Good morning, everybody. We are going to have, you know, this first presentation that is going to be dedicated to real convergence. In order to do that, we have a paper from Jan Imps, Jan is professor of the Paris School of Economics and the New York University in Abu Dhabi. And I think that you have co-authored the paper with Logan Paul's lecture in the University of Sydney. And for the discussion, we'll have seven Calendki Otkin from the University of Maryland. Well, real convergence is a key variable in economics, and especially, you know, in the Monetary Union. The launching of the Euro was about nominal convergence. And well, the party line in those times is that nominal convergence could pave the way for real convergence. But perhaps we cannot overlook that the determinants of real convergence are real factors, mainly total factor productivity. So I think that these are the kind of things that we are going to discuss now. So, Jan, you have between 20 and 25 minutes to make the presentation of your paper. Thank you. Thanks very much. It's a privilege to be here. This is a part of a project I have with my co-author, Laurent Pauls. And what we're trying to do here is to take stock on 20 years of convergence. And I mean, a little bit precise about what I mean in terms of convergence. I'm going to be talking specifically about two types of convergence. One in GDP that President Draghi actually alluded to already. Convergence in GDP, that is the reduction in the dispersion of GDP growth rates, which is obviously of paramount importance for the conduct of monetary policy. First, because it's one of the criteria for an optimal currency area, cycles synchronize, and that makes monetary policy easier. And the second, because of the cohesion and homogeneity that creates within the union. Convergence in consumption, which is intimately related with financial integration and risk sharing across member countries of DMU and therefore is intimately related with welfare and potentially even issues of inequality. But there are many other forms of convergence, convergence in labor market outcome, labor productivity, etc. In my talk, I'm going to focus on the first two. And as a matter of fact, I'm going to dedicate the bulk of these 20, 25 minutes to discussing convergence in GDP, the first point. Time permitting, I'll say a couple of things about consumption as well. So, one very, very simple, straightforward way of looking at this issue is to compute the object that you see on top of this slide, which is a measure of absolute differences between growth rates of GDP, that's the measure to the left, and of consumption growth rates, which is measured to the right. These absolute differences can be computed for the whole cross-section of pairs of countries, and are going to capture how dispersed growth rates are of GDP or of consumption. And the simplest way to think about convergence or lack of convergence is to simply investigate whether they exist a trend, an upward trend, into these dispersion measures.  And so what I've done here is I've just run a simple linear trend regression, to establish that both of these measures, over the 20 years, the first 20 years of the EMU, have actually increased. There's a trend increase that manifests both in GDP convergence and in consumption convergence. The trend is a bit more marked for consumption, interestingly, than it is for GDP. That continues to be to over a period, separated roughly the first 10 years and the second 10 years, and you can see it's there in both periods. Convergence is manifest, it's salient in the data, at least as far as that measure is concerned. And so that begs the question, why have we observed these convergence? So let me talk first about convergence in GDP, and by way of motivating the question we want to ask, let me just refer to an enormously large literature that has taken interest in that object. Now, why is that interesting? Why is that important? Why is it an important question? It is because it's key to, again, the ease with which a monetary union can function. A few people would doubt that a monetary union actually stimulates trade. And so that's the first arrow I have on this slide. There's a little bit of disagreement about how much it stimulates trade, but it's pretty clear that it does affect trade. So more trade in monetary unions. And there's also a few people in this room or elsewhere that would disagree with the fact that more trade actually creates convergence. So that's a very well-known channel going from monetary union to trade to convergence. And then there's this feedback effect that when GDP actually converge, that actually facilitates the cohesion and the sustainability of monetary union. So one of the things that I want to really talk about today, this morning, is the second arrow, the relationship between trade and GDP convergence. Empirically, has been established on the basis of observed trade. So on the fact that activities, sectors, countries that trade more and we observe that trade, exports plus imports relative to GDP, are more synchronized. That's an exceedingly famous paper by Geoffrey Franklin and Andrew Rose in the late 90s that established that. But of course, deep economic integration, akin to what the EMU is trying to achieve, involves more than just more trade. It also involves that non-traded sectors, particularly service sectors, would actually cater for traded sectors. So even though business services do not trade with each other, even though lawyers or accountants do not trade across the border, to a small extent, clearly they tend to cater for companies, for sectors that do trade over the border. So that is presumably one of the characteristics of deep, deep economic integration. When non-traded sectors that do not trade directly actually cater for very open activities and very open sectors. So that measure presumably correlates to a certain extent with observed trade, but it is at least conceptually different from observed trade. So what I want to do is to compute this measure of connection between sectors and then between countries and try and distinguish its effect on convergence from that that is the well-known one created by observed trade. So how do I, is it possible to come up with a measure like this? Let me just use a very simple diagram to illustrate what I have in mind. This is what I have in mind, you know, in both sides of the border, you have non-traded sectors, say business services, that actually supply inputs to manufacturing sectors, traded sectors. And the trading that we observe is between manufacturing sectors, but it is not between business services, yet business services are actually quite connected across the border, but sort of one step removed because they are very connected to open sectors. So the name of the game here is to distinguish a value chain akin to what I'm showing you now, which is one that involves one border crossing, or for that matter more than one border crossing, it can go back and forth across the border. That's also what deep integration would be about. Distinguish that value chain from one that actually does not involve crossing a border. And here is an example of that, that is purely domestic. The sort of connection measure that I'm interested in is one that would capture the black path here and filter out in some sense the red path here. And that's going to be something that is going to be reasonably easy to do using input-output tables that capture these vertical trade between different sectors. Now input-output tables actually tell us a lot of information, often quite messy and actually quite messy to expose as well, so hence the triple summations. What this complicated expression actually tells us is quite simple. It tells us that gross output in a given country i and a given sector r is going to serve demand, final demand in a variety of different ways. It can serve it directly, and that would be the first f's that you see in both of these brackets to the left. The fiir in the bottom basically says that this good i is actually consumed through final demand in the same country and in the same sector. The sum, so the sum of the fijr, it means the same thing. It means that that good serves final demand but across a border. So this is crossing a border but in the form of final demand. So that's the type of trade that we used to think about, it's trade in final goods. But of course there's also second order linkages, that is the second set of summations here where at the bottom here what you have is the possibility that that good r in country i is being sold to another sector s in the same country and it is that other sector that actually serves final demand. You can have that in a purely domestic sense that's the bottom bracket or in an international sense that's the top bracket. The top bracket captures the various ways in which at the second order that good r can cross a border, it can cross a border as an intermediate good across sectors or as an intermediate good within sectors. That would be a second order link towards the distance from final demand. And so on and so forth. There's a third order, fourth order, fifth order, etc, etc. So what I'm trying to do here is to disentangle basically to isolate the first top bracket from the bottom bracket. I want to isolate that component that it really captures these intermediate inputs crossing borders. Now that's actually a pretty difficult thing to do even though these data is available because these are infinite sums. Thankfully there's a very influential paper by Antras and Thor a couple of years ago that slightly amends the objects that I've just introduced to you by if you see there's a 1, a 2 and 3 now there weights that actually captured the distance to final demand so that weighed these distances by the number of steps for each elements in these brackets. Now this object actually can be computed very easily using input-output tables and that's the formula you see at the bottom there. The formula at the bottom there involves a which is a simple input-output table, a world input-output table that we have data on and f which is a vector of final demand. The bottom line here is that I can easily compute the sum of these two brackets by using a world input-output table and a vector of final demand. Now by analogy to