 Can you hear me? Yeah. So first of all, I would like to ask you, do you know actually or ever had this term universal basic income? So someone could raise their hand. So for the people who've heard about it, it's exactly what it seems. It's idea of free money for everyone. So which sounds a little bit crazy. And I should say what my professional occupation is not connected to this thing. I just was curious about it. And honestly, I was opposing this idea very strongly. And because of this, I started to look deeper in this. And then I discovered some interesting things about it and things which really makes you think about it. And I'm going to share it with you today. So it's not a talk of the answer to the question. It's more the statement of the seriousness of the question. So let's start from the very definition. So this, as you see, it's universal basic income as a system in which every citizen gets money or a certain amount of money regularly and unconditionally. This is different, for example, from the idea of unemployment payments, which there exist in many countries, but in Germany also. So let's look a little bit in the history of this idea. And history of this idea is actually very old. So this is the quote from Sir Thomas Moore. So the person who, among other things, invented the term utopia. And so what he's talking essentially about. So if there are the people who don't have money in a society and they're poor and it pushes them to the crime and antisocial behavior, is it better maybe for the society just to provide them money, although they are not strictly speaking earn it, but maybe it will be safer, safer for society and better for everyone, which is. And then here you can ask, OK, does the system already exist? Where do you have it? We kind of have it, actually. So we have a system, at least in most of European countries and in Germany also, of the social benefits. And the biggest one is unemployment payment. So it works like this, exactly. So you prove what you don't have money, you don't have job, and government provides you money and you can sustain yourself. This is good, but this system has very severe downsides. So the first downside, paradoxically, this system demotivates people, in many cases, to change their lives. So if you think about it, you're getting money only as far as you don't have money for yourself. So say you're very, you're not very confident about yourself or your job perspective, so to speak. So maybe it's not that much money, but at least it's guaranteed. And especially in a case if, for example, you have a family. Think about it, are you taking this risk? You're getting some very limited amount, but you're getting it. And you have a kid, for example, and you can survive on this. But to change this, to apply for the job, and you're not sure how well you perform on this job, it means to take a risk. On the other side, the same system creates a situation when to control these subsidies, to check who's actually don't have money. You need to have a huge bureaucracy. And this huge bureaucracy is just getting huge, because it's a property of any bureaucratical system. It doesn't have any motivation, actually, to have less poor people in the country. This is a paradox of this, because more poor people for them means more money, which goes through a bureaucratical system, which is, this is exactly the problems which Universal Basic Income trying to address. So the assumption will be, if someone now is demotivated to take a risk, to try something different, in a situation when he or she will be sure what they can sustain themselves, it's allow them more space for creativity, and also allow them to cut off their, this huge bureaucratical situation. This is a more or less old argument for the Universal Basic Income. There is a new one, which I think is very more interesting, and it's directly connected to the, actually to the topic of our event today. So you've probably heard about this trend. The automation is really ongoing. The biggest automation trend and the most famous one is apparently the self-driving cars are coming soon. So the appearance of self-driving car make all the drivers practically unemployed. It's, and this is a huge amount of people. I think in a year, there are more than a million drivers. Like, I mean the professional drivers, not the people who just drive to work. And this trend is, it's not something historically new, you can say, because their professions appear and disappear from the history in many cases. So before there were horses, and some people have been driving horses, and then there were no horses, there are cars and people driving cars. So the job is just, it's a transition of the occupation, which is makes sense. But now we actually have something new, something completely different, which we didn't experience ever in a history. So this is a thing which calls more slow. Maybe you heard about it. This is very fancy definition of what it is, but it's as simple as I say, computers are getting two times smarter every two years. This is what was mentioned in the previous, in the previous talks actually. So all the jobs which involve physical work, which is world's repetitive work, they're cutting and it's going to be less and less of them. And there is no proof what the people who are physically skilled, they're more prone to do physical work. In this beautiful world of the future, when you only need to do some kind of intellectual work, if there are going to be a place for these people. Although they're, so taking the example of the drivers, instead of 10,000 drivers, you need to have 10 programmers. But it's not exactly the same people, not exactly the same type of the people. Although even, it doesn't mean what these people will starve. Economy is actually growing in the same time as their automation is ongoing. So, which means you need to consider their situation in which a society will be forced in something like universal basic income. It's not something which you may want or not want. It's very likely scenario and a lot of smart people are talking about it. This one person, for example, I know Musk thinks about it's inevitable in the course of automation. All this saying their universal basic income produce some severe downside. And I want to talk about all that, which is not that obvious, but I found it very interesting. So the first one is a psychological problems. It comes not like a surprise what unemployment lead to drug abuse, drinking, criminal behavioral, reducing general level of unhappiness. What's actually interesting about it, it was study shows, study show what there are some kind of, providing people money, even in the same amount of the, as they can get if they're working, it's not reducing this substantially. So actually people are depressed, people are unhappy, people are drinking and it's drug them probably to the criminal behavior. It's not because we don't have money. Money, if you don't have money, it makes doors for sure. But if you just unemployed, it's already, you already feel useless and it's a reason for the depression. Also there is some studies which are, there are some studies mentioned here, but this studies also show what the degree of unhappiness of people depends from the attitude of this particular society in which this person's living to the unemployed people. So for example, there are more protestant society which value work a lot. In these societies, the people are more depressed if they cannot find a job. Which is very interesting, which suggests if we will run in a situation then there will be big amount of people who cannot