Fladseth - #217 - Andreas Sjalg Unneland

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

Temaepisode! En av mange samtaler om politikk og ting som er relevante inn mot neste stortingsvalg. Andreas, SV-politiker og hyggelig mann er første ut.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You have something in you, rage. Never let it go. It will carry you to greatness. It's the simplest film I've ever been able to do an ad for. I do this myself, because I look forward to this film as a young person. It comes straight from the heart. If you talk about the joy of two... Yes, of course. I would have done it anyway. It's so amazing. The premiere is on Cino. Go and watch this movie from 15th of November. I will do it.

It's a gladiator. Gladiator is one of my absolute favorite movies. It has followed me all my life. It has also become a cult movie that has deep roots in popular culture, in the modern day. I have a little series called F***ing Splat Set, where we also use Gladiator as a reference. We have a little homage to Gladiator. My character works on the plantation, I'm in a rough time, and walk through the plantation's plants, and on the way through there I pull the hand through a sieve, a close-up

of the hand that is pulled through a sieve, and that is 100% from Gladiator. The film has followed me all my life, and I have seen it several times. It is the only one. And I thought maybe I should make a tour of it. How will it be? It seems very cool. I read a lot of early reports and I have seen different teasers and trailers and I think it looks very, very cool. Then you get Denzel Washington in there too, which I don't quite like. You can watch it on Cine from November 15th.

At least I should. Real war! What are you doing? What is it? We're being lifted here. Shut up! You're being fucked, right? Now you're reading what's written here clearly and with pleasure. Kids in Crime 2, now on TV2 Play. Yes, absolutely right! Andréas Unnerland says that my career is easier to be destroyed than yours. I totally agree with that. This is also a... If you really knock on this, it can be a 7 mile step. It's what it is to have a lot to lose, but also a lot to win. Because people are so tired of politicians who don't dare to just talk a little from the bottom. I think you are absolutely right, and that is perhaps the connection we have to the media, to be out there, to be quiet, to say everything we mean and such.

Because you said it with your heart in your throat, because you are afraid that if you say something wrong, that will be the news. That's it. And I think that when I went into youth politics, someone told me that if scandals are big enough, the way to become SVTOP is pretty short. Even if you are a local leader in the municipality, SVTOP will kick you out of the city. Do this. Knock have the problem. It's the press who are winking at sensational things. But I understand that. There are journalists sitting there listening. There are famous journalists who are waiting, and they talk about who the guest has got a child.

It feels like the only sound director, when it becomes a saga, never again. Andreas Schalg Uneland, a big-time representative for SV. That's right. In the financial committee, no, in the judicial committee. And it started, I mean, this, I was going to say, that you are a listener, that was wrong, but you had heard a podcast I had with Ole Wold, where we give a damn, 230 of that episode to politics. And it's like this with this podcast, that this is rarely solid, we throw a lot of crap, very, very, what are we, it was close to improv and very direct feelings around politics that we throw out there, and you picked that up and you thought, this is what I was thinking about, because I also asked explicitly about whether people could come in and teach me a little bit, come up with something, because I just come up

with incredibly big questions that I necessarily have no answer to, and then just wait to get some answers from heaven. But isn't it nice to have a channel where you can just talk and work in the microphone, and say like, is there anyone out there who can answer this, and they should come? And then I felt called. I said, dad, I have some answers to this, and I think I can sit there with many of these questions. And the politics is also there for us in it. It is a journey, and it's a continual change and development.

So I hope we will find out about this together. Yes, I hope so. And I think, as I said before, I feel a bit the same as I do when I go on the stand-up stage and test a lot of material. That is to say 15 minutes with things I have never done on a stage before. I can prepare myself, I can think it's fun, but there is already chaos, there are so many new thoughts at the same time. So at a certain point it doesn't help to make a move anymore, or you just have to... Okay, now we'll leave it at that, we'll go on, and we'll just see if it works. And it's the same with politics for me now. I have... I feel that I have made up quite a few thoughts about many different things, but it is very short, very much, in many areas. And I think many of them are a bit afraid, and that's why one is a bit afraid to talk about politics, because politics saves it for those who know it.

I think one thing we have historically been sitting on, just at the crown with a horn with a lot of effort, then it's these things. I think that as long as you dare to be a little humble, I don't know, and admit that I can't good at this. I'm very bad at it sometimes. I can be a lazy, lazy lady. But I think, what do you think if I assume that the podcast of different explanations on why the American election went the way it did. The podcasts, because both presidential candidates were very much out on podcasts. At least one of them. Yes, but Harry was on one, but then they are more like women-dominated podcasts. But when the election was such a solid victory for Trump, I think it really boils down to underlying real frustration around how much the American society has developed since. And then it gets an outflow, I don't think it will solve the problems. But I don't

know how much we'm happy and sad about giving a podcast for it. No, I agree a little. It was a very clear victory there, but I have to say that when I saw Trump, I have seen a lot of Trump rallies and I thought it was very fascinating. And then I felt it. When he was still being a podcaster, like Tia One's podcast, and Andrew Schultz, a comedian, which is more modern talk shows, where we stream as well,

I thought, here I play a completely different role. He's on rallies, and I say, plays a character for... I say Rednecks and Hillbillies, to say it so unambiguously. He plays for those who are standing with these Hillbill role again in the podcast studio. And I think that everyone who has picked up the left-sided, one-sided cover of who this man is, will sit and see a completely different person, and they will then think, we have been and that. You can stand and hear, you can just pick up, when Trump says, I'm a better looking person than Kamala. And he says his crazy things, you can't do the same in a threehour podcast where he plays a completely different role again.

I think that could have been a whiff of many voters who might have changed a bit in his presentation. This is the presentation of the opponent that both sides are working on. We are now in American politics, but I feel that it has come to the fore, and a bit of Norwegian politics as well. There are a lot of big words and accusations that take the reins. When it comes to everything, there is a lot of similar things. Now I'm trying to remember what you are thinking. There are many things to consider. I think what you are saying about media, and it is with retro, of course, if someone says a whole batch of crazy they are right to get attention. And then you sit in the commentator's studio and talk about that one sentence and what does it say about this person, and how is that person, and so on.

And then it's just that, but those who are perhaps a little more sympathetic towards that person, who see it in a completely different setting, who then become like, but this is another person, and then you may get a little bit of the weak confidence, to the press, that okay, but here is someone who blows up something to something else, and it is taken out of context. I think many people who are not part of the political bubble, will be like, okay, okay, it was maybe a little straight from the liver, or sat on the tip, but we understand what he means. We understand what the point is. And I think that, as you said, the fear that a part of us have when talking politics

is that there is perhaps a other on some kind of fact mistake or something, but what we should actually do is try to understand why we have the views or why we believe what we believe, rather than when we say that there is a difference of 17% or 19% of the population who are on some kind of mission or whatever it was. The point is that you are a little skeptical or deluded. Yes, absolutely. And maybe a little combined with that politics is very...

You have to sit down quite a lot and you have to spend quite a lot of time to understand that there are quite a lot of time to understand it. There are quite a lot of fans who understand it. It's quite often a bit complicated for people who do something completely different in their lives. People spend their time learning how to weld things and such. I weld better. I don't have time to learn. At the same time, we are all afraid to seem stupid. I think everyone is.

And that is the perfect reason to screw up, to start talking about politics. Because it is so easy to get caught up in something. So maybe we need to get better at actually going into political discussions and conversations without feeling that we are being taught. But nothing is worse than meeting people. And I can do that if I come up with an idea that was very smart and then I meet another guy who says, this is what we did in 2003,

haven't you read anything about this? Then it's like, okay, maybe we should discuss the substance of the proposal, rather than the one that I'm just going to show you that you have a big knowledge gap in this. And I think that's a fear and frustration that many people feel, that you actually discuss more around the topics than the topics themselves. One thing I'm a little interested in talking about is who becomes a politician. I know that a lot is talked about on the streets and around the pubs.

