Tharman Shanmugaratnam 總統達沃斯2024對話記錄

《全球經濟展望》——尚達曼總統在瑞士達沃斯 2024 年世界經濟論壇上的對話記錄

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，歡迎來到我們的全球經濟展望小組。 現在，全球經濟肯定會在 2023 年受到考驗，這是以前很少有的。 通貨膨脹和數十年來最激進的貨幣緊縮行動； 歐洲和中東的戰爭； 中國不斷惡化的房地產危機以及華盛頓和北京之間日益加深的競爭。 這確實迫使企業重新思考供應鏈和安全。 現在，盡管存在這些痛點，大流行後的全球複蘇實際上已經成功推進。 在美國，消費者超出預期並繼續支出，促使許多經濟學家放棄了下行情景和罕見的軟著陸預測。 在中國，蓬勃發展的電動汽車行業以及穩健的財政刺激措施幫助領導人接近實現增長目標。 而世界經濟的巨大新希望印度也彌補了部分閑置。 但根據世界銀行的數據，總體而言，全球經濟的增長速度低於前幾十年。 這是因為大流行後的反彈受到高利率的拖累。 因此，我們正在關注貿易低迷和地緣政治緊張局勢，這將對發展中國家造成最嚴重的打擊。 因此，我們不想給您提供 2024 年的悲觀指南，而是想看看未來的一些主要壓力點和一些增長基礎。 當然，還有很多選舉和對未來軌跡的期望。 對於您的社交媒體，您還可以#WEF24。 這是我們的全明星小組成員：克裏斯蒂娜·拉加德，歐洲央行行長； 德國聯邦財政部長克裏斯蒂安·林德納（Christian Lindner）； 穆罕默德·賈丹，沙特阿拉伯財政部長； 新加坡總統尚達曼； 世界貿易組織總幹事恩戈齊·奧孔喬-伊維拉博士； 以及凱雷聯合創始人兼聯席董事長戴維·魯賓斯坦 (David Rubenstein)。 謝謝大家加入我們。

弗朗辛·拉誇（Francine Lacqua）：總統先生，讓我從您開始。 2023年真的很驚訝。 預期上行？ 全球經濟現在真的像我們想象的那樣有彈性嗎？

尚達曼總統：我們必須考慮韌性，而不是逐年考慮，因為我們麵臨的最大挑戰是潛在的、緩慢變化的變化，這些變化將在未來幾年以更根本的方式威脅我們。 我們知道它們是什麽。 我們知道全球生態平衡的變化正在發生什麽。 我們知道社會老齡化正在發生什麽，但總的來說，我們在國際上還沒有為此做好準備。 我們知道在逐漸走向兩極分化的過程中正在發生什麽。 這些是對複原力和人類安全的真正威脅。 我什至不是在談論戰爭，包括我們看到的愚蠢戰爭。

Francine Lacqua：非常感謝您。 拉加德女士，您能和我們談談您在 2023 年看到的讓您對未來經濟充滿希望的事情嗎？

歐洲央行行長拉加德：首先大家早上好，感謝你們邀請我參加小組討論。 因為我實際上是一個奇怪的小組成員，因為我無法談論我花費 100% 時間的事情。 我是歐洲中央銀行行長。 我們將於周三和周四召開貨幣政策會議，在此之前的一周內，我無法談論我所做的事情、我的希望以及支持我們結論的分析是什麽。 於是我苦苦思索了很久。 我試圖找出 2023 年我們看到的一些趨勢，這些趨勢不會對我們下周的決定產生影響。 我們應該對未來有所預期，我想到了我稱之為正常化的東西。 這就是我們開始看到的情況，特別是在 2023 年底，但這種情況不會成為常態。 所以從常態化到非常態化。 那麽我這是什麽意思呢？ 2023 年之前的那段時期是奇怪的、非同尋常的，很多人都難以分析。 2023 年，我們看到了正常化的開始。 例如，當你觀察世界各地的消費時——我不僅僅談論歐元區——消費仍然是增長的驅動力。 但我們所受益的順風正在逐漸消退。 這個非常奇怪、極其緊張的勞動力市場，仍然緊張，但有所減輕，我們用來確定職位空缺和失業之間關係的一些指數正在逐漸發生變化。 因此，讓我們在就業市場上加強這一點。 當我們觀察世界各地的儲蓄時，會發現儲蓄很充裕。 超額儲蓄。特別是在所有發達經濟體中，儲蓄都過剩，正在下降。 從這 10% 的超額儲蓄來看，我們幾乎接近於零。因此，如果將這兩者結合起來——工作不再緊張，儲蓄減少，顯然消費不再像以前那樣強勁。這是一回事。 第二件事也開始正常化，我希望恩戈齊能談論很多，那就是貿易。在2023年之前的過去兩年裏，貿易下降，並受到商品與服務與商品的嚴重幹擾。但現在開始真正回升。十月份，全球貿易數據數月以來首次上升，貿易格局正在發生變化。 但我會讓我的朋友和恩戈齊來更好地描述這一點。第三個正常化，我不得不說的是，在全球範圍內，不包括歐元區，全世界的通脹都在下降。我們在11月份再次看到了這種情況——總體通脹和核心通脹。這就是我所說的我們在 2023 年觀察到的正常化。也許你會再給我一次機會來談談我們正在走向的非正常化。

