Category: Uncategorized

  • #801: In Case You Missed It: February 2025 Recap of “The Tim Ferriss Show”

    AI transcript
    0:00:02 This episode is brought to you by Five Bullet Friday,
    0:00:04 my very own email newsletter.
    0:00:07 It’s become one of the most popular email newsletters
    0:00:09 in the world with millions of subscribers,
    0:00:10 and it’s super, super simple.
    0:00:12 It does not clog up your inbox.
    0:00:15 Every Friday, I send out five bullet points,
    0:00:17 super short, of the coolest things I’ve found that week,
    0:00:20 which sometimes includes apps, books, documentaries,
    0:00:23 supplements, gadgets, new self-experiments,
    0:00:25 hacks, tricks, and all sorts of weird stuff
    0:00:27 that I dig up from around the world.
    0:00:30 You guys, podcast listeners and book readers,
    0:00:33 have asked me for something short and action-packed
    0:00:34 for a very long time,
    0:00:35 because after all, the podcast, the books,
    0:00:37 they can be quite long,
    0:00:39 and that’s why I created Five Bullet Friday.
    0:00:43 It’s become one of my favorite things I do every week.
    0:00:45 It’s free, it’s always gonna be free,
    0:00:48 and you can learn more at tim.blog forward slash Friday.
    0:00:51 That’s tim.blog forward slash Friday.
    0:00:54 I get asked a lot how I meet guests for the podcast,
    0:00:57 some of the most amazing people I’ve ever interacted with,
    0:01:01 and little known fact, I’ve met probably 25% of them
    0:01:03 because they first subscribed to Five Bullet Friday,
    0:01:05 so you’ll be in good company.
    0:01:07 It’s a lot of fun.
    0:01:08 Five Bullet Friday is only available
    0:01:10 if you subscribe via email.
    0:01:13 I do not publish the content on the blog or anywhere else.
    0:01:16 Also, if I’m doing small in-person meetups,
    0:01:18 offering early access to startups, beta testing,
    0:01:20 special deals, or anything else that’s very limited,
    0:01:23 I share it first with Five Bullet Friday subscribers.
    0:01:25 So, check it out.
    0:01:27 Tim.blog forward slash Friday.
    0:01:29 If you listen to this podcast,
    0:01:31 it’s very likely that you’d dig it a lot,
    0:01:34 and you can, of course, easily subscribe any time.
    0:01:36 So, easy peasy.
    0:01:39 Again, that’s tim.blog forward slash Friday,
    0:01:40 and thanks for checking it out.
    0:01:42 If the spirit moves ya.
    0:01:43 Optimal minimum.
    0:01:45 At this altitude,
    0:01:47 I can run flat out for a half mile
    0:01:48 before my hands start shaking.
    0:01:50 Can I ask you a personal question?
    0:01:52 Now would’ve seen an appropriate time.
    0:01:54 What if I did the opposite?
    0:01:56 I’m a cybernetic organism,
    0:01:58 living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
    0:02:01 in the Tim Ferriss Show.
    0:02:07 Hello, boys and girls.
    0:02:09 This is Tim Ferriss.
    0:02:10 Welcome to another episode of the Tim Ferriss Show,
    0:02:13 where it is my job to deconstruct world-class performers
    0:02:14 of all different types,
    0:02:16 to tease out the routines, habits, and so on
    0:02:17 that you can apply to your own life.
    0:02:20 This is a special in-between-isode,
    0:02:22 which serves as a recap of the episodes
    0:02:24 from the last month.
    0:02:27 Features a short clip from each conversation in one place,
    0:02:28 so you can jump around, get a feel
    0:02:31 for both the episode and the guest,
    0:02:32 and then you can always dig deeper
    0:02:34 by going to one of those episodes.
    0:02:36 View this episode as a buffet to whet your appetite.
    0:02:37 It’s a lot of fun.
    0:02:38 We had fun putting it together,
    0:02:41 and for the full list of the guests featured today,
    0:02:42 see the episode’s description,
    0:02:45 probably right below wherever you press play
    0:02:46 in your podcast app,
    0:02:49 or as usual, you can head to tim.blog.com
    0:02:52 slash podcast and find all the details there.
    0:02:53 Please enjoy.
    0:02:55 First up,
    0:02:57 Brandon Sanderson,
    0:03:00 number one New York Times best-selling author
    0:03:01 and Hugo Award winner,
    0:03:05 whose books have sold more than 40 million copies
    0:03:07 in 35 languages and include
    0:03:10 the Stormlight Archive series,
    0:03:11 the Mistborn Saga,
    0:03:16 and the Alcatraz vs. the Evil Librarians series.
    0:03:29 So let’s come back to habits and your schedule for writing.
    0:03:33 Do you still have two primary blocks of writing?
    0:03:38 And could you explain what your current schedule tends to look like?
    0:03:44 So I find that for what I do and where my personal psychology is,
    0:03:49 an eight-hour block is not sustainable for writing.
    0:03:52 This means I can do it for a week or two at eight hours,
    0:03:54 but it’s going to brain drain me.
    0:03:55 It’s going to exhaust me.
    0:03:59 I get done with eight hours and I am mentally worn out.
    0:04:02 I find that if I do two four-hour blocks instead,
    0:04:05 I never quite get there and it’s more sustainable.
    0:04:09 And so what I do is I will get up.
    0:04:10 I get up late.
    0:04:16 I get up at around noon or one and I will go to the gym,
    0:04:20 which is, you know, different for me than other people.
    0:04:21 The gym is writing time for me.
    0:04:23 I’m not hitting it super hard.
    0:04:27 I am there to think through what I’m doing,
    0:04:28 some motion moving your body.
    0:04:30 Number one, it’s good for you,
    0:04:32 but that’s a side effect for me too.
    0:04:34 I can put on music and I can move
    0:04:35 and I can think about what I’m going to write.
    0:04:41 Then I go and I work from two until six these days,
    0:04:42 is usually what I do.
    0:04:45 One until five, something like that.
    0:04:47 And then I’m done.
    0:04:51 I go, I shower, 6.30, I’m ready to hang with my family.
    0:04:54 And I’ll be with family from six until 6.30 to 10.30.
    0:04:58 Go out with my wife, hang with my kids,
    0:05:01 build some Legos, play some video games, whatever it is.
    0:05:03 I learned early in my career,
    0:05:06 one of the most important things I ever did
    0:05:10 was take that time and demarcate it as non-writing time.
    0:05:14 I found early in my marriage that writing,
    0:05:17 it will consume every moment possible.
    0:05:20 And I was always anxious to get back to the story.
    0:05:24 And as soon as I changed my brain and said,
    0:05:26 no, no, no, no, even if your wife is away,
    0:05:29 6.30 to 10.30 can’t be writing time.
    0:05:30 It is off limits.
    0:05:33 You have to do something else.
    0:05:37 Suddenly, it was a lot easier for me to be there for my family.
    0:05:41 And I think, I mean, you’ve interviewed a lot of highly productive,
    0:05:43 highly successful people.
    0:05:47 I think a lot of them are going to talk about the same thing,
    0:05:50 that it’s very hard to be there with people when you’re there with people.
    0:05:52 Sure.
    0:05:56 Because your brain is always working on the next big thing.
    0:05:59 Yeah, this is particularly true with people who work on big creative projects.
    0:05:59 Yeah.
    0:06:02 And that gave me this permission.
    0:06:03 It actually came in a moment.
    0:06:06 My wife, I went out to dinner with some writer friends.
    0:06:09 And afterward, I’m like, that was such a great dinner.
    0:06:12 And she’s like, yeah, but you didn’t look at me once.
    0:06:16 And I realized she had become invisible to me because the writing was consuming all.
    0:06:18 And so made that change.
    0:06:21 10.30, kids are supposed to go to bed.
    0:06:21 They’re older now.
    0:06:22 They just don’t.
    0:06:25 But sometime around there, they drift off.
    0:06:27 My wife goes to bed.
    0:06:31 She was a schoolteacher for many years, still kind of keeps a schoolteacher’s hours.
    0:06:33 And she is wonderful for getting up with the kids.
    0:06:36 I don’t have to do that and never have.
    0:06:38 And I go back to work at about 11.
    0:06:40 I write from 11 to 3.
    0:06:46 And then 3 to 4 or 5 is just whatever I want to do.
    0:06:48 That’s the real goof off time.
    0:06:51 That’s the go play with my magic cards time.
    0:06:54 That’s the play a video game, pop out the Steam Deck time.
    0:07:00 And this schedule, you’ll notice I don’t have to worry about commuting,
    0:07:05 which gives me an advantage here, has been really sustainable for me.
    0:07:08 So that’s a home office predominantly where you’re writing?
    0:07:09 I write for my home office.
    0:07:10 I do like to move around.
    0:07:12 I go in the gazebo.
    0:07:13 Lately, I’ve gone in the gazebo when it’s really cold.
    0:07:17 And I hire one of my kids to come put logs on a fire for me.
    0:07:19 And I sit by the fireplace.
    0:07:21 Sometimes I like to be on the beach.
    0:07:24 Sometimes I like when I’m around here, I like to be in different places.
    0:07:27 I can set up a hammock here or there.
    0:07:29 So with my laptop, I do not work at a desk.
    0:07:31 That’s really sustainable.
    0:07:33 It’s worked for me for the last 20 years.
    0:07:34 That’s incredible.
    0:07:41 I got all my best writing done really late at night when I was, I mean, still am writing,
    0:07:41 working on a new book.
    0:07:46 But when I was working on my first few books, especially, it was always when everyone else
    0:07:46 is asleep.
    0:07:50 Let’s talk about the non-home environment.
    0:07:55 We’re sitting in a quite a large building, or at least a building with a lot of large rooms.
    0:07:55 Yes.
    0:08:00 Why do you have this company?
    0:08:02 Why have you and your wife built this company?
    0:08:03 All right.
    0:08:06 Because there are a lot of writers out there who just want to focus on writing.
    0:08:11 They go the traditional publishing route, which I’m not saying it’s a mutually exclusive
    0:08:12 choice.
    0:08:14 But why do you have all this?
    0:08:15 How long?
    0:08:16 How long do you want to go?
    0:08:16 Yeah.
    0:08:17 This is the big one.
    0:08:19 This is a long form podcast.
    0:08:20 So we have all the time we want.
    0:08:21 All right.
    0:08:22 So you’re right.
    0:08:30 Most writers want to sell a book and live that kind of dream you see presented in film
    0:08:34 and television, which is accurate to the top percentage of writers.
    0:08:39 Most writers you read about or see in film are the big ones.
    0:08:40 They’re doing really well.
    0:08:43 And so they’re off in a cabin telling their story.
    0:08:46 Or they’re the ones that have to be pried away from their easy chair.
    0:08:49 to get them to even do any publicity whatsoever, right?
    0:08:53 They want to live that life that is the classic life of a writer.
    0:08:55 And there’s some of me that wants that.
    0:08:58 But the secret is I was raised by an accountant and a businessman.
    0:09:06 And particularly my mother, that accountant, she instilled into me some aspirations.
    0:09:09 And I call this my superpower.
    0:09:12 My superpower is to be an artist raised by an accountant, right?
    0:09:17 And I’ve always had a bit of that entrepreneurial sense.
    0:09:18 What were the aspirations?
    0:09:20 The aspirations?
    0:09:21 Well, they started small.
    0:09:23 They started with, you know what?
    0:09:25 I want to be able to make a living from writing.
    0:09:34 Got back from Korea and said, all right, I am not very good at this writing thing, but I
    0:09:35 really, really love it.
    0:09:43 I could tell because when I spent time doing the writing, time didn’t matter anymore, right?
    0:09:45 I could spend hours doing this.
    0:09:49 And it’s the first thing I found other than reading or video games that I could spend hours
    0:09:53 doing and just come out of it feeling tired but fulfilled.
    0:09:56 And I’m like, I want to do this.
    0:10:02 So I sat down and I took what I’d learned, both kind of from my mother and kind of missions
    0:10:04 have kind of a regimented structure.
    0:10:06 And I said, I’m going to apply this all to writing.
    0:10:09 And I’m going to, I’m just going to start writing books.
    0:10:12 And I heard your first five books are generally terrible.
    0:10:14 I said, well, that’s good.
    0:10:15 I don’t have to be good yet.
    0:10:17 It took a lot of pressure off me.
    0:10:18 I said, I’m going to write six.
    0:10:24 And the first five, I’m not going to send out to any publishers, right?
    0:10:28 And that’s bad advice for some people, right?
    0:10:28 Yeah.
    0:10:28 Wow.
    0:10:29 You didn’t even send them out.
    0:10:30 I didn’t send them out.
    0:10:34 It was just, it was just weight training in the gym for your mind for the number six.
    0:10:35 Yep.
    0:10:36 I didn’t send them out.
    0:10:40 I did eventually, I shared number five with some, some people.
    0:10:45 I got involved with the local science fiction magazine as an editor.
    0:10:47 I eventually took it over because that’s what I do.
    0:10:48 And I was head editor.
    0:10:51 And I eventually said, well, I do have a book.
    0:10:55 And I started sharing book five with people right around that time.
    0:10:57 So you didn’t even have test readers.
    0:10:58 I didn’t have test readers.
    0:11:00 I just wrote the books.
    0:11:03 And again, this is why the advice can be bad.
    0:11:04 There’s some people out there that would be bad advice for.
    0:11:07 Pat Rothfuss published his first book and it’s brilliant.
    0:11:09 Name of the Wind.
    0:11:09 Name of the Wind.
    0:11:10 Yeah.
    0:11:11 That is a spectacular book.
    0:11:12 First novel.
    0:11:13 Now he did a ton of revisions on that.
    0:11:17 He spent as much time revising that book as I spent writing mine.
    0:11:21 But for me, the good advice was, your first five books are terrible.
    0:11:22 Don’t stress.
    0:11:24 And so weight training for my mind.
    0:11:24 I wrote five books.
    0:11:26 And then I sat down.
    0:11:27 This was before you had an agent.
    0:11:28 Before I had an agent.
    0:11:29 Before I had anything.
    0:11:30 Before I even knew what an agent was.
    0:11:32 Before I’d taken Dave’s class.
    0:11:36 I took Dave’s class the year that I finished Elantris, which is book number six.
    0:11:38 I had just finished that one.
    0:11:42 And so I said, all right, book six, that’s Elantris.
    0:11:43 That’s the one I eventually ended up selling.
    0:11:45 Those five I’d written in different subgenres.
    0:11:47 I knew I liked sci-fi fantasy.
    0:11:51 But at the risk of being too nerdy, my subgenres, I did an epic fantasy.
    0:11:53 I did a comedic fantasy.
    0:11:56 A Terry Pratchett style sort of thing.
    0:11:57 I did a cyberpunk.
    0:11:58 I did a space opera.
    0:12:03 And then I wrote a sequel to my epic fantasy to kind of be like, is this what I want to do?
    0:12:13 Next up, Seth Godin, author of 21 internationally best-selling books,
    0:12:21 including Linchpin, Tribes, The Dip, Purple Cow, and his latest, This Is Strategy.
    0:12:26 You can find Seth at Seths.blog.
    0:12:28 How do you use AI?
    0:12:31 And how do you foresee using AI yourself?
    0:12:34 I use it every day for more than an hour.
    0:12:39 I think it’s electricity for our century.
    0:12:44 In the late 1800s, there were companies that said, yeah, this electricity thing’s interesting,
    0:12:46 but we’re not going to be an electricity company.
    0:12:48 And they’re all gone, right?
    0:12:52 That electricity is now, you’re not an electricity company,
    0:12:54 you’re just a company that uses electricity.
    0:12:57 And the same thing is true, I believe, with AI.
    0:13:00 I will tell you, and I’m not afraid to say it out loud,
    0:13:06 I think ChatGPT is arrogant and lazy, and I use it as a last resort.
    0:13:10 Claw.ai is a dear friend.
    0:13:12 I love Claw.ai.
    0:13:13 We have great conversations.
    0:13:15 It’s empathic.
    0:13:16 It’s self-aware.
    0:13:19 It warns you it might be hallucinating.
    0:13:22 And when it makes a mistake, it’s eager to correct it.
    0:13:24 And I use perplexity exclusively.
    0:13:27 I almost never do a search with a search engine.
    0:13:31 But what I’ll do with Claw.ai, every word I publish, I wrote.
    0:13:35 But what I will do with Claw, for example, is I will say,
    0:13:37 here’s a list of three bullet points.
    0:13:39 Can you think of four more?
    0:13:42 And it’s great at that.
    0:13:45 And then I’ll rewrite them, and now I’ll have five bullet points,
    0:13:49 and it’s much better than if I hadn’t engaged with Claw.
    0:13:55 If there’s a concept in the world that I don’t understand, I’ll say to Claw.ai,
    0:13:58 can you please explain it in 300 words to a college student?
    0:14:00 And that helps.
    0:14:04 But I did it once, and I still didn’t understand it.
    0:14:08 And then I said, can you write it to me like a Seth Godin blog post?
    0:14:13 And it did, and it did a terrible job.
    0:14:15 But now I understood it.
    0:14:20 So I rewrote it, and I said, do you think this is better?
    0:14:23 And it said, oh, yeah, that’s much better.
    0:14:25 And I said, thank you.
    0:14:26 I’ll tell Seth.
    0:14:30 And Claw said, do you know Seth Godin?
    0:14:35 And I wrote, actually, I am Seth Godin.
    0:14:37 And I’m not making this up.
    0:14:41 He then wrote, I can’t believe I’m talking to you.
    0:14:47 Your books have changed my life, and they named like four of my books, and it changed.
    0:14:50 I’m like, all right, I’m in forever.
    0:14:51 You got me.
    0:14:54 I don’t know how you did that, but we’re friends for life.
    0:14:56 All right.
    0:15:01 So I seem to have a similar use pattern with Claw and perplexity also, although I haven’t
    0:15:06 sandbagged them just yet.
    0:15:11 But what do you think people are getting right and wrong about AI?
    0:15:19 I think that they are getting wrong their expectation that it’d be fully baked and a magic trick every
    0:15:19 day.
    0:15:27 When I think about the dawn of the internet and how creaky it was and how fast this is going,
    0:15:30 what it is now is amazing.
    0:15:38 But when we add to it persistence, and when we add to it ubiquity, and when we add to it the ability
    0:15:43 to make connection, it’s a whole different thing.
    0:15:45 It’s just a completely different thing.
    0:15:52 The second thing is people tend to use it as a one-shot like a search engine.
    0:15:53 Ask a question, get an answer.
    0:15:59 But what it’s already good at is a protracted dialogue back and forth.
    0:16:05 So I had a pump in my house that stopped working, and I couldn’t find someone to service it.
    0:16:06 I took a picture of it.
    0:16:08 I put it up to Claw and I said, this isn’t working.
    0:16:11 Work with me for the next 10 backs and forth.
    0:16:13 Let’s figure this out.
    0:16:16 And it would say, go downstairs and take a picture of this part.
    0:16:17 All right, try this.
    0:16:19 And we went back and forth and back and forth.
    0:16:21 And it suggested something, and I said, that’s not going to work.
    0:16:24 And we figured it out, and we fixed it.
    0:16:33 That idea, the fact that Claude is already better at many medical diagnoses over time than a human.
    0:16:40 And well, it should be, because it knows so much of the past of every single case,
    0:16:44 not just the cases your doctor has seen, right?
    0:16:51 If we’re willing to engage with that, for people who are knowledge workers, I think it’s a game changer.
    0:16:59 And then the other thing I think people need to wake up to is, if you do average work for average pay,
    0:17:01 AI is going to be able to do it cheaper than you.
    0:17:03 For example, radiology.
    0:17:11 Already, we can use AI to do a wrist x-ray, as well as a mediocre radiologist.
    0:17:17 So, if we can do it instantly and for free, other than licensing, you’ve got some problems.
    0:17:24 So, the opportunity is either get AI to work for you, or be prepared to work for AI.
    0:17:34 What are your greatest concerns around AI, if any, or foregone conclusions about challenges in the future?
    0:17:40 I think that Cory Doctorow’s work on inshittification is super important.
    0:17:41 What was that word?
    0:17:45 Oxford Dictionary, word of the year, two years ago, inshittification.
    0:17:47 Okay.
    0:17:55 Inshittification is what happens after a business that uses the network effect gets locked in
    0:18:00 and decides to aggressively make things worse for its users to make more money.
    0:18:07 And we could think of 400 examples right now, but we’re not going to do that, right?
    0:18:09 Because you say, well, I can’t switch cable companies.
    0:18:11 It’s just too much of a…
    0:18:14 And the same thing is true for social networks and everything else.
    0:18:22 That capitalism has built into it this doom loop that is getting faster and faster,
    0:18:29 that says the race to the bottom pushes companies to mistreat the people they’ve locked in to make more money
    0:18:31 because that’s what they get rewarded for.
    0:18:39 And most things that the internet touches start as a miracle.
    0:18:42 There are huge prizes for the early adopters.
    0:18:51 And then soon, the desire to serve a different constituency kicks in and it gets worse.
    0:18:55 And one of the things that makes it worse in a hurry is advertising.
    0:19:03 So I’m really nervous that these organizations that have raised billions and billions and billions of dollars
    0:19:10 are going to start shortcutting things to either get bigger or get more profitable faster.