this result I can also compute the second bracket which is the one that's focused on domestic linkages only by specializing the matrices a and f onto purely domestic input-output linkages and purely domestic final demand that's the notation that's at the very bottom of the slide. Now having done this I have an expression for the left hand side what I've called u and I have an expression for the purely domestic component so I can back out for any sector in any country the propensity in some sense the intensity with which that sector exports across the border directly and indirectly at first, second, third, fourth order etc etc. Now I'm going to call this measure a measure of export intensity bearing in mind it's not directly observed, it's not a measure of trade. It's a multilateral so far multilateral measure of export intensity in the sense that it captures how closely, how export intensive, how closely linked to all of the country's partner given sector R is in country I. So let me show you what that looks like. So what I've done here is I've done that computation for China, EMU, EU not EMU and the U.S. China is in black, the EMU is in green, EU not EMU is in purple and the U.S. is in red. So you can see export intensities have very different trends between China and the other three groups. China has an upward trend so that makes it a very open economy in the sense of this export intensity being quite large as in lots of sectors in China are geared towards exports but you can see that post-2007 the measure actually falls back down which is presumably consistent with the rebalancing of the Chinese economy towards its domestic activity. And what's interesting is that at the beginning of the euro China and the EMU are at similar levels and at the end of the euro again China and at the end. Today China and the EMU are at the same level. So there's a sense in which exports intensity in the euro area is comparable with what it is in China. By the way what I mean to say here is that the export intensity of EMU member countries with each other is comparable with the export intensity of China with its trade partners in general. What's also interesting is the gap between EMU green and EMU green and EMU not EMU the purple one. So there's an EMU effect in the sense that export intensity between EMU members is larger than it is between EMU members out of the EMU. With all of that the U.S. is actually at the bottom. It's actually a country that is largely closed by according to that measure. So that's the first thing that suggests this measure is potentially interesting and says something else than just pure observed trade. The second thing that I want to do is to try and bilateralize this so that I can say something about bilateral connection between sectors across countries. The way I'm going to do this is I'm going to specialize what I've just showed you before rather than using a matrix an input-output matrix of China with the rest of the world. I'm going to take input-output matrix of France with Germany and that's going to tell me the export intensity between France and Germany. It's going to tell me how sectors in France, sector R in France is actually exporting intensely to Germany and that the way I'm doing this is by introducing IJ versions of all the relevant matrices that you see on that slide. And that gives rise to a very easy way of measuring bilateral export intensities between sectors and between countries. Now one of the reasons why this is interesting is that this can be computed for non-traded sectors. In particular it can be computed for services, business services. I'm actually able to say something hopefully meaningful about how connected across the border the typically non-traded sectors are. And I'm going to call this BI for bilateral intensity. And let me show you this again by way of documenting what these measures look like. So these are pairs of sectors between emu member countries that's in red, between the US and its trade partner, it's in blue, and China and its trade partner that's in black. And you can see that the overwhelmingly apparent result is that the red numbers are much, much larger than the blue or the black numbers. Emu member countries are highly integrated bilaterally in terms of sectors actually being connected with each other. You can notice so manufacturer with manufacturer has very high numbers which is not too surprising. These are connected traded sectors. But you can see that services, business services here have sampled a few. Retail also take relatively large values within emu countries. So this is an index of how closely connected non-traded sectors are across the border within the emu. You can see the numbers for business service with business service are actually not zero. There is some connectivity between these because they in the emu tend to serve sectors that do trade with each other. Now obviously the 64 trillion dollar question is how whether that explains convergence. So the way I'm going to do this is by running the regression that's up there which is on the left hand side the measure of convergence in GDP except that this is now measured at sector level. So I'm going to look at how sector R in country I is converging with sector S in country J. And I'm going to try and explain this with the bilateral intensity measure just described which is this bi variable right to it. And I'm going to run a horse race with trade. Now trade here is basically the effectively traded the amounts and value that is traded between these sectors and these countries coming directly from the input output table. So these are directly observable trade between these sectors. So it's defined in a usual way which is the amount that is being traded that's disease normalized by value added. Now this is a huge dataset because I'm going to look at all bilateral relations between all the sectors in the in this case 12 core emu countries. So what I'm going to have is 12 countries times 50 sectors times 50 sectors because all the bilateral relationships times 15 years only have 15 years because that's the input output data that we do have. So that gives me a dataset of 2.5 million observations whose purpose it is to try and explain the dispersion in convergence in sector value added growth rate using this bilateral intensity measure. So let me show you the results. These are the results. So again the idea here is that I haven't said that but I have a battery of fixed effects. So in particular everything here is estimated within over time. It's an increase in bilateral intensity and I'm looking at whether that increase in bilateral intensity actually explains increasing convergence or convergence. So the first line is the one of interest. The first line captures whether that's significant or not and it's systematically significant and positive and I'm adding different fixed effects, different combinations of controls really and also trade, the directly observed trade. So a couple of things are interesting. The first one is that the trade coefficient is actually unstable to the inclusion of fixed effects. So it's actually very hard when you use observed trade at the sector level to explain convergence in value added growth at the sector level. You actually cannot do this in any robust way. However with that bilateral intensity measure you actually can do that. You can see that the coefficient is systematically significant and positive and economic significance is actually quite substantial. It's roughly three times larger for bilateral intensity than it is for the trade. So it is a relevant verbal. Another way of looking at the same question is to sort of look at specific pairs of sectors, it's still within the emu, specific pairs of sectors as opposed to this is the whole cross section of all sectors. Now I'm here specializing on some pairs between the sort of three key activities in the economy. And so you can see again that what's remarkable with this bilateral intensity measure is that it really explains very well the correlation between manufacturer and services, services and services, agriculture and services. It's actually explaining quite well the connection between services and other sectors of the economy across the border in a systematically significant way. And those are the last five columns in the table. Compare this with trade, observed trade does a really bad job. It's a very unstable job. And that's not surprising because once again observed trade is just probably for some of these non-traded activities, a small part of the actual linkages between these sectors across countries. Okay, so the last question is how does that aggregate up? That is how much does the ability of this variable to explain correlation at sector level between countries actually aggregate up to explaining aggregate cycles, which is eventually what we're interested in as micro-economists. Now absolute values really do not sum up very nicely. They're quite awful. So what I'm doing instead here is I'm using a quasi-correlation measure, which is the object that's written here, which can be computed in every period reasonably easily. And that actually does aggregate quite nicely. It's the last double summation at the bottom of this slide that tells us that QIG T, the aggregate correlation, quasi-correlation between cycles, is a weighted average of all the sector level bilateral correlations. Okay, and so now the name of the game is how much of that QIG T change in QIG T? Am I going to be able to explain using the bilateral intensity measure I just described? Okay, by the way, using the quasi-correlation measure you get the same result that convergence has happened, that is called the distribution of these correlations at the country level has shifted to the right. Countries have become more synchronized, first 10 years versus last 10 years. Okay, so how am I going to do this? Well, I'm going to fit a model at the sector level, which is the model that's up there, and I'm going to get fitted values of the quasi-correlation at sector level, QIG RS, with a hat. That's my fitted value. The first one is the fitted value that's predicted by bilateral intensity. The second one is the fitted value that's predicted by trade, just to sort of run again a horse race between the standard explanatory variable for correlation that