person who did not get on this tv and tout that donald trump is a trader -- traitor. he has compromised more cia operations around the world, caused deaths of more of our ci operatives, our citizens who are protecting us. in the past 12 years there have been more cia agents killed in this world and nobody talks about it. the man is a traitor. >> how did he do that? exactly how did he accomplish those deaths? >> we have proved that donald trump was colluding with the russians in his 2016 campaign and they squashed that story. the democrats and republicans both squashed that story. >> in north carolina, republican line, go ahead.

>> good morning. my concern is about the 2024 election. i hope we do not have the same election we had in 2020 where everybody received billions of dollars -- hello? >> go ahead. [applause] >> welcome, everyone. i am the managing director. always a pleasure to have you back. right now even more so on the eve of a spring meeting coming up and you are back from a trip to china. we talked about a lot of these things. before i start i wanted to remind you we have a lot of people watching this virtually so i want to remind all of you who are watching this virtually that you can send in questions if you have any, you can send

them in by email or two events or on the youtube channels you are watching this on or on twitter. any of those ways will hopefully reach us in time. i am sure there are people in the audience who have questions. before we get to the questions i have questions of my own. first of all, welcome. a great pleasure to have you here. >> thank you for the invitation. >> i want to start, i don't know how many of you had a chance to look at this, but the managing director of the ims had a speech at king's college in cambridge two weeks ago and it was a speech, about the economic challenges of my grandchildren.

and we may remember that from someone else who made a similar paper decades ago. harkening back to the spirit of that paper, you also looked in that speech for the prospects of the next 100 years and drew out two scenarios. one would see per capita income standards double over the next 100 years and the others, seeing it increase tenfold depending on how the world organized itself over the coming decades on new challenges we face. i thought that was a nice framing and i thought we could come back a little bit. i am modest so i tend to look at the next decade. what are the prospects for the next decade? could i get your sense, we were

talking before we came in, in some ways it is clear what the challenges are. so clear what is needed to make progress, but yet when you look at the numbers whether it is growth numbers, the outlook for the next five to 10 years or investment numbers. without investment it will not be any growth. or you look at financial numbers. they took out a couple hundred billion dollars out of developing countries, the official sector put in some but could not compensate. you square all this and say, are we starting off on the lower trajectory? you have these two. are we close to the bottom of it? how do you see the next decade?

then we will get into specifics. ms. georgieva: the question is right to read what would determine whether we are on the lower growth trajectory for the next 100 years or on the high growth trajectory would be determined by first, how technology penetrates our economies, how inclusive we are in making it work for everybody. second, how we make capital work for the best purpose and in the best places. this is where i differ from the case in which he emphasizes the accumulation of capital whereas i think today we need to focus on the allocation of capital.

capital goes through the countries where the population will increase and there will be this youthful labor force or not. would it go to the green and digital trust information or not? these are choices we have to make with a clear head. there are consequences to how we make them. when i look at today, what makes me lose sleep at night is this low productivity, low growth trajectory for the next years. i remember vividly i started as managing director in 2019, just before covid. gave my first speech. what was it about? low productivity, and he meant

growth -- anemic growth, and that is still the case after the pandemic. it would take determination to take something currently in insufficient supply and it is the will to cooperate. i look at the imf. i see two equally important tasks. one, make sure we have the financial capacity to operate, support, the next year these would be vulnerable, middle income countries and low income countries. we have to have the strength for them. later i can come to how we build this strength. two, make sure we bring our membership together.

despite all the difficulties in cooperation, we work towards consensus on those issues on which the future of our children and grandchildren depend. mr. ahmed: i think that is great. let's zoom in on what you just said and focus a bit on the imf. one part is financing, the other is bringing people together. of course financing is accompanied with a set of policies that help countries do better when their own forces. on financing -- there is a persistent question people raise and i think it is good to get your response. i have a big balance sheet and you can strengthen it, we can