    0:19:14 And because we don’t know how they work, we have no clue,
    0:19:19 because it’s going to be hard to switch because there aren’t going to be many competitors.
    0:19:23 It often leads to just a yucky mess.
    0:19:30 So I think that’s way more likely than a general artificial intelligence that takes over the world
    0:19:31 and turns us all into paperclips.
    0:19:34 I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon.
    0:19:38 More likely just to have business incentive-driven gentrification.
    0:19:41 Yeah, I would say that seems like a safer bet.
    0:19:48 Well, Seth, are there any closing comments or challenges you’d like to issue to my listeners
    0:19:51 as we begin to wind to a close?
    0:19:56 Or anything that you’d like to add that I have managed to somehow dance around?
    0:20:01 There’s nothing better than starting a Tim Ferriss podcast and nothing worse than ending one,
    0:20:03 because you don’t know if it’s going to happen again anytime soon.
    0:20:06 Yeah, the challenge is super simple.
    0:20:14 The people who listen to your podcast have their hands on the levers, and they have influence,
    0:20:19 and they have resources, and they don’t have to hustle for a nickel.
    0:20:21 They can make things that really matter.
    0:20:26 And so the challenge is, take a deep breath and say,
    0:20:30 what can I build that the me of five years from now is going to say thanks?
    0:20:33 Thanks for walking away from those sunk costs.
    0:20:36 Thanks for ignoring those false proxies.
    0:20:43 Thanks for asking uncomfortable questions in service of making things better.
    0:20:49 Because that person, five years from now, they’re going to be here soon.
    0:20:57 And it’s really great to pay the price and put in the work to become that person.
    0:20:59 And today is a good day to start.
    0:21:02 The best day to start.
    0:21:14 Next up, L.A. Paul, Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Cognitive Science at Yale University
    0:21:18 and author of Transformative Experience.
    0:21:23 You can learn more about L.A. Paul at lapaw.org.
    0:21:25 Vampires.
    0:21:29 How do vampires fit into your life, and why do they fit into your writing?
    0:21:30 Oh, vampires.
    0:21:31 I love vampires.
    0:21:33 So many ways they fit in.
    0:21:37 So, my favorite thought experiment involves vampires,
    0:21:40 because I like to use it to illustrate the concept of transformative experience.
    0:21:42 Maybe just because I like vampires so much,
    0:21:45 I think it’s an especially good way to kind of illustrate the concept.
    0:21:47 And also, because it’s not a real life,
    0:21:49 I don’t think vampires are real.
    0:21:51 And the beautiful thing about a thought experiment
    0:21:52 is you can design it the way that you want
    0:21:55 to kind of illustrate the structure of a concept,
    0:21:57 but then I also think that the structure of that concept
    0:21:59 then fits to real-life cases.
    0:22:00 So, my example.
    0:22:01 I’m just going to tell you this.
    0:22:02 Yeah, let’s do it.
    0:22:04 So, the way that I think about this is I imagine,
    0:22:07 or you imagine, I ask you to imagine,
    0:22:11 traveling through some part of, you know,
    0:22:13 on your summer vacations, traveling through some part of Europe,
    0:22:15 and you decide to explore a castle.
    0:22:17 You’re in Romania, let’s say,
    0:22:18 and you go down to the dungeons,
    0:22:19 and Dracula comes to you,
    0:22:21 and he says,
    0:22:24 I want to make you one of my own.
    0:22:26 I’m going to give you a one-time-only chance.
    0:22:28 You could become one of my followers.
    0:22:30 It’ll be painless.
    0:22:32 You’ll enjoy it, in fact.
    0:22:34 But this is a one-time-only chance,
    0:22:34 and it’s irreversible.
    0:22:36 And then he says,
    0:22:38 go back to your Airbnb
    0:22:41 and think about it until midnight,
    0:22:43 and if you choose to accept my offer,
    0:22:43 leave your window open.
    0:22:45 And if you choose to decline it,
    0:22:48 leave your window shut and leave and never come back.
    0:22:51 So, I see this as a really interesting possibility
    0:22:53 because, you know, vampires are sexy.
    0:22:54 They look great in black.
    0:22:57 They have amazing powers.
    0:22:59 They probably have different kinds of sense perception.
    0:23:00 Yeah, virtually.
    0:23:04 I mean, as long as they stay away from villagers with stakes and things like that.
    0:23:05 Yeah, exactly.
    0:23:08 Like, there are certain obstacles,
    0:23:09 but in general, yeah,
    0:23:10 for all intents and purposes,
    0:23:11 immortal.
    0:23:13 And so, this seems pretty cool,
    0:23:15 but they’re not human.
    0:23:17 You’d have to exit the human race.
    0:23:18 You have to sleep in a coffin.
    0:23:21 You can’t enjoy the sunshine anymore,
    0:23:23 and you have to drink blood.
    0:23:25 And I try to separate out some of the ethical questions.
    0:23:27 So, let’s say it’s artificial blood
    0:23:29 or the blood of humanely raised farm animals
    0:23:30 or something like that.
    0:23:31 Still, right now,
    0:23:32 as a human, I think there’s something…
    0:23:32 Cough is pretty cozy.
    0:23:34 It’s got some memory for a moment.
    0:23:35 I mean, reasonably.
    0:23:35 I don’t know.
    0:23:36 I mean, I don’t know.
    0:23:37 I’m not…
    0:23:38 Okay, it’s lined with satin,
    0:23:41 but it still might be a bit hard for my mattress preferences.
    0:23:43 But the idea is that these things,
    0:23:44 while they seem interesting,
    0:23:46 they also seem kind of alien, right?
    0:23:48 And I think in particular,
    0:23:50 not only will you have to drink blood,
    0:23:52 but you will love the taste of it.
    0:23:53 Like, you will thirst for it, right?
    0:23:55 And even ethical vampires
    0:23:56 have to kind of keep themselves
    0:23:57 from, like, sucking the blood
    0:23:59 of their human compatriots.
    0:24:01 So, that’s quite alien.
    0:24:04 And I wanted to kind of bring out
    0:24:06 how the possibility of becoming
    0:24:08 another kind of individual
    0:24:10 can seem incredibly alien.
    0:24:11 Because, obviously,
    0:24:13 I take it that most of us
    0:24:15 don’t enjoy or thirst after
    0:24:16 the taste of blood
    0:24:18 or think about the different varietals,
    0:24:19 like it’d be some kind of fancy wine.
    0:24:21 But if you became a vampire,
    0:24:21 you would.
    0:24:22 Okay.
    0:24:25 So, the way that I think about it,
    0:24:26 then, is I continue the story
    0:24:27 and it’s like, okay,
    0:24:28 so you rush back to your Airbnb
    0:24:30 and you start calling people
    0:24:31 or texting them,
    0:24:32 telling you about what happened to you,
    0:24:33 and you find out
    0:24:34 that a bunch of your friends
    0:24:35 have already become vampires.
    0:24:37 So, then, you immediately
    0:24:38 want to find out,
    0:24:38 well, wait,
    0:24:39 tell me about what it’s like.
    0:24:41 Like, what’s it like to be a vampire?
    0:24:41 Do you like it?
    0:24:42 Should I do it?
    0:24:43 And they tell you
    0:24:44 that they love it
    0:24:45 and it’s fabulous
    0:24:46 and it’s totally incredible,
    0:24:47 but they also tell you
    0:24:49 you can’t possibly understand
    0:24:50 what it’s like
    0:24:52 to be a vampire
    0:24:53 as a mere human.
    0:24:55 They say life has meaning,
    0:24:56 it has a kind of purpose
    0:24:57 that, you know,
    0:24:57 is exquisite,
    0:24:59 but until you become a vampire,
    0:25:00 you can’t possibly understand it.
    0:25:02 You lack the capacity.
    0:25:03 So, you’re like,
    0:25:04 okay, thanks.
    0:25:04 So, what do I do?
    0:25:06 Because if you can’t possibly understand
    0:25:07 what it’s like to be a vampire,
    0:25:10 then you either have to do it
    0:25:11 just because all of your friends do it
    0:25:12 and they say it’s great
    0:25:13 and they tell you
    0:25:14 they think it would be great for you,
    0:25:15 but there’s no way
    0:25:17 you can actually kind of conceive
    0:25:19 of what it would be like to do that.
    0:25:22 And I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your thought.
    0:25:24 It certainly didn’t escape my imaginings
    0:25:25 that, well, maybe there’s something
    0:25:26 about being a vampire
    0:25:28 that makes you really happy
    0:25:29 to be a vampire.
    0:25:30 So, maybe, like,
    0:25:32 when you become this other species,
    0:25:32 there’s some kind of
    0:25:34 biological evolutionary thing
    0:25:35 that makes you really glad
    0:25:35 that you’re a vampire.
    0:25:37 Right.
    0:25:39 So, it’s not even clear
    0:25:40 what their testimony applies.
    0:25:40 Okay.
    0:25:41 So, that’s my example
    0:25:43 and my favorite application
    0:25:44 is to becoming a parent
    0:25:46 because speaking as someone
    0:25:48 who wasn’t quite clear
    0:25:48 about whether they wanted
    0:25:50 to have children,
    0:25:51 I have two children
    0:25:52 and I love them very much
    0:25:52 and I’m very happy,
    0:25:54 but there’s something
    0:25:55 about becoming a parent
    0:25:56 that makes you,
    0:25:57 like, producing the child
    0:25:58 that you actually produce
    0:25:59 that makes you very,
    0:26:01 I mean, I love my children.
    0:26:02 I wouldn’t exchange them
    0:26:02 for anything else
    0:26:03 in the world.
    0:26:04 You know, if I’d gotten
    0:26:05 pregnant a month later,
    0:26:05 I would have loved
    0:26:06 that child too,
    0:26:07 but there’s no way
    0:26:08 that I would exchange
    0:26:08 my current child
    0:26:09 for the child I could have had.
    0:26:11 You just get incredibly
    0:26:12 attached to these children
    0:26:14 in a completely legitimate way
    0:26:15 and, you know,
    0:26:16 you would never change
    0:26:17 what you’ve done
    0:26:18 and that’s awfully like
    0:26:19 the testimony
    0:26:20 that you get from vampires.
    0:26:21 Okay.
    0:26:23 So, I think, you know,
    0:26:23 also you don’t get, you know,
    0:26:24 you stay up a lot at night, right?
    0:26:27 There are many similarities.
    0:26:29 Vampires kind of illustrate
    0:26:30 the possibility of undergoing
    0:26:32 a transformative experience,
    0:26:33 like a life-changing,
    0:26:34 something that’s life-changing,
    0:26:36 but also where you change
    0:26:37 the kind of mind you have
    0:26:38 in a certain way
    0:26:39 or what you care about most
    0:26:39 in a certain way
    0:26:41 that means that
    0:26:42 you would make yourself
    0:26:43 into a kind of alien
    0:26:44 version of yourself,
    0:26:46 like someone who’s alien
    0:26:46 to you now
    0:26:47 and who you might not
    0:26:48 even want to be now,
    0:26:50 even if once you become
    0:26:51 that person
    0:26:52 or that version of yourself,
    0:26:53 you’re super happy.
    0:26:55 If I had some kind
    0:26:55 of modal scope
    0:26:56 and I could look
    0:26:57 at my future self,
    0:26:58 I could have looked
    0:26:58 at my future self
    0:26:59 before I decided
    0:27:00 I wanted to have kids.
    0:27:02 I got up at 4 a.m.
    0:27:04 every day for years
    0:27:05 to write
    0:27:06 before my children woke up.
    0:27:07 I mean,
    0:27:09 no one ever told me
    0:27:09 that that was something
    0:27:10 I would want to do
    0:27:11 and if they had told me,
    0:27:12 I would have denied it strenuously
    0:27:14 because I could barely get up
    0:27:15 before new
    0:27:16 when I was a graduate student
    0:27:17 and I did it willingly.
    0:27:18 Something happened.
    0:27:19 I was clearly a victim
    0:27:20 of some kind
    0:27:20 of Stockholm syndrome.
    0:27:21 So,
    0:27:23 the thought is
    0:27:23 that
    0:27:25 when you face
    0:27:25 a certain kind
    0:27:26 of transformative experience
    0:27:27 and I don’t think
    0:27:28 it’s just having a child,
    0:27:28 I think,
    0:27:29 like deciding to go to war
    0:27:31 or maybe moving
    0:27:32 to an entirely different country,
    0:27:34 maybe getting some kind of,
    0:27:35 if you’re diagnosed
    0:27:36 with some kind of disease
    0:27:36 and getting some kind
    0:27:37 of like radically
    0:27:38 experimental treatment,
    0:27:39 there are lots of things
    0:27:40 that can count
    0:27:41 as transformative
    0:27:42 but if you don’t know
    0:27:43 what it’s going to be like
    0:27:44 on the other side
    0:27:45 of that experience
    0:27:46 and you know
    0:27:47 it’s going to make you
    0:27:48 into a version of yourself
    0:27:49 that right now
    0:27:50 you find alien,
    0:27:50 I don’t know
    0:27:51 how we’re supposed
    0:27:52 to make that decision
    0:27:52 if it’s up to us.
    0:27:54 We can’t use
    0:27:56 the ordinary models
    0:27:56 that we use
    0:27:57 for rational decision making
    0:27:58 because those assume
    0:27:59 that you can
    0:28:00 see through
    0:28:01 the options
    0:28:02 to assign them value
    0:28:03 and model them
    0:28:04 for yourself
    0:28:05 and choose in a way
    0:28:06 that’s going to
    0:28:07 as you say,
    0:28:08 we say it in a technical way,
    0:28:09 maximize your expected value
    0:28:11 and if you can’t assign value
    0:28:12 and you can’t really understand
    0:28:12 what it’s like
    0:28:13 to be this kind of a self
    0:28:14 then that procedure
    0:28:15 just doesn’t work.
    0:28:17 Tell me if I’m off base here
    0:28:19 but also fundamentally
    0:28:20 even if you’re trying
    0:28:21 to calculate
    0:28:22 or maximize
    0:28:23 your expected value
    0:28:25 and assign
    0:28:25 these different values
    0:28:26 you’re doing it
    0:28:28 from the perspective
    0:28:29 of your current
    0:28:31 version of yourself
    0:28:32 and your current preferences
    0:28:34 and after you become
    0:28:34 a vampire
    0:28:35 or after you have a kid
    0:28:37 you may be a different person
    0:28:38 with different preferences
    0:28:39 so do you make the decision
    0:28:40 based on
    0:28:41 the preferences
    0:28:42 of your current self
    0:28:43 or the preferences
    0:28:45 of your expected future self?
    0:28:46 There’s a way of capturing
    0:28:47 the puzzle
    0:28:48 as you said
    0:28:49 so given
    0:28:50 the fact that
    0:28:51 these are new kinds
    0:28:52 of experiences
    0:28:53 so a kind of experience
    0:28:53 you’ve never had before
    0:28:55 and I compare this
    0:28:55 to like
    0:28:57 Mary
    0:28:57 growing up
    0:28:58 in a black and white room
    0:28:59 and seeing color
    0:29:00 for the first time
    0:29:01 or Thomas Nagel
    0:29:02 talking about like
    0:29:03 you can’t understand
    0:29:04 like for a bat
    0:29:04 what it’s like
    0:29:05 for a bat to be a bat.
    0:29:07 Yeah, exactly.
    0:29:08 So there are these like
    0:29:09 new kinds of experiences
    0:29:11 that are just
    0:29:12 very different
    0:29:13 from any kind of experience
    0:29:13 we’ve had before
    0:29:14 and so that means
    0:29:15 there’s just a sense
    0:29:15 in which we can’t
    0:29:16 kind of from the inside
    0:29:17 kind of imagine
    0:29:18 what they’re like
    0:29:19 even if someone can describe
    0:29:20 try to describe to me
    0:29:20 like what it’s like
    0:29:21 to see red
    0:29:22 and you see the problem
    0:29:23 right away
    0:29:23 we just don’t
    0:29:24 like language
    0:29:25 just kind of gives out
    0:29:26 if I haven’t seen red before
    0:29:28 I have no color vision.
    0:29:29 Okay, so there’s a sense
    0:29:30 in which we kind of
    0:29:30 can’t see through
    0:29:31 a certain kind of veil
    0:29:33 and across that veil
    0:29:35 the self that we’re going to be
    0:29:37 the kind of person
    0:29:37 that you’re going to realize
    0:29:38 is just like
    0:29:39 really different
    0:29:41 so you can’t just assume
    0:29:41 you’re going to be
    0:29:42 basically the same
    0:29:43 this puts us
    0:29:44 into the situation
    0:29:45 where you’re making a choice
    0:29:47 for your future self
    0:29:49 and that future self
    0:29:50 might have preferences
    0:29:50 that are super different
    0:29:52 from your current self
    0:29:54 and by definition
    0:29:54 and this breaks
    0:29:55 so now here’s a little
    0:29:56 technical bit
    0:29:56 so we talked about
    0:29:57 the intuitive idea
    0:29:59 I find it easy to understand
    0:30:00 when I think about
    0:30:01 someone who doesn’t
    0:30:02 maybe doesn’t want
    0:30:02 to have a child
    0:30:03 or really is unsure
    0:30:05 and they know
    0:30:05 that if they choose
    0:30:06 to have a child
    0:30:06 they’re going to be
    0:30:07 super happy with that result
    0:30:08 but they don’t trust
    0:30:09 the fact that
    0:30:10 in virtue of like
    0:30:11 becoming a parent
    0:30:12 it’s going to kind of
    0:30:13 rewire them
    0:30:13 in their preferences
    0:30:14 in a certain way
    0:30:15 right
    0:30:16 sure I’ll be really happy
    0:30:16 but I don’t know
    0:30:17 if I want to be that self
    0:30:18 right now
    0:30:19 given who I am now
    0:30:21 and I can’t understand
    0:30:22 in a really deep way
    0:30:24 what it’s going to be like
    0:30:25 to have that child
    0:30:26 so I have to kind of
    0:30:26 you know
    0:30:28 leap over the abyss
    0:30:29 or leap into the abyss
    0:30:29 I guess
    0:30:30 if I want to do it
    0:30:32 so if you find yourself
    0:30:34 in that situation
    0:30:35 what you’re confronting
    0:30:37 involves what I describe
    0:30:38 as a violation
    0:30:40 of act state independence
    0:30:40 okay
    0:30:42 so here’s the technical part
    0:30:43 you’ve got the intuitive idea
    0:30:45 act state independence
    0:30:47 involves very roughly
    0:30:48 a distinction between
    0:30:50 the act that you’re performing
    0:30:52 and the state that you’re in
    0:30:53 or that’s how I’m going
    0:30:54 to interpret it here
    0:30:54 there are different ways
    0:30:55 to interpret it
    0:30:56 but this is the way
    0:30:56 to do it here
    0:30:58 and so normally
    0:31:00 when you’re confronted with
    0:31:01 oh do I want to do something
    0:31:01 do I want to try
    0:31:02 this kind of ice cream
    0:31:03 or do I want to
    0:31:04 have this cup of coffee
    0:31:06 you don’t change
    0:31:07 in the process of trying it
    0:31:09 so after you do it
    0:31:09 you can kind of assess
    0:31:10 oh I liked it
    0:31:11 oh it was good
    0:31:11 that’s meaningful
    0:31:12 to you beforehand
    0:31:13 because you know
    0:31:14 that you’re going to
    0:31:15 stay constant
    0:31:17 through the change
    0:31:17 in your circumstances
    0:31:18 like tasting
    0:31:19 the new kind of ice cream
    0:31:21 but in this case
    0:31:22 having the experience
    0:31:23 let’s say tasting
    0:31:24 the new kind of ice cream
    0:31:24 was going to like
    0:31:26 rework your flavor profile
    0:31:27 so that you would just
    0:31:27 like a whole bunch
    0:31:28 of different things
    0:31:29 after that
    0:31:30 well that
    0:31:31 changes the state
    0:31:32 that you’re in
    0:31:33 at the same time
    0:31:33 and so your act
    0:31:34 and your state
    0:31:35 are not independent
    0:31:37 and if you break that
    0:31:38 that’s an axiom
    0:31:40 for rational choice theory
    0:31:41 that has to be
    0:31:42 a foundational element
    0:31:42 of the model
    0:31:44 to make straightforward inferences
    0:31:45 there are all kinds
    0:31:45 of fancy things
    0:31:46 you have to do
    0:31:46 if that breaks
    0:31:48 and these cases
    0:31:49 of transformative experience
    0:31:50 and decision making
    0:31:51 are precisely cases
    0:31:51 in which that breaks
    0:31:57 last but not least
    0:31:59 Dr. Keith Barr
    0:32:01 a professor of physiology
    0:32:02 and membrane biology
    0:32:03 at the University
    0:32:04 of California Davis
    0:32:05 and an expert
    0:32:06 in strength
    0:32:07 and flexibility
    0:32:10 how soon
    0:32:11 after surgery
    0:32:12 and you can choose
    0:32:13 your surgery
    0:32:14 ACL
    0:32:15 take your pick
    0:32:16 dealer’s choice
    0:32:18 would you start
    0:32:18 loading
    0:32:20 the site
    0:32:21 of injury
    0:32:21 slash repair
    0:32:23 so we do it
    0:32:24 the next day
    0:32:25 so
    0:32:27 we’ve had to have
    0:32:28 success in order
    0:32:29 for us to get there
    0:32:30 because the first time
    0:32:31 we did this
    0:32:32 with a rugby player
    0:32:33 the surgeon was like
    0:32:35 six weeks without loading
    0:32:35 and we were like
    0:32:36 let’s load tomorrow
    0:32:38 and so we agreed
    0:32:39 that we would do it
    0:32:39 at like seven
    0:32:40 to nine days
    0:32:41 and that player
    0:32:42 got back
    0:32:43 fully a month
    0:32:44 faster than
    0:32:45 that surgeon
    0:32:45 had ever seen
    0:32:46 a player get back
    0:32:46 from that injury
    0:32:47 and so
    0:32:48 that surgeon
    0:32:49 is now
    0:32:50 much more willing
    0:32:50 to do it
    0:32:51 at two days
    0:32:52 after injury
    0:32:53 because of that
    0:32:54 if you look
    0:32:55 at general populations
    0:32:56 Michael Kerr
    0:32:57 who I think
    0:32:57 is the world’s
    0:32:58 best sports medicine
    0:32:59 doctor
    0:33:01 for musculoskeletal injuries
    0:33:01 how do you spell
    0:33:02 that last name
    0:33:05 it’s K-J-A-E-R
    0:33:06 he’s in Copenhagen