trade is, and once I have this fitted values I'm going to aggregate them up using the formula I just showed you, those are the two summations at the bottom, and then I'm going to get a fitted predicted aggregate correlation as implied by bilateral intensity as implied by trade, and I'm going to compare this with the actual measured bilateral correlation. Okay, so first thing, this is my fitted model, so it is, so these are regressions not unlike the ones I showed you before where I'm trying to fit bilateral sector correlations on bilateral intensity and trade, and I'm going to take my predicted values from this model. Here's what it gives us. I guess that's a headline result. This regression is exploring the ability of the bilateral intensity variable to explain from a sector level, aggregate correlation versus the trade variable to explain at a sector level, from a sector level aggregate correlation. So the first column tells us that the model that is only fitted on bilateral intensity does a pretty good job at explaining the increase in correlation. The R-square is 20%. That basically says that bilateral intensity explains 20% of the increase in aggregate correlation, and that's, again, built up from a model that's fitted on the sector level. There's no macro shocks here. There's only sector shocks. Compare this with trade, just to give it sort of a yardstick of how big or small that is, and for trade you get an R-square that's a little bit smaller, and I guess if you put the two of them, which is the tempting normal thing to do, what you get is its export intensity that seems to come out on top. So at the very least, that measure is on par with the measure of the standard measure of trade intensity that we observe in terms of the explaining GDP convergence. Now I have two minutes, and in two minutes, let me talk a little bit about convergence in consumption, which is the other thing I promised I would say something about. Now here, this is actually a very charted territory. I'm sort of revisiting in a slightly different way an enormous literature. The idea here is to run risk sharing tests, that is, tests that investigate whether the growth in consumption can be explained by financial integration, and financial integration. These regressions are well known. There's one in the middle here. This beta that you see here is going to measure the extent to which growth in consumption can be unhinged from idiosyncratic income shocks. It's with financial integration that I can consume in a way that is not dictated by local income. And then estimates of beta should be zero under perfect financial integration. And you know, if financial integration matters, you'd expect the interaction which is in the bottom regression here, this beta 2 to be negative. More financial integration, lower coefficient. I'm going to measure this financial integration measure using the number of financial service action plan directives adopted by each country at time t. This is directly inspired from my discussant. And ask whether beta 2 is negative or not. The slight wrinkle that I bring to this approach is to sort of fit it to the bilateral measures that I've discussed throughout these 20 minutes, and actually look at whether convergence in consumption can actually be explained or related with convergence in GDP. And that's the coefficient delta that you see here. And again, same idea, you'd expect delta to be zero under a financially integrated area. And the question is the same. Do we observe delta to be closer to zero when financial integration is more prevalent? That's the delta 2 I have at the bottom there. Again, how do I measure financial, bilateral financial integration between two countries? 7M has this measure, which is basically looking at the number of common FSAP directives adopted by countries I and J. When you do this, you get these results. And these results actually, after I found them, I discovered are pretty well known and reasonably conventional standard. What that tells us is risk sharing is imperfect, quite imperfect. These coefficients, beta on the upper panel, delta on the lower panel, are really far from zero. But if you look at the interaction, which you see is that in the earlier period, 99- 2006, as a negative coefficient, which suggests that financial integration through this FSAP directive is actually achieving a significantly larger degree of financial integration, whereas the opposite happens in the more recent period, the post- Lehman Brothers crash from 2008. That's true across both approaches. Let me conclude because I'm short on time. So I'm doing two things. Well, one really big thing and one really small thing in this paper. The first one is to propose a novel way of measuring convergence or synchronization in GDP growth, which has to do with a measure of connection between sectors and also between countries that actually is not based on observed trade, but rather is based on input- output linkages and the proximity of two sectors across the border through their input- output linkages. What's interesting, what I find is that that does explain convergence quite substantially at sector level. It trumps the typical explanation coming from direct trade. And in terms of how much it can explain of the aggregate change in correlation, it's explaining about 20%, which is at least on par with the standard explanation on trade. The second thing and smaller thing that I do is consumption correlation and what seems to be happening is that the directives, the FSAP directives did have an effect on financial integration pre-global financial crisis, but not post financial crisis. And let me stop here. Thank you very much, Jens. Now, Sevnem, it's your turn. Let me start by thanking the organizers for inviting me. It's a privilege to be here and celebrate the 20th anniversary of Euro with this distinguished crowd. This is a topic that is dear to my heart. I spent a significant chunk of my adult life thinking about European integration and I think it's a great paper. So I'm going to try to highlight the key points and bring another perspective to the table. So let me start by stating the key facts that the paper documents. So the paper shows that there's convergence in pay-wise growth rates of GDP and consumption. The explanation for this convergence is the value chain. So the idea here is there are sectors that are not trading with each other across border, but they are linked to the sectors that are trading and these sectors help convergence both at the sectoral level and at the target level. And the last fact the paper shows is there is also convergence in consumption due to financial integration. I think this is an extremely comprehensive paper, very nice contribution. It's an amazingly rich canvas of data that the paper is providing us with and it introduced this new trade measure, the main contribution of the paper that really helps us to understand how deep the European economic integration is. So my comments are going to be on first discuss the measurement of GDP convergence, focusing on the role of financial integration in this process, something Jean didn't have time to go through and then I'm going to link this to total factor productivity convergence which is another real variable we do care about when we talk about real convergence, then going to talk a little bit about consumption convergence and if I have time I'm going to talk about importance of having a framework to interpret the result and to drive out policy implications. Let me start with measurement. I would like to distinguish the two concepts GDP convergence and GDP synchronization because I believe what the papers is doing is measuring GDP synchronization which is an amazingly important object for an optimal currency area as Jean pointed out. You can use two metrics if you would like to look at GDP convergence. The first one is the standard metric that comes from the growth literature. It's based on a neoclassical growth model known as beta convergence. This metric is about whether or not poor countries and regions grow faster so they will catch the rich countries or rich regions. So that's the standard one. That's what we understand with real GDP convergence. There's a second measure which the papers is adopting that comes from the international business cycle synchronization literature and that measure is synchronization of GDP fluctuations. The authors measure. Obviously this is an extremely important measure in the context of optimal currency area going back to the influential work by Mandel on this. We know that desirable economic integration centers on the degree of synchronization of GDP fluctuations across borders and we later understood that economic itself, economic integration itself affects the degree of synchronization of GDP fluctuations. So if we want to put this in a framework let's first start with the standard measure and then go to the second synchronization measure. So the standard measure is a very simple measure and that measure is going to give you divergence in GDP for EMU 12. You know you may not put that much emphasis on this because at the end of the day you are looking at 12 countries and the measure is a simple regression of growth rate of those countries on their initial GDP per capita levels. When you do that regression you will get a positive correlation. The beta convergence is about getting a negative correlation if you want to say poor countries grow faster. So here the first panel shows that this didn't happen. The literature does this conditionally, meaning conditioning on the determinants of the steady state where countries are converging to such as you control variables as education rate, investment rate for tilt rate. When you do that in panel B that's the conditional beta convergence figure that shows neither a divergence or a convergence result so no relationship between the initial income levels in 2000 and the subsequent growth in the next 15 years. Again this is 12 observations you may not want to do this with 12 observations you may want to look at regions. In fact there is a very active literature in the US that looks at the US states convergence. Now when you do that with regions these are not two level regions of Europe you do get convergence. The first figure shows you that there is convergence among