 The fraction of industries that are likely to be affected in the short run, or jobs affected by the short run, by artificial intelligence is relatively small, particularly in India, you know, in less developed countries, in emerging markets. But over the long run, the idea that machines can do many of the jobs that humans can do and replacing humans represents an important question. There is the possibility that machines, rather than replacing humans, actually augment humans, that machines can make humans more effective, and in which case that's the normal kind of productivity enhancing that we've often seen. But it is potentially the case that AI, artificial intelligence, will represent worker replacing. In terms of the effect of that will be that it is conceivable that there will be significant distributive effects of technological change. And whether those kinds of technology changes are overall welfare enhancing will depend on society's policies for managing both the redistributions and most importantly for my mind job creation. So I think that at least for a developed country like the United States, UBI is not a good idea. Because at least for my generation, work is associated with dignity, human dignity. I think the responsibility of government is to create jobs and you can do that because there are huge numbers of jobs in an emerging economy necessary to build infrastructure, technology, education, caring for the aged, health, which will not be replaced anytime soon. So the point, one of the important points I make in our paper with Anton Kornek is that the nature of technological change is that it creates rents which can be taxed. So if there is the political will, we can generate revenues that will ensure that everybody is better off. So this is largely a political issue. Now, if your democracy doesn't work well and America is an example of a dysfunctional democracy, but if you have a democracy that works well, then you will have a tax system that can ensure that everybody or almost everybody can benefit from these kinds of technological progress. But if you don't do that, you're going to wind up with a society in which the losers will become an important resistance to further progress. One part of the question you asked about globalization and globalization, you can think of as a technological advance that it's a chain of ability to bring countries together. The question, globalization is being questioned now by the United States. That to me is the greatest threat to globalization because Trump has attacked the international treaties and the international organization and the rules-based system. So in my mind, why I've been a great critic of globalization is because I thought the rules were unfair to developing countries, not that they were unfair to the United States, but in some ways they were unfair to American workers. So they were written really based for corporations for their advantage relative to the workers in both the developed and developing countries, which is one of the important points I've tried to make in my new book, Globalization and Discontent Revisited. But the response, if the United States is going to effectively withdraw from institutions like the WTO, and I say effectively because it's undermining right now the appellate system by vetoing the appointment of new judges, which there are two vacancies and next year there will be a third, and that will undermine the ability of the WTO to engage in the seducation process. It's not a good solution, but it's the only solution that's possible is the rest of the world will have to say, just like a rule of law within a country is important, you need an international rule of law and that's what the WTO is and if you don't like it you work to reform it, but what they will have to do is to say, even though in the past they've been a consensus based organization, they have to say, we can't let one country destroy us and therefore the rest of the world, I think it has to go ahead, including India and China, and say we will make this international regime work for the rest of us and we will figure out what happens with the United States, but we will have judges. If you decide you don't want to abide by the results of that, you bear the consequences because you signed the WTO treaty, you haven't withdrawn from it, and the U.S. will not withdraw from it, so I think that the rest of the world really needs to increase the resolve not to let Trump get away with what he's trying to do is undermine the international order. On the issue of investment, one of the important areas is public investment and I think one of the things that has held India back, the infrastructure, and it's difficult to export goods particularly if you don't have good infrastructure, that is going to need probably higher taxation and more public expenditure because these are basically within the public sphere and the cost, you might say, a well organized government program can do it much more efficiently than the public-private partnerships which are shown to be very inefficient in carrying these things out. The having a good financial system is also very important for investment and systems of bail in really undermine confidence in the financial system. You want the financialization of the economy, ordinary individuals can't inspect the books of every bank, they have to rely on government to see whether the bank is sound, that's one of the important regulatory functions of government, and they have to have assurance that the money is safe and to tell them that, oh by the way your money isn't safe if it collapses you have to get a haircut as they call it, you lose your money, will mean that people will not trust the financial system and what you really want is the economy to be moving over time, increasingly to an electronic system, a much more efficient system than using paper money or having people bury money in their mattress, so that's what happens when you move to a financial system now you can use debit cards and this will undermine all of that, so the answer is not a bail in, the answer is twofold, one make sure the banks are adequately capitalized with equity and make sure they're adequately supervised and regulated, in general one needs to have adequately capitalized banks and that the capitalization is important particularly in the private sector because it ensures that they have the incentive to behave well because they have their skin in the game, I mean otherwise they have too much of an incentive to lend money to friends and then when it goes bad the government has to bail it out, so you have to have enough money for their writing incentives and also to protect the public, that's particularly important for the private banks, very negative effects of demonization which was done very poorly and I think from an economic point of view not a well thought out economic initiative and particularly the point that you made that it affected the part of the economy that's not measured very well which is the informal sector which is a very big part of the Indian economy and those effects are likely to have lags, that is to say to persist for a while. The problem with aggregate consumption in general for, this goes back to what we were saying is there's a need for the economy to have more investment, for an economy of the stage, what made the East Asia country so successful is they have very high savings rates and the, so in some sense I don't worry about too low of consumption, what I worry about is that the savings are not being translated into productive investment, so you want a high level of aggregate demand and that takes aggregate policies, brings things to tax, high profits, high incomes and that are not being reinvested in the economy. I think that partly is to make a more competitive economy because one of the barriers to investment, at least in many of the countries I know in the United States, is that we've gotten in many sectors of our economy a high degree of monopoly power, so there are high profits but low incentive to invest because they don't want to compete against themselves, so making the economy more competitive is probably one of the most important. I also think you could always use tax policy, that is to say you say to a firm, especially the large corporations which do have East market power and monopoly profits, that if you invest your profits in the country and create jobs, you will get a tax credit, you will have your taxes reduced in effect, but if you don't, we will tax those profits at a high rate, so I think that you can create incentive structures that encourage more private investment.