Hola, la la la la. Hola. Really? Hi. Well, well, good, good, good. So speaking about inequality yesterday, which and I thought it was interesting to speak about the China case that you mentioned, that the not quite interesting kind of it's more like geopolitical and and how the classification of the country can kind of have certain implications and actually how a country might actually not want to be developed and be developing or classified that way. Anyway, that was interesting. I wasn't aware of that kind of stuff or all this specific example. So I that that was interesting. So I asked yesterday if you could look at the Lawrence curve, basically these curves, these graphs that determine the gene coefficient or the genie index. I don't know if you have the chance to take a look at the genie and maybe how to construct it graphically. Yeah we look at that yesterday taright. And do you know how to construct the gene coefficient? I think can you explain that zero was basically a country where everyone has the same income or wealth, right? And the genie of one is where everything is owned by one person at an extreme rate. He's explain in can you can you draw the graph? Do you know what where this comes from? This this idea of zero to one, this index can be 0.1, 0.5, 0.3 is 0.7. Do you have any idea of where that comes from graphically? Yeah, I think Yeah okay, maybe we can enjoy it. You're gonna to drithe cuff, you're want to drill the graph. I'll drithe graph go for the. Let me send it. Basically, the idea is to draw a Lawrence cover. I don't know if you've heard a Lawrence cover. Yeah, Yeah. We think. On drive fvery very well in on this board. No, I my druser was terrible, but more or less, more or less, that's the perfect line and that's the renlawrence curve. Okay. You explain each one separately. They so basically. That one that line is like the line of equality. The one has to say at 45 degrees. Yeah the 45 degrees. So like or like everyone's not the same, but the bottom one from the start, the wealth and population is unequal. It's growing really slowly, slowly and it accelerates until the final 1% or 2% of people having like accelerating the wealth axstarts like accelerating because the very few people have the most of the wealth in a society. Cool. Yeah, Yeah, good. That's good. So the line of perfect quality is literally one to one, right? So for every additional percent population is additional percent of income or wealrate. Okay. But can you label the x and y axes? This is always what I found a bit more tricky, right? So how would you label the x and y axes? You want to try and do that? And then can you help me to do that? Because I don't know. Ve out this part, the x and y axis, it's sometimes it's hard. I mean, it's different ways of like actual wording. Basically, it all tries to mean, it all tries to refer to the same thing, right? So what do you want on the x axis? What do you think there is on the x? So forget about labeling the exact label, but what what are we thinking about with regards to the x axis? Let's solve the x axis. The x axis, the. The wealth sorry, not the wealth, the population. Okay. And what do you mean by the population? So this is population, right? But in what kind of order? In what distribution? Population along the x acan you elaborate on that? So it is only to a population, I agree. But what what's is there something else? And actually, how many was the adtimate percentage of population and stuff? So it's actually, yes, the population of a country, let's tell whatever sample we're taking, ranked in order. Okay, so literally, you've got people lined up on the x axis. Think of it like that again, an infinite amount of people, let's say it's the uk. And how many people that live in the uk, what is like 70 million, maybe close to 70, you got 70 million people lined up on the x axis. Again, the poorest person in the uk. So the richest person in the uk who is, I don't know, whoever it is. Okay. So in America, this guy would be Elon Musk. Okay, does that make sense? You've rked them, you place them in order of income or wealth, as you know that we can do this Lawrence curve in the gening curvicient graph. So income or wealth, okay, what's the difference between income and wealth? Difference difference between income and wealth. Income is how much money you make and wealth is how much money you have. I don't know. Yeah I mean, Yeah wealth is basically on simple terms of store or stock concept of how much income you've made in the past minus expenses ring. So it's kind of like a debt, national debt, we spoke about it recently, and budget deficits, right? National budget deficit or service, a yearly concept, kind of like income. You make amount an amount of money every year. However, how much you end up, let's say, saving or keeping is your wealth, right? So it's like the net amount. So or out of all your incomes minus all your expenses over many years as your wealth. Same