I don't know how much you have your fingers on the grass around the pulse, or if you are up in the crowd. Because then you say, who are all the politicians? Is it a fixed way to go? That you have this classic youth politics way into state science and see that it is like a factory closest? Not that I am one of the people who thinks that, but I feel that you don't get really known with politicians, you feel that there is a distance there. But I suspect that it is quite common for people to...

Now I know that you don't know everyone and don't know who everyone is. No, there are 169 people from different parts of the country with different backgrounds, and their age and education. I have also been in the local politics, and you don't find more ordinary people than I do. I come from Sotra, and it was the Fjell municipality at the time. And there was the football coach, the neighbor's wife, and all the people in the middle who were just burning for their local society. And it wasn't unusual that people changed parties on the way in a municipal period.

You change the point of view, and the party was perhaps not the most important, it was what you wanted and the engagement you had for the local community. And of course, the higher the level you reach, the more urgent it is. It's also a battle within the parties on who they are, who should be, who represents them.

And it has perhaps become more and more so that people go into youth politics and have experience from it. who represents them. And it has maybe become more and more like that, people go into youth politics, have experience from it, I myself have. And that's because you suddenly get a lot of engagement when you're young, and want to change the world. And you get sucked into it,

but most people who go into a youth party never become business politicians, they never either. They have a phase of life where they are activists, or want to learn more about the subject, or just be social and go to parties. Yes, exactly. But one thing I wonder a little about is arresting myself if I'm on earth. But I feel outside... Because I am one of those who feel I know something. feel that I have some thoughts about it.

It's possible that it doesn't quite fit. I have a little heads up. I go to my stomach and say that it's something with our fundamental political system and models that make it that we don't quite reach our potential and ask too few questions. Is it too few radicals that go into politics and say, okay, we can't go from simple things to simple things, we have to go with the basics. Do you understand what I mean by that? Not completely, but… Just to make it clear, when you are in periods that you do, which is a very good thing and very important thing, it also does something with what you are going to the election for, because you are going to get pay off in your period. It's a little too big of a rig. And that makes it that if we are going to have the big projects, like now it's a lot of talking about wind power,

which gets damn expensive, and if it comes to being what we hope it will be, new technology will come in the way for potential ideas. The projects that have a 100 years perspective, which I am a big fan of long-term thinking, and that you are far ahead, will they come along the way for that? Is that what we... To reach our full potential, we need to think about 50-100 reach full potential, 50-100 years in the future? And that is difficult, the political model we have now. Norwegian politics is driven by four- should have, how big vies for how much they want to change society, while at the same time not creating false expectations

of what is actually possible to achieve in those four years. I mean, and that's my criticism, I think the left and the Labour Party have gone too far in not wanting to sell something, in not daring to have ideas about the big cities for society. So many people are taking higher education in Norway. It's not because people suddenly became so smart. It's because the Labour Movement madewegelsen made the loaned net after the war. Our secure system makes people actually have a safety net in life. Instead of being hurt at work before, you were sitting at home in the back of a crack and became a weird guy. It's because we have gigantic social projects. You always have your you in the light, in the skin of your skin. Yes, and we have a mental health facility that is significantly better than before,

where we locked people in in crazy houses or said that Henrik is just a little weird, he is just built in the original. A lot has happened with society, because we have had big visions, now I think that has been taken down a lot, and I think that we can we've had big visions. Now I think that's been taken down. I think we can have bigger social projects. And that's what made me a bit political when I realized that I was a socialist and wanted to engage myself in socialist youth. Just sat on this feeling when I was 16 years old. And then I came across the number of people who say that one ten who get hungry every single day in the world. And we produce food for one and a half times the population of the world.

We haven't been able to solve the most fundamental challenge that is to ensure that people don't die of hunger in this world. Why is that? And Bill Clinton, who had a pretty economic-based view. The economy is just a system we have made for people to try to channel resources to the needs to solve social challenges. I think that today's economic system is not good enough for that. I would say that it is quite radical to think that we can do things in a different way. If it is what socialism or social democracy or the left-wing project of socialism or social democracy or the labor movement in Norway, it is exactly that. The resources are controlled there to solve needs. We think the Barnahage is cool, but we organize it in a community.

Yes, it becomes very clear, especially now that we have got such a force, and suddenly we are in such a huge price increase and the rent is high. All of this at once. And then you almost fear that it will never go back to normal. Where are we now? And now the class gap is even more obvious. Because those who really struggle to get the end of the meeting, they don't get into a rhythm that makes your money grow. They will become less and less valuable. But if you have a little bit of the surplus, you can start investing in stock exchange.

And that is what capitalism wants. It's the only hope to build values. And it's showing now. And that is total. That is actually a very good description of how the system works. The French star economist Thomas Piketty had seen how the growth of the stock market has been since the French Revolution and the future in the whole west. And it turned out that if you have money, it will always grow faster than the rest of the economy. The difference will increase, but less if you do some political action.

And his recommendation was that the state should do two things. They should have a budgetary tax and tax on land. And then the book comes out right before Erna Solberg won the election in 2013, where she lowered the budgetary tax and removed the tax on land, which I would say is to know that the difference has increased. And the difference in Norway has increased dramatically in the last few years. I know that there is a strong impact when it comes to these things. I don't know if the man will ask you to weigh it or be a counterweight in it, but we can talk a little.

I have asked to learn, and then people will come back to me if you think I completely disagree with that. I think there are some who completely disagree with why... Because the battle is around this form tax, that's the thing. And then you might rather have a company tax than a form tax, and there are some things there. Also, the question is, what is it that comes, what are the special start-ups for the good, then who is the best for a start-up, is it also blah blah blah blah. So, the tax system will always have positive and negative sides. Tax is in a way a necessary evil,

or I mean the basis for having that society we have, that we have to redistribute the resources in society, and we have to pay for all the expenses the welfare state of our society. We have to redistribute the resources in society. We have to pay for all the additional welfare state is facing. And I think the preliminary tax debate, just to say a little bit about the debate, illustrates who it is that has the power to decide what we are going to discuss in Norway. Because in a time when we are still divided,

record long queues outside the poor houses, pensioners get up at night to boil coffee, because they think the flow is bad, we mostly spend time discussing a tax that under 14% of Norway's population pays. And to a large extent, in one of the 14%, it is a per mille or a few percent on top that actually pays the majority of it. And I think all the honor to the rich in Norway who have been doing a pretty good campaign, they have clearly given enough millions to both the citizens in election victory and the action for Norwegian ownership that will drive the campaign against the foreign tax. And if we just look at the 10% richest in Norway, they have the same amount of money as the remaining 90% together.

They have a lot of resources. We have a kind of... It can be a bit like Bernie Sanders, who said that the top 1% is just a bit not so bad. If we look at the 1% richest, they have 25% of the income in the society. Of all the values that are created every single year, 75% of them go to the richest one, they have 25% of the income in the society. Of all the values that are created every year, 25% of that goes to the richest 1%. And if we look at the 400 richest in Norway, they have tripled their formula for 15 years.

So the formula tax breaks on a poor man, you can't overestimate that. But can we have both of these? Yes, thanks. Why can't we have both? Because,, thanks. Why can't we have both parts? Okay, so we just have to stop here. I understand. At the same time, you can say that all that is moving and flying around the country is some kind of unsolidary crumbling, that's the easiest thing to say to many.

A big word. Yes, not my word, it's someone else's word. Many say it. Many think that it's the easiest answer to it. But it happens, it happens to a large extent. There are many people who are out there now, because they disagree with the tax policy. And then we need, if we are to take care of the weakest, and also the most important, we need to create value. We need those people. And especially in tech, I understand that there are very difficult conditions due to tax policy.

Because tech companies can easily move and run from other places. So I understand that... You have to have both parts. Do we have to take money from the richest or does it work to have a healthier way to run? I think absolutely that you can always look from the perspective of a tax, from the perspective of what the outlook is. The outlook is able to transfer resources from those who have a lot to the rest of society. I would also like to say, and this is my view, that what is it that creates values in a society until 2017? It's not Petter Stordal alone who owns these hotels.