talk about how it could be strengthened. when you look at the flows from the imf to emerging markets, developing countries. last year i think the repayments were back. but they are fairly small in relation to the potential. now is the time when countries need that financing. are there ways in which one could envisage over the next five to seven years an imf that is a more active financier of emerging markets and developing countries and can we imagine a way in which the imf is able to respond more effectively to countries as they are hit by shocks? one thing you have made a big point of the last couple years is, we are going to be living in a more prone world. can we -- a more shock prone

world. and can we discuss what is holding back the ability to do more in way of subsidy? ms. georgieva: first we need to recognize since the pandemic, $1 billion in liquidity and reserve. $650 billion, the 2021 allocation, which is adding financial capacity without adding debt. very valuable, especially for the countries that must be distressed because of high debt levels. about $650 billion in lending which went to about 100 countries. we are a lender of last resort,

you know that very well. we much prefer that we help countries create conditions for financial flows beyond the imf. we prefer to see more private sector, domestic and foreign investment. i would not think our job is to lend more, but lend as much as necessary to stabilize countries. i will give you a couple examples. over the last few months, we had a sizable program for ukraine. an anchor for ukraine and mobilizes $120 billion in support over foru -- four years.

we also have augmentation of a program from $3 billion to $8 billion. it is significant because it is an anchor for egypt where multiple sources of financing have come. when i look at our role, it is this, can we anchor a country and help it build sound microeconomic fundamentals that allow for growth to go up? it is a story for low income countries. different story, in low income countries our role today is genuinely to provide sometimes lifesaving financial resources. and may be the audience knows, maybe you don't, traditionally for many decades, it was

marginal when it comes to low income countries. our average annual lending was around $1 billion for all low income countries. since the pandemic we have recognized our responsibility to step up. we have in the years of the pandemic have more than quadrupled financing for low income countries. we created something on behalf of my colleagues i am very proud of. we have offered our richer members to lend to us and through us to direct them to low income countries and address climate vulnerabilities. our lending capacity has

expanded significantly. we are now at the point when we do not have a problem anymore of lending capacity. a couple days ago the u.s. congress approved $21 billion loan, around $40 billion we have built over time. now our issue is to guarantee subsidy resources to bring the cost of our lending to these countries down. at this point we lend at zero interest rate to low income countries, with the objective to be able to do low cost lending in the future. possibly, and we are discussing this with our membership, possibly going more in the direction of the world bank in which there is some differentiation. really poor countries get

grants. we do not have much grant giving capacity. mr. ahmed: zero interest. ms. georgieva: zero interest rates for them. and then way below market, concessional rates for countries that are in better shape, so we can expand our liquidity provisions at capacity. i want to say this to the audience. it breaks my heart when i look at what the data tells us about advanced economies, emerging markets in low income countries. it tells us after the pandemic in advanced economies and emerging markets, it is much less than we anticipated. we projected some years ago. why? because these countries can pump money into the economy and prop it up. for low income countries, today they are on average 10% gdp less

than they had before the pandemic. it is significant. the world bank is going for -- i think it is in the interest of global stability we are successful in getting that funding. mr. ahmed: i think that is truly a priority for low income countries this year. one of the things about the financing of low income countries as you say is, being able to generate enough subsidy resources to enable you to bring down the cost of lending and may be going forward, hold zero interest rates. it could be more graduated depending on what needs are for

different groups of low income countries. if i remember right, marrakech at the annual meeting there was discussion over how to generate those subsidy resources. there is periodically a question, all this gold sitting there, if you could sell 8% of your gold profits would be $10 billion, a lot of subsidy resources. then people say, you have all these surcharges. $1 billion a year, $2 billion a year, going into the fund, sitting there, reserves building up. why is it so hard to reallocate some of these funds to subsidize low income lending? ms. georgieva: i am with you. let me give you a perspective of how the conversation is going.

first, there is a recognition the funds in low income countries is broader and bigger today. the membership is prepared to support it. when we were in marrakech, miracles happened. my predecessor called the marrakech meetings the marrakech miracles because we had a 50% increase which is massively better than bird resources and our finance team calculated if we take one dollar notes and light them up it will go to the moon and back, this subsidy. that gives us strength for those countries. the other miracle was, we reached our target for both

lending, loan resources, and subsidy resources on the basis of two things. 41 countries making contributions, some of them for a first time, some of them not rich countries. that was solidarity and action. two, we created an investment account. we invested. the income is more than the interest rate. this goes into the subsidy account. this kind of creativity is there. you are asking a very good question. can the fund do more? yes. we have started the conversation with membership on that basis.