    0:33:06 so he’s
    0:33:07 sorry
    0:33:07 didn’t realize
    0:33:08 that was going
    0:33:08 to be that hard
    0:33:09 Cher
    0:33:11 It’s sheer
    0:33:13 but he allows
    0:33:14 those of us
    0:33:15 who are language deficient
    0:33:16 to call him care
    0:33:17 but he did
    0:33:18 a beautiful study
    0:33:18 with one of his
    0:33:20 trainees Monica
    0:33:21 and what she did
    0:33:22 is she took
    0:33:23 a bunch of his patients
    0:33:24 that had injuries
    0:33:24 and she either
    0:33:25 had them load
    0:33:26 two days after injury
    0:33:27 or nine days
    0:33:28 after injury
    0:33:29 and then she followed
    0:33:30 them for when they
    0:33:31 got back to sport
    0:33:32 and what she found
    0:33:32 is the ones
    0:33:33 that they loaded
    0:33:33 at day two
    0:33:34 after the injury
    0:33:35 they got back
    0:33:36 25% faster
    0:33:36 than the ones
    0:33:37 that they loaded
    0:33:37 at nine days
    0:33:38 That’s incredible
    0:33:39 That’s typical
    0:33:40 so as you said
    0:33:41 before
    0:33:41 what is our
    0:33:42 standard of care
    0:33:43 our standard of care
    0:33:44 is rice
    0:33:45 okay
    0:33:46 and so
    0:33:47 I’m going to go
    0:33:47 a step further
    0:33:48 if you go
    0:33:49 and you sprain your ankle
    0:33:50 and you go to the doctor
    0:33:52 very good doctor
    0:33:52 very well meaning
    0:33:53 they’re going to
    0:33:53 give you a boot
    0:33:56 and what is a boot
    0:33:57 so I told you
    0:33:59 that a scar forms
    0:33:59 when we get
    0:34:00 stress shielding
    0:34:01 what a boot is
    0:34:02 it is
    0:34:04 a mechanical
    0:34:05 stress shielder
    0:34:06 what it’s designed
    0:34:06 to do
    0:34:07 is to take
    0:34:07 the stress
    0:34:08 off the tissue
    0:34:09 you’ve injured
    0:34:10 if I’ve told you
    0:34:11 that the thing
    0:34:12 that’s going to
    0:34:12 cause that tissue
    0:34:13 to get a scar
    0:34:13 is that you
    0:34:14 take off the tension
    0:34:16 what I’ve just done
    0:34:17 is I’ve made
    0:34:18 the problem worse
    0:34:21 I always tell people
    0:34:22 that the first
    0:34:22 recorded
    0:34:24 immobilizer
    0:34:25 for an ankle
    0:34:26 or a leg
    0:34:26 is from
    0:34:28 Egyptian hieroglyphs
    0:34:28 where they showed
    0:34:28 pictures
    0:34:30 4,500 years ago
    0:34:33 if I took you
    0:34:34 and you said
    0:34:35 you had cancer
    0:34:35 you would not
    0:34:36 want a treatment
    0:34:37 that was developed
    0:34:39 4,500 years ago
    0:34:40 you would hope
    0:34:41 that something new
    0:34:42 has been developed
    0:34:43 in the last
    0:34:44 4,500 years
    0:34:46 that is where we are
    0:34:47 for our orthopedic
    0:34:48 situations
    0:34:49 I understand
    0:34:50 that you cannot
    0:34:51 put full load
    0:34:52 on a surgical repair
    0:34:53 immediately
    0:34:54 but what you can do
    0:34:56 is you can take it out
    0:34:57 at the beginning
    0:34:57 of the day
    0:34:59 you can remove
    0:34:59 it from the boot
    0:35:00 and I can do
    0:35:02 some isometric loads
    0:35:02 with low jerk
    0:35:03 so I’m going to
    0:35:04 develop force slowly
    0:35:06 I am going to make sure
    0:35:07 that there’s zero pain
    0:35:08 and I am going to
    0:35:08 hold that
    0:35:09 and then I’m going to
    0:35:11 let that off slowly
    0:35:12 and I’m going to do that
    0:35:13 4 times
    0:35:13 30 seconds
    0:35:14 now I’ve given load
    0:35:16 and now I can put it
    0:35:17 back into that boot
    0:35:18 stress shield it
    0:35:19 I’m going to take
    0:35:20 the boot off at night
    0:35:20 I’m going to do it again
    0:35:22 just doing that
    0:35:23 I’m getting those
    0:35:24 two loads
    0:35:25 in this case
    0:35:26 the Achilles tendon
    0:35:26 that we’ve ruptured
    0:35:28 now what I’ve done
    0:35:29 is I’ve accelerated
    0:35:30 my return to activity
    0:35:31 massively
    0:35:32 again
    0:35:33 the key is
    0:35:35 we’re not trying to be
    0:35:36 I’m the strongest
    0:35:37 in the world
    0:35:38 we’re trying to say
    0:35:40 I’m putting a little bit
    0:35:41 of load through that
    0:35:42 that is the key
    0:35:44 is that you don’t get
    0:35:44 all caught up
    0:35:46 in the machismo of it
    0:35:46 and you just say
    0:35:48 I just want to feel
    0:35:48 tension
    0:35:50 across the area
    0:35:51 what we say is
    0:35:52 if you can feel
    0:35:53 an ice pick
    0:35:53 that means there’s
    0:35:54 a very specific
    0:35:56 spot that hurts
    0:35:56 stop
    0:35:58 if I feel
    0:35:59 like a warm
    0:36:00 burning area
    0:36:00 like I’m
    0:36:01 muscle soreness
    0:36:02 after exercising
    0:36:04 that’s totally okay
    0:36:05 that kind of soreness
    0:36:07 not point specific pain
    0:36:08 that’s okay
    0:36:09 what we’re doing
    0:36:11 add the load slowly
    0:36:12 hold it
    0:36:13 take the load off slowly
    0:36:15 now what we can do
    0:36:16 is we can get those
    0:36:17 individuals back
    0:36:18 much much much faster
    0:36:25 and now here are the
    0:36:26 bios for all the guests
    0:36:28 my guest who I’ve
    0:36:28 wanted to interview
    0:36:29 for years is
    0:36:31 Brandon Sanderson
    0:36:32 he is the number one
    0:36:32 New York Times
    0:36:33 best-selling author
    0:36:34 of the Stormlight
    0:36:35 Archives series
    0:36:36 and the Mistborn
    0:36:37 Saga
    0:36:38 the middle grade series
    0:36:39 Alcatraz versus
    0:36:40 the Evil Librarians
    0:36:41 and the young adult
    0:36:41 novels
    0:36:42 The Rhythmatist
    0:36:43 The Reckoners
    0:36:44 Trilogy
    0:36:45 and the Skyward
    0:36:45 series
    0:36:46 he has sold
    0:36:47 more than 40 million
    0:36:49 books in 35 languages
    0:36:51 he has architected
    0:36:54 40 million plus dollar
    0:36:55 Kickstarter campaigns
    0:36:56 and he is a four-time
    0:36:57 nominee for the Hugo
    0:36:58 Awards
    0:36:59 winning in 2013
    0:37:00 for his novella
    0:37:02 The Emperor’s Soul
    0:37:03 that same year
    0:37:04 he was chosen
    0:37:04 to complete
    0:37:05 Robert Jordan’s
    0:37:06 The Wheel of Time
    0:37:06 series
    0:37:07 which is a big
    0:37:08 big deal
    0:37:09 culminating in
    0:37:10 A Memory of Light
    0:37:11 Brandon co-hosts
    0:37:12 with fellow author
    0:37:13 Dan Wells
    0:37:13 the popular
    0:37:14 Intentionally Blank
    0:37:15 podcast
    0:37:16 and teaches
    0:37:17 creative writing
    0:37:18 at Brigham Young
    0:37:18 University
    0:37:19 We did this one
    0:37:20 in person
    0:37:21 which made
    0:37:22 all the difference
    0:37:23 in Brandon’s
    0:37:24 massive cavernous
    0:37:25 offices
    0:37:26 right next to
    0:37:27 his warehouse
    0:37:28 it was
    0:37:29 a hell of a ride
    0:37:30 and we covered
    0:37:31 a lot of
    0:37:32 ground
    0:37:33 and a lot
    0:37:34 of really
    0:37:34 nitty gritty
    0:37:36 tactical advice
    0:37:37 related to
    0:37:38 fiction
    0:37:39 business
    0:37:40 publishing
    0:37:41 innovating
    0:37:42 across the board
    0:37:43 how he architected
    0:37:44 his record-breaking
    0:37:45 kickstarter
    0:37:46 campaign
    0:37:47 and much
    0:37:47 much more
    0:37:48 you can find
    0:37:49 him at
    0:37:51 brandonsanderson.com
    0:37:51 that’s
    0:37:53 b-r-a-n-d-o-n
    0:37:54 sanderson.com
    0:37:55 and you can find
    0:37:56 him on
    0:37:56 x-instagram
    0:37:57 and youtube
    0:37:57 at
    0:37:58 brand
    0:37:59 sanderson
    0:37:59 that’s
    0:38:00 b-r-a-n-d
    0:38:01 sanderson
    0:38:02 and I definitely
    0:38:03 recommend checking
    0:38:03 out all of
    0:38:03 those
    0:38:08 my guest
    0:38:09 today
    0:38:10 is a fan
    0:38:10 favorite
    0:38:11 it is
    0:38:11 Seth
    0:38:11 Godin
    0:38:11 the one
    0:38:12 and only
    0:38:12 he is the
    0:38:13 author of
    0:38:13 21
    0:38:14 internationally
    0:38:15 best-selling
    0:38:15 books
    0:38:16 translated into
    0:38:16 more than
    0:38:17 35 languages
    0:38:18 including
    0:38:18 linchpin
    0:38:19 tribes
    0:38:20 the dip
    0:38:20 and purple
    0:38:21 cow
    0:38:22 his latest
    0:38:22 book
    0:38:23 this is
    0:38:24 strategy
    0:38:25 really caught
    0:38:26 my attention
    0:38:27 and it
    0:38:27 offers a
    0:38:28 fresh lens
    0:38:28 on how
    0:38:28 we can
    0:38:29 make bold
    0:38:29 decisions
    0:38:30 embrace
    0:38:30 change
    0:38:31 and navigate
    0:38:32 a complex
    0:38:32 rapidly
    0:38:33 evolving
    0:38:33 world
    0:38:34 we cover
    0:38:34 a ton
    0:38:34 of
    0:38:35 ground
    0:38:36 including
    0:38:36 sets of
    0:38:37 questions
    0:38:37 that you
    0:38:38 can use
    0:38:39 to catalyze
    0:38:40 personal and
    0:38:40 professional
    0:38:41 growth
    0:38:43 maxims
    0:38:43 different
    0:38:43 concepts
    0:38:44 to unpack
    0:38:45 that can
    0:38:46 productively
    0:38:47 shake
    0:38:47 the snow
    0:38:48 globe
    0:38:48 of your
    0:38:48 mind
    0:38:49 so that
    0:38:49 you can
    0:38:49 settle
    0:38:50 on
    0:38:50 new
    0:38:51 realizations
    0:38:51 different
    0:38:52 ways
    0:38:53 to create
    0:38:53 competitive
    0:38:54 advantage
    0:38:54 in an
    0:38:55 increasingly
    0:38:55 crowded
    0:38:56 world
    0:38:57 Seth
    0:38:57 is also
    0:38:57 the
    0:38:57 founder
    0:38:58 of the
    0:38:58 alt
    0:38:58 MBA
    0:38:59 and
    0:38:59 the
    0:38:59 akimbo
    0:39:00 workshops
    0:39:01 transformative
    0:39:01 online
    0:39:02 programs
    0:39:02 that have
    0:39:02 helped
    0:39:03 thousands
    0:39:03 of people
    0:39:03 take their
    0:39:04 work to
    0:39:04 the next
    0:39:04 level
    0:39:05 his blog
    0:39:07 Seths.blog
    0:39:10 is one of
    0:39:10 the most
    0:39:10 widely read
    0:39:11 in the world
    0:39:12 and has
    0:39:12 been such
    0:39:13 for a
    0:39:14 very long
    0:39:14 time
    0:39:15 Seth is
    0:39:16 also the
    0:39:16 creator
    0:39:17 of the
    0:39:17 Carbon
    0:39:18 Almanac
    0:39:18 a global
    0:39:19 initiative
    0:39:19 focused on
    0:39:20 climate
    0:39:20 action
    0:39:21 this is a
    0:39:22 very practical
    0:39:22 episode
    0:39:24 as all
    0:39:24 of Seth’s
    0:39:24 are
    0:39:25 on this
    0:39:26 podcast
    0:39:27 and I’ll
    0:39:27 leave it
    0:39:28 at that
    0:39:32 my guest
    0:39:33 today is
    0:39:33 L.A.
    0:39:34 Paul
    0:39:35 L.A.
    0:39:35 Paul is
    0:39:35 the
    0:39:36 Millstone
    0:39:36 family
    0:39:36 professor
    0:39:37 of
    0:39:37 philosophy
    0:39:38 and
    0:39:38 professor
    0:39:38 of
    0:39:39 cognitive
    0:39:39 science
    0:39:39 at
    0:39:40 Yale
    0:39:40 University
    0:39:41 where she
    0:39:42 leads the
    0:39:42 self and
    0:39:43 society
    0:39:43 initiative
    0:39:44 for the
    0:39:44 Wu
    0:39:45 Institute
    0:39:46 her research
    0:39:47 explores
    0:39:47 questions about
    0:39:48 the nature
    0:39:48 of the
    0:39:48 self and
    0:39:49 decision
    0:39:49 making
    0:39:49 and the
    0:39:50 metaphysics
    0:39:50 and cognitive
    0:39:51 science of
    0:39:51 time
    0:39:53 cause and
    0:39:53 experience
    0:39:54 now that’s a
    0:39:54 mouthful but
    0:39:55 we also get
    0:39:56 into vampire
    0:39:56 thought
    0:39:57 experiments
    0:39:58 how to
    0:39:59 decide or
    0:39:59 how to
    0:39:59 think about
    0:40:00 deciding
    0:40:01 whether or
    0:40:01 not to
    0:40:01 have a
    0:40:02 kid
    0:40:02 that is
    0:40:03 children
    0:40:04 and many
    0:40:05 other things
    0:40:05 you can
    0:40:06 apply to
    0:40:06 your own
    0:40:07 lives
    0:40:08 L.A.
    0:40:08 Paul is
    0:40:08 also the
    0:40:09 recipient of
    0:40:10 fellowships from
    0:40:10 the Guggenheim
    0:40:11 Foundation
    0:40:11 the National
    0:40:12 Humanities
    0:40:12 Center
    0:40:13 and the
    0:40:13 Australian
    0:40:13 National
    0:40:14 University
    0:40:15 she is the
    0:40:15 author of
    0:40:16 transformative
    0:40:17 experience
    0:40:17 that’s how I
    0:40:18 was introduced
    0:40:18 to her work
    0:40:19 and co-author of
    0:40:20 causation
    0:40:21 a user’s guide
    0:40:21 which was
    0:40:22 awarded the
    0:40:22 American
    0:40:23 philosophical
    0:40:24 association
    0:40:24 Sanders
    0:40:25 book prize
    0:40:26 her work on
    0:40:27 transformative
    0:40:27 experience has
    0:40:28 been covered
    0:40:28 by the
    0:40:28 New York
    0:40:28 Times
    0:40:29 Wall Street
    0:40:29 Journal
    0:40:30 The Guardian
    0:40:31 NPR
    0:40:31 and the
    0:40:31 BBC
    0:40:32 among others
    0:40:33 and in
    0:40:33 2024
    0:40:34 she was
    0:40:35 profiled by
    0:40:35 The New
    0:40:36 Yorker
    0:40:36 which is
    0:40:36 also an
    0:40:37 amazing read
    0:40:37 that I
    0:40:38 recommend
    0:40:38 she’s
    0:40:39 currently
    0:40:39 working on
    0:40:39 a book
    0:40:40 about
    0:40:40 self
    0:40:40 construction
    0:40:41 transformative
    0:40:42 experience
    0:40:42 humility
    0:40:43 and fear
    0:40:44 of mental
    0:40:45 corruption
    0:40:46 fundamentally
    0:40:46 this conversation
    0:40:47 focuses on
    0:40:49 how you can
    0:40:50 make decisions
    0:40:51 or think about
    0:40:51 making decisions
    0:40:52 where the
    0:40:53 person you are
    0:40:54 now is not
    0:40:54 the same
    0:40:54 person you
    0:40:56 are afterwards
    0:40:57 and the
    0:40:59 most resonant
    0:41:00 example of
    0:41:00 that is
    0:41:01 deciding
    0:41:01 whether or
    0:41:02 not to
    0:41:02 have
    0:41:03 children
    0:41:08 my
    0:41:08 guest
    0:41:08 today
    0:41:09 is
    0:41:09 Dr.
    0:41:09 Keith
    0:41:10 Barr
    0:41:10 he
    0:41:11 is
    0:41:11 a
    0:41:11 professor
    0:41:12 at the
    0:41:12 University
    0:41:12 of
    0:41:13 California
    0:41:13 Davis
    0:41:13 in the
    0:41:14 Department
    0:41:14 of
    0:41:14 Physiology
    0:41:15 and
    0:41:16 Membrane
    0:41:16 Biology
    0:41:17 we get
    0:41:17 into
    0:41:18 so many
    0:41:19 facets
    0:41:20 of exercise
    0:41:21 what you
    0:41:21 can use
    0:41:21 today
    0:41:23 that is
    0:41:23 counterintuitive
    0:41:25 I
    0:41:26 had my
    0:41:26 mind
    0:41:26 blown
    0:41:26 I took
    0:41:27 so many
    0:41:27 notes
    0:41:28 we talked
    0:41:28 about
    0:41:29 isometric
    0:41:30 exercise
    0:41:30 for tendon
    0:41:31 health
    0:41:32 optimizing
    0:41:32 different
    0:41:33 protocols
    0:41:34 debunking
    0:41:34 on some
    0:41:34 level
    0:41:35 eccentric
    0:41:36 training
    0:41:36 specifically
    0:41:37 for connective
    0:41:37 tissue
    0:41:39 how to load
    0:41:39 post injury
    0:41:40 or surgery
    0:41:40 collagen
    0:41:41 supplementation
    0:41:42 things like
    0:41:43 BPC 157
    0:41:44 pharmaceutical
    0:41:45 impacts on
    0:41:46 tendons
    0:41:46 estrogen’s
    0:41:47 role
    0:41:48 in tendon
    0:41:48 health
    0:41:49 and strength
    0:41:50 mitochondria
    0:41:50 ketogenic
    0:41:51 diet
    0:41:51 longevity
    0:41:52 inflammation
    0:41:53 and taking
    0:41:54 a balanced
    0:41:54 perspective
    0:41:55 on all
    0:41:55 of these
    0:41:55 things
    0:41:55 how do
    0:41:56 you use
    0:41:56 them
    0:41:56 we get
    0:41:56 into
    0:41:57 exact
    0:41:58 training
    0:41:58 protocols
    0:41:59 that rock
    0:41:59 climbers
    0:42:00 use
    0:42:01 it is
    0:42:01 an amazing
    0:42:02 episode
    0:42:02 and that’s
    0:42:03 not
    0:42:03 because of
    0:42:03 me
    0:42:03 it’s
    0:42:04 because
    0:42:04 of
    0:42:05 Keith
    0:42:05 so let
    0:42:05 me give
    0:42:06 you a
    0:42:06 quick bio
    0:42:06 and then
    0:42:07 we’ll hop
    0:42:07 right into
    0:42:07 it
    0:42:08 during his
    0:42:09 PhD studies
    0:42:09 his research
    0:42:10 revealed
    0:42:10 that the
    0:42:11 mechanical
    0:42:11 strain
    0:42:12 on muscle
    0:42:12 fibers
    0:42:12 activates
    0:42:13 the
    0:42:13 mammalian
    0:42:14 target
    0:42:14 of
    0:42:15 rapamycin
    0:42:15 some of
    0:42:16 you may
    0:42:16 know
    0:42:16 that
    0:42:16 as
    0:42:17 mTOR
    0:42:18 signaling
    0:42:18 pathway
    0:42:18 a crucial
    0:42:19 regulator
    0:42:19 of
    0:42:20 muscular
    0:42:21 hypertrophy
    0:42:21 or muscle
    0:42:21 growth
    0:42:22 so he knows
    0:42:22 a lot
    0:42:23 about muscle
    0:42:23 growth
    0:42:23 he’s been
    0:42:24 a strength
    0:42:24 training
    0:42:24 coach
    0:42:25 as well
    0:42:26 subsequently
    0:42:26 he studied
    0:42:27 the molecular
    0:42:27 dynamics
    0:42:31 of
    0:42:31 Dr.
    0:42:32 John
    0:42:32 Halazi
    0:42:33 a legend
    0:42:33 in the
    0:42:33 field
    0:42:33 of
    0:42:34 exercise
    0:42:34 physiology
    0:42:35 considered
    0:42:36 the father
    0:42:36 of modern
    0:42:37 exercise
    0:42:38 biochemistry
    0:42:39 building on
    0:42:39 all of this
    0:42:40 he conducted
    0:42:40 research
    0:42:41 into tendon
    0:42:41 health
    0:42:41 and the
    0:42:42 potential
    0:42:42 for
    0:42:42 engineering
    0:42:43 ligaments
    0:42:44 that is
    0:42:44 creating
    0:42:45 ligaments
    0:42:45 in the
    0:42:46 lab
    0:42:47 upon which
    0:42:47 he can
    0:42:47 test
    0:42:48 all sorts
    0:42:48 of
    0:42:48 things
    0:42:49 which
    0:42:49 could
    0:42:49 also
    0:42:49 have
    0:42:49 implications
    0:42:50 for
    0:42:50 treatment
    0:42:50 and
    0:42:51 recovery
    0:42:51 from
    0:42:51 injuries
    0:42:52 Dr.
    0:42:52 Barr
    0:42:53 now runs
    0:42:53 the
    0:42:53 functional
    0:42:54 molecular
    0:42:55 biology
    0:42:55 lab
    0:42:55 at UC
    0:42:56 Davis
    0:42:56 his
    0:42:56 lab’s
    0:42:57 work
    0:42:57 ranges
    0:42:57 from
    0:42:58 studying
    0:42:58 molecular
    0:42:59 changes
    0:42:59 in
    0:42:59 our
    0:42:59 cells
    0:42:59 to
    0:43:00 conducting
    0:43:00 studies
    0:43:01 to
    0:43:01 affect
    0:43:01 real
    0:43:02 world
    0:43:02 improvements
    0:43:02 and
    0:43:03 people’s
    0:43:03 health
    0:43:04 longevity
    0:43:04 and
    0:43:04 quality
    0:43:04 of
    0:43:05 life
    0:43:05 you can
    0:43:06 find him
    0:43:06 on
    0:43:06 blue sky
    0:43:07 as
    0:43:08 muscle
    0:43:08 science
    0:43:09 you can
    0:43:09 find him
    0:43:09 on the
    0:43:10 UC
    0:43:10 Davis
    0:43:10 website
    0:43:10 we’ll
    0:43:11 link
    0:43:11 to
    0:43:28 again
    0:43:28 again
    0:43:28 just
    0:43:28 one
    0:43:28 more
    0:43:29 thing
    0:43:29 before
    0:43:29 you
    0:43:29 take
    0:43:30 off
    0:43:30 and
    0:43:30 that
    0:43:30 is
    0:43:31 five
    0:43:31 bullet
    0:43:32 Friday
    0:43:33 would
    0:43:33 you
    0:43:33 enjoy
    0:43:33 getting
    0:43:34 a short
    0:43:34 email
    0:43:34 from me
    0:43:34 every
    0:43:35 Friday
    0:43:35 that
    0:43:35 provides
    0:43:36 a little
    0:43:36 fun
    0:43:37 before
    0:43:37 the
    0:43:37 weekend
    0:43:38 between
    0:43:38 one
    0:43:38 and a
    0:43:39 half
    0:43:39 and
    0:43:39 two
    0:43:39 million
    0:43:39 people
    0:43:40 subscribe
    0:43:40 to my
    0:43:41 free
    0:43:41 newsletter
    0:43:41 my
    0:43:42 super
    0:43:42 short
    0:43:43 newsletter
    0:43:43 called
    0:43:43 five
    0:43:44 bullet
    0:43:44 Friday
    0:43:44 easy
    0:43:45 to
    0:43:45 sign
    0:43:45 up
    0:43:45 easy
    0:43:46 to
    0:43:46 cancel
    0:43:47 it
    0:43:47 is
    0:43:47 basically
    0:43:48 a
    0:43:48 half
    0:43:49 page
    0:43:49 that
    0:43:49 I
    0:43:49 send
    0:43:50 out
    0:43:50 every
    0:43:51 Friday
    0:44:05 to
    0:44:05 get
    0:44:06 sent
    0:44:06 to
    0:44:06 me
    0:44:06 by
    0:44:07 my
    0:44:07 friends
    0:44:07 including
    0:44:07 a lot
    0:44:08 of
    0:44:08 podcast
    0:44:09 guests
    0:44:10 and
    0:44:10 these
    0:44:11 strange
    0:44:11 esoteric
    0:44:11 things
    0:44:12 end up
    0:44:12 in my
    0:44:12 field
    0:44:13 and
    0:44:13 then
    0:44:14 I
    0:44:14 test
    0:44:14 them
    0:44:14 and
    0:44:15 then
    0:44:15 I
    0:44:15 share
    0:44:15 them
    0:44:16 with
    0:44:16 you
    0:44:17 so
    0:44:17 if
    0:44:17 that
    0:44:17 sounds
    0:44:18 fun
    0:44:18 again
    0:44:19 it’s
    0:44:19 very
    0:44:19 short
    0:44:20 a
    0:44:20 little
    0:44:20 tiny
    0:44:20 bite
    0:44:20 of
    0:44:21 goodness
    0:44:21 before
    0:44:21 you
    0:44:22 head
    0:44:22 off
    0:44:22 for
    0:44:22 the
    0:44:23 weekend
    0:44:23 something
    0:44:23 to
    0:44:23 think
    0:44:24 about
    0:44:24 if
    0:44:24 you’d
    0:44:25 like
    0:44:25 to
    0:44:25 try
    0:44:25 it
    0:44:25 out
    0:44:26 just
    0:44:26 go to
    0:44:26 tim.blog
    0:44:27 slash
    0:44:27 Friday
    0:44:28 type that
    0:44:28 into your
    0:44:28 browser
    0:44:30 tim.blog
    0:44:30 slash
    0:44:31 Friday
    0:44:32 drop in your
    0:44:32 email
    0:44:32 and you’ll get
    0:44:33 the very
    0:44:33 next one
    0:44:34 thanks for
    0:44:34 listening