regions within EMU countries that says poor regions grow faster. This is color coded so you can see that you know purple, orange these are the regions of Greece, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal they are kind of these top regions they started poorer they grow faster. Now when you look at the second sample after 2007 this breaks down again you get the divergent result that's the second chart but that might be because these are unconditional correlations between the growth rate of regions and the initial income per capita level of regions maybe a better thing is to look at the conditional correlations and that would be this table summarizing these results where the beta coefficient is going to be the coefficient on the initial regional GDP per capita where we are regressing the growth rate of the region and you see the first column gives you divergence but the minute you control the author's favorite measure export intensity in the second column you get a convergence result across the European regions and then of course this is a country level variable here I'm controlling you can also do it with a country fix effect in column 3 for the entire sample period and column 4 and 5 before and after the crisis you always get regional convergence. So what is this saying is if you just use the standard beta convergence measure from the growth model you get a no convergent result for 12 countries in the sense that poor countries didn't grow faster but you definitely get a astounding guess for the European regions that poorer regions did grow faster than the rich ones and this is actually part of the whole cohesion framework it is very important for the economic integration within the EMU. Now let's look at the second measure which is the author's measure that's the synchronization of GDP fluctuations clearly the GDP became more synchronized the growth rates became more similar during these 20 years why is that is the case the first thing we would like to understand is the fact that this measure of GDP convergence which is the synchronization measure is endogenous to trade and financial integration obviously authors realize this and their central argument is about endogeneity of this measure to trade their explanation is that trading sectors are going to have more similar growth rates they are going to have synchronized GDP over time and that's going to give you a good convergence at the country payer level let me put this in a general framework since this has been the the box and also of the optimal currency area literature this is a figure reproduced from my 2001 paper in GE but we try to do this in this figure and in that paper is let us go and summarize the theoretical and understand if a currency area can be an optimal currency area exposed even it wasn't an optimal currency area ex ante so here you will see that there were several papers that argued that you know if countries have similar technology similar structural policies more trade this is going to give them more GDP synchronization their growth rates are going to be more similar financial integration is going to work in the opposite because financial integration is a trade in different goods so that might give you less GDP synchronization so the authors adding another box there through trade integration instead of just doing the intra trade you know link to the value chain they are saying let's also look at the part of that value chain that just don't trade with each other and is it the case that that gives us more GDP synchronization and the answer is yes let me skip this if we run their regression they graciously provided their data to me so I can do few experiments with their data so the first column here is their regression at the sector level so this is again regressing the negative of the difference of the growth rate so it becomes a measure of GDP synchronization on export intensity and you see in column 1 that export intensity has a very big positive coefficient together with you know trade intensity which is not significant so this is their I totally believe in this result and I think it's a very important result that it shows you that the sectors with high export intensity have similar growth rates now you can add financial integration to this regression and you are going to get a negative coefficient at shown with blue in the first column why is that because financial integration is going to make sectors and countries diverge from each other because of the capital flows and specialization patterns but the capital is still going to be extremely sensitive to shocks for example column 2 is going to be a specification adopted from the IMF VO chapter in 2003 where instead of using country time fix effects in column 1 you remove them and you put a fix effect for the crisis here a crisis dummy that is the first line the coefficient in black bolt and it's a big positive right why because during crisis of course the growth rates move together down across and by the interaction term of each of the variables that affects synchronization like export intensity trade intensity and financial integration together with crisis and you can see that the effects are going to be different in normal times and crisis times the last column does the same exercise with aggregate data for country pairs and you can see that for example financial integration makes the growth rates diverge during normal times but then converge during crisis times and export intensity is going to do with the quasi correlation measure the key here is that all these measures capture similar things so I'm going to show you three plots here the first one is plotting the authors the growth rate differential measure against the standard pairwise GDP correlation the second one is the same growth differential against the quasi correlation as John showed you that they use also to link the sector to aggregate and the last one is the quasi correlation GDP correlation so these shocks policy changes and the trade and financial integration so it would be useful to kind of see them in a broader framework it will be also helpful to understand the nature of these measures when we want to think about total factor productivity convergence now the paper clearly makes the case that sector level GDP become more synchronized because the sector level growth rates differences go down over time and that's because of the degree of export intensity of these sectors what does it imply for the total factor productivity convergence on the one hand if these sectors although they are not trading with each other if they are sharing a similar technology that will bring you a total factor productivity convergence another story might be the fact that there might be misallocation of resources within those sectors across firms this is the story we pursue in my joint work with Gita Gopinath Lucas Karabarbonis and Carl T. 2007 where we only focused on manufacturing sector and the southern European countries where we show that the extent of the misallocation of factors actually give you TFP divergence within the manufacturing sector here I'm going to plot you the aggregate TFP so the first panel is going to show you four countries Spain in black Italy in orange Germany in red and friends in blue starting in 1999 everything is normalized to one you see TFP divergence across these four countries when you look at EMU 12 and separated as north and south you also see a divergence to a lesser extent getting a little bit you know higher after the crisis it's important to understand how these two forces in track because clearly if the export intensity affecting many sectors prevails at the end that is going to be a force that is working against the misallocation of sector because that's going up to aggregate TFP convergence. Okay so let me say a few things about consumption convergence and at the end of the day as a European Union this is the most important thing from a welfare point of view right so we care about consumption convergence and as the paper correctly also puts it out EMU countries might be having different shocks and this was emphasized both last night dinner speech and today's Chairman Dragos speech countries are having different GDP shocks right if you are in a union where countries face different GDP shocks what matters at the end if financial integration smooths out these shocks so the citizens of EMU is going to have smooth convergence consumption alters measure this with the standard risk sharing regressions at the aggregate level and the bilateral level the idea behind these regressions is very simple you try to understand how much consumption commutes GDP okay consumption smooth the headline result of the paper when they focus on consumption convergence is that financial integration is great because it's smooth out consumption fluctuation before the crisis but it made it worse after the crisis there before the crisis results are very robust and it's very similar to what has been found in the literature so far I would argue that there after the crisis result is weaker why well it's significant in the aggregate regressions but not be the reason underlying this let's start with their measure their financial integration measure is based on the FSAP director's I mean this is a great measure you know since I introduced it I love this measure obviously so but let's try to understand what the measure says and you know what it might imply during a crisis this is an exogenous measure of course it's great it's about like two countries passing the law and it's extremely policy relevant when we originally introduced this 10th anniversary of the euro at the conference at ECB that this measure is going to help you to disentangle the effect of single currency from the financial harmonization post on financial integration so it's clearly major relevance for the process of further integration but at the same time this measure is about the laws right what the authors finding is that consumption commuting more with GDP in pair of countries that pass the laws at the same time okay but this doesn't mean these countries changing consumption they might pass the law but it doesn't mean they are yet deep the financial integration integrated the factor that that law implies in fact the paper we wrote for the 10th year of the anniversary