Fladseth - #207 - Ole Emil Augland (Tema: Penger)

Episode Date: September 13, 2024

Plutselig satt de der, Henrik, Ole og Jim, og snakket om de to skolene innen Økonomi. Og det som verre er. Kommer vi egentlig noen gang til å få «bedre råd» igjen?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ladies and gentlemen, eat your ears off, before we start a very interesting conversation here, I just want to say that today, Friday is the day, and today I'm standing here, fucking me, and juggling, and doing a solar show about agriculture. The festival with my good friend and colleague Hans Magnus Skaar. Local, he is from Svejo and from the area and is going to warm up. It will be a beautiful evening. And Saturday we will go to the same city as today's guest. It is just like that. And it is the theater and it is a hell. It's been sold.

There are still tickets left. So it is possible to go in and pick up a couple of tickets. Two, three, four tickets there. Is that what simplicity is? There you were, you know, Jim. For others... There's a streak of two here now, Jim. I'm back. You are? Now you're back?

Yes, I feel it. Are you? No, I feel it. And this time on the home ground? No, it's not. Is that so? Yes, I feel that. And this time on the home ground? No, that's not it. Ole? Yes? Ole Emil, or was it Ole or Emil that you used?

I think Ole is okay. Bestemod says to use both names, but it's mostly just her. Do you mean Ole Emil when you came? I think… A polite young man, you know. A polite young man. I mean… Before I knew we were going to debate on the side.

Yes, because it's coming. It's a bit funny. This is how I like it. Now it's a bit like… Now it's a bit exciting in the studio here, because Ole, you are... We can call you a listening guest. And I have promised that there will be more listening guests. That we just throw on a little different here.

I have also had a dream of getting in before the next election, get in some guests, which will be like a theme episode, where we can talk about things that interest us, which are important, and which will be very important until we enter the voting booth. Is that the first thing you say? The booth. The voting booth. The booth. Yes. And then Emil, no, Ole, Ole Emil, his full name is Heugland, right? Heugland, A-U-G.

Heugland, right? Yes. We have chatted a bit on Instagram, and you are the listener of the podcast. Absolutely. And you have written a few different articles, and you have been a bit forward-looking about this, why we get worse calls, and what do you mean by that? You hear about the Ukraine war and different reasons for the economy to be down and that we get worse rates. And the question is, is it down or do we just have worse rates?

And I can do a lot of shit about the economy and numbers, and I have a little bit of a calculus, if you want to call it that. I don't know if it's already called that, but many people have it. I think it's interesting, but if it gets too complicated, I have to spend ten minutes reading one episode. But I thought it was interesting to get you in here, Ole, and just try to learn a little. And hear a little of what you have to say. And Jim is on the phone, he's wandering around in his tuffles, and the enormous big dick energy he has. with big dick energy and all. Then we talked a little and you started to read a little about the article you wrote, Ole. And then you came earlier. You came 20 minutes earlier.

Was it 30 minutes? No, it was 20. It was 20. And then we did a research on the conversation I needed beforehand. And then we started to talk about the three, and then we started to talk about the article we are going to come back to. And then it came out, which I think is very fun, that there are two schools here in economics.

And there, Ole, I thought you would explain what schools we are talking about here. So at a very outstanding level, we have the Austrian Economic School, which in short, no teachers today, but which everyone has learned about 100 years ago. Is that the school you learned about when you went to the finance school in the East, I say? In Athens? I went to Scotland, but no, in no way. There will lot of different entrances. Absolutely. It's night and day.

And then there's the other school, the Kinsian school, that you've learned about. If you study economics, you've learned about the Kinsian economy. In addition, you may have learned a little about the school called Chicago School, but we can forget that for today's debate. We relate to Keynes and Austrian schools. Do you say that you are a conservative in the school, Ole? What do you mean by conservative? Is it old?

Yes, I mean the old school. Simply put, take back the old one. Yes, right. I mean, I see it as economics, and what people teach today, it's not very relevant, I think. It's not the wrong method to understand economics. They treat economics as if it were physics. That you can set a pattern and predict the outcome for 8 billion people by looking at some patterns.

The Austrian school says no, absolutely not. Economics must understand human behavior on an individual level, and try to understand how people act from it. You are quite hard on thinking that it is right too. Is it something you have gradually come to know about? Absolutely. Five years ago I had never heard of Fiat. I had never thought about anything. I did not know know there were different schools, economy or anything. And then I started studying money. And that's where the big difference was the Kinsjian school says about money. And what the Austrian school says about money. Just to be clear, there is no debate that I am the moderator and that it is a good time. In no way we sit and drink beer. Cheers guys! Cheers! And we had a peaceful and calm atmosphere. And I just needed a little...

I needed... It was an incredible luxury that we got to be like this, because it wasn't worth it. Wolfgang W. has been criticized for having included Paul Steigand and everything possible in there. And he hasn't had any points on the subject, and he hasn't asked any questions. And there's nothing in common with Paul Steigand in this at all. and then he hasn't had any and that is a bit problematic. So, Jim, it's been a long time since you've been to school in Scotland and you don't do that much of those things anymore. But you can do much more than me. And it's nice to have you, I think. Yes, I hope it's nice to have you regardless of who you are. But I was wondering, what is your background?

Have you studied economics? No, I studied computer science. I work as an analyst and advisor, as usual. But I'm very interested in economics, so it's just a hobby. Let's take these two schools and try to explain a little differently. Okay, then we almost have to start with the Austrian school, and then it's difficult to explain this in a short time, it's the continuation of what is called traditional economy, where you use the so-called deductive method. Let's take it in one go, because when you say traditional economy, I think last with gold, right and last. Can't we start there? Go straight to deductive, I think that that traditional economy is that you have a That's what you were trying to improve. The purchase and exchange of the economy.

How the economy trades, among other things. So that's the traditional economy. And then you found out that we can't explain so much with this, we can explain a good part. But there are many things we can't explain. Then came, this is getting complicated at once, but then came the marginal value but then the Austrian school found out about marginal value. Because earlier you couldn't figure out why something has value and why do you put a diamond higher than water? Right? Because that's a bit interesting. Because then you would think that you would change a small hair lab against a diamond, it wasn't like that before, but to say that it's a horse against enough honey or enough corn to weigh up for what you think is the value of the horse in a way which was such a big paradox that had been for a long time, is what is called the diamond-water paradox. That you need water to survive. And yet a diamond has much more value. Why? So what do you think? and it is quite clearly described in the super popular book of Harari, by Seypien. Joel Harari or something like that, right?

He continues with how you can just say that Coca Cola is Coca-Cola. And millions of employees, it has been so and so much, but that's because we believe in it. It's because everyone believes in the idea that Coca-Cola is real. That it is something tangible, that it is closest to a diamond. Right? But the question of why, that we make the illusion that things are worth a lot, when we are not dependent on it, when we do not cover the basis of our needs. That is interesting. What was the concrete question? The question was, you need water to survive, and you absolutely do not need diamonds to survive.

