started to take root it's proponents claim that it's going to be a panacea to almost all the world's ills lifting millions out of poverty peace through trade and yet as an old saying goes the only thing is that the mousetrap. trade common to this intellect complications to discuss that i'm now joined by a former prime minister of finland. prime minister it's good to talk to you thank you very much more personal time we're recording this conversation on the sidelines of the harasses four on which this year is that it catered to discussing a morally decent form of globalization that formulation in and of itself suggest that there is something off with the current system what is it it's a fact that. many scenes are changing in. the world and globalization trend. transformation or. maybe even the more fundamental things but they go hand in hand.

now when globalization is discussed it's usually discussed in economic terms of efficiency a labor costs production cheats etc and there is a legitimate benchmarks for business but not for government because the government has to consider a much broader impact what happens to society as factories move about what happens to the public health sector whether there is an opioid crisis do you think industrial democracies have managed globalization in there. rather than corporate ways. they have not understood that the rules of the game have to be changed and we are still. living with historical legacy self industrialization because if you look at the social security systems education systems most of the let's say legal frameworks in the investment world

all of them are designed for industrial face of technology and now we are moving ahead and i think the problem is that our our concepts are lacking behind what you're saying is that the government didn't do enough to create new jobs to compensate the schools to make sure that people are not taking drugs rather than you know taking measures to make sure that industrial capacity is kept where those good second. difficult explanation is that market economy and liberal democracies have failed to solve problems that they created i think it's only half true and the problem is that they still believe that the methods they used after the second world war which were very successful that the same methods are still. producing. applicable i mean no what's

a scandalous one for example donald trump and many others say that we want to preserve certain jobs certain factories here even if it means that the price of goods is higher we just want to people employed and that has every pull a factor in the society why is that not a legitimate point of view i think the point is that if you look at the u.s. the number of people employed in the united states has grown in a messy way all the time and the fact is that the u.s. has been able to take benefit from the globalization but the fact is the do not i born in a great deal in finland and if you look at what's going on in parts of america today you know i have seen that i've seen that i'm trying to explain to you that there's a political decisions because of technological change c.e.o. also took measures to protect their grammarian secretary and i know you couldn't save this chops you couldn't do that when the horses were compensated by tractors.

impressive impact little things that i often i hear that comparison often but i'm not sure we are quite in the same stage when such a major fact but let's look at it from the other perspective. relies heavily and encourages over consumption and that's also a fact that has a major environmental impact that the environmental impact is compounded by all the goods moving around and all the garbage being moved back miracleman to that. you know soviet union it had huge. environmental problems in spite of the fact that it was completely disintegrated from the only system as something to be used the oh no what i'm trying to explain that it's it's really quite often we are putting globalization hat on everything globalization has drawn to play but to take logical factors are much more fundamental and you cannot save jobs when radical change is

going on but you can create jobs and that's the problem they have not been able to create lizzie and then others argue with that but i'm asking you why is it such a bad idea to think about localizing both production and consumption because that would take care of many things including environmental things that everybody so worried about i'm trying to explain that they can't use have rules when horses were compensated by tractors it led to two totally different kind of production system the same with globalization we have seen now this this mass movement of production capacity into asia asian countries but we have seen first indications that may be but the intention may be really early and they are the only people are going to. conclude that thinking about who technological change we have seen no first impact of three printing for example i did guess decided to move production from bangladesh to germany by because of political reasons though because of the fact

that they thought you makes it possible and i'm quite confident we are going to see a lot of changes which will lead to what you are saying more local approach but that is thanks to took technological development you cannot fight against technological changes otherwise you will but i don't think anyone at this point is trying to discourage. technology from developing the question is whether some of the country companies that still rely on the old industrial model and shift their factories overseas. are continuing to exploit that same model because in vietnam or in china there. employing people not robots right they are in china they are employing more and more robots so that production is moving human labor force is is not that relevant anymore in chinese production model but it is very relevant in vietnamese so so this is what happens in the world where i have seen this happen in europe with certain production moved from from sweden to finland then from finland