in 2011, ship very wisely said we need to have precautionary balances that are enough to guarantee against any potential losses on our balance sheet. target $25 billion. this month, april, we will reach the target. what does it mean? it means with income still being higher because we lend so much over the last years, we can discuss, what do we do with this income in excess of our precautionary balances? it has not been an easy conversation because there are different interest. some say, bring the cost on loans down. there are those that say, let's

put more money into the subsidy account. there are those who say, you are telling us the world is more unpredictable? let's put more in the percussion area balances. mr. ahmed: you can never have enough. ms. georgieva: the discussion will be constructive. we will come to the annual meetings and i think the world will like where we come. on the gulf sales. this is a matter of strong conviction among some of our members that selling gold is really last resort in case of unanticipated emergency. we have not yet gotten to a point -- many members would say -- some are saying, wait a

minute, do not rush. but it is on the table, possibility. mr. ahmed: i remember the conversation about gold. it went through the same process of some denial and opposition, ultimately you found a compromise i am sure when the time comes will find a compromise. what i took away from that segment is, between now and the annual meeting we should be aiming to be looking for some way in which one could meet all these different equally legitimate demands for how the additional resources could be used. before we move on from financing, one final question. you talked about the fund thing a catalyst for mobilizing other financing. one of the other sources for financing is the most natural development. there are proposals about how the fund could help.

can you provide a backstop facility, etc.. let's see some that have not been explored. there is one on the table a couple years which is, can we use some of the reallocated sdr to provide them as loans to the ndb's in a way they could use those for quasi-equity and leverage them up? i know this has been working its way through the system and is been a somewhat difficult process. i want to get your sense of where we are and where you think we will end up on that in the coming weeks? ms. georgieva: where we are is, there is a discussion. because this is you use of sdr' s, it has to be approved by our board of directors. there are a number of supporters to go that way.

obviously they have to be willing to participate. it looks like there may be a sufficient number of them to create the hybrid capital. where the difficulties -- this time i would be more amenable to the concerns of central banks. think of sdr's as reserve assets. they are still absorbing the fact that we have created $100 billion equivalent of this reserve asset for lending. now we say, here is another way to use it. there are very good reasons they are cautious. they say, are you sure you can protect this reserve?

then comes the question, would they be critical mass to secure that reserve quality? the way we reserve it and the credence -- creation of the resilience trust, is to pool sdr from many countries and on that basis we guarantee, if you want your sdr's, you can have it. it is one of these rare things in life where you can have your cake and eat it at the same time. we have to do the same cake eating, but maneuver to the development bank. to answer your question, i am

quite sure a resolution would be found. mr. ahmed: thank you. i see a few responses. our got -- go-to man. ms. georgieva: ms. georgieva: you wrote a great paper. you explained to central bankers that they will still have their cake. mr. ahmed: in this case you eat it, you get leverage four times. ms. georgieva: you eat it and you have three more. [laughter] mr. ahmed: let's move to another area. it is the fund's role in supporting countries. you have the rst, that is part of your response, but it goes

beyond that in terms of looking at macro implications of climate change. what strikes me is, i think the first time there was a discussion in a flagship document in 2008. 15 years ago. there is still today, may in this audience, certainly the broader audience, people who think the imf is doing too much on climate change and trying to do stuff it should not be doing and others that think the imf is missing in action on climate change, such an existential question, should be doing more. you have to make progress and cross the river by -- i want to get your sense of, do you think this is more or less settled? are we going to be saying the imf doing a lot more on climate

change? in what ways are you pulling back? ms. georgieva: let's recognize, in a world where there are still some who do not believe climate change is real, do not believe it is a human impact, it is natural there would be skepticism for anyone doing anything on climate. for the fund, first, we only do what we are good at. what matters to us is, the solution. in the case of climate change, why it matters to us, climate changes are already significant. they can wipe out the gdp of a country in one event. because moving to the new climate economy is an opportunity for growth and jobs. we cannot ignore it. it is straight in our alley. it does not mean we can do

