I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that other player?
Želim da na trenutak pomislite na učestvovanje u igri Monopola, osim što u ovoj igri, ta kombinacija veštine, talenta i sreće koji vam pomažu da uspete u igrama, kao i u životu, postaje nebitna, jer je igra nameštena i vi imate prednost. Imate više novca, više prilika za kretanje po tabli i više pristupa resursima. Dok razmišljate o tom iskustvu, želim da se zapitate, kako bi to iskustvo kada ste privilegovani igrač u nameštenoj igri promenilo način na koji mislite o sebi i ponašate se prema drugom igraču?
So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money; when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more.
Sproveli smo istraživanje na kampusu univerziteta Berkli kako bismo ispitali upravo to pitanje. Doveli smo više od 100 parova stranaca u laboratoriju i bacanjem novčića nasumično odredili da jedan od to dvoje bude bogati igrač u nameštenoj igri. Dobili su duplo više novca. Kada su prošli polje "Start", dobili su duplo veću platu i mogli su da bacaju dve kockice umesto jedne, tako da su mogli mnogo više da se kreću po tabli.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardon the sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles.
Tokom 15 minuta, preko skrivenih kamera smo posmatrali šta se dešavalo. Danas po prvi put želim da vam pokažem malo onoga što smo videli. Oprostićete nam zbog kvaliteta zvuka u nekim slučajevima, jer su to ipak bile skrivene kamere. Stoga smo obezbedili titlove.
[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?
Bogati igrač: "Koliko imaš novčanica od 500?"
Poor Player: Just one.
Siromašni: "Samo jednu."
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
Bogati: "Ozbiljno?" Siromašni: "Da."
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.
Bogati: "Ja imam tri. (Smeje se)
Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up.
Ne znam zašto su mi dali toliko."
One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around.
Pol Pif: Okej, igračima je ubrzo postalo jasno da se nešto dešava. Jedna osoba očito ima dosta više novca od druge osobe, a ipak kako je igra trajala, videli smo primetne i dramatične razlike koje su počele da se pojavljuju između dva igrača. Bogati igrač je počeo glasnije da se kreće po tabli, bukvalno udarajući tablu figurom
(Game piece smacks board)
dok se kretao.
We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.
Kod bogatih igrača bilo je verovatnije da se vide znaci dominacije, neverbalni znaci, pokazivanje moći i slavljenje.
We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.
Sa strane smo stavili činiju sa perecama. Nalazi se u donjem desnom ćošku. Ovo nam je omogućilo da gledamo ponašanje igrača u vezi s konzumiranjem. Samo pratimo koliko će pereca učesnici pojesti.
[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?
Bogati igrač: "Da li su te perece neki trik?"
PP: I don't know.
Siromašni igrač: "Ne znam."
Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.
PP: U redu, nije čudno što su nas ljudi skontali. Pitaju se šta ta činija pereca uopšte tu radi. Jedan se čak pita, kao što ste upravo videli, da li je ta činija tu kao trik? Ipak, uprkos tome, moć situacije se čini kao da neminovno dominira i bogati igrači počinju da jedu više pereca.
(Laughter)
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
Bogati igrač: "Obožavam perece."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing.
PP: I kako igra ide dalje, jedan od zaista zanimljivih i dramatičnih šablona za koje smo primetili da se javljaju je taj da bogati igrači zapravo počinju da budu nekulturniji prema drugoj osobi, sve manje osetljivi prema patnji tih jadnih, siromašnih igrača i sve više i više pokazuju svoj materijalni uspeh, sa većom verovatnoćom da pokažu kako im dobro ide.
[Video] RP: I have money ...
Bogati igrač: "Imam novca za sve."
(Laughs) I have money for everything.
PP: How much is that?
Siromašni igrač: "A koliko je to?"
RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever.
Bogati igrač: "Duguješ mi 24 dolara. Ubrzo ćeš izgubiti sav svoj novac. Kupiću to. Imam toliko novca. Imam toliko novca da mi treba cela večnost."
RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.
Bogati igrač 2: "Kupiću celu ovu tablu."
RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
Bogati igrač 3: "Brzo će ti nestati novca. Sada mi ne možeš skoro ništa."
(Laughter)
PP: U redu, evo šta mislim
Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly ...
da je izuzetno zanimljivo, a to je kada smo na kraju 15 minuta zamolili igrače da pričaju o svom iskustvu tokom igre. I kada su bogati igrači pričali o tome zašto su neminovno pobedili u ovoj nameštenoj igri Monopola -
(Laughter)
(Smeh) -
They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game.
pričali su o tome šta su uradili kako bi kupili te različite nekretnine i zaslužili svoj uspeh u igri
(Laughter)
i postali su dosta manje svesni
And they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin -- that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.
različitih svojstava situacije, uključujući bacanje novčića koje ih je nasumično postavilo na to privilegovano mesto. A to je zaista neverovatan uvid u to kako um daje smisao prednosti.
Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't; they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.
Ova igra Monopola se može koristiti kao metafora za razumevanje društva i njegove hijerarhijske strukture, gde neki ljudi imaju dosta novca i uticaja, a dosta ljudi ih nema. Imaju dosta manje novca i uticaja i manje pristupa bitnim resursima. Proteklih sedam godina moje kolege i ja proučavamo efekte ovakvih hijerarhija. Kroz desetine istraživanja i hiljade učesnika širom zemlje pronalazimo to da kako se nivo nečijeg bogatstva uvećava, njihove emocije saosećanja i empatije se smanjuju, a njihov osećaj prava i zasluge i ideologija sopstvenog interesa rastu. U istraživanjima smo otkrili da će zapravo bogatiji pojedinci sa većom verovatnoćom da opravdavaju pohlepu kao moralno dobru i težnju ka sopstvenom interesu kao poželjnu i moralnu. Danas želim da pričam o nekim implikacijama ove ideologije sopstvenog interesa, zašto bismo trebali da brinemo o ovim implikacijama i završiću s time šta bi moglo da se uradi.
Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who's more likely to offer help to another person: someone who's rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.
Neka od prvih istraživanja koje smo vršili u ovom području posmatrala su ponašanja pomaganja, nešto što socijalni psiholozi nazivaju prosocijalnim ponašanjem. Zaista nas je zanimalo ko je više sklon da ponudi pomoć drugoj osobi, neko bogat ili neko siromašan. U jednom od istraživanja, bogati i siromašni članovi zajednice dolaze u laboratoriju i svakome damo ekvivalent 10 dolara. Učesnicima smo rekli da mogu tih 10 dolara da zadrže za sebe ili da podele deo tog novca ako žele, sa nekim strancem koji je potpuno nepoznat. Nikada neće sresti tog stranca, niti će stranac sresti njih. I samo posmatramo koliko ljudi daju. Pojedinci koji zarađuju 25 000, a ponekad i manje od 15 000 dolara godišnje, dali su 44% više svog novca tom strancu nego pojedinci koji zarađuju 150 000 ili 200 000 dolara godišnje.
We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times as much.
Dali smo ljudima da igraju igre kako bismo videli ko je skloniji varanju kako bi uvećao šanse za dobitak. U jednoj od igara, zapravo smo namestili kompjuter kako bi određeni broj na kockicama bio nemoguć. U ovoj igri niste mogli da dobijete više od 12, a ipak, što ste bogatiji, veće su šanse da ćete varati u ovoj igri kako biste stekli šansu za novčanu nagradu od 50 dolara, ponekad čak 3 do 4 puta veće šanse.
We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children --
Izveli smo drugo istraživanje gde smo posmatrali da li bi ljudi bili skloni da uzmu slatkiše iz tegle sa slatkišima na kojoj je jasno naznačeno da su slatkiši za decu -
(Laughter)
(Smeh) -
I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.
sa učesnicima - ne šalim se. Znam da zvuči kao da se šalim. Izričito smo rekli učesnicima da je ta tegla sa slatkišima za decu koja učestvuju u razvojnoj laboratoriji u blizini. Ona su u istraživanju. Ovo je za njih. I samo smo posmatrali koliko slatkiša su učesnici uzimali. Učesnici koji su se osećali bogatim uzimali su duplo više slatkiša od učesnika koji su se osećali siromašno.