to spain and portugal and then from spain and portugal to china but you can't imagine that the level of standard of living in finland can be as high as it is today if we had been keeping as saying there we are. just comparing the the european single market to globalization and there are a little bit sarah. the biggest difference is the single market is heavily regulated there are some compensatory role models and content to tary mechanisms globalization is not do you think globalization as it stands today needs to be if not regulated than at least coordinated i think we need to come into those rules that's the most important thing so that you cannot compete with let's say with damaging the environment or or not respecting new human rights and social rights of people that is something we i think that global community has to be able to solve these problems and that's that's creating opportunities for fairer. one that also

discourage companies from sunday jobs overseas because if you are concerned about environment if you are concerned about. rules that it makes sense to you to keep your production base closer to the areas where they where they could to consume but but i was at nokia for example if you look at the prices of mobile phones if you wanted to. come of this size mobile phones price that was the united states or something like two three thousand euros and then ten years later it was one hundred euro. that was based on the idea that the action was organized in completely different way i heard you say that. one of the most important things in governance is having a concept a broader indication of what you're trying to achieve and. seems to have one it may be wrong. we disagree with it but do you think that kind of world feel has

the right to exist we're looking at these consequences of this. technological revolution they're rather similar to those late nineteenth century which were the industrial revolution consequences lack of rules a lot of gaps between different income groups and so on a lot of challenges and i think we have two options one is to go to mosul she. tried to. do the good old times and that is going on in the u.k. breaks it move those who are want to have a breaks if they say the u.k. have to come back to the times when we were able to decide on what happened in the ear because i hear exactly one european leader after another speaking about the brain is there i'm i'm trying to say that this is worldwide phenomenon i can see that in russia i can see that in turkey i can see that in the internet states america great again this is not stylesheet idea people who are afraid of future we

have lost future perspective they are easy to be taken into that and then there is another option and that is let's try to keep these values we have principles we have without understanding that already were very good until now but they're not working anymore and that's why i think that we have to move or for who's what kind of system we would like to have in the future and that is the discussion we are missing almost everywhere in the world and to be honest trump is not doing that his message is completely. he will have to contend with some of this issue when he moves to discuss industrial tariffs with the european union which is expected to happen pretty soon are you at all nervous about are nervous because they're hitting both americans and the states i think there are we looking at cold globalisation there are two aspects we lose or win out and i'm coming from

a country which believes strongly in we but we can see that unfortunately the major tendency is now sorts out if somebody is getting something it's we have to pay for that and this is wrong. globalisation the way it has been carried out over the last couple of decades it also benefit a certain very small group of people very substantially left. very very large groups and within numerous countries disadvantaged but their option is not to stop this technological development which is behind that if you look at the most richest or guru people in the world they have something to do with the to . choose and they have been able to benefit like rockefeller or carnegie late one thousand nine hundred centuries exactly in the same way now the question is that instead of saying that why did we not stop that the right call is how to create new

rules for the game so that everyone is able to benefit from that but you seem to be conflating technology and globalization and i think many people think there is you know there are so related i mean they are any they are not but that you can be all in favor of technology but if you want to have a more fair process distribution in a given country and you are ready to take certain risks for that you want to again that may be some there may be. more than factory that employs last people than before but it operate in your kind. local taxes etc what we have today and you mentioned big tech giants they their work everywhere around the world it's not clear where exactly they pay their taxes what are the best countries in the world to if you look at. people's minds the feelings if you ask me in russia of course but i suppose if you if you if you're going to look after yourself countries to be honest you will find very often the nordic countries there what are nordic

countries doing but they have a very fair social model you see what they really are most open societies as well they are countries which have invested heavily in close so they have been closer iced but they have globalized with rules which have been made be able to make it possible that they were one has benefit from do you think the world can leave by the rules that the nordic countries. and i don't know because it's the sort of it's a question of historical legacies we don't have this imperial you story and that's where we are open minded rigorous we don't we don't look that much history prime minister we have to take a very short break now he said we'll be back in just a few moments they changed. the business model of facebook is to pressure people to continue communicating through

facebook giving facebook personal information this is what makes facebook a surveillance monster show facebook does not have users facebook has used people that facebook users. we came here where did you work before you came here whether you live. in many us states capital punishment is still practiced convicted prisoners can spend years waiting for execution but most of the time the victims' families they are very much in favor the death penalty there are some people because of what they did have given up the right to live among us some even proven innocent. through a more exonerations is it going to take before we as a society realize this is not working and we actually do something about.