It's those who wash there and who are in the reception and who do the job. It's those who generate the value and then they are channelized to the top and a certain amount out of the salary. And then you have to see how the mechanisms develop over time. But the form of the tax company is that I understand that it can be a challenge, especially in a start-up situation. Because suddenly your company can be valued very high. You have to remember that the form tax is not taxed on the company. You tax the owner on what values they have. And then there is a complex system on how you value things.

Then you have to take into account the value tax, value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of the value of is worth a lot, you have to evaluate how you should get your money. You get money for the company to open up to investors all the time. And paying taxes is also part of the social contract. It's not something less important to do than to get capital for upscaling. That's what makes us have the means to drive, and that you don't have to pay health insurance. Because we have a health system, so we save a lot on this. Sorry, I'm in front of you. Yes, but that's fine. So it's a complicated debate, but what I find strange about this debate is that now it's being done internationally,

by looking at Norway. Because a lot of countries want the same, because there are a lot of countries wishing the same, because they have a problem with super-rich and special tech companies and tech giants paying very, very, very little taxes. At the same time as we have in a debate in Norway, where the right-wing thinks that we should remove this working capital, which is just just to say shares, which is ownership. And it is created gigantic paper money on the ownership of shares. I think we just put it out here. I think many people are falling off here. I think many

people find it difficult. I know for myself. I think it is difficult and completely... I agree. I have seen these short episodes from Wolfgang W, where people are sitting and talking about this, and then it is very easy to agree just because they are the end of the 7th you just have to ask yourself We have to pay for this? Is that what society is in the community? And how do we do that in the best possible way? But wouldn't your opponents, those who are too much in the past, say that we can still get money from... by making the state more effective, right? Or just to sling all the money that goes through NAVO and all that. And we know that there are challenges there as well, right? And I know that you are involved in a lot of social-economic talks, and I will hear about that later, but...

If there are too many who are private research to get something out of them. That's what they want to say. Okay, so why should we... That's why I try to ask the question, is it possible to get the money? Is it possible to... Isn't it a much bigger question? To make it effective and to get enough money so that everything will be good. It sounds like a huge question that doesn't just go to the one form of tax. That's completely agreeable. Can't you agree to take some? Yes, and I think no one would disagree that you can make parts of what the state does today, or the order, is better. That's what we actually discuss a lot at Stortinget.

How can we use the taxpayers' money in a better way? Because you should respect that. You should think about that all the time. It's other people's money that you share here in common. And that should be used very reasonably. And then you draw up the mental insurance system and your own reporting system. There are actually a lot of dilemmas in that, because I think you can never create a system where no one can use it.

And where there would never be anyone who uses it in a slightly cheap, sloppy way. But if it's like that, in a very, very demanding business life. The patient who has injuries in her knees can actually take a couple of days at home, which makes her stand longer in the room. I think it's worth it that that is cheap as hell to take a blue Monday home. And it's not like people are full of influencers, pressuring themselves to work and spread it out over the entire workplace. It's a bit of that sum of it, and that's not like people are full of influencers, pressuring themselves to work and spread it all over the workplace. It's a bit of a sum of it, and that's one of the difficult priorities.

How do we manage to say that a system never becomes perfect, and it's actually worth the extra trust you show to people, and then someone will use that trust, but I think most people think this is an important security net. I think I'm playing devilishly, and I'm following my own rules. I said at the beginning that I'm sitting and I'm getting to the point where I don't understand a thing. I think it's interesting to talk about it anyway, and we hope that people will sit there and just do their own thing. I think it's just to start talking about it even if we don't have a mirror. I think a big election is coming soon. I feel that it can be a bit...

I will try not to... I will have my own part. I will have both a little bit of politicians and a little bit of people inside, and talk about things that are relevant for the election we are going to have. And I will not try to put so much leadership in one way or another, but I will try to have as much knowledge as possible that I can make a qualified election. And I will admit that I have voted for the Swedish parliament. Of all the parties I have voted for, in different parties and municipalities. I think you might think the highest. I am very unsure now.

Now you are putting extra pressure on the media if you don't vote for the parliament. I am such a fan of this, that we are going to pay taxes, of course, a healthy society has to pay taxes, and we are very fan of welfare systems, very fan of that we are going to take care of everyone, that we can't have too big class differences, all those things, then you notice that despite the fact that we pay so much money for taxes, and it's not just the rich, everyone pays a lot of money for taxes and fees. We do, and I understand that it has to be done, but I think that for ordinary people, there are some logical flaws in paying so much tax and taxes. In addition, we pump so much money from the oil fund into the state budget, but every year we don't really pay attention to any sectors.

That there is something that is felt as fundamentally wrong. That's why I tried to get into this conversation about our political system and the foundation of this. Because that is also a small reason that the left side, that there is a high wind that blows not only in Norway, but all over the world, that there is something that lies there, that there is something more economic systems, that it does not stretch. We do not get the balance between welfare and economic growth. Yes, I would say that someone who might sound a bit strange after that critical question is that in Norway we have an artificially low tax level compared to the wealth we get back. Just because we use so much oil money, if you go to Denmark, they have a significantly higher tax level than what we have in Norway. Norway is far from the top tax in Europe. And already the wealth you get there, which you can be both satisfied with and dissatisfied with,

costs a little more than people think. And there are some parts of the welfare state that people luckily almost never see. Justice politicians, I remember very well, had a visit visit to the kindergarten here in Oslo. It's where you stop children who have been exposed to criminal acts. You give them medical checks and you stop people who have experienced terrible things. And she who worked there, she talked about how incredibly nice the locations they have and why it was so important. Because it was something like, when people have experienced such terrible things, they should feel that this is what the state is doing. This is what we really are doing.

And I hope in a way that people never get to see it, but to know that it is there, and it is in the health system. And that is what the people are safe. If you look at the state budget, that is what we spend the most money on. It is safe, it is health, and if you put some society in the line, it is like 70% of the state budget, what we spend the most money on is safety, health and if you add some social security, it's 70% of the state budget. And it hasn't taken more than the police and criminal services, the National Security Agency and everything else. The big, big things we spend money on in the state, that's the state. We had a small telephone call this weekend, I think, just to hear what you were up to, and had the same thoughts as you did about what the next podcast should be about.

And then you talked a little about something that I found interesting, and that I don't... that's information I don't have at all, and that I almost understand, is because of this. And that's a socio-economic question. I think you mentioned that. And it's a very interesting perspective, that you don't think too much about, about what it actually costs to have people in prison in our system. Can you have any numbers on that?

Because it's interesting. As a justice politician, what I have probably noticed after three years at Stortinget is that saying that we should increase the penalties must be the most expensive political approach you can throw out without actually getting any critical questions. Because there is an intuitive feeling of strict penalties, now we're going to take the criminals. And if you look at other countries that have very high penalties,

it doesn't work. It's actually the case we've had in Norway. And what I find interesting is that if you ask people on the street what they think the penalty level in Norway is, they think it's lower than it actually is. And if you give people cases on real judges and ask what you think is the real penalty in this case,

then people judge less than the Norwegian courts do. So one year in Norway's high-security prison costs 1.2 million. That means that if a person who has done a serious crime is sentenced to 10 years in prison, if we add that to 11, it costs 1.2 million more. And then the question arises, should we use that 1.2 million for more pre-building, for better rehabilitation while in the zone, for the uprising of the victims of that crime? And these things often disappear in that punishment debate. It is so easy to talk about increased punishment, and if you take low security, it costs about 900,000 a year. If you take electronic zoning, home zoning, it costs 300,'s 300 000 years and the results are much better.

It's much better to zone on the electronic control, where you can be at work and contribute to society, and be under a strict control regime. These are all the dilemmas that are going to be in a punishment debate that often doesn't come out. And there is a boring answer that no one really hears. Okay, we pay so much tax because it is so expensive to run a country. You should be happy that you pay so little. Are you aware of how much it costs? And that is what makes the situation a little disappointing disappointing, because it feels like we have lost.