No. Likewise, diamonds have much more value than water. Why? Yes, it is an extension of what has made us thinking superior beings. We are struggling, we are pointing, we are making illusions, and we are making a society based on a lot of lies and fanciness and upheaval. That's where it comes from. We have the ability to make air. And then we make a collective consciousness that something is worth a lot, even if it isn't. I think that you can... There is something called economic reality. We can agree that the paper cup is worth a lot. But if you choose to buy your coffee in that paper cup, because you think you can prove to everyone that it is worth a lot,

then someone in the team will just miss that paper cup and then you will eventually lose all your purchasing power. I think Harari, or I read a story myself, I think he lacks a lot of basic understanding of money. So that's why the analyses are a bit wrong. Okay, so that's it. But this is going on... But should I answer that too? Because it's quite interesting. I was just defending Harari a little bit. He talks about deep, deep mechanisms, millions of years back. Absolutely. And how people… The fact that we can work in groups of several

hundred, the fact that we can chat about neighboring countries, the hundreds, we can talk about neighbouring countries, we can communicate, that made us stronger collectively, which made us outcompete the others. That's what he's talking about. Not necessarily money. But I also read the book, and what I thought was that he said that money and a small collective hallucination, that's not right. That's what I meant. You don't agree. You are very are very clear on what you mean. Life is much more fun if you think so. Yes, of course. What do you think?

Let me answer this question as well. It is quite interesting. Why do you need water? Diamonds are more valuable. Why? Because people value things, not in totals. Because if you had made a choice for the rest of your life, you would have chosen water. Because if you didn't have water, you would have died. Humans make choices at the next margin, the next unit. So in the next unit, a diamond is more valuable to you than water.

Because water is much more accessible. The next moment, right? So in the short term you're talking about now. Yes, yes. And then the Austrian school found out that, hmm, okay, so there's something called the decreasing marginal value, or marginal subjective value. Value is subjective. You value things differently than me, and I value things differently than Jim. And you want to value things differently today than you might do in a year.

If you say you get a new kid, then things, contexts change all the time. The main point is that the value is subjective. And since the value is subjective, you can't put this in any similarities, aggregated up to a million or a billion levels. With modern computing power, you can't say exactly what's going to happen, but you can set up a number of models that can be calculated to approximately. You have to be careful. Take all subjective opinions, put them into a system, let a supercomputer work on it,

then you can actually come up with some assumptions about what might happen. You can absolutely come up with assumptions, but I think it's wrong to use that method to come up with theory. Theory must be understood. What we come up with is deductive. We choose to open up. It must be understood from logical conclusions that must be drawn from the fact that they are subjective. It's difficult to explain the Austrian school in short, but what differs at a higher level from the fact that value is subjective. It's hard to explain the Austrian school in short, but what distinguishes it at a higher level than the Christian school is that they look at value as subjective, they use a different method,

and they see that money is a commodity in the free market, just like coffee is a commodity in the free market. Exactly, yes. If I were to say three things that distinguish the Austrian school from the Christian school, it to say three things that differ from the Austrian school from the Kinshian school, it is those three things. Yes, exactly. So the Austrian school looks at money as an object on the big market. Choose free individuals. So how does that work? If we go back in time to make the picture simpler, how does that work in If we go back in time, to make it a little simpler, how does that work in practice?

That money is a little bit of a skin point, and if you throw it on the disk, you get a cow. In that time, how does it work in practice that money is still a commodity on the market? It works like this in practice that you have to understand why we actually have money. It's a technology that solves a specific problem for people. Before we had money, we lived in a society where I changed goods directly towards you and you directly towards me. But it only works if I want what you want or you want what I want. Once one of them doesn't vote, we can't negotiate with each other. And the more people that exist in an economy, and the more goods, the more often we can't negotiate with each other.

That I don't want what you want, and you don't want what I want. It's called a lack of mutual meeting wishes. People solved this problem by saying, okay, shit, I don't want the beer you're sitting in front of at home, but they want the PC. So if you're able to exchange that PC for my phone, I want to take that PC for my phone. So if you're able to exchange that for my phone, you're using the PC as money. If you think about the past, you had apples, I had fish. I don't want apples, but I want oranges. If you exchange your apples for oranges, you get oranges, and you can exchange that for my fish.

For that, oranges were not a consumer, oranges were money. Which you used not to consume, but to exchange it for other goods. So that's one of the functions of money, to be a exchange. The other two. So not everyone wants money. We live in a small society, we have fish, food and water. We do your dirty, yellow skin stuff. Can you say that? No, because if you want to save time afterwards, so that you don't have to fish 5 fish every day, but that you can make fish, you need to make 10 goods, but you can specialize in making 1 product,

then you need to have money, because it should work on a large scale. Yes, but then money goes into a different system than just being a change. My point was that everything... Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions. No, etc. This happens between all people. And then, in theory, the money for me was a different thing than if you and Jim were to change, and he doesn't want what you had. But he might want something else, again, because they are subjective. So all goods can be money, but after a while, what is money will converge, it will go more and more towards fewer goods. Because some goods are just terribly bad to carry money.

If you try to use apples as money in the long run, then apples rot. It's not sustainable. So what became money... For me, what you are saying now is the starting point for modern economics, or that money took over as a system, where you let things go. It made the value, even if it was apples or pears or horses, so you could exchange all these goods, but you used money as an intermediary. Okay, we put the price on the horse, it costs 70 silver coins. Okay, great. Then you drag that intermediary, then you put a value on everything,

and then you put the same amount of money as the money. Silver, gold and bronze, then what? The easiest way to understand it, money has three functions. One is the exchange, as we said. The other is a value-lager, that you can preserve your purchasing power in your money. The easiest way to understand it is that money has three functions. One is the exchange, as we said. The other is the value deposit, which means that you can store your purchasing power in your money. And the third is the accounting unit. Then we realize that the price of the phone is 10 000 kroner.

These are the three functions that money has to fill. And that was the same for 5000 years ago when they used to sell as money. As it is today when we use fiat money. And for a product... Fiat money, we haven't talked about that. We use the money we use today. And because some products should fulfill those three functions

of money in a good way, they must have a lot of different properties that they can be good or bad at. And the better they are at the properties, the better the product is as money. And since gold was best for most of them, gold became money in the end. That's the short version of why we ended up with a gold standard.

There are many weaknesses in gold, but what was best was that it was difficult to create new units. Gold was the commodity in the world, it was difficult to dig for new units of gold. That's why gold was preserved, best buying power over time. That's why I kept gold, the best shopper ever. That's why I got gold money. We talked about this a little before we started. This is what you hear in Bitcoin talks. That you want a certain amount, or to a certain degree a certain amount of gold, a roof. On how much gold you can have. And that's what you hear in Bitcoin. That Bitcoin is so brilliant, and it might become a new gold standard, because you have set a roof, you can just dig out miners as much as in Bitcoin. 21 million?

Yes, 21 million, if you manage to get all of them out. And now people have lost their crypto passwords, and I actually have to check if it's still there. I've put everything in a corner so far. I have passwords and memory cards and everything. I moved it. I've talked about it in podcast, but I moved it since then, so don't try to break it. But if you find it, it's like my grandfather, who was a little old and senile at the end. He had written his address and phone number and absolutely everything on his house key. So it's the same. What do you think? I think a lot. It doesn't sound completely different. I don't think what you said so far is very contrary. I don't want to say very contrary, many people agree with this. This is not some unusual thought so far.

So this is really fine. There were maybe just many words to get a piece of me to understand. But I think everyone agrees now. Bad explanation. Many words. No, it's just that I need to be in the mood for these things. Because I often think these things can be a bit difficult to grab. But briefly, the main essence is that if the three of us are going to exchange goods, you do barbeque, flat set, I just cook food. And I do services in the form of studio.