find a job in a modern economy is how these people will live. They will be constantly, they will get money but they constantly will be depressed or we need to restructure our attitude to unemployed people. So in the sense of what they will be less depressed, this is a very fundamental question on a psychological level. And another aspect is, surprisingly comes from a side of political science. So you probably heard this argument from a different people saying, oh, this government doing this crazy project and it's doing on my taxes. So this is a very direct connection of you to the function of the government. This is actually some kind of underlying assumption about the political structures of the European, at least European countries. They're, it's based around the concept of the citizen and the citizen getting some benefits from the government and also he supposed to fulfill the duties. And the duties sounds very serious but the duties for us, I don't know why I'm paying taxes. If you're paying taxes, it's just the taxes we should pay. And this produce at least in the conventional understanding of this. This situation, when the people are serious about the politics, they understand that it's not somewhere else money. It's their money. And if we come to the situation that a huge amount of people in a country will not work, they will not pay taxes. How it will affect the political system? For example, they will be easily manipulated by the politicians who are essentially providing them money. They will be not that much of a reciprocity of this. At least, and it goes back to this question of the psychological problem. So it means if you want to allow universal basic income, you need to change the psychological assumption about society in a certain way. And we don't know how it will look like. So this is more or less more on my side. So I wanted to spark your interest into this question and maybe to think about, make you think about a little bit. The question is, do I personally think what universal basic income is the future? I don't think in a plain form it's the future. What I will think inevitably will happen, their amount of social benefits which are provided from the government to broader and broader range of people will increase. This is unfortunately or not unfortunately nowhere on it. So just think about it. I found it very easy. Thank you. So again, questions for Evgeny about universal basic income? Hi Evgeny. It's actually more a comment than a question. And it's about the two downsides, the unemployment and depression, et cetera, and the taxes. It comes from the assumption that people that will receive that money, they will not go to work. But there are other studies, like on some samples of people, they got this basic income, but they work. They work with something that they like. They work with something, I don't know, their hobby, something they were good at. They were not working for the money, they were working to enjoy work. So work was kind of a hobby, it's another cultural work that emanated. And still by working also they paid taxes. So the taxes problem was kind of tackled. Of course we need more studies to see in which extent. And the second comment I wanted to say about this universal basic income, we are talking about one variant of it, just you get some money and that's it. But actually there are some other variation. For example, I might say a state rich charged, Senate one where the basic, universal basic income is not just that universal basic, but it's linked to reduction of the amount of work. So let's say you work at 15 hours a week or 20 hours a week and the state just pays the difference to this minimal amount that the person would need. And I think it's also worth talking about, worth investigating. I cannot say if it's effective or not, but I think it's another point of view that is worth to be investigated. Yeah, thank you for your question. It's actually a good point. So you're referring to some studies, there were some studies, I looked in this. The problem is this current studies of universal basic income, you cannot make it universal. It's some very small sample of the people which is arbitrary or not that arbitrary selected. And so you actually don't know how the whole society will be here. It's why I pointed in a psychological problems also their general attitude to this. So how the society will operate if there will be okay, not a huge amount, but some kind of substantial margin of people who not working. Is it, how are they going to be treated? How do they feel for themselves? This is proponents of the universal basic income usually not point to this. They kind of saying, yeah, the people will find a good way to spend their money. Just question to consider. And me adequate, I have one right here. So I want to ask how all this entire story come with the theories about countries fading away and borders going out in the next 10 or 20 years. Is the universal part is really about making it universal or more country based? This is actually a very good question. And I had this point in the argument against, but I feel it's like little bit boring and bureaucratical. So I can say what for example, there was very big study in Finland, the biggest scale studies universal data can which you try to run. And if you read about it, the biggest problem which has traveled this is current bureaucratical system and the government system of Finland. Because there is a state, it's a statement in the constitution, no one can get the benefits undeserved. So, and, but this is actually the reverse of this, right? So they, and this is just, I just want to point out what the problem with this universality of this, how you define universal. So do you say only citizens of the country are getting the universal basic income of one country? Or what about the people who just live in the country? What about the people who live illegally in the country? Do you want to pay for them also? Do you want to, if you have two countries which don't have borders, for example, nearer to the countries without borders, it doesn't, you're accepting what the people just move over the border and start getting the universal basic income. This is a very technical issue which is I think is practically unsolvable. It's why I think in a pure form it will never going to be released. This is kind of boring, dramatic loss of history. And another question, please. I, it was, but then I have another one on this side. Yes, thank you. You said one motivation would be that the people can sustain themselves. Do you know about studies that not, that they get no money, but maybe just food or the shelter or something like that? I don't know if there is a studies about it. I just, for example, I don't know, general knowledge, but a lot of organizations, for example, trying to provide their shelter and the food for the homeless people. And it doesn't seem what it's actually reduced the amount of homeless people. So it helps homeless people to survive, but it's not stopping the people from being homeless. This is homeless. This is one of the arguments of the people who propose universal basic income. Give them money, don't give them food, because they will decide what they need actually for them to spend for the money. And then it goes to discussion, oh, they will spend it on drugs, but they actually will not. And then it's just this back and forth like this. Yeah. Okay, and please remember, if you have any question for Yungini or any of our other speakers, you are welcome to ask it right after I finished talking. Because that's all for today. Thank you. Thank you.