have to look at what we need to do on the fiscal side to finance the green transition. The money isn't coming. The amounts are huge, in the trillions needed. You know, you take Africa, for instance, it needs $190 billion to finance per year, up to 2030 to finance the green transition. What is it getting now? Minute amounts. How is it going to be raised? So we have to think of sensible things like, how do we raise that money, so that's one.

The second is business. They are facing a lot of regulatory fragmentation. There are 73 different carbon, taxing and pricing regimes in the world today. They are confused. When they go from one country to the other. They have to think about a different way and a different system. So how do we bring this together? So if we have a common methodology or framework for a global carbon pricing regime, I think that will help. And then we can use some of those resources that would be raised to help finance the green transition in those vulnerable countries that don't have the resources. So that was why I was nodding so vigorously, and I think developing countries need to get behind it.

We've now, the international financial institutions have all been working on this in parallel. The IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the OECD. And finally we are coming together in one taskforce to try to see if we can put all our energies together and develop a common methodology or framework. We know that not every country is going to have a carbon price or tax, the US will never do it. They have, they will approach it through regulation and subsidies and other means. But once we have a common framework, we can all measure what we're doing against that. And more importantly, we can transfer some of the resources raised to help finance the green transition. So thank you for raising that, Tharman.

Francine Lacqua: I know you have to leave in a couple of minutes because you have an important meeting. So very quick question to you. Why has it been so slow? Is it because we're distracted with other crises? And are you confident that actually all of this is going in the right direction?

WTO DG Ngozi: Well, it's so slow, because I mean, when you talk about raising taxes of price, it's never a popular subject anywhere. As Tharman said, you have so many former, present finance ministers on the panel, we know what this means it's politically difficult to talk about raising taxes. It's also politically difficult to phase out subsidies. We tried it when I was a finance minister in Nigeria. And we wanted to phase out subsidies. We went halfway but it was very politically sensitive. So that is why you don't hear great enthusiasm when you talk about raising taxes or phasing out subsidies. But I think the world, we need to take some hard decisions. You cannot have a situation in which you have $1.2 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, a lot of it is in developed countries, by the way, not developing. And then we are trying to look for peanuts for a loss and damaged fund. You have over 600 billion in trade distorting agricultural subsidies. And we are looking for peanuts for a loss and damaged fund. When we get 200 million we're all happy. We need to take those hard decisions. But they're not being done because it's politically difficult. And politicians will look at the short term horizons - they want to be reelected. Right? That's the problem.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much Dr Ngozi. You have to you have to go. Minister Al-Jadaan.

Minister Al-Jadaan: I think a few points. I listened to Mr. President and we spoke briefly before we came on stage. I would like, first of all, I think let’s just agree that climate change is real, risks from climate change are real and we should work all together to find solutions that would help the planet and the livelihoods of people. I think we are all in agreement. I remember in 2014, when Paris agreement was reached, developing, developed nations have committed a hundred billion dollars annually for developed countries to deal with climate change and for them to transition out of carbon intensive energy. What have we seen so far? almost zero, almost zero. And I can understand Mr. President's enthusiasm about carbon tax and how it may change the equation. But then he linked it to two things: subsidies to those who are in need. I agree. Whenever you raise cost on your community or others, you need to look out for the less fortunate and provide social safety net. Agreed.

The second caveat, Mr. President said is we need to find a way that we channel part of that to low income countries. We tried that and it's failed. Now, so trying something else. Similar to what you have tried before and expect different results. It's very difficult. There are a lot of political resistance from developed nations. Politically, internally, I mean, we have heard just now some of the comments. So to say that we will waive the tax but then we will direct some of it to low income, low income countries is going to be very difficult, politically extremely difficult. So I would just remind ourselves that while we are enjoying the heated conference place here, there are over 600 million people in Africa that have no basic electricity, not intermitted, basic, absolutely no electricity. So to say to them, go and eat cake, why are you looking for or bread is hypocrisy, in my opinion. They have their own endowment, we should help them get that endowment from under their feet. Gas for example. Let them fuel their own transition, allow them to use their own endowment help them to use their youth, empower their youth rescale their youth train their youth, that is really what is going to change Africa and other low income countries. Thank you very much.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much. Minister Lindner.

Minister Lindner: I hope nobody tells my coalition partners and colleagues in cabinet that we are here considering raising taxes […] would cause serious problems for me domestically. (But) Seriously, I would like to widen the perspective a bit, I completely share the idea of fighting a global warming by ambitious action, but it should think about the right methodology. I think there is an alternative to carbon tax. And the alternative is a carbon market. In Germany, it is extremely costly to avoid further emissions. And I wonder if the same amount of money we have to spend in Germany would have an even better effect on other places of the world. For example, to invest in electricity production in Africa is the renewable energy as part of a compensation of the German steel industry and for their emissions could have globally better effect with lower investment. And it doesn't matter where carbon dioxide is emitted, it is a global challenge. So probably should ask OECD to work on a common framework for a global carbon markets as they did successfully on the global minimum taxation.

If I'm allowed to, I would like to add a second remark. To finance all our needs from transition fighting poverty and to prepare for the ageing society – I think there’s one solution. Given the demographics, given the investment needs, I think we have to foster our productivity. And this is why I'm advocating for structural reforms in the labour markets, in technology, cutting red tape being more competitive when it comes to corporate taxation. And obviously, I'm talking about the reform agenda of Germany. But I think others have to face similar challenges. We in Germany, we have to do our homework. And probably we are part of a model because others have similar challenges. We had to solve our debt and deficit issues, which has made me becoming the loneliest Minister in Cabinet. But we succeeded to solve our debt issues. And now we have to strengthen the supply sides. And I know what some of you are thinking Germany probably is a sick man. Germany is not a sick man, Germany is, after a very successful period since 2012, and these years of crisis that, Germany is a tired man after a short night and the low growth. Expectations are partly a wakeup call. And now we have a good cup of coffee, which means structural reforms, and then we will be continuing to succeed economically.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much, Minister. We only have five minutes left. So I'm going to call on Mdm Lagarde and David and Mr President and Minister.

