EMERGENCY DEBATE: The Death Of The Middle Class! The Pitch Forks Are Coming!

I find interesting is the UK has better worker rights. But it is, but you also have much less inequality here. I mean, just to be clear, that is true. So the US is significantly more unequal. Yeah. The US top 1% holds over 30% of the nation's wealth compared to roughly 20% in the UK. Um, and the US consistently ranks as the most unequal of the G7 nations. Correct. However, the US is growing much, much faster. If you look at 2009 to 2026, the US has grown over 100% faster than the UK. Yes. Um, and the UK is vastly more protective of workers. We have the things Daniel said, like paid vacation, paid maternity leave. The UK mandates up to 39 weeks of statutory pay. The US mandates zero, which is unbelievably correct, horrific.

But I mean, one of the things that's happened in the UK, Steve, is is Brexit. When did that happen? 2016. That's taken, that's taken, what has that taken? 8 or 10% out of UK growth rates. It has affected unemployment by 4%, productivity gains by 4%. I mean, the list goes on. So that own, I mean, part of, part of why people in the UK are feeling down is this unbelievable mistake that the country made.

But it's the same in Germany. It's the same in Australia. Germany has unbelievable workers' rights. Australia, unbelievable workers' rights. In fact, the USA is the outlier of all the modern capitalist economies. Absolutely. But we're confusing things. People are pissed off everywhere in the world. Everywhere.

I don't, I want the pitchforks to go away as well, but these workers' rights are not putting the pitchforks away. Like all of this stuff, we've given this stuff to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, uh, all of Western Europe, all the English-speaking democracies other than the USA. USA is the only one that has virtually no safety nets and no safeguards. Everywhere else has healthcare systems that are much more generous and welfare systems that are more generous and like maternity leave. I mean, it's just inhumane that USA doesn't have maternity leave. So, all of that stuff, but we've got all of that, but we've got the pitchforks here, too. Yes.

Um, and this is why I'm saying I'm really zoning in on the idea that people need to own a house, they need to own a business, and they need to own shares. And it's like if they own stuff. I could not agree more. And I don't know how to get them there unless they are paid well enough to to make to do that.

Let me tell you an anecdote. During the George Floyd riots, people were burning stuff down in the United States. And there was this fantastic interview with this woman and the reporter said, you know, I just, I cannot believe that you don't have respect for property rights. And the woman said, they've got nothing. We have no property. Yeah. You know, why should I respect property rights? No one I know owns anything. Yeah. You know, like, so I am 100% with you. But I think at the core of it, the core of it is that inequality is way more than an economic inconvenience for the people that it affects. Yeah.

What it does is it shreds the reciprocity norms that make social cohesion and democracy possible. Yeah. It's this dog eat dog. You're all on your own. Grab what you can. I mean, obviously the Trump people and burn the place down. That's right. And burn the place down. Obviously, Donald Trump has created a permission structure for the worst kind of behavior, right? The worst kind of corruption. Uh, basically stealing has come back into style, right? And you know, there's all sorts of reasons that are generating this malaise, this this sense of unfairness and lack of control, right? And and and the thing is, I I just, I agree 100% with your sentiments. I really do about entrepreneurship and ownership and, you know, at the end of the day, the cool thing about entrepreneurship is you're in charge. Yeah. Like you're in charge here.

But not everybody can be an entrepreneur. Correct. Correct. And so I do think that that's a little bit unrealistic. The the issue is is that like 70% of all jobs that get created are created by small businesses and not governments, not big companies. They're, you know, they don't create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. And if we just, not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but if we had 100,000 entrepreneurs who were all hiring 10 people, we'd we'd have a million jobs and we'd have 100,000 options for people with jobs. So like, I I don't think that we discount the whole idea that entrepreneurship is a big part of the solution.

Can I take us briefly back in time? This is not the first time this has happened. The K-shaped economy has happened in the Engles pause. Yeah. So the, what do you mean by K-shaped economy? So the K-shaped economy is where, so a normal economy is one where everyone agrees it's going up or down or sideways. Everyone can sort of say, "Oh yeah, roughly speaking, it's a good economy. It's a bad economy. It's it's rising and falling like a tide." A K-shaped economy is where it's really good for some and really bad for others. It's a disrupted economy. Yeah. Right. So the top percentage are going up and the bottom percentage are going down. Now the headlines that we run today are the exact same headlines that were run in the early 1800s in Britain. And it was essentially record profits for industrialists and workers haven't had any improvements. They all like, you could almost take every grievance that we have today and you could just overlay it in the early 1800s and you get the exact same words.

Um, the solutions, uh, one of the big solutions in the early 1800s was we need to export people. We need to get rid of people. And what they did is they sent everyone to Australia. So they they sent, they sent, they picked up people and they put them in in Australia, right? So they, same sort of thing, mass mass immigration or whatever you call it, remigration. So they got rid of people out of the country. So it was very similar and we call this the Engles pause, but we understand what caused it. 1790 to 1840. Yeah. So what caused it was technology and it was this new, it was the industrial revolution. Yeah. So it's the new technology where we introduced a steam engine, we introduced a spinning loom, we introduced uh tractors, we introduced all of this sort of new technology and the owners of that new technology and the people associated with that new technology went like that. They leveled up because of tech and the people who were not part of that technology went down. Very simple picture you might want to have in your mind is a farm that had a 100 workers farming versus one farm that had a tractor. The tractor farm went like that and the all the workers went like that. It's because of technology.

The interesting thing about the Engles pause is that for approximately two generations, 50, 75 years, with the exception of the owners of capital, basically everybody else on planet Earth went backwards. It was hell. It was hell. Um, and what and what happened is that over time the political consensus changed and working people clawed back some of that value through unions, through labor standards, so on and so forth. So one of, I guess, the essence of what I want to get to is, I mean, something you've always talked about, Dan, as well, is that if you start applying pressures on these companies or entrepreneurs, they can just now get up and leave. And that was quite different from that era where we weren't dealing with technological businesses. is we weren't dealing with IP and those things. So if you start imposing some of these measures, will these companies get up and leave and go somewhere else where market conditions are preferable? A lot of UK entrepreneurs are, as we've seen from some of the numbers recently, choosing to go work elsewhere. Okay. Yeah.

I think one of the things that just needs to be acknowledged and put on the table is one of the challenges you have here is you have the Europe or the world has built this incredibly stupid system where you can operate a business here, take advantage of the UK's market, take advantage of the UK's rule of law, take advantage of the UK's uh infrastructure, put your stuff in a box, move to Dubai, and pay no tax. Right? It's idiotic. It's just it's just idiotic and suboptimizing. As an American, I pay tax wherever I go, right? So, I cannot come to a place and take advantage of it and then skirt the laws. So, this is such a profound disincentive to do the right thing.

Well, yeah. Yes. But the real culprit is what companies can do because US companies can do it. You you can't do it as an individual, but you can set up an office in Ireland in Luxembourg, which is even worse. and and it's the corporations that are the bad guys, which is but you have both problems. be you have you have UK-based entrepreneurs who are like, well, I can stay here and pay 40% tax or whatever it is, right? And just pop off to Dubai, run the business virtually and pay nothing.

So what are you saying should be done with those people that do that? I think that UK citizens should pay UK UK tax wherever they go and German citizens should pay German tax wherever they go. Do you agree? I don't think that will solve it because it's not citizens, it's corporations that are the bad guys. Well, it will solve one problem. It will not. This other problem needs to be handled too. The the the giant vampire squids of the world are companies that are pumping money out of the economies and they're faceless corporations that have figured out how to play this game. So, for example, let's take YouTube for example. YouTube is serving up a ton of videos to people all over this country and they're running ads, but that is pretending to be in some distant place. It's not pretend. It's not being in the UK. And what we used to do in the UK is we used to have a broadcast license. If you want to broadcast in the country, you pay a flat fee and you can broadcast. Why is YouTube not playing a paying a broadcast license? If they are a broadcaster effectively, uh, and running ads, they sit there and say, "Oh, but there's this and we shift our profit through here and oh, we have to, I'm so sorry, but we have to buy our licensing, you know, from this company over in this other Vanuatu or whatever." It's like, "No, no, no. We don't care about that." It's like, look at how you do business in the UK. You should pay tax. It's just as simple as you you're you've got this many views and the broadcast license for you is this much.

Okay. So do you agree on both points then that you should tax corporations based on where their customers are consuming and you should tax individuals irrespective of where they decide to fly off to? Look, I think in a globalized world that we live in, an individual should be allowed to make a new life for themsel if they want to, right? Like so, for example, if I genuin I I make a new life for myself in the UK 20 years ago. I came here from Australia and I don't want to pay tax in Australia because I was born in Australia. I paid a million dollars worth of tax in Australia, but I now live here. Like my I've got three kids here and I've got a house here and my whole life is here. I don't like the idea that just because I was born in Australia, it's it's not possible for me to make a new life.

But we have a tax treaty. Yeah. Like there are ways of handling this, but this ridiculous. Look, every rich person I know in Europe is playing this ridiculous game of trying to avoid taxes, right? I don't know how you can look at that and think this is a good system. But the issue is you and I both know it's so easy to just turn this into a company game. So like, for example, if we have to appropriately close the loopholes. Like Yeah. But like I just, I'm seeing so many people demonize people like Nick, right? They go, "Oh, this guy, he's, you know, he's a rich guy and he's like, you know, shouldn't be so rich." Honestly, he's not the problem. I'm sure you pay a bunch of taxes and also you you create economic activity around you. These mega corporations do trillions of dollars out of economies.

If we take a mega corporation, you know, think of one in your head, and we decide to tax them where their customers are. I was looking at some of the research and says corporations rarely just absorb the tax. When countries like the UK or France introduce taxes based on local users, tech giants like the like the biggest in the world immediately raised fees and prices for the consumer and small businesses inside those specific countries to offset the cost. If we had a global tax system that prevented this, then they wouldn't do it. They couldn't do it.

If the compliance cost of tracking user locations and paying to local taxes outweighs the profit from the region, companies also tend to simply block users in those countries or pull their products entirely. Great. Great. And that opens up a possibility of a local company to do it. Worse. Huh? Worse. Maybe better.

I was thinking here about the large language models and I was thinking about that as an example. If you know, if the UK tried to take on Gemini or Chat GPT, etc., we would be using a significantly worse technology. The truth is that those those mega corps. That's accurate though. Those mega corps, they don't do this. They they want to own the world and they want to dominate the world. They they're not interested in cutting countries out, right? None of them actually cut countries out.

When do you think you think Facebook is just going to leave the UK? Yeah. Like they're not going to do that. So and the other way is how you do it. So if you simply. How do you do that in Australia though with the news publishing business? They might do it very briefly as a way to punish political uh dissent, but ultimately they operate globally. They have a global business model and they uh essentially too, we just need to say, I'm sorry, you've had your 20, 30 years of not paying taxes anywhere, but we're not doing that anymore. And you know, we we are very good at coordinating when we want to coordinate and we need to say the bad guy here, I mean, it is really just pulling money out of our economies and taking it to other other places. And one of the reasons that the USA has become so wealthy with its stock market is because it is the end valuation where all of these vampire squids end up with.