So if you don't need a studio, but flat set needs a studio, then we need money so I don't always have to work only with flat set. So that's the essence. If we didn't have money, then trade couldn't take place on a large scale. People couldn't enter the labor market. You couldn't be a stand-up comedian, you couldn't trade on a large scale. People couldn't get into the work division. You couldn't be a stand-up comedian, you couldn't work with podcasts, I couldn't be an analyst. We could never specialize in anything, and we haven't gotten the productivity increase we wanted. So, I don't think that's the case with Soil lines.

So, schools aren't different here, is that what we're talking about? This is the truth? Yeah, at least in Soil way it's just common sense. There's nothing to discuss in a way. I agree. I think we had some fun talks, but we could have just prepared ourselves. We would have done this in one minute, but we don't have that. It's a bit of a charm.

I would say that the schools is a bit different here. Because the Austrian school puts emphasis on the reason that gold became money, and the most important reason that gold became money, is that it was difficult to make new money. But today's economics, as the Christian school says, is not important at all. Or, it was at the tip. Or the... The money doesn't have the same connection to a gold reserve. So you get this with the fact that some people think that the pressure of money is scary for the economy.

Yes, that's the core of what we're back to. When you say… because I hear Kenyan, like Kenyans… No, no, no. But it's… Keynes. Keynes, that's his… John Maynard Keynes. Yes, right. That's a damn name to pronounce.

Okay, no, but okay, shall we continue? I'm having a lot of fun, I'll start with that. Yes, same here. I mean, what do you want to talk about, Holt? What were you talking about? That was the starting point. So far, these two schools are not separated. I want to make a narrative podcast around these two schools. Because it makes it easier for us as listeners, me included, to make up our minds or try to understand how the world is connected?

If I were to say it in one sentence, it is that the Kinshian school says that a little inflation is good. While the Eastern school says no, no, not fucking. A little inflation is never good. No inflation is good. And that is a huge difference. When you studied economics, you learned that low and stable inflation is what we want. One of the classic is the Phillips curve. It's basically a thought about doing a trade-off. You can either get high or low unemployment, or high or low inflation, in the CQS. And then you do a trade-off. In theory, in practice, there are many different things. You have inflation and many different things that can arise.

But the idea is that those who lead an economy or a country or an area, must then make a choice about how much work leadership we want and how much inflation we can afford. And then you have to weigh it up against each other. That's why it's a fundamental element. And that is something you mean is a good thing, or just something to be found in, because it is what it is? It's an economic... The gas sign lacks a better expression than the rule. But someone like me would say that it can't be ideal in any way. You can say that, but the idea is that you will never get a... You can say what you think about that, but you never get a society with perfect information, or perfect use-level, or it will always be things that are not optimized.

So you will always get employment, regardless. There will never be a need for 100 percent, and then there can be a need for more than 100% of your work stock. Yes. Thereof, you get new people into your country. Because someone may not want one type of job or whatever it is. So you do a trade-off, so by printing more money and giving more money and increasing the salary to people, then you increase the interest to take different jobs, for example.

But then it can again increase the purchasing power, and then someone will be willing to pay you 10 kroner more for this beer. Yes, and I have also heard that what the politicians do not talk about, it may have been in your article, but I don't think so. I think this is a well-known case among politicians and everyone, but it's not about height. It's just like this. When the unemployment rate is high, and inflation, or at least when things don't go well, then you have to... When inflation is high, when the money is low in value, then you have to make sure... No, you have to make people not buy things. There are no such mechanisms. Isn't there any mechanism like that? At least you wish that people shouldn't contribute to additional price growth. So we would say that... You have to drive people's economy down achoo to improve the situation. Isn't that so?

I don't know if you think in the same way, but for example, we have a very good central bank boss now, at least I think. We think you agree, but we can... I would say that if you think this is a municipal sector, I think it's the best municipal leader we have in Norway. At least that's my opinion. And you can say that some of the thoughts are that there are certain weaknesses, for example the copy, the consumer price index. Many people would say that housing prices are very high. There are certain weaknesses, for example the copy, the consumer price index.

Many people will say that housing prices are important. So if you no longer buy housing, that the price change is higher, then it is not likely that it will be reflected optimally. Just look at the consumer price index. I would also assume that one of the problems that one wants to solve is that people should have a place to live, and then there is a demand that most people should own a house in Norway and not rent, that is a wish, at least in Oslo. And then I want to do, or at least contribute with measures that make people not only give a small amount of tax before the show, but also drive the economy more willingly in a way, the economy is driven by will.

And there are different approaches to that. That is my take on some of those things. Thanks for the answer, but I noticed that I went a little too fast here. We're going back. Yes, we're going back. Absolutely. I jumped too fast, and I thought I understood it better in my head than I can formulate. But can we not talk a little about the differences between the two schools, because that's where we were. Where is the inequality beginning?

The biggest inequality is that Christian schools say that a little inflation is good, and sometimes it's good for the authorities when they create money and printing out new money, digital printing in today's world. But the Austrian school says, no, it's never good. They agree. It creates a lot of negative effects. So I think the best way to continue the discussion is why should inflation be good? As a private person, can you think, why is it good that your money is less valuable because some can create more money?

Yes, and that's what I tried to say with the thing with the babbling of the staff. For me, it sounds like it's just a consequence we have to live with, because the system is as it is. It doesn't seem logical, it doesn't seem like that. In my head, it doesn't seem like a very good thing in itself, but it's just because things are so complicated, we have to have inflation, we have to have work efficiency, we have to have this and that. So I agree, in a dream world, just now I'm heading towards this old school, where all these piss things are not found, and then we just have good old days. Easy to understand. Give me a fable and you'll get a safe kick.

I have to shoot in. That's my answer. What did you call me? An idiot like me? I can handle that. That's my answer. I can do a lot of things, but that's my answer. I think it's important to say that most people today think that inflation is something that has always happened. They think that it's like a natural law, like you throw a ball and the gravity breaks down again.

Inflation has not always happened. We have had long periods in the world where your money has been more and more worth over time. Inflation, it's not natural that prices have to go up in price over time. During the gold standard, the price was stable or went down in 50 years. Yes, exactly. And before we get there, we have to talk a little about what inflation is in practice. What is inflation? It depends on whether it is word or why it happens.

Yes, I think I am interested in why it happens. Because I have understood that many people… I am a bit disagreeable about that as well, what inflation is. What do you think inflation is, Ole? I am a 30 year old man, but I use definitions from 100 years ago, like the old men of the past. But I say that inflation is an expansion. It's not said, but Olle is actually sitting more flabby and with a lump in his back. Ludwig von Mises, the head of the Austrian school, the legend, Osore Leder, Osore, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, I think so.

He defined inflation as an expansion of the amount of money, that the amount of money increases. 100 years ago, everyone talked about inflation. Inflation didn't mean a price increase, it meant that the amount of money increased. He said that after all, when we use inflation as a price growth today, it's a huge problem. It may seem like it doesn't mean anything, but when politicians say that we have to fight against inflation, when we use the word inflation as a price growth, we are trying to fight against the effect of what actually creates inflation, which is an increase in the amount of money. But tell me one thing, okay, if I had been at the very beginning of money printing and all that, one thing is gold coins, difficult to win out and convert into gold coins, but now we're talking about when the price of the seat has started to go, right? If I had been an idiot king or an idiot leader for a group of people,

and we had our own currency, it was my face on those papers, I would have said, why the fuck don't we get the press to move away from this whole bridge? We don't have to ship a fish or a banana, we just have just push it! That's what you want to think. If you had been happy, I understand that you want that.