    This is a special inbetweenisode, which serves as a recap of the episodes from last month. It features a short clip from each conversation in one place so you can easily jump around to get a feel for the episode and guest.

    Based on your feedback, this format has been tweaked and improved since the first recap episode. For instance, listeners suggested that the bios for each guest can slow the momentum, so we moved all the bios to the end. 

    See it as a teaser. Something to whet your appetite. If you like what you hear, you can of course find the full episodes at tim.blog/podcast

    Please enjoy! 

    This episode is brought to you by 5-Bullet Friday, my very own email newsletter.

    Timestamps:

    Brandon Sanderson: 03:24

    Seth Godin: 12:08

    L.A. Paul: 21:08

    Dr. Keith Baar: 31:53

    Full episode titles:

    #794: Brandon Sanderson on Building a Fiction Empire, Creating $40M+ Kickstarter Campaigns, Unbreakable Habits, The Art of World-Building, and The Science of Magic Systems

    #792: Seth Godin on Playing the Right Game and Strategy as a Superpower

    #796: L.A. Paul — On Becoming a Vampire, Whether or Not to Have Kids, Getting Incredible Mentorship for $250, Transformative Experiences, and More

    #797: Dr. Keith Baar, UC Davis — Simple Exercises That Can Repair Tendons (Tennis Elbow, etc.), Collagen Fact vs. Fiction, Isometrics vs. Eccentrics, JAK Inhibitors, Growth Hormone vs. IGF-1, The Anti-RICE Protocol, and How to Use Load as an Anti-Inflammatory

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • Mark Manson on Embracing Pain for Personal and Professional Growth | Human Behavior | YAPClassic