shows that financial integration help consumption smoothing tremendously but there's a different role played by cross-border liabilities and assets making the job which is the essence of the banking union and capital markets union and there's a lot what is going on during the crisis okay so let me conclude because I'm out of time just let me say one thing I think it is also important to have a framework to be able to link the sector level result to accurate result the idea is this right there are trading sectors not trading sectors helping the convergence how do we link export intensity something that doesn't vary over time as you can see here it's it's flat for many countries but we are trying to explain something time convergence over time and to also help to have a framework in terms of understanding right counterfactual EMU 12 GDPs are more synchronized relative to US and China for sure but does it mean US and China are subject to different temporary and permanent shocks they have different degrees of trade and financial integration or EM-12 are integrated more so a framework will help us to also you know compare the findings to relative to the market that focuses on GDP and consumption convergence to very important concepts for the economic integration in EMU and it provides a view of integration that is much deeper than the standard trade integration because of the effect of the value chain and the sectors that are linked to the exporter sectors through the value chain. I believe it is important to note that financial integration might cause divergence in GDP during normal times but it is even at the 20th year the banking union you know just you know getting full so it is going to get more and more moving forward so this is an important thing for us to realize and the open question on the table is that if the non-trading sectors converge due to their link to exporting sectors this is the value chain link why the aggregate GDP didn't converge in the terms of the standard measures this can be just a data issue for the sectors yet linked to the exporting sectors then it will have a different policy implications so it will be important to sort this out. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that we have between 10 and 15 minutes to open the debate. Thank you very much. Richard Baldwin Graduate Institute of International Studies and voxcu.org. First of all great paper I was an innovative approach very glad to see it what I wanted to do is provide a little bit of a trade perspective on where we are in these kinds of measures so two things which you didn't mention which may help clarify why it's so important to do it the way you do it is this difference between value added trade and gross trade because trades crossing borders several times the headline the standard measures of trade have become because what you really want to know is what is the value added in the physical products crossing the border and where that physical value added came not just the measures. So it's a big step forward to use these multi product multi nation in an input output tables to figure out where stuff actually comes from the second trend which you didn't mention but I'm sure you're aware of is called the true value added of manufacturing sectors is coming increasingly from services that are added before fabrication or services that are added after fabrication and so you get this what you picked up is countries are more integrated than would seem simply according to the value added trade. So we even have a name for that we call it mode five services trade or embedded services trade now what I would like to suggest and this is goes to me about the numbers is we've actually taken another evolution in trade using the value added tax data to figure out who's connected to which firms which are then actually exporting and it's only done right now in Belgium but the national bank of Belgium has all this data and they can see which firms are selling to the firms that are then actually exporting so you get kind of a friends of a friends of exporters approach to it many many more firms are actually exporting indirectly but with you have the value added tax which is the complete universe of transactions you can get a much more defined picture now right now only in Belgium can you do that because it's the central bank that has the VAT data and the trade data but in principle you could connect the entire thing so maybe if we take this seriously we could do a whole new project at the ECB like we did the value added tax at the firm level to the behavior of trading and then you can really figure out how connected different sectors are so I would just make that as a suggestion great paper too bad I didn't think about it first but it's really really nice thank you. Thank you very much Jen. So do you want me to reply to Richard so thanks very much I you know what I had in mind was those papers that do that at the firm level but I just didn't have the data so doing it at the sector level at global in a global framework is what I chose but I agree second best I mean gosh if the data you describe could be collected for in new countries that would be fantastic to be honest to ask this question beyond Belgium and you have value added trade versus gross trade I think you're right it'd be interesting to see what happens for example in these regressions trade measure which is embedding both intermediate and finals I would actually use some procedure to filter out what's intermediate and see what that horse race would would look like I agree with that that's a good idea thanks President Jen. Thank you well first of all it was a very very smashing exposition and I have to say that I see now things for a different angle it's very innovative if I may and I have to also have to say the dialogue was very very stimulating I have a question on the chart seven of your paper I'm not surprised by chart seven it goes in my opinion very much in line with the academia and even the IMF worked on that so I'm not surprised to see that we are substantially more open than the United States of America more or less at par with China it doesn't surprise me I think that also work has been done on the integration to the global value chain and we are more integrated in the global value chain than the U.S. so it's both I would say trade and the integration of global value chain where I am a little bit struck is that when you say we compare the average export intensity of the new countries with the rest of the union so it seems that it is an intra-average integration and with China and the U.S. if I understand well vis-à-vis the rest of the world so of course the question mark is what would happen if you would divide China in various regions or the U.S. in various states would you have more or less the same or not I open the question of course I would like very much to understand why you consider fully legitimate to make this comparison which seen from in the global perspective looks a little bit asymmetric. Thank you I agree the comparison is somewhat diagonal I again did with what I had I agree with you it would be very nice to have something inter-regional interstate in the U.S. provinces in China that these data just don't exist we don't have any regional dimension to the input output table of the U.S. for example that's what we would need to do that so I tried my best in the spirit of going somewhat less diagonal comparison that's why I included E.U. not E.M.U. so these are countries that are not in the E.M.U. but in the E.U. and that includes all the trade between these countries and within these countries and between these countries and the E.M.U. so it goes one step in that direction and you do find a difference which is smaller I mean that there's what I'm saying is that you know the U.K. and France are less connected on average than France and Germany so it is diagonal in that sense it's quite obvious but it is ensuring if there's a total difference what is the reality we have time for two more questions there thank you Jean for a very nice paper just on the big picture of the message however I have a I'm very much puzzled by your chart number eight in which you look at the bilateral correlation and how your measure of convergence you know the distribution was shifted to the right indicating much more convergence in GDP growth looking at the bilateral now this is the period you have two period the second period where convergence has increased is 2008 and 2014 which goes you know against the intuition I think of most people in this room that during the period of the crisis there was a lot of heterogeneity so I really wonder whether the cut off year which is 2008 is really the problem because in 2008 in the year of recession all countries moved together strongly because there is a big change in the mean which is negative but you know this distorts incredibly the picture so are we saying really that we have performance have been more similar during 2008 and 2014 that during the normal times this case perhaps you know you can start I mean that's that's exactly the regression I showed so when you do their exercise right I mean and you account for the crisis crisis is a bigger effect than the export intensity in terms of increased synchronization because everybody goes down and then when you interact that crisis dummy with each of the three measures export intensity trade intensity and financial integration you see that you know during the crisis financial integration increases and synchronization but their variable export intensity actually diverges more probably because like you know trade goes down and that affects the value change you know exactly exactly exactly yeah. Yeah I just first of all tremendous empirical effort and really imaginative and interesting but let me focus on the financial integration point and there I'm not convinced before the talk John and I'm partly not convinced because of the measure itself much as I have respect for Shevnam and my colleague Elias Papayano nevertheless I'm not sure that although the appeal of this measure is of course it's a parent exogeneity on the other hand it doesn't match at all with the data on financial integration the ECB publishes a every year a piece on financial integration in Europe and for several years they've been