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 on the applicable i mean know 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 of the society why is that not a legitimate point of view i think the point is that if you look at the us the number of people employed in the united states has grown in a messy way all the time and the fact is that the us has been able to take benefit from the globalization but the fact is that do not i born in a group in finland and if you look at what's going on in parts of america today no i have seen and 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. 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 globalization relies heavily and encourages over consumption that's also a fact that has a major environmental impact that environmental impact is compounded by all the goods moving around and all the garbage being moved back miracleman to that. no soviet union it had huge environmental problems in spite of the fact that it was completely integrated from the only system as something to be used you know what i'm trying to explain that it's. it's really quite often we are putting

globalization hat on everything globalization has it is strong 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 was he 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 maybe early and they are the only people are going to. conclude thinking about who technological change we have seen no first impact of three printing for example

i did us decided to move production from bangladesh to germany why because of political reasons though because of the fact that makes it possible and i'm confident we are going to see a lot of changes which will lead to what you are saying more local local approach but that is thanks to talk 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 they're employing people not robots right they are in china they are employing more and more robots so the production is moving in 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 kind of the 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 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 turn 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 government rules that's the most important thing so that you cannot compete with let's say with damaging the environment or or not respect to 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 the 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 two hundred euros that was based on the idea that the auction was organized in completely different way i heard you say. one of the most important things in government. is having a concept

a broader education what you're trying to achieve. seems to have one it may be wrong. disagree with it but do you think that kind of world we'll has the right to exist we're looking at this consequences of this. technological revolution there are other similar 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 a lot of challenges and i think we have two options one is to go to not sell she. tried to. do the good old times and that is that's going on in the u.k. breaks it move those who are going to have a breaks if they say 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 really quite venom and i can see that in russia i can see that in turkey i can see that in the united states america great again this is not stylesheet idea people who are afraid of the future who 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 we're very good until now but they're not working anymore and that's why i think that we have to move or focus what kind of system we would like to have into 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 completely nostalgic he will have to contend with some of those issues 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 in the states i think there are we looking at called globalization there are two aspects we lose or we wrote and i'm coming from a country which believes strongly in we but we can see that unfortunately the major tendency is no sorts out if somebody is getting something it's we have to pay for that and this is wrong. globalization the way it has been carried out over the last couple of decades it also benefit a certain very small group of people absolutely very substantially and 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 reaches. people in the world they have something to do with. little

technologies 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 the 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 country pays 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. if you look at. people's mindset feelings

if you ask me of russia of course but i suppose until you do if you if you're going to look after the countries to be honest you will find very often nordic countries there what are nordic countries doing but they have a very fair social model. most open societies as well they are countries which have invested heavily in cloaking so they have been crowbar east but they have globalized with rules which have been made be able to to make it possible that they were one has benefit from do you think the world can live 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 history and that's why all legacies are openminded 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. so

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy confrontation let it be an arms race. spearing dramatic to follow can only. exist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical. to sit down and talk. this if you. do this because when you look at the worst we're just going forward for the. choice of this who do. you think it was matched.

i thought the put it. out of a bit. it's a look it was from. there to full support scoop one of these critics one of the new beliefs because they've been. pushing into life to be smeared. all over the. phone with someone new to be renewed because we've thought of old style if you will it's pretty easy. the business model of facebook is to pressure people to continue communicating through facebook and giving facebook personal information this is what makes facebook a surveillance monster show facebook does not have users facebook has

used its people that facebook use its. welcome back former prime minister. as call a halt to. mr. you mentioned bracks and before i heard you describe it as as an example of empty populism people voting out of emotional feeling rather than rationale is really vocal sound you know what about those leading that are utilizing people's russian oh they say problems and by that you mean back the tears little tears you know i often hear people describe laxity years as populist but wasn't david cameron the biggest pop populist of all i think you made

a mistake you putting into the room an issue which is very difficult to be voted because i had a referendum in finland good rejoined do you know what we had very clear to all to use to join with the green meant we had negotiated or to stay there yes or no but in the u.k. case you knew only one option another one was to hope i'm going to mention that an 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 when 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 sort of manufacturing that.