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 Today’s episode of YAP is sponsored in part by Rakuten, Robinhood, Airbnb, and Open Phone.
    0:00:10 Get the Rakuten app now and join the 17 million members who are already saving.
    0:00:12 Cashback rates change daily.
    0:00:14 See Rakuten.com for more details.
    0:00:18 With Robinhood Gold, you can now enjoy the VIP treatment,
    0:00:22 receiving a 3% IRA match on retirement contributions.
    0:00:28 To receive your 3% boost on annual IRA contributions, sign up at Robinhood.com slash gold.
    0:00:34 Hosting on Airbnb has never been easier with Airbnb’s new co-host network.
    0:00:37 Find yourself a co-host at airbnb.com slash host.
    0:00:41 Open Phone is the number one business phone system.
    0:00:46 Build stronger customer relationships and respond faster with shared numbers, AI, and automations.
    0:00:51 Get 20% off your first six months when you go to openphone.com slash profiting.
    0:00:57 As always, you can find all of our incredible deals in the show notes or at youngandprofiting.com slash deals.
    0:00:59 Hey, Yap Gang.
    0:01:01 Do you want to become a creator entrepreneur?
    0:01:06 Maybe you want to launch a course or a mastermind and teach your expertise.
    0:01:12 If this sounds like you, then I invite you to join a three-part webinar series presented by Teachable,
    0:01:16 the Business Creator Blueprint happening March 18th through the 20th.
    0:01:23 This series will cover everything from branding and crafting your offer to building a six-figure sales funnel.
    0:01:27 I personally will be conducting the sales funnel session on March 20th.
    0:01:31 I’ll teach you how to create content that not only connects with your audience,
    0:01:35 but also works behind the scenes to bring in steady income, even when you’re not online.
    0:01:42 I’ve learned what works from real experience, and I’ll be breaking down my step-by-step process for creating an effective sales funnel.
    0:01:44 Get a live training with me in person.
    0:01:48 Sign up now at youngandprofiting.co slash blueprint.
    0:01:54 That’s youngandprofiting.co slash blueprint to join Teachable’s three-part webinar series,
    0:01:58 The Business Creator Blueprint, March 18th through the 20th.
    0:01:59 I can’t wait to see you there.
    0:02:02 If you want the link easily, check out the show notes.
    0:02:08 Again, it’s youngandprofiting.co slash blueprint to learn everything you need to get started as a creator entrepreneur.
    0:02:20 Hey, App Fam.
    0:02:23 I hope you enjoyed my interview with Mark Manson this week,
    0:02:29 in which he showcased his wonderfully candid perspective on discovering life’s deeper purposes.
    0:02:34 Mark is the best-selling author of many books, including The Subtle Art of Not Giving an F,
    0:02:41 and was also on my show way back in episode number 65 during the early days of the pandemic.
    0:02:45 And so we decided to give you a double dose of Mark Manson for this week’s Yap Classic.
    0:02:50 In that episode, Mark talked with me about the downfalls of hope and why we’ll never be satisfied
    0:02:54 unless we face the uncomfortable truths of life head-on.
    0:02:55 That’s deep.
    0:02:59 He also had some great actionable advice on how to gain more self-control,
    0:03:03 make better decisions, and even how to use pain to strengthen your relationships.
    0:03:09 So enjoy this hard-hitting, classic conversation with the always entertaining and thought-provoking
    0:03:10 Mark Manson.
    0:03:15 Welcome to the show, Mark.
    0:03:17 It’s good to be here.
    0:03:18 Thanks for having me.
    0:03:23 For my guests who don’t know you, I would like to get some color about your background.
    0:03:29 I read some of your blogs on career advice, and you note that you’re living out your dream job
    0:03:29 currently.
    0:03:34 And I say that with like air quotes because I know there’s no such thing as a 100% perfect
    0:03:34 job.
    0:03:38 So how did you end up becoming a blogger and an author?
    0:03:42 Was that something you always wanted to do, or did that sort of like fall into your lap?
    0:03:44 It was kind of an accident.
    0:03:52 See, I graduated from college in the last crisis we had, which was the financial crisis in 2008.
    0:03:55 And there was like zero job market.
    0:03:59 And I kind of bounced around a few odd jobs.
    0:04:01 I lived on a friend’s couch for a while.
    0:04:04 And I started doing freelance web design.
    0:04:10 And around the same time, I read Tim Ferriss’ four-hour work week, which talked about building
    0:04:15 online businesses and automating them and, you know, how you could work four hours a week
    0:04:17 and go live and play in Argentina or whatever.
    0:04:20 I was like, hell yeah, I’m in.
    0:04:21 That sounds perfect.
    0:04:27 And so I spent the next couple of years trying to actually build e-commerce sites and like
    0:04:29 affiliate marketing sites.
    0:04:33 And it turned out that like I was kind of bad at it.
    0:04:38 I’m not a natural salesman or marketer.
    0:04:43 But the funny thing was, was at the time, blogs were kind of like all the rage back then.
    0:04:44 When did you start?
    0:04:47 I started blogging in 2008.
    0:04:51 And so if you wanted people to come to your website, if you wanted to rank on Google,
    0:04:55 if you wanted, there wasn’t much sharing on social media back then.
    0:04:55 Yeah.
    0:04:57 It was, you had to be blogging.
    0:05:00 You had to be posting articles and coming up with stuff.
    0:05:03 And so that’s actually how I ended up blogging.
    0:05:07 Originally, it was just to like promote these crappy affiliate sites I had.
    0:05:12 And it turned out I was much better at blogging than I was e-commerce.
    0:05:17 And by 2011, 2012, it was blogging was all I was doing.
    0:05:18 Yeah.
    0:05:19 You are such a good writer.
    0:05:22 So many people like really like your writing style.
    0:05:23 because it’s so different.
    0:05:24 It’s like a breath of fresh air.
    0:05:27 It’s like a little witty and cheeky.
    0:05:28 So props to you.
    0:05:30 I actually had a website as well.
    0:05:34 I had an entertainment news website from like 2010 to 2013.
    0:05:36 And I think that was like the height of blogging.
    0:05:38 But I couldn’t monetize it.
    0:05:40 And so I shut that down.
    0:05:44 And your blog is one of the only blogs I think that really has been able to monetize.
    0:05:46 You’ve got like a premium subscription.
    0:05:51 I know you also have a podcast, which is sort of like the audio version of a blog in my opinion.
    0:05:55 So would you recommend like going, starting a blog or a podcast?
    0:05:58 Or do you think those things are saturated now?
    0:06:00 I definitely think blogging’s in a tough spot.
    0:06:11 I, what happened with blogging is just that all of the smaller and medium sized websites, they either, they couldn’t monetize anymore.
    0:06:11 Yeah.
    0:06:15 Or they got eaten up by larger networks and large websites.
    0:06:19 So people went to Huffington Post or writing for Huffington Post or Business Insider or whatever.
    0:06:22 So it’s a tough spot to start.
    0:06:25 And I mean, I don’t want to discourage anybody from blogging.
    0:06:32 But if you’re looking to build a content business, blogging is probably one of the worst options right now.
    0:06:33 I totally agree.
    0:06:38 If I was starting today, I would start a podcast or a YouTube channel.
    0:06:41 Those are the spaces that are still growing very quickly.
    0:06:44 Those are the spaces where there’s still a lot of opportunity.
    0:06:50 You know, like the big media companies haven’t totally figured out what works or how to do it.
    0:06:55 And so those are always going to be the spaces where young hustlers have an advantage.
    0:06:56 I totally agree.
    0:07:01 And I’ll be more frank with my listeners because I have a more personal relationship with them.
    0:07:12 I would totally avoid blogging if you don’t blog yet because unless you’re Mark Manson who was able from back then when it was like at its peak to get all these subscribers and things, it’s really hard.
    0:07:16 And I would suggest working on something like he mentioned, like podcasts or YouTube instead.
    0:07:17 Okay.
    0:07:19 So we have limited time.
    0:07:23 And like I mentioned, your new book, Everything F***ed, has so much content.
    0:07:31 And I definitely want to get into some of the key takeaways that I found just to summarize, in my opinion, at a super high level, what this book is about.
    0:07:36 It’s really about becoming an adult and not just any adult, but the best adult that you can be.
    0:07:42 And some people think that like when you turn 18, you automatically become an adult, but that’s not really the case.
    0:07:47 13% of adults actually behave and think like adults, according to some studies.
    0:07:49 We’ll get into that later.
    0:07:51 I just want to say that I read that book.
    0:07:52 It was great.
    0:07:56 I felt like I was getting a philosophy lesson with a modern twist.
    0:08:02 And I really learned about philosophers I didn’t really know much about, like Nietzsche and Kant and Plato.
    0:08:08 And so I want to just say thank you for writing something that’s like easy to understand for somebody who’s not really into philosophy.
    0:08:13 I want to go back to when you actually started first writing this book.
    0:08:15 So it released in May 2019.
    0:08:17 So I’m assuming you wrote it like the year before.
    0:08:21 At that time, why did you think that everything was a f***?
    0:08:23 Well, it’s funny.
    0:08:29 It’s funny talking about this now when actually there is a real crisis happening.
    0:08:45 Because I think we so easily forget that I feel like that period of 2017, 2018, 2019, there was kind of like a fever pitch in our culture where everything felt like a crisis, but nothing was actually a crisis.
    0:08:58 Like people were always freaking out over everything that happened, whereas, you know, you look out the window and everything’s great and job market’s best it’s been in 50 years and economy’s doing great.
    0:09:05 And all the metrics in terms of like life expectancy and health and education are like all time highs.
    0:09:10 You know, meanwhile, you go on Twitter and you would think that like the apocalypse was happening.
    0:09:14 So the book was very much written to address that.
    0:09:25 What is it about not just our culture today, but our generation that we get so worked up about things and trying to put those things in perspective.
    0:09:37 And it’s ironic because one of the things that I talked about in the book is that it’s there’s a little bit of a paradox where when things are great, you kind of have to make up problems to be upset about.
    0:09:42 Because it’s by being upset about things that you give your life a sense of meaning or a sense of hope.
    0:09:47 And then it’s when it’s that things are actually f***ed up as they are right now.
    0:09:47 Yeah.
    0:09:50 You don’t have to go searching for a crisis.
    0:09:52 You don’t have to go searching for problems.
    0:09:54 The problem’s right there in front of you.
    0:10:04 So in a weird way, crises are almost psychologically easier for us to bear because we know exactly what to hope for.
    0:10:05 Yeah.
    0:10:21 So it’s almost like when things are going so great, we end up making it worse for ourselves because we imagine things to be so bad or we make things that we wouldn’t otherwise think are bad just to like kind of satisfy our need to have a crisis and our need to kind of like hope for something.
    0:10:26 So tell us what the definition of hope is in your opinion.
    0:10:28 Like how do you define hope?
    0:10:33 I define hope as some sort of vision of the future that we believe will be better.
    0:10:37 There are a couple of things that are interesting about, I guess, that definition of hope.
    0:10:46 One is just simply that if we don’t have some vision of our future that is better, that’s when we fall into depression or despair.
    0:10:53 You know, it’s one of the things I talk about in chapter one is that, you know, the opposite of happiness is not sadness or anger.
    0:10:55 The opposite of happiness is hopelessness.
    0:11:01 It’s a sense that nothing we do matters, nothing that we do will affect any sorts of change.
    0:11:02 Yeah.
    0:11:16 But the other thing about that vision of a better future is that paradoxically that it’s easier to have hope when times are bad and it’s more difficult to find hope when things are good and comfortable.
    0:11:27 And so for me, that’s, I present, there’s a lot of statistics like, you know, suicide is the highest in the wealthiest and safest countries in the world.
    0:11:38 People who, once they reach middle class or upper middle class, you see things like depression, anxiety, mental health issues start to increase.
    0:11:48 And that doesn’t really make sense, but when you look at it in terms of the difficulty it comes with hoping for something better in the future, it kind of explains that.
    0:11:59 And so I know that a way that we can kind of deal with the issue of hope is to deal with something you call the uncomfortable truth and take that head on.
    0:12:02 Can you explain that concept to our listeners?
    0:12:03 Sure.
    0:12:13 The uncomfortable truth is that, you know, in the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of the things that we say and do are not going to matter.
    0:12:15 Period.
    0:12:29 You know, it’s, it reminds me like when I was at school, I remember taking an astronomy course and like just learning how vast the universe is and how like long the history of the earth is.
    0:12:39 And how many billions of people have come before and just, and it’s just like that feeling of smallness and insignificance, you know, it’s like, it’s like, wow.
    0:12:42 And I was really upset over what my mom said this morning.
    0:12:44 You know, like it just seems so trifling by comparison.
    0:12:55 So the uncomfortable truth is, it’s just this realization that like the vast majority of the things that you spend your energy, time and energy caring about are not going to matter in the long run.
    0:12:57 And on the one hand, that can be a very depressing realization.
    0:13:00 But on the other hand, it can be a very liberating realization.
    0:13:01 Yeah.
    0:13:03 Because it allows you to let go of those things.
    0:13:07 But how, how would somebody get motivated from that?
    0:13:11 Or is your point not to motivate someone from the uncomfortable truth?
    0:13:15 Is the point for the person to feel like less stressed about everyday life?
    0:13:19 Like what’s the point of acknowledging that uncomfortable truth?
    0:13:24 Well, I think we all spend a lot of our energy avoiding that truth.
    0:13:37 So we convince ourselves that some little project in our life is like life and death important or, or something we say to another person is like, if we embarrass ourselves in front of somebody, it’s like, oh my God, our lives are over.
    0:13:39 It’s the uncomfortable truth.
    0:13:44 It’s, it’s a, it’s a scary thing that we avoid accepting.
    0:13:54 But if you are able to accept it, it, it shows you that most of the things that stress you out are actually not that significant.
    0:13:58 And so it kind of has a, it’s a double, a little bit of a double-edged sword.
    0:14:00 It can, it can make everything feel meaningless.
    0:14:10 But at the same time, if most of the things that you say or do or pursue are meaningless, then that means you’re completely free to do what matters to you.
    0:14:11 Yeah.
    0:14:19 To, there’s no excuse to not embarrass yourself or to not fail at something or to not pursue a dream or to not tell somebody that you love them.
    0:14:22 There’s, because it’s, we’re all going to die anyway.
    0:14:26 So you might as well live each moment to its fullest.
    0:14:27 Yeah, totally.
    0:14:36 It’s like gives you some perspective and also helps you with your priorities and makes you realize that like this big problem that I have isn’t really that serious.
    0:14:38 Who’s going to remember it when I die?
    0:14:40 Who’s going to, so that’s a good point.
    0:14:43 Let’s hold that thought and take a quick break with our sponsors.
    0:14:46 Hey, Young Improfeters.
    0:14:48 These days, I find myself with no time.
    0:14:53 I’m juggling work, dating, everything else that life throws in my way.
    0:14:56 And honestly, healthy eating has fallen to the wayside.
    0:15:00 There’s just never enough time to plan, shop, cook, clean up after cooking.
    0:15:09 And what happens is that I end up ordering all these groceries, being optimistic because I want to eat healthy, but all the food goes bad before I get a chance to cook it.
    0:15:13 So I knew that I had to make a change, and I recently discovered Factor.
    0:15:19 It’s been amazing because they’ve got chef-made gourmet meals that make eating well so easy.
    0:15:21 All the meals are dietician approved.
    0:15:23 They’re ready to heat in just two minutes.
    0:15:27 And so I can feel right and feel great no matter how much time that I have.
    0:15:29 And Factor arrives fresh to your doorstep.
    0:15:34 They’ve got 40 different options to choose from across all different types of dietary preferences.
    0:15:37 And so I personally like to have protein plus.
    0:15:40 I work out every single day, so I like to have protein with every meal.
    0:15:43 But if that’s not for you, you can try Calorie Smart or Keto.
    0:15:46 Factor helps you feel good all day.
    0:15:52 They’ve got breakfast options, snacks, wholesome smoothies, and I love the smoothie variety pack.
    0:15:53 It is perfect for me.
    0:16:00 So why not keep it simple and reach your nutrition goals this year with ingredients you can trust and convenience that can’t be beat.
    0:16:05 We all need to save time, we all need to eat smart, and you can do that with Factor.
    0:16:12 Get started at factormeals.com slash factorpodcast and use code Factorpodcast to get 50% off your first box plus free shipping.
    0:16:19 That’s Factorpodcast at factormeals.com slash factorpodcast to get 50% off plus free shipping on your first box.
    0:16:25 If you want all the links quick and easy, just head to our show notes or youngandprofiting.com slash deals.
    0:16:29 Yeah, fam, when I first started this podcast, believe it or not,
    0:16:32 I had an all-volunteer team to help me out.
    0:16:36 But as my business took off, I needed to hire a lot of new people and fast.
    0:16:42 It soon became pretty overwhelming because I had to sort through piles and piles of resumes,
    0:16:46 conduct countless interviews, and you know how it goes, hiring is a pain.
    0:16:49 But then I discovered the easiest way to hire the right people quickly.
    0:16:51 I found Indeed.
    0:16:54 When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need.
    0:16:57 Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites.
    0:17:01 Indeed’s Sponsored Jobs helps you stand out and hire fast.
    0:17:08 With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster.
    0:17:10 It makes a huge difference.
    0:17:17 According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs.
    0:17:24 Plus, with Indeed Sponsored Jobs, there’s no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts, and you only pay for results.
    0:17:26 How fast is Indeed, you ask?
    0:17:32 In the minute I’ve been talking to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed according to Indeed data worldwide.
    0:17:34 There’s no need to wait any longer.
    0:17:36 Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed.
    0:17:44 And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash profiting.
    0:17:50 Just go to Indeed.com slash profiting right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.
    0:17:53 Indeed.com slash profiting.
    0:17:54 Terms and conditions apply.
    0:17:57 Hiring, Indeed, is all you need.
    0:18:01 Yeah, fam, it’s 2025, and a new year means new opportunities.
    0:18:09 For a lot of you out there, I know you’ve been thinking about one thing over the holidays, and that’s starting your own business or side hustle.
    0:18:11 But of course, you’ve got so many questions.
    0:18:12 How do I get started?
    0:18:14 How do I come up with a brand?
    0:18:16 How am I actually going to sell things to people?
    0:18:22 Well, yeah, fam, I want you to take a deep breath because Shopify’s got you.
    0:18:22 How do I know?
    0:18:26 Because I had the same questions when I first started selling online.
    0:18:35 But the best time to start your new business is right now because Shopify makes it simple to create your brand, open for business, and get your first sale.
    0:18:40 Get your store up and running easily with thousands of customizable templates.
    0:18:43 No coding or design skills required.
    0:18:49 Their powerful social media tools will let you connect all your channels and help you sell everywhere that people scroll.
    0:18:52 Shopify makes it easy to manage your growing business.
    0:19:03 They help with details like shipping, taxes, and payments from one single dashboard, allowing you to focus on the important stuff, like growing your business and inventing new products.
    0:19:21 Don’t kick yourself a year from now because you’re so easy to use that anything that felt scary about starting your online business will just melt away.
    0:19:26 With Shopify, with Shopify, your first sale is closer than you think.
    0:19:26 With Shopify, your first sale is closer than you think.
    0:19:29 Established in 2025 has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
    0:19:34 Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash profiting.
    0:19:35 That’s all lowercase.
    0:19:40 Go to Shopify.com slash profiting to start selling on Shopify today.
    0:19:42 Shopify.com slash profiting.
    0:19:54 Something else in your book that I really thought was interesting was the concept of the thinking and feeling brain.
    0:19:58 And so this is something that people have been talking about for a long time.
    0:20:11 In the Christian era, I think that people thought that it was more like the thinking brain that was in control, but now more recently people are saying it’s really the feeling brain that’s in control of our mind.
    0:20:14 You have this awesome analogy of the conscious car.
    0:20:21 Would you explain that to us and help us understand your perspective between the thinking and feeling brain and how they react with each other?
    0:20:22 Sure.
    0:20:44 So the consciousness car is, you know, if you think about the two aspects of our minds, kind of the emotional side of the mind and then the more rational side of our mind, most of us operate under the assumption that the rational side of our mind is like the adult in the car who’s driving and is in charge.
    0:20:53 And the emotional side of our mind is like the obnoxious kid in the passenger seat who just like won’t shut up and is like demanding ice cream all the time.
    0:21:17 And a lot of what we understand as being like a disciplined, mature human being is like teaching that kid and the emotional side of our brain to just shut the f*** up for like 40% of the time so that the adult, like the rational part of our brain can like get to work and do the right things and be like a functioning human being.
    0:21:24 But what’s interesting is that if you look at psychological research, it’s like it turns out that we’re all very driven.
    0:21:28 It’s actually the emotional side of our brain is the one that’s driving the car.
    0:21:43 And it’s the thinking part of our brain is very good at explaining our emotional impulses in a way that sound very reasonable and rational, but they aren’t necessarily.
    0:21:49 And so really, we are very impulsive creatures.
    0:21:55 We all make most of our decisions based on our emotions, based on our feelings.
    0:22:07 And if we’re not aware that we’re doing that, then the rational side of our brain is kind of enslaved by our emotions to always just justify whatever we feel about ourselves.
    0:22:19 And so what I argue in that part of the book is that instead of working, trying to work against our emotions or like suppress our emotions or deny our emotions, we need to work with our emotions.
    0:22:27 We need to understand the role that each part of our mind plays because the emotional side of our brain is incredibly important.
    0:22:28 It determines our motivation.
    0:22:30 It determines our inspiration.
    0:22:34 It determines where we feel value and significance in our lives.
    0:22:42 And so if we deny that part of ourselves and just try to be rational all the time, then we’re kind of gutting ourselves of the meaning in our lives.
    0:22:54 So what I argue is that, you know, we should get the two sides of our brains talking to each other and listening to each other, which is difficult because they kind of speak different languages.
    0:23:02 But in my opinion, that’s kind of what emotional or I would say even mental health is.
    0:23:11 Having the rational side of our brain and the emotional side of our brain interacting with each other and understanding each other.
    0:23:20 So give us like a real example of doing that, like a situation where let’s give an example of like you don’t feel like going to the gym, but you know that you should.
    0:23:23 Like what’s the dialogue that you should be having in your head?
    0:23:24 Right.
    0:23:30 So, you know, if you feel like you should be working out, but you’re not, you know, we’ve all experienced that before.
    0:23:32 And most of us, we judge ourselves.
    0:23:34 We’re like, man, I’m such a loser.
    0:23:36 I can’t get out of bed and go to the gym.
    0:23:40 And we see it as a failure of willpower.
    0:23:43 We see it as a failure of kind of like our rational side of our mind.
    0:23:53 But the fact of the matter is, is until we are emotionally motivated to go to the gym, until we enjoy going to the gym to some extent, we’re not going to go.
    0:23:55 We’re always going to find a reason not to go.
    0:23:58 And so in that sense, it’s an emotional problem.
    0:23:59 It’s not a problem of knowledge.
    0:24:02 It’s not a problem of willpower or whatever.
    0:24:16 So if we understand that, what we can do instead of like trying to will ourselves to the gym constantly, what you can do is you can set up your environment in such a way in that you make it enjoyable to go to the gym.
    0:24:20 So maybe you find a friend who goes to the gym with you.
    0:24:35 And it’s in that way, if you wake up and you’re supposed to meet your friend at the gym at 8 a.m., the fear of embarrassment of not being there and you’re like your friend arriving and you not like that is an emotional motivation that will get you out of bed and go to the gym.
    0:24:44 You know, another way to do it is to hire a trainer and be like, well, I spent all this damn money and I’m going to feel awful if I don’t use it.
    0:24:53 So it’s using your rational mind to create parameters and circumstances that make something emotionally enjoyable to do.
    0:24:57 Yeah, it’s like tricking your feeling brain into something that you want to do.
    0:24:58 Totally.
    0:25:07 So another piece of this thinking and feeling brain in your book that you talk about is how the thinking brain tries to maintain a sense of hope.
    0:25:09 And we were talking about hope before.
    0:25:11 Can you help us understand the connection with that?
    0:25:19 Well, the thinking brain is always, you’re always trying to envision some sort of better future for yourselves.
    0:25:27 And whether that’s like you as an individual or if it’s the world being a better place or impressing your parents or whatever.
    0:25:37 Like it’s, we all need some sort of carrot dangling in front of us to give ourselves direction and purpose in our lives.
    0:25:49 And so the thinking brain’s job is to kind of come up with those sorts of things, is to figure out that equation of if I do X, then I will be happy or, you know, whatever.
    0:25:56 Okay, so let’s move on to another big topic, which is pain and values.
    0:26:00 Now, you say pain is a currency of our values.
    0:26:02 I thought this was super powerful.
    0:26:10 Help us understand why you think that like pain is what really keeps us motivated and things like that.
    0:26:15 Well, generally people, you know, people like to avoid pain.
    0:26:24 But the problem with avoiding pain is that we only value things in our lives in proportion to how much we feel we have to give up for it.
    0:26:30 So like if you think about like a spoiled child, like a child that’s just given everything he or she wants.
    0:26:31 Yeah.
    0:26:40 The reason they’re, these spoiled kids grew up to be like awful human beings is because they never understand the value of anything.
    0:26:45 Everything is, it’s just a frivolous thing for them to experience from moment to moment.
    0:26:56 It’s only when you’re able to go through some sort of challenge or hardship that you are able to understand like what is worth sacrificing for and what is not.