It is just that we have come to the conclusion that driving a modern country, we do not have the means to do that. Even the world's richest country, the Ufb, has no means to drive a welfare society like we do. It is too expensive, we have, it doesn't go up. No, I think in a way it's good that people don't think about what the welfare state costs. It's a good privilege. I remember I was a bit shocked when I sat in the municipal board and got to know that one year in elementary school costs 140,000 per student for one year. And if you have been in school for 13 years, the community has paid 1.82 million only for your education.

And the SSB has calculated what it costs to raise a person from 0 to 24 years. And it costs somewhere between 6 and 7 million per person. And that's before they start paying taxes. And then you can think like this, this is very expensive, but we have chosen to share the costs in common, against other countries, you have to pay for all these health expenses yourself. Or you have more private schools. Or you have to pay for having a child care center all the time.

So you know, this is many of the things we have decided we should for this in common. And I think many people think that they don't have to pay for the bill. But that's what you actually pay when you pay taxes every month. So, back to what I was saying. The balance between having a welfare society, which we are very privileged to have, where we should try to keep everyone, and then I also understand that we don't claim that, and those who sit in the blackboard, those who don't think things are so good, those voices are also heard very clearly, they come very clearly out,

and therefore we may get an impression that things don't go well in the whole platform. But there's no doubt that when there are long queues at the poor houses and in the food queue and all that, then it doesn't really depend on all these news stories that we are the best of all, like the happiest in the world, the richest in the world. It's just... It's hard to understand. And it's hard not to ask questions about the fundamental principles. Are we satisfied with how we run this country? Or is there... There is an incredible amount of potential for improvement, isn't there? Absolutely. And one thing we haven't been able to do, and one thing I don't think any politician would like to go to election, is this with preparation.

We don't really have the ability to do anything, but we still use an insane amount of money for preparation, because we must have it. But isn't that very difficult to go choices on? And something we need? Absolutely. I've played with the idea that someone should make a party that only deals with the goods and services that we already have. If you look at how much investment is needed in water and waste, and infrastructure and such things, it's hundreds and thousands of billions that really have to be invested in the coming years and ten years, because it's going up in the glue.

There's something about us, it requires a lot, and it's just to preserve what we already have. And people don't think about it, how much it costs to put water in the spring, and how the telephone system should work, and all these things. But people get really pissed off, and that's right, when it doesn't work. It's a shit-trick. And I think there are many things on the left side that can get better, and point out, when we think the state uses money wrong. Because I think the right side is better

than us, you see the slaughterhouse, the slaughterice industry, and all those people who are examples of the stupid money spending in the state. And I can often sit there and agree with that. I had an exhibition this summer where I suggested a stop for employees in the state. And that's not because I don't think we should have any employees in the state. It can be important. Those who make many of these maintenance campaigns, those who ensure that you get information out when there is a pandemic or a crisis situation,

ensure that correct information comes out to people. But when Banenor has 44 people who work with communication, and the police has over 70 people who work with communication, I don't think anyone should ask the question, should the police be on TikTok? Should the Northland child run an Instagram channel? Or can we use these money in a better way? So I think that it shouldn't be that the left side,

everything the state or the state does, that's going to be up in the air, and then the right side should be the ones who only point out the negative priority. And then on the right side, there will be those who only point out the negative. I think we on the left side will say, yes, it's a complete mess when the government quarter goes so many billions over. It's a terrible project management. It's very provocative that all these state buildings and state projects, they just waste the money without having a strict control.

It's a huge problem. It's money that could have gone to several patients, several teachers, other things. So I think we can be a little better on the side to people. It provokes us on the left side. And there is also welfare support that I do not want. I am against the financial support, because I also mean the Barnehage system,

which we as a community should pay for. So there are many of the nuances that have not always come out in the public debate, where there is a bit of a gap between the right and left, and I think that is very dangerous. The left defends a lot of stupid money in the state. Yes, yes. But if you think that the oil age is as good as finished, at least very on the way out, there will be an older wave, which means that we have not seen the proximity of... We will have to spend a lot of money there. The world situation is very difficult, we should increase the defense budget a lot.

There are all the things you hear about. But what do you think about where we are when it comes to the tomorrow industry? Where should our money come from? Because right now we have an incredibly rough budget, which, you know, he is one of the Swedish commentators who comments all the time, he just, what is happening? Sweden is, we don't have that old fund, so they can pump in with it, but they feel like, or at least what he says, and many others say that they are driving the country in a more effective, sustainable way. But is it too late for us to do that? Because if we are to slow down the budget, people will become even poorer and suffer even more in the ranks. Are we lost? Are we new mountain apes that have just made us fall into a luxury that we can't get out of?

No, I have the belief that we will be able to do well in this country after oil. But I think we have to do something based on the fact that we did relatively well before we found oil. We were actually after the countries with the highest living standards in the world before we found the oil. Both because of the water power that we decided to own in the common, use as a strategic resource, use electricity to build up industry across the whole country, create great values there too, have the consumer energy, have gone a storm in the last few years. It's not really lacking in money in Norway, but it's lacking in how we use it in the right way. Now it's being pumped from the bottom, the money into the oil. And it's actually the money we should use to invest in other industries built up.

And the problem with using so many, three billion a year to invest in more oil exploration, more supplier industry. We are a country with 5.5 million inhabitants. Those people are there, they are being sucked away from making seaweeds or investing in other industries. We could have used more resources to build up the solar cell industry in Norway before it went down. We can use more on the industry that requires power, because we have relatively cheap power compared to a lot of other countries. But it requires that we are able to channelize the resources in the right way. And then we have to be able to redistribute it again. But then I think that we have too ineffective public sector or too large public sector,

and that it becomes a kind of silly debate that doesn't really say much about what the public sector is. Because you can very easily make the public sector a tiny bit by privatizing a lot of things. If a public kindergarten becomes private, then you have a smaller public sector. But the tasks that actually solve themselves are the same. If we have more private schools like they have in Sweden, then we get a smaller public sector. So that's the difference. What you should ask yourself is what tasks we want to solve and how we best organize them.

And what it turns out is that, in contrast to what you can get some impressions of, the public sector is quite cheap in the business. It's much cheaper to organize health care in the way we do in Norway than, for example, in the US. They use significantly more money on health care than we do. Can it be done to make more privatization of kindergartens, but with clear demands that we are forced to... It can not be rich man's kindergartens. You have to be able to have a cross-section of children and in a way which families they come from. Do you understand? Because that is the most important task. You tried it with the kindergarten, compared to when you entered kindergarten,

the idea was that you would borrow from these family-driven kindergartens and some private ones. What you saw during the 20 years was that these small, friendly private and ideal actors were bought up by these companies that built themselves up. And some of the Swiss fathers you mentioned in the studio, people who have built themselves up billions in the formula on private kindergartens in Norway.

And then it's like, I think, what is most effective? Every penny we give to welfare should go to the superiors, not that someone should build up a formula. And many of those who have built up formulas have actually done it, because they got some hidden subsidies from the state with cheap taxes, cheap loans, all those things to build up their formula.

And then they choose to say goodbye, thanks for that, now I will enjoy my happy days in Switzerland. And then you can ask yourself why everyone goes to Switzerland and not all other countries. It's because it's damn lucrative to go there. And then it's important to remember from a Norwegian perspective that it's not a special Norwegian phenomenon, that rich people go to Switzerland. They have this problems in many European countries. Yes, and that's what I feel, and I'm sure many others feel, that it feels completely unreasonable that we should be dependent on our common resources and then leave and live our happy days in Switzerland.

So, but what the hell, what should we do? That's the big question. It's not that we go out with high heels and axes and scream and just close the borders. If they try to dare to go back to a small start-up in the cabin here in Norway, we are ready to kick them out again. People have to worry. Not much has been done at the level of people. There are many different solutions.

One thing is to be a little cold-headed, and maybe not to make a bigger problem than it is. Because even with those who have moved to Switzerland, it's going very well in Norway. It's record high investments, it's going like a storm on Oslo and Børs. It's not like all the rich people move. And even if Rø people move to Switzerland.