Francine Lacqua：我們當然會討論這個問題。Ngozi博士，您能和我們談談您在全球供應鏈和貿易中看到的彈性嗎？

世貿組織總幹事恩戈齊：好的，謝謝。我認為克裏斯汀對我的安排很好。 讓我們看看我是否可以繼續前進。 確實，2023年的貿易量大幅下降。 實際上，對於貨物貿易，我們不得不將今年的預測從1.7%下調至0.8%。正如您所說，上個季度，我們看到數量有所增加，貿易顯示汽車和零部件帶動了複蘇。但總而言之，當我們看到前三個季度和最後一個季度時，我們仍然認為我們的數字將與我們預計的數字大致相同或略低於預期。我們對2024年更加樂觀。我們預測將大幅複蘇至 3.3%。 正如克裏斯汀所說，也許正在走向正常化，或者你怎麽說，但不是正常化。 由於貿易增長仍低於趨勢，因此仍低於GDP增長。但我麵臨的問題是我們現在看到的地緣政治衝突——紅海和蘇伊士運河的問題。 由於氣候變化，巴拿馬運河也麵臨問題。存在如此多的不確定性，當然還有我們在世界各地看到的所有選舉以及這可能帶來的後果。我認為有很多不確定性使得預測變得困難。不過，我會冒一點風險，說我認為這會比2023年更好。我們可能不會低於3.3%，但比2023年我們看到的要好得多。除非爆發重大戰爭 出局，那麽所有的賭注都落空了。

Francine Lacqua：謝謝 Ngozi 博士。林德納部長，多年來，德國通過從俄羅斯購買能源並向中國出售汽車而在部分地區取得了繁榮。所有這一切都在發生變化，因為中國正在生產如此多的電動汽車。 兩人如何結婚？

林德納部長：鑒於去年我們所看到的曆史性衝擊，全球經濟表現出了非凡的韌性，德國經濟也表現出了韌性。想想你提到的能源狀況。在過去18個月裏，我們必須重新改造德國的能源基礎設施和供應。因此，我們沒有預期的增長前景，但我們的經濟已經表現出了這種彈性。展望未來幾年會發生什麽，克裏斯汀說，好吧，我們正處於正常化過程中，我想說我們正在見證一種新常態，2023 年標誌著這種新常態。想想你們在達沃斯討論的人工智能的崛起。 想想未來幾年你將不得不應對的地緣政治緊張局勢和分裂的威脅，因為大流行和能源價格上漲後債務水平更高，這縮小了我們為轉型提供資金的財政空間。 鑒於全球經濟的增長前景微乎其微，我們必須回答這樣的問題：未來我們如何能夠通過私人資本市場為轉型提供資金，以及如何在世界各地消除貧困。

所以，對我來說，這不是正常化；而是正常化。這是一種新常態，我們必須為此做好準備。你問，2023年給了我希望嗎？我會這樣說—這是對行動的呼籲，因為我們必須重新安排一些政策，並且可能會看到結構性改革的新需要。 也許我們正處於新的結構性改革時代的開端。

Francine Lacqua：Al-Jadaan部長，與我們去年看到的彈性相比，您認為主要風險是什麽？

Al-Jadaan部長：我認為我可能會根據我所聽到的一些背景情況來闡述一些內容。 顯然，你知道存在顯而易見的直接風險，即地緣政治、分裂，以及債務狀況，特別是低收入國家的債務狀況

。 我們正在談論它們，並且我們意識到它們實際上會帶來加劇通脹和貨幣緊縮的風險。 但這些是我們需要立即關注的問題，但我認為我們需要確保我們也關注中期問題。我們從世界銀行或國際貨幣基金組織看到的預測明確表明，與本世紀第一個十年和第二個十年相比，這十年將是世界經濟增長潛力最低的十年。 昨天，阿賈伊·班加（Ajay Banga）在其中一個小組中說，我們得到了一份非常好的聲明，他說這些都是預測，不是我們的命運。 因此，我們應該真正看看我們能做些什麽來塑造我們的命運，通過采取真正促進增長的政策來改變我們做事的方式。 這些對於低收入國家來說非常重要。 低收入國家實際上正麵臨嚴重的債務緊縮。 為了讓他們能夠增長，他們需要投資，而為了讓他們投資，我們需要重組他們的債務，讓他們獲得資金，然後他們可以推動自己的增長，這將有助於世界其他地區。