If I look at what happened, it was um Australia, I was thinking about um, but it also happened in Canada where they passed a law called the online news act requiring tech giants to pay local publishers whenever Canadian users shared or viewed news links. And immediately, instead of paying uh the user location tax, Meta simply blocked all news content from every user in Canada because the cost of compliance just wasn't worth the hassle for one particular market. And you have the same thing happen with Amazon where several US states like California tried to force Amazon to collect local sales tax simply because Amazon had independent affiliates like bloggers, etc., living in those states and rather than dealing with the complex local tax collection, Amazon instantly terminated thousands of affiliate accounts. If every state required Amazon to collect local sales tax, then obviously they couldn't do any of that. They would have to deal with it, right? It's just these big corporations have a massive advantage over the jurisdictions that they're operating in because they have so much more power and so much more flexibility.

So what is the what is your solution then Daniel to solve for this inequality problem that we're experiencing because you know, you seem to be less interested in the sort of workers' rights piece because that seems to. We've tried it. We try, you're saying we tried it. Yeah. What I would like personally is I want to see way more small businesses and I want the government to favor small businesses and essentially say, we're going to reduce the taxes and the pressure on the small businesses. We're going to advantage local small businesses that are here and paying tax. Um, we're going to create special economic trading zones if your business is based here, uh, and is a smaller size. We're going to basically make ourselves highly competitive for small businesses to show up and do their aame.

And what about big businesses? Punish, punish big businesses that that uh, I wouldn't punish them. I would just tilt the pl. I'm 100% with him. Tilt the playing field towards smaller businesses and startups. You know, I I'm not sure if you've heard about this thing that uh I just joined the board of called Enterprise Britain that that uh Brent Herman who does Founders Forum. Yep. And Steve Fitzpatrick who founded OOO just started. It's called Enterprise Britain. It's a group of us who have gotten together uh with the express purpose of doing exactly pretty much what you what you describe, which is to try to make Britain an even better environment for business, mostly small and medium-sized businesses. And one of the great challenges here is to f try to find capitalist structures that allow small companies to turn into larger companies while remaining here and not fleeing to a better place. But I'm I am 100% in agreement with this. And you can have an incredibly dynamic, fast-growing economy where all of the benefits flow to the people at the very top and everybody else gets screwed.

And you have to do both. You have to do both. I've spent the last decade building and investing in companies. And so often the conversation around marketing budgets follows the exact same pattern. The budget gets approved, but then the results don't come back. And most of the time, the creative pitch and the offer is fine. The problem lies with the audience. Ads reach people who will never buy or refer, nor do they have the power to sign off anything at all. And this is why so much budget gets wasted. LinkedIn ads, who a sponsor of this podcast, lets you reach them specifically by job title, seniority, company size, industry, the skills that they have, and much more. You're no longer hoping your ad reaches the right person. Instead, you're defining exactly who sees it. And LinkedIn Ads drives the highest B2B return on ad spend across all major ad networks. Give them a try at linkedin.com/diary. And if you spend $250 on your first campaign, you'll get a $250 credit for your next one just by going to linkedin.com/diary. Keep this to yourself. Terms and conditions apply. For every founder, there comes a point in building a company where your job shifts from being the person inside your business actioning everything to the person responsible for absolutely everything. The only way I've been able to make this shift across the different companies and teams I'm responsible for is by knowing that the right systems are in place to manage everything. Systems that don't need me in order for them to work. Our sponsor Pipe Drive is one of those systems, an easy to use, intelligent CRM tool for growing sales teams. My teams use it and have for the last decade because it's genuinely the most effective way to run a sales operation. Through one dashboard, you get every deal visible and every stage of the sales process is clear and what needs to happen next is all there in real time. When a system like this works, you don't need to be in every conversation to know exactly if your business is moving forward, where and what the blockers are. Over a 100,000 companies are already running their sales on it. So, if you'd like to join them, sign up at piperive.com/ceeo, where you'll get an exclusive 30-day free trial instead of the usual 14 days. No credit card is needed. That's piperive.com/ceo.

I mean, one of the most important subjects at the moment in society is artificial intelligence. And we you probably saw recently Eric Schmidt did a commencement speech in front of thousands of students and every time he said the word stage, every time he said the word AI, um, one of the things that Anthropic or one of the leading AI companies said recently is that entry-level jobs are at risk. And I've got this graph here showing the decline of entry-level job postings. I believe it was on LinkedIn um pull from somewhere and it shows that they're consistently dropping and dropping and dropping. AI is, I think about it so often. I was up late last night trying to think through some of this stuff because Anthropic released a report yesterday showing that the AI models will be able to improve themselves theoretically in the future and what this might mean.

How disruptive do you think AI is going to be as it relates to job losses? You know, I don't think Bernie Sanders latest idea is terrible. US will own 50% of all the companies. It is absolutely true that AI has monetizing for free humanity's intellectual property and a few people are going to directly benefit from that. And I think that um, in the same way that Norway created a sovereign wealth fund with this enormous asset that they had, uh, creating a sovereign wealth fund with 50% of the value created by AI and recycling that into uh, I think it's unclear exactly how those benefits should be should be recycled, but trying to find a way to make some of that value a cushion for the disruption that it will inevitably cause. I don't think that's a crazy idea.

It's a good idea for China and the US. Yes. Yes. But not for anywhere else necessarily. It's not going to help Senegal or Southampton much. No. In fact, it'll damage a lot of those places. You know, like the Philippines has benefited enormously by being the outsourced back office uh for a lot of small businesses that AI can now do a lot of those those uh those jobs. Um, one of the things that I always come back to is the idea that say the UK has 5.7 million businesses. We have a million unemployed people. We need 1/5th of the businesses to employ one person. AI does actually make your business better. Like AI is really good at helping you with your marketing. AI is great at helping you do legal contracts. There are 100 ways that AI could actually make 5.7 million businesses a little bit better to the point where they want to hire someone. And if we can incentivize those things to happen, businesses are trained on how to use AI to their advantage and tax breaks for small businesses that are hiring. And we will, you know, there's actually 5.7 million businesses and a million unemployed people. That's a good, there's a good match there.

You know, um, a lot of people have been talking about AI agents and, uh, what an AI agent can do. For anyone that doesn't know, is it can go on your computer and it can get any task you want done on the computer, um, whether that's you know editing tasks or whether that's you know manual data entry tasks or whatever it is, it can click around on a computer and do things. A lot of the entry-level roles were often given are that kind of work. I think my entry-level entry-level job job after I dropped out of university was kind of doing that kind of thing. There was also a little bit of a sales component where I'd cold call people and AI can now do the cold calls too. And increasingly, if we just play the rate of development forward, we'll be able to do those things. So if these businesses get more and more efficient, um, again, it comes back this an entry-level point is what what role will entry-level team members have in these kind of companies. So what's interesting for me, I have a group of companies, small businesses, uh, dynamic small businesses. We've implemented AI in all of them and as a result, we've hired people. Who have you hired? Entry-level people. We've hired some entry-level people who are augmented by AI, so they become more valuable because of AI. But like things like appointment setting, we've ended up hiring more salespeople because we get more appointments. We use it with our marketing and we end up hiring people who can actually have those final conversations with people. At the very core of my organ organizations, we have an AI layer and the AI layer has context and skills and models and security layer, right? All all in there and it spits out amazing information and data and reports and tells us who to talk to and why to talk to them and what to talk to them about. All these things are happening because of AI.

But it doesn't get around the point that like if you think about Uber, uh, Dara has been pretty clear that the 9 million drivers they have, I think it is, are going to lose their jobs in the future. If you think about the the other sort of white-collar professions we've described, they those roles won't won't exist in the future. Well, I should say those roles will be will be will be changed. Correct.

If I put on my more optimistic hat, the thing is is that all businesses operate in a competitive environment and there are two ways to compete. One is to be cheaper. The other is to be better. Right. And the thing about AI is that yeah, there are tasks that you can automate away, but one person with good AI tools may be able to do the job of five. Mhm. Right. And yeah, you could eliminate that job or you could keep that person, give them the right tools and out compete your competitors. The right tools. The right tools. I think there's an assumption that. I mean, this is of course what happened with computers, right? I mean, I am older than you guys, so I I remember when calculators hit. You had to be there to realize how freaked out people were about calculators, right? Like people were talking about like what are the accountants going to do and and and will kids learn math anymore? I mean, it was it was like extremely controversial to bring a calculator to to to school. And then along came computers and the truth is that computers didn't reduce the amount of work that people did, they increased the amount of work that people did. And I do believe that there are ways in which AI is probably going to do that. And so the job loss may not be as apocalyptic as it now feels like it may be because again, at the end of the day, you have two ways to choose to compete. If you, you know, you can get rid of somebody and do X, but you could keep that person and have them do 5X and out compete, you know, your competitors in another dimension. I think that that will be something that people are likely to do. Doctors are just going to be better doctors.

I think I I definitely agree that there's going to be this sort of augmentation of certain individuals. I think maybe the difference between like calculators or computers versus this is AI is coming into a technological economy and it is coming in with instant scale in a way that when when Anthropic shipped their new model last week, it went to all of us at once. Yeah. Everywhere in the world, we were all boom, step changed with computers. I remember the day that like my dad ordered the first computer for our house and we waited for weeks and weeks and weeks and then we got it. It was super expensive to get one. We unboxed it. I remember us all stood around it looking at and it was like this Windows 95 machine that had like no memory on it. Um, so the distribution, the sort of disruption was much slower. The the pace, the pace was much slower, right?

And I understand that like with my with our team, there's no intent, we have no intention at all to let anybody go because of AI. We're reskilling people, training people. However, would we end up hiring less people, especially in the near term, than we would have otherwise? I think that's maybe conceivable. Yeah. Um, and a lot of companies, I think, are in that position where I actually was speaking to someone yesterday and they said, "We're just letting the natural attrition in our call center take care of the shift," which means they they lose 25% of people from their call center naturally. They're just not hiring other people back in. And actually, Clown's CEO said the same thing. He said, "We're just letting the attrition take care of it."

I'll give you another example though, just to counter that. Um, I work with a husband and wife couple in the north of England who they had a little video production agency and like one or two people who did a little bit of contracting with them. Uh, they used AI to create a piece of software and that piece of software uh helps automate script writing and a few of the things that they do. Um, they launched a waiting list for this. They got 5 and a half thousand people to join the waiting list. They then signed up their first 1500 clients to a piece of software that cost almost nothing for them to build in four months. Um, and now they're hiring a team of 10 people. And this is a husband and wife who had a small constrained business who are now uh building out a bigger business. And this is something that could never have happened. They haven't had to raise billion millions of dollars. They haven't had to hire 30, 40 people. So this this tiny little SAS opportunity is suddenly possible because of AI and take take that AI away and that fast growth dynamic little businesses is. Yeah.