Even if the smoke has moved to Switzerland, all the values are created here. The factories are here, the boats are here. It's not like they can take you to Switzerland. A lot is possible. And then you can play with ideas like other countries. The USA does, which is quite fiffy with that. That is to say that as long as you are a citizen of a country, you should overshadow the USA no matter where you are in the world.

But then of course the American military is protecting you no matter where you live in the world. But many countries do things like that. Because it is provocative when they go to Switzerland and they come here on May 17th and stand on the edge waving the Norwegian flag and pretend they are so nice and they will run away from a tax bill. What you should remember is that the reason why many of them are coming is not the tax. The reason why many of them are coming is that they have been allowed to hold back. Now you are very technical again. In a company you can actually get a tax cut. You don't need to realize the tax you have built up.

But before, if you lived abroad for five years, it was zeroed out. And then you can move back. The smoke has billions in unpaid taxes. What is provocative is that all other active companies in Norway have to pay taxes on a personal basis. They pay taxes on personal accounts. They don't have any sort of order in which they can spend their tax revenue. And people don't want to keep their tax money and buy a cabin or build themselves up or something.

I think people should be much more provocative about... We have a tax system that allows them to plan their taxes in every detail, and we do a lot to ensure that they have good luck in the order, and try to encourage them to invest a little here, or make sure that the money goes there, and maybe they'll be so kind and not leave. But the regular people, they are very strict about the tax they have to be very strict with the taxes they will pay. That's probably what you're trying to do. But what I think should be the goal with taxing in this way is that you encourage the rich to reinvest, to create larger common values and more jobs. That is what you want, not to sit around and make family dinners.

So you make some effort to make it more, instead of being more gold- more gold than fag. If you look at international reports, where you analyze countries, which countries are good at running business in, which countries are good at investing in, Norway always comes out super good. They come right at the top there as well. I think people are actually going through the cheap rhetoric, the narrative, the right-wing or the Norwegian wealthiest trying to make. Because we can look at our history, the last 200 years. It's not like the rich have ever been a fan of paying taxes. It's like they've never been on a train, saying that they might pay more to solve these common problems. It's not something that's been used, on the right side, thinking that if we lower the taxes a bit, we can invest more. Maybe you stand there with your eyes closed and ask very nicely if we can't do something for the rich? And this was tried by Reagan and Thatcher with what they called the trickle-down economy.

And the result is that... What is it that is so short? The idea is that if people at the top, or rich people, can keep a little more of their money, they will invest more and make sure that the whole society will benefit from it. It's like the idea of a rising tide lifts all boat. A very nice writing board theory, doesn't sound too obvious, but the reality is that it doesn't work. I think that the rich would have paid their taxes more happily

if we started making statues again. Because all the biggest guys got statues. And we just put your contribution, Mr. Eide, to the Norwegian community. You will get three or four statues. And places like E to the owner. The owner was one of the owners of the houses and the foundations, right? And that we should just say that it's a bit of a status here. There are some bitter socialists coming up to me, like those at the factory, those on the floor creating the values,

and someone sits at the top and we have to book and nick. But we on the floor know that we are just doing it to please them. We are actually doing it like they were children. We know that the factory boy gets a statue. And that's just because he is childish. We just give him that and take his money. Yes, but maybe. I'll put it in the supply box. You know, Andreas, it's a humopodcast. This is a must to throw some funny stuff. Yes, I think it's funny. It's a humopodcast, you know. This is necessary to throw some funny stuff. Yes, I think it's funny.

Yes, of course. And it's a kind of point there as well, that I again would not want to work in practice. It's rather the opposite, that you have to tear down everything that is. But that's maybe because there are many who have had a bit of a rough attitude through it. No, but I think, and again, as I said, the form of the tax illustrates what kind of debates we take in society. The same thing can be said about the arve tax. Norway is one of the few countries that has removed it. If you look at the 100 richest in Norway, two thirds of the arve has been to their foreign currency. I think the arving of Andreas, who was one of the richest people in the world in the last 30 years,

asked on Instagram what he had done to become so because you happen to be born into a family. And so it's a bit of a provocation against the bus driver, the bus driver, even the insurance company that has to pay taxes for every single crown they earn. But you can inherit hundreds of millions and billions without the one single penny that you earn from the bus driver. The insurance company that pays taxes for every single crown they earn. But you can inherit hundreds of millions and billions without the single crown going back to the community. So I think there is room to change things and prevent the dynasties that are growing in Norway now? If we had sat down and everyone could really get a vote and had the courage to vote for this, then the big majority in Norway would have said, of course, it is unfair. But when you have money, you also have a huge power to influence.

Therefore, the small majority, which are actually the rich, it's always whistling. It seems like... what do you think the right side is doing to do the rich things in a large extent, than that they get money support and choose from that side. What is the big, what is the thought, the over-ordinated thought about it? I don't think that people on the right side, I don't either, right-wing politicians are evil people who sit in the back room and conspire, like, haha, we're going to trick a lot of people. I think they genuinely believe that this is the right development and that it will be the best for Norway. And I would also say that I understand that there are a lot of things that the right side has done that may have been a bit necessary. Maybe it wasn't even that stupid to put up a telemonopoly, or that the store would have opened on Saturday,

or something like that. Obviously, the left side is becoming conservative as well. And a bit self-righteous, thinking that we have found a good solution to do things, and we are going to do something in a different way. So it's getting some rifts up in that system, I think, is to have its role. I have to say that you have the Labour Party and the Centre Party,

which are the centre now, and not the left side. And I see the Labour Party and the Centre Party as super conservative. And I think a lot of other young people or relatively young people think that. And then you have more a bit more harsh liberals and a bit of young people think. And then there are more harsh liberals and less people on the left side. But the right side now has to go ahead in the

Russian debate and different liberal questions. And I thought that was really cool when the right wing government came up with proposals for the Russian reform, and still are, they are angry about the fact that the Labour Party destroyed the historical moment there. And what I thought was cool with Bernd Høie, who was Minister of Health, was that he personally changed his point of view in meeting with facts in the Russian debate. Yes, I completely agree. It's really fantastic, very admirable. And I also followed his change from ringside, so it was really cool.

I think it was... Too cheap? It's like death sweat. And it really shows that you have a genuine commitment as a people's vote and as a politician. The most important thing is to solve a social challenge here. And how do you do it without... Norway is a very conservative country. We have the moralism well-printed and it is underlying in the whole ruse debate in Norway.

Paradoxically enough, we are trying to fill buses with our children to r then we will smoke a lot of shit out of ourselves. We only think about alcohol, but it is possible to do other things. But alcohol, filling buses with young people and giving them free access to alcohol, that is always fine. There are some strange things in the smoking debate with alcohol, which is perhaps one of the more harmful drugs, you have that relationship and that politics around it. And I think it's good that we have restrictive alcohol politics in Norway, even though I have also taken the word for some changes there. I would have cheaper beer at pubs, for example,

or a little more expensive in stores, like they have in England, to stimulate more jobs, and that you drink in controlled forms, and can contribute to cultural life and that kind of thing. That's smart. Yes, thanks. I agree. I think it's cool. It even says ESP in its program. It's much better to take a beer out and see a nice culture than to sit on each of your socks. Like a wall in a sock cellar. When you can even go on a stand-up show.

Isn't that right? I like that. And I think I try to change my politics when it comes to legalization, for example. Because I mean that the Russian reform, the death penalty, is about decriminalizing and helping those who use Russian. And that punishment is a pretty bad way to meet people who use Russian. But it just solves half the problems. If you're going to lower the tax burden on criminal environments, and today marijuana and cannabis are the biggest tax burden when it comes to illegal drugs,

if you legalize it, and now a lot is happening in the US, in Canada, in Germany and a number of other countries, I think there is a lot to be gained. And it's not like it's unproblematic to legalize it, it will also have some negative effects, than a number of other countries, I think there is a lot to be done. And it's not like it's unproblematic to legalize. There will also be some negative effects, but I'm not sure that the positive is bigger than the negative. And the reports that have come from states and such that have been legalized, it's in a too short-term perspective, because of course there will be an increase in use in the short term, but in the long term it would be balanced out.