publishing these graphs that are about one price based and one quantity based measure of financial integration those measures show substantial increase in financial integration up to the crisis and then a very precipitous drop that levels out in 2013 if I remember rightly and then we're still not even at the level at the pre-crisis level so in a sense the output measure if you like of financial integration is telling you something very different from the input measure if you take the FSAP story as an input measure and I'd be interested in your comments on that. I think this is a question for Shevnam. Can I just show you one can I have my slides back okay I didn't have time to show this figure but Richard is exact right so obviously you have a de jure measure on the laws and you have a de facto measure in terms of movement of cross border assets and liabilities especially banking assets and liabilities so let me show you this figure this is from a forthcoming paper at IMF economic review but it is the exact estimate of the authors just plot it so they give you the aggregate estimation here what you see here the red line is the consumption smoothing right and then the green line is the income smoothing and the black line the dotted line is the unsmooted so you see how unstable the consumption because of the effect of the shock and because of the exactly what Richard just said the effect of the movement in the cross border assets and liabilities banking assets and liabilities but look at and that's you know the consumption smoothing is like if you look at the part before the asset and then it goes down drastically you know during the crisis and the unsmooted goes up the black line and then consumption smoothing come back up again and unsmooted declines but the point here is look at the income smoothing and how stable it is the green line so that is you know telling you right before the crisis EMU achieved around 20% risk sharing through the capital markers okay this is ex ante smoothing this is how much you smoot based on the cross border asset banking assets and liabilities fiscal assertion and all that on the other hand the income one that how much you know the effect of GDP on the GNI of the country smoothed ex ante is very stable and that's around you know 20% which is an amazing success for a union of you know 10 years when you know we are entering the crisis and it doesn't you know it goes down but not as much as the ex ante is very stable and that's around you know 20% which is an amazing success for a union of you know 20% as the crisis so I think this is also very important to understand because I don't think US achieved that amount of smoothing in the first 20 years of the capital market and banking union in the US so that green number for comparison person is 38% in the US thank you very much I have a final question for both you know what are your main conclusions and your main take a voice in terms of policy recommendations right so I think I think what this this paper says in this this measure suggests is that observed trade is just potentially the tip of the iceberg so there's there's there's much more to economic integration deep integration than just what is observed in what we've been using long for a long time just you know exports and imports between countries or between sectors that that measure is in perfectly measured it's it's got issues of whether it includes value added or other things and it's a bit of of action because it's virtually eliminating anything that is effectively non-trading services the most prominent on that list just by way of illustration in the data that we used in these 12 core immunocontries the correlation between services understood broadly on average between immunocontries is 0.6 it's quite large correlation and for most of these pairs of services we simply do not have all trade data and so perhaps because we should have these data and we don't measure it or perhaps because they effectively don't trade but they trade indirectly I think that measure has some something to say about that and I fully agree I think this this measure that really shows us deep integration and it tells us the importance of value chain and it's importance of so I value a lot this measure but going back to just we just talk about and Richard's comment we can think the same thing for deep financial integration right so you know EMU done tremendous job in terms of integrating financial markets but there is more to do and we can think that also in terms of how deeper we can go you know it not just single currency not just passing the laws but like you know how much more we can do in terms of the you know full-fledged banking union full-fledged capital markets union I mean that's just going to add more to you know GDP and consumption convergence which is at the end is very important from a fair point of view okay thank you very much with this very good recommendation I think that we have reached the end of this session thank you very


Thank you, I would thank you to be here. Sorry my English is not that good so there's my friend Isabelle, she will translate if I need, if you need. I'm Zuleikabou Abdullah, I live in Paris. I'm from Algeria. I moved with my parent for living for study in Paris. So I was born in Moscow so you can understand that it's quite complicated the question of identities for me. So that think you can see through my work but I hope that it's more complicated than this issue of identity. I'm gonna speak about the video that I show here in the Global Feminism. It's Don Song, Let's Dance. You can see a belly of a woman come in the screen and she starts to wear a scarf. The first one is blue, the second one is white and the third one is red. I hope that you can show the French flag and after that she starts to, the sound of the Marseillais start and she starts to dance, to make belly dance. Yeah. I want to, in my work I used to mix things opposite. Here I opposite the two concepts of art. Eastern conception and Western conception. What I mean by the Western conception, it's conception of art that you can see in the painting when you can see the nudity and in the art Islam, the nudity, it doesn't exist. So in the painting here I'm making a relation, a link with this famous piece of de la Croix, La liberté guidant le peuple. When you see a woman, when you can see her breast and yeah and I make this opposition with the French-European painting and the concept, how can you say that? The art Islam style, which is the arabesque, it's a form make with curves. So I make here the opposition with horizontal line of the European painting and the arabesque, you know, which is with curves line in the art Islam. Of course, this video talk about, not only about this question of painting and the conception of art in Islam world and in the Europe and the Western world, but again about the question of exotism and nationality. So because I'm Algerian and I'm French both, I'm both and but in France I stay, I still Algerian because my face or because how I look, but for me I'm both and don't want to make any any any choice and people don't really understand that because for people I have to choose. So I made this video, it's like for saying that I really like the concept, the principle of French flag that wishes liberty, freedom, equality, and I think that those three principles are very exotic for people all over the world because I think that no one respect that really. So for me, I make this issue with the exotism of the belidance. Yeah, in this video, it was the first, sorry, this, the name, okay don't sound in French, in English, let's dance, make let's dance. Okay, sorry am I English so not that good, that good, sorry. And this is the first video that I made and it was shown in Biennale of Dakar in 2002 and here you can see that I start to work with this question of opposite, two things opposite, here dark and light, women and men, and this question of men and women. It's a really short video so I'm gonna, come on, do you see full screen like this? So as you see in this video, a man is on the light side and women in the dark side and when she decided to cover his face, she covered herself as well. So she put him, she put herself and him on the dark, in the dark. This is another piece with the light and dark, she's a wedding dress and in three minutes she became dark. A symbol of l'odeuil. Yeah, thank you. So what I can show you because I just have two minutes now. Yeah, this is another work with question of veil but it's a veil of bright, thank you. Yeah, the woman, she looked, she looked her face and she took off her veil and she put it in on the, the reflection of her face. So the situation here is still the same and the end of the video.  Is that not, that doesn't mean that I'm against marriage or something like this but of course for women, in the woman life, like the question of marriage still in Arabic world or even in Europe, even in America, it's still like the step that woman should pass through it. And yeah, and I of course as a, as a woman, I asked, I made the questioning of this, of this, yeah, of this situation. So I just, we're gonna show you some other words like photography. This is a couscous spot. I don't know if you know the couscous, it's a famous place in North Africa.    So you see that the question of color and physical, typical physics now it's not, yeah, it's not for me the issue that we have to struggle with at our time, you know, but it's not the case. It's not the case. Yeah. This is again question of black and white. You know, the, the speaking, the TV host, no, she's, she's, she's a journalist. She's very famous in France. She's very famous in France.  Yeah, I have to finish. This is a photography of my family at this wedding, and there's only women in this, no, this wedding, this party. And I put the name of, I don't know if you recognize Lady Jessica Suelen Pamela, the actress of the, this famous Dallas, TV show, thank you. And the name of this piece is City Dallas at Wadzinati, Wadzinati is a village in Algeria. So you see that all over the world, the women are like still the, yeah, I mean, I want just to, to say in this photo that even in Algeria or in, in USA, the, the, the question of group of women still the same. I don't know if I'm disabled. Thank you very much.


