Nej men för fan så är det ju, tänkte jag när jag hade läst Andrew McAfees och Erik Brynjolffsons nyaste bok: Machine, Platform, Crowd: Harnessing our Digital Future (Norton, 2017).

Visst hade jag läst deras böcker om den fjärde industriella revolutionen tidigare (digitalisering, artificiell intelligens, robotisering), men detta verk från två MIT-professorer var en fullträff.

Varför? För att den går igenom nuvarande megatrender om teknologiska utvecklingar på ett förståeligt sätt och hjälper läsaren att se vad som bör göras för att hänga med. I mångt och mycket har allting alltid förändrats, men aldrig så snabbt som i dagens läge.

McAffees och Brynjolffsons tes är träffande: människor, företag och samhällen bör förbereda sig för en ny balans mellan hjärnan och maskinen, produkten och plattformen samt individen och gruppen.

För det första måste människan och maskinen jobba tillsammans. Hjärnan behövs inte mera på samma sätt i till exempel marknadsanalyser, redovisning eller andra komplicerade kalkyleringar som algoritmer och datorer klarar av bättre och snabbare. På samma sätt frigörs människor från manuellt arbete som fixas billigare av robotar. Vi flyttar från hjärnan mot maskinen.

För det andra bör företag fundera på sin affärsmodell. Visst behövs produkter och service, men balansen börjar luta över mot plattformar. Musiken är en produkt och Spotify plattformen som distribuerar den. På samma sätt är en skjuts i stan en produkt vars plattform kan vara Uber.

Facebook och Airbnb är plattformar som inte producerar vare sig innehåll eller äger några fastigheter. Är Dagens industri en framtida plattform för nyheter och analys om och av ekonomi för svenskspråkiga läsare?

För det tredje blir informationen allt öppnare. Det är ju inte längre så att individen eller experten sitter på all visdom. Det behövs grupper för att utveckla service och produkter. Teknologin för att göra detta är tillgänglig och det gäller inte bara produktutveckling, utan till exempel operationssystem eller encyklopedier som skrivs online av massor, inte traditionella experter. Från individer till grupper.

Betyder allt detta att vi kan glömma hjärnan, produkten och individen? Absolut inte. Det är bara en fråga om hur du och ditt företag hanterar balansskiftet mot maskiner, plattformar och grupper.

Jag är bara en modest bankir som fattar finansieringsbeslut på basen av expertanalyser från ekonomer, ingenjörer och jurister som stödjer sig på algoritmer, data och komplicerade riskanalyser.

Jag skulle aldrig våga generalisera vad ditt företag borde göra för att hänga med i den teknologiska utvecklingen. Samtidigt vågar jag påstå att om du tror att du kan stödja dig enbart på människans hjärnkapacitet, en bra produkt eller service och ett litet team, så kommer ditt företag inte att existera om tio år.

You know that feeling when you change jobs or careers. Your senses are alert. It all feels new and fresh. You are excited about everything and everybody.

The learning curve is steep. You absorb new information like never before. And at times, you are a bit lost, but slowly you start putting the pieces together.

That is exactly how I have felt over the past two months. After some 20 years in academia, civil service, and international and national politics, I have become a banker. I can’t say if I have gone from bad to worse, but at least it doesn’t feel like it.

Working as Vice President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) has been an exciting change. My training and background is more in political science and international relations rather than economics and finance. Yet the glue that keeps it all together is the European Union (EU). The EIB is the EU’s bank and has been since 1958.

It is perhaps the best kept secret of the EU. I am an EU nerd at best of times, but little did I know that the EIB is the biggest multilateral bank in the world. Bigger than the World Bank (WB) and 10 times bigger than the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

Over the years I have had the honour to serve in various public capacities. Whenever I have been faced with a new task, it has taken me approximately four months to get acquainted with the job and half a year to feel comfortable. There are no shortcuts. You simply have to roll up your sleeves and get on with it.

I’ve had time to reflect and came up with these three things that I try to keep in mind when I start something new.