I think anecdotally I could come up with lots of examples as well where particular people are highly entrepreneurial, they come across an opportunity, but there's this broad, if you just zoom out on the way that people generate value in the economy at the moment, so much of that is going to change and it's going to be quite quick, it feels like. Oh, totally. And I don't know what you do about like, what do you do about that sudden shift?

Well, this this happened in the Jevons paradox. The person who had a tractor displaced a hundred people who were in the field and those hundred people went into the city looking for work all at once. And it was Charles Dickens wrote the Tale of Two Cities. He wrote, uh, Oliver Twist. Uh, guess who else came out of the Jevons paradox? Our good friend Karl Marx, who came up with the most toxic ideas ever created and written down, right? He came off the back of the Jevons paradox.

So what you do about it? UBI. I'm not a big fan of UBI at the moment. Isn't that kind of what this 50% Bernie Sanders thing would do? Well, it's it's sovereign wealth fund, basically, but you have to find a way to help manage through this transition and you have to, I think, depend on the value create. Look, the the whole the the whole valuation that AI is predicated on is job disruption, right? You can't you can't get to those numbers unless you're displacing lots of jobs.

Exactly. And and if that's true, then we should grab some of that value that is created and recycle it into the economy to try to cushion the disruption that it creates. This is a bit of a socialist idea, right? I don't call that socialism. What do you call that? I don't know. Just common sense.

But wouldn't that broadly apply to all all companies and rich people? If there's if they are disrupting the economy and taking an unfair share of that disruption, should we not just grab and recycle back in? But that's the b that is the basis upon which every high functioning democracy in the in the world operates. I mean, every high functioning democracy in the world has progressive taxation, labor standards. There's a difference between seizing private property, which would be a socialist way of doing things and a communist way of doing things, and owning strategic assets, which which are private property. So, for example, the the Dubai government owns the uh physical hotel buildings that uh that run Dubai and it leases those out to hotel operators, but it keeps money in its sovereign wealth fund because it says basically a big part of Dubai is that we own these kind of land assets.

So, do you think we should go and take a a portion of these companies? Well, the difference was the Dubai government actually developed those assets, right? But we're we're already too far down the line with within a capitalist society like. We might say that data is the new oil and data is a common good and it is a common asset that has been um sequestered illegitimately by these companies. So therefore you're not seizing what they created. You're you're basically saying, I'm sorry, but you need to pay a license back to this sovereign wealth fund because you're using a common asset that you were able to essentially seize. You stole it. You stole it from Africans and British people. You stole it from people in Australia. You stole it from people in Canada.

The biggest issue that we're having is that we're actually the nature of the entire economy is changing. So this happened 250 years ago where the nature of the economy was land and we had an economic system called feudalism and colonialism. And then the nature of the economy was industrialization and we had a economic system called socialism and capitalism. And now the nature of the economy is actually fundamentally changing. So in economics, there's four factors of production: land, labor, capital, enterprise. We're now swinging like a pendulum from land through capital, labor, and now we're actually in an enterprise economy. And we need some sort of economic system that reflects the reality of how money and wealth is made.

What is that? Is that go to OpenAI, take 50% of their company and then pay out the profits of that 50% to the people? I'm always skeptical of any socialist ideas. If it comes from Bernie Sanders, I'm skeptical. Okay. But Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Like let's be socialist. He he says he's a socialist. Socialism, social, no, social, socialism is, you know, the government owning all the means of production, right? Look, there are a million forms of capitalism, right? We I every country operates slightly differently and there I don't think that Bernie Sanders is saying that we should abandon markets. What he is saying is we should manage markets for the public benefit, not exclusively for the benefit of the owners of capital. And I think that's really different.

You know, with like an Amazon, they're using the roads. Yeah. And the infrastructure. Correct. So would you go take 50% of those companies as well for public benefit and then pay it out to. No, but the citizens. We effectively do take part of them in the form of taxes, right? Now, now, now the taxes that we impose on those companies, I would argue, and Dan may may agree, are insufficient. They do not accurately reflect the value that we give them. They don't return equal value that.

So, you think increase the taxes on companies like Amazon? You both agree? Well, Amazon is very successfully avoiding taxes. Um, so. So, would you agree to increase? I think we need to have we need to close tax loopholes. taxes like all other companies that operate within the econom and all that sort of stuff who in competition with Amazon. Look, one of the biggest issues that we have is we have widespread incompetence in governments. And I'll give you a quick stat on this. In the UK government, you are 10 times more likely to die than to be fired for poor performance. And the UK government fires people at 1600th the as normal businesses for incompetence. So we have an accumulation of massive incompetence in government. So the idea you can come up, we can come up with all the best ideas under the sun at this table. We have a uh fundamentally incompetent set of people who have misaligned incentives. Uh, we have basically a revolving door between financial industrial complex, technology industrial complex. Well, the Singaporean government, they basically said that we're going to have a very high degree of meritocracy in government that essentially we promote and fire based on outcomes and merit merit. Singapore is a miracle of governance. Amazing governance. It's it's a miracle of governance, but it is a very small place. No, totally. And perhaps the only place in the history of planet Earth that has benefited from uh a well-meaning dictator, right? Well, yeah. It's an astonishing story of capability, competence, for foresight. Um.

So what is the solution with this AI revolution? It's I think we all agree that there's going to be job disruption and there's going to be a new type of job. There's going to be probably a delta of people transitioning to those new types of jobs. Um, I I've said this before, but I even noticed that within our recruitment processes now, we are really looking for people that have a certain set of skills. We always ask. And it's harder and harder and harder to find those people. Um. Well, that's training. That's education and training. It is. That takes time. The school system needs to produce people that you would want to hire. Yeah. And that takes a lot of time. In my hiring, I ask the question, how deep are you in the AI rabbit hole? And anyone who says, oh, a lot. I'm like, okay, join the team.

And and also, if you think about humanoid robots, Elon Musk's pay packet mandates him to deliver millions of humanoid robots or else he doesn't get his big pay packet. If we think about robotics and humanoid robots coming through, we watched the other day Figure AI released this video showing a humanoid robot sorting packages on a production line for eight days straight, beating a human sorting those packages on the production line. My car in Los Angeles now drives itself and as do the taxis and there's a huge race to make autonomous vehicles. Um, I'm sure there's new jobs created and I understand in foresight it's hard to understand what those will be. I assume there'll be more human jobs, more sales jobs. My only thing that I can say is that the future is small businesses. It's it's small teams of 10 people making YouTube channels. It's small teams of 10 people making software. It's like the the when you have millions and millions of little small businesses, everyone's happier.

But if you read what Anthropic released yesterday, they're making the claim that actually we're getting to a point where it will be an individual with a team of agents who can now make a trillion-dollar company without hiring a single person. And actually, when you said about making software, making that they would they might argue that that'll be agents making that software. Anthropic said that the amount of code each individual's producing on their own is eight times. And this one particular quote, which I actually screenshotted on my phone last night, comes from an engineer at Anthropic who was saying they feel useless because now they they say they haven't written a line of code in months and months and months. This Anthropic engineer was basically saying, like, I come to work, this agent writes the code for me and I kind of sit and watch and I feel useless. Um, so all those examples you gave.

What I'm okay, but what would happen in that situation is you would have a massive deflationary effect. The cost of if if there was one person doing all sorts of things in the economy, then the cost of that would go to the cost of the electricity to run it, right? So massive deflationary. And then the question becomes, well, what does everyone do? What do we all do? We do human things. Right? Humans always come up with things to do with each other. Like if I was to tell my grandfather that there is a job called a personal trainer who takes you to the gym and counts your reps, right? My grandfather would go, "That's insane." And I say, "Oh, there's 50,000 personal trainers in gyms all over the country." So, there are always these crazy new jobs that get created. I look at what trust fund kids do, right? Cuz a lot of trust fund kids, they go, they don't have to worry about money and they don't have to worry about resources and they go find something to do and it's always weird. We're going to traverse through, you know, potentially the jobs we have now involuntarily go through this transition moment where I think history is quite clear on what happens in these transition moments.

It gets ugly. It gets ugly. Yeah. And then we'll come to, you know, what I'm hearing is that you're saying we will come to some kind of utopia on the other end of this. No. No. No. I don't think there's going to be utopia.

What do you think? Uh, look, I I don't think utopias exist. I do think that markets are the greatest social technology ever invented for creating prosperity and for enobbling the human spirit. That is not because markets are efficient allocators of scarce resources, which is the conventional view. Markets are an evolutionary system that enables groups of people to come together and solve complex problems. And solutions to human problems is what prosperity actually is. It isn't GDP or money. And the best world that you can build, I think, on earth is a market economy governed by a robust democracy that robustly includes all citizens in that economy. And your your answer is small business. And I I'm 100% behind you and I I wish you all the success. My answer is that a lot of people are going to end up working for large companies or medium companies and that we have to ensure, or my part of the answer is that we have to have standards in place to ensure that those companies treat people well enough so that they can be dignified participants in both the society and the economy. And that will require innovation in laws and rules and all sorts of mechanisms to enable that. But that there is no alternative if you want to live in a decent society. And and the but the high order bit for me and the reason I work on economics is that the existing economic paradigm basically says markets are perfectly efficient. We should just let them run and, you know, what comes will come. So you're really focused on increasing the workers' lives and pay.

So if you understand the economy from the conventional point of view, including people in the economy is a liberal luxury that you can afford if and when you have growth. And I think everything the new economics says is that including more people in the economy more robustly is actually the technical mechanism that makes both economies grow and democracies function.

So to simplify that, what does that mean if you from a policy perspective? It is very hard to answer in an uncertain future in an AI. If you don't know what what's going to happen with the economy. I mean, we have no idea how much job loss there will be. We have we are we are, I think Dan says quite rightly, going through a transition where the shape of the economy will change.

So do we do nothing through the transition? No. No. We aggressively experiment with ways to include more people in the economy. Bernie Sanders' idea is an experiment. What's the worst that can happen? Like, just think about it. What is the worst that can happen? The worst would be is that you give government more money and they leverage more debt. And as soon as the government has. The the economy of the United States does not need assets to leverage more debt. We just created. We just created. We we didn't need. That is not true. That is just not true. We have $37 trillion of debt, all of which was basically given away in wars or tax cuts.

For rich people. So, but they, they can print more money. And, absolutely, but these two things, they are not connected. But the truth is that the worst that can happen by running that experiment is that there will be a few dozen guys who are worth a hundred billion and not 200 billion. Like, that is the worst that that can do. Is that going to be the end all, be all? Will it work perfectly? I have no idea. But what I do know is that democracies need to move aggressively to try to make sure that these technological innovations benefit the society broadly, not just a few people narrowly.