ECB President Lagarde: Thank you very much. I would like to flag a couple of areas where I think there can be hope, and there can be trust, if we deliver. And I'd like to start with two observations as a follow up to Tharman. Your point is well taken about taxation, Tharman. But you haven’t, in this panel, the discussion we're having a good example of how difficult it is. Because tax issues present a huge heterogeneity. Whether you're sitting in one country or the other, you're can have a tax burden of 50% of GDP, or 10% of GDP, and you are starting from a completely different picture. So that should be taken into account.

Second, there are currently instruments that have been laboriously negotiated at the OECD level to put in place those two pillars, one that institutes a minimum corporate taxation, and the other one that proposes to allocate profits of large corporates around the world on the basis of where the activity is generated. These agreements have been approved at the OECD level, they just need to be ratified. So it's there, let's get on with it and move because otherwise, we will move to more fragmentation of tax.

And we are seeing it with the carbon tax border adjustment here and there. And that would be more cacophony added to the risk that we see. And that takes me to my second area where I think there is hope. I'm sorry that Ngozi had to go because it touches on trade. Everybody will agree no matter how much we talk about deglobalisation that globalisation had massive, positive impact in pulling people out of poverty, hundreds of millions. If we listen to Ajay Banga from the World Bank, this virtuous path on which we were heading is not best stable, at worst, declining more poverty than less poverty. Well, if we look at trade, and the decoupling, or the de-risking, however we want to call it, it implies two things.

One, there will be different and new sources of supply and new patterns of trade, number one, number two, because there is more vulnerability associated with supply, it may well be that the cost will be higher in the long term. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe we've been relying on this principle of efficiency, over security, a little bit too much, assuming that everything had virtually no cost, assuming that labour cost had to be minimal and reduced over the course of time. Well, this can change and maybe can change for the better to bring those people who had the benefit of globalisation and were taken out of poverty, also out of this, recessing poverty that is at risk of bringing some of them back down again. So I see a lot of positives on those two fronts. I had a few other items, but I'll save them for next year.

David M. Rubenstein: To paraphrase Mr President, my country asked not what the World Economic Forum can do for you, but what you could do for the World Economic Forum. Now, what do I mean by that? The purpose of the forum, and I can't speak for it, because Klaus is the person who is really the most responsible, be able to speak for it. But I can say that the purpose is to inspire people. What we've tried to do in this panel, and in other panels around the World Economic Forum is inspire people and educate people. And hopefully, when you go back to your country, you'll educate yourself about some of the things that we've talked about here that you might be inspired to learn more about. And try to pick one issue of the ones we talked about where you make yourself, not only well educated about it, better educated than now, but try to make some difference in your own country to try to bring some forward some of these ideas, because the only way we're really going to be effective in the World Economic Forum is, we have people that come to the sessions, and those people are watching on streaming, they are going to take these ideas and do something useful with them by working in their own countries to kind of educate people about these things. And that's when I really hope all of you will do is take something away from this session, and say, I'm now inspired to learn more about this issue or that issue. And I'm going to try to do something in my country to make it more likely that that will happen. Thank you.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you, in 30 seconds or one minute, Mr. President, what are you positive about?

President Tharman: I agree entirely that we need carbon markets. That itself is a complex endeavour. But we must develop it, and we need to make it global. But it's not a substitute for carbon taxes, for a very simple reason. Governments are going to have to invest significantly more than they've invested before. We want the private sector to fund most of the transition. But about a third of the investment is going to have to come from government, because of externalities involved in the projects like new grids, and for other reasons.

It has to be funded, and we can't have magical thinking here. Funding government requires taxes of one form or another. The alternative is more and more borrowing, which Christian will be the first to agree is not sustainable. So let's not duck the issues.

Our real challenge is political. It is unpopular to raise any taxes. But we have to design taxes together with subsidies so as to make them acceptable and fair. And that's the real task of finance ministers. And we've got to coordinate this as much as possible globally, so they are no leakages of carbon-emitting activities from places with carbon taxes to others without.

We can and must design taxes and subsidies so that we can get ahead of this, invest at a higher level, and make it fair for ordinary people and help finance the developing world.

I quite agree with both Al-Jadaan and Christine on the opportunity in the developing world. We have the opportunity, in fact, of growing green energy powered industry in parts of the world which have lots of sun and wind. We have the opportunity of shaping growth strategies that are sustainable. But it's going to require investment, and support from the advanced world, including through a much enhanced role for the international financial institutions. We must work to achieve this.

Our political antennae have gotten too short. We are looking at the next elections in a whole range of countries. And the consequences if we carry on that way are going to be much more pain in future and a much higher hurdle that future politicians will need to cross. So let's start moving now. Phase things in realistically, make sure that it's fair and just, and avoid piling up a large problem for the future.

Francine Lacqua: Thank you so much Mr President. You’ve got the optimistic Guide to 2024 and the pessimistic Guide to 2024 and beyond. Thank you so much to all of our panelists, and I would love if the audience could also stay in their seats. Also the panelists because it’s my great pleasure to welcome on the stage the President of the World Economic Forum, Børge Brende, for the closing remarks of this 54th World Economic Forum.