Francine Lacqua：非常感謝 David Rubenstein，2024 年你最擔心的是什麽？ 有很多事情需要擔心。

大衛·魯賓斯坦：嗯，我擔心一切。 但我想說的是，我想傳達的最重要的事情是，一月份對今年剩餘時間將發生的事情所做的預測通常是錯誤的。 去年的這個時候，世界各地的其他論壇上，人們都預測美國可能會出現硬著陸，如果不是硬著陸，也會是軟著陸，但軟著陸意味著非常低的增長。 事實證明，雖然具體數字尚未公布，但美國到 2023 年的經濟增長率可能會達到百分之二半左右，這比當時任何人的實際預測要好得多。 美國確實麵臨挑戰，但通脹正在下降。 因此，美聯儲可能會在不久的將來相對降低利率。 在我們國家，我們有總統選舉。 我想每個人都可能認識到這一點。 因此，我認為，美聯儲希望在總統選舉全麵展開之前完成降息，因為如果你有總統，如果你在總統選舉之前就降息。 在總統選舉中，這將被視為對入主白宮的候選人有幫助，因為理論上這會提振經濟，因此共和黨提名人對此不會感到滿意。 因此，正如我預期的那樣，美聯儲今年將降息三次甚至更多。 它必須在第一季度（當然是上半年）相對完成這些工作，這樣你就可以預期降息，這可能會在總統選舉年推動美國經濟。 美國經濟總體表現不錯。 我們在總統選舉年往往不會陷入衰退，因為國會花費大量資金，而美聯儲在總統選舉年的貨幣政策往往相對寬鬆。 美國經濟麵臨的最大風險是每個人都麵臨的常見風險，我們是否會在某個地方陷入戰爭或類似的情況，或者是否會發生流行病，但這真的就像我們照鏡子，敵人是 因為我們真正麵臨的最大風險是美國政府的功能失調。 我們無法按時通過為政府提供資金的撥款法案，無法按時處理債務限額問題。 這些是讓我擔心的最重要的事情，美國政府是否會因為我們國家的政治問題而無法解決這些問題。 因此，就美國經濟的未來發展而言，我更擔心這一點。 我們將迎來總統選舉年，幾乎每個候選人都會說的所有事情對於未來將發生的事情可能都不是真的，因為他們可能無法完成他們所說的要做的事情。 但觀看起來會很有趣。

弗朗辛·拉誇（Francine Lacqua）：大衛，許多領導人都對唐納德·特朗普入主白宮意味著分裂和外交政策表示擔憂。 世界其他國家有什麽辦法可以讓特朗普證明他們的經濟嗎？

大衛·M·魯賓斯坦：如果有人有辦法做到這一點，我認為他們應該為其申請專利，並可能將其出售給其他人，但這很難做到。 顯然，去年美國發生的最大的政治變化也是不可預測的，或者我應該說是不可預測的。 我認為特朗普家族以外的任何人都不會預料到唐納德·特朗普會因各種起訴書而被起訴四次，罪名達到 91 項，而且他的支持率會飆升到他有相當好的機會鎖定共和黨提名的地步。 三月，是 

比幾乎所有有爭議的總統候選人都更早鎖定共和黨提名。 如果他獲得提名，這將是共和黨首次連續三次提名同一個人。 他顯然擁有許多分析師所忽視的追隨者。 我認為任何法庭案件都不會改變他的勢頭。 因此，我認為人們應該認識到他是一支嚴肅的政治力量，並且不應該低估他很可能再次當選的事實，盡管事實上歐洲的許多人（我們現在所在的地方）並不是他最大的粉絲。 因此，我不排除他再次當選的可能性。 喬·拜登不應該被低估。 顯然，我們有兩位年長的候選人。 人們建議我競選總統。 我說我才74歲，你需要年紀大了才能跑步。 但我確實認為，嚴肅地說，這將是一場相對勢均力敵的選舉。 最後的評論是在我們國家最近兩次總統選舉中，50個州中有45個州在這兩次選舉中的投票方式完全相同。 隻有五個州投票不同。 這五個州是亞利桑那州、佐治亞州、明尼蘇達州、密歇根州、賓夕法尼亞州和威斯康星州。 這五個州是唯一在兩次選舉中投票不同的州。 目前，唐納德·特朗普在其中五個州領先。 上次他輸掉了所有這五個州。 希拉裏·克林頓也失去了這五個州。 拜登上次獲勝。 因此，如果一切都歸結為這五個州，而現在，如果選舉在今天舉行，那麽很難看出特朗普今天將如何輸掉選舉，但距離選舉還有很長的路要走。 關於我們國家的總統選舉，我能說的最重要的一點是，事情一直在變化，我們可能要到選舉前一個月左右才能確定事情到底會怎樣。

Francine Lacqua：林德納部長，歐洲應該如何準備？再說一遍，作為財政部長，研究模型有多困難？ 這是給林德納部長的，你知道，考慮到所有的危機、考慮到選舉，要查看模型進行預測是多麽困難，而且實際上你並不真正知道 12 個月後會剩下什麽。

林德納部長：我認為我們在歐洲談論太多唐納德·特朗普，我們應該通過培養我們的歐洲競爭力，為唐納德·特朗普可能的第二任期做好準備。 做好功課是為唐納德·特朗普可能的第二任期做好最好的準備，其中包括我們保衛自己的能力。 在經濟形勢和公平分擔負擔方麵，作為一個有吸引力的合作夥伴，作為北約組織，我們能做的就是與美國建立良好的夥伴關係。 然後，如果我們有吸引力，如果你不必問我們的話，哪一屆政府都沒有關係，因為我們自己有能力最好的合作方式，並且完全實現美國選舉的兩種可能結果。 做我們的作業。

弗朗辛·拉誇：拉加德女士。

歐洲央行行長拉加德：我想跟進克裏斯蒂安的言論。 我認為最好的防守就是進攻，如果這就是我們想要的方式的話，而要正確進攻，你需要在主場保持強勢。 因此，強大意味著擁有強大的深度市場，擁有真正的單一市場。 我們應該期待意大利前總理恩裏科·萊塔（Enrico Letta）就如何深化和改善單一市場的運作提出一些建議，他負責編寫這份報告。 我相信，這並不像許多首席執行官每天經曆的那樣完全是一個單一市場，更重要的是，我們應該確保在歐洲節省的錢，所有與養老金相關的錢實際上都投資於資本市場聯盟 它實際上有效地發揮了作用，以籌集我們向綠色經濟轉型急需的投資，綠色經濟在一段時間內突然依賴化石燃料，但正如上屆締約方會議第 28 屆會議所表明的那樣，並在投資嚴重的情況下轉向可再生能源 需要。