If I think about the UK, if you implemented something like that here, would people leave? So if you implemented, say, we had an AI company here and you said, "Well, the UK is going to own half of it." Would that company just restructure somewhere else because it's digital? They, they probably would.

But you're now, you're back to this old problem. We've even seen this with the data centers. People are going, I read a report that said the reason OpenAI didn't open their data center in the UK, which they said they were going to, is because energy costs four times more here. So they said, "We're not going to go somewhere where it's cheap."

Yeah. And would that not be the case here where you'd get the sort of brain drain where, and the risk that you run with this Bernie Sanders model is that we leverage the government's balance sheet or non-balance sheet to take out huge debt in the name of our kids and our grandkids that they have to repay. They buy up all these intangible assets and then they're left holding those assets that may or may not perform and may and will have debt regardless. And then the super clever little Anthropic guys say, "Oh, actually, we're just going to restructure to Vanuatu now. Leave you guys holding all of that toxic debt and we're going to go run this from somewhere else." That could happen. The other thing that could happen is if, let's say, OpenAI, as one example, are making $100 profit at the moment, $100 profit at the moment, and Bernie Sanders says, "We want $50 of that profit." China are going to have an additional, theoretically, an additional $50 to invest in their frontier models, in getting ahead.

Bern isn't saying, "I'll take $50 of your 50% of your profit." What is he saying? "I'll take 50% of your stock." Which means that then the US would have an equal voting.

Yeah. Well, then you're going to get gridlock in terms of voting, right? So, if the US own 50% of the company and Sam Altman, let's say, owns 50%, they're going to have to vote on decisions.

Well, you could put some directors from the public on that board. And what happens to a company when you have the government on the voting board? The thing I mean, you effectively have this in lots of countries where labor has a seat at the table, right? With one of your companies, if half of your board were a government, do you think you'd be able to be as innovative, move as fast? I mean, we talked about the bureaucracy of the government.

Yeah. I, I'm not suggesting that half the board should be on the government. Yeah. Mind you, that's what China has as well. China has got essentially the CCP on the board of all of those companies as well.

And they work, and they move pretty fast. There's a slightly different government, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. And there's different levels of competence and meritocracy hierarchy. I, I worry about all of these solutions that empower government because I don't trust government. My entire life has been one thing after the next made worse by government. Right. That's my reality. Born in 1981. I've never had a good experience with government.

Okay. But dude, you grew up in Australia and you live in the UK. If you hate government so much, move to the Congo.

Seriously? Yeah. You are, look, I mean, it is just, no one likes to be constrained. Everyone wants other people held to a high standard. And it, it just seriously, there is no libertarian paradise in the world where nobody follows any rules, nobody pays any taxes, and everybody lives like a king. If you hate government, there are plenty, there are 220 countries in the world. 150 of them effectively have no government. Why do you not move your base of operations to those places? Because you would instantly be somebody's, you know, munch.

I'm not, I'm not an anarchist. When a government doesn't fire incompetent people, okay, but everybody agrees the previous governments. Everybody agrees democracy is the worst, economics is the worst, except all the others, right? Like, of course, it is easy to point to these things and say they're incompetent, but it is, it is just not honest to say that government doesn't improve our lives. There is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government.

I'm not saying without big government. That's not true.

Give me an example.

Singapore. Singapore is insanely big government.

22% of GDP.

Okay. But they are involved in every element of people's lives.

High competence. They fire incompetent people.

And, and again, we're in violent agreement that we should have governments that do that. You should work hard on the politics in the UK to bring in reforms that would increase the velocity of competence. Now, that's the answer. That is the answer is to work hard, build a government that is as high-functioning as they can be. But here's the thing, and I think you would agree. Look, look, Microsoft, big companies are equally incompetent. Microsoft bought my company Aquana for $6.4 billion. This is a company that was growing at 40% year-over-year. It's been so long, 30, 40% year-over-year. 750 million in sales, 200 million at IBA or something like that. 3,000, 4,000 of the best internet advertising people on planet Earth, and in one year, it was gone.

Wow. Yeah. Gone. And they wrote the entire $6 billion off five years later. Incompetence lives everywhere.

And, and I, I just don't think it is realistic to say, "Oh, pucks and them, you know, they suck." I, I just, Dan, there is no place on earth without government co-creating prosperity for.

For sure. Here's where I put my hope in this post-AI world. I want to stack the favor. I want to stack the economy in the favor of the small family business and the small business.

I'm 100% with you. Yeah, I agree. I agree. The question is, how do we get there? And you and I are completely aligned in some ways. We need to aggressively tilt the balance of power in the economy from the biggest, most exploitative companies to small and medium-sized businesses.

So I see big government and big corporate sucking the life out of little people and little businesses. And I think you are, no doubt, correct in some cases. But the only thing in human societies that has the power to confront big business is big government.

Right. There's never, in the history of the world, there has never been another force that had the power to address this problem. And the reason I care so much about this economic paradigm is that all of the problems you were describing are a consequence of an economic paradigm that was designed to create those problems. That's why we are in the box we're in is because neoliberalism literally said the bigger is better, and that we should afford no protection to small businesses, that we should actively advantage the largest players, that free trade is good for everyone. All of these things that weren't true and disadvantaged, in this room, me effectively, and you know, a few thousand people from around the world, and disadvantaged everyone else. And I think the starting point for change is addressing the fact that we just understood economic cause and effect inadequately, that the things that we thought would lead to growth led to concentration. Right? And the things that we thought were bad for the economy, in many cases, those were good for the economy. Because look, again, you know the UK so much better than me, and I hate to argue with you about it, but the truth is that you cannot sustain a capitalist system unless most people are paid enough to buy the stuff that the system produces. And there has to be a balance. And there, and again, in the history of the world, there is no example of a thriving economy that did not impose those standards or create, through some mechanism, the countervailing power that enabled the owners of capital and everybody else to work together to benefit everyone in the long term.

You and I are in so much agreement on most of it. Like an inch apart, right? And what is that inch? So, I've seen Nick's policies implemented, and I don't feel it's enough. And the reason I don't feel it's enough is I think people are more than consumers. They're more than wallets.

Okay. You've only heard me talk about the minimum wage and something else. You haven't seen all of the policies. So, but the missing piece for me is ownership. When people had houses, they felt really good about communities. When people had small businesses that they owned, they felt really good about their communities. And when people own some shares in the overall economy of the fastest-growing companies in the economy, then they feel like they're participating. So for me, the non-negotiables of fixing this problem is that people can easily own a house, own a business, and own shares in the fastest-growing economy.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And how do we get there?

Yes. Yes. Yes. I totally agree. And I think I, I just think that Dan and I have a slightly different view on the path.

I think capitalism is ownership. It's ownership. That's what capitalism is. Otherwise, you, if you don't own anything, you're not a capitalist. If we, your, grew on the path, but the, sorry, you agree on the outcome, but the path.

Yes. But how did Nick get rich? Like, Nick started companies. He owned, he owned a family business. He leveraged the family business into an investment into Amazon.

It's, it's ownership. Ownership. Ownership. And did a lot with it. Okay. Right.

Fair. But, but I'm saying, let's be fair. But how is that applicable? You're saying other people should do what Nick did.

Yeah. But it's hard to get born into a family that owns a small business. And, well, if there's more people who own small businesses than there are, more than there, it is easier, right? I, I just want, I do want more people.

What do you mean by this?

Well, it's all about how, how you get there, right?

But you overlook the fact of being born on third base. We should aim for more people to be born on third base. If more people, the third base is coming from a family that owns a small business, with ex, or whose parents earn enough income to enable all of that, right? And, and, and look, not everybody who is affluent, in fact, a tiny minority of people who are affluent are small business owners, right? They are mostly doctors and lawyers and professionals of a variety of kinds who work in, in big companies, in middle management roles. And they, I'm not saying everyone should be a small business.

Yeah. So anyway, I just think that I, I think the high-order bit here, I mean, for me, and this may sound like too squishy for you, is that societies have both the right and the responsibility to organize their economies in ways that benefit everyone.

Is socialism the answer?

No. Socialism is most definitely not the answer because socialism, again, we need to operationally define that term. If socialism means, look it up in the dictionary, the state ownership of the means of production, that is a catastrophe, right? And it's a catastrophe because all socialism can do is split up existing prosperity in a fairer way. It can do that. The problem is is that socialism does not know how to create more prosperity. Okay? So for one minute, you can make everybody better off, but 10 years later, everyone is poor because once, because this is the power of markets. What markets do as evolutionary systems is they generate increasing prosperity. They, that's what solutions to human problems is, right? Going from aspirin to antibiotics is economic progress, right? And the beauty of markets is that they are evolutionary systems where every business effectively is an organism competing to fill a niche, which is the perfect product for whatever market segment they're creating. You are, you are a canonical example of this, right? What you have done here, and thank goodness for it, right? Because in a world where there wasn't capitalism, there's no way you have effectively independently created what was a television network. It's miraculous. Like you have more reach than MSNBC, dude. That is the power of markets, but they have to be harnessed to benefit people broadly. This does not mean that the profit motive shouldn't exist, but, and,

How though? This is what I'm trying to get to. And there sounds a little bit like there's this middle ground we're like playing with where socialism on one end is okay, you know, short-term, whatever you said. Then on the other end, you've got this like extreme capitalist approach. And I was looking,

Yeah, those are the laissez-faire capitalism, right? And the socialist state control. Both of those things are terrible ideas.

Am I right?

We want something in the middle.

On the left side, then, on the socialism side, you get lower growth in your economy over the long term.

Correct.

Okay. And then in a capitalist economy, you might have higher growth, growth, but then you have more inequalities.

Correct. And the sweet spot, and this is, this is the one of the most important, this is the important matter, one of the most important points I would like to make, is that all of the evidence suggests that when you come to the middle and you have a market economy that is actually actively managed to include people, that is the growth sweet spot. You have more growth. So you have more growth.

Absolutely. GDP growth rates in the United States were four, four and a half percent for decades, 40s, 50s, 60s. And then as soon as the neoliberals took over in 1975, GDP growth rates fell first to 3% and now to 2%.

When they did what?

Cut taxes for rich people, deregulated powerful people, and suppressed wages for everybody else. So, the most important socioeconomic fact, as I've said many times before, in the United States is that the median full-time worker earns about $60,000 a year today. If they had maintained their same share of GDP since 1975, instead of earning 60, they would earn $120,000 a year.