everything related to climate change. we focus on three things. we look at the impact of climate risks and the presence of climate opportunities, adaptation, from the perspective of fiscal policy, monetary policy, financial sector policy. the areas in which we have competence. to make it simple, we have a lot of competence in the subsidies removal. clearly removing fossil fuel clearly removing fossil fuel subsidies in a way that doesn't harm vulnerable parts of the population is part of the mitigation agenda. very relevant for the fund. the fund is relevant for it. all climate-related financial stability risks, if you have a bank that is concentrated in real estate, in very fragile

area, obviously, this bank is a risk. and then we look at data. one of the things we do is to provide more -- higher utility data on climate for micropolicy decisions. so you can look at carbon intensity, vulnerability to climate shocks, in a context of how do you generate more growth in employment? and the third thing we do is we finance policy transformation using the resources of the resilient sustainability, trust again $42 billion. here's the interesting part. we created it. when we created it, we didn't know what is going to happen, would anybody want to borrow from this trust? today we have already 18 programs, more than $8 billion committed. and we have about 30 countries

on the queue asking for it. what does it mean? that countries are interested, first, in the financial capacity to borrow from that. but equally they're interested in what policies they need to put in place to have stronger economies and that is where we are -- we work. what we don't do, we do not do secretarial investment of any kind. we don't look at, like, the world bank would do into the energy efficiency parameters and how they can be changed. this is not what we do. and actually we have a fantastic partnership with the world bank and with other development banks. they bring that expertise, more granular expertise we. translate it into policy recommendations. mr. ahmed: right. ms. georgieva: to everybody who worries about it, the fund is

right-sized. mr. ahmed: ok. and i'm sure there are people still out there who are like, no, no, no, you should be doing more. and i guess the question is, how do you build a consensus? ms. georgieva: i think anybody who knows the history of the fund knows that the way the fund builds ability to engage on the particular issue is through article four consultations, through our surveyors. now that we include in surveyors, mitigation issues for countries that are high atkaptation in vulnerable countries, we are building up this knowledge base so what you see next in the years to come is that our regular programs would be better informed from the perspective of market significance of climate change.

mr. ahmed: so let's just -- i'm conscious of the fact that there are people who ask questions but before going to them, let me make two other areas. one is -- we talked about low proximity and growth being low and of course one of the things people are talking about more and more is, well, what is the potential of using a.i. to go on to a different productivity pra skwrebgtry and -- trajectory and therefore different growth is notes and at the same time there are people who are say -- growth spots? and at the same time there are people who are saying, doesn't a.i. carry with it the risk that it could widen the divide between countries that are able to use it and those that get bypassed? and the growing inequality becomes even more of an issue. how do you see a.i. and the interface between that and economic performance currently and also how would it affect the

work of the i.m.f. itself? do you see your teams doing the same kind of work or are they going to be mostly doing other stuff? ms. georgieva: first, to answer your first question, artificial intelligence can be the big bang that creates tremendous opportunities, some that we cannot even imagine today for productivity growth. no question about it. you just look at some of the applications of artificial intelligence already, you know, you can get -- be driven by your car so you don't need a chauffeur. the way information can be processed, the way medical treatment can be delivered, enormous. we did an assessment of what is the impact on labor markets and it is really massive. over the next years, on average,