thing with national debt. Out of all your income, out of all the tax revenue minus government spending, that's your national deposition. Whether it's a surplus plus countries owe to other investors owe you money or it's a deficit as in most western economies where you owe money in net terms again, so that's it because this is simple, right? And we've got Lawrence curves or the genicovision is for either wealth or income. Okay, be with it for both. These are different graphs. We can draw these with the same Lawrence curve. It's going to be a different shape of a lawrencurve, but we can represent income inequality or wealth inequality with the Lawrence curve in both cases, right? A different one in each case. Does that make sense, Rory? Okay. Okay. So you've got Elon Musk on here right at the right extreme, and you've got the poorest person in whichever country in the ux here at zero zero and then you're quite right. I think you'll understand that right? If I imagine you've got this person here right in the middle. We call this a fiftieth percentile looking. Are you familiar with percentiles, the concept of the percentile? Roy? Yeah, that's the that's basically what this graph represents and I know what it is. Yeah. So what if I had to hold your real room when you were growing up, your nineth percentile? In terms of iq, what would that have meant? And this is commonly referred to with babies or people growing up like kids, Young kids. There's a lot of like studies and graphs or when you go to the docks when you're one or two, I'm sure your parents, my parents for sure as well, whenever you know you get way to get measured or this kind of stuff. Right? Theytell you okay? This your son is x percent heights, for example, this is very standard, okay, especially for babies. Okay, what would have meant? Okay, rule is 99 percentile le intelligence when he was three or myself. Lord, that what does that mean? I mean. Let me stop me. Well, just think about it. What does this guy being 50 percentile, what does that mean here with regards to income? Let's it. Team. Is it does that mean like it increases like fast? No, it's not it's not a rate of change, a static concept. Or in this case, the fifth percentile. This guy here and then they drew, right? This guy, we can write this in a very similar way, right? 50 we can go if fiftieth percent are that's it income. Well, Yeah, that's it. What does this mean? What do I mean by 58 percentile income for this guy in the circle, dear? You know babies like why do we care about this data point for babies or let's say Young Yeah Young kids where we can you know why is it relevant to know? Okay, my son is a fifth pertiheight or fifth perare weight. So 99% are. What does this mean? Why do we care? We like it's in the middle. Middle of what? Middle of what is middle on his own relative to something or relatively to the whole thing. Okay. So can you elaborate on that? So 50% are income in this case. What does that mean in a full sentence in a middle? Middle income? Okay. So the middle income, okay. But can you make it relative to the whole population? What is this reference? I can be bit more precise. Yes, he's in the middle, but what perenta the term perenta Musain psethe center? Fifpercent, isn't that fifth percental? Yeah, Yeah. But what does that mean in plain like in plain words, what does that mean? In the middle, I don't know what else to say, but really, I think a lot of things, the stuff in need on is very easy. I just want I need to be more precise in general as a whole, like 50% up. Yes, it's in the middle, but on 99Pertile, it's 99%. But what does this mean? 50% ile means you're you make more income than the bottom 50%, okay? And the people on your right, the top 50% on the right of you make more money than you. The 90 ninth percentile iq means you have a higher iq than 99% of people. You're here, right? Everyone to your left, straight to the origin. All these people here scored lower than you in the iq test when in this case you were three years of age, supposedly. Okay? So 1% scored higher than you in this test. That's all it means. Again, that's why babies get ranked all the time. Okay? For example, if your son is, for example, let's say, I don't know, you know, if you go to hospital and for a checup, your kid is one, okay? Your son is 1%, 1% highest, 0.5% are weight iq fifth permaybe. There's an issue rate it be such in relative terms to what is the, let's say, the law of the big numbers, right? Youassume in MaaS. Everyone, if you rescore below everyone, I'd say there's been in this, this tics, this survey, this big survey, there's maybe that's something to worry about, right? To scoring three Marks or five Marks of an iq test doesn't mean anything. I mean, I don't know, maybe it doesn't mean somesomething to people that really know iq tests. But unless you put it relative in reference to something else, relative to something else, that's when it really