We've even studied cars. Not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.
Čak smo proučavali automobile, i to ne bilo koje automobile, nego da li su vozači određenih vrsta automobila manje ili više skloni da krše zakon. U jednom od ovih istraživanja posmatrali smo da li će vozači stati pešaku kojeg smo postavili da čeka da pređe na pešačkom prelazu. U Kaliforniji, kao što znate, jer sam siguran da svi ovo radimo, po zakonu mora da se stane pešaku koji čeka da pređe ulicu. Evo primera kako smo to uradili. Na levoj strani je naš saradnik koji se pretvara da je pešak. Kako prilazi, crveni kamionet se uspešno zaustavlja. U tipičnom kalifornijskom stilu, pretiče ga autobus koji zamalo pregazi našeg pešaka.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...
Evo primera skupljeg automobila, Prijusa, koji prolazi, i BMW koji radi isto. Uradili smo ovo za stotine vozila kroz nekoliko dana, samo prateći ko staje a ko ne. Otkrili smo da kako se skupoća
(Laughter)
automobila povećava,
the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.
povećava se i sklonost vozača da prekrši zakon. Nijedan od automobila u najjeftinijoj kategoriji nije prekršio zakon. Blizu 50% automobila u našoj najskupljoj kategoriji prekršilo je zakon. Sprovodili smo druga istraživanja gde smo otkrli da su bogatiji pojedinci skloniji da lažu u pregovorima, da podržavaju neetičko ponašanje na poslu poput krađe gotovine iz kase, uzimanja mita, laganja mušterija.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable, because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. And a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you.
Ne želim da sugerišem da samo bogati ljudi pokazuju ove šablone ponašanja. Uopšte ne. Zapravo mislim da se svi mi u našim svakodnevnim životima borimo sa ovim motivacijama koje se međusobno bore, kada i da li da svoj interes stavimo iznad interesa drugih ljudi. I to je razumljivo, jer je američki san ideja gde svako ima jednake prilike da uspe i prosperira, dok god se posvetimo tome i naporno radimo, a deo toga podrazumeva da ponekad morate da stavite sopstveni interes iznad interesa i dobrostanja ljudi iz vaše okoline. Ali pronalazimo da što ste bogatiji, to ste i skloniji da jurite za vizijom ličnog uspeha, dostignuća i ostvarivanja, na štetu ljudi u vašoj okolini.
Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.
Ovde sam za vas prikazao prosečne prihode po domaćinstvu za svaku petinu i za 5% vrha populacije kroz proteklih 20 godina. 1993. razlika između drugačijih petina populacije što se tiče primanja bila je prilično ozbiljna. Nije teško da se vidi da razlike postoje. Ali kroz proteklih 20 godina ta značajna razlika je postala jedinstveni veliki kanjon između onih na vrhu i svih ostalih. Zapravo, 20% vrha populacije poseduje skoro 90% ukupnog bogatstva u ovoj zemlji.
We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.
Na neviđenom smo nivou ekonomske nejednakosti. To znači da bogatstvo ne samo da postaje sve više koncentrisano u rukama odabranih pojedinaca, nego da američki san postaje sve više nedostižan za sve veću većinu ljudi. A ako je situacija takva, kao što smo otkrili, da što ste bogatiji, imate veći osećaj prava na to bogatstvo i skloniji ste da svoj interes činite prioritetom, iznad interesa drugih ljudi, i da ste voljni da radite stvari kako biste služili tom interesu, onda nema razloga da mislimo da će se ti šabloni promeniti. Zapravo postoje osnovani razlozi da mislimo da će se oni samo pogoršati i tako bi to izgledalo kada bi stvari samo ostale iste, istom linearnom stopom, tokom narednih 20 godina.