    0:26:57 Yeah.
    0:27:03 You know, it’s only once you’ve lost something that you understand how valuable, how meaningful it was in your life.
    0:27:11 And so I just, through all my work and all my books, I consistently make the argument that pain and suffering is important.
    0:27:12 Yes.
    0:27:26 And not only is it impossible to get rid of pain and suffering, but like we need to have pain and suffering because psychologically it is kind of like the fuel that generates our sense of meaning and importance in the world.
    0:27:27 Yeah.
    0:27:30 And so it’s not a question of getting rid of pain, it’s like choosing better pain.
    0:27:31 Totally.
    0:27:31 Essentially.
    0:27:32 Yeah.
    0:27:34 And we can go back to the workout example.
    0:27:42 The more you put yourself in pain with working out, the more you’re able to keep working out and kind of like build that strength.
    0:27:44 And everything is pain.
    0:27:47 When you’re happy, it’s just like your pain is alleviated.
    0:27:49 When you’re sad, it’s just your pain is amplified.
    0:27:52 So let’s talk about anti-fragility.
    0:27:55 This is a really cool concept that you have.
    0:28:04 And basically it means that we need to kind of, like you said, choose our suffering and be okay with choosing pain and not avoiding it.
    0:28:05 Can you tell us more about that?
    0:28:09 So anti-fragility comes from Nassim Taleb.
    0:28:18 It’s a really cool idea where he talks about how, you know, the opposite of fragility or being fragile, it’s not necessarily being robust.
    0:28:25 It’s actually being anti-fragile, which is you gain from pain or disorder in your life.
    0:28:33 And so if you look at things like the human body or the human mind, the human body and human mind are actually, they’re not resilient.
    0:28:34 They’re anti-fragile.
    0:28:41 The reason you get stronger at the gym is because you are breaking your muscles down and making them stronger.
    0:28:53 The reason that you get better after failure is because you are breaking down a lot of your assumptions and beliefs and your fears and building up better experiences over them.
    0:29:03 And so in that sense, by actually inviting certain amounts of pain and struggle into your life, you make yourself a stronger individual with far more potential.
    0:29:24 And one of the big arguments of the book is what I, and what I fear is that, you know, in our culture, there’s been such a, it’s been, it’s becoming so taken for granted that, you know, we’re all like, we’re all supposed to be happy and we all deserve to be happy.
    0:29:28 And we all deserve to have a great, easy life and nobody should suffer and all this stuff.
    0:29:32 And it’s, yes, we should try to get rid of injustice.
    0:29:44 We should try to get rid of people who are predatory or people who are, who are evil, but you shouldn’t try to get rid of suffering because suffering is necessary for growth.
    0:29:49 It’s necessary for making people stronger, more resilient, more mature human beings.
    0:30:02 And so what I fear is that as our culture kind of has turned towards this obsession with positivity and feeling good all the time, we are losing that ability to grow from our pain and our failures.
    0:30:15 And I think you say this in the book, you say that everything you do, everything you are, everything you care about is a reflection of your choice, your relationships, health, work, emotional stability, your integrity, your breadth of your life experience.
    0:30:20 If any of these things are fragile in your life, it’s because you’ve chosen to avoid pain.
    0:30:23 I think that’s so powerful because it’s so true.
    0:30:25 The way that you grow is through pain.
    0:30:27 Let’s stick on that a little bit.
    0:30:41 Tell us about how pain helps you grow and how if you don’t choose to accept pain and if you avoid pain, how you kind of stay as an adolescent and you don’t ever really grow up to be an actual adult.
    0:30:42 Tell us about that.
    0:30:56 So I think for me, and I define this in the book, but like what defines an adult or just being a mature, healthy individual is that ability to understand what is worth suffering for and when is it worth suffering for it.
    0:31:05 In the simple example of like, say, a romantic relationship, for that relationship to grow, you have to understand when a fight needs to happen.
    0:31:13 Some people, and I think kind of younger, more idealistic people, their idea of a good relationship is a relationship where you just never fight.
    0:31:19 But it’s like, that’s not a healthy relationship because that means you’re hiding things, you’re pretending things are not happening.
    0:31:22 And that makes you more fragile as a couple.
    0:31:37 Whereas if you get very good at noticing the things that need to be addressed and being able to address them, even though you know you’re going to fight about it, you know it’s going to be painful, you know you’re going to be angry at each other for a day or two.
    0:31:42 If you’re able to do that, you actually become a stronger unit.
    0:31:43 Yeah, your bond is stronger.
    0:31:44 For it.
    0:31:45 It’s the same thing in business.
    0:31:53 You know, if you’ve got employees that are messing up, like you can’t just pretend they’re not messing up.
    0:31:54 Yeah.
    0:31:55 You have to say something.
    0:31:59 Or if you’ve got a co-worker that’s screwing around, like you have to say something.
    0:32:00 Totally.
    0:32:16 There are so many instances, you know, everywhere you kind of look in life, there’s like a skill set of understanding what pain is necessary for growth to occur and then having the ability to step into that pain.
    0:32:20 I loved the fact that you brought up how like pain can strengthen relationships.
    0:32:28 So just to relate to that a little bit, my listeners don’t really know this, I haven’t really shared this, but I shared it on LinkedIn, but not on my podcast.
    0:32:32 I actually went home to take care of my whole family who got coronavirus.
    0:32:44 So like my mom, my dad, my brother, and my brother was home from California and, you know, we haven’t spent that much time together in a long time, you know, and it was such a hard time.
    0:32:52 But now I feel so close to my brother and my mom and everything because it’s like we like went through that crazy time together and we’ll never forget that.
    0:32:53 And it sucked.
    0:32:54 It was horrible.
    0:33:01 But at the same time, like my relationship, particularly with my brother, is like so strengthened because we went through this horrible experience together.
    0:33:06 So it’s just it’s funny how like even if it’s a horrible experience, there’s always some silver lining.
    0:33:10 And actually, like that kind of pain can can grow a really big bond.
    0:33:12 Absolutely.
    0:33:15 And it’s I talked about this in my first book, Subtle Art.
    0:33:24 I said that if you think about the most important experiences of your life, probably three out of four of them were negative experiences.
    0:33:32 Very like a breakup, a death, losing a job like these all they’re horrible in the moment.
    0:33:37 But like when you look back on them years and years later, you’re like, wow, I’m so glad that happened.
    0:33:37 Yeah.
    0:33:40 I’m such a such a better person for that happening.
    0:33:44 So you say that living well does not mean avoid suffering.
    0:33:46 It means suffering for the right reasons.
    0:33:48 So tell us, what what do you suffer for?
    0:33:53 What what suffering do you do to provide value in your life?
    0:33:54 Well, I stay inside.
    0:33:58 That’s that’s one way I suffer for the right reasons.
    0:34:01 You know, I think there are a few fronts.
    0:34:05 One, I think the most obvious example is just my career.
    0:34:11 So it’s writing is I mean, it’s fun a lot of times, but a lot of times it’s suffering.
    0:34:14 You know, it’s I’m finishing up another book right now.
    0:34:19 And I went back to revise a chapter that I hadn’t looked at in a few months.
    0:34:21 And I just looked at it and I’m like, this is terrible.
    0:34:23 This is absolutely terrible.
    0:34:26 And it’s just it’s like almost heartbreaking.
    0:34:31 Like, I had to take the rest of the afternoon off because to have something that you’ve been
    0:34:36 working on for over a year and you and you think you’re almost done and then you go look
    0:34:40 at like an early part of it and you’re like, wow, that’s I can’t publish that.
    0:34:41 That is awful.
    0:34:43 It just flattens you.
    0:34:51 And I think writing is it has its emotional struggles that a lot of people just don’t.
    0:34:54 I seem to be constituted for it.
    0:34:55 I like being alone.
    0:34:57 I like working by myself.
    0:35:01 I don’t mind rewriting something like eight different times.
    0:35:05 And so that’s a that’s a form of suffering that I’m well adapted to.
    0:35:08 And that I I even get a little bit of a sick pleasure out of.
    0:35:14 And so it’s that’s kind of why it’s become my life is is, you know, one thing I always
    0:35:20 say in my talks is that it’s not being good at something that’s not because you enjoy it
    0:35:24 necessarily being good at something is you enjoy the sacrifices involved in it.
    0:35:25 Totally.
    0:35:30 In a way, it’s the thing you end up best at is just the pain you can tolerate better than
    0:35:31 most other people.
    0:35:34 We’ll be right back after a quick break from our sponsors.
    0:35:38 Hello, young and profiters.
    0:35:41 Starting a small business means you’re wearing a lot of hats.
    0:35:43 Your personal phone becomes your business phone.
    0:35:46 And before you know it, you’re juggling calls day and night.
    0:35:51 And when I started Yap, I made the mistake of using my personal cell phone to handle all
    0:35:52 business inquiries.
    0:35:56 I had my business and personal mixed up, and it wasn’t good for my mental health.
    0:35:58 That’s where open phone comes in.
    0:36:01 Open phone is the number one business phone system.
    0:36:05 They’ll help you separate your personal life from your growing business.
    0:36:10 For just 15 bucks a month, the cost of a few coffees, you’ll get complete visibility into
    0:36:12 everything happening with your business phone number.
    0:36:18 Open phone works through an app on your phone or your computer, and it can integrate with HubSpot
    0:36:20 and hundreds of other systems.
    0:36:23 They use AI-powered call transcripts and summaries.
    0:36:28 So basically what that means is you get a summary of your phone call with action items as soon
    0:36:28 as you hang up.
    0:36:33 And if you miss a call, automated messages are sent to your customer directly.
    0:36:35 Open phone is awesome.
    0:36:35 It’s affordable.
    0:36:37 It’s easy to use.
    0:36:42 And whether you’re a solopreneur, one-person operation, or you need help managing a team with
    0:36:47 better tools for efficient collaboration, open phone is the solution for you.
    0:36:53 And right now, open phone is offering 20% off your first six months when you go to openphone.com
    0:36:53 slash profiting.
    0:37:00 That’s O-P-E-N-P-H-O-N-E dot com slash profiting for 20% off six months.
    0:37:04 And if you have an existing phone number with another service, open phone will port them over
    0:37:05 at no extra charge.
    0:37:08 That’s openphone.com slash profiting.
    0:37:12 Young and profiters, I know so many of you are in your grind season.
    0:37:16 You’re working your nine to five, and then you’re five to midnight building out that side
    0:37:17 hustle dream.
    0:37:22 And that’s how I started Yap Media, and now we are on track to hit eight figures this year.
    0:37:26 If you’re a side hustler, you know that it can be hard to find the right tools without
    0:37:27 breaking the bank.
    0:37:31 And that’s where Microsoft Teams Free comes in.
    0:37:35 With Teams, you get pro-level collaboration tools without the hefty price tag.
    0:37:38 For example, you can host free video meetings for up to 60 minutes.
    0:37:41 That is so professional for your client calls.
    0:37:46 You can also get unlimited chat for real-time collaboration with your team, no matter where
    0:37:47 you are.
    0:37:49 It replaces so many apps.
    0:37:51 So for example, file storage.
    0:37:56 If you want to keep your client documents, invoices, and brand assets organized, Microsoft
    0:37:58 Teams Free has you covered.
    0:38:01 You can have everything you need to access in one place.
    0:38:06 You can also create community spaces to organize your teams, volunteers, or creative collaborators,
    0:38:10 making it easy to track your business or projects.
    0:38:14 Microsoft Teams seems like a dream come true for small businesses.
    0:38:21 It’s secure, professional, reliable, and it is amazing to have all your tools in one place.
    0:38:23 Stop paying for your tools.
    0:38:25 Get everything you need for free with Microsoft Teams.
    0:38:27 It’s a no-brainer.
    0:38:31 Try Microsoft Teams today and start growing your side hustle without extra cost.
    0:38:35 Head to aka.ms slash profiting today to sign up for free.
    0:38:42 That’s aka.ms slash profiting to sign up for free to Microsoft Teams today.
    0:38:43 Hey, Yap Fam.
    0:38:49 I’ve been on the hunt for the perfect red dress because I’ll be speaking at Funnel Hacking
    0:38:51 Live alongside Tony Robbins.
    0:38:55 I’ll be speaking next to Tony Robbins, Yap Fam.
    0:38:56 It is such a big deal for me.
    0:39:01 It took a while to find exactly what I was looking for, but I finally found the perfect dress.
    0:39:05 And it was in my size on an overseas website.
    0:39:06 Everything looked good.
    0:39:07 The pricing was good.
    0:39:11 And then I went back to checkout, and the price was different.
    0:39:12 It was jacked up.
    0:39:15 And then I remembered NordVPN.
    0:39:18 NordVPN for the rescue.
    0:39:23 I could just switch servers, refresh the page, and just like that, the price dropped.
    0:39:28 Turns out, retailers can use your browsing history or location to jack up the prices.
    0:39:32 But NordVPN keeps them on track.
    0:39:35 When it comes to finding the perfect outfit, I don’t settle.
    0:39:36 I want designer.
    0:39:38 I want the best of the best.
    0:39:43 And if you’re like me, you need NordVPN to keep your credit card details safe, whether
    0:39:46 you’re shopping on international websites or using public Wi-Fi.
    0:39:52 Don’t let sneaky pricing tactics or security risks mess with your online shopping experience.
    0:39:54 Get the best deal and get what you want.
    0:40:00 To get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to nordvpn.com slash profiting.
    0:40:03 Our link will also give you four extra months on the two-year plan.
    0:40:06 There’s no risk with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee.
    0:40:12 The link is in the podcast episode description box, and that’s nordvpn.com slash profiting.
    0:40:19 That’s kind of back to you’re in your dream job.
    0:40:20 Not every job is perfect.
    0:40:24 It’s like, what job do you enjoy the most?
    0:40:27 Even the shitty parts of the job can you tolerate the most?
    0:40:28 That’s how you find your dream job.
    0:40:32 It’s not something that you like all the time and you’re always happy doing it.
    0:40:37 It’s just like, the parts that do suck, are you able to manage that suffering enough?
    0:40:42 Yeah, even if you’re in your dream job, your dream job is going to suck about 30% of the time.
    0:40:44 There’s just no such thing.
    0:40:45 We all have to do taxes.
    0:40:51 There’s just no such thing as a job that is fun every single day when you do it.
    0:40:57 So I do want to talk about the difference between a child, an adolescent, and an adult.
    0:41:02 You say it’s not how old they are or what they do, but why they do something.
    0:41:03 Can you unpack that for us?
    0:41:04 Sure.
    0:41:08 So when I go through this, I’m summarizing.
    0:41:13 There’s a field called developmental psychology, and so I’m kind of just summarizing this entire field.
    0:41:18 But basically, the human mind develops in a series of stages.
    0:41:25 We don’t just come out of the womb knowing how to drive a car and send an email.
    0:41:35 So when we’re kids, everything we understand about the world and understand about life is very much just derived from pleasure and pain.
    0:41:37 Toys make us happy.
    0:41:39 Candy makes us happy.
    0:41:43 Falling off the bed makes us sad.
    0:41:46 We don’t really think past that.
    0:41:49 Kids aren’t able to think about the future.
    0:41:52 They aren’t really able to reason about the past.
    0:41:56 They aren’t able to think about other people’s feelings or what other people might do.
    0:41:58 It’s just all they know is, like, this is fun.
    0:41:59 This is not fun.
    0:42:00 I want to do the fun thing.
    0:42:04 As we get older, though, we start to realize things.
    0:42:09 We start to realize that sometimes something is pleasurable now, but it causes pain later.
    0:42:19 So maybe it feels good to eat, like, a pound of candy right now, but when I’m, like, sick in six hours.
    0:42:22 You know, last time I did that, I got sick and I felt awful.
    0:42:25 And so kids start to understand that there are repercussions for things.
    0:42:28 They start to understand that there’s cause-effect.
    0:42:34 They understand that other people have thoughts and feelings that are affected by their actions as well.
    0:42:44 And so around late childhood or early adolescence, maybe around ages like eight, nine, ten, kids start to figure out that the world is very transactional.
    0:42:50 Like, if I agree to do what mom says today, she will reward me tomorrow.
    0:43:05 And so the adolescent phase is very much built off of a life of managing transactions, of understanding that if I behave in these certain ways, people will be nice to me and I will get good things that I want.
    0:43:08 Now, the transactional approach to life is fine.
    0:43:10 Like, we all need to be able to do it.
    0:43:12 We all need to be able to think through those things.
    0:43:16 But the problem is, is that it kind of objectifies everything.
    0:43:23 So if, if your approach to all of your relationships is, well, I’m going to say this to Hala because I know she likes to hear that.
    0:43:26 So if I say this, she’ll like me.
    0:43:30 That’s great if I’m like trying to get a favor from you.
    0:43:42 But if I’m trying to be a friend or if I’m a family member, that’s a really crappy way to have a personal relationship with somebody that like everything they say to you is based on what they think you want.
    0:43:45 Like, it’s just, you can’t really operate in life that way.
    0:43:56 And you run into the same thing, you know, if you look at businesses, for instance, like, some people are very good at the transactional game of, okay, if I put this product out or market it this way, I’ll get a lot of money.
    0:43:58 That’s one way to play that game.
    0:44:06 But at a certain point, you have to ask yourself, okay, maybe this will make me a lot of money, but am I screwing over my customers?
    0:44:14 You know, am I willing to screw over my customers or am I willing to like break a law to add profit to my bottom line?
    0:44:16 You start running into situations like that.
    0:44:27 And so it’s only when you get to adulthood that you understand that sometimes you simply have to willingly take on pain for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do.
    0:44:30 That it’s better for you in the long run.
    0:44:31 It’s better for society in the long run.
    0:44:33 It’s better for the people you care about in the long run.
    0:44:47 And so a lot of kind of like the highest virtuous concepts that we’ve had throughout human history, things like honesty, charity, compassion, these are all things that can really only be attained in adulthood.
    0:44:58 You know, I have to be willing to sacrifice myself for my family or willingly sacrifice myself or give up potential profits to make sure my employees are taken care of.
    0:45:07 You know, it’s those sorts of actions and behaviors can only occur once you’ve kind of transcended this transactional view of the world.
    0:45:08 And so that’s the adult view.
    0:45:09 Yeah.
    0:45:14 And if I remember correctly from your book, to think and act like an adult, you need to endure pain.
    0:45:21 You need to abandon hope and you need to let go of the desire for more pleasant and fun things.
    0:45:23 Like, and you have to act unconditionally.
    0:45:25 That’s something else that I remember.
    0:45:26 Yes, the unconditionality.
    0:45:26 Yeah.
    0:45:27 Yeah.
    0:45:35 And the thing about adulthood, I mean, I go kind of hardcore on it, but I think people should understand that it’s like an ideal.
    0:45:48 And I even mentioned that often this kind of ideal, this like selflessness of adulthood is something that’s been canonized and crystallized in religious myths and heroes and stories and things like that.
    0:45:51 Like, none of us are actually like fully that way all the time.
    0:45:52 Yeah, it’s impossible.
    0:45:59 We’ve all still got like our inner child that like just wants to drink ice cream for the next three hours.
    0:46:05 You know, and then we’ve all got the adolescent in us who’s like, maybe I can scheme a little bit and get a little bit more for myself.
    0:46:09 Like it’s, those things never, you never completely leave those things.
    0:46:11 It’s like what point of the spectrum are you on?
    0:46:11 Totally.
    0:46:15 So one of the other topics, there’s so much content in your book.
    0:46:19 I’m actually having a hard time like trying to grab everything that I need to talk about.
    0:46:24 This is definitely one of the hardest interviews that I’ve had in terms of that, of tying everything together.
    0:46:28 But one thing that I wanted to talk about is fake freedom versus real freedom.
    0:46:32 I thought this was really important for my listeners to understand your perspective on.
    0:46:33 Can you talk to us about that?
    0:46:41 Yeah, I feel like this is very important in this day and age and especially in the U.S.
    0:46:50 I think if you look historically, the idea of freedom and liberty is not what we traditionally think of it today.
    0:47:00 Today, we think of freedom and liberty as simply being able to do whatever the hell we want when we want to do it without being constrained by any sort of outside force whatsoever.
    0:47:06 In my opinion, this is a very childlike, entitled version of freedom.
    0:47:12 This idea that it’s like, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want and f*** you if you don’t like it.
    0:47:19 That is like an angry child sitting on the floor of a grocery store demanding that he can eat as much candy as he wants.
    0:47:21 The truth is that we all live in a society.
    0:47:26 We all have to make compromises because we are all better off for it.
    0:47:33 And the truth as well is that when you do indulge everything you want, it makes you more fragile.
    0:47:35 It makes you a weaker human being.
    0:47:39 It makes you a more susceptible individual to outside forces.
    0:47:46 In chapter 8 of the book, I spend that whole chapter kind of arguing that we need to redefine freedom
    0:47:54 the same way that the philosophers and the Greeks and Romans understood it, which is that freedom is the ability to choose what to give up.
    0:47:57 Freedom is choosing what you will sacrifice.
    0:48:05 And so freedom is not sitting on the couch eating whatever the hell you want for the rest of your life.
    0:48:13 Freedom is actually getting up at 6 in the morning and going to the gym because by building up your body,
    0:48:17 you are actually giving yourself more options for the future.
    0:48:23 By limiting options today, by choosing which options you’re going to limit today, by choosing not to eat Cheetos,
    0:48:28 you are giving yourself more options in the long run.
    0:48:32 And so freedom is actually, it’s a personal form of discipline.
    0:48:40 It’s a constant choice of what sacrifice am I going to bring into my life and what is going to be important to me.
    0:48:45 And so in that sense, I see things like, and I just have to bring this up because we’re in the middle of it now,
    0:48:51 like there are people protesting during this coronavirus thing saying that the government shouldn’t tell me to stay home,
    0:48:53 I shouldn’t have to stay home, blah, blah, blah.
    0:49:02 You know, and it’s like, it’s like, guys, you can’t, like, you’re okay if the government tells you you can’t smoke next to a pregnant person
    0:49:03 or like you can’t smoke in a restaurant.
    0:49:09 You know, you’re fine if the government tells you you can’t scream fire at a theater.
    0:49:11 How is this any different?
    0:49:18 At some point you have to, you have to accept that it’s not about what you, freedom is not about what you individually want.
    0:49:26 It is about what you are individually capable of sacrificing and giving up both for yourself and for the greater good.
    0:49:35 And also because I think you talk about this in your book that if freedom is variety or, you know, unlimited experiences,
    0:49:39 like you’ll never be satisfied, you’ll never actually be free because you’ll never be satisfied,
    0:49:43 there’ll always be something else that you’re trying to attain and so you’ll never really be free.
    0:49:48 You say that freedom isn’t what you can experience, it’s what you can limit yourself to.
    0:49:51 I think that’s really powerful stuff.
    0:49:55 Okay, so the last question I’m going to ask, it’s on the last chapter of your book.
    0:50:00 You ask us to abandon hope all throughout the book, but when I was reading your last chapter,
    0:50:09 it’s clear that you have hope in science and technology and AI, and you imagine the world in the future where AI has taken over humans
    0:50:13 and ultimately does a better job of running the show than we do.
    0:50:17 And that’s terrifying, but then it’s oddly hopeful.
    0:50:23 So talk to our listeners about this world that you imagine in the future with AI.
    0:50:27 Well, first I would argue that it’s not even the future really.
    0:50:29 It’s already happening.
    0:50:34 I think AI runs the world better than humans in many ways already.
    0:50:37 You know, the last chapter is a little bit tongue-in-cheek.
    0:50:42 It’s a little bit just me being a little bit crazy and being like, you know what, let’s see how far I can take this.
    0:50:50 I kind of, one of the more tragic things I talk about in the book is that ultimately we do have to hope for something,
    0:50:56 but our hopes inevitably end up causing everything to be f***ed.
    0:51:03 You know, it’s everything is f***ed, which is why we need hope, but then it’s our hopes are what cause everything to be f***ed.
    0:51:05 So it’s kind of like this vicious cycle that keeps happening.
    0:51:06 Yeah.
    0:51:09 And it’s just kind of an inherent part of our psychology.
    0:51:11 There’s not really any way around it.
    0:51:20 And so really the message of the book is like, since we can’t get rid of hope, we have to just be very, very careful about what we hope for.
    0:51:31 And the last chapter is kind of my very, very careful, slightly facetious hopes, which is just that I personally think, you know,
    0:51:39 one of the cornerstones of my personal philosophy and kind of all my work in general is that humans suck.
    0:51:51 Like we are just, we’re not, the human mind is not very well equipped to handle global, ethical, moral questions.
    0:51:57 If you look at human history, it’s just full of violence and screw ups and disasters.
    0:52:04 So it’s my starting point is like, if there’s any way we’re going to kind of save ourselves from ourselves,
    0:52:09 it’s going to happen via science and technology in some form.
    0:52:18 So that is the thing, the one thing I dare to hope for, although I am also very skeptical of my own hopes.
    0:52:18 Yeah.
    0:52:21 Well, I hope our AI masters are nice to us.
    0:52:24 Exactly.
    0:52:25 And they’re not evil.
    0:52:26 Okay, cool.
    0:52:32 So the last question I ask all my guests is, what is your secret to profiting in life?
    0:52:34 Oh, the secret of profiting in life.
    0:52:42 I think if you just make it a habit to give more value than you consume, good things will happen everywhere.
    0:52:45 It’ll happen with people in relationships.
    0:52:46 It’ll happen in business.
    0:52:48 It’ll happen in your own life.
    0:52:53 Like it’s just build a habit of give more than you take.
    0:52:54 I love that.
    0:52:56 That reminds me of David Meltzer.
    0:52:58 Thank you so much, Mark.
    0:52:59 You have such great content.
    0:53:00 Your books are amazing.
    0:53:03 I would highly recommend everybody to go get your latest book.
    0:53:04 Everything is f***ed.
    0:53:05 You can find it everywhere.
    0:53:08 And thanks so much for your time today.
    0:53:09 Thanks for having me.
    0:53:10 Thank you.
    0:53:52 Thank you.