40% of jobs globally would be impacted by artificial intelligence. there will be more productive jobs. many would disappear. in advanced economies, it is 60%. in low-income countries, 26%. and that takes us to your point on inequality. 26% -p jobs affect -- of jobs affected in low-income countries might sound like, oh, thank god we're not at risk of this wave to hit us. but it also means they may be less behind at the risk of growing inequality within countries and across countries, it's very real. at the risk of using artificial intelligence for evil, not for good. we also looked at, we said, ok, how well are countries prepared

for this new world of artificial intelligence? we created an index that takes into account four things. digital infrastructure, investment in human capital and labor markets, innovation and regulation and ethics. so we ranked countries, 75 of them, on the basis of these four indicators. what came as a surprise when we did the ranking is that when you take that kind of comprehensive approach, it is not u.s. that comes on top. obviously if you only look at development of artificial intelligence, u.s. has the -- the magnificent seven. u.s. is way ahead. but when you look at how well society's prepared as a whole for it, number one, singapore, number two, denmark, number three, u.s. and what, of course, we need to

work on this index, this is our first attempt, but what it tells us is that countries have to take it very seriously. and they have to build the ingredients to bake the ingredients, we are on the cake analogy today, so they can actually achieve high product tufbity, high growth in the future. and you asked me about the i.m.f. the i.m.f. we now have artificial intelligence assistance and it's remarkable. it's like talking to a human being. it changes the way we work. i ask the team that's working on that and i said, please define my job in a world of artificial intelligence. when i see you next time i'll tell you how it looks like. there will be change. there will be quite -- they are quite a number of activities at the i.m.f. in which artificial

intelligence can play -- mr. ahmed: a big role. ms. georgieva: a very big role. and of course we also have to think how we prepare our staff for this. how we transition in a way that is respectful of people's professional dignity. so it's a big job. if there is anybody in this room who still thinks that you're talking about something 20 years down the road, wake up. mr. ahmed: all right. so you've got your wake-up call. for the last -- that kind of takes me to the last area that i just wanted to get your reaction to which is, artificial intelligence and governance of artificial intelligence is one of the big challenges of local cooperation, international cooperation that we face over the next decade, that's clearly one of the areas where we can't have every country doing it all -- its own governance easily. and in some ways there are other

areas, debt, another area where we need to have some common approach as to make things work better. you're just back from china and i wanted to get a little bit of your sense of -- in a world, the i.m.f. has written a lot about the cost of fragmentation and i heard a speech recently talking about the equivalent of the g.d.p. of germany or something being impacted or lost through fragmentation. ms. georgieva: germany and japan. mr. ahmed: there you go. now i think the question in my mind is, how do you see creating a zone of cooperation in a world where fragmentation is more the norm than the exception? ms. georgieva: no question that we are in a more fragmented world. the evidence is very clear.

you look at trade statistics, what we see is trade is increasing slower than g.d.p. normally trade is an engine of growth. the number of restrictions has quadrupled in just the last couple of years. trade restrictions. when we look at very interesting data, when we look at trades, we dream an across -- let's call them blocks, you know, countries that come together, it is down in both cases but of course more down between. who is the beneficiary, especially for direct investment? it's a very important message. the beneficiaries are countries that trade with everybody, work with everybody.

the indonesias of this world. my view is that the world is now so economically integrated that to completely fragment it, to break it to separate entities as it was in the times of the cold war, is difficult. not impossible. but more difficult. and there is enormous role of technology to connect us. which didn't exist in these days. when i was living on the other side of the iron curtain in bulgaria, i had no clue how life was here. none. now we are all in a fish bowl. you see what the others are doing. you aspire to do better. so i don't think we can go that direction short of some very dramatic event, god forbid.

what can we do, the i.m.f.? be very pragmatic. focus on issues of common interest of our members and bring the membership together. we talked about that. we have a big role to play, to bring different entities together, we created, together with india, g-20 chair and the world bank, the global sovereign debt round table. what is it? it is a place where traditional creditors, so-called paris club, creditors, new creditors, china, india, saudi arabia, brazil, private sector creditors, and they're a big part of the credit landscape, and they all sit together. what is the practical outcome of it? identifying concrete issues

where there is disagreement and building common approach to them. for example, disagreement on what is the role of multilateral development banks. result. now we are on our way to address the issue of kparblt of treatment -- comparablity of treatment. public sector, private sector, same treatment. these are the kind of things we can and -- do and we do do to bring countries on a common position so we can solve problems and have the marrakesh miracle revisited in the future. mr. ahmed: ok. let's see now, who would like -- just raise your hand and we'll try to make maybe three questions. so i think i saw a hand go up first. there was a hand over there and then there's this lady over