林德納部長：隻是一個小方麵，因為我很感激克裏斯汀提到資本市場聯盟。 我擔心歐盟的一些政策製定者傾向於追隨美國對幾乎所有東西進行補貼。 但我們必須避免補貼增加。 我們負擔不起，下一屆美國政府的信使可以繼續提高對經濟的支持。 我想知道這麽高的補貼是否可持續。 我們要做的就是改善我們經濟的框架條件，並進一步推動資本市場聯盟的發展。 與美國相比，我們的競爭劣勢不是補貼。 這是我們私人資本市場的功能。

弗朗辛·拉誇：主席先生，當世界運轉良好時，新加坡當然是一個表現良好的國家

當中國和美國分崩離析時，兩國的合作就不那麽融洽了。 那麽，您對美中壓力有何看法？

尚達曼總統：美中關係是緊張的中軸。 但當你審視我們在世界上麵臨的最大問題時，你會發現它必須被重新塑造為夥伴關係的中心軸。 如今，他們從根本上將彼此視為對手，然後在該框架內尋找合作機會。 必須把它翻轉過來。 從根本上說，它們必須成為合作夥伴，因為它們麵臨著相同的挑戰——氣候變化、全球秩序的喪失、全球貿易體係的崩潰。 他們倆都會遭受同樣的痛苦。

兩者之間的關係對於任何氣候、和平和開放的全球貿易體係的解決方案都是絕對必要的。 在這個範圍內，你可以爭辯說你可以獾，你可以確保公平競爭； 您可以確保有一種符合開放和公平競爭原則的相互交往方式。 但我們必須扭轉局麵，從根本上的對手變成根本上的合作夥伴，然後就具體細節進行爭論和談判。 這就是所需要的根本性重新定位。 所以，這不僅僅是關係的暫停，而是關係的重新定位。

Francine Lacqua：Ngozi 博士，如果我們向前推進，我們需要落實三、四個支柱來促進增長。 我不知道今年是否會有很多幹擾因素讓我們離這個目標更遠，但你會關注什麽來恢複更長期的可持續增長？

世貿組織總幹事恩戈齊：謝謝，我隻想說，我強烈支持克裏斯蒂安和克裏斯汀所說的，我認為為任何可能發生的情況做好準備的最好方法就是專注於你無論如何都需要做的事情。 對於世貿組織的我來說，我並不擔心誰會來或正在發生什麽。 也許這有點言過其實了。 但在某種程度上，它關注的是我們需要做什麽來加強和改革該組織，以便無論在什麽情況下它都能夠為人們提供應有的服務。 因此，如果我們繼續這樣做，我認為這是一個強有力的答案，在這方麵有點冒犯。 但關於我們應該關注恢複增長的支柱是什麽，我認為這是一次非常好的對話，因為我們非常關注可能發生的悲觀事情。 但在貿易方麵有一些值得討論的光明前景。 首先，我想提一下，盡管我們談到了所有不確定性，而且我在一開始就指出了這一點，但貿易在很大程度上具有彈性。 正是由於貿易，歐洲才能夠從美國、海灣地區和其他地方找到其他能源來源，以彌補從俄羅斯撤出能源的情況。 正是由於貿易，35 個依賴非洲黑海地區的國家才能夠找到綠色肥料的替代來源。 因此，貿易一直是恢複力的力量。 我們需要注意貿易中的一些亮點。 數字貿易和服務貿易正在快速增長，尤其是數字交付的服務流，每年以 8% 的速度增長，這是一件非常非常有趣的事情，因為現在我們都在談論數字平台、人工智能，這是 這是一個積極的跡象。 我們應該準備好說我們如何支持這種貿易？ 我們如何確保它有利於中小企業、女性和邊緣群體。 從 2000 年至今，綠色貿易增長了兩倍，價值增長了兩倍，達到 1.9 萬億美元。 那是另一個機會。 最後，我想說，重塑供應鏈，我認為這是一個機遇，而不是挑戰。 當你將其視為一個機會時，它可以幫助我們尋找其他增長來源。 如果你隻看我們談到的一個供應鏈，即關鍵礦物和關鍵原材料供應鏈，我們有可能發現這些關鍵原材料存在於許多發展中國家，而這些國家並沒有從一體化第一階段中受益匪淺。 全球經濟。 現在有機會通過發展這些供應鏈來引入它們，因為它們有兩個優勢，不僅是原材料，還有綠色能源。 因此，將兩者結合起來，我很高興地說肖爾茨總理和歐洲已經意識到了這一點。 你可以去非洲、拉丁美洲開發這些供應鏈。 為這些國家帶來新的增長動力、創造新的就業機會、幫助人民擺脫貧困。 所以這些都是一些很好的機會和一些希望。

弗朗辛·拉誇：大衛。

大衛·魯賓斯坦：在貿易方麵，無論誰當選總統都不太可能簽署很多貿易協定。 在美國，貿易或貿易協定這個詞幾乎是一個罵人的詞。 現在，這個人，觀眾席上的一個人，邁克·弗羅曼（Mike Froman）