welcome back to worlds apart with former prime minister. mr. you mentioned bracks and before i heard you describe it as as an example of populism people voting out of. emotional feeling rather than rationality both and you know what about those leading that are utilizing people's russian oh they say problems and by that you mean back the tears you know i often hear back people describe. it wasn't david cameron the biggest populist of all i think you made a mistake. an issue which is very difficult to be voted because i had

a referendum in. opinion we had very clear to all to use to join with the green meant we had negotiated or to stay there with their yes or no but in the u.k. case. only one option and the other one was empty hold. i'm glad you mentioned other example because i think you're probably the best person to understand what kind of position cameron was in and i know that back down the you had faced opposition from your own party and you need to do to do a lot of persuasion in finland when you were taking your toe it's a referendum on the us i don't think that mr cameron did any of that in fact he later tried to blame my own country for manufacturing that. agenda do you really think he demonstrated good leadership wasn't just a mistake or was it perhaps

a characteristic of what kind of leadership he was offering. i can only say that afterwards when you get afterwards it was a fundamental mistake was it a vote about the state of the e.u. governments as many people claim that the time or was it ultimately a vote on the state of the british governance because i mean we have seen over the last two years that it's not very inspiring. it's always like that so that if you look at. their induce or public opinion a lot of people are even when you won't on your membership. joining the e.u. or leaving the you even when most people may be able to fall for that there are many people who are voting against the government like in finland when we don't or new membership one argument to to vote against the government in the u.k. the most fundamental one was the fact that there were

a lot of problems and people couldn't fully understand what these because of the membership what the speaker said or some other reasons the reason i'm asking about it is because i think it's a fair question and it's a fair case to discuss the quality of the so-called liberal leadership that is so it is they full of the populace because i ask you before. translated what kind of ideas here proposes many people dismiss it right of hand and yet many would claim that it is in part the liberal leadership that brought us all to a place when we have to talk about morally decent forms of globalization. you can blame that democratic systems have not been. waiting learned democracy until a liberal in a new but i want to say that that we have time to time in democratic systems we have crises the fact is that you need to face some kind of transition period and we

have sixty four now i've seen several of them so that times of time we have a crisis and after the crisis certain things will be changed and i think this is a very fundamental crisis because of the fact that so many things are changing so much a new sleep this is exceptional in that respect when you were taking a fenlon into the european union being a democracy was enough now you have to be either a liberal democracy or illiberal democracy which is not i assume a good place is there any middle ground can a democracy be conservative and both its economic and social approach it should be much more efficient i think the democratic system has to be changed we have a lot of legacies of. the same industrial age so that if you look at the structure of the government it's almost the same everywhere. and i don't believe that for example let's take an example. of a population who is going to take responsibility of that use it means to for

violence is it minister for social and health is it minister for interior or whose responsibility is that i think we have to understand that the role of the government has to be changed as well and democratic systems have to be reformed absolutely i heard you say that in the future the meaning of power including political power will be decided by those nations who are most. conducive for how the best potential for scientific and technological development do you think these distinctions between liberal a liberal democracy versus authoritarian system will matter. because it's affect that. know when looking at to digital technologies they are more or less applied in a different type of for entertainment and they are rather easy to be done because because you need only rather limited ecosystem for that but in the future when we

are moving to health care transportation. education financial services it means that the ecosystem is going to be very complicated and you need and that is very relevant you need consumers citizens who are really educated well trained you have capacity to live in that kind of society and i think that is a challenge for every single society roughly the same way like earlier in the industrial society educational systems in the world have been designed for industrial society to be growth and now we have we need changes in order to get citizens who have capacity to do that but i think it's clear that citizens in these so-called authoritarian societies also have such capacity in fact levels of education in both russia and china are pretty high and what's interesting is that those vertically integrated system centralized systems do seem to have at least initially set an advantage over democracies in how they develop their technologies