Now inequality -- economic inequality -- is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.
Ekonomska nejednakost je nešto što bi trebalo sve da nas brine, ne samo zbog onih na dnu društvene hijerarhije, već zato što pojedinci i grupe sa dosta ekonomske nejednakosti žive lošije, i to ne samo oni na dnu, već svako. Postoji dosta ubedljivih istraživanja iz vrhunskih laboratorija širom sveta koja pokazuju niz stvari koje su potkopane kako se pogoršava ekonomska nejednakost. Društvena mobilnost, stvari do kojih nam je stalo, fizičko zdravlje, društveno poverenje, sve se smanjuje kako raste nejednakost. Slično tome, negativne stvari u društvenim skupovima i društvima, poput gojaznosti i nasilja, zatvorske i drugih kazni, pogoršavaju se kako raste ekonomska nejednakost. Još jednom, ovo su ishodi koje će iskusiti ne samo nekoliko ljudi, nego koji rezonuju kroz sve slojeve društva. Čak i oni na vrhu doživljavaju ove ishode.
So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people.
Šta da radimo? Ovaj slap ubitačnih negativnih efekata koji se sami nastavljaju se možda čini kao nešto što se otrglo kontroli i kao da ne postoji ništa što možemo da uradimo, svakako ništa kao pojedinci. Zapravo, u svom istraživanju u laboratoriji pronašli smo da male psihološke intervencije, male promene u ljudskim vrednostima malo guranje u određenom pravcu, mogu da vrate nivo egalitarizma i saosećanja. Na primer, podsećanje ljudi na prednosti saradnje, prednosti zajednice, prouzrokuju da bogatiji pojedinci budu jednako darežljivi kao siromašni.
In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.
U jednom istraživanju ljudima smo dali da pogledaju kratak snimak od samo 46 sekundi, o siromaštvu u detinjstvu koji je služio kao podsetnik o potrebama drugih u svetu oko njih i nakon gledanja toga, pogledali smo koliko su ljudi bili voljni da ponude svoje vreme strancu ispred njih u laboratoriji koji je bio u nevolji. Sat vremena nakon gledanja ovog snimka, bogati ljudi postali su jednako darežljivi što se tiče vremena uloženog da pomognu ovoj osobi, strancu, kao neko siromašan, sugerišući da ove razlike nisu urođene ili kategorične, nego prilagodljive blagim promenama u ljudskim vrednostima, malom guranju ka saosećanju, i gurkanju ka empatiji.
And beyond the walls of our lab, we're even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like "We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or "Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values and changes in people's behavior that work against their own economic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.
A izvan zidova naše laboratorije, počinjemo da primećujemo znakove promene u društvu. Bil Gejts, jedan od najbogatijih pojedinaca u našoj zemlji, u svom govoru za početak godine na Harvardu, pričao je o problemu sa kojim se suočava društvo, gde je nejednakost najveći izazov i pričao je o tome šta mora da se uradi kako bi se borili protiv ovoga, rekavši: "Najveći uspesi čovečanstva nisu u otkrićima, već u tome kako se ta otkrića koriste da bi se smanjila nejednakost." A tu je i Zavet davanja, gde više od 100 najbogatijih pojedinaca u našoj zemlji zaveštava pola svog bogatstva u dobrotvorne svrhe. A nastaju i brojni ključni pokreti, poput "Mi smo jedan procenat", "Generacija resursa" i "Bogatstvo za opšte dobro", gde oni najprivilegovaniji članovi populacije, članovi jednog procenta i drugi, ljudi koji su bogati koriste svoje ekonomske resurse, odrasli i mladi, to je za mene najimpresivnije, koriste svoje privilegije svoje ekonomske resurse, da bi se borili protiv nejednakosti podržavajući društvene politike, promene u društvenim vrednostima i promene u ponašanju ljudi koje rade protiv njihovog ekonomskog interesa ali koje možda na kraju uspeju da vrate američki san.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)