他在奧巴馬總統領導下談判了TPP協議，但該協議甚至無法在美國國會獲得投票。 我認為當前的國會不會批準任何重大貿易協定，而且我認為無論總統是誰，這種情況在一段時間內都不會改變。 不幸的是，因為貿易常常被美國的某些選民視為有利於海外就業，但事實並非如此，根本不受歡迎。 就連希拉裏·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)在競選總統時也反對TPP，盡管該協議是由她曾任職的民主黨政府談判達成的。 關於美國、中國，美中關係是世界上最重要的雙邊關係。 毫無疑問。 但在美國，在總統選舉年說任何對中國有利或好的事情，對美國來說沒有任何政治好處。 因此，我認為拜登總統和特朗普總統不會說我們需要與中國建立更密切的關係，而且我會比以前對中國更好。 這在總統選舉年是不會發生的。 希望選舉結束後，APEC會議最近取得的進展能夠看到一些成果。 但我認為在那之前你不會看到任何事情開花結果。 希望中國能再次向美國提供一些我們迫切希望擁有的熊貓。

Francine Lacqua：Al-Jadaan 部長，您認為我們現在需要采取哪些政策來確保在四五年內取得成功，而我們可能沒有充分考慮這些政策。

賈丹部長：首先，我想跟進一下，昨天和一位美國朋友談論了幾乎相同的話題，我問他是否樂觀，他說好，至少隻有四個 年，有人即將到來。 因此，看看未來四年會發生什麽將會很有趣。 但更嚴肅地說，我認為需要做的是如何真正調動自己的資源？ 結構性改革如何進行？ 我可以根據經驗告訴你，我來這裏並不是為了宣傳沙特正在做的事情，但從經驗來看，我們在過去七年裏所做的事情實際上對我們有很大幫助，而且我們處理多次槍擊的能力也有很大幫助。 當前麵臨的形勢包括地緣政治緊張局勢如何。 因此，結構性改革至關重要。 地方收入調動實際上對各國來說非常重要，顯然，多邊發展機構支持促進私營部門對發展中國家、特別是低收入國家的投資也非常關鍵。 我認為將會起到促進作用，而且我實際上對世界銀行正在進行的改革非常樂觀，實際上，世界銀行正在將多邊投資擔保機構、國際金融公司以及他們自己的國際複興開發銀行和國際開發協會聯合起來，以確保他們提供支持並促進更多的私人投資 在低收入國家。 我認為這是有希望的，並且希望今年能看到一些實際結果。

弗朗辛·拉誇（Francine Lacqua）：總統先生，您擔心的是我們不關心的事情，我們並沒有真正談論。 這是財政支出。 我們現在是否正在為四五年、六年後發生更大的危機埋下種子？

尚達曼總統：我認為公共政策中最重要和最容易被忽視的領域是財政改革。 克裏斯蒂安·林特納談到了已經非常高的債務水平。 因此，不幸的是，在許多國家，我們的出發點是錯誤的，因為我們必須應對未來的挑戰，而這需要更多的財政投資。

我們忽視財政改革，因為談論增加收入或增稅從來都不是令人愉快的事情。 談論重新調整補貼或重新調整支出從來都不是一件令人愉快的事情。 所以，我們正在愉快地滑向未來，修補邊緣。 即使是二十國集團近年來最重大的國際稅收改革——與重新安排和重新分配公司稅有關的改革——與我們真正麵臨的挑戰相比，實際上也隻是一些很小的事情。 最大的問題是，我們如何應對氣候轉型？ 我們如何滿足老齡化社會和破碎的社會保障體係的需求？ 我們如何應對人工智能時代的挑戰，確保人們能夠應對它並從中受益？ 這將需要公共部門進行投資，並與私營部門合作。

如果我拿第一期的話。 氣候轉型的現實解決方案不涉及全球協調的碳稅體係。 任何現實或公平的解決方案都不涉及全球協調的碳稅體係，世貿組織的恩戈齊正在與其他幾個國際組織協調這項工作。 現在還為時尚早。 有人認為碳稅是不公正的，這是不公平的，它會導致

通貨膨脹。 事實上，恰恰相反。 如果我們不這樣做，最終受害最嚴重的是發展中國家，他們將是受氣候變化影響最嚴重的國家。 如果我們不這樣做，受害最深的將是普通、脆弱的社區。 我們需要的是一個碳稅體係，加上對弱勢家庭的補貼，以及為發展中國家提供的一係列資金，使他們能夠參與氣候減緩和適應方麵的投資，從而使他們能夠不斷增長和發展。 這是一個真正的機會。 這是一個公平的解決方案，也是唯一現實的解決方案。 我們不能一直回避它。

其次，我們有巨大的機會調整補貼方向。 國際貨幣基金組織估計，每年大約有 1.3 萬億美元用於燃料補貼。 這至少是綠色能源補貼金額的五倍。 我們必須將這些燃料補貼轉向幫助弱勢家庭，幫助企業進行調整並刺激可再生能源和其他綠色技術。 這是一個重大的重定向。 這是公平的，有助於我們走向可持續發展的世界。 它必須實現。