But your people have been very tired. Yes, but that's a mechanism that goes far beyond most people, at least at the time I believe. This sounds like a secret plan with people who understand something that normal people don't understand. To increase the amount of money can be done regardless of what money you have. It could also be done when you had gold. They just took that gold coins contained less and less gold. They mixed in with other crap in gold coins. They did it in the Romorans 2000 years ago.

After a collapse, it's rich. They implanted their coins so much that it was not worth anything. Can you make a quick picture of what that means? Because this happens over a lot of time. It's not like suddenly one day you have watered out a coin, you for more money. And that means that the more money is in circulation, the more you get to the fishing disc. Then you have come from the fact that a gold coin is 100% gold. That a gold coin can only contain 10% gold. To continue making that metaphor.

What is it in practice that we say then? In practice, we would say that before you might have to use one gold coin on a fish, but now you might have to use seven gold coins on a fish. But people actually just want to see the same coin. If you have watered an island, you see that you drink it on the island. That's just what you think of, that there are more coins, right? Because then you can use less gold per coin. You have so many coins that there is no problem for you to pay for it.

It's just like in American Gangster, you get a loan with cocaine from Vietnam, and then you take in how much baby powder. So then you can play with it and sell more drugs. I'm relaxed, boys, I've understood. When it takes a while, it's just because I have to process it for myself. It might be a bad podcast because people have understood and so on. This is a trilogy anyway. I need to understand it.

I have to say something that is important for Ola and Karin Åhman to understand. What is important for people is that they buy your power. It's not how many units and money you have. It has no meaning for you. It's how much you get bought for the units and money you have. If you want to become a billionaire, the easiest way to do that is to move to a bar where there is hyperinflation. Then you are a billionaire.

But you can't buy anything. So it's the power of the unit that means something that matters for the one who will use the money. Not how much money you have. So up to what you are talking about, the gold example where it went from 100% gold to 10% gold in coins. You want to experience it as shit, I have many more coins, I have many different units and money, but I get much less per unit. Yes, exactly. And in today's history we see that a pack of gold the price growth that has been there, is associated with post-war Germany, I feel, that it's going so fast. When is it new, Amar?

So why... I just want to talk about schools again. What do the different schools think about this, that we are now sitting and paying a lot of money. I would also add that this has something to do with food monopolists who can set as high a price as they want. This is not necessarily going on alone. My point was what is it that actually affects prices? There are three things. The supply after question, where the food stores come in. There is technological development. We get better technology, become more productive, which will actually drive prices down.

And the last thing is the amount of money. If a price goes up or down, it depends on those three factors. But the only reason we have a general price increase over time, is that the amount of money increases. That more money, units of money, hunt about the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, generally, everything goes up in price.

I think I agree. I feel like I'm on a water ship. I work so damn hard to keep the balance and manage to be on the right track. Just like that. What is a doubtful fact is that we are sitting here today, and it has gone very fast, we goods store is perhaps the worst, but probably the gas too. But it's not entirely in the background, but things are more expensive, we earn, our money is less worth. There is no doubt about it. So what do the two schools say about why it is like that? The Austrian school would say that of course things get more expensive when someone can print money out of nothing, because the money is no longer linked to anything, such as gold, as it was before. If you go to the bank and take a loan of six million, the bank creates those six million out of nothing.

It's not the money they have before. When everyone can do that, then everyone can take the loan. A lot more money is created, a lot more money and I and the same goods. It will be more expensive. But you see, that's what I'm trying to say. If I had been an idiot leader, I would have said print as much money as possible. I understand that they are not like that, so there must be rules for how much money you can print. And again, as I said, this sounds like Germany in the post-war period, where they had a lot of money from two world wars, and the only thing they could do was to just press up more money in the hope that it would be in a better situation. And the result of that was that people had to walk with big trillers with sadills to pay for a bread. We can't, because of a cut off gas pipeline and a war in Ukraine,

and the gas thing, as we have been doing for a long time, not so seriously, but it can't be that we just sit here now and push up money, push as much as possible! We can't be there! Who's going to take this decision? We follow you. The reason why things are so expensive today, then you don't have to see what's happening right now,

you have to see what's happening in the last 3-4 years. And as I wrote in an article, the reason why things are so fucking expensive today, you go to the store and say, no matter how much you buy, it's because the amount of money increased by 33% from January 2020 to January 2023. In just three years, it suddenly existed 33% more Norwegian kroner, which, Jagård, is about the same amount of goods and services.

And normal growth has been 8%? In the last 50 years it has been 8% on average, now it's 11% in three years. In addition to the war in Ukraine and such things, in covid all shipping transports stopped. It affects supply of goods, it was difficult to transport goods. The whole world stops in addition to printing a lot of money. If it's the same, it gets more expensive. So the Austrian school thinks we have a lot of money, is it the same? Then it becomes more expensive. So the Austrian school thinks that we have a worse situation now, because more money has been printed up.

We are in so-called good old days, inflation that it... What does the other school think about this? Jim, what do you think the other school thinks about why things are the way they are? I am in the company, Lønnsforlandmanger. In the modern media. What I notice every year is that the more copy entries... And then the capital index, the consumer index. ...the consumer price index, and then the question ask what kind of workplace you are running. But if you want to follow that in the sense that you want to give increased salary to your employees,

then you can choose to follow the consumer price index. And every time I adjust this, I sit and think that the only thing that really happens is that, and that is the problem in Norway and Ukraine, is that everyone has too high salaries. Which means that you contribute to the goal sign to what you everyone has too much money, they have too much purchasing power. And that's another reason for the economy to fall. And then you will force the purchasing power to fall. Yes, but one thing is theory, and the other thing is practical. I think that everyone sitting out there agrees that this is the system we have here, that things have to be like this. We would rather not do that. Then we would rather have changed a goat to an old two old chickens.

We would rather just have changed gold. Because this is far beyond what people think. We don't talk nonsense. I don't understand why people are like that. What I wonder about is... I was curious that we left that mindset that money is not linked to any form of value. It's a strange mindset. And when I went to school, and I thought that very often, what is written in the textbooks are often economic theories or thoughts on how an economy should function in small or large scale. And a lot is also based on if a society the thoughts have a lot of weaknesses, I dare say. So it is very rare to have a phase difference in mathematics and maybe some other places. So I have always thought that it was very strange, I mean it was in the 70s when they left, that they linked up to the gold reserves. 1971 yes. Yes, 1971. And then I remember when I thought about this, it's uncomfortable with the idea that it's

really just paper, or like it has become today in Norway, you don't take cash anymore. It's just a display that tells you what you have of values. So I never quite understand if you're thinking of an end game. I don't quite understand where you're heading, because then it becomes like this, if it develops exactly as it is now, then what we feel a time has been today, will be a hundred pages in enough time, and then the hundred pages will be a thousand pages,

and in the end, as you say with Simbabbe, it is difficult to see anything else than that development over time. Yes. So reversing the way we have it seems incredibly difficult and incredibly heavy. And then I think the whole internationalization in the sense that now all countries are trading with each other. And the Internet has done, it's not just the country you live in where you buy and sell services. You also trade from a completely different country. And then you export and import. It's super complex.

I don't feel like I have the overview anymore. And then you just sit there and hope and think that a new crack will come. Because it smells very, very, very, very, very, very crack at some point. Isn't that also a non-existent thing in this system? very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, So we just roll to the rock, roll out of the edge. Totally out of the edge. Several things to say about that, let's start with that. Before you can just stick to that thought, we'll take a little break. Because if I have to pee now, I'll have a problem. I already have enough problems before.