gains importance, gains a significance, right? Does that make sense? For example, if I saw you got 17Marks in your Edexcel exam or cii, whatever. I mean, that doesn't mean anything to me. I mean, even to me that I know about level Econ, I have no idea what that means. Tell again, in relative terms, you scored higher than x, people scored lower than y, people e got na and is yes, it's about you, your score. But it's also kind of situates the reader, the viewer, okay? Percentiles, it's about the same thing. Okay? Okay. So you've got, well, everyone distributed evenly on the x axis. So if you take this person here, let's say this is a 90% literally distance from their origin. That's just the nineteenth percentile, right? And we then travel up to the Lawrence curve and we go the top. The bottom 90 makes 50% of income rate. Okay, then you've got the top ten makes how much then at 90 makes 50, how much the top ten make the top ten makes. A lot more percent than the bottom. How much? How much? So let's say that the nineth percent tarurrori makes 50%. Okay, so we've traveled up. So then the top the top 10% makes 50% of the income exactly because the top bit here, right, is 100%. So they make the rest right by the end point. By the thing is, this is like backwards, like a boomhang. It's not supposed to be like that. It's supposed to be smoother, right? It's supposed to be right like this. At the point here is 100 persweeps. It's 100 ops. Is 100% here and 100% here right? Yeah Yeah. Fine. So you've got the cumulative, let's say, distribution of people according to income or wealth depending. And then on the y axis, you've got the cumulative distribution of income or wealth. Okay, fine, Rory, let's say you've got this line of perfect equality. Okay? And you've got this Lawrence curve. Okay. Yeah. And you've got this lawrenka. Which one shows more inequality, line a or line b? It is more inequality lime b is more inequality. Okay. Why can you I know you express that well before you can just repeat that. Like why does b represent more inequality than it letter? Because the 50% percentage of population have only 20% wealth. But the. 90 has the percentage, like for example, 70%. So the 10% of the population has 30% of all the wealth. And top the bottom 10% of people only has, like, for example, like 5% of the wealth, right? But in more, in relative terms, wib more inequality. Na, that's my point. So I know maybe b, Yeah, she seems to be quite low of inequality on its own. But relative to a, what are you looking at to say? Okay, b shows more inequality than there. I already showed you the percentage and the peryou showed it to me that you're tracing on b. Is this on b? This is all on b right? But the same thing happens if same thing happens on a like if you look a, okay, I don't know what's the, I can only tell you the rough like 90% on the population for a has 90% 1090 percent of the wealth. Top 10% of people in a has 10% wealth but for b the top 10% of people they probably they probably have like 30, 40% of the wealth. So that's Yeah it the numbers are not that important. It's it's just it's just very simple. You go here I see the bottom I see this is the bottom 60. This is 100. Okay, this is the the end point. It's a 60%, okay, 60 th in b there's this much right? Right? The 60% are in a, it's way more, right? Let's say it's 50%, the bottom 60 make 50, but with b, the bottom 60 make ten, right? So it's just taking the same point and tracing to both that's I'm not, it's not really about the numbers. It's about one point on the x axis tracing up to both lines, a and b, right? And you see that with a, the 60% cenowns way more, right? Okay. So lines that are further out, Lawrence curves, we call them, okay, Lawrence curve or Laurence, depends on the person, okay? Represent what is represented by these lines, these curved lines, okay? These broomerhanlines, one that's further out shows more inequality, okay? The Lawrence curves further away and the line of perfect equality, more inequality, okay? What if I told you the Lawrence curve, okay. Can be used to calculate. The genie. Coefficient. Do you know about this, that the Lawrence cut p can be used to calculate the genunie coefficient? Yeah, Yeah, go for it. How can we calculate the Lawrence curve? How can you calculate the genunie coefficient using the Lawrence curve? I don't know how to calculate though. There must be a formula, right? Right? But here we're just looking at the graph with no numbers, okay? So forget about 50, 40% or whatever. It's more about relative sizes, okay? So not so with the formula. You can't calculate it simply with no numbers, right? It's just what do you think matters for this gene coefficient? So we've mentioned what shows more inequality or not on the Lawrence curve on this above diagram, right? Okay. So b shows more inequality than a. Okay, that should help you. That should inform you about the stuff we care about for the formula