agenda do you really think he had 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. governance as many people claim that the time or was it ultimately a vote on the state of the british governance because we and we have seen. over the last two years that it's not very inspiring he. is like that so that if you look at. referendums or public opinion. people are even when you were out on membership. joining the e.u. or leaving the or 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 go to don't or

new membership one argument was 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 these speakers of 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 then full of the populace because asking before about transfinite what kind of ideas he proposes many people dismiss it out 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 wealth. you can blame that democratic systems have not been. waiting learned to mcchrystal until their liberal no no 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 time to 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 i will tell you sleep this is exceptional in that respect when you were taking offense 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 early they say industrial age so that if you look at the structure of the government it's almost the same. and i don't believe that for

example let's take an example. of a population who is going to take responsibility of that is 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 to have the best potential for scientific and technological development do you think these distinctions between liberal a liberal democracy versus authoritarian system will matter they will matter because of the fact that in no one looking at 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 very educated well trained to have capacity to live in that kind of society and i think that is the challenge for every single society roughly the same way like earlier in the investors at the 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 the. ver to really integrated

system sound 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 high tech lots used to be developed and that is a system requiring capacity a lot of funding. decisions coordination and i believe that all the rich areas systems are having some benefits to do that but then there is this horizontal

aspect or isn't the least asian of the watches and i believe that in the future this role of our research is going to grow and to be honest i'm i believe that democratic systems are can be better 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 their mobile business was growing so fast in europe in the ninety's because of regulatory environment so that's why i think we are going to see competition between china chinese moro russia is closer maybe to chinese model to 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 integrate. to 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 their vertically integrated systems already becoming more transparent in my view because of technology and there is a clear understanding of that both within 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 time i mean we have a very dark rather cold here in. that you will find twenty one thousand young intrapreneur. 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 different think about. and especially facebook saying two years ago government is our biggest enemy can you imagine that facebook. like that anymore. because they have a book 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 for facebook motives. that they have. that's access. once 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 today and today you know when you say that because you have to recognize that maybe on the limit 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. in the future we have a minute left and i still want to ask a question about something that you mentioned before that. legacy especially for bigger countries could be a bit like a ball and chain. who do you think has a big problem with legacy is that the united states is it the european union or is the tresham. 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 this is that they are they are. they have to go. 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 smaller countries it's easier to do that and to understand that something went wrong but something. small country that is now part of a. thing that. has been able to look at self in the mirror and to see some of the good things in the past that some of the difficulties that 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. ads 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. environmental issues or security and safety issues. it's always a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for my personal thank you. to keep this conversation going in our social media. same place same time here.

i think more doogan is an outstanding person because he took on the most powerful agency in this county or you'll be to stay if you look at it from the analogy. mark was the day that when he was. going to has been the most contentious critic for the first time i noticed something wasn't right in fleeced work pretty much when he first started the corruption in palm beach county is not something that you can smell it. it's. a wing it wasn't what i wanted to do. we've had more than this county

then some states have had collective thing too good went to his website began featuring the comments about gold his family the sheriff might. wash you like a bug you know i wish you'd stop then you should stay on the left and stuff i believe what i'm doing ok you know it's your funeral. p.b.s. and critics in this house. i snuck out of the united states. into russia. political. men they know. the previous stage of my career was over everyone wondered what i was going to do next. different clubs on one hand it is logical to go home. fields where everything is familiar on the other i wanted

a new challenge and the fresh perspective i'm used to surprising people and i saw one on t.v. . i'm going to talk about football not be or else you think i was going to go. by the way ways of that slide here. bests drugs where her cocaine were four bucks for the under fifty. everybody use cocaine crack cocaine you can smoke it this is worth fifteen thirty. twenty. it's called k two this is about a fifteen dollars people smoke this one figures a sweetie you can find these drugs in any city in the united states that you walk

along as you want to get about the. make money. and that's what a day. right words are. stories that shape the week wiki leaks co-founder julian assange is arrested after spending almost seven years holed up in the ecuadorian embassy in london. as the rest grabs global attention and concern over a song just possible extradition to the united states. and other news the u.s. democratic presidential hopeful says that african american should receive financial compensation for the suffering of their ancestors and the slavery we debate the issue. because.