And I've heard some counter-criticism. Yes, but one of the things, for example, we were with the justice committee in Canada. We travel a lot to learn how other countries do it, and then you get into legalization. And it's meeting the health authorities in Canada, who say that if we manage to get people to smoke more than drink so much, it's a win for people's health. Yes, but it's quite open to the right, because... And there are like three bureaucrats saying this to the politicians. What's the problem with the AP and the Center Party, Because... And there are three bureaucrats who are saying this to the big politics.

The problem with the AP and the Center Party, especially the two of them, and I know it well, if you think only about the VDU and the bigger ones, they can't see for themselves that it can be something very healthy to smoke hash, but we have to recognize that people want to rush. They don't come from nowhere. We have to… if the bus driver or whoever wants to come home from work and escape a escape into a different reality. That's how it has always been and it always will be. And you can see that smoking weed is just a small wave we are in now. It's not a little windy. People have found this smoke, they dig it. They think that some people use it as a mixture, and they hammer it down and drink it like a pig, and then they smoke it again. Of course, it's even worse than just doing one part. But most people use it as a substitute for alcohol. They use it as their drugs. But I think it was cool, in Canada,

as the health authorities pointed out, that since they legalized it, a larger part of the population also felt the negative effects. And I think, when you have legalized it, you can have a little earlier a drug debate instead of having that strict policeman who comes in

to a school and says, if you smoke hash, you become a drug addict. You can also say, If you smoke hash early in life, it's bad for your brain development. It's more harmful. If you decide to do it, you better wait until later, when you are a little more developed, and give people some bad information about what drugs are,

and what they do to people. And we see that when it comes to alcohol. Especially, it is even more liberal out in the country than in the big cities. Because it is not allowed, but often you get permission to drink when you are 16 years old at the community centre. There is a little different kind of culture on it. But just the fact that alcohol is such an important part of our culture, and it's as legal as it is, then we have a different conversation around it. It's very common to have that conversation, and that...

Just be honest, you can either get a couple of beers from home, and just know, and just have it open around. There are much more of that kind of conversation around alcohol, and I think that you would have been able to do that if you had opened up for a legalization and regulated the sale of marijuana. And you would have also gotten rid of a lot of synthetic weed, and the worst variants that people hear go straight into the psychosis. I've tried it myself. The weed is the new crack, as I used to say. It's like taking one joint and sitting with a glass bang and not cracking.

It's completely crazy. If we had gotten a regular sale, sales, we would have gotten a young person in and said I want to try this, but I'm not used to it. Then you should have the very mild stuff here. Here you go. It would have been a much healthier way to do it. When I already dominate so much of the Russian... There are a lot of people who smoke. Yes, and what you are saying is one of the effects of legalization. The cannabis you buy in Norway is on average much stronger than the one in Canada. Legalization is just that we regulate this through the state and the community. Today it is regulated by criminal gangs, and the money goes there.

I think that the billions that go in there would have been much better in the state treasury, so it could have gone to the pre-building campaigns, honest information, health care. It would have created a better society, yes would have some negative effects, but it has, more than I know, big negative effects. So it was a Swedish policeman who said, if we want to do something with the youth crime First of all, adults should not buy cocaine, but also weed. Buy as much as possible, because that is what these criminal organizations are mainly doing, which are hanging children over a shoe. We know that it is difficult to legalize cocaine, of course. I don't know what the hell to do with that.

It's a significantly worse drug than marijuana. But I don't know. I don't know why you don't want it. It's like the signal effect. But shouldn't you at some point just realize that this has been done for so long, and then we see on statistics that it doesn't work at all? Yes. People use as much and it just gets more and more. Yes, I do believe that when you have walked a blind trail, and you have had all these war on drugs that have not worked at all,

you should at some point think that maybe we should try something else. And now a lot of countries around the world are making big changes on this. I think the first thing we should do in Norway is to say, okay, let's see how they do this in other countries. Because they regulate it very differently, and they do it in Canada too, in different states. I think it was absurd to be in Toronto with an oil monopoly, but you could buy hash from small stores on almost every street corner. I thought that was a bit silly, while Quebec, for example, which has a more similar Norwegian system, which I think would have been that you had it on a wine monopole. I think that would have been a good way to do it,

because then you could have controlled all their boundaries. The wine monopole? Yes. It's not anything more original than that. That's great. Of course, it should be a little bit, it shouldn't be so, it should be the fondness of weed monopoly. It's fast when marijuana leaves are integrated into your writing. I think someone has made a campaign in Norway, because I think I've got a hint of whether it's... I don't know. It goes slowly, but not in one direction. I think... At least all the people I talk to, who are young, have... I don't talk to everyone in Norway, but I feel that there is a wind blowing against more liberal views around that. But again, I am surrounded by an environment where you are quite terribly liberal. It applies, there are many who have not had anything to do with

it and who want to have completely different opinions about it, of course. It is difficult to say. But it feels like it is a kind of… that the young see more in this liberal direction. Not because you smoke yourself, but because you understand that it's a smart way to get rid of some of the crime. I think so too. And again, the Norwegian debate is a bit absurd here. We have just had a election in the US, where Harris is a pretty strutting, actually. But she is now campaigning for national legalization in the whole US. It would not have been impossible for Jonas Gastrøre to say the same thing. But then it is the Norwegian political reality, where the conservative is very much in.

And I think this will come to the whole of Europe. But I think that Norway will be one of the last countries to liberalize. I think so. I will work for something else. I work internally to make sure we know about it in our program. And then the fight will be. I'm sorry, I'm just looking at the notes here. The good program manager will not manage to get far. I managed to get far, but I hate to be in talk shows and such. You always lose contact with the program manager, because the program manager goes down every next question while the guest talks.

But now I have to, now I just take it straight away, say that. We have been in on, yes, shall we take the very end of this, when we are in on this, in a way, why the left side has lost some of the connections, especially among young men in the Veldgræ. Do you think that... You have to go into this with... Even though it's not so relevant in Norway, we get a lot from the US and so on. And there are a lot of young people look up to Joe Rogan and all sorts of things, who have painted pictures of... and it's mostly true in the US, this anti-woke identity politics thing that has gone too far. How much do you think it has to do with that?

I think it has something to do with that. And I think that woke debates and such things, often takes a very, very sharp phenomenon, and then blows it up, which is a big cultural problem. And then it's actually something people relate to in a very small way. But it's easy to get emotionally shocked by it. Trump did the same thing in his campaign. I was in the US to visit the UN. I was at a pub, and then came these TV ads, and then came a lot of Trump ads, which were about

the transition for prisoners, which must be the world's lowest problem. But you manage to cheer up a large part of the population, because it is clearly an identity crisis around it. You use both... To put that thing around that Kamala Harris would take illegal immigrants and give them gender rights. And also that thought that California and New News have introduced that you shouldn't show leg. You can't show leg in the voting booth. And then you think that it will all fall into illegal immigrants who just... You don't speak English at all and just say, I'm going to vote.

I'm going to vote for the one who has been paid to vote. It's like that, and I'm not saying that I've put myself in my shoes, but, but I think you have to register in advance. But it's just that you shouldn't show a secret election aspect. You have to flash the light, because there's something there. But I'm just blown up that now Kamala Harris is going to fall into some legal immigration in the voting booths, and that after they have voted, they will change their gender. That's how I feel it was turned around. Many of these things are absurd, but I still think that you can see it very clearly in the speeches,

and it's a development that has actually taken quite a long time. That fewer and fewer men vote on the left side, and more and more women do. You get a greater change of understanding in the political distribution in society. And that's not good. Because it was the opposite before. There were a majority of men voting on the left side, and women on the right side. But that has clearly changed the situation. There are many explanations why it has become like this. I think something is like a culture war, if you want to call it that.

I think it's about talking about the left side enough, in a way. The economic challenges are a lot man-dominated, it is a lot of work, it is a lot of work. Quotation, both ways, is a big thing. Yes, and I think... That the only one direction is being quoted. Yes, but that is not being done. No, I see what you are talking about. And I think that you take back a lot of things without necessarily being right.