array. Can you elaborate on this, ray? So genie, right? Genie? Which is a measure of inequality, right? Equals what on the graph equals I'm not asking for a scientific number of of formula, but the gene is equal to what on the graph more or less. What is what is it represented by Rory? Represented by. The top one how many how much money does the top 1% have? The top. Yes. But but graphically we said b is shows more inequality. Na right. Definitely. Yeah, right. So can you tell me, can you can you can you dig a bit deeper and say a gene coefficient is represented by what on the graph? By what? So what changes on the graph that represents different levels of inequality? A Lawrence curve, okay, the genius represents something to do with the Lawrence curve, right? Yeah. Can you elaborate it a bit deeper now? B has a higher gene index and a has a lower gene, right? So is that something we can can you enrich this little bit saying something to do with the Lawrence color? Can you enrich that with with your assumptions about with your the fact that b shows more inequality than it? What is it about the Lawrence curve that shows more inequality? What is special about the Lawrence curve? B versus Lawrence Covey? Like visually, what's wrong with a curve b? Why is it different to a? What's the difference visually? It's a calf. They're both curves, right? I mean, Yeah, more pronounced, but visually, is it on the same line? Is it well, is it great? Even if it's just the gradient? It's different, right? But what is different? What's visually very different. But versus, they say, a reference point. It's further away from the line of perfect equality. Do you agree? Roory? Yeah, right. The genie, something to do with the Lawrence curerb we've established and something to do with the Lawrence Kerk being further in or further out, right? Yeah. But this part is really difficult. It's not difficult to understand it, just like the correlation between them. Yeah but here I think we'll just, I have to kind of simplify and just think, okay, building up part the proof is just you know, we want to thinking about the Lawrence cub and yes, the Lawrence cubing further out represents more genie further in less genie, right? Okay. Is there a way of constructing a formula? And by formula, I mean literally areas on the graph, okay, areas, surface areas. Is there something we can think about with regards to areas on the graph, areas between curves? What do you what do I mean by this worry when we think about gene equals something to do with the different areas? Okay, that's one area. Okay, okay, that think about a. Okay. So now we've establish that b is more in equality neighbor. Let's think, okay, what's the gene of a of line a, okay, or line b up to you. So just think about one. So which areas do we care about then? Wait, I give give you're on the right track. So you drew the area between okay, you drew the area between a and b, which is you're on the right track drawn. You've identified an area that seems to master ssive you in relative terms that and I agree with that. Actually think of just a let's just think of it. Okay, so forget about it. How can we represent genie somehow? Three on the what areas do we care about again, what areas kind of showing the degree of inequality? Take a minute. Take a minute. I'm still sick. So let's think of a right? Yeah. This is the Lawrence curve. Okay? Line, a line of perfect equality. Let's call this p, perfect equality. What areas do we care about? And this is 100% right. What areas can we literally draw? What is gene equal to them here? There's two areas right between the lines, right? Yeah how can we construct the formula then based on the surface areas? This the the thing in the middle again, right? Okay, cool. Yeah, okay. So can you elaborate so thing in the middle, what does that represent? That represents the the inener quality of wealth. Okay. So the thing in the middle goes up. What happens to genie? And the Jie also goes up, the je index also goes up. So let's call that a, okay, a surface area, a, okay. We can think we can think of gene equal to A. I mean, I mean, I wouldn't fault that. I mean, it makes sense, right? So the bigger a is, the bigger the black area is are, the bigger genie is. And it kind of does make sense rrory, if you draw, hit something this here and then like this like line b shows more inethe quality. The area is bigger, right between the line, the larrence curve and the line of perfect equality. So Yeah, it seems to be the genie's got something to do with it. Genie moves with a, right? A goes up. Genie goes up, right? Yeah, that makes sense. That's however, it's it's hard to standardize. Okay. It's going to be a number. It's bigger than one, okay? So it's going to be it's going to be a number. The surface area. It's not like a from zero to one or a percent. It's what is the surface survey? So what we do is we standardize to make it between zero and one. So we get