第三個問題，也許是最被忽視的，是改革財政政策，以便我們充滿信心地為老齡化社會做好準備。 這意味著要對我們的社會保障體係和醫療融資體係進行重大調整。 今天這是不可持續的。 在許多國家，太多不需要支持的人卻得到了不成比例的支持。 太多最需要醫療保健係統支持的人沒有得到足夠的支持。 因此，必須重新調整醫療保健領域的補貼，以使最需要的人受益。 必須在預防性或先發性醫療保健上投入更多支出，以幫助人們盡可能長時間地保持健康，而不是等到他們最終住院時非常昂貴的時候，尤其是急性護理。

還可以改革社會保障以減少支出，方法是改革勞動力市場，讓人們在願意的情況下盡可能長時間地繼續工作。

這些都是社會政策的非常重要的轉變。 我們必須麵對現實，我們麵臨的挑戰與過去不同。 我們不會僅僅通過修補邊緣來解決這些問題。 它需要提高稅收來應對氣候轉型。 它需要重新調整補貼的方向，做到公平，並確保隨著年齡的增長，沒有人會受到影響。 我們實際上可以維持高質量的醫療保健係統和社會保障係統。

我們很少在國際論壇上討論這個問題。 我們這裏有五位現任和前任財政部長，他們在二十國集團和國際貨幣基金組織上進行了多年的討論。 我們花了很多時間談論貨幣政策，但很少花時間談論為了更安全的未來而進行的財政政策改革。

大衛·M·魯賓斯坦：我可以就財政改革這一點說一下嗎？在美國，這很難做到，我們現在有 34 萬億美元的債務。 34萬億美元的債務。 它的利息已經接近我們的國防預算。 如果我們不在不久的將來解決這個問題，美元將會發生一些事情，美元在相當長的一段時間內一直是唯一的儲備貨幣。 但如果美國不能采取一致的財政行動，到了某個時候，人們就會像多年前對英鎊和荷蘭盾所做的那樣，當時這些國家借了太多的錢，他們的貨幣也將受到影響。 貨幣沒有變得那麽有價值，因此失去了儲備地位。 美國目前沒有任何真正的挑戰來保留美元的貨幣地位。 但如果它繼續做它正在做的事情，它就會發生。 我們的 GDP 的 122% 負債累累。 我們每年的預算赤字可能約占支出的 25%。 我們不能繼續這樣做。 但我認為美國政府中沒有人真正認真地解決這個問題。 但在不久的將來，這將是一個大問題。

Francine Lacqua：謝謝 Ngozi 博士？

世貿組織總幹事恩戈齊：嗯，也許你指的是我，因為尚達曼說話時我一直在點頭。 這就是為什麽他是最受歡迎的。 我的意思是，我們必須考慮在財政方麵需要采取哪些措施來為綠色轉型提供資金。 錢還沒來。 數額巨大，需要數萬億美元。 你知道，以非洲為例，到 2030 年，每年需要 1900 億美元來資助綠色轉型。 現在得到了什麽？ 分鍾量。 它將如何籌集？ 所以我們必須考慮一些明智的事情，比如我們如何籌集資金，這就是其中之一。

第二是商業。 他們麵臨著很多監管碎片化的問題。 當今世界有 73 種不同的碳、稅收和定價製度。 他們很困惑。 當他們從一個國家前往另一個國家時。 他們必須考慮不同的方式和不同的係統。 那麽我們如何將它們結合在一起呢？ 所以我

如果我們有一個全球碳定價製度的共同方法或框架，我認為這將會有所幫助。 然後我們可以使用其中一些籌集到的資源來幫助資助那些沒有資源的脆弱國家的綠色轉型。 這就是為什麽我如此大力點頭，我認為發展中國家需要支持它。

現在，國際金融機構都在並行開展這方麵的工作。 國際貨幣基金組織、世界銀行、世貿組織、經合組織。 最後，我們聚集在一個特別工作組中，試圖看看我們是否可以集中所有精力並開發一種通用的方法或框架。 我們知道，並不是每個國家都會製定碳價格或碳稅，美國永遠不會這樣做。 他們已經、也將通過監管和補貼等方式來實現這一目標。 但一旦我們有了一個共同的框架，我們就可以根據這個框架來衡量我們正在做的事情。 更重要的是，我們可以轉移一些籌集到的資源來幫助資助綠色轉型。 謝謝尚達曼提出這個問題。

Francine Lacqua：我知道您必須在幾分鍾後離開，因為您有一個重要的會議。 非常快速地問你一個問題。 為什麽這麽慢？ 是因為我們被其他危機分散了注意力嗎？ 您是否有信心所有這一切實際上都在朝著正確的方向發展？

世貿組織總幹事恩戈齊：嗯，速度太慢了，因為我的意思是，當你談論提高價格稅時，它在任何地方都不是一個受歡迎的話題。 正如尚達曼所說，小組中有這麽多前任、現任財政部長，我們知道這意味著談論加稅在政治上很困難。 逐步取消補貼在政治上也很困難。 當我擔任尼日利亞財政部長時我們就嚐試過。 我們希望逐步取消補貼。 我們走了一半，但這在政治上非常敏感。 這就是為什麽當你談論提高稅收或逐步取消補貼時，你不會聽到很大的熱情。 但我認為世界上，我們需要做出一些艱難的決定。 你不可能擁有 1.2 萬億美元的化石燃料補貼，順便說一下，其中很大一部分是在發達國家，而不是發展中國家。 然後我們正試圖為損失和受損的基金尋找微不足道的資金。 扭曲貿易的農業補貼超過 6000 億美元。 我們正在為損失和受損的基金尋找微薄的資金。 當我們拿到2億的時候我們都很高興。 我們需要做出這些艱難的決定。 但它們沒有被完成，因為這在政治上很困難。 政客們會著眼於短期前景——他們希望連任。 正確的？ 那就是問題所在。