And equality policy has, and the feminist movement, which is also thinking like this, we should be damn happy about this fight, the women's movement has fought, oh my god, think how our society would have looked if it wasn't worth it. And then a lot of people say, oh yes, but can we like the politician? But then I think, who has fought him in the past? Who didn't fight for the dad's permit and such things? It was the left wing and the women's movement and such. It's getting faster and faster after that thing.

But I agree, in order to get to this WoW thing, we have fought very important fights. And then to a certain extent I agree that sometimes it has gone too far. But it has been a period where you felt that they were not allowed to say anything. But it has gone back a little. It has normalized itself. But I think, I have heard different people talk about it. Like you as a comedian, you are back to normal now, but in the workplace around you, I have heard many talk about it. There is a kind of woke culture in the highest degree, in many different workplaces around you. I have heard...

What do people mean when they say that? Like before Mii 2 it was allowed? Yes, a little too much. I thought it was just piss, but there is a lot of focus on... Sopas made a lot of big suggestions when it comes to Mii 2 and stuff. and this with not defining gender so much, it's like unisex toilets and... They have talked lately about this, which was on every workplace, and said that it was a lot of stuff. Do they have to have it on one? They don't take it out of the air, right? No, and of course you have to take it seriously if people feel that we have to be too polite with each other. And again, I don't feel it myself, because I live a pretty free... I'm a stand-up comedian. I don't notice much of a sense of responsibility. I just live my own life and write some jokes and stuff, but...

But as for me, as a man in SV, I'm a feminist bastard and bastards should be a woke wimp. I have never felt these things. Rather, it is so high, so high. So I think maybe it is that people hold back more from what they have made. There is a caricature that there is someone out there who is ready to arrest you and cancel you. And then you see the effect. It's not like people get cancelled. It's not like people lose these platforms to a very large extent. When we talk about freedom of expression, I, as the mayor, and a little concerned about

what we're actually talking about when we talk about freedom of speech? The state should punish people. Because what they express themselves in, we don't do that in Norway. It should be very, very bold and there should be a concrete risk for the danger when you start doing some shit. That is very high. But that people experience that the climate of speech around them is different from what they would like it to be. And there I think people should take some responsibility now that I'm starting to sound like a higher man, but it's a bit like,

yes, but the fact that other people use their freedom of speech to say what's in your speech, that's what's in the public debate. So you have to tolerate criticism, and then other people have to tolerate you saying things that are cheap. That's how society is. We have grown people who have to tolerate a little bit, and then you have to tolerate and get criticism.

Because it seems like some of those who have woken up too far, think it's very uncomfortable to get criticism yourself. We think that everyone else should be shocked. And that's where it becomes like, there's no one who is so snowflake, if you're going to use that expression, like those who are like, in the past, anti-woke.

No, to the end, anti-woke? No, do you understand me? I am a wrong person to take this, because I don't notice much about it. I also feel that this is from my point of view, that there is more political attention to straight up gender and identity political questions, there is more permission to do, than from the right side. Do you agree or disagree? I agree, and I think it's connected to that, and that's what the whole women's movement in the 60's and 70's was saying, that the private is political. If you look at it as a justice policy, you are very concerned with the violent relations. A terrible big problem is rape, for example. One in five women experiences it in their lifetime, half of them before they are 18. There are so many big structural problems. It is connected with the limit, sexuality, structural problems of society. It's connected with the set of boundaries,

sexuality, all those things, which can have extremely serious consequences. And then it's connected with how our society is built up, and what structures we have. You can almost remember from my childhood, that if you beat up the girls, We can almost remember from my own childhood and my childhood. You beat up the girls, and the kindergarten teacher said, it's just because he doesn't like you.

Why don't you tell the kids? And now I really hope that it's been 30 years since things have gotten better. But weren't we able to solve a lot of these things without doing it politically? Really? Shouldn't you just find yourself in the situation where you have to take your time to help? You have to take your time to help, but I don't think you should think that things will come by themselves. And that's where the whole Me Too campaign was. It was that you were in the system.

Oh my God, 50% of the population, that is, women, have experienced this at the workplace. And they're not just one, they're not just two, they're not a hundred, they're thousands. And everyone recognized themselves in each other's description. It was a huge movement with an enormous effect. And then I thought a little, without having made myself clear about it, that we had gone from an organic solution to this, where we took a real step and then could continue to be solved in an organic way. We didn't get it solved overnight, but we were in the right direction.

And then you have seen all over the world that it went from being such an unpolitical thing, more or less, to becoming very much political. And that is perhaps a bit dangerous, because then you can suddenly go in and do all such political and inter-human stuff. Political, that is a bit dangerous. And I could suddenly go in and do all kinds of political and interpersonal stuff. That is a bit dangerous. And I think many have reacted to that as well. I saw... As I said, I'm not taking any total stand here. I just wanted to ask a question.

And I saw a meme in connection with the American election again, which I think was a bit like, a bit on the tip, but a bit nice anyway, because you had two identical bombers that were shooting bombs underneath each other, which was divided into two. The upper bomber plane, there it says Democrats, and then it said Republicans, there was no fixed vaccine with that, it was just a regular bomber plane that bombed shit out of different places in the world. And the lowest was Democrats, so it was the same bomber plane that shot bombs, but it was an Antifa rainbow flag and such identity-political markers. And of course it was on the tip, but isn't there anything lot of... I think that's the thing with many young men choosing to go to the right side. They are very influenced by American podcasts and opinion bearers.

But that's what young men feel and think. Then the challenge on the left side is the right side? Yes, and I think that's a point. But I don't think the standpoints on the left side are necessarily wrong. I think it's more of that. And that also makes people notice, what do you spend your time talking about? What problems are you talking about in society? And I think that's right. I think we should be proud of the left side that we lead a been leading the Annis in sex-free-doing and in the women's movement,

and all the things people have given away today. But you should remember that, if you went back to 2004, there was no law for sex and marriage in Norway. I mean, it's been seven years now, and I'm damn proud that we've been able to change that, and really moved the whole landscape, just with politics. But then there is the big group of the population that feels that we are not talking about their problems. And then the left has to go and think about what strategy we have. And that is something we discuss, because it is a part of the internal. For example, when the Civil War or the FRP throws out what they call culture wars on things that are not problems.

The FRP, for example, will have a mining ban in Norway or a ban on banns. Not banns in Norway. And then the question arises, should we as the left side jump on it and give them a house up, that is a political debate? Or should we say that we should attack the FAP because they want to give tax to the richest people in Norway

and cut the welfare state to those who need it most. Instead of firing up during a cultural war. Yes, I totally agree, and that's what it will be soon. If we always have to take each other's anger on that. Because that will be in a way, what becomes the gender neutral word of the FRP. Even though there is nothing they are sitting on at their general meeting. At their country meetings.

That is something that comes as a small group that one politician takes up, and then there are many who say, it's not so stupid, it's not a fundamental FRP policy, it's just election stuff, right? That's on both sides, right? No banners up here, and nothing like that. It's not a small group, But it gets a lot of focus. If you take the American election as an example, I think... Someone said... I've seen it, if it was an African American who said about Harry that It's cool with Beyoncé, but Beyoncé doesn't pay my bills.

It's cool with celebrities talking about important topics, but when you struggle to pay for electricity bills, and you've had a real-estate decline for several decades, and it doesn't work out, and then there's still someone from the Democrats who says that it's actually going well with the economy. So we're like, who is it for? A culture snob after a culture snob, and having such a... ...in-experienced advertising campaigns, that doesn't help at all. No, so I think we have to talk a lot more about the problems people have, and economic problems, everyone has different backgrounds and social class, so I think we meet very broadly,

and that's what has always been, from the left side of the political project, to redistribute the resources we create in society back to society. Yes, I think it's a very good strategy, of course, not to jump into discussions about the bond call and be allowed to do so. But if you just manage to... And that was what Harris was actually good at. But what she failed at at the same time was that she was very clear about her strategy. She followed the plan to the point of no return. But she struggled to explain what the politics really was in detail. So it was very like that. And you didn't know who she was. Because she came from... And the point was that she couldn't make any of the changes when you said it. Trump said it pretty well. And it was very simple.

