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 one factor is more about what happens to the public health sector whether there is an opioid crisis do you think industrial democracies have managed globalization in their pro-social 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 so if industrialization because if you look at the social security systems education systems most of the miss a legal frameworks in western 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 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 goods are consumed. explanation is that market is going to be a 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 applicable and producing it would require on the 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 of the society why is that not a legitimate point of view i think the point is that if you look at the u.s. . as the number of people employed in the united states has grown in a massive way all the time and the fact is the us has been able to take benefit from globalization but the fact is the 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 that i have seen that i'm trying to explain to you that the 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 traps you couldn't do that when the horses were compensated by tractors. it had to be impressive the impact was that i often i hear that comparison often

but i'm not sure we are quite at the same stage when such a major fact but let's look at it from the other perspective globalisation relies heavily and encourages over consumption and 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 mayor commented 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 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 to play but to take a 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 misery 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 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 technological change we have seen now 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 that much it 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 local approach

but that is thanks to talk technological development you cannot fight against technological changes otherwise you will then you know 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 are employing people not robots right they are in china they are employing more and more robots so the 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 of 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 us saying there we're just comparing the european single market to globalization and they're a little bit sarah. the big. is different as the single market is heavily regulated there are some compensatory rules and compensator and mechanisms globalization is not do you think mobilization as it stands today needs to be if not regulated than at least coordinated i think we need to come into force come and 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're 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 night is it was 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 governance is having a concept a broader an occasion of what you're trying to achieve. trump seem seems to how one it may be a wrong you make. me disagree with them but do you think that kind of world view has the right to exist we're looking at these consequences of this. technological revolution they're rather similar than those late nineteenth century which were the

industrial revolution consequences lack of rules a lot of gaps between different income groups and so on through out of lot of. challenges and i think we have two options one is to go to mosul she. tried to return to 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 heirs to the side or happened in the ear because i hear exactly one european leader after another speaking about the brainiest 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 internet states america great again this is no style cheeked idea people who are afraid of 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 at all nervous about are nervous because they're hitting both americans and the states i think there are we're looking at cold globalization 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 no thoughts about if somebody is getting something it's we have to pay for that and this is wrong. the way it has been carried out over the last couple of decades. it also benefit a. very small group of people so there are substantially left. very very large groups 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 people in the world they have something to do with. these children 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't be all in favor of technology but if you want to have a more fair processional distribution in a given country and you're ready to take certain risks for that you want to again that maybe 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 say 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 minds feelings if you ask me and russia of course but i suppose until you know if you if you're going to look after inclusive countries to be honest you'll 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 close so they have been kroeber ised but they have globalized with rules which have be they may be able to make it possible that they were one has benefit from do you think the world can live by the rule. is that they in nordic countries and i don't know because it's the start of it's a question of historical legacies we don't have this imperial you story and that's why all legacy let's say openminded records these 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. i do think the numbers mean something they've matter to us and over one trillion dollars of debt more than ten white collar crime happens each day. eighty five percent of global wealth you long to be ultra rich with six percent world market

thirty percent some with four hundred to five hundred three per second per second and if we rose to twenty thousand dollars. china is building two point one billion dollars ai industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only number you need to remember one one business show you know ford commit one and only. bests drugs write her cocaine or four bucks for dia under fifty it's a good job everybody use cocaine crack cocaine you can smoke it this is worth like fifteen thirty. twenty. k. to this is about a fifteen dollars bet and people smoke this one bigger second this way you go on

these drugs in any city in the united states that you walk along as you want to get it about the. i make money. that's what a. welcome back to worlds apart with former prime minister off balance as. 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 rose despair utilizing people's rush no

they see problems and by that you mean back the tears a little tears you know i often hear people describe laxity years as populist but wasn't david cameron the biggest 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 feel good we joined the opinion but we had very clear to all to use to join with 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 hold i'm glad you mentioned the 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 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 yes i don't thing mr cameron did any of that in fact he later tried to blame my own country for sort of manufacturing that. 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 him. 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 me it's. always like that so that if you look at. breath or induce or public opinion a lot of 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 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 more decent forms of globalization. you can blame

that democratic systems have been. plaguing learn to mcchrystal until they are 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 pain usually 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 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 as affect that. in 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 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 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 ver to fully 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 or isn't a lease asian with technologies and i believe that in the future this role of our research relation 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 their accent and mobile business was growing so fast in europe in one thousand nine hundred because of regulatory and 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 they're 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 within the chinese government and within the russian government. in order to compete the european system i think we'll 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. if 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 difference 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 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 that's as well but this complicated place 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 a legacy especially for a bigger countries could be a bit like a ball in a chain. who do you thing has

a big problem with legacy is that the united states is that the european union or is a 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 circumstances that they are there but 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 small country 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 the mirror and to see some of the good things. 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. it's always a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for my personal thank you. and our social media. same place same time here.

after the previous stage of my career was over everyone wondered what i was going to do next the ball different clubs on one hand it is logical to sit in the home field where everything is familiar on the other i wanted a new challenge and a fresh perspective i'm used to surprising people. or not if you think.

i'm going to talk about football not three or else you can think i was going to go . by the way what is that that's like here. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy confront a shouldn't let it be an arms race in this on off and spearing dramatic development only personally i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time time to sit down and talk. 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 people that facebook users. i'm i'm i'm not. in the stories that shaped the week we could be doing a song she's arrested after spending almost seven years holed up in the ecuadorian embassy in london is the rest grabs global attention and sparked concern over a song just possible extradition to the united states. u.s. republican senator roger is military help for venezuela to prevent what he called genocide by president would you wrote that so many claims that invasion is being discussed behind closed doors.