Hi everybody it's Sam at Mixed Up Crowd, thank you for watching my tutorial today. I'm going to be showing you how to make this pretty gift bag which is kind of a gift box as well but it's in the style of a satchel which I thought was really cute and I've used this lovely piece of hardware here to make the buckle which I like. I've got some little brands here on the top which I use quite a lot, they just always seem to work well and then it's just kind of fastened with a velcro dot and then when you lift it up you open this piece up and there you have your gift box so it's a decorative handbag gift box or something like that anyway. This is optional once you've seen me put it all together you may not want to do it that way but because you get that slight curved part here it was nice to have whatever inside you know closed over I guess so it doesn't fall out but if you're putting something in there that you know isn't going to kind of escape then you wouldn't need to pop that bit there but when we get to it you'll be able to see that anyway so it's very easy to do just using two sheets of 12 by 12 and I think that looks really quite lovely so let's show you how to make it. Okay so this is the paper pack I'm using and I shared this last week in my what did I get video this is from the works it's £3 and it's called flowers blooming and it's beautiful I did flick through all the papers in that one so I'm not going to do it again today but I will share the links in my blog if you want to get your hands on that because it's gorgeous. Okay so like I said it needs two takes two pieces of 12 by 12 to make this and then I've got these extra pieces here which I'll go through with you in a minute so these are my two pieces I've gone for this lovely rose print here and then on the back it's got that pattern there I've already marked an F on there so I know it's the front because I've already scored it but I'm going to go through those score lines again with you now so choose whatever paper you want I would say if you've got something that is really specifically directional and it needs to be up the right way then that will be okay for the front piece which again I will talk you through but if you've got something that's going on the back you have to bear in mind that if it's facing up this way the right way by the time it curves over it's going to be upside down when it comes to the front here I mean I have got this kind of strip here but you do need to bear that in mind okay so if you really need a piece of a pattern paper that's not directional okay so this is just kind of going all over the place so it works well for this piece so this is going to be the front the one that I'm going to go through with you first so this is what creates all of this front piece here and this all of this bit that we're doing to close the the box there that's what we're going to score now so 12 by 12 piece and you want to score at two and a half and at nine and a half okay then rotate your card stock and again score at two and a half and then you want to score at eight and a half and then you're going to score at 11 okay so if I flick that over you should be able to see there my score lines okay so pop it back that way so you've got that last kind of half inch score line I'm sorry one inch score line that's why you just scored at 11 have that facing the top because that's going to be the top of the kind of closure for the box inside okay so that is your front although I marked an F on that to say that that was my front but it's not it's the back because that wasn't going to help me at all okay so then with this piece this is now going to be the back and the piece that curves over so you want to score again at two and a half and again at nine and a half and then you want to rotate the card stock and again score at two and a half and then you're going to score at eight and a half so the score lines are exactly the same except on this piece you're not going to score at 11 that's the only difference okay so first of all we will cut should we get rid of that no keep that here for a minute and I'll tell you this piece here that you need because this is you need the scoreboard and then you need a piece of four by seven and this is for this piece here so it's more decorative because this when it kind of curves over it only actually comes to about here and I wanted more length so that's why I've added this on but I also think it kind of adds to that satchel effect so that's what this is here so this is four by seven and along the four inch side you want to score at two inches and then fold and burnish that in half and you can see now how that's going to work on the front and then just while I've got the scoreboard out again these are purely decorative well that one's for the buckle but you want two pieces that are one by six and then this piece here is one and a half by five and these buckles I picked up from the works some time ago but I think they're still in there and again I will share with you you know any links that I can find and then all I've done is just kind of weaved it through there and then back in on itself and yeah I just think it's a really nice kind of little accessory there for your gift bag gift boxes whatever and then the two brads and these again are from the pound shop they have them in there all the time and all I've done I'll just quickly do it now because I'll need to do it anyway I hope my lamp is just open up the brads or the split pin part of it and just cut those off because I'm you can obviously make a hole and actually use them as they're intended but I prefer just adding my hot glue to these and just sticking them on top and that way you don't get any bam holes coming through okay so again it's entirely up to you though so we're starting with the front first this is that piece where you've scored at 11 inches you'll have that extra one there and so that you can see all the score lines better you need to fold and burnish them all now and then you'll be able to see exactly where we are okay so now you will have that kind of shorter piece at the top and then you'll have your two and a half and your nine and a half score lines there and then you should have a two and a half score line on the bottom okay because this is the front piece what we're going to do is we're going to remove so you've got that half inch score line at the top okay and then these two two and a half equal pieces on the left and the right this bottom one you will have these two squares here okay we're going to remove those squares completely so I would say remove the score line so I'm cutting to well this is the right hand side here and then the left hand side up here so I'm removing the score line so you've just got two really nice straight pieces there and again just cut very neatly and again so it's a deconstructed box it's all done and that's sometimes it's easier when you do a deconstructed box it's easy for you to be able to then adapt to your size so if you do want to change it um make it smaller and things like that and then what you'll have is obviously that half inch and you will have these kind of thin rectangle pieces either side so there's one there you can just see that shape and again there you're going to remove those completely all right so go back to our original so now you will have this piece here which is going to be the closure to your box piece inside and then we'll have we've got these squares here we want to just cut down those score lines there just to that score line okay so I'm going to turn it upside down and then just cut all the way down and I will put a template up on my blog just against this just makes a little bit more sense to anybody so then you've got these ones free okay so where we remove those squares here we're keeping them attached here just slightly and we're going to create these little tabs and this is for our closure now if you don't want to close yours like I said if you want to just have it open then you don't need any of this part at all so your measurement let me work it out in a second for you okay so so now I've just created these kind of tabs and then that's going to be if I bring this around it will be facing that way those two pieces will go in and that is the closure there and then the curved piece is going to come over this way so if you don't want any of that then you will only need a piece of cardstock that is to 12 by eight and a half okay and you would just score at two and a half on three sides okay and it will give you the same just give you that bottom piece there might basically you'll have that shape okay two and a half two and a half and two and a half and just remove them that's if you don't want to have this box feature but I think I don't know I just like it I just think it adds something more to the finished piece anyway so that's the front piece done again you just want to fold and burnish these score lines so again it will be exactly the same as what we've just done but you won't have that kind of one inch piece there so what we want to do along the bottom here is you want to cut up your two and a half and your nine and a half but just the first score line like so so the largest section here you'll have this bigger section is the top and then you'll have your two and a half and two and a half here and then you'll have your so whatever end where you've got the perfect two and a half by two and a half squares here that's the bottom these here are bigger see they're a rectangle that's the top so just make sure you've got it the right way up obviously you don't want to be cutting like that down into here so like so and then flip it around and these larger sections here you're going to remove completely so they're the larger rectangles whereas these pieces are squares equal sides that's the pieces that stay attached and then what I will do or what I would say you should do is just take tiny little wedges off because these are going to be folded and stuck inside and they will form the base of our gift bag box whatever it is we're going to call it i think i'm going to call it satchel gift box satchel gift bag we'll see okay so that's there what you should have so now what's going to happen with these pieces they're going to fold in and this is going to stick underneath and then this piece is all going to wrap over the top of it and form the case just bring that piece out so they will then go inside this will then come over and close like so and that will curve over and once we add on this piece you can see how quickly it all comes together so first of all you want to keep with this piece where we've got the base here flip it over and it's actually what glue you want to use i'm going to use some runner tape here and you just want to add tape to the tabs here okay so facing up with the print and you're going to add your tape so we do both of those i'm sorry yeah other tape to the top like so and then bring each one around and follow the score line there just so you put yourself a nice right angle and again bring around that other one and everything should line up nicely and then just bring it up and just i'd like to go over it my bone folder because a lot of these tape runners when they say they're permanent that's when that you've really fixed them down so if you go over it like this that's if you try and peel that off now you're going to peel off all of the the paper as well and this is the dot and dab which is by trim craft and it's their permanent one so that's that piece and then with this section here you just want to kind of curl it a little bit you can use a ruler or you can actually you can't see me but you can use the side of your desk so if you kind of just like roll it around off the edge of your desk you'll see now i've got it nice and curled and that is just going to form it's going to kind of come to about there all right so that piece is now already then this piece here so this is the top with the one inch this is the base piece that we now want to stick now it's up to you you can stick it inside but if you stick it inside you will see unless you've done it really neat i mean i could get away with it you will see