First, do not be afraid to ask stupid questions. It is better to try to understand than to pretend that you understand. Don’t nod like a Swede when a Dane is speaking “Scandinavian.” No, we do not understand Danish!

Second, work hard on the basics. If you do not get the foundation, it will be very difficult to build a clear picture of your new tasks ahead. Read, listen, discuss, write, observe. Try to soak in as much as possible. One piece at a time.

Third, be humble. It does not matter what your background is, you are the newcomer. What you have done in the past is useful, but it is in the past. Your new colleagues will have been there for longer and you have to respect that. You could be the best number-cruncher in the world (I am not!), but you have to realise that at the office it is all about human relations and empathy.

A curious mind loves to learn new things. Being the new kid on the block is fun. Even if they involve derivatives, swaps, and complicated acronyms. I want this feeling of excitement to last for as long as possible. And it will.

Jag kommer ihåg då jag för första gången såg president Ronald Reagans ”State of the union”-tal till USA:s kongress. Året var 1986, och jag var utbytesstudent i Daytona Beach, Florida.

Jag var inte precis intresserad av politik. Det var mera idrott, tjejer och blaskig amerikansk öl som gällde.En kväll fastnade jag dock framför Reagans tv-sända tal. Det var fängslande, men samtidigt rätt så skrämmande – amerikanska patriotism med snudd på nationalism.

Därför har jag alltid ställt mig lite skeptiskt till att EU:s kommissionsordförande håller ett årligt ”State of theunion”-tal. Jag är en övertygad EU-anhängare, men har alltid haft lite svårt för EU-patriotism. Som tur är har talen inte utvecklats till amerikansk teater, snarare till en överblick för hur det går för EU.

”What a difference a year makes”, brukar man säga. 2016 höll EU-kommissionens ordförande Jean-Claude Juncker ett alarmistiskt tal om EU:s existentiella kris efter brexit. Det var deprimerande att lyssna på hur dåligt det gick för EU med nationalism, osäkerhet och populism som hotade hela integrationsprocessen.

I år var det en helt annan ton i Junckers röst. Två år i rad har Europas ekonomiska tillväxt utvecklats snabbare än USA:s. Tillväxten ligger på över 2 procent, arbetslösheten är lägst på nio år och under tre år har det tillkommit åtta miljoner nya jobb i EU, över 235 miljoner europeér är sysselsatta, mera än någonsin tidigare.

EU klarade eurokrisen. Budgetunderskotten har sänkts från i snitt 6,6 procent till 1,6 procent och unionens investeringsplan har redan samlat ihop 225 miljarder euro i investeringar, och mer lär det bli.

Inte att undra på att Jean-Claude Juncker talade om att EU har vind i seglen. Det stämmer. Lika säkert är att nationella politiker inte kommeratt tacka Bryssel för medgången. Som före detta minister förstår jag logiken när en politiker skyller alla bekymmer på EU och hyllar sig själv för framgångarna.

För tillfället går det bra. De värsta mardrömmarna om höger- och vänsterpopulisternas frammarsch i europeiska val förverkligades aldrig. I alla fall inte än. Brexit och Donald Trump fungerade som en väckarklocka för alla som antog att EU och internationellt samarbete är en självklarhet.

EU borde ha en ypperlig möjlighet fördjupa och förstärka samarbetet inom bland annat försvars-, säkerhets-, och asylpolitik. Samma gäller för den inre marknaden, frihandel och finanspolitik. Problemet är att krisen alltid väntar bakom hörnet. Det är jobbigare att göra strukturella förändringar när man kryssari motvind.

I have a problem! And if you are anything like me, so do you. You read less and less books, and surf more and more on social media and the Internet.

Take our bookshelves at home. I am proud of our over 4,000 books. No, I have not read all of them, but certainly a majority.

I try to keep up with modern literature of many different genres, much like I enjoy reading classics, novels, history, philosophy, sport, biographies, international relations, and science.

I am still able to keep up a pace of approximately one book every two weeks, but I feel that this is not enough. I crave for more. Many of the books that I read give me food for thought for this column, and if you fly Finnair regularly you will have seen references to them.