Francine Lacqua：非常感謝 Ngozi 博士。 你必須走，你必須走。 賈丹部長。

賈丹部長：我認為有幾點。 我聽了總統先生的講話，我們在上台之前進行了簡短的交談。 首先，我想讓我們同意氣候變化是真實的，氣候變化帶來的風險是真實的，我們應該共同努力尋找有助於地球和人民生計的解決方案。 我想我們都同意。 我記得2014年達成《巴黎協定》時，發展中國家和發達國家每年承諾為發達國家提供1000億美元的資金來應對氣候變化，並幫助它們擺脫碳密集型能源的轉型。 到目前為止我們看到了什麽？ 幾乎為零，幾乎為零。 我可以理解總統先生對碳稅的熱情以及它如何改變現狀。 但隨後他將其與兩件事聯係起來：向有需要的人提供補貼。 我同意。 每當您提高社區或其他人的成本時，您就需要照顧不幸的人並提供社會安全網。 同意。

總統先生說，第二個警告是我們需要找到一種方法將部分資金流向低收入國家。 我們嚐試過，但失敗了。 現在，所以嚐試別的東西。 與您之前嚐試過的類似，但期望不同的結果。 這非常困難。 發達國家存在很多政治阻力。 我的意思是，在政治上，在內部，我們剛才聽到了一些評論。 因此，說我們將免除稅收，但隨後我們將其中一些稅收直接流向低收入國家，這將是非常困難的，在政治上極其困難。 所以我想提醒自己，當我們在這裏享受熱鬧的會議場所時，非洲有超過6億人沒有基本的電力，不是間歇性的、基本的、絕對沒有電。 所以對他們說，去吃蛋糕吧，你為什麽要找麵包，在我看來是虛偽的。 他們有自己的天賦，我們應該幫助他們從腳下獲得天賦。 以天然氣為例。 讓他們為自己的轉型提供動力，讓他們利用自己的稟賦幫助他們利用自己的青年，賦予青年權力，重新調整青年規模，培訓青年，這才是真正改變非洲和其他低收入國家的東西。 非常感謝。

Francine Lacqua：非常感謝。 林德納部長。

林德納部長：我希望沒有人告訴我的聯盟夥伴和內閣同事，我們在這裏考慮提高稅收[……]會給我國內帶來嚴重的問題。 （但是）說真的，我想拓寬一點視野，我完全同意通過雄心勃勃的行動對抗全球變暖的想法，但應該考慮正確的方法。 我認為還有碳稅的替代方案。 另一種選擇是碳市場。 在德國，避免進一步排放的成本極其高昂。 我想知道我們在德國花同樣多的錢是否會對世界其他地方產生更好的影響。 例如，投資非洲的電力生產是可再生能源，作為德國鋼鐵工業補償的一部分，其排放可以用較低的投資在全球範圍內產生更好的效果。 無論二氧化碳排放到哪裏，這都是一個全球性挑戰。 因此，也許應該要求經合組織為全球碳市場製定一個共同框架，就像他們在全球最低稅收方麵取得的成功一樣。

如果允許的話，我想補充第二點。 為了滿足我們從消除貧困轉型到為老齡化社會做好準備的所有需求——我認為有一個解決方案。 考慮到人口結構和投資需求，我認為我們必須提高生產力。 這就是為什麽我主張對勞動力市場和技術進行結構性改革，減少繁文縟節，在企業稅收方麵更具競爭力。 顯然，我正在談論德國的改革議程。 但我認為其他人也必須麵臨類似的挑戰。 我們在德國，必須做好功課。 也許我們是一個模型的一部分，因為其他人也麵臨著類似的挑戰。 我們必須解決我們的債務和赤字問題，這使我成為內閣中最孤獨的部長。 但我們成功解決了債務問題。 現在我們必須加強供給側。 我知道你們中的一些人認為德國可能是一個病人。 德國不是一個病夫，德國是，在經曆了2012年以來非常成功的時期之後，以及這些年的危機之後，德國在經曆了短暫的一夜和低增長之後，是一個疲憊的人。 期望在一定程度上是一個警鍾。 現在我們喝了一杯好咖啡，這意味著結構性改革，然後我們將繼續在經濟上取得成功。

Francine Lacqua：非常感謝您，部長。 我們隻剩下五分鍾了。 因此，我將拜訪拉加德女士、大衛先生以及總統先生和部長先生。

歐洲央行行長拉加德：非常感謝。 我想指出幾個我認為如果我們能夠兌現承諾就可以帶來希望和信任的領域。 我想首先提出兩點觀察，作為尚達曼的後續行動。 尚達曼，你關於稅收的觀點得到了很好的理解。 但在這個小組中，我們的討論沒有提供一個很好的例子來說明它是多麽困難。 因為稅收問題呈現出巨大的異質性。 無論您身在一個國家還是另一個國家，您的稅收負擔都可能達到 GDP 的 50% 或 10%，而且您的起點完全不同。 所以應該考慮到這一點。