this join here but inside you will have a nice flush kind of base whereas if you stick it underneath which is what i'm going to do you will get a nice finish on the front but inside you will see the tabs but i'm not bothered about that but that's the option there if you did want to change it so for this piece you want to add glue to the inside so you want your pattern facing out and i'm going to add my tape here at the bottom now if you're new to making gift bags and you might want to find that you use some wet glue just so you've got time to be able to move it around and like reposition it and things so now this one i'm going to pop it this inside here and bring it down to that score line make sure everything's in where it should be and then bring this up and you've kind of got a little bit of time there just to make sure it all lines up nicely open it up and then you can go in and just again make sure that that's all stuck down and then these two sides are going to come up and stick to the sides here so while it's all laying down like this again i'm going to come in with my runner tape and well it's just run out no wonder i was struggling with that one right i get rid of that i'm going to use another one and these are the other ones i use these are by taser so these are really nice ones to use as well although i think that one's run out good job i've got an endless supply here in front of me there we go you know when they work because they run and glide really well so i'm just gonna do that one there go up to the edges a little bit more on that outer side and i'm going to do both at the same time because once you bring one up the other one will kind of come up naturally with it as well okay so bring up this one and again it should all line up actually lie it down just make sure it lines up with the score line and then the rest when you bring up the sides everything will marry up together okay so if you just pop it on the side and then you can go in again with your bone folder or your ruler or anything and just make sure everything's stuck down so these side pieces are going to go in and that one's going to fold in like so if it doesn't go in if you find it's just struggling a little bit take a very very thin wedge off of the ends there of that one inch piece but mine seems to go in really well and it kind of locks in there so i know nothing's going to fall out next you want to bring in this piece here and i'm just going to put glue all inside i'm going to do it on both sides and then i'm going to lie this flat piece down here and you basically isn't well you don't want to come down too far but i'm just going to kind of stick about a quarter of an inch down some reason mine's a little bit longer i think it's because i've cut in a little bit but it won't matter you just want to make sure that it's nice and straight i'm going to use my grid here i'm going to line that piece up there and then i'm going to bring this bit over and that way i know but i'm getting it nice and even yeah if it is a little bit longer i think it's because i've cut in and moved the score lines on this piece it doesn't matter just make sure that you've got an even piece overhanging if you can see there i've got a little piece overhanging there and the same amount there then where you've folded it bring it right over and just fold it in half and just go and really burnish that all in like so now basically that the top of this piece that we stuck on should line up with the top of the box and that will give you then your nice kind of arch i actually want to go in there and just give that a bit more of a shape because it didn't seem too shaped at the back so i'm just going to use my ruler here yeah that's better now i've got that nice curved piece there like so i really like it okay then we need to stick down this piece here so this sticks over the top like so and then these two pieces are just purely decorative and go here so i'm going to stick these down first i think i came in at one inch what was it no it's about one and a quarter actually yeah one and a quarter you want to come in and then stick it down so again i'm just going to add because there's any decorative i'm just going to add a little bit of tape there that piece and then with this one here what i'm going to do is just measure so this is seven so three and a half is the middle and then so that's sitting in the middle like so and then i'm going to just grab a pencil just very lightly put pencil mark just roughly either side there and then bring this over and then i can just add like so and just rub those pencil marks out okay and bring my buckle right up like so and then my velcro dots i'm just using the 16 mil velcro dots here so i've just got a pair together okay i didn't like that one that far down so just peeled it off i think what i'm going to do this time is i'm going to have it here so i'm going to put it there this time and have this actually flapping down like so yeah i didn't like it down there it kind of bowed out a bit whereas if i stick it there this one seems to work better that one was fine but this one's a bit different so play around with it again i'm aware that not everybody's going to have that buckle anyway so you can do something you could put a nice flower there that would work just as well so yeah i'm quite happy with that just hanging but i'm going to probably pop a little bit of hot glue in a moment and stick that down next bit we need to do our strap so for the one that i done earlier i done white i actually think i prefer to show you there see this one was white but i think i'm going to do the same and because i've got this leftover so this you want to do um one inch so you want a piece of one inch by 12 or you can do one inch by 11 inches or a four size it doesn't matter okay and then along the 12 inch side you just want to score at one inch so again this is all optional some of you might want to use ribbon but i quite like using the paper fold up those two there and then between the score lines you just want to curl it so now you will have that shape then i'm just going to open this up and you are going to stick it between this section here so from the top of here you want to stick it right in the middle like so so what i'm going to do is use some wet glue because this is stronger and i know it won't lift like so and then i'm just going to eyeball mine but i know i need it just hold that in place for a second and then the other side just flip that piece over and again add some glue and again just make sure all stays nice and lined up and it's as straight as you can get it with the other one there but at least with the wet glue you can kind of move it around a little bit until you're happy that you've got it nice and centered okay so that's now stuck down so next when i bring that back over and close that up you've got your handle right on the top so next i just need to finish it off with my little brads here so i've already got my hot glue ready and i just pop a little bit in there so i like to cut the brads down sometimes just so i can then use them more as their actual kind of decorative piece without having to kind of make a hole in stuff in my project so pop this one here and i think this is so pretty i haven't got any like little charms at the minute because it'd be nice to have maybe a little like bag charm like a key ring hanging down or something and what i'm going to do off camera is i'm just going to hole punch a circle and then pop some glue and put the circle over there just so it's nice and tidy underneath but then that will stop my um buckle coming off but there you have it guys i think that is adorable i think it's so cute i love that it's kind of a box and bag and i don't know it's just it's just got a really sweet look about it and i'm really pleased with it so i'll bring in the other one as well and yeah i think they've turned out really in a well this one's slightly different so obviously i cut it different to start with that why that that's why that bit's a bit longer but i think again i'm going to take my velcro off and put the velcro there because you can you see it's kind of i don't know just lifting a little bit more but that's just me being picky so there you go guys hope you've enjoyed them if you have please give me a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel so you get to see more thanks for watching bye


Hello friends, I am Dr. Anurag Saxena, Head of Department of Neurosurgery at Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi. 30th of November has been designated as Neuro-Spine Day. Let's use this opportunity to learn some simple tricks and tricks to keep your spine healthy and make it disease-free. Now your day starts from a very adequate sleep. So a very adequate and a peaceful sleep is very very important to keep your spine healthy. And when you wake up, most important thing is to exercise at least for 30 minutes. These exercises should include exercises of your neck muscles, of your back, lower back and upper back muscles to keep your spine flexible and keep your nerves in a good condition. It is also very important to take a normal healthy diet and your diet should be rich in vitamins and calcium, apart from normal nutrients which your body requires. So make sure that you take a lot of different varieties of healthy foods and take adequate sunlight to keep your vitamin D level normal. At the same time it is very important if you have low vitamin D level or low vitamin B12 level which have been diagnosed with help of a test, then you can take certain supplementations under doctor's prescription to make those levels adequate. That will also go a long way to keep your spine healthy for a long period of time. Now comes the role of certain habits which should be avoided, especially when you are suffering from a spine or when you are across the age of around 30, maybe 35. Smoking is a very very important factor and it should be avoided because it causes a lot of spinal problems as the individual grows. Alcohol should be taken in moderation and there are certain exercises which should be started at particular age, especially 35-45 years of age under the physiotherapist guidance or a good exercise therapist which can help to keep your spine healthy. There are certain precautions which one should take after say age of 40-45 years or when you are already suffering from spinal problems like neck pain, back pain or sciatica. This simple precautions are you should avoid sitting on ground for long period of time, avoid sitting in one particular position for more than 20-30 minutes, try to get a walk in particular environment or a setup to keep your spine flexible. At the same time one should avoid lifting sudden jerky movements and avoid lifting heavy weights, pushing heavy weights and one should keep one's weight in check. This is very important, obesity or high BMI has been known to cause a lot of spinal problems be it your neck or a copper or lower back. I hope this video was helpful to give you some simple tips to keep your spine healthy. Keeping your spine healthy will give you very good dividends throughout your life. Thank you.


This paper examines the relationship between risk and pleasure in the context of HIV prevention and care, focusing on the introduction of pre-exposure prophylaxis, PREP, among men who have sex with men, MSM. The authors argue that PREP has changed the landscape of HIV prevention and care, allowing for increased pleasure and safety while reducing the risk of contracting HIV. However, they also highlight the ambivalent nature of condomless sex, which can be seen as both risky and pleasurable. They further suggest that HIV prevention should not be viewed as a linear or predictable process, but rather as a complex, dynamic and ever-changing phenomenon. In doing so, they emphasize the importance of situational factors such as the interplay between humans and non-humans and the need to understand how various actors interact in order to best facilitate health outcomes. This article was authored by Luisa Augusto Vasconcelos de Silva, Sandra Cease Brazil, Felipe Mateo Estuarte and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.