But, here is the thing. My reading is becoming more sporadic. I spend too much time surfing around on my iPad and smartphone. I click from subject to subject, check my Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. Not to speak of my e-mail and text messages.

Modern communication channels are training my brain to read a paragraph or two and then move on to the next thing. Just clicking away. While writing this column I was texting with a friend and checked my social medias at least five times.

Neuroscientists have explained this phenomenon. We learn something new quickly and get a dopamine rush from it. A study with rats show that they prefer a dopamine fix over food and sex. We humans get the rush from e-mails and social media. Scary, but true.

Interestingly enough, studies show that surfing the web makes you more tired than intensive deep reading. Focusing hard for an hour is good for you and lack of time is just a poor excuse for not reading.

Essayist Charles Chu has calculated that we read about 400 words per minute. According to Chu it would take 420 hours to read about 200 books. That is a tad over one hour per day. Now I spend at least one hour exercising a day. And I probably spend more than that on social media or watching TV.

So, how about if we do something about it, together? I will try to implement a 1+1+1 hour rule for myself. That is, I will try to set aside one hour for reading books, one hour for exercising, and one hour for surfing social media per day.

My experiment begins on the first of September and ends exactly one year later. I will keep careful track of what I read and my aim will be to read 100 books. I have had an exercise journal since 2007, so nothing new there. Regulating social media might be a bit more difficult, but I will try.

Feel free to join me. I will post an update once a month on facebook.com/alexanderstubb and wrap it all up in a column a year from now.

Happy reading, happy exercising, and happy surfing.

Du vet den där känslan när någonting nytt börjar. Det är spännande. Lite fjärilar i magen. Adrenalin i blodet. Energinivåerna stiger. Man känner sig sådär nykär. Allt är nytt och härligt.

Den känslan har jag haft denna vecka. Efter 13 år som både EU-parlamentariker och minister började jag som Europeiska investeringsbankens (EIB) vicepresident i måndags.

Jo, jo jag vet att ett hopp från politiker till bankir inte låter värst sexigt, men jag tycker att det är det. Dessutom är Luxemburg en fin stad, och nu talar jag inte bara om cykelrutter.

EIB hör till en av världens bästa hemligheter inom den internationella finansvärlden. Alla känner till IMF, Europeiska centralbanken eller Världsbanken, men få vet att EIB är inte bara EU:s bank utan världens största multilaterala bank.

EIB grundades 1958. Banken ägs av EU:s 28 medlemsländer. Balansen (assets) är 600 miljarder euro och finansieringen kring 80 miljarder euro årligen. Byråer finns det i 40 länder och aktivitet i över 140 länder.

EIB brukar kallas för de goda nyheternas bank. Varför? Därför att banken fokuserar på att ge lån åt projekt i både den offentliga och privata sektorn. EIB prioriterar projekt som hjälper små och medelstora företag, klimat och miljö, innovationer och infrastruktur.

Det är inte fråga om små projekt. Av ungefär 650 projekt är medellånen 100 miljoner euro. Visst finns det mindre lån, men ofta är det fråga om större belopp. Tanken är att EIB lånar ut en tredjedel och att resten kommer från annat håll.

Sverige har också utnyttjat EIB. I till exempel klimatfågor har svenska företag och myndigheter fått över 3 miljarder i lån under åren 2012–2017. Bland annat Castellum och Vasakronan fick respektive 75 och 200 miljoner euro för att bygga nya energivänliga hus.

Största delen av lånen, hela 90 procent, delas ut inom EUländer. Resten hamnar utanför EU. EIB har till exempel en viktig roll i att bekämpa asylkrisen eller hjälpa med större infrastrukturprojekt i östra grannländer.

Det blir saker som jag känner till från förut – EU-institutioner har en dynamik jag blivit van vid under årens lopp. Samtidigt blir det mycket nytt: projekt, risker, finansiering och transaktioner. En nyfiken hjärna njuter av att lära sig nya saker.