here. i'll do those three first. questioner: thank you so much, managing director. my name is steven. i'm an intern at the united nations population fund. thank you for being here today. i learned so much from this conversation. i just wanted to get your reaction a little bit on the term when we say, instead of giving someone a fish, we teach them how to fish. right? so i want to get your reaction on what is i.m.f.'s role in the future in terms of not only serving as a lender of last resort, but also helping low-income country, helping emerging economies to build capacity through technical assistance or other means, how do you see i.m.f. strike that balance in the future? thank you very much. mr. ahmed: very good question. over there, please. questioner: hi. thank you so much. managing director. my name's kate donald. i work for ox fam international. i wanted to ask a question about the types of policies that the i.m.f. is recommending. one of the concerns we have is that sometimes in some of the

load programs and surveillance, that the fund recommends economic policies that we see as kind of detrimental to tackling inequality and poverty. and i noticed in a blog recently that some of your colleagues published, we were very happy to see a very firm statement that this is not a call for austerity. however, they did say, you know, we still need to see substantial fiscal son kol tkaeugs. so i'd -- consolidation. so i'd just like to ask you, where does the fund see the line between fiscal consolidation and us a ter it i? i think it's -- austerity? i think that's really important how it plays out at a country level. mr. ahmed: very good question. third one there and then we'll come back to you. questioner: thank you, hi. my name is sara and i work with the house financial services committee under ranking member waters. i recently heard from some researchers at william and mary that there's some evidence that china is using escrow accounts to basically, like, if they're

building a port or something like that, have countries put money into an escrow account so that it doesn't change the amount of debt that they're in technically. how are you thinking about things like that in dealing with that? mr. ahmed: escrow accounts for projects. do you want to take those three? ms. georgieva: let me take those three and if you have more time, we'll do more. fantastic questions. so let me start with the one on helping countries to help themselves. this is actually what we aspire to do. help countries build strong fundamentals so they don't need to rely on anybody else. how do we do that? we engage with countries and we look at are they collecting sufficient revenues, especially from the richer part of their population? are they then investing this revenue for infrastructure, for human capital efficiently and effectively?

are they creating environments for entrepreneurship that can generate jobs and if there is one lesson that i repeat constantly that we learn from is that countries with strong fundamentals withstand these shocks much better and of course they have a better opportunity to grow. we are also looking now into how we help countries to define social protection systems that do not create dependency but provide an opportunity to grow. i call this, instead of social safety nets, which is not the term we usually use, so you don't fall, social safety ladders, allow, like investment in education is a ladder for

families, for the future. the most important lesson of engagement of the funds in country programs is that when countries grace to put their economy on sound footing, they reap the benefits of it. my own country in the 1990's had the i.m.f. program. we had 8300% inflation before the i.m.f. came. it was a very painful period. but as a result of taking the reform steps necessary, bulgaria stabilized, became a member of the european union and income per capita quadrupled in the last decades.

so don't think of us as -- we are there, say, here, get this money, squander it, come back again. we want to see countries doing well for themselves and their people. i really appreciate the question on inequality because there is so much evidence that inequality harms the economy, not only harms people, it harms chances for economies to grow. it was my predecessor, lard guard, that -- lagarde, that worked on introducing a policy on social spending floors, meaning that in our programs we had to protect education, health care, social support. and that is a policy that is absolutely central in our work. we do believe that medium term

fiscal consolidation after years of increased spending and increased debt levels is necessary, otherwise economies will be crippled. i mean, then you have to pay high costs on your services your debt. so we believe that it is a necessity. but we also recognize that it has to be done with more focus on revenue raising. we did a study, it shows that in emerging markets, in developing economies, there can be eight to -- 8% to 9% g.d.p. increase if taxation is put on sound footing. and then of course we want to see quality of spending. definitely, definitely we don't want the price of fiscal consolidation to be borne by the most vulnerable people in society. to the question, i mean, the

most important thing we do together with the world bank is to work on more transparency on that so we can see who exactly borrows how much from whom and under what conditions. and in that sense we are mindful that there could be lending practices that are ultimately detrimental to the interests of countries. and it is something we are discussing, including in that forum that i mentioned, the sovereign debt round table. so, yes, it is something that we need to be very watchful of. mr. ahmed: all right. ok, let's take three more questions. i think i have somebody in the front row here and then i see there's somebody in the back there. then i'll come to you next. all right. questioner: thank you, madam.