a over a plus b. So I agree, the most important thing is at definitely a. If a goes up, genie goes up. But we divide it by the whole area of the triangle to make it standardized between zero and one. Do you see y. Here's the bottom area, by the way. Do you see why? Rory? Yeah, okay, go ahead. Is it like the area increases that makes the Genna index bigger, go closer to one? But yes, but it's also, if you think of this line, this Lawrence curve, you've got a massive a, right? So yes, gene is very high, but just for the sake of putting it between zero and one and the genie, what we do is we go a over a plus b, right? This is the formula. So if a is massive, right? A is massive, b is tiny, a is like 99% of the triangle right, can you see that the triangle right? B is like 1%. So this means that it's going be 0.99 the gene. So the most important thing is gene equals to a, but it's a over a plus b technically because it's between, we want to contain it between zero and one a. The a plus b doesn't reserve a purpose more, but what I would think about is gene equals a, the surface area of a relative to the surface area of your whole trianthat makes it, standardizes it between zero and one all the time, right? It's strictly between zero and one because of this. Okay. Yeah. Do you have any questions about this? This is the Lawrence cup and the genie. Do you have any questions? Things. So okay, China China has been criticized or kind of talked about because that has high inequality, okay? I mean, we can talk about how high or you know but quite high inequality, okay? What do you think about inequality in China being quite high? Because some some people, they developed this, they started getting rich first because the Chinese policy that makes them started getting rich first and then the others hasn't caught up yet. Okay. So deating something to worry about. No, something naturally will happen, not natursomething naturally happens over time. So don't we don't need to worry about that. No, okay. I mean, I'm not giving my opinion. I'm just saying like subsided questions me to think about sir, what if I told you the quality in China is is higher than that's developed countries, which it is on let's say on average. Like what do you think about this? It's definitely not as high as America. Okay, let's exclute America. It's A, I would say, higher than essay western Europe. Why would you say? What do you think about this? Do you think this is concerning? Do you think this is normal? Do you think this is like inevitable will? Is improwill it stay the same? Probably. Everything. Don't even know guys, these are actually these are actually very difficult topics. Okay. But so why am I saying this? Like my point is not to say if China has high inequality or not. That's not really the point. The point is, I'm trying to kind of gain you to think about inequality critically, like high inequality, is this a bad thing or not? Loan inequality. What does this represent? It doesn't really even MaaS that these are things we have to think about. Roory, right. Okay. So China's had rising inequality and now has relatively high inequality rate. So had no very little inequality before it really started to develop, and now has very high inequality. Maybe that's a clue. Is this an issue itself, the high inequality ruor, do you think if you're the president of the country. You'll want to get rid of the the jine that sorry, not the Jean next you'll want to get rid of the, the the, the the inequality of the country now, right? But do you think it's concerning for a country like China to have relatively high inequality at the moment? Your personal opinion? No, no, it's not concerning, but it's a natural development. Like every country, she experiences that. But the governments need to try that governneeds to try to fix it, like by giving a lot of money to all people, their compensation by doing conversation and stuff for that. Very good. Okay. Okay. And do you think over time, as China continues to develop and becomes a fully developed country, Oh, soon, right? Will this change? No not anytime soon though. Like very, very, very, very, very long time Yeah but but let's 30 years China's very developed okay and know the stage of where it's as develops has us western Europe in terms of gdpp capital. Okay. Do you think I'm just asking for for for a guess, do you think inequality would have gone down versus today or would have gone up or stayed the same? They would have gone down because the child, because China still like wants to, because it's been it's been going on for quite, quite a long time already because right now, Chinese Chinese government ments are like compensation compensates to the body and stuff more. So that's why fair enough, I guess. So. I mean, why am I saying the point here is that there's something called the kuznuskurvaki. The kuznut's curve represents Rory. But as a country starts developing from, let's say, a relatively