I know you touch on it in your report, but I think no one has refuted the fact that a good $6 billion out of the annual $8.5 billion in forecasting error is a result of errors in fiscal forecasting, not errors in macroeconomic performance estimations and so on. It seems to me that we had reached an agreement that there's a problem, so how do we fix the problem?

Using as a starting point such an abnormally low forecast, which proved to be off by 500%—the real number being more than four times that—to assess what might happen over the next 11 years, the Conference Board's forecasts will obviously be well below the actual surplus. That is the picture.

reasonably foreseeable human error during operation does not lead to hazardous situations.

As for the state of public finances, in calculating the budgetary surplus—something the former Finance Minister and potential successor to the current Prime Minister made forecasting errors about, in the size of the surplus and deficit, at the beginning, of around 200% per year, on the average—we have every reason to be proud, because our forecasting errors are around 3 to 4%, which is the margin of error one usually expects when making this type of forecast. And yet, it was the $3.98 pocket calculator and a few connections, especially in the major financial institutions, that enabled us to get these results.

C. whereas the economic and monetary forecasts for 2003 are strongly influenced by wrong estimates found in the forecasts for 2001 and 2002; and whereas these mistakes derived from a passive policy of awaiting the American recovery in spite of the fact that Europe urgently needs structural reforms,

C. whereas the economic and monetary forecasts for 2003 are strongly influenced by wrong estimates found in the forecasts for the years 2001 and 2002; and these mistakes derived from a passive policy of awaiting the American recovery, whereas Europe urgently needs structural reforms,