 Populism is very much on the rise. If you just look, Brexit is the latest flavor of the month, but the United States election has been captured by two very different people, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, who seem to have nothing in common, except a lot of anger. You can see the popular parties usually on the far right in Europe that are on the rise. There's got a very, very active movement. There's been one in Finland. There's another one in the Netherlands. And so there are all these different pockets of angst and frustration that are present that I would say 15 years ago were well below the surface. So I see all these different movements being fueled essentially by economic discontent. If you look at what's happened to the middle class over, say, the last 15 to 20 years, there's been a growing chasm between what's been going on for the people at the very top of the income distribution and then what's happened to the people in the middle. And it used to be the case that pretty much anywhere in the advanced world, you were confident that your kids were going to wind up having a better future than you had, or a better future than yours was and better lives. And I think that has been lost. Middle class incomes have stagnated pretty much everywhere in the world in the advanced countries. There's been massive progress in poorer countries. If you look at what's happened in China in the last 15 years, it's probably been the greatest anti-poverty program we've ever seen. But that doesn't matter to the people in the middle of the United States or in continental Europe or even the UK. All these places you've seen slow down in wages, drops in productivity, gains only concentrated amongst the most highly educated, and people are very frustrated with that. I think a lot of the factors that are behind us are here to stay. So technology has taken away a lot of jobs. The combination of technology and globalization has meant that a lot of activities have migrated away from people that used to say finish high school. They'd go on and they'd work in some sort of manufacturing job. They could raise a family. Their kids could go on to more education if they wanted. You could have all the comforts of society and you could live a pretty good life. Those jobs have been lost. They're not present in the United States and Europe to a large extent anymore. And they're not coming back. And I think part of the driver for the economic frustration is we haven't replaced those jobs with new things, so we haven't found a way to put the people that would have gone into those positions to work elsewhere. And so they're left looking around saying, you know, what's going to come for me? I think New Zealand and a lot of the commodity producing countries may have benefited from a one time change in China. So China's gone about as far as it can with its existing growth model, in my view. They've built all the highways and roads and infrastructure and transformed their economy in a pretty serious way. And that required massive imports of all kinds of commodities. And that happened to be, you know, going on for the last seven or eight years. It's definitely the case China's slowing. I don't think China's going to return to eight to 10 percent growth for an extended period ever again. I think they're going to be more in the five, four, six range. And that'll be felt around the world. And so some of the places that were insulated temporarily from these forces, I think, are going to be feeling them. If you look at what's happening in Brazil, Brazil was a country where when they were awarded the Olympic Games and the World Cup, it looked like Brazil was on the rise. It was a country that had turned the corner. In fact, we see that they hadn't. In fact, they were just riding a commodity bubble and that covered up a lot of problems. And now it's front and center on the world stage. I think the challenge for policies to deal with the scenario I've described is there's two directions to go. The first is to stop looking backwards and pretend that we can return to the 1950s. A lot of the presidential campaign that's anti-trade pretends that we can just go back and everything's going to be okay. And that if we could just reverse some things that we could return to the world we were once in, I think that's a farce. There's no chance of that. And it's destructive because it focuses attention and energy in the wrong places. I think what we need to do is work on educational outcomes, improving what we economists call human capital, people's readiness to be able to embrace technology and work with it. We've just got too many people that enter the workforce without the skills they need to be able to get good high-paying jobs. This is a problem everywhere. The U.S., maybe New Zealand has an additional problem which is the more diverse you are. I think the harder it is to get everybody to pull together behind these kinds of outcomes. The countries where there's been less of this tend to be countries that are more homogeneous where you can do things that involve sacrifices in the short run for the long-term gain because everybody kind of feels like they're in it together. If there's political gains to be had from ostracizing people and pointing, you know, this guy's the problem, that guy's the problem, it distracts you from getting on with it, it makes it harder to take the steps we need. If the way that this is put is we're going to do some difficult stuff now to make our kids better off, I think that's an achievable plan. Germany offers one case study. A government fell in Germany in 2004 and five because they enacted a bunch of very difficult reforms to try to stop defending the old types of jobs that were moving away and create a better partnership between the workers and the firms to try to move into a more 21st century style economy and the gains have been very tangible. Germany's doing better than any other country in Europe in large part because they had a really rough time in the middle of the last decade and, you know, the government fell. So there's no doubt that there will be some short-term pain for enacting the kinds of changes that we need, but I think the alternative is far worse. Stagnation for 15 years is going to just generate more and more discontent. Eventually you'll get a political backlash like Brexit or, you know, the election of somebody who's a really radical figure. If you don't, you know, take the steps now. This doesn't all have to be grim. If you can convince people that the future is going to be bright again, that there is hope that technology isn't just evil, globalization isn't bad, that we can bring gains to everyone, but we need to focus on trying to get them ready for it. That can be a somewhat optimistic message. So I think if we've concentrated on that and made that the priority, instead of getting distracted with all these other things, this is achievable.