其次，目前經合組織層麵經過艱苦談判，達成了一些文書，以落實這兩個支柱，其中一項規定了最低企業稅，另一項則建議根據 活動產生的地方。 這些協議已在經合組織層麵獲得批準，隻需批準即可。 所以它就在那裏，讓我們繼續前進並采取行動，否則，我們將轉向更加分散的稅收。

我們在各處的碳稅邊境調整中看到了這一點。 這會增加我們所看到的風險。 這將我帶到了我認為有希望的第二個領域。 我很抱歉恩戈齊必須離開，因為它涉及貿易。 無論我們如何談論去全球化，每個人都會同意全球化對幫助數億人擺脫貧困產生了巨大而積極的影響。 如果我們聽聽世界銀行的阿賈伊·班加（Ajay Banga）的說法，我們所走的這條良性道路並不是最穩定的，最壞的情況是減少更多的貧困而不是減少貧困。 好吧，如果我們看看貿易、脫鉤或去風險（無論我們如何稱呼它），它意味著兩件事。

第一，將會出現不同的、新的供應來源和新的貿易模式，第一，第二，因為與供應相關的脆弱性更大，從長遠來看，成本很可能會更高。 也許這並不是一件壞事。 也許我們一直依賴這種效率原則，而不是安全性，有點過分了，假設一切幾乎沒有成本，假設勞動力成本必須最小化並隨著時間的推移而降低。 好吧，這可以改變，也許可以改變

以便更好地使那些受益於全球化並擺脫貧困的人們擺脫貧困，消除貧困，使他們中的一些人麵臨再次陷入貧困的風險。 所以我在這兩個方麵看到了很多積極的一麵。 我還有一些其他物品，但我會把它們留到明年。

大衛·M·魯賓斯坦：套用主席先生的話說，我國問的不是世界經濟論壇能為您做什麽，而是您能為世界經濟論壇做什麽。 現在，我這是什麽意思？ 論壇的目的，我不能代言，因為克勞斯才是真正最有責任感的人，能夠代言。 但我可以說，目的是為了激勵人們。 我們在這個小組以及世界經濟論壇的其他小組中試圖做的就是激勵人們並教育人們。 希望當您回到自己的國家時，您能夠了解我們在這裏討論的一些事情，您可能會受到啟發，了解更多信息。 並嚐試從我們討論的問題中選擇一個問題，讓自己不僅受過良好的教育，比現在受過更好的教育，而且嚐試在自己的國家做出一些改變，嚐試提出其中一些想法， 因為我們在世界經濟論壇中真正發揮作用的唯一方法是，我們有人來參加會議，而這些人正在觀看直播，他們將采納這些想法，並用它們做一些有用的事情 在自己的國家工作，教育人們了解這些事情。 那時我真的希望你們所有人都能從這次會議中得到一些東西，並說，我現在受到啟發，想了解更多有關這個或那個問題的信息。 我將嚐試在我的國家做一些事情，讓這種情況更有可能發生。 謝謝。

弗朗辛·拉誇（Francine Lacqua）：謝謝您，總統先生，請用 30 秒或一分鍾的時間，您對什麽有積極的看法？

尚達曼總統：我完全同意我們需要碳市場。 這本身就是一項複雜的工作。 但我們必須發展它，並且我們需要使其全球化。 但它並不能替代碳稅，原因很簡單。 政府將不得不投入比以前更多的投資。 我們希望私營部門為大部分轉型提供資金。 但由於新電網等項目涉及的外部性以及其他原因，大約三分之一的投資將必須來自政府。

它必須有資金，我們不能有神奇的想法。 為政府提供資金需要采取一種或另一種形式的稅收。 另一種選擇是越來越多的借貸，克裏斯蒂安將首先同意這種做法是不可持續的。 所以我們不要回避這些問題。

我們真正的挑戰是政治上的。 提高任何稅收都是不受歡迎的。 但我們必須將稅收和補貼一起設計，以使它們能夠被接受和公平。 這才是財政部長的真正任務。 我們必須在全球範圍內盡可能地協調這一問題，這樣碳排放活動就不會從征收碳稅的地方泄漏到其他沒有征收碳稅的地方。

我們可以而且必須設計稅收和補貼，以便我們能夠走在前麵，在更高水平上進行投資，讓普通民眾公平並幫助為發展中國家提供資金。

我非常同意 Al-Jadaan 和 Christine 對於發展中國家機遇的看法。 事實上，我們有機會在世界上擁有大量陽光和風能的地區發展綠色能源驅動的工業。 我們有機會製定可持續的增長戰略。 但這需要發達國家的投資和支持，包括大幅增強國際金融機構的作用。 我們必須努力實現這一目標。

我們的政治觸角太短了。 我們正在關注一係列國家的下一次選舉。 如果我們繼續這樣做，後果將是未來的政治家需要跨越的更大的痛苦和更高的障礙。 那麽我們現在就開始行動吧。 實事求是，確保公平公正，避免給未來留下大問題。

弗朗辛·拉誇：非常感謝總統先生。 您有樂觀的 2024 年指南和悲觀的 2024 年及以後指南。 非常感謝我們所有的小組成員，如果觀眾也能留在座位上，我會很高興。 還有小組成員，我非常高興地歡迎世界經濟論壇主席 Børge Brende 上台為第 54 屆世界經濟論壇致閉幕詞。

"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.