So I'll just go and pee. Okay. I'll talk to you later. Okay, we've had... Pissed a little... Wiped the sabers. No, it's not that. Holy shit. Olle and I have to start fighting.

It's going to be hell. We work through it. So far, it's been a little... We have to get back to the way the two schools think about the present situation and why it is like that. We haven't gotten completely into it yet, but we will. And I have a plan of where we are going.

And just get on with the journey, we'll see. I think this is, as I said, a difficult trip, but I think I'm enjoying myself very much. I think it's interesting. You had some thoughts there, that kept you going. Jim talked about that before they left, why did we leave the Golden Standard? What was the deal there? Remember to take the microphone and the microphone case. So you can lie down a little. You see that we lie down right here.

It will be strange when you are far away. That's good. So we actually left the Golden Standard twice, I would say it's right to say. We left first in 1914. The First World War? Yes, most countries did not have to finance the First World War. So they wanted to print a lot of money to either participate in the war, or if the Norwegians who did not participate in the First World War,

they felt forced to go off the gold standard, because they did not have enough money to pay out their gold. So there were a lot of countries off the gold standard, because they didn't have enough money to pay out gold in their hands. So there were a lot of countries by the gold standard. Should I ask if we can talk about what the gold standard is and that thing, or do you just understand that? No, I'm asking because I'm really curious. Yes, can you hear that? Because in this context, what would you say to go by the gold standard? We talked earlier about the fact that in the end the whole ended up on gold, since it was the most difficult to make new money. So the world ended up on a gold standard. And then our money was a one-to-one ratio of gold.

So if you had 100 kroner, it meant that it was a requirement for the 100 kroner in the amount of gold. Yes, exactly. That is the gold standard. Yes, and. So in theory you are going to take this card and get the amount in gold. So it has a value. You come with a 100 card and say, ok, let's see, put a little weight on it, and a little gold coin, and take a little, and grab a little, and grab a little. There you go!

There you have a gold coin. There it is! That's our golden code! And then to say, even if it's a world war and the other way around, Now we're going to leave the gold standard, we don't want to anymore, because we're going to have a lot of money! It sounds like you're really saying, I'm so called that I just piss in my pants. I piss piss piss in my pants, because I'm not in the mood for being warm. Yes, and you shouldn't say that. What about the people? Should we vote? That will never be done. So that is also worth mentioning. And then we come to what we were talking about in 1971. After the first world war, it happened a little back and forth. After the second world war, the world fell into something called the gold exchange standard,

which was the last remaining gold standard where the dollar was linked to gold. And the rest of the last remaining gold standard, where the dollar was linked to gold, and the rest of the country's currencies were linked to the dollar. Yes, exactly. And then the USA used a lot more money than they had in gold, of course, from one or two world wars until the end of the 1960s. And then the USA's driving force, which is so astronomical. It starts especially afterwards, but it started already then. And then more countries started saying, I don't think the US has so much money or so much gold as they print up in money.

France sent a warship to New York to get their gold and so on. And then it started to feel pressured, that ok shit, we can't give our gold away, we don't have enough gold to give away to the whole country. We're leaving the gold standard. They knew that. They knew that very well. They were like, fuck! The French are on their way over now. They're on their way over, we don't have a break. In 1971, President Nixon left the gold standard. The last remaining thousands of years of gold as money were finished.

And since then the world has used fiat money, a fiat money system, which is what we have today, where the money is not linked to anything and can therefore be created without anything. Exactly. And that is, as I understand it, a very central term, this with fiat money, which I didn't quite... I didn't know what it was. So, now I understand. It was what came after the gold standard, or the dollar was linked to gold as an extra lead in the name. So what is Fiat money? It is simply, simply explained. Very simply explained, it is money that the state has said should be money.

Because it is money. the state has said should be money. Because it's money. I agree with him. Yes. Fiat means VD Cre, as it's Latin for that. Which very nerd means that it's something an institution with a command has said should be. That institution today is the start of the whole world. And then we're back to this, which we were a little, there was a little gnawing on, but it's about making an illusion that something is real and something is real.

For example, Coca Cola. You can have billions or millions of employees. It can be as much as it has been. But the day you just say, there is no Coca Cola, then you have jobs and factories and all that. But Coca Cola is just the value of the brand. We have collectively said that this is true, this is not.

It's part of that mindset. We have started to say that money is money, and it's worth it, and that, and that. Look here, these bills are worth it and that and that and that. Look here, these bills are worth it and that and that, but if you just say that it is no longer true, then everything falls on the ground. But something that you think is important to say here. Do you agree there? That's what most people think today, I totally agree. Yes, because there you are a little disagreeable, but I don't understand why you are disagreeable.

Because money is still money. The only reason we have fiat money today is because the states broke the promise they had to the people that they could exchange the 100-pages into the bank in exchange for the amount of gold. It's not a natural development that suddenly we are going to have fiat money. The only reason the whole world uses it today is because the US broke their promise to all states and all states broke their promise to all states, and all states have broken their promise to all people. That's why we have four money today. And you also say that money is based on trust, but no, it is primarily based on law that says that you have to use, you have to take good from Norwegian crowns, and you have to pay your tax in Norwegian kroner, legal and mandatory payment means or laws on it as they are called. Then you would have removed the laws and you wouldn't have needed to tax me by using gold coins as money or bitcoin or whatever.

I don't think Norwegian kroner would have survived so long when they take on so much purchasing power from time to time. It's not a typical dream scenario, but if there is a French revolution against the established, and you just can't find yourself in that the law and rules and the state can decide what we should call, what we should pay and what we are going to do, then we all want to be sent out to the market in the guillotine, then the whole system will fall down. It's not that hard, it's a dream and an illusion. Not an illusion, it's a thought that says that if you have three fish, then it's that much and it's so much and it is very cost effective. If you have 450 kroner, it is much more diffused. That is just something we don't understand what I mean by that.

Yes, it is a physical paper sheet. As I see it, that is what I have thought. But it is just a paper sheet that says that this has been so much and it keeps changing. But that's just because we have fiat money. If it had been connected to my gold, it would have been something else. Exactly, and I totally agree. And it was incredibly thoughtful to be able to take part in that. I totally agree.

And that's what you think. I knew almost... To be honest, I didn't know we didn't have any gold standards. And that's what you think that... I almost knew... I almost lived... To be honest, I didn't know we didn't have any gold bars. We talk about Bitcoin as the new gold bar, but I just... But most of us don't think about it. No. In daily life.

We just think, oh we use money, and then stop thinking about it. We have always used the money we have today, but it's actually just 53 years we have used. But I don't think that if you have studied what I have studied, or if you think what you think. I think everyone agrees that it sounds much more solid to raise money for a country with a real value. It sounds much safer. So I don't think that's something very controversial to mean. No, but I would like to think, in my little idiot tour when it comes to this, that it will prevent growth at some point. And that is also where schools differ a bit, if I interpret it correctly now. That in order to get the eternal capitalist growth, when you have enormous wealth and progression,

you had to leave the gold standard, I would think that many people think so. It was a bit of a joke, but I feel that way. Is that the difference? If you believe in the stock market, growth, capitalism, then was it something that was wrong that we had to leave the gold standard? I think we have to define what growth is,

first and foremost, and how do different schools see growth. The Austrian school is super capitalist, but they might say that what we have today is not really capitalism. Even the money we are going to use is not free at all. It's not the free market that controls it. We are not in the vicinity of a capitalist society.