Get up! Go up to your friend and do something with it now. It was very simple. I think that's what you need, that very clear politics. Yes, and now it's the year after the election in Norway, and I hope we can have a better political debate about what big social challenges we are facing. We have talked a lot about the state and the economy, but the climate is almost not on the agenda anymore, even though it's going to hell in the first class. The average temperature on Svalbard has increased by more than 5 degrees, if there is a natural disaster above all. And there is hardly any political discussion around that, and I think that's one thing you need to raise up in the agenda, because otherwise we have the opportunity to not solve this problem,

but to minimize the damage of this problem. And that's why the Labour Party has burned down a lot, because they're looking for what it is right to say here, instead of just being true to it, just talking about something you feel is important, but there is a lot of talk about such things, you take like points of view to map where the voters are in a way, so you get very confused, very vague in everything you say. Before, it wasn't like that. Then you went for hard politics, post-war times and far beyond that. So I felt it was more like you had a very clear political direction. And then it is said that the left has played its role a bit.

I've talked about it. It's maybe... I don't know, what do you think about it? That you've played your role, that it's not that easy anymore, because we're so used to the benefits we've received, that it's a bit difficult to play it politically. The state has taken nearly 100 years to build, but you can tear it down in a few years. It's a bit easy to think that nowadays many people have it very well, and have many opportunities to buy private services if they need it or have the opportunity to, a large material

use. And then the state is built slowly down without actually taking it into account. And then the state is built slowly, without actually taking it into itself. And then the father sits there in a situation with such a hospital queue is long, best mother gets no room at home, and we can not solve the challenges. And then it's a little too late, And then it takes a long time to rebuild. And that's where I'm...

But I also think it's a boring political project to go to election. We're just going to preserve what's in it today and do it so that it's OK. I think we have to show people that the welfare state is not ready to rebuild. And there are many things we can do much better. One reason why child care should not be free. They have that in is, for example, in France. The loan rate in Norway is 60% while in Denmark it is 100%. There are many countries that do things much better than we do.

We can have shorter working hours, we can have more days off, I think that's cool. Norway is not at the top of Europe in number of days off. We have more of that, both England and France. There are many things we can do more of. And I think it would be cool if the left-wing side said a little like this, welfare state is here to give all the possibilities to succeed, but you yourself decide what is important for you in life. If you want a little more free time, so you can go to festivals and drink beer,

or have the opportunity to actually work hard hard and buy the car you want, then it's totally fair. It's totally top-notch. But it shouldn't be that someone on top gets a crazy profit for what they have been so lucky and able to use the opportunities they have to build up a gigantic formula. And I think it provokes people to get the boss, who is like King Grandiosa, to earn 50 times more in a year than the one who actually makes these Grandiosas.

He is not 50 times smarter, he does not do a 50 times more important job. And then it is something that our economic system worthens some kind of work extremely high, even if they do not solve the most important challenges in our time. And we lack teachers, psychologists, doctors. We have to be able to channel the resources in there. We have an older wave coming, then we actually have to have a bigger public sector, or it will be the pocketbook that determines what kind of care people get. And that's what will happen. At least I have it.

No, and what has brought me to the left-wing all year is just that it feels very unfair. And it must go now, of course, some must earn a little more money, but then there must be limits too. And then we must be able to distribute our wealth in a nice way. But at the same time, I have a feeling that if we could start up completely new today, we would have found better solutions, where we could have gotten these things in a completely shiny way. Balance welfare and equality with enormous economic growth and a lot of industry, a lot of focus on AI. Imagine if we could just measure it, if I were a dictator, a very clever thing of course,

but just like, okay, we should have such a future, wild energy consumption, and I don't think we could turn that into the ocean, maybe a little bit, but every morning's energy, some kind of fusion talk, as possible. At least we are a little bit in the foreground, and then we come in and become an imaginary energy nation, and then we go hard into AI and automation, and then we go into debt payment, so that those who are on debt can choose to just lie on the couch. Or should I go in and help the elderly and the sick, and get to play on the loans a little bit? That's the kind of utopian mindset I have, but which is guaranteed not to be possible to implement in practice. utopi-tankeganget har, men som garantert ikke er mulig å gjennomføre i praksis. Men sånn, hvis man kunne starta på nyt, det ville jo vært det beste.

Altså, jeg er jo litt keen på det prosjektet der, jeg synes jo det er veldig mange fristen idéer der. Og ikke sant, samfunnet nådde teknologisk utviklingen går så fort, man automatiserer så mye, det gjør man i starten også, UDI behandlar saker med data, programmer, The technological development is going so fast, it is being automated so much, and it is being done in the state now. The UDI is dealing with data programs, the municipalities are dealing with building data programs. Robots make things much more efficient, you have pre-solved trailers that deliver things in the US. And it is clear that it will give some challenges, because there are a lot of people who will lose their jobs. We have to make sure that they have new jobs to go to. And we have to be able to circumvent the value creation that is happening.

Are it only those who own this technology? I mean, Elon Musk and the rest of the tech giants who are allowed to get the value of this. Or should we also say that a lot of what they build this technology on is first of all our data, the information about us that we have created in the community. We run the machines. We made the Internet in the state. There are a lot of things we generate in the community. So here I think we need to have some good answers before someone can just care for themselves very much and get a lot of power.

There is a lot of power to control these data programs and this technology, but I think there are also great opportunities for us to effectively a large part of the start, for example, with better use of AI and AIK. Imagine that we can get even better case treatment in the start, equality, that people actually get the same results in different cases, instead of that there is a big difference if you are big difference between searching for Mørre Romsdal or Navi Oslo, you can make sure that you pick up mistakes much faster in the system. There are a lot of possibilities in this.

Just to make sure that there are machines that take all the results, and you have to enter a certain office and just meet a machine that scans you, and then come up with a certain conclusion, and then you just have to keep into an office and meet a machine that scans you, and then come up with a conclusion, and then you have to keep it. You never meet a human being. It's a dystopian setup. But if it's a machine leader who understands the machine, who doesn't need everyone who stands and locks these things with tick boxes, with sardines one after the other, but you have someone who just sees that things are going right for them, but you have AI as a value. I see and get everything I know about AI, those who don't have much, but I have understood that this is the way we should,

and we would like it. And I think that now it can be a number of mistakes, so to speak, but that's what we have done in the Norwegian industry, for example. I think that we produce more in the Norwegian industry now than we did in the 90s, without actually creating more jobs. And that's because we've invested in technology. And one of the brilliant things about the Norwegian working life model is that we have very high wages for labor, which makes it very profitable to invest in technology. In contrast to in the US, where you can go to a store and someone packs your goods and presses the raise button and things like that.

It's because it's cheaper to do it than to invest in that technology. And we saw that in Oslo, when there was a lot of social dumping in the construction industry, it was that jobs that led to a rise, were not allowed to install it on construction sites. It was cheaper to get the workers to carry up the material with the physical costs of having it. So it's also a little argument that the fact that labor is expensive, also makes us more efficient in society. Because it becomes very profitable to invest in technology. And that's one of the golden things about the Norwegian model. That we just make sure that the economy becomes very efficient in this way.

Yes, a lot of interesting things here. And of course, he's been sitting here forever now, I'm going to pee a lot. I notice that a lot. And I think we should end it. But a really nice talk. I hope we managed to get things going. Of course there has been a bit of a loose-fitting there. But it has been nice. I'm enjoying it.

Is there anything you would like to add at the end? No. As a I have a snus under my lip. That's one of the things I do when I'm busy with big things. I'm busy with things I've done on big things for all time. And if you remember the famous painting of the Eidsvoll assembly, if you look down in the right corner, there is an old Eidsvoll father packing a little snus that he's putting under his lip. So this we have done all the time. Andreas, thank you very much for the talk and to you at home in the podcast chair.

It will be a bit of a episode that is not just about food and beer, but where you try to talk about other important things as well. It will be nice. Okay, bye! Music Music Modern America