managing director. question, my question is, how much are you concerned about the rising u.s. sovereign debt? and possible impacts it might have. mr. ahmed: great. u.s. sovereign debt. in the back. questioner: hi. steven, ph.d. canada. school of economics. i'm curious about your comments on reserve asset status and you mentioned the difficulty that in the scheme proposed with the hypercapital it wouldn't necessarily have the same in cash as if you were channeling to the r.s.t. there's some vexation because they have a liquidity support model and they say, why isn't this good enough. i'm wonder, does this count, is there a way to improving that, and alternativetively is the problem just sort of intinsic -- intreupbsic to the instrument, if that's the case, partial equity or 100% equity doesn't count as a normal reserve asset,

would you or the board think differently about a normal debt security at the nominated, the world bank could issue, share hold course purchase and that would be a new channel for austerity channeling? mr. ahmed: great. thank you. then the lady here. questioner: thank you for taking the question. i.m.f. has recognized that gender is macro critical. i love an update on what's happening internally and what policies are effective. ms. georgieva: ok, great. mr. ahmed: ok. so we have three. i don't think we'll have time for another round. let's just end with these three. ms. georgieva: for the u.s., what we see in the u.s. is the support that's provided to the economies that propped up the u.s. what is important is that growth in the united states is coupled with increase in productivity. not the case in many other countries. so for this reason we think that u.s. economy is actually in a reasonable place.

this being said, we tell everybody, watch your debt levels. you have to take a medium term perspective on how you're going to bring it down. because what has been done to prop up the economy because of the pandemic cannot be sustained forever. it has to be walked back. and that is -- we would have our discussion with the article 4 consultation and that would be one of the issues we will be talking about. but again, when you look at the data, something i didn't talk about and it is probably worth recognizing, there is quite a significant divergence within advanced economies, within emerging markets and this divergence is driven by multiple factors. how much you rely on import for energy, u.s. doesn't rely that much. but one of the defactors that is

very interesting to look at is this difference in productivity. in the u.s. we, see wakes going up but productivity going up even higher. that's a good thing for the economy. on the question of hybrid capital, we have been very supportive of the two development banks that have asked for it. our technical team in the finance department has worked with threpl so they can be -- with them so they can be a robust proposal put to our board. my personal sense is the following. it is you and it is coming new over new over new. so we had the creation of the r-frpt s.s. -- r.s.s. the use of f.d.r. to put in an investment vehicle.

now comes this proposal. it takes a bit of time for the membership to absorb because they're thinking, are we now doing too much in too many places? do we need to slow down and first absorb what we had decided before we move forward? i don't think it is a matter of specifically hybrid capital being riskier. but it is something new. hybrid capital is not something that we have supported with s.d.r.'s and as long as there is enough -- that enough members who want to do it, i think we will find the pathway forward. thank you for asking. amazingly we are exceeding on our commitments to our board,

the strategy, we said we are going to do that many countries in which we would look -- we would put the gentle lens in our srur visa lance. are with -- surveillance. are we 50% above? i don't want to -- quite a bit above. what does it mean? it means that they're interested in doing it. it's not being shoved through their throat. they recognize that labor markets, participation of women, ability of women to grow up in the ranks, take more responsibility, this is really significant from a productivity standpoint. and if you look at what is the difference between our analysis of prospects for growth before, when we were a bit more pessimistic and today it is the strength of labor markets, women

are part of this strength. as for us at the fed we went from 25% women in senior positions to 38%. we have for the first time in the top five, three women, two men, never happened before. and most interesting, i see women, young women speak up. and that to me is hugely important. mr. ahmed: great. that seems to me to be a very positive note on which to end this -- ms. georgieva: no, i want to end with cake. case. in the long run we are all set. actually, we should quote him for in the long run, almost

everything is possible. [laughter] mr. ahmed: exactly. there we go. in the long run. i'm kind of hoping that maybe in the not so long run a few good things will also be possible. ms. georgieva: absolutely they will be. mr. ahmed: let's move on that. thank you, kristalina, for coming. thanks, everyone. [applause] ms. georgieva: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] mr. ahmed: thank you also to all of you who joined online. thanks again.