Growth in the Austrian school, I would say, is to build capital. It is to save, build capital, and increase productivity by investing and saving. Yes, I also agree with the Austrian school on that. Aha, I see. I think you will be the best. But I can't really trust you. What you are telling me is one thing I know about the way of thinking.

Or is it nothing of what you said that doesn't sound very weird? When we had a little break and were fighting a little, we were talking about USA and the GEL. Where did you get that flogging? I was just flogging back without my chair. Can you send me the monocle? Yes, the L-monocle. We were talking about the GEL in the US, because I think people should know that this is happening today and this is happening all the time. Since the US has printed a lot of money all the time, more than they have had in gold, so it has always been the honest thing. But after it went over to fiat money, the US has used so much more money than they get into tax every year.

And that difference has been covered, so now we will explain it simply, that difference has been covered. Now we'll explain it simply. That difference has been covered with money printing for 30 years in a row. The US has now 35 billion dollars in debt. They pay more in interest than they use their entire military every year. If that doesn't worry you... If that doesn't worry you, then I don't know. It sounds like it's completely... In many ways you feel, you know, when you're out in the street,

now you hear that, like, how long can they keep going like that? And the US has what's called the reserve currency today. It would just say that the whole world is dependent on dollars. And that's why they're partly under it. But it's just a matter of the country thinking, fuck it, I don't want dollars anymore. This is because they buy on the market. And the US is not going to be able to do that.

It's just a matter of the country thinking, fuck it, I don't want dollars anymore. the world depends on dollars. And therefore they are partly subject to it. But it is just a matter of the country thinking that I don't want dollars anymore. This is because they buy American state supplies. Whatever. They need dollars. And this is what China and Russia and these new... The BRICS countries. These Pax countries. Is that it? BRICS. BRICS, right? And I understand, from a sovereignty perspective, I understand that they did not go into this system.

The USA has dictated it. The USA was the winner, the USA was the leader and the winner of the Second World War, in many many years. But I understand that there are enormous forces in motion to fall USA as well. So it seems very hard for them to grow into eternity. I think it was in 2022, when Russia went into Ukraine, things changed a little geopolitically. What the USA did then, was that Russia had a lot of dollars. And then the US said, no, you don't have anything anymore. So what they actually said to the whole world was that the money system we thought we had, where we agree on everything possible, when we relate to dollars, and the fiat money system, that you can buy and sell dollars,

that is not really the case anywhere else. Then things may change a little. Therefore, I think a country like Brussels will start to say that we should start selling oil in Chinese yuan or Russian rubles or whatever. So that has been a bigger shift than you might have thought. I think so. Roman Abramovich, you thought you owned Chelsea, and you did? No, you didn't. No, he didn't.

Damn. That has made the geopolitical tension enormous. And the thing with the debt to the US is that they only have three ways to get out of the debt. The first is to say that we can't afford to pay, so we have to do what is called default on the debt. They will never do that, because then they lose their status as reserve currency in the world. Number two is to set up taxes by 100%. There are no politicians who want to do that. There are no politicians who want to do that. Then they will never be elected. No, but do you mean something, you get a fascist strict control that just fuck it, this is how it is. And you are lost in this.

Number three is that the state uses less money in the US. That doesn't happen either, because they use more and more money than one year and become bigger and bigger. And it is in no way enough for the American population. I said there were three ways out, but there is a fourth. And it is to print up so much money that they can pay back the money that has been so little. And that is perhaps the only realistic way out of this. Out of 35 billion dollars. But why can't they just push up and push up money in this way? Because they have set the date.

Because they have reserves outside the world and all countries in the world need dollars to buy oil. But the difference between USA and Norway is that in USA the state can say, you know what, we just print up these money. In Norway the state can't do it directly. We have to print money through the central bank and the banks. But the American government does it too. They can just say, we're going to have more money and we're doing it now. So I just thought very quickly to all listeners also. And we are making it now. I just wanted to say something to all the listeners. Rogan, he is a fantastic guest, his name is Peter Thiel. Yes, they fight over there, if they don't learn, they are a moral compass.

Yes, yes. But I think it's a very interesting system. I have to say that. Not everyone thinks Peter Thiel is that bad. I am the same. He is the best friend of Tim Musk and his PayPal colleague. I know that they all agree on that. I just asked if you had anything against him. I didn't put any ground into it. That's the strongest meaning you had in the title. That was strong. That was strong.

But just to sit and... Rogan has a really cool nickname, Peter Chille. Peter Chille is a... He's been building on PayPal. You have something to be afraid of. I don't necessarily think that Musk is completely big yet. I think he's starting to get a little scary. That's what everyone thinks about.

But that these are people who are good at building companies, that's not something to be proud of. Yes, I totally agree. But if you've seen a couple of dystopian sci-fi movies, those guys are the worst. They're the ones who sit like... What's his name in Star Wars? Not Darth Vader, but the boss of another scene. Palpatine. The Emperor. They're the ones who become galactic. But my point, he said something very interesting, because when you mentioned that the state sector is getting bigger and bigger, then the blogger asked him, what would you do first if you could decide what you want to do with the political power in the US?

The first thing he says is that the first thing he would have done is to reduce the public sector. That's the first thing he says. And the belief that the public sector will be able to manage the resources on the way of the people, those are the two things. And it's not just him who says that, I'm just waiting for the last episode I've heard. But I think that's what's going on. I'm also thinking about Norway. I think the public sector in Norway... New public management. I don't understand why there is a need for it to grow so much more, in a way. I don't understand it. And I don't understand this either with... No, because that means that it can just grow and grow

for ever. And I find this point very interesting. This is something that capitalists always say, and people think it's unsympathetic to mean, but for me it makes a lot of sense. With increased taxes and fees, you must also have increased confidence that the public can choose these money better than in the private.

And if there is one thing we have seen in Norway, now we have luckily the oil, so that it is camouflaged, it feels like very often, but it is not always controlled so that one wins more to increase taxes, the countries are growing in some fantastic way. So if the best people have moved from the country, then it is obviously a trade-off that is super negative for the Norwegian ASEAN. And if people who vote think that the higher taxes and fees are for those who have a lot of money,

then it is positive. It is everything but positive and incredibly negative. And it is important to reflect And that kind of thing is important to reflect on. Yes, and when we talk about the next election, it's a turning point when it comes to the right and left axis in politics. The left wants to criticize the right. And in the same way, you see what the US is doing now. Kamala Harris talks about this as a tax relief for the rich and all that, and that the higher ones are the richest of the rich. But you understand that they have to become the rich in order to become rich. So the rich use it as a press tool, which is not completely lucky.

That is quite complicated. I think maybe... If that makes sense. In the US, the lobby agency can do it. When you say rich, you are talking about the companies or the private sector. The companies affect the politicians to do... I'm not going to say much about that, but I think I understood. The companies can do the rents, or whatever it is, to hire different companies.

So in that way, it is not a good development that it is possible. But that private individuals, in Norway, which is a white country, where you have to move out of the country, there is one thing, in the US you move from California to Austin, as the US did, that's the difference, so it's still in the US-AS. It's a mega difference. I totally agree with Jim, but that may not be talked about that much, that the state budget, whether it had been left or right, as a government, has increased a lot anyway. It's just, should we increase it with we going to increase it by 300 million years? Or 306 million years?