poor background, inequality tends to go up quite quickly. And this is the case in a lot of most developing case sciory China, one of them became, so we can draw it like this again, let's kind of go through it. So you've got development on the x axis. So a country that's more developed, a country that's developing is traveling towards the right. Okay, do you see that? And we've got any quantity on the x, on the y axis represented by a genie or whatever it is. The country develops, it travels to the right, but it also sees rising inequality of the stars, right? Do you see that lorory? Okay. And this is maybe the name one. Okay. So can you explain this? Let's let's say like a roller coaster, why do we go up and then go down? So why does a country usually travel up and then go down again in terms of inequality? Can you think of any rationale, any kind of common sense that could explain this? You can think of China somewhere around here, right somewhere on the top. Yeah, okay. So why do we have this roller coaster? Why do we go up and then we go down? Because first of all, when the country develops, there's always like a small group of people having more, making more money than the rest. So the England holities that are going up, but when when everybody gets richer, the country becomes more balanced and the governments start realizing to to give to give our money to the people, to to let people have a life. So that's when the inenecality actually start started going down. Okay, Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, the start everypull, right? It's really equal very little unquality suddenly there's like we call like Green shoots, okay, so something there's little pockets of litic growth. Some people are able to prosper, but still there's not lot of equality of opportunity, right? So positive opportunities like everyone kind of has a fair shot. A listen theory maybe at the start it's not that easy. Only some can go to University. Only certain people that connected to the government concluthe business or certain, let's say, privileges or certain opportunities are few and far between, then I guess the point where it's like Maas MaaS opportunity. So at least intergenerright over time, your family can prosper, maybe not your generation, but your kids can prosper, right? Ank this, free education, free health thcare. There's ability to kind of lean on the state when you need it and then prosper and take it into your own hands. Okay, maybe that's in the past for China. I think China, I mean, you know, there's better than I do, but I mean, I think China is probably on the downturn now going down on this on this curve, okay? So probably most people listen in eastern China have the access to good enough education, good enough health care. They have the quality opportunity, I would say is more or less a concept. Okay? So in also it gets to the point where the Chinese government can collect enough tax revenue to be able to spend money on projects that really benefit, let's say, the poorest, right? They get people out of the poverty trap. Okay, you've heard of this term poverty trap? Rrate, Yeah. What's a poverty trap? That way you can't get rich when you're poor. Okay? But can you give me an example to Yeah, you can't get rich when you're poor. Find you're poor, you're not rich. But why not? Why is it hard to escape this really bad poverty? Give me an an example. Can't you go to school? Look, if what if you go to school that you can go to school right now, you get out of poverty. Why not? Why is this hard? Why is this a, why is this a vicious cycle? Why do we call it a trap? The poverty. Because it can't you you if you don't have money and you're low at you, most likely no educyou. If you're not educated, you really realize the, the, the the consequence of not getting educated. So your kids probably will be like uneducated as well. Just about information. Okay. But what about if we talk about certain things that certain the point here is that you're so poor you can't get out of poverty. This is the idea, right? Poverty trap. How can you be so poor to not be able to get out of poverty? What can't you do if you're so poor? You don't have you, you don't have the money to invest. Think of it more simply. It's about even not being able to go to school. You need to work. You can't even go to school. You can't even get sent to school because you don't have the clothes to go to school. You don't have the books, materials. You don't have a light at a night to be able to do any kind of school work. You don't have other things more like life concerns. Okay, this is like terrible, but this this is the thing, okay? With absolute poverty. So right. And then having a certain tax revenue, having a government that has certain resources because there is a taxable base, there is there are businesses we can tax, the government can slowly build, let's say, social security, welfare payments, the welfare state as we call