    Mark Manson’s journey into the workforce started during a challenging time: the Great Recession of 2008. After struggling with various odd jobs, he shifted his focus to blogging and became a bestselling author. In this episode, Mark explores human behavior, the psychology behind success, and how the critical thinking needed to develop a growth mindset is key to navigating career and personal development in a rapidly changing world.

    In this episode, Hala and Mark will discuss:

    (00:00) Introduction

    (02:40) Mark Manson’s Journey to Becoming a Blogger and Author

    (05:13) The Evolution and Challenges of Blogging

    (06:39) Key Takeaways from Mark Manson’s New Book

    (09:43) Understanding Hope and the Uncomfortable Truth

    (14:09) The Thinking and Feeling Brain

    (20:18) Pain as a Currency of Our Values

    (22:14) The Concept of Anti-Fragility

    (30:37) Defining Adulthood and Real Freedom

    (39:35) Hope in Science and Technology

    Mark Manson is a three-time New York Times bestselling author and entrepreneur. His books, including The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, have sold over 20 million copies in 75+ languages worldwide. He has also built a thriving online business, offering courses, podcasts, and one of the most popular self-improvement newsletters. Known for his brutal honesty and dry humor, Mark has established himself as a leading voice in the fields of mindset, self-improvement, and human psychology.

    Sponsored By:

    Shopify youngandprofiting.co/shopify

    Open Phone openphone.com/profiting

    Airbnb airbnb.com/host

    Indeed indeed.com/profiting   

    RobinHood robinhood.com/gold

    Factor factormeals.com/factorpodcast  

    Rakuten rakuten.com

    Microsoft Teams aka.ms/profiting

    Active Deals – youngandprofiting.com/deals      

    Key YAP Links

    Reviews – ratethispodcast.com/yap 

    Youtube – youtube.com/c/YoungandProfiting 

    LinkedIn – linkedin.com/in/htaha/ 

    Instagram – instagram.com/yapwithhala/ 

    Social + Podcast Services – yapmedia.com  

    Transcripts – youngandprofiting.com/episodes-new 

    Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Podcast, Business, Business Podcast, Self Improvement, Self-Improvement, Personal Development, Starting a Business, Strategy, Investing, Sales, Selling, Psychology, Productivity, Entrepreneurs, AI, Artificial Intelligence, Technology, Marketing, Negotiation, Money, Finance, Side Hustle, Mental Health, Career, Leadership, Mindset, Health, Growth Mindset, Positivity, Critical Thinking, Robert Greene, Chris Voss, Robert Cialdini.