Or billions? There is a tiny difference when we talk about it. It is increasing exponentially, regardless. One thing we haven't talked about, and as you said, Kamala Harris herself, points out that we should have the most lethal military in the world. And they have it, every day. And there are probably a lot of devils, we don't know at once. Suddenly there is a stealth-wrapped NATO in the back, going into military actions, because again, we take control.

USA, you think? Yes, they have shown that. But they have done that for 100 years, start wars. Yes, but they have done it to get strategic overtakes in regions around the world. Do you think all wars in the US have started in the last 100 years, are just for strategic? No, there are more. There are two things that have been mentioned. Iraq, when the US would start to price oil in dollars. And Gaddafi in Libya would make a new gold standard.

The US went into both of those countries. Isn't that strategic too? Not just geographically strategic. That's very strategic. Now I'm a bit conspiratorial, but can a third world war be in the US? Yes, I can say that they need to keep their power. More and more big countries, maybe where there are dollars. In a way, I'm not a super expert on this, this is a bit of a speculation to be honest, but Hitler was willing to have a strong Germany, in order to get a strong Germany, a world-leading

strong Germany, he had to expand, he had to do what he did in his head. But I can understand, Germany was bound on hands and feet by the Versailles Treaty. They were down with the Bruckendryg. They were on inflation after the first World War. Right? They managed to build it up pretty quickly by taking some jucks and building a little outside of the radar to those who overtook them. And then the war machine started to roll. You can see that a little in Russia as well, this one is a little scary. They have a war economy now, they can start rolling faster and faster, and then suddenly they get an overtake again.

Now again, speculate a little. The US has that overtake, but they are on a wavering ground. If they see themselves that they themselves on the wrong side of the ladder, and a world war, where they can quickly take over new territory and regain control, can that be an advantage for them? I'm just speculating a little now. They have never done it that way before. They have done things that... They have, in a way, laid a stone for the people. And created a momentum in the media. And last, where did Obama want to go? How did people just fuck off?

They bombed Libya or Syria or whatever. I don't remember what it was, but I think you can get some Iraq incident in Afghanistan. Because they say they have an atomic weapon and they don't have it anyway. Something like that. But I don't think they go into Africa or Russia and take it. And I realize that when I come with these, I just throw out a little. I realize that it puts forward that you think that it is a deep state that controls everything and such. And I don't think so. I think it's much more complex and random than that. But I don't know, say that it becomes completely desperate. It doesn't work anymore. The airlock has blown up. It's in the wrong with the break, 100%. What will desperation do with USA? Will they just pack up and leave? Or will they, in a way, what grip or which grip would you take?

I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm on extremely deep water here, I think all three of us. But what's important to say is that the US doesn't really need to go into so many countries and wars. Why not? Because they can export their dollar to all countries and draw resources from them. They don't need to go to Africa and fight in those countries. They can just say, you need to have dollars, we need to have oil, we need to have metals or whatever. That's what's happening today. And there was one thing I wanted to say on this podcast that which I feel is never talked about in the public. Yes. It is talked a lot about how the state budget is increasing and the public is getting bigger and bigger, and I totally agree.

It is 66% of the national products and it is a huge number. Inflation is the seventh and last policy. The more money is created, the more things are priced up, the more taxes the Norwegian state can collect without having to set up its taxes. You don't have to pay your employees, they have to pay more. Labor and divorce, mums, our oil fund, prices in Norwegian kroner. From 2013 to 2023 or 2024, it went up 250% in the emission in Norwegian kroner, but only 97% in dollars. So as long as we price it in Norwegian kroner, and the Norwegian kroner becomes weak, then it can't take more money to the Norwegian state, in its state budget.

It can take 3% of how much oil fund is worth per year, at the beginning of the year. Such things are never talked about. What makes it possible that the state can be so incredibly big in Norway? It's one of the other things, inflation. If the amount of money hadn't increased, they wouldn't have been able to take in more and more money. Then they had to say, okay, you know what, we're increasing taxes. And people wouldn't vote for that. You're going to tax 50% of your income again.

Then you would have thought, no, I think it was a bit too much. I don't think they want that. Half of the party. A bit too much. But they can tax the population in secret through inflation. Milton Friedman said that inflation is a hidden tax that the population doesn't know they're paying. Exactly because of that.

And this is... I have zero to come back with, right? What do you think about the assumptions? I'm just asking because I can't remember thinking that much about this when I was studying. But is this something that Keynes disagrees with? No, I don't think he would disagree with this. This is more a reality. I don't really care if it's Keynes or the Austrian mindset.

I just think that everything you said is good. I agree with everything you said, and I also agree with the last thing. Because you talked about that in the Tidspausen. There is nothing to say who means what or what is the mindset. You have to give meaning, and you have to use common sense. And common sense says that everything you say now is not good in the long run. And then everything can work in periods, but over time it feels to be very vulnerable. So what we're looking at now, we have bad news too.

We think it's just a period, I do at least. I think, okay, we'll just live with it. It's war Ukraine and stuff, I think. But what you're saying, Harald, is that this can only be preserved. And as long as more money is printed, as long as it is preserved, our salary will not be in line with the rest. And this will be a constant, and maybe worse than it is now, is that what you're saying? The Fiat money system is a money-based system. To pay down the debt, you have to make more and more money. People will not be able to make their own money if the amount of money goes down. go down our. More and more money must be created as easily as possible if people do not

go to the competition. But what is... What is the solution to this? No, we may have to change the money system, I would say, to be honest. Yes, but it's like... Rødt had you and I, maybe in his party program, said that we must get rid of capitalism. I remember that you reacted a bit, okay, that's an incredibly idealistic standpoint. But I was like, okay, come on! But they have a lot of things that they themselves understand that don't work in practice. Things that they don't work for, but that are there.

But forget the red one. I'm not going to do that. I'm a classic liberalist. I'm not red at all. No, no, no. You didn't have anything to do with that. I'm not going to leave here as a communist. No. I have enough to do with that. I agree that it's the hair red. We have to change the system. You don't do that overnight.

Absolutely not overnight. That's the problem. It can actually do that. Then something absolutely insane must happen. It must be completely Texas. Yes, but it's worth mentioning that there have been many fiat currencies up through. Everyone has gone bankrupt. Everyone has collapsed. The average period is 30-40 years per currency.

So you are... I suspect that you think that Bitcoin is a good thing, right? I think absolutely. And I don't think there is any... The fact that Bitcoin has a maximum of 21 million is the sun-shining strength of Bitcoin. And again, the economic of today, the Christian economy said,

no, the amount of money must increase. But the Austrian school would say, no, the amount of money is enough for the economy. As long as the money is divided into small units, one bitcoin can be divided into 100 million satoshis. And again, since the purchasing power per unit is important, it is not the number of units that matters now. Then 21 million Bitcoin is enough to have the whole world, you can pack in all kinds of purchasing power in Bitcoin. I don't see any problems at all, I see it as the strength. Yes, Bitcoin itself, yes, but I think that a strong state would work against it. A state like Panama has gone hard into it, and would have had to work for it again. But those who control the world, as the US did, would in no way wish for Bitcoin to be welcome.

Because they are dependent on not being like that. It's not quite true. If you look at the US now, they have actually started to say that Bitcoin is good. They are approved of the ITF. That's why it's suddenly at 70-80 thousand dollars now. Approved by the ITF, it's a part of the presidential election, people have started to say, you know what? I totally agree with the idea that the states don't like Bitcoin. I would perhaps turn it around and think theoretically that the smart states will say, you know what? This is good for us, we want this.