i mean china is the best example when it comes to big data when it comes to centralized data pools they are leading the world partially because of how they can apply their decisions do you think europe and other democracies will have to change their own system in order to compete with china or they will have to try to change china system in order to be able to play in the same i think used important. because if you look at technological development there are two dimensions vertical dimension how to get let's say hi how you choose to be developed and that is a system requiring capacity. a lot of funding a lot of strides itchycoo decisions coordination and i believe that there was a rich area and systems are having some benefits to do that but then there is this horizontal aspect there isn't a lease asian of the watches and i believe that in the future this role of our reserve is going to grow and to be honest i'm i believe that democratic systems are

can be better are but can be better in that is specially that is an option for europe because europe is. traditionally have been quite good in regulatory. environment if you look at for example i know where about mobile phones why. mobile business was growing so fast in europe and united because of wriggle to read whiteman so that's why i think we are going to see competition between china chinese morrow russia is closer maybe to trying the smaller today the european model but but it has also european aspects and then the u.s. there are three ways and not all can do it. well you mentioned this horror i don't know if i can even pronounce that having this horizontal integration of the society and i think it's clear that it's already happening in china it is happening in my view in russia. do you see so the author is tearing the vertically

integrated systems already becoming more transparent in my view because of technology and there is a clear understanding of that both of them the chinese government and within the russian government. in order to compete the european system i think will have to become a little bit more flexible and agile and vertical integrated if you will do you see any movement in that direction come to helsinki late november it's not the best timing we have a very dark rather cold here. that you will find twenty one thousand young into. start up. all over the world coming to helsinki that time it's an indication that there is a there is a change going on and it was impossible to imagine that kind of things ten years ago but as you well know there is interpreters especially those who have from

europe would be very critical of how long it takes the european union to pass certain legislation and make them compete on the same level playing field with peers in china or even in the united states sometimes on the short yes but on the long. game is the liberal different think about. and especially facebook saying two years ago government is our biggest enemy can you imagine that facebook. is saying like that anymore. because they have broken that they have recognized that the system without rules is probably not in their interest and rules are making and i have a less charitable interpretation of their facebook motives. that they have recognized that acceptance and trust in their system we disappear if they don't have common rules when finland joined the european union we had to dream though

many europeans had a dream that europe should be like america the american political system was like a like a model for your kind of value doing today and today you know when you say that because you have to recognize that maybe on the longer term this european system has some some positive things yes as well but this complicated case because of today's complicated problems. we have had easier times and i hope we will have them in the future we have a minute left and i still want to ask with a question about something that you mentioned before that. specially for bigger countries could be a bit like a ball and chain. who do you think has a bigger problem with legacy is that the united states is that the european union or is it russia. they are a bit different in. a bit different but i think when looking at countries that have played

a big role in the world like british society has france. turkey russia japan or all the united states it's so difficult for them to understand that if things are going wrong it's it's not only question of so them stance is that they are they are all they have to go. through in front of the mirror and to look at what we should do and i'm coming from a small country and probably in a small country it's easier to do that and to understand that something went wrong but something went wrong here small country that is now part of a much bigger and to do you thing that entity and i'm talking about the european union has been able to look at self in the mirror and to see some of the good things that it is in the past and some of the difficulties that it would. like me wish and it has its problems but but but. it's if you look at

figures it's a bit more than one percent of g.d.p. and ninety nine percent of everything is in our own hands and i think that the problem is that the european union is overestimating its capacity and it's trying to come too much to issues which are actually easier to be taken care of national governments and local governments see that and the opposite way it's not good enough when looking at trade issues technological issues standardization environmental issues or security and safety well prime minister it's always a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for your time my pleasure thank you thank you. each of us to keep this conversation going on our social media just adds up to here again same place same time here of all the hard.

bests drugs where her cocaine is where four bucks for dia under fifty to everybody use cocaine crack cocaine you can smoke it this is worth like fifteen thirty. twenty. k. to this is about a fifteen dollar big people smoke this one bigger second sweetie you can find these drugs in any city in the united states that you want long as you want to get it about the. make money. and that's what i did every day.

was. the stories that shaped the week here were not a tract acts by police we can lead say to gina saunders arrested off to spend. being the last seven years to hold up the green embassy in london. is a rest got global attention and sparked concern over sanjay's possible extradition to the u.s. . from a legal point of view of justice point of view this is a total stitch up joyce knowledge will not face due process or justice souter going to face. a simulacrum of it also to come.