So, there's, you're saying there's no trade-off in the middle? Because there's trade-offs on both ends, right? We just described the trade-offs. You're saying that in the middle, there's this,

That's the sweet spot where there's,

Where there's maximum amounts of growth, maximum amounts of participation, maximum amounts of political stability. This is what Darren Acemoglu and James Robinson call the narrow corridor. This perfect balance between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism. I mean, socialism is stupid because it kills markets. But this impulse to more fairly share, let's call that where socialism comes from. This impulse to have a society which is more egalitarian. But what all the data suggests is that when you build a market economy that basically tries to make sure that everyone participates, where workers get a fair share of the wages, where as the company, as the economy grows, as it did for years, and you've got another, you have a, you have a great graph in here. So for decades, as productivity grew, everybody benefited. And then in the 70s, it decoupled. And as soon as it decoupled, GDP growth rates fell, right? If we had, and all of this, all of this was a consequence of policy, of policy. So here's another thing. The new economics teaches is that there's this idea that a middle class, a thriving middle class is the consequence of economic growth, that if we just let the economy grow, we'll get this great middle class. And that is because economists assume the economy is something called ergodic. Now, ergodic means, let me show you the difference between two games. One is ergodic, one is non-ergodic. Rock, paper, scissors is an ergodic game. And what that means is the outcome of the next game has nothing to do with the game before. Right? Monopoly is a non-ergodic game. And in Monopoly, no matter how much, how many times you go to Monopoly school, if you play a game of Monopoly long enough, one person will own everything and everybody else will have nothing. And that is what a market economy is. It is characterized by luck, path dependence, and compounding.

The past.

The past, well, it's the past, right? Where you start.

Yeah.

Right. Some of us started on third base. Some of us, like you, as I recall, started on actually first base or home plate or something like that.

Well, I think, yeah, probably probably second base.

Okay, maybe second base, but whatever. But we can, I have parents that love me, electricity at your house.

Okay, fair point, right? And you're very capable and good-looking and all the rest of it, right? It could, no, I mean, just if we're just being honest, right? We're just being honest. You had some natural advantages.

But, you know, in Monopoly, you land on Park Place the first roll, you're rolling. You get four good rolls in Monopoly, you're going to win the game, right? And compounding. The better you do, the better you do. And the thing about in an ergodic system is that both advantages and disadvantages compound. Surely you know people in your life who have had a couple of things of bad luck, right? And then they spiral into oblivion, right? And so what that means is that a middle class, and thus a high-functioning society with social cohesion, is always, always a deliberate construction. It is always created by policy. Always. And all of these things that we are pushing back against him and his way, me and my way, are a consequence of basically an economic theory that said to policymakers, "Do it that way." And it was a mistake. And we should recognize that mistake and try to heal these mistakes, which we can. We can have a great society. We can have an ownership society. We can have anything we want. We just have to decide to do it and not let a small group of incredibly rich people dictate the terms of the economy. This is within our grasp.

What are your thoughts then?

I agree in principle with all of that, especially the last bit. A small group of very, very powerful people dictating the economy, meeting up in Davos, coming up with how our lives should live. Um, there's more to the story here. In the early '70s, they decoupled the dollar from gold, and they created the fiat system, which meant they could print money that inflated assets, that financialized it, financialized assets, including the family home, which meant that as soon as we could print money, we could inflate the value of family homes and make it out of reach of most people.

Well, and then finance took over and became 20% of the economy. The rest of us.

Yeah. We ended up with these two massive institutions, which is the technology industrial complex and the finance industrial complex. And those two institutions have driven a wedge in society. My only difference with Nick, and it's a small difference, is that I don't believe raising the floor is going to be enough. I really do.

I, I didn't say it's enough. I, it's table stakes.

Yeah. It, and, and my experience with that, it's a minimum. Is because it's because I've seen the minimum, and the pitchforks are out here in the UK, where we have that minimum. My worry here is that where we are, the technology economy and the finance economy is racing as if it's in a car. And then all of the workers who are selling time for money, labor for money, it's as if they're running. And we're saying, "Ah, you guys just need better shoes, comfier shoes. If we give you a pair of Nikes, will you guys be happy?" And it's like, this is not going to close that gap. No. Um, we have to acknowledge that technology and finance are the two like big funds and big tech are the comp are basically hollowing out the middle class. And if we don't acknowledge who the real bad guys are, when I say bad guys, I'm not sure they're real bad guys, but essentially systemically they're the bad guys. We need to essentially say, "Hey, big finance, big tech, you can't financialize our houses. That's for us to live in and for us to own." Um, and you also can't just eradicate all of our little to small businesses. We need to tip the scales back in the favor of those small businesses because little towns, you go into any town in England, little like little towns in England, the thriving towns that everyone wants to live in, they have lots of small businesses. They have a butcher, baker, candlestick maker type, like stuff is going on.

By the way, the best high street in London is the one I live on, Marylebone High Street.

Marylebone High Street. So, you agree?

100%.

Yeah. I've got 60 seconds and I'm going to show you how much I can get done because of our sponsor called WhisperFlow. It's a business I invested in that turns your speech into text in any app or device. I'm going to post into our Slack channel which rewards whichever team member conducted the most experiments this week. Hi everyone. Here is this week's experimenter of the week. Congratulations to the Dio trailer team, which is Aunt, Liv, Dom, and Cam. You guys have won. Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. So, here is one of our founders on an email chain that I want to connect my team with. All I have to say is add my team's emails, and Whisper will do exactly that. Now, a quick message to Juan, who does my schedule every single week. Hey, Juan, it's Steven here. Can I record on Wednesday at 2:00? Actually, no. Do you know what? Let's record at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday. WhisperFlow is four times faster than typing, and it is incredibly easy to use. So, if you want to give it a go, all you have to do is head to whisperflow.ai/steven to download it today. I've done almost 700 interviews with some of the most interesting people in the world. And one of the things you learn which is unexpected is that vulnerability is the doorway to connection. And after sitting here for two, three hours with a guest, I feel a deep sense of connection to them. And as they leave, what I get them to do is to write a question in the Diary of a CEO. We've taken all of the questions from the Diary of a CEO. We have put the question here on this card with the name of the person that wrote it. So you can sit at home, as I do, with my fiancé and my colleagues at work and other people in my life. Whenever we get a minute, we play the Dio conversation cards, and it is incredible what happens. These are great if you're in a romantic relationship and you want to connect your partner more. These are also great if you're in a team and you want to bond your team together. And I have to say, they're also great for families that want to learn more about each other and that need a good excuse to spend some time in a digital world in the analog environment connecting human to human. It is remarkable what the right question at the right time can do. Go to the diary.com and you can get these conversation cards right now.

One thing I find interesting is you're saying that there's this sweet spot in the middle.

Yes.

Where you still get the upside.

You get dynamism. You think there's a sweet spot in the middle.

And decency?

It's a very narrow sweet spot and it's very hard to achieve. Because Germany has really tried so hard, and they've like, their economy is collapsing. Their economy is going so badly at the moment. Um, and they've tried everything. They've got workers have to be on the board, for example, of every company. You've got to have a worker on the board. So they're like doing as much as they can to do inclusion. And the German economy.

Okay. So where is it worked? Okay, but here's the thing. It is simply not fair to say the German economy is collapsing. Like, have you been to Germany?

Like, come on. Like, have you been to Stockholm? Like, these places are incredibly functioning.

Yeah, there's definitely a forward momentum, but the German car industry is getting hollowed out right now. China, right? China's doing that. Okay. But just because workers are on the board of German companies and German people are unhappy, you can't necessarily connect these things.

I just want to acknowledge though, that like, there are places like Dubai, which are very close to laissez-faire capitalism with a sovereign wealth fund. And just, just hold. If you talk to someone who lives in Dubai, they freaking love Dubai. Like they are so, they're the happiest people. Like, and they talk, millionaires, entrepreneurial people.

Yeah. The rich people, not the not the poor brown people who are,

Well, I mean,

Because they bust Indians and don't.

Well, they, yes. And also when I talk to a lot of the Uber drivers there, and I talk to people who work in cafes there and all that sort, they're all quite pro-Dubai as well.

But that's because their other options are horrific.

Yeah.

It's probably more extreme inequality, isn't it?

It, it's more extreme inequality. Quality of it, because the place is growing, until recently, obviously. But because the place is growing, it feels like there's a rising tide for everybody. There's something about economic growth that makes people very, very happy. And there's something about a lack of economic growth that makes people miserable here in the UK, for example.

Okay, but, but just again, Dubai is a place, the UAE has been powered by the most extraordinary gusher of free cash probably the planet has ever seen. I mean, you can look up on your iPad there, the like, the tailwind that economy gets from the unlimited resources.

I wouldn't say that's why people love Dubai. They love it because of the entrepreneurial vibe. Like, who loves it?

Like ambitious people.

Yeah. So this is the rich excitement. Well, people, no, I see young people who want to have a crack.

And they're because they're rich relative to the people doing the work, the labor. Well, what they're looking for is a place where their work will be rewarded. Let's imagine the UK where your ability to get onto capitalism, your first million or your first 2 million is very easily low-taxed in order to get things going for you economically. I, I just want to see a situation where ambitious. Yeah. Like your ambitious people. Like, what I hate is that I see these young people who are really super smart. I wish they were here building. And they're like, "You can't succeed in the UK. They'll just tax it off you as soon as you earn anything. They take it."

What if you're not ambitious?

And they leave.

I think you're benefited by a lot of the ambitious people. So when you get one in, if you get one in 10 people who are entrepreneurial, or one in 100 people who are entrepreneurial, they're creating optionality. They're creating companies.

The US is this, the US is sort of set up, you know, the American Dream. This is more of a US approach, isn't it?

And what we have there is higher inequality.

I'll give you two to two extremes. The US, you hit the top rate of income tax when you hit $700,000. In the UK, it's $100,000, and it immediately goes to 60% tax, 62% tax, and then it drops to 45% after that. Like, but there's this kind of like,

Does it really?

Yeah. It's this, it's this, it's this weird. No, it's this insane thing where you basically pay 20%, 40%, 60%, 45%, and it's this kind of weird.

But to the point,

You should probably fix that. I preferred the US. The US approach sounds more like what you're saying.

Leaving to the US, like a lot of Brits are actually going.

And the US has inequality. Has higher inequality.

Which means it's probably more likely that the pitchforks will come out.

Well, for an ambitious person, they don't care about inequality. Inequality is the opportunity to get ahead.

Yeah, they might not. But from a social perspective, the pitchforks are probably going to come out sooner in the US because of that inequality than in somewhere else.

We're saying they seem to be coming out here in a big way. Like here, out here, but they're also coming out in the United States.

Look at, look at Zack Palanski, he is gaining a huge political movement.

Zoran Mandani in the UK, sorry, in New York, is we're seeing a rise of socialism in the United States.

Okay, but Zoran Mandani calls himself a socialist because he does not have another word for what he is doing.