Men, vad gör en glamourös bankir under sin första arbetsdag? Söker sig naturligvis till Ikea för skaffa allt det som en ny lägenhet behöver. I andan av varornas fria rörlighet så gör jag mina uppköp på andra sidan av gränsen, i Belgien.

I remember hearing a lot of moaning about how bad I was as a kid, overly energetic and often up to mischief. It was not far from the truth, but my Dad always defended me. “Don’t worry, people always complain about today’s youths, it was like that even in Ancient Greece,” he said, calling me by my nickname, which was Tico.

He was right, of course. Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato were masters at teaching the young. They felt nothing could be nobler than getting youngsters to grapple with life’s big questions. That meant challenging tradition and authority. Now, I was no philosopher back then and probably challenged the wrong things, but my Dad’s advice stuck.

These days I still hear adults complaining about young people – they spend too much time on their smart phones or computers, don’t get outdoors enough, read fewer books than previous generations, and neither respect tradition nor behave in a respectful manner.

I think that’s all rubbish. Today’s youths are great! Much smarter, more polite, and better informed and well rounded than we ever were. Anyone who claims the opposite has either a selective or overly nostalgic memory of the past. We simply did not have what the Millennials have. Just stop for a second and think about it.

Getting information used tobe difficult and time-consuming, now everything is available online. The projects that kids do in school are nothing short of impressive. Most Millennials speak more languages than we do. When they leave home they will have seen more of the world, either through physical travel or virtual observation, than we ever did.

Technology has already transformed the way in which we interact with one another. Games such as Wordfeud connect grandparents and grandchildren across continents. Social media from Snapchat to Instagram allow users to share everyday life with friends and family. A plethora of visual communication apps from Facetime to Skype offer great ways to stay in touch.

Most importantly today’s youths are much more tolerant than we were. They respect difference, whether it is racial, sexual, or cultural. Their world is simply much more diverse than ours was, which is also reflected in the manner in which they behave toward their elders.

Every generation is smarter than the previous one. It’s what makes the world tick. Some call it evolution, I call it life. That’s how it is supposed to be. Nothing beats the feeling of your own children outsmarting you. For me, it happens daily, and I’m proud of it.

Democracy is a funny old thing, never short of surprises. Who would have thought four weeks ago that a potential Conservative landslide would turn into a hung parliament? Then again, who would have thought 12 months ago that presidents Trump and Macron would be preoccupied with Brexit?

For the UK, things have gone from bad to worse. If the aim of Prime Minister Theresa May was to strengthen her weak negotiating hand on Brexit, Thursday’s parliamentary elections did exactly the opposite — and then some. In politics, bluster can easily turn to whimper.

For the Remainers, the poll result leaves a glimmer of hope. At least a hard Brexit — a full detachment from the customs union and the single market — seems less likely. All talk about how “no deal is better than a bad deal” can now be thrown into the dustbin of misplaced soundbites.

European capitals are perplexed, but there is no reason for shadenfreude. The negotiations will be immensely complicated even without the political chaos in Westminster. The best thing to do in such a situation is to remain calm — take a deep breath and count to 10. The implications of Brexit on both sides of the channel will be significant. Rushing the process will make things worse.

Having said this, I am aware that the clock is ticking. The invocation of Article 50 means that Brexit should take place by the end of March 2019, a couple of months before European elections. It will be difficult to stop the clock when the negotiations have barely started.

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, is correct in saying that the EU is ready to begin whenever the UK is ready. The Union could take it a step further and call for a timeout. Will a coalition between the Conservatives and Northern Ireland’s rightwing Democratic Unionist party last? If we begin negotiations on 19 June, will we truly know who we are dealing with?

There is talk about a new election. What then? Yet another new negotiating mandate from a new government? Brexit was self-inflicted, we do not need to make things worse from the outside. Give the UK time to sort itself out. If Britain is ready, the EU will be ready.

It might be tempting to start the negotiations with technicalities, but that will be difficult before the big issues of jurisdiction, free movement and customs union are sorted out. Having negotiated EU agreements as a civil servant and a politician, I know from experience that it does not work.