it, right, Rory? So healcare, education, roads, infrastructure, now there's money to do those things, right? So the government prioritizes this and this helps everyone, right? Especially the poor and towards the board of McKay. So then ineinequality starts going down again. Okay, now we can help everyone. It's not just okay, the rich can accelerate forwards now it's we can bring everyone out of if they're not, if there's still to people. Now bring everyone out of absolute powe can help everyone. We can ensure public pensions, wealth, the benefits of education, healthcare, cenworking. So what we call the couznuts curve, okay? And I don't think it's that it is part of the course, but I think it's more about, wait, so this went out. So it's not just about knowing that the name cousinits curwere drawing. It's more the general picture of being critical, of being able to evaluate, okay. Inequality is not just good or bad. It's depends. It depends on many things. This is the same thing with a lot of Econ points, okay, especially for macro. Okay, okay. So we talked a lot about inequality, the gene coefficient, the its curve, okay, inequality is a macro objective, Rory. Okay. What other macro objectives exist? What other macrrmacro objectives? Brain brain down inflation for example. Okay okay. What else? Any others? Economic growth. Essential, okay, anything else? Education, this account, I mean, I said more like a policy. It's more like a type of supply set policy more than an objective. Yeah but it's like Yeah, it's it is like that as well. I mean, I don't know if it's a macro objective. Significloan inequality loan, stable inflation, improvement of living standards, which is basically economic growth. Anything else any other objectives? Big, big macro objectives? Well, what else? Sorry, I can't think of anything right now, but he gave me a hint. Okay, so think of how people make money. What do they need? What do they need to do? What it. They need to they need to wineed to work, right? So what's the macro objective then? GDP Yeah but more like unemployment right Yeah run okay Yeah important unemployment okay so we want to low unemployment right? Yeah Yeah. I think another macro objective is some kind of sustainability, right? So we're kind of sustainability not to destroy resources and make things kind of short term. You want to want a long term kind of ability to to continue this to continue so on the objective is to be sustainable to not too much pressure on natural resources and the natural environment. Okay, you've got other things in terms of macro objectives, in terms of national zokay even on the bof payments, okay. So these are macro objectives. So the thing about Econ macro, a level macro, is we have to think about objectives in conjunction with others. Okay? So we talked a lot about inequality yesterday and today, okay? But the thing that more deeply is we have to kind of think about is what is the conflict, right? Or is that topic between inequality. And others. Okay, okay. A good economist free level would try and think about this deeper, okay. Are there any conflicts between inequality and other macro objectives, right? For example, if we try to if we strive for low inequality or to decrease inequality from where it is today, then that conflict, is there a conflict between that and other objectives? Give that a syk. So if we combat inequality rule, are we going against any of the other objectives potentially? Potennone. Okay. And so you're not imagine you increase tax, you want to tax the rich, right to decrease inequality. Does that go against any of the objectives potentially. Get it, Roy. Increasing tax like no no unemployment rate unemployment rate would increase. Okay, why? Because. More taxes are disincentive, Rory, right? If you increase tax, maybe businesses don't want to create employment, right? They don't feel that they're less incentivized to create jobs, right? Quite simply, right? You get to keep it less money. We you have to pay more taxes a whole exactly. We have to put in inequality in the bigger picture. Rory, that's our job in a level you ally. Okay. Do you have any questions about inequality? Rory? No, really I don't think so. I just need to do a more revision that after I like to read read through the my my notes and Yeah, okay, cool. So with all macro, just try to situate ineeququality within the macro objectives and you'll be fine. Okay, just and it's not right or wrong within the quality in general with Econ macro, okay. More micro, yes, but macro there's no right or wrong, okay? So it's always about showing that shade of possibility, evaluating appropriately on that stuff again. So and that it's always good to have an opinion. It's more opinions rather than fact. There's many different policies for the same thing all the time again. Okay, cool. So see you next week, Rory. And okay, perfect. See you next week. Bye bye, Rory. Have the rest of the day. Bye, bye, bye.