He has said, "Seize the means of production." He said it. And he said, "Take houses off landlords." Like he is a, he's a card-carrying socialist. But he hasn't done any really socialist things. I, I just think that there's a bit of a confusion. But asking wealthy people to pay a little bit more tax is not socialism. Standing up grocery stores in food deserts because no grocery store will do it because it's not profitable enough is not socialism. This is the government provisioning benefits to citizens, fixing potholes, making bike ramps, whatever the stuff he's doing. These are not socialist things. What they are is not strictly neoliberal things, which is just like letting rich people run rough shod over everybody else. The thing that I see with say, a food desert and a store is that the tax system is so punitive that a small opportunity like setting up a grocery store, with all the taxes and all the regulations and all the stuff the government puts on you, it's just not worth doing it. There are better opportunities out there. Like, I'm not talking about remove it for rich people. I'm saying for startups, for small businesses, for businesses that employ less than 200 people. If you basically create a very positive experience for small businesses to get started, they will set up a grocery store in a bad neighborhood because they go, "Yeah, you know what? I can figure out how it works in this."

Do you think there's a chance that we have a bit of a bias as entrepreneurs? Everyone at this table is an entrepreneur. And for whatever reason, and I think a lot of mine might be some, like, I don't know, trauma or whatever. I had a bias towards setting up a business and taking that risk. Whereas like my other three siblings, they didn't do that. And I don't know what I did to have that bias within me. Like, if you really think about it, it was probably something my parents didn't intend to do, which meant that at 18, when my four, three siblings went to university and sort of followed that more, one could say safer path. Well, yeah, safer path. I dropped out.

How angry were your parents when you dropped out?

They didn't speak to them. My mom was, yeah, my mom's Nigerian as well, so she didn't, she left school when she was a child. Didn't get an education. Can't read. Must have him in a tough.

A tough, certain understatement of what happened. But for whatever reason, that's the path that I took. And I, I can acknowledge that I'm in a minority. And I think I sometimes consider like, maybe I don't realize that through privilege or through some genetic privilege or whatever, I had this particular orientation towards like entrepreneurialism that maybe other people don't always have. And that means that they start the grocery store.

I get crucified in the comments. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Right. I'm not saying everyone could be an option. I've never said that.

But the grocery store analogy there is, someone would start that grocery store if it was easier.

Well, not everybody would. There's always a risk-to-reward ratio. And government brings in all sorts of regulations. And government only really thinks about big businesses. If you talk to anyone in government, small businesses don't exist. And they just simply think, "Why hasn't Tesco done it? Or why hasn't like Walmart done it?"

Yeah. I've never started a business in the UK, but I can tell you that in the United States, the barrier to setting up a grocery store in a food desert is not the regulation. It's Safeway. It's the supply chain. It's all the stuff that you've described, which makes it incredibly difficult for somebody to operate a single location grocery store.

Like your friend's.

Yeah. What do you do about that? Uh, so what I would do is I would, and again, in the United States, we used to have lots of laws that pointed the economy toward small businesses. So if I was in charge, I would impose a much higher minimum wage, but I would do it progressively. All the labor standards, all the regulations would be imposed progressively. And in terms of regulation, I would make it far, like for a big company, there's a lot of regs, right? You have to follow every rule to the tea. For a small business, you have a lot more flexibility. It's impossible because, because we need the standards, but it turns out to be really hard as a single proprietor even to read the manual, right? To know what you're supposed to do. So to me, it would all be progressive. So it would be easy to get capital, easy to start a business, relatively unencumbered by regulation, although constrained to a certain extent. There are terrible things that small business people do, too.

Wait, how'd you make it easier to get capital?

Oh, you could have government programs that were designed to help small businesses get off the ground.

We have the British Bank that underwrites for the first £25,000 of loans. We used to have the Small Business Administration in the United States that did a lot of that work.

Yeah. So, we have a lending institution here that is 75% underwritten by government for a £25,000 startup loan. Right. So, there are some schemes that can work. I started all my companies on a credit card. The key thing is this. There's a difference between entrepreneurial startups that are intending to scale and just small businesses that want to exist as a small business. I'm really big on the idea that we want communities that have lots of small businesses, even if they have no intention to scale and exit and any of those sorts of things.

That old-fashioned thing, right? Where you just had a grocery store.

Yeah. And it's a good.

You weren't trying to create Walmart.

Yeah. You just wanted to run a grocery store.

It's hard though, isn't it? Cuz, you want to be CVS or you want to be a network.

But with a grocery store idea, if you've got a mom-and-pop grocery store here, then next to it, you have, let's say, I don't know, in the UK, it's called Spar, which is a grocery store, 7-Eleven. The problem is if those are next to each other, and one has economies of scale, i.e., 7-Eleven can buy the cucumber for 20% of the cost of the mom-and-pop shop, then if you're on that street, the 7-Eleven is going to survive.

That's why that's why we tilt towards the.

United States used to have laws that expressly prohibited that.

And why did they get rid of them?

Neoliberalism.

So they got rid of the restrictions on.

Yeah. There used to be express laws to make sure that big companies could not buy raw materials cheaper than small companies. Like when I was young, when I was your age, if you wanted to buy a competitor, you were sweating bullets because you had to be reviewed by a body, and if they thought that you were consolidating too much, they would just say no. But if you think about all my friends that have opened retail stores through their companies, they only do that when they get really big because their e-commerce business is supporting it. So if you think about, I know the Gymsharks, the Reprises, Honor Actors. So you can't.

Okay, with respect to retail, you are largely correct. It depends on what kind of retail. Like, you could have a gym. You can't e-commerce a gym. Or, you know, there are all kinds of retail, some of which is somewhat immune from e-commerce, and some of which is getting destroyed by e-commerce. Doesn't it matter if we're talking about retail? They were regional manufacturing companies, regional everything, sure.

And it all went away. And you have never experienced a world in which that used to exist. Like your entire business experience is this sort of neoliberal world of giant companies.

True. And the world I grew up in, we, young, right? But I remember what it was like to go to the video store and select videos from the video store. I remember what it was like. Yeah. Like I remember going to the CD store and listening to music and talking to the retail employees when I was growing up. The cool kids worked at the CD store, the geeky kids worked at the bookstore, and everybody worked at the, everyone else worked at the grocery store. Yeah. And all of those business models are gone. And this is what I mean. We need to kind of tip back towards small business experimentation being protected and all of that. The other thing, too, and I should raise this about minimum wage and giving people more money.

The bottom half of taxpayers in the UK pay 9.5% of all the income taxes. The government could remove taxes off of 50% of workers in one move, and it would cost £33 billion. And you just get rid of that, and then every single person in the bottom half of income earners gets a 10% pay rise to 15% pay rise.

I love it. So where do we get the £32 billion from?

Just keep in mind, their budget is 1.4 trillion.

I know, I know, I know. But we're going to have, if, trillion, you're talking about this to take 15 million people.

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying, where does the money? Because I know what's going to happen. Karma is saying they found this 20 million, billion, 20 billion black hole in the finances, and they, and that's the reason why they're saying they've had to cut back on pensions and these kinds of things. So if we add another 30 billion to that, where, where do we get the money from?

You're talking about reducing the amount of administrative burden to tax 15 million people and keep on top of the tax on 15 million people. Just the sheer volume of people who have to work at HMRC, all of this insanity. No, but I'm saying, where does the money come from?

Yeah. So, out of 1.4 trillion, I'm pretty sure we could find half of 1%, 1% of it or whatever to get these number of people out of tax. Um, I think we could tax big corporations who are taking the piss. Uh, and I also think the economic spending rounds of getting those people, those poor, the poorer half of people should not be paying tax. If you give them more money, they'll spend more money, right? They're not.

Okay, I agree with you. So you're saying tax big corporations more in the UK at point of consumption.

Personally, I would make it like very similar to a broadcast license. That it's a fixed fee that's very hard to wiggle out of.

So if I'm, let's say I'm an OpenAI.

Yeah, you might have a broadcast license to pay to access this market.

So you're going to charge, say, you say, "I'm going to charge OpenAI $4 billion, $5 billion to access our market." Well, for example, Facebook is very much broadcasting videos and content all the time. So is YouTube. So's Google, all that sort of stuff. So you just simply say, "Guys, the cost of doing business in this country, if you want access to this market, is a fixed broadcast license fee of 500 million a year or whatever it is." And you just say, based on the number of views that you guys get and how much attention you suck out of our economy, we just essentially tax the attention. You're literally, if people are spending an hour a day on their phone doom scrolling, we're that, that is a broadcast. You're broadcasting to our people, so therefore we've got a broadcast license. Um, so those are the types of things that I would look at because they're very hard to wiggle out of.

Do you think then these companies like an OpenAI would then, as we said earlier, just increase the subscription fee in this market? And you see this sometimes where in certain countries something is cheaper. I remember going to the United, I used to go to the United States to buy my Apple products because it was cheaper there.

Yeah.

And then in the UK, it cost me like, not even, not even a little bit, it was like hundreds of dollars more to buy a laptop here. The same laptop in this market versus this one cost different amounts of money.

They may choose to try and pass on that consumption tax to consumers. Maybe they do do that. Uh, maybe we could try and avoid, maybe we could try and legislate against that, that they have to essentially be on par with where they are in other markets, that they have to charge par. Um, if we don't, if we don't do anything, we essentially have nurses and, you know, like teachers and all the people who are in the normal 50% of the economy, whose job is now to hold up the economy while Starbucks doesn't pay taxes, while Amazon doesn't pay taxes, while Google doesn't pay taxes. And, and Steve, I think all your questions are really, really good, but they all point to the same thing, which is that, you know, the economy is a collective action problem, right?

And,

You know, it's a global action problem.

It's a global, it's a global collective action problem. And if we want robust solutions to these problems, we're going to have to robustly coordinate activity across the world. And, you know, like during the Biden administration, they tried really hard to do this global profit tax, where, but that collapsed under the weight of pressure. But all, you know, again, all of your questions, I think, are really good, but they all point to the same fundamental weakness of governance.

And Nick, you need to talk to your billionaire mates and also say, if we don't start investing in the economies that we do business with, which you are saying, of course, right?

It's a lonely business. I'll just say. But it's like, it's like with those CEOs of those companies, you know, you drain the whole economy out, and then where, then what next?

I think on this pass-through problem, I was thinking I was looking at different ways that this ends up being applied. So if you think about the Big Mac, the Big Mac costs different things.

In different states, depending on how much tax that state charges. So in Oregon, the Big Mac is $8, whereas in Chicago, it's almost $9.

Um, if you think about like bookstores, you can buy one book on the high street for $20. The same book online is $10 because they're passing through the cost. So, it's conceivable that if we say to big corporations, right, you guys are going to pay a bigger tax to sell into the UK than the UK consumer, that they'll, they might pass that on to the UK consumer. And they might look at different markets. And because, you know, they might say, as a company, we want to make 30% margin, and the way to make 30% margins in the UK is to bump the cost.