As an avid anglophile I look at the last 12 months in dismay. Both the UK and the US are in the process of marginalising themselves from world politics. As a francophone I am hopeful; the election of Emmanuel Macron spells reform in a country that desperately needs it. As a Europeanist I see an opportunity to deepen integration and to take more responsibility both inside and outside the Union.

If this year has taught supporters of liberal democracy anything, it is that our system of governance is full of surprises and no matter how much we talk about stability, instability is often the norm rather than the exception. The good news is that at the end of the day democracy will find a solution, whether it means Brexit or not.

I just spent 10 days in San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, where I met visionary entrepreneurs and visited Facebook, Google, Apple and Tesla. I am also a wanna-betech-savy-middle-aged-man who reads up on this stuff on a regular basis.

Much has been written about the impact of the fourth industrial revolution — digitalisation, robotisation, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and 3D printing — on modern society.Little has been said about the capacity of democracies or other forms of government to absorb thischange.

The first industrial revolution gave us Marxism. The impact of the fourth industrial revolution will be many times greater. The internet and telecommunication revolutions were peanuts incomparison.

The pace of change is faster than ever. My teenage children do not remember a time before smartphones; their children will go to school in a vehicle without a driver. Things that you had to buy in the 1990s — a camera, stereo, games, watch, CDs or TV — are all on your smartphone. Soon that phone will be ousted by spectacles that bring you both virtual and augmented reality.

Robots are replacing muscle. Factories are becoming automated. So is intelligence. I do not have to ask my wife every time I do not understand something — Amazon’s Alexa will help me out. Machines solve complex tasks. Algorithms take care of mundane administrative jobs, do the analysis of markets and roam through thousands of pages of case law. Goodbye secretaries, market analysts and lawyers?

Even newsfeeds are created with the help of AI. Before politicians cheer at the prospect of aworld without journalists, they should remember that algorithms will soon be better at legislation than they are. How about letting an algorithm decide the optimal Brexit deal? Then we will know whether “No deal is better than a bad deal”. Well, perhaps not quite yet.

There will be no lack of ethical questions once homo sapiens begin to become a hybrid between man and machine. The prospect of a 150-year life is not far off. What will that do to school, work,pensions and our understanding of death?

I am all for free enterprise, but I do believe that we must create an ethical code for the fourth industrial revolution. Much as nation states have constitutions and laws, we need rules for the basis on which we advance technology. I vote for good, rather than evil algorithms.

The transition will be disruptive. Are politicians and legislators ready for this disruption? I think not. Studies claim that approximately half of current jobs will be lost in the next 15 years. How will democratic politics manage the transition? A basic income might help, but that will not be easy with a declining tax base caused by e-commerce and a more circular economy.

Big data and AI will be used by politicians to win elections. Will this be a victory for the demagogues or the mainstream? That will depend on who codes the algorithms. Elected politicians are often from an older generation which is not necessarily up to par on the latest technological megatrends. At least we are not yet at a stage where a social-media-empowered animated figure is in a run-off with a human.

International and national institutions are hopelessly slow and bureaucratic. It takes 10 to 15 years to frame a trade agreement; in the world of e-commerce this is more than a lifetime. Perhaps it is time to think seriously about an e-EU or e-WTO to tackle trade.

There are two ways to approach this revolution. Tech optimists argue that when old jobs vanish, new ones emerge. Productivity and transparency increases, money is saved and tasks are performed more efficiently. Human beings live longer, healthier lives. Basic needs are taken care of. We have more time to pursue happiness.

Tech pessimists point to the danger of technology taking over our lives. Opportunities to use and abuse power are plenty. The manipulation of algorithms, intrusions on privacy or cyberwarfare are but a few examples of problems raised. The future of mankind is at stake.

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two visions. The opportunities are as real as the threats. No matter how far we take robots, machine learning or AI, there are two things that technology will not be able to replace: empathy and human touch. I know scientists are working on this, but we are still far off.

We tend to overestimate short-term change, but underestimate long-term transformation. Be this as it may, politicians must understand that the fourth industrial revolution will transform democracy, society and mankind in the not so distantfuture.