And again, the US has 35 billion dollars in it, what is their way out of it? Maybe it's to say that we start using Bitcoin as money, that's our solution out of this. This is speculation, who knows? I think most people, if they think like me, who doesn't know much about this, but who tries to make some thoughts around it, I think in my still mind that it's eternal growth and that this cloud is just going to roll away and it has to go to hell in the end. And we have to find something new, without having the solution or something like that. So what is, if we take the two schools thing that we've been working on for a while now, what is, what is actually... No, Jim is sitting here completely one, we agree on the best.

Yes, what are the two schools, everything I've said here now? The two schools, one says that it's good that the state controls the money, and it's good with inflation. The other says that the state shouldn't control the money, and it's not good with inflation. The Austrian school is the 14th, the Christian school is the 14th. Then I have studied what I am the least into. But this is not as black and white as this. If I am to say it very simply, it is so black and white. When it comes to what they think about money. Of course, we are in a podcast where we can't go into all kinds of details, but it is really so black and white.

I would think, and it is often tiring to listen to a podcast like this if people are angry, but if you get two or three experts on one side and two or three experts on the other, you can probably point pros and cons on both sides. Absolutely. But in the end, I feel that the common sense is that everything is a drum, all theories and quarrels and everything. It's not the only thing, and what is probably the reason why it's like that, and it was like that, and that Nixon chose to do it, and to leave the gold standard, is probably due to growth,

and that it is probably insanely practical if you want to solve some problems you have with iron or water in a way. But in the long run, when I have been involved in building an app in a company called Untold, the first thing these technologists taught us was that what you don't do today can be the start of something you will ask for later, which is technological stuff. So if you try to save some money today to take a shortcut with how you develop software, then at some point it will cost you even more, because you have to go back and construct the same function one more time, just even more of what you have made in the after time. If I have understood correctly, maybe I have not understood 100%, but something

like that. And the same thing with this system, I feel a bit, that you have made choices that are good there and then. You think, okay, we'll solve this, the problems will come in 200 years. They will take the hit. That's a bit what we're involved in. It's interesting. It's worth mentioning that Cain, who is the current currency politician, says that who cares if 100 years old or dead.

True. That's okay. That's not true. You know what? It sounds a bit like a climate challenge we are struggling with. So maybe Kein Søs is right. No, absolutely not. His money policy is based on the fact that it is good to use in the Nordic time and not to save. But the Austrian economy says that saving is essential. It's better to use to save. We have a money policy today that says that your money should be taken by them, so that you can use it, so that the economy can keep going.

And here... I have a whole piece of cooling in my mouth, at 90 degrees in the heat, and it will dry out. It will be dry, I almost realized it. I just hope. It may be perfect, but then I'm lucky. It will not be an excuse. It will not be an excuse. And then the lady will be on Jesus Christ Superstar, so I have to take care of the boy. I have to take care of the child. I can tell you very quickly.

And then I have to pee. Very quickly. And a little bit of a problem with this is that today, if you save money on a bank account today, the value of the money is reduced. So you can never sit in cash. So you either have it in the fund, you have to have it somewhere else. You have to be forced to invest. So you can actually, and that's for everyone who's listening, unfortunately, think it's good to have a million kroner on your account. Then it's not really... 1 million kroner on your account, then it's not really...

I understand that I'm wrong too. No, in no way. And it's just that I have little insight into this. I've had some buffers, and it's been nice to see that you have some buffers, because everyone, not everyone, but I have at least been very poor, so you get a fear of suddenly going completely empty. So it has been a security, but in no way profitable. So I have managed to invest a little, and the models I have got from those I work with now,

say that this will say that your money will grow like this and like that and like that and like that. With less, and it will go up and down, but with less, things crash completely, then your money will grow. When they are on the account, it will become less worth. And therefore, not wrong to own the apartment you live in instead of renting? Of course, we know that too. Or most of them? Many. Absolutely, but I would say that the scheme is that people are forced to invest instead of just saving. And since our money can't fulfill its function by being a value-maker and you can't keep your purchasing power in the money,

then people have seen that we have to store our purchasing power in something else. That's why we use houses and buildings as a value-maker in a fiat-money system. It's impossible to buy a house if you are single, or if you are a single player. We are within that limit. Many people are living in a hopeless situation. In what we think is the world's richest country, with the population in consideration.

But we have big problems here. And it's scary if this doesn't get better. If this is just the beginning or if you're just going to take big leaps, we had it super good compared to now, just a little while ago. It was two years ago, if you want to say. And now it's something completely different and then we think it will pass tomorrow. Not necessarily, maybe we're just here now and then a new big step comes. A new leap, where we suddenly... Oh, now we thought we were on a standard or a constant.

No, we are not gentlemen or women here. So, just to be super-walking here. And then I can just say that this is the very last thing. When I was 5 years old, we moved to Hellas, my family. Then my parents sold their apartment. When we came back two and a half years later, the rate was 19.8% or something, 19.5%. And the apartment had a halving in market value. That time. So it's a bit like that, you have to look at both ways. That at some point things can never grow in infinity.

And at some point there will be periods that people in our age have never experienced. And then it comes as a shock, and then things change overnight. And that comes before you know it. Winter is coming! Ole, do you have anything to say? We could have talked much longer. Time has gone by fast today, and that's because it has been very interesting,

and we could have gone down in every little crack of war, but time has not run out. What do you want to say, Avstad? Do you want to wrap up here? I don't want anyone to buy or sell anything because a random guy on a podcast has said something. But I encourage people to study this and try to learn more on their own. Look up the Austrian Economic School. Try to learn a little about what money is and what inflation is. Why does it happen?

And maybe also learn what Bitcoin is. Why is Bitcoin good money? But don't buy it because of a leek on a podcast. That's very important. And that's what we want to encourage. Always study it yourself. Make your own opinion. Interest in it.

Know what it is. And if you listen to it, if you feel you know a lot about this and are totally disagreeable, have something to say that can change the dynamic in what we have all become a bit agreeable about around the table, then it becomes a bit echo chamber here now.

But if someone has something to say, it is important to get it on the table, please say it out loud so that you can air it out as well, so that you don't become, so that you don't sit there all together and influence people, and make people do things. Because as long as you have it. But there was no intention that it would be an echo chamber, and that Jim would be the one to do it. But what the hell is that? And now Jim has the song on his knuckle, and Jim is just clock interested, at the clock and think, oh, the clock is ticking.

And they started to look at the clock, and think, oh, the clock is ticking. And they started to look at the clock, and think, oh, the clock is ticking. But think about all the debates that have been like this. Think about how cool everything has been. That you can actually be open to talk and change your mind. I think it's possible to run a podcast once in the future again. Let's do it. When the fiat money system has collapsed.

I hope this was interesting for you who listened to it. I have at least got a lot of news from this. And an inspiration to dive deeper into it. And learn more for myself. So, Haugesund today, Kristian Sand tomorrow. Kristian Sand. You are there, but you are in a weddingiansand tomorrow. Kristiansand. You are there, but you are in Bryløp. I was asked 30 times to be Thomas.

Shout out. Thank you for coming. It was nice. Thank you for coming. And Jim, see you next week. I think so. Maybe. Now I'm back.

I think you are back. We'll talk later. Bye. Yes, have a good one. Bye. Have a good one!