The consumer could say, "I'm going to use a VPN and pretend that I'm going to be in a different market and pay a lower price." And it doesn't matter. You still have to pay the broadcast license if you want to be available in our, in our country. These are hard problems, and we need to know who is the person that we're targeting. It's, it's the Black Rocks of the world. It's the, it's the big banks of the world. It's the big mortgage.

Like, I had, um, say, I had a private conversation with the CTO of a very large company, technology business, and he was saying to me, he goes, "I don't think the UK understands the situation it's putting itself in." And the EU with all this regulation, he said to me, um, that we sell this particular product, it's a physical product. And because the UK and I think EU have put this new law in where you have to have removable batteries, interestingly, the unintended consequence of that is we have to stock more lithium batteries. More of them go into landfill. And also, your devices break because they're no longer waterproof. So, you're going, actually, it's harming the environment. And also, he said, the thing you guys don't realize is that you're actually not a big market anymore for us. And because South America's coming online, we actually don't have to sell the product here.

And you think about this in terms of some of the regulations around AI as well. When a new product launches on track, yeah, it goes in the US first because of regulations. And then maybe no, goes in the US first because it's the biggest market. Biggest market, but also we have, we're our regulations around some software and GDPR and all these kinds of things means that sometimes we just don't get the features. And sometimes in my history, in our history of building the previous business I was in, as creators, we would sometimes have to wait 12 or 18 months to get the same tools that my competitors, I know, in the United States could use monetization tools. They'd have the monetization tools first, and then we'd have to wait 18 months.

The economy is a set of trade-offs like that. Is the problem? Like economics is called a set of the, the actual definition of economics is making trade-offs, um, and picking, picking your trade-offs. I totally get it. Like, regulation does actually suck for consumers and for businesses. Um, and like, the, the EU is now overregulated to the extent that you can't even take a, a lid off of a bottle without, you know, the government being involved with how the lid comes off the bottle. And it's killing, it's killing our dynamism. We are really just like, and the US is underregulated. And if you buy chicken in a, in a store and and don't cook it, could be anything. One in three chances you'll, you'll, you'll get, uh, either E. coli or salmonella. And your life expectancy is lower. Exactly. It's all trade-offs. Everyone who eats in the US trade-offs. Comes back from the US and goes, "Oh my goodness, I hate, I hate eating food in the US." It's all trade-off. It's all trade-offs.

Does this not then mean our ultimate conclusion of this conversation is around morals and ethics around the trade-offs that we think are the right ones to make? Yes. And so it's a question really of morals and ethics. Yes. Human flourishing. Yes. 100%. The, the purpose of the economy is is to improve human human lives. The way to do this is to massively maximize small business power because when people get more complicated, when when pe when people have to, when I have to work shoulder-to-shoulder with my workers, I treat people well, right? When I'm a mega corporation who have faceless workers down on the factory floor that I will never meet, I will never sit next to on a plane, I will never come in contact with my workers, I can treat them however I like.

Why do you think that's reductive, Nick? Uh, well, I think that what Dan is saying is true and massively insufficient. Of course, I mean, we're in violent agreement about the small business point. Like, I don't want to be naive and think we should go back to the 60s or something like that. Like, I don't think that's true. But again, here's what the new economics shows. That corporate consolidation increases prices, lowers wages, decreases consumer choice, and decreases the rate of innovation. Right?

And I 100% agree. Because innovation, again, that the conventional view of innovation, the conventional economic view of in innovation is this sort of great man theory. Is you have this smart rich guy who's sitting somewhere and he, he or she has this amazing idea, and that's innovation. That is not what innovation is. Innovation is always combinatorial. In technology makes itself out of itself. You, you start with a rock. The, the rock was our first technology. And you did a lot of stuff with rocks. And we also had sticks. Actually, sticks were our first technology. But you tie a rock to a stick, you have a hammer, a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel. It goes on and on and on. And what that means in terms of policy is that because innovation is combinatorial, the more diverse people in a network who come together with different ideas and different sets of experiences, that is what drives the rate of innovation. And this is mathematically demonstrated that a diverse group of people working on a problem will absolutely consistently outperform a, a homogeneous group of high performers.

And then when they, when they become really successful, which will happen eventually if you let that system play out, you have this inequality unless you intervene at some point and recycle it. And then when you go to recycle it, you go get back to this issue of us having needing global cohesion. Yes. Because some people won't want the recycling. Correct. And they'll say, well, I'm just going to go to Ireland or I'm going to go to Dubai or I'm going to go somewhere else. And this is maybe a function of the new economy where people can just get up and leave and take their value with them. Yes. And this is the conundrum. This is the conundrum. But the meta issue above the conundrum is recognizing that citizens have both the right and the responsibility to want to address that problem. And we, and you grew up in a world where it was illegitimate to address that problem. That, that that economics told you, don't worry about those problems. The market will sort it out.

Is there like a radical idea of how to solve this? Do we need like all the, the very, very rich people in the world to come together collectively and say, we're going to create a new model? Like, how do, how do you, I don't know. Is there any radical ways to solve this stuff or is it just all trade-offs once again? Democracy?

One of the big radical ways is breaking up companies. And it's unthinkable. You know what PR did. You know Jeff Bezos, right? Yes, I do. So, it was in my wedding. I wonder if he would lose more sleep about higher taxes or having his company broken up. Oh, for sure. Broken up. Because if you broke up, uh, Google from YouTube, if you broke up AWS, Amazon Prime and Amazon, if you, like, the biggest thing that scares the billionaires is backing competition with the market. And it's like, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to have to compete. I've got this amazing monopoly that just works."

Right. So, but is that a perfect solution? Cuz I was thinking if, it's not a perfect solution. It's the least worst solution available. It's a good, it's pretty, pretty good. It's pretty effective. I mean, this is what Teddy Roosevelt did. In these companies aren't making any any money though. They're like being subsidized by the mothership. So like, in an, let's say Amazon Prime that's competing against Netflix. Dude, these companies make money where they want to make money. Yeah. For tax optimization and strategic reasons. Look, I mean, you know, like when we started Amazon.com, I'm not sure if you guys remember the whole hit on it was it's not profitable, right? The secret to Amazon.com success is the negative cash conversion cycle, right? For virtually every business on planet Earth, to grow requires capital, right? For all of your businesses, growth requires capital. But for Amazon.com, we took an order, we put up the website, you take an order, you instantaneously transmit that order to a book warehouse, which has all of the titles in stock. It's shipped the next day, it's received the next day. You ship it out, hit the, hit the person, hit the person's credit card, but then you don't have to pay the book seller for 90 days. Right? And what that means is the bigger the company gets, the better cash flow gets whether you're making money or not. So, we didn't have to make money because we had most companies have to make money because if they don't, they don't have the cash flow to continue. Like Amazon Prime businesses. And yeah. And so there are things available that we could have made money in one minute just by increasing our prices by 3 or 4%.

Yeah, these companies are also not worth trillions of dollars because they're not profitable. They're they're worth trillions of dollars because they are making money. But the issue is is they have strategic monopolies. And if you really want to make them lose sleep, you need to break up strategic monopolies. You need to say there's an actual limit to how big a fund can be. There's an actual limit as to how big a strategic monopoly can be. Uh, you can't have things that hedge naturally against each other and prevent real competition. So like these things are ways of, and also ties up their attention. So while they're thinking about not getting broken up, they're also not competing with all the other guys out there. So like, it's, it's basically capitalism runs on competition. And this is the one thing that we've missed. That the we have less competition.

Yeah. Like when Adam Smith said capitalism works, he said it only works when there's competition. If there's one bakery in town, any bread at any quality at any price is what you have to pay. As soon as there's two bakeries in town, it has to be the best quality at the best price. Although with two, you can collude. But if you have five, it's very hard. So, so Amazon has a monopoly over, strategic monopoly. A strategic monopoly. So, what does one do with Amazon? You break it up. Into what? AWS, Amazon Prime, Amazon retail. Fine. But they've still got a monopoly in online e-commerce theoretically. Yeah. Well, it's just harder. It's easier for someone to come along and compete right now. It's very, very hard for me to compete with Amazon because they are pulling in cash from AWS. They're pulling in cash from all these other subscriptions. There's so Amazon basics. You could, you could break up the retail. You could say you can have a bookstore. You can have an electronic store. You can have this. You can only, you can't be the everything store, right? So you could, there's all sorts of ways that you, but you have to acknowledge when someone has achieved a strategic.

I think that's a good idea. Do you still own shares on Amazon? No, sadly. Okay. I wouldn't be here talking to you guys if I. No, no, no, no. I sadly I sold my shares. But, uh, you know, I, I am open to all of these ideas because I know, I mean, I am completely with Dan. I know that the world would be a better place if these companies were smaller and we had more competition. And again, there is not, there are no silver bullets to these complex problems the world faces. We are not at this table going to come up with this algorithmic idea that is just going to make the world a better place. It, it, none of these solutions are perfect. They are always going to be the least worst thing that we can come up with. But I think at, at the, at the level of principle, um, living in a world where we try actively to limit concentrated power in all its forms. Where we try actively to include people in whatever way, whether as entrepreneurs or just workers, as robustly as possible. Where we try to make sure that people are engaged enough in the economy so that they will be supportive of the democracy, not want to burn it down. These are high-level principles that I think reasonable people can agree with. And they come into conflict with people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, who do not want to live in that world, who want to live in an oligarchical world. And I just think that we should have that fight and win.

We have a closing tradition where the last leaves a question for the next, not knowing who they're leaving it for. And I think it's quite a relevant question. Um, I'll ask you first, Dan. The question is, in a world with so many challenges, what can we do to restore hope and trigger engagement? Uh, getting back to what we were talking about, we need, we need people to know that the game, the rules of the game have changed. And that the rules that we grew up with, where we grew up in a particular industrialized, late-stage industrialized world that had those rules, and we now live in an early-stage digital revolution world. And the thing that gives me hope is I know how the rules of that world work, right? Someone explained it to me. They actually explained, this is how you start a business. This is how you grow a business. This is how you make a million. This is how you hire some people. This is how you get a great team working side by side. That gave me an enormous amount of hope. I have a pathway out of where I was born and the wealth I was born with and where I am now. Someone explained to me the pathway. Here's how the rules work and here's how you make, make success. One of the things that makes people feel hopeless is that they're stuck in a game where no one explains the rules.

