So you can exert your option and Jean-Claude as well. So that makes for the two comments. Yes. Thank you. Well, my first question is about the problematic of the build-up of a new core macro model or not. Picking on what Markus said about risk premia driving the economy and being the important

factor, well, we find that in the new textbook of Blanchard, he introduces two interest rates, one just adding up a risk premia. But then we are in the sphere where there is no theory of the risk premia.

Depends on confidence, this and that, though it's also social psychology. So where is then economic theory and economics itself? Because then we fall in the field of animal spirits, belief functions of Roger, and perhaps

non-ergodic time, which, as someone else has said, would be a condition to do any economic science. So from that starting point, can we hope that we have some sort of new core macro model or not? And that question is also for John, because he said, I don't believe in small models.

But then what do we put at the core of a macro vision that can incorporate some of the very good elements, which I totally agree, as you know, of what you said about consumption, all the effects, finite horizons, and all of that.

That is my first question. The second question, it's more of a comment, because Marcos gave me perhaps one of the first subjects for my blog, which is to really write about the nature of money. Because I don't think that the nature of money will change fundamentally because of the

change in technologies. And I don't believe in the theory that money was a creation of the private sector to facilitate the changes. I believe in your compatriot, Knapp, that money, as Charles Goodhart taught us in the

two concepts of money classic paper, it was created by the state. And by the way, Keynes took the example of the up, the big stones you showed, to demonstrate that for him, and I agree, the basic function of money is being a unit of account, and a unit of account that has to be stable, and only the state, in the end,

can guarantee that. And that's why all free money and free banking in the 19th century failed, as these private fictions of creating private money and do away with banks and central banks will, in the end, fail. But okay, that's more of a comment than a question.

Well, I will also concentrate on Marcus if he accepts. First, you made the difference between the anchor, the currency, and then the third category. Don't you trust that at the moment where all the currencies issued by the major central

banks of the advanced economy have the same definition of price stability, we have an anchor which is incorporated in the currency itself, not only as a concept, but by the way, also as a convergence amongst the same, along the same definition.

So that's my first comment, question. And second, I join totally the Vice President. We have clearly three characteristic of money, according to Aistad, and I think we all agree on that. There is the good instrument for exchange.

There is, of course, the unit of value, of account, and the store of value. So what do you do with the store of value function, which remains absolutely essential as a main characteristic of money in your token currency system?

Marcus, please. Okay, thanks a lot. Thanks to Ricardo for clarifying some of this eccentric model. In particular, putting in the speculative components with heterogeneous beliefs. I think it's a very important element, especially for macro-potential interactions.

On the risk premia, I totally agree that we need models where the risk premia is an endogenous animal, so it comes out endogenously. And in these models, it's indeed, as in Ricardo's Sharpe ratio, which is risk premia, it comes out, it's endogenously affected, so it's moving around. And so we need a theory for that.

But I would not rule out animal spirits. So I'm not one of the many economists who hate multiple equilibria. I don't. I like them to some extent. Of course, I'm also puzzled, which equilibrium should we select? That's a challenge. But it also opens up a richer discussion, what we can have, and it also opens up

points to the importance of communication for central banks. Once you have multiple equilibria, you can do a lot through communication, and also through central bank intervention, which is very cheap. So one needs to understand these phenomena. On the nature of money, also, and comments, I totally agree that, you know,

government money will stay and will be the main thing. But it's just, for an academic, it's very fascinating to see these new forms of money and think about them and actually go back to all historical concepts and everything replays there.

And I'm not surprised that your first blog entry will be on this topic, because it's such a fascinating new topic and there are new elements which are coming up. But if you go to Asia and all this, there's a lot of this token money floating around. And I think the core will always be the government money, but there will be derivatives inside forms of inside money,

which might emerge from that. And the anchor will be, you know, given by the government money at the end of the day. And I'm convinced about that. Let me leave it. Can I say something about the first question? I mean, it's, I shared what Marcus said, but I think that

the shock doesn't need to come from uncertainty itself. I believe very much in night and uncertainty. You generate a little balance sheet problem somewhere and very quickly, and then you can endogenize, meaning it's the first line of response to some problem in the financial system on top of that night and uncertainty.

And the point is that that can move very quickly. And so the point I had with that diagram with red boxes and so on is that very quickly can be the bottom part of the, or even though it may have a start from the top, very quickly can be the bottom that dominates the analysis, the required response and so on.

Thank you very much. Oh, yeah. Sorry, please. Yeah, just a quick comment on Marcus. Obviously, the model is highly stylized. And I think the credit part of the story is kind of buried in there, but it wasn't made explicit. I mean, I work on demand for money of households suggests that credit liberalization,

making access to unsecured loans much easier, has reduced the demand for money. So there's clear substitution there. People can access other sources of wealth. And of course, in the US, where homemaker withdrawal is cheap and uneasy,

that's another buffer of assets that's available to support expenditure. But of course, when things go wrong, you really have to look at the balance sheets and the credit supply that's linked with the effects on balance sheets.

It isn't just, I think, a risk premium story. All the risk premium are important. Thank you very much. That was a fascinating discussion. We have to digest everything we've heard. I have to say I'm very, very grateful to Marcus for putting a good theory on the issue of

digital currencies and tokens, which we're just discussing intensely, as you know, in the BIS and other places. And we've been very restrained and prudent and conservative in our approach, in particular, out of fear that this would disrupt a lot of the fractional banking system you were referring to and the stability of deposits. And we care about that.

But so far, that discussion has been a little bit dominated by tech people, and it's good that economists are coming back. So thank you very much. Thank you to the discussants and to the speakers. I am told that we've deserved a short break, resuming at 4.40.

So we are not making up entirely for the delay. So it's probably closer to the windy vote model of shock adjustment and the rocking horse. But still, please be back exactly at 4.40. Thank you very much. Very good. Very good presentation.