>> c-span is your honor filtered view of government. we're -- is your unfilter viewed of government. we're -- unfiltered view of government. >> koolen-de vries system is extremely rare. >> hi. >> but friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span's co-c.e.o., we are marking 45 years this year. why is this significant? >> well, media institutions have no guarantee, do they? we've seen a lot of them go under in the past decade or so.

and i guess if c-span is still around at 45, the good news of that is that we're providing services some people find valuable. susan swain, c-span's >> i think what we've tried to do over the past decades is to build an institution that people can trust, they're going to see the whole story and we have the interest of showing the political process as it occurs without bice, without our own -- bias, without our other interpretation, and create an ar cave where people can find what public officials have had to say. trust, that they will see the whole story, and we have the interest of showing the political process as it occurs without bias, without our interpretation, so people can go back and find what public officials have had to say and decide for themselves what they think about it. that is what c-span is all about and the fact we are around at 45

means people have understood the role it plays in the niche in american media. >> let's remind our viewers how we started. >> march 19, 1979, the gavel came down in the house of representatives and speaker of the house gaveled in the first televised session of the house. >> the house will be in order. gentlemen from tennessee. >> [indiscernible] -- one minute, mr. speaker. >> without objection. >> mr. speaker, on this historic day, the house of representatives opens is proceeding for the first time to televised courage. i wish to congratulate you for making this possible and the committee who has worked so hard under the leadership of the congressman to make this a reality. television will change this institution, mr. speaker, just as it has changed the executive

ranch come up at the goodwill far outweigh the bad. >> two years before hand private entrepreneurs in the cable industry had been organizing for that day and built the first satellite in the d.c. area to transmit that session to the american public. it started a revolution, televised access to the process and lots of people are far offering ways to follow washington in 1979 this was a real use of technology for the public good and there had been nothing like it before. >> this year for the first time for our anniversary we are celebrating it by calling it a founder's day here dwight is that? what does that mean? >> well, the reality of any media organization today anyone

watching this knows their media consumption habits have changed hermetically in the standard of 100 million homes having cable television wired and they paying a monthly subscription fee has changed enormously over the past 78 years. we have lost about 40% of the homes that carry cable and carried our signal to them. along with that comes a loss of revenue was so we have done everything we can to short ourselves up in the face of change, but the reality is there are lots of people accessing your content now don't really help contribute to us producing it, and it is an expensive thing to do, so we are marking founder's day and kicking off a campaign to ask the public for their help continuing to support c-span. we will still have our important cable and select companies carrying our signal who pay $.75 a year to carry c-span n description fees, but we are

asking people who are watching us on cable who would like to help the cause of people using us online through youtube or through social media if they would like to help support c-span so we could continue offer gavel to gavel coverage of congress, our history programming, books programming, and all educational materials we develop for the classroom all which is available for free without the support of the cable networks, so we really want now to ask people to help contribute. founder's day is an interesting concept. i think the founders as being the entrepreneurs who started c-span and created the private enterprise of the congress that said is to televise these -- televising the sessions and seven years later the senate saying yes, the reporters who covered us when we were an unknown quantity and were not quite sure what to make of it, but more importantly the viewers who watched over the years, the viewers supporting this network has been critical who call into the, call and shows you host

also support us unlimited by using our products, and in many cases they help get us on cable systems over the years when we were seeking to expand our coverage. now we are calling on viewers to help us in a different way with a little bit of support on founders date to help us with a contribution that will sustain c-span into the future. >> so with those business challenges and opportunities what can our viewers expect of us in the future? >> well our goal is the mothership is c-span, c-span2, c-span3 providing linear service but we want to be everywhere