So explaining the rules. So I would say we need a schooling system. The thing we don't talk about enough is that the schooling system has to explain to kids the relevant information as to how to function in the current economy. So, I played that forward in my head and I was thinking, okay, you get a million kids and you explain all of the rules to them. At some point, if you just give it a year or two, say they all knew the rules, um, there's still an edge. And some of them would figure out the edge. Totally. And then you've got this pocket that know, everyone knows the rules, but then others know this particular way to beat the system. And that could be with, I don't know, they learn about AI, they learn about whatever, and then you're kind of back into the same place. And you were one such person who got the edge. Someone came to you and went, you know, they're saying the rules are this. That's actually there's a way to get an edge and you had it within you for whatever reason to capitalize on that edge and now you're a multi-millionaire. So, so there's always going to be the rule and then the rules get, every single day after you explain the rules to someone, there's a new set of rules. The only consistent is change. And at the moment, most people I encounter who have never had any explanation going on about how the world works now, they are hopeless. They feel completely hopeless. As in like, I see kids who are sending out, um, CVs to Microsoft or to like some major company, they don't realize that those companies are getting 3500 applications. The day after you explain the rules to them, the rules are one day less relevant. And so it's true. You'd have to go to school every single day. Well, yeah. You lifelong learning. You do have to do lifelong learning. Like there is a lifelong part of the rules is lifelong learning. That is actually one of the rules, which is the only consistent is change.

It sounds like you're saying though that if we teach people the rules of business, then people will have more hope. And but but there's so many people that I know like my my fiance, who she doesn't, she cares about something else much more than she cares about business. Cares about like, she just start, she set up Bali Breathwork and she was able, right, she was able to create Bali Breathwork. Because well, I said it, not you. She was able to figure out how to turn her passion into something that is commercially sustainable. I'm just using her as an example cuz we did. She get that from the school system? Fundamentally, she maybe she got it in part because she has a dad who's an entrepreneur. She has a, explained the rules to her. Um, she has the support network. Like she supports me, I support her. She knows how to enroll people into her success. All of that is called pitching, publishing content, creating a product offering. I only know one thing that I've seen work again and again and again and again, which is I teach people the people who learn the entrepreneurial method suddenly feel agency and hope.

I agree. And I'm saying that's for everyone. Yeah, but this is the, it's not for everyone. It's for people like that had whatever means you had in terms of like the upbringing, the luck, the whatever, the fortune. I'm not saying everyone's going to be an entrepreneur. My answer to that question is entrepreneurship. Is the entrepreneurial tool set gives people a lot of hope. I get that. And that one of the things that we have to acknowledge there is that's a certain type of person who has a certain type of goals. There are some people who actually just want to go outside and they don't, they want to work maybe they want to work one day a week or two days a week. Sure. I don't want to do push-ups and I don't want to do sit-ups and I don't want to go to the gym. But if you ask a fitness professional, how do you improve your body? How do you feel good? Right? The fitness professional says, "Hey, these are all the things that I've seen working for a lot of people about going out and getting fit." And you might not want to do them initially, but actually the people who do these things, the hope. The people that do those things might have an inherent privilege, right? Wait, the monopoly, the world's not fair. Like the world's not fair. Some people are born on.

I need to know your answer to the same question. I think we, we need to have vital democracies that manage economies in ways that are optimized around human flourishing and not capital efficiency, not capital accumulation. That we live in a world, you completely grew up in a world where the highest good was capital efficiency. The capital efficiency and godliness were the same. And we have organized society in this way. We, in the United States, it, we literally have a norm and a set of regulations around maximizing shareholder value for corporations. Right? This was invented out of whole cloth in the 1970s. This whole idea that the purpose of the corporation should be merely to enrich shareholders. And the evil of that idea isn't what they weren't saying was screw the poor. What they said was if you maximize value for shareholders, it will be good for everybody. And that was the lie because it wasn't good for everybody. It was good for a tiny minority of people. And the lie was that when you do that, growth rates will go up, GDP will go up. We'll have a rising tide. And the tide didn't rise, it fell. And what modern economics says is that we can have a different construct. We can have a different society that purposefully includes people in a robust way, whether they're a worker, whether they're a small business. And if we do that, everyone will benefit. The economy will grow faster. People will be paid better. Prices will be lower. We will have more innovation. This is within our grasp. We just have to decide to do it.

You should go into politics. I am in politics. Well, I, I hear that. One thing I don't like is waiting for the world to change. And I like, I like personal agency. And at Nick's level that he's playing at, I love the fact that he's in politics and he's he's using his wealth and his power and his influence to change the system. For most people, waiting for the world to change does not feel empowering. And and I guess what where I'm coming from is like, yes, tilt towards this because that's the political movement that's required to make sure the world includes more people in capitalism. And I love that. Um, and while that's happening, take personal accountability, personal agency, figure out what is your next move. Watch all the episodes of Diary of a CEO, learn from people, and you know, and jump on. And and figure out. Yeah. Subscribe, right? Do me a favor, subscribe to the channel. But if if that, if that is done, like people, people who do that end up feeling hopeful because hope comes from having personal agency. And personal agency is knowing your next move that's going to benefit you and move you forward.

I agree. I agree. And I real, I, you know, the older I've gotten, the more I realize my own privilege. And my privilege isn't necessarily that I built a business and that I have money now and all those things. My privilege is something happened when I was young from the point of maybe even where my parents about it. I don't feel guilty about it, but it just has allowed me to see my own bias and to realize that I have this unknown unknown. Unfortunately, that's growing by the day because I'm getting more entrenched in my own privilege. And what I mean by this is like, I play out the scenario theoretically. My dad left my mom and my mom, um, still struggles to read and write and she would have had like four kids, can't read or write, can't really get employment. She worked at St. Luke's hospice as a volunteer. And I go, "God, if that one thing had happened, how different would my life have been?" And and so that's like a privilege that I, I've never even acknowledged because I, it's kind of inherent. It was like built into my life. And then would I be sat here now? Would I be be the person I am today if that one little thing had happened? No. Would I be ambitious and optimistic about the world? Or would I be theoretically, could I be resentful? Could I be like some of my other friends who came from the same city where I came from who didn't have a father? Who may I've said to some of my friends, I said to one, one of my particular friends back home, if you would just get a job for a couple of months, I will pay your rent for years. Didn't happen. Can't get a job at his subway for for 3 months so that I would pay his rent for years. I ended up helping him anyway, but I, it just, I remember saying that 10 years ago. It just highlighted to me that there's a real deep inherent privilege that I have that I'm like not even aware that I, it sometimes it's trauma, my DNA. My brothers are all very smart naturally. Um, and what if I didn't, what if like I didn't have those two parents and what if I didn't have the whatever genetic composition I had? Like then would the advice apply? That then would the advice I give to the world, would it apply? So I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,I'm going to go to the gym.

What do you think, Nick? Again, I've said it before. I, I, I, I agree with this sentiment 100%. I am an entrepreneur myself, but I, I expect that operating in empowerment applies to, it will no doubt apply to a high percentage of the people who watch your show, right? Lots and lots of people who watch this show are entrepreneurial, want to be entrepreneurial, so on and so forth. But I suspect you're talking about less than 5% of people on planet Earth that fit that paradigm. And I want to create a paradigm that works for everybody. And you're saying if you hit those 5%? Well, even in the UK, it's six million self-employed people out of 30 million workers. It's not, it's not tiny. It's a pretty decent percent. Right. It, it is a major opportunity that more people than ever could take part in. If you asked a health professional, how do you get hope? Go to the gym, go for a run, all that stuff. You're asking an entrepreneur, how do you get hope through personal agency? I'm going to tell you what's worked. What's worked for me is the entrepreneurial method.

So maybe we need to ask a broad group of people. Yeah. But I suspect that what they will come back to you with is the quiet miracle of a normal life. If you want that, that's great. I, I want that and I want that for everyone. That's gone away. It's gone. Houses are unaffordable. Sorry. Local jobs don't exist. No one's paying healthy wages. Like all of that stuff that I want as well. It's great to sit there and want it, right? But that doesn't give me hope. That gives me disappointment that it used to exist, right? My, the family home that most people would love to raise a family in, it's 1.2 million pounds now. Right? And if you want to fix that, you have to enact this. You have to do that. Most people.

What is? People are going to wonder what's in that piece of paper. So this is, you know, I mean, the, the main body of my work is coming up with a different economic paradigm, a way of understanding economic cause and effect that leads to the world that Dan prefers, that I prefer. I think, I don't know, but I sense it's the world that you prefer. And what you have to do is you have to rip down the existing economic framework and replace it with a 21st century thing that inclines policymakers to make good decisions, not bad ones. And the booklet itself, that, that can, can you show the booklet? Yeah. So this booklet is 21st Century Economics. Now, this is aimed at policymakers and professionals. Just, but, but if you go to marketsbuiltforhumans.org, you can download this for free. And that is merely an expression of the paradigm itself. Going from believing that, uh, we should just increase, uh, capital efficiency to human flourishing. Going from understanding human beings as homo economicus to homo sapiens. Going from understanding the economy as a Pareto optimal equilibrium to a complex, to an ecology. All this stuff. But when you understand it in a new way, you come to very different conclusions about how you should organize the world. And that is the starting point for global transformation.

I love it. He's already a billionaire. He's got time on his hands and he's got money to fly around the world doing it. Do it. And while he's doing it, all I need is for people like you to help me explain it. Yeah. And, and like, I, I love it. I'm not against it. I'm just saying what will give most people hope is taking agency over their life where they can do something this week to improve their life. So while, next time I see, there will be a test. And and download, download it, give it to your lawmakers.

Well, so what I'll do then, I mean, we've got different reading materials people that are listening can, uh, can pursue here. Um, we've got Dan's books here, which I'll link below. Dan, is there a particular best book to start with in your opinion? The most recent one is called The Lifestyle Business Playbook, and it's basically how to get started with a small business and a business that will give you more fun, freedom, and flexibility. And I like the idea of supporting anyone who's trying to create a better economy. Some of the most miserable people I know are waiting for the system to change. And I don't want you to be that person. I want you to be doing something in your own life.

And then over here, I mean, I'm going to link all of your books below as well. But, yeah, I mean, I, I just think that, um, a starting point for global transformation is under, look, economics is the operating system of the world. If it's the wrong operating system, you end up with a very bad circumstance. And in economics is invisible to most people. They don't even understand it's the, it's the water they're swimming in. They don't understand that policymakers are making decisions that affect their lives based on a particular understanding of how the economy works. And if that's wrong, then you're going to make some terrible decisions. If you believe that prosperity trickles down from the top, you're going to enact a certain set of policies. If you believe that growth is built from the middle out, you will make an entirely different set of, uh, uh, uh, policies. If you believe that the middle class is a consequence of economic growth, you will go one way. If you believe that the thriving middle class is the cause of growth, you will do a completely different set of things in terms of policy. All of them aligned with what Dan wants. But, but that's where you have to start. That's, that's the meta, those are the meta questions that you have to answer. And then you, and then you deduce logically to all of the things that Dan prefers. But you have to start up here. You have to start with the set of ideas that govern how people see economic cause and effect. And that is what this is.

I shall link it below. Thank you so much. We're done. Thank you. You are fantastic. YouTube have this new crazy algorithm where they know exactly what video you would like to watch next based on AI and all of your viewing behavior. And the algorithm says that this video is the perfect video for you. It's different for everybody looking right now. Check this video out and I bet you you might love it.