  • The Wildest Stories of Corporate Espionage We’ve Ever Heard

    AI transcript
    0:00:02 All right, a sentence that has never been said before.
    0:00:07 B2B enterprise HR software space is the most riveting,
    0:00:11 the most compelling espionage story you’ll ever hear.
    0:00:13 I feel like this episode is going to have to start with the Netflix, like,
    0:00:17 because this is a Netflix original level drama.
    0:00:20 I feel like I can rule the world.
    0:00:22 I know I could be what I want to.
    0:00:25 I put my all in it like no day’s off.
    0:00:27 On the road, let’s travel, never look it back.
    0:00:30 So, all right, we got to do this story.
    0:00:34 Parker Conrad, who is the CEO of a company called Rippling,
    0:00:39 they do like payroll as well as other kind of back office stuff for startups,
    0:00:43 tweeted, came out two days ago and said,
    0:00:45 Rippling sued Deal today.
    0:00:50 Our lawsuit alleges that Deal cultivated a spy at Rippling
    0:00:52 and orchestrated a long-running trade secret theft.
    0:00:56 The spy searched Deal in our system 23 times a day on average,
    0:00:59 letting him spy on Deal’s own customers who were considering switching to Rippling.
    0:01:03 And then he posts screenshots of the lawsuit.
    0:01:04 Did you read this?
    0:01:04 Yes.
    0:01:07 And we should preface this saying, I think you have friends at Deal.
    0:01:08 I’m an investor in Deal.
    0:01:10 So, I invested in Deal many years ago.
    0:01:11 It’s one of the best investments.
    0:01:12 I really like Alex.
    0:01:13 I don’t know him super well.
    0:01:15 Like, we’re not like buddy-buddy.
    0:01:18 But like, Alex, the founder of Deal, I think is awesome.
    0:01:20 And I use Deal.
    0:01:21 I think Deal’s a great product.
    0:01:25 And so, that’s kind of my bias and context coming in is,
    0:01:27 I like Deal and I invested in Deal.
    0:01:28 And when I talk about this…
    0:01:33 Everything here, it’s allegedly, and it’s also, this is just what the lawsuit says.
    0:01:35 And also, it’s just comedy for me.
    0:01:38 Like, I don’t know about any of this.
    0:01:43 And I am just, like everybody else on Twitter, this is for entertainment for me.
    0:01:45 So, please don’t take this too seriously.
    0:01:47 What’s the baseline story?
    0:01:48 Okay.
    0:01:51 So, basically, the story is, Rippling notices, he’s saying,
    0:01:54 we noticed somebody was looking up Deal a lot in our systems.
    0:01:57 So, then, this is where it gets good.
    0:02:00 He’s like, so we created a honeypot.
    0:02:01 The best.
    0:02:05 The story behind this is basically, like, I don’t,
    0:02:08 I wouldn’t even be smart enough to come up with the idea of this.
    0:02:09 This is amazing.
    0:02:14 So, the way it worked was, I think I read that it was Rippling’s founder
    0:02:19 and their legal team and maybe one other executive were in a room one night
    0:02:22 saying to themselves, dude, Deal is spying on us.
    0:02:22 What is going on?
    0:02:24 How do we catch them?
    0:02:25 And they said, let’s…
    0:02:27 Do you know, how did they know they were spying?
    0:02:31 Like, is it really that they just noticed on the logs this guy was searching Deal a lot?
    0:02:32 That sounds so crazy.
    0:02:32 Yeah.
    0:02:36 So, there’s always, you know, no matter how thin a pancake, there’s always two sides.
    0:02:37 That’s what my dad always tells me.
    0:02:38 So, I don’t know.
    0:02:40 But we only, that’s a good one, right?
    0:02:40 Yeah.
    0:02:42 We only know this side.
    0:02:46 So, this side is that they had a suspicion and then they’re sitting there one night and
    0:02:47 they go, I got it.
    0:02:53 Let’s make a screenshot or let’s actually make a fake Slack channel that no one at the company
    0:02:53 knows about.
    0:02:59 And we’re going to call it Deal Defectors, meaning all of Deal’s ex-employees who now
    0:03:02 work at Rippling, they’re talking trash about Deal and they’re spilling the beans.
    0:03:08 Turns out that was a channel that no one at the Rippling was a part of, but they emailed
    0:03:11 the Deal team and they go, this exists and you would love to see it.
    0:03:18 And then the next day after sending the letter, they notice someone tried to log in to this
    0:03:19 Deal Defectors Slack channel.
    0:03:24 And that seems strange since the only people who know about this are Deal’s three people
    0:03:28 on their executive team and Rippling’s three-person executive team.
    0:03:29 And it wasn’t us, Rippling.
    0:03:35 Therefore, it had to be one of the Deal executives who knew about this espionage and spying situation
    0:03:38 and had access to the back end of Rippling’s login.
    0:03:38 Is that right?
    0:03:39 I think that’s right.
    0:03:40 So that’s allegedly what happens.
    0:03:45 So they go to the local authorities, because I think this is happening in Ireland, by the way,
    0:03:47 like he’s working at the Ireland, the Dublin office.
    0:03:52 And they go to local authorities, they get like whatever, the ability to kind of like subpoena
    0:03:53 his phone.
    0:04:00 So I guess what happened is, person comes in, says, hey, you’ve been served, you need
    0:04:02 to hand over your phone right now.
    0:04:05 And he says, oh, it’s upstairs in my bag.
    0:04:06 Like, all right, let’s go get it.
    0:04:10 So they go up, they look in the bag, just a laptop in there, no phone.
    0:04:13 And they’re like, okay, where’s the phone?
    0:04:14 He’s like, I got to go to the bathroom.
    0:04:18 So he goes to the bathroom, locks himself in the bathroom real quick.
    0:04:25 And then the story goes, the person heard him doing something, quote, doing something
    0:04:26 on his phone.
    0:04:32 And he’s knocking on the door, basically shouting at him like, hey, if you delete anything on
    0:04:34 that phone, you’re in violation of the law.
    0:04:41 And the story goes, that the spy goes, that’s a risk I have to take.
    0:04:42 He said that?
    0:04:44 That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
    0:04:45 He said that?
    0:04:47 That’s what they wrote at this thing.
    0:04:53 So they hear a flush, they hear a flush, and then the guy flees the premises.
    0:04:54 They don’t get the phone.
    0:05:01 And then Rippling orders somebody to go check the plumbing of the building to see if he flushed
    0:05:03 a phone, couldn’t find a phone in there, no phone.
    0:05:07 And so that’s where the story stands today.
    0:05:11 And then that’s why they came out publicly and tried to like, you know, win this in the
    0:05:13 court of public opinion instead.
    0:05:18 Hey, quick message from our sponsor, HubSpot.
    0:05:20 You know, marketing in 2025 is wild.
    0:05:22 Customers can spot fake messages instantly.
    0:05:24 Privacy changes are making ad targeting a nightmare.
    0:05:26 And everybody needs more content than ever.
    0:05:29 That’s why HubSpot has a new marketing trends report.
    0:05:30 It doesn’t just show you what’s changing.
    0:05:32 It shows you exactly how to deal with it.
    0:05:33 Everything is backed by research.
    0:05:35 And it’s about marketing plays that you can use tomorrow.
    0:05:39 So if you’re ready to turn your marketing challenges into results, go to HubSpot.com
    0:05:42 slash marketing to download the report for free.
    0:05:47 Can I give three little bits of advice to anyone listening?
    0:05:51 If you’re ever going to get in trouble, one, don’t say shit.
    0:05:53 Do not say that’s a risk I’m going to take.
    0:05:54 Don’t say anything.
    0:05:56 Just say, yeah, I don’t want to talk or give me a lawyer.
    0:06:03 The second thing, don’t write down anything that you’d be afraid for to be found in discovery.
    0:06:06 And three, do not delete messages when you think you’re in trouble.
    0:06:07 That’s against the law.
    0:06:10 Dude, I don’t know if any of this is true.
    0:06:11 There’s a whole bunch of back and forth.
    0:06:14 So here’s a bit of the other side of the story.
    0:06:17 So I think someone from Deal came out.
    0:06:20 And here’s what a Deal spokesperson said.
    0:06:26 Weeks after Rippling is accused of violating sanctions law in Russia and ceding falsehoods
    0:06:31 about Deal, Rippling is trying to shift the narrative with these sensationalized claims.
    0:06:35 We deny all legal wrongdoing and look forward to asserting our counterclaims.
    0:06:35 All right.
    0:06:38 I, too, look forward to them asserting their counterclaims.
    0:06:42 You know, what’s funny is I lived in San Francisco and I was a…
    0:06:45 So the guy who started Rippling, I was a customer.
    0:06:46 His name is Parker Conrad.
    0:06:49 Parker previously started Zenefits.
    0:06:56 And back in 13 or 14 or 15, that era, I think Zenefits was the fastest growing company ever.
    0:07:00 I think it grew to like 100 million in revenue, something insane.
    0:07:12 And Parker, from what I remember, he got fired by the board because Zenefits was like a payroll and benefits company, which means you need to be pretty uptight.
    0:07:14 And I think that he was accused of being a little loosey-goosey.
    0:07:24 Like, it was like people were, if I remember correctly, the articles were like people at the parties were like having sex in the hallways or something insane like that.
    0:07:24 And like…
    0:07:25 I don’t think that was the…
    0:07:28 Well, maybe that was happening, but I don’t think that was the issue that got him in trouble.
    0:07:30 But that was like a canary in the court.
    0:07:38 It was like, dude, this guy, like he does it, like not everyone has their health benefits license, something, some license like that, that you need to sell benefits.
    0:07:44 I guess in order to like be a broker, a licensed broker, you had to have it in like every state that you were operating in.
    0:07:45 That’s what it was.
    0:07:46 There’s a bunch of compliance things.
    0:07:55 And what had happened was either some people didn’t have it or there was another thing, which was he had created a macro, like a piece of software that would just take the tests for you.
    0:07:56 Yeah, that’s what it was.
    0:08:02 You could like speed through this and get your license like way faster to keep up with the growth and like, kind of like you didn’t actually do it yourself.
    0:08:05 And I think that’s when he got in a lot of trouble.
    0:08:09 And he’s got, again, in this case, you know, like basically he got shamed.
    0:08:10 He got kicked out of the company.
    0:08:11 David Sachs took over.
    0:08:14 David Sachs, who was his COO and big investor.
    0:08:21 I think Sachs had put in like 10 or $20 million of his own money into the company and then came in as COO because it was like the next big hot startup.
    0:08:26 And then this came out and then Sachs basically threw Conrad under the bus.
    0:08:29 But they use like the, these guys are partying, they’re banging in the hallways.
    0:08:31 Yeah, just made it look like the whole thing was a mess, whatever.
    0:08:32 Yeah.
    0:08:36 And then, and so took over and he got basically the shaft.
    0:08:38 And then Rippling was sort of his revenge company.
    0:08:42 But yeah, this guy finds himself in some drama, I guess.
    0:08:43 Parker likes to party.
    0:08:45 Parker’s putting the PA at party.
    0:08:47 I mean, he’s like, he likes to get down.
    0:08:50 And now I’m hearing about, I didn’t know about this Russia stuff.
    0:08:52 So Parker lives, lives life on the edge.
    0:08:56 And, you know, he’s kind of the bad boy, the HR SaaS industry.
    0:08:58 What can, you know, what can he say?
    0:09:01 He needs to go Jensen leather jacket.
    0:09:04 Just pure snakeskin.
    0:09:08 Oh, the bad boy of HR SaaS is here.
    0:09:11 I like Parker.
    0:09:12 Parker parties, man.
    0:09:14 Like he just, he gets down.
    0:09:16 He’s always finds himself in a sticky situation.
    0:09:17 Sign me up.
    0:09:21 Parker should come on to MFM and we should go hang out.
    0:09:23 But this guy likes to party, you know?
    0:09:24 All right.
    0:09:27 So, all right.
    0:09:29 A lot of uninformed speculation here.
    0:09:31 I feel like we’re going to get hit with a lawsuit.
    0:09:34 What’s he going to say?
    0:09:34 That he doesn’t party?
    0:09:38 Like, is that slander?
    0:09:41 Parker’s ring doorbell has shown him to be home before 8 p.m.
    0:09:42 Every night.
    0:09:46 Does Parker, does the man in the polo and jeans not like to get down?
    0:09:48 We deny these allegations.
    0:09:50 All right.
    0:09:51 So, okay, whatever.
    0:09:53 So, there’s the deal rippling thing.
    0:09:55 There’s a bunch of funny tweets about this.
    0:09:56 It’s just good comedy.
    0:09:58 I have actually a different angle here.
    0:10:01 I don’t know if you have anything else you want to say on this, but I have a different
    0:10:05 angle, which was, got me thinking, what are some other great examples of corporate espionage
    0:10:05 in history?
    0:10:07 And I have some for you, Sam.
    0:10:08 Oh, okay.
    0:10:08 Cool.
    0:10:09 I like that.
    0:10:10 All right.
    0:10:11 So, so check this out.
    0:10:17 I went down a little rabbit hole and I tried to find, you know, examples of great corporate
    0:10:21 corporate espionage cases that have happened in the past.
    0:10:25 I want to start with the British East India Company.
    0:10:26 Okay.
    0:10:27 Are you prepared for this?
    0:10:33 So, basically back in the day, we’re talking about like the 1800s, the British East India
    0:10:34 Company.
    0:10:39 Basically, it was a trade, it was a trading company between the UK and India.
    0:10:39 Okay.
    0:10:41 And they did two notable things.
    0:10:44 One, which is unrelated to corporate espionage.
    0:10:46 Did you know they had their own corporate army?
    0:10:50 Well, I know that they were like the, the, the ballers of the earth.
    0:10:55 They like started in like 1600s and like, uh, basically like helped shape global trade.
    0:11:00 So they were so prolific that like other parts of Europe, like basically they were attacked
    0:11:02 on their trade routes and there was like a lot of security concerns.
    0:11:07 So they formed their own corporate military, which is pretty badass.
    0:11:11 And I think, you know, if I’m perplexity or something like that, if I’m like the third
    0:11:15 or fourth tier AI company right now, might just spin up a corporate military just to put
    0:11:18 some shine on me and what I’m doing, make it seem like I got some trade secrets that I need
    0:11:19 to protect.
    0:11:22 Like just armed guards going through Soma.
    0:11:23 It’d be amazing.
    0:11:24 Yeah.
    0:11:29 I think that every company needs like a fake enemy or a fake, uh, emergency to prepare
    0:11:30 for.
    0:11:31 I think it’s good for them.
    0:11:36 It’s like when I used to be in college and, um, we would go out and, you know, I’d be at
    0:11:41 the bar and just a lot of strikeouts going on, you know, pretty low batting average, pretty
    0:11:42 low slugging percentage.
    0:11:45 Taking a lot of L’s.
    0:11:47 What was your cold approach open?
    0:11:52 What was my cold approach open?
    0:11:53 Okay, here we go.
    0:11:53 Ready?
    0:11:55 Sam, just turn around.
    0:11:56 I’ll be the girl.
    0:11:56 I’m going to be the girl.
    0:11:59 And now you’re just going to feel my body coming close to you.
    0:12:00 Yeah, so I was hanging out with this guy.
    0:12:00 Wait, hold on.
    0:12:02 What, what, what is this?
    0:12:04 Oh, you didn’t want to grind?
    0:12:04 Oh.
    0:12:05 Oh, shit.
    0:12:05 No.
    0:12:07 Okay, my bad.
    0:12:08 Totally thought you wanted to grind.
    0:12:12 That was it?
    0:12:16 The mistake grind with the immediate apology shtick?
    0:12:18 That was if it was on the dance floor.
    0:12:19 All right.
    0:12:21 If we’re not on the dance floor, if we’re at the bar, ready?
    0:12:22 Yeah.
    0:12:23 So I’m just turned around.
    0:12:24 I’m looking over here.
    0:12:25 I’m just hanging out.
    0:12:26 Hey.
    0:12:28 Yeah?
    0:12:30 Do they do drinks here?
    0:12:33 Question.
    0:12:34 Just an innocent question.
    0:12:36 That was it?
    0:12:40 Mine used to be, hey, Selvabette, how many oceans are there?
    0:12:41 Five or seven?
    0:12:43 Oh, wow.
    0:12:43 That’s great.
    0:12:46 This was, I’m talking about pre-reading the book, The Game.
    0:12:51 Once I read the book, The Game, then it was, hey, you guys got to settle an argument here.
    0:12:56 And I just literally ripped the line from the book where it’s like, my roommate’s girlfriend
    0:13:01 is making him throw away all the pictures of his ex-girlfriend in his apartment.
    0:13:02 Is that crazy?
    0:13:05 Or is she, we think she’s crazy.
    0:13:06 Is that crazy?
    0:13:08 And they’re like, no, you got to get rid of that.
    0:13:10 And it’s like, oh, do you want to be my girlfriend?
    0:13:10 No?
    0:13:11 Okay.
    0:13:11 Nevermind.
    0:13:13 Do you know what the worst line is?
    0:13:18 is when I would steal all of the lines from the game, and then one out of 10 times, a
    0:13:22 woman would reply and say, yeah, I read the game too, you douche.
    0:13:25 And it was just like, you go home so sad.
    0:13:27 That was the worst.
    0:13:28 I would have thought that worked.
    0:13:29 We have so much in common.
    0:13:30 We love the same books.
    0:13:34 I didn’t have that turn shit into gold type of persona back then.
    0:13:36 You know, I was still just-
    0:13:41 Dude, there’s a reason I was single for like, not just all four years of college, but even
    0:13:42 two years after college.
    0:13:44 Like it was, it was a long, it was a long drought.
    0:13:50 I felt like the British East India Company just marching through the drought.
    0:13:53 That’s not exactly a drought because the drought implies that that’s not normal.
    0:13:56 Well, yeah, exactly.
    0:13:57 I guess it’s just a desert.
    0:13:59 Yes.
    0:14:02 What are, what are some other ones?
    0:14:05 Wait, by the way, have you ever done this with a company?
    0:14:06 Done what?
    0:14:07 Corporate espionage?
    0:14:08 Do you think I’m cool enough to do that?
    0:14:15 Like my, uh, my extent of it was like having a friend at Facebook and them like telling
    0:14:17 me like what my competitors are doing.
    0:14:19 Uh, I’ve been there, done that a few times.
    0:14:20 Yeah.
    0:14:21 Yeah.
    0:14:23 No, I’ve never done anything this cool.
    0:14:23 I don’t think.
    0:14:26 Um, but you know, okay.
    0:14:28 Like I’ll tell you this British East India Company story.
    0:14:28 All right.
    0:14:33 So back in the day, China had like a monopoly on tea production.
    0:14:35 And this was a big problem.
    0:14:36 Tea was super popular.
    0:14:41 China made all the tea and, um, nobody could figure out how to make the tea.
    0:14:42 Nobody had the, like the seeds.
    0:14:45 Nobody had any of the stuff you needed to like try to break that.
    0:14:49 So they were all trading with China to get tea, but they didn’t have anything to trade
    0:14:49 back with China.
    0:14:51 So there was these huge trade imbalances.
    0:14:58 And so basically Britain, I think it was trading like opium into China as this only thing I
    0:15:00 could get into China and China didn’t like that.
    0:15:02 And it created what was called the first opium war.
    0:15:06 And so there’s literally a war broke out because of this trade imbalance with the tea.
    0:15:12 And so what happens is the British decide to, to do something about this.
    0:15:14 And so let me tell you this story real quick.
    0:15:19 So the East India Company, the British East India Company hire this guy named Robert Fortune.
    0:15:23 He’s a Scottish botanist and adventurer and they paid him.
    0:15:27 They were like, you are going to infiltrate China and you are going to steal the tea industry
    0:15:29 secrets of China.
    0:15:33 And by the way, Google a picture of this guy, because I don’t know how he pulled this off.
    0:15:40 He looks like a Scottish man, but he disguised himself as a Chinese merchant and went underground.
    0:15:42 He was wearing Chinese clothing, Chinese hairstyle.
    0:15:46 He traveled deep into China’s tea region, which is actually off limits to foreigners.
    0:15:51 And he was able to get access in and he studied tea production step by step.
    0:15:54 Everything for planting, harvesting, drying, packaging, all of it.
    0:15:55 He didn’t just observe.
    0:15:58 He was able to collect thousands of tea plants, seeds, equipment.
    0:16:00 This guy was supposed to be Chinese?
    0:16:01 This guy was supposed to be Chinese.
    0:16:02 I don’t know how he did it, but incredible.
    0:16:03 He looks like me.
    0:16:06 He’s you with sideburns.
    0:16:07 Yeah.
    0:16:08 Sick chops.
    0:16:16 So he not only that, then he started recruiting like a, like turning other people.
    0:16:20 So he started recruiting Chinese tea growers, hiring them and persuading them to leave China
    0:16:21 secretly and relocate to India.
    0:16:24 And basically he pulled it off.
    0:16:26 He goes and he steals the trade secrets.
    0:16:27 He hires the tea growers.
    0:16:29 He smuggles them out of the country.
    0:16:32 He brings the seeds, the tools, the knowledge, the trade secrets.
    0:16:34 He gets to India and they start growing tea.
    0:16:40 And soon after that, India surpassed China in terms of its tea production, broke the
    0:16:46 Chinese monopoly on tea and prevented future wars, actually de-escalated the conflict because
    0:16:49 now there wasn’t this huge trade imbalance, an opium problem.
    0:16:52 That’s insane that this guy pulled this off.
    0:16:53 How long was he in China for?
    0:16:55 I think this was like a multi-year thing.
    0:16:57 How exciting.
    0:17:00 That’s a life worth living.
    0:17:01 Let me give you some other ones.
    0:17:01 All right.
    0:17:03 So now let me give you a more modern example.
    0:17:05 Oracle versus Microsoft.
    0:17:06 Have you heard this story?
    0:17:07 No.
    0:17:07 All right.
    0:17:09 So two giants, two successful companies.
    0:17:13 Microsoft, if you remember in the 90s, was doing antitrust cases.
    0:17:16 And Bill Gates, there’s videos of this on YouTube.
    0:17:21 He’s like in depositions and they just were getting hauled in front of the antitrust committees
    0:17:22 and they had to defend themselves.
    0:17:25 So he was being accused of a monopoly.
    0:17:26 Monopolistic behaviors.
    0:17:29 And this really was a problem for Microsoft.
    0:17:30 It slowed them down.
    0:17:34 I think it’s called like the lost decade, where basically like for a long period of time,
    0:17:35 Microsoft couldn’t acquire companies.
    0:17:39 They couldn’t like, if something got hot, they couldn’t release a competitor and kind
    0:17:43 of use their distribution to win because they had just gone through this like, you know,
    0:17:44 antitrust problem.
    0:17:44 They had to lay low.
    0:17:45 They had to lay low.
    0:17:46 Exactly.
    0:17:55 And so Microsoft, while it’s in this situation, Oracle hires all these private investigators
    0:17:59 to go and dig up dirt on Microsoft during this period of time.
    0:18:01 And it gets found out.
    0:18:02 But what they were doing was pretty smart.
    0:18:07 Instead of digging up dirt on Microsoft, they were going to all these other companies that
    0:18:08 were supposed to be independent.
    0:18:13 Like they were kind of coming out and providing like testimonials or testimony in support of
    0:18:13 Microsoft.
    0:18:18 And it was like, oh, this independent council, like the, uh, the independent, uh, the independent
    0:18:22 Institute, the national taxpayers union, they’re coming out in support of Microsoft here.
    0:18:25 And Larry Ellison from Oracle is like, nah, no way.
    0:18:29 And so Oracle hires these private investigators to go dumpster diving.
    0:18:34 And so they’re digging through the trash of these, of these independent organizations, finding
    0:18:38 links where they got paid by Microsoft and they get caught.
    0:18:42 They get caught doing this, but they’re also caught that Microsoft funded these organizations.
    0:18:45 And so they go to Larry Ellison.
    0:18:47 He’s like, look, I had nothing to do with this.
    0:18:49 I wasn’t made aware of it till the end.
    0:18:50 Um, and I agree.
    0:18:55 This was a bit unsavory, but he goes, uh, he goes corporate espionage.
    0:18:57 This is a public service.
    0:18:59 We’re doing our civic duty here.
    0:19:03 We are taking hidden information about how Microsoft was funding these supposed independent
    0:19:05 orgs and we were making it public.
    0:19:09 We are, we’re doing, we’re doing God’s work out here and just calling it public service
    0:19:11 and is doing his civic duty.
    0:19:13 I thought was an incredible spin.
    0:19:19 All right, my friends, I have exciting news for that business idea.
    0:19:21 That’s been sitting in your notes app.
    0:19:24 The hustle, which is my old company has partnered with indie hackers.
    0:19:28 One of my favorite websites to launch a pitch competition.
    0:19:30 It’s called the hustles big break.
    0:19:32 And it’s a pitch competition with a simple premise.
    0:19:38 You tell us your business idea in 60 seconds or less, and the winner gets $5,000 to turn
    0:19:38 it into a reality.
    0:19:40 Here’s how it works.
    0:19:42 Record a 60 second video pitch of your business idea.
    0:19:45 Include your business name, description, revenue model, and tagline.
    0:19:50 And finally, submit it at the hustle.co slash big break.
    0:19:53 And it all has to be done by April 4th.
    0:19:56 The winner gets $5,000 in cash to kickstart their business journey.
    0:20:01 Plus we’re going to feature them in the hustles daily newsletter, which is read by around a million
    0:20:01 and a half people.
    0:20:04 And these are the smartest business and tech folks out there.
    0:20:07 The winner will be announced on April 11th.
    0:20:13 So again, if you have a business idea, go to the hustle.co slash big break.
    0:20:14 All right, back to the pop.
    0:20:23 The other day, in an Elon Musk interview, someone asked him, I think it was like Ted Cruz, was
    0:20:25 like, who do you, you know, you’re, a lot of people think you’re smart.
    0:20:26 Who do you consider smart?
    0:20:29 And the first person he said was Larry Elson.
    0:20:30 Elon said that?
    0:20:31 Yeah.
    0:20:32 He goes, he goes, Larry Elson.
    0:20:35 He goes, I think Larry Elson is one of the smarter people I work with.
    0:20:40 He said, you remember from Forrest Gump where he says, stupid is as stupid does.
    0:20:43 Elon goes, smart is as smart does.
    0:20:46 So he took the inverse of that line, which I thought was pretty funny.
    0:20:49 He goes, smart is as smart does.
    0:20:51 And I think Larry Elson might be the smartest person I know.
    0:20:58 And so it’s pretty funny that I didn’t, up until Larry kind of got a little bit more front
    0:21:04 facing with some of these things, I didn’t, I regarded him as like just a guy who, he kind
    0:21:05 of just started early and became the best.
    0:21:11 I didn’t realize how sharky, not necessarily a bad way that he actually was though.
    0:21:11 Yeah.
    0:21:12 How elite he is.
    0:21:13 Wow.
    0:21:14 That’s amazing.
    0:21:16 Elon, I think took some of his spin.
    0:21:20 Remember when he like, he impregnated that woman who works with him and he was just like,
    0:21:23 underpopulation is the biggest crisis we face.
    0:21:25 And like turned it into, I’m saving the planet.
    0:21:26 Yeah.
    0:21:27 And I was like, whoa.
    0:21:29 Playa.
    0:21:35 Playa with no R at the end, man.
    0:21:36 That is incredible.
    0:21:42 Like, can you imagine having the balls to just, to just come out and not just defend
    0:21:47 it, not deny it, but to claim that you’re doing good.
    0:21:51 That’s like a story that’s like, at high school, when you’re hanging out with your buddies, smoking
    0:21:54 weed late at night, and you’re just like riffing and saying the dumb shit you’re going to do
    0:21:55 in the next morning when you’re sober.
    0:21:59 Like, we’re going to go, dude, we’re changing it out.
    0:22:01 We’re going to get up and we’re going to like, we’re going to start working out first thing
    0:22:02 in the morning.
    0:22:04 That’s like a thing that Elon would say.
    0:22:05 I mean, it’s crazy.
    0:22:08 It’s like, hey, like, don’t you think it’s kind of inappropriate?
    0:22:09 You know, she works with you.
    0:22:10 She’s an executive of your company.
    0:22:11 Maybe there’s an imbalance of power here.
    0:22:13 Like, are you concerned about this at all?
    0:22:15 He’s like, I’m concerned about underpopulation.
    0:22:17 It’s like, wow, holy shit.
    0:22:19 Nick Cannon, just like writing notes out there.
    0:22:20 All right.
    0:22:21 Here’s some other ones.
    0:22:22 Coke versus Pepsi.
    0:22:25 Dude, did Nick Cannon just catch a straight bullet on that one?
    0:22:25 Yeah.
    0:22:29 He’s like, he’s like the icon for too many kids, dude.
    0:22:31 Dude, it’s 8, 8, so not Nick Cannon.
    0:22:35 So 2006, Coke versus Pepsi.
    0:22:37 Another, you know, deal rippling.
    0:22:40 Microsoft Oracle, Coke, Pepsi.
    0:22:42 These are all just like the legendary rivalries.
    0:22:49 So an EA at Coke who’s disgruntled, this woman, Joya Williams, decides, you know what?
    0:22:50 Screw it.
    0:22:54 She leaves her post as a EA, and she steals basically some trade secrets.
    0:23:00 She takes a new, a can of their new product that’s unreleased, and she writes a letter to
    0:23:02 Pepsi, and she says, I have the formula for Coke.
    0:23:04 Do you want the secret formula?
    0:23:06 And I have a new unreleased product.
    0:23:10 She sends a letter, and she says, I’ll give you the formula for a price.
    0:23:11 Guess what her price was?
    0:23:14 A hundred grand, a million, I don’t know.
    0:23:15 $1.5 million.
    0:23:16 And what year?
    0:23:17 2006.
    0:23:18 All right.
    0:23:20 So it’s about $3 million today.
    0:23:24 Pepsi, being the good guy that it is, says, you know what?
    0:23:25 Not doing it.
    0:23:27 They tell Coke.
    0:23:29 They say, hey, you have this woman.
    0:23:30 She’s trying to sell your formula.
    0:23:31 We don’t want it.
    0:23:35 Let’s me, you, and the FBI, let’s take this woman down.
    0:23:38 And what they do is they set up a sting operation.
    0:23:42 And so she comes out, and she’s ready to sell the formula.
    0:23:46 They do a test payment for $4,000 to show that they’re legit.
    0:23:50 They record her saying what she has and that she’s doing this trade.
    0:23:52 And then they lock her up.
    0:23:52 They arrest her.
    0:23:54 And she goes to prison for eight years.
    0:23:55 Wow.
    0:23:56 Isn’t that crazy?
    0:23:57 Wow.
    0:23:58 That’s a lot.
    0:23:59 Maybe like a few.
    0:24:00 Maybe too much.
    0:24:01 Yeah.
    0:24:02 Maybe too much.
    0:24:03 Maybe a few months.
    0:24:06 Dude, Pepsi, you guys suck.
    0:24:07 Maybe promote her.
    0:24:07 I don’t know.
    0:24:10 Eight years in prison seems like it was a lot for that.
    0:24:13 So yeah, she got made an example out of.
    0:24:14 That’s crazy.
    0:24:16 This was like a recent story.
    0:24:16 2006.
    0:24:22 So it looks like her boyfriend was also in on it.
    0:24:24 This was like a legit scheme.
    0:24:26 Yeah, that sucks.
    0:24:32 I like when I hear Joya, I think of like an old woman who’s like, oh, Coke, you didn’t
    0:24:33 give me a raise.
    0:24:34 I’m going to get back.
    0:24:34 You know what I mean?
    0:24:37 Like, I think that there was more to it.
    0:24:38 All right.
    0:24:39 That’s crazy.
    0:24:44 What do you think about Pepsi turning down the secret formula and the trade secrets and deciding
    0:24:45 to take her down?
    0:24:47 Because what are you going to do with that?
    0:24:49 Pepsi’s like, what am I supposed to do?
    0:24:50 Make my shit taste like Coke?
    0:24:52 It’s just sugar and water.
    0:24:57 Yeah, like, I don’t know what you expect me to do with that.
    0:25:01 Because like the secret or the whole thing with Coke is that like only like a few people
    0:25:02 have access to it.
    0:25:03 I don’t, who the fuck knows?
    0:25:04 There’s no way that’s true, by the way.
    0:25:07 Let me give you a couple other quick ones.
    0:25:09 Uber and Waymo.
    0:25:09 Do you remember this one?
    0:25:10 You probably remember this.
    0:25:19 Yeah, the main character of Waymo stole a bunch of stuff from Google and Uber was going
    0:25:20 to use it and now Uber got sued.
    0:25:22 Yeah, so exactly.
    0:25:30 So basically, Anthony Lewandowski was this guy who worked at Waymo and Travis Kalanick recruits
    0:25:34 him to Uber, wants him to set up the autonomous driving stuff at Uber.
    0:25:38 He comes from, he was at Waymo, which is the autonomous driving thing inside of Google.
    0:25:43 He apparently downloaded 14,000 confidential files on the way out.
    0:25:49 Maybe a bit much, maybe a little too many, too many files and could have got away with a
    0:25:49 little less.
    0:25:52 They have the info.
    0:25:54 He ends up getting fired from Uber.
    0:25:56 Uber has to settle.
    0:26:02 Uber settles for 0.34% of Uber that Google owned, which is about $250 million of stock back
    0:26:08 in 2018, which I think is closer to a billion dollars now of Uber stock.
    0:26:10 And he had to go to prison for 18 months.
    0:26:12 But then Trump pardoned him.
    0:26:13 Trump pardoned him early.
    0:26:14 And so he got out.
    0:26:15 Why?
    0:26:18 He didn’t want him to serve all 18 months, I guess.
    0:26:20 Well, I understand.
    0:26:22 That’s why a part of it exists.
    0:26:23 He’s like, Anthony’s a big football fan.
    0:26:24 I don’t want him to miss the Super Bowl.
    0:26:25 It’s only once a year.
    0:26:26 Let’s get him out.
    0:26:27 So where’s he now?
    0:26:29 That’s a good question.
    0:26:34 Like, I wonder, is he like damaged goods or is surely not.
    0:26:38 Like some VC was like, dude, I don’t care that you’re like Martha Stewart.
    0:26:39 You’re not cooler.
    0:26:41 He’s the CEO of Paul and Mobile.
    0:26:42 Has been for three years.
    0:26:43 Okay.
    0:26:44 I don’t know what that is.
    0:26:45 Okay.
    0:26:47 These are great stories.
    0:26:48 I’m in on it.
    0:26:51 Do you want to hear something that’s related to security?
    0:26:55 And also, I think is almost equally exciting.
    0:26:55 Yeah.
    0:26:55 Wait, wait.
    0:26:57 Before we finish, I just have one more little tidbit.
    0:27:02 The US, this is actually baked into the DNA of the United States.
    0:27:03 I don’t know if you know that.
    0:27:03 Espionage?
    0:27:04 Espionage.
    0:27:05 Corporate espionage.
    0:27:10 And so America’s founding father and first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton,
    0:27:14 decided that, basically realized that Europe was ahead of the U.S.
    0:27:18 and actually decided to encourage intellectual piracy.
    0:27:23 Doesn’t all crime sound better when you just give it like a longer, like more letters, make
    0:27:24 it sound better?
    0:27:30 And so what he said was, he advocated to reward those who would bring improvements and secrets
    0:27:35 of extraordinary value into the United States, which was instrumental in making the U.S.
    0:27:37 a safe haven for industrial spies.
    0:27:38 And they did.
    0:27:40 This guy, Samuel Slater.
    0:27:40 Samuel Slater.
    0:27:41 My boy.
    0:27:42 I love Samuel Slater.
    0:27:43 One of the greatest stories of all time.
    0:27:44 What’s his story?
    0:27:46 So he brought British textile technology to the U.S.?
    0:27:47 What does that mean?
    0:27:48 Is he like the founder of denim?
    0:27:53 They claim, sort of actually, they claim he was like, had a photographic memory.
    0:27:56 This is like the story that you’re told as a kid, like in history class, which is
    0:27:57 that he had a photographic memory.
    0:28:03 But basically, he was from England, and he memorized and partially wrote down how factories
    0:28:03 in England worked.
    0:28:09 He came to America, and he helped reinvent American factories, which spurred the Industrial
    0:28:12 Revolution, which arguably made America what it is.
    0:28:15 Are we pro-espionage?
    0:28:16 I think I might be.
    0:28:22 So, by the way, this guy’s nickname, top five nickname, do you know Samuel Slater’s nickname?
    0:28:22 No.
    0:28:23 Slater the traitor?
    0:28:25 Yes, that’s awesome.
    0:28:26 That’s what they called him in the U.K.
    0:28:27 Yes.
    0:28:30 But he was like, welcome with open arms here.
    0:28:31 We loved him.
    0:28:34 So yes, Samuel Slater is sort of an American hero.
    0:28:34 That’s crazy.
    0:28:37 At the age of 21, so he literally prison-braked it.
    0:28:42 He photographically memorized all these trade secrets and then came to America and gave them to
    0:28:45 us and spurred the Industrial Revolution and made America great again?
    0:28:47 Well, not again.
    0:28:48 Made America great for the first time?
    0:28:49 Yeah, for the first time.
    0:28:50 Holy shit.
    0:28:51 Yeah, the inaugural Make America.
    0:28:53 Make America great for once?
    0:28:54 Yeah, yeah.
    0:28:57 Those hats are out of style.
    0:28:59 That’s actually pretty funny.
    0:29:00 Yeah, he made America great.
    0:29:02 I have another story.
    0:29:07 So, last year, there’s two parts of the story.
    0:29:08 Last year, we talked about this company, Wiz.
    0:29:10 Wiz is a cybersecurity company.
    0:29:14 To most of our listeners, we mostly talk about small business stuff.
    0:29:16 These guys are not that.
    0:29:18 They’re an enterprise cybersecurity company.
    0:29:21 But it has two amazing components.
    0:29:26 So, one part of the story that you talked about, and by the way, these guys, Wiz, remember when
    0:29:26 we did Sarah’s List?
    0:29:28 They were on Sarah’s List.
    0:29:34 So, we kind of, we didn’t exactly nail it because it was, yeah, a little pat on the back.
    0:29:36 I don’t know if the mic’s picking that one up.
    0:29:41 Because they were already, like, kicking ass, and I don’t know what the multiple was on when
    0:29:42 we named them, but it was at least double.
    0:29:45 But there’s two amazing stories about this.
    0:29:46 The first is how fast they grew.
    0:29:48 I want to, like, show you how fast they grew.
    0:29:52 But before we talk about how fast they grew, we got to talk about how they started.
    0:29:53 And you talked about this.
    0:29:55 Wait, you buried the lead.
    0:29:56 They’re getting bought for $32 billion.
    0:29:57 That’s why we’re talking about them.
    0:29:59 They got bought for $32 billion.
    0:30:00 Sorry.
    0:30:03 So, this company, Wiz, is getting bought for $32 billion.
    0:30:05 The story of how they started is amazing.
    0:30:07 The story of how fast they grew, also amazing.
    0:30:09 It just happened the other day.
    0:30:10 But listen to this.
    0:30:13 So, you, I think, are the one who brought this up.
    0:30:15 Were you the one who talked about this guy, Gilly?
    0:30:16 Yes.
    0:30:21 So, Gilly is an Israeli cybersecurity veteran.
    0:30:24 So, he’s exited a few companies in the cybersecurity space.
    0:30:30 And he was also part of this elite group of cybersecurity specialists in the Israeli military
    0:30:33 called 8200, I believe it’s called.
    0:30:34 And he invented CAPTCHA.
    0:30:37 He invented, like, a certain type of firewall.
    0:30:38 He invented a lot of shit.
    0:30:38 He’s an OG.
    0:30:41 Like, the OG is OG in cybersecurity.
    0:30:43 And so, he has this thing.
    0:30:45 I believe it’s called Cyber Starts.
    0:30:46 Yes.
    0:30:49 You can call it an incubator or a VC firm.
    0:30:50 But here’s how it works.
    0:30:56 So, he teams up with a lot of young ex-military 8200.
    0:31:01 I think that’s 8200 is the name of the part of the military where it’s the cybersecurity specialist.
    0:31:04 So, you leave that after you finish your compulsory service.
    0:31:05 And you go to Gilly.
    0:31:07 You go, Gilly, sign me up.
    0:31:08 I want to start a company.
    0:31:11 And so, what Gilly has done is he has this fund.
    0:31:21 And in the fund is dozens or even hundreds, I believe, of cybersecurity officers at large companies.
    0:31:23 Not just Israeli companies, but America companies.
    0:31:30 And what they do, these cybersecurity officers is, yes, they say, here’s the problems I need solved, Gilly.
    0:31:36 So, go have your young founders create products to solve these problems, and I will be your first customer.
    0:31:40 And Gilly goes to these founders and goes, guys, I’m going to invest in your company.
    0:31:42 Here’s the idea to get you started.
    0:31:45 I guarantee you $2 million in revenue in the first year.
    0:31:52 And that’s amazing because these companies will sell or get – they can raise their next round of funding at 20 times $2 million in revenue.
    0:31:55 So, with $2 million in revenue in the first year, they can raise money at a $40 million valuation.
    0:31:56 That’s a no-brainer.
    0:32:02 Now, what’s pretty controversial is these CISOs, these chief information officers at these companies are – what’s a CISO?
    0:32:04 A chief information and security officer.
    0:32:05 Information.
    0:32:09 They own pieces of Gilly’s fund.
    0:32:14 And anytime one of these startups does well and succeeds, they get paid out.
    0:32:18 And so, it’s this very insular group of a lot of Israeli guys.
    0:32:20 So, they have that bond over that.
    0:32:26 They have the bond over being Jewish, and they have the bond that they probably all came from a very similar part of the Israeli army.
    0:32:28 So, there’s this bond after bond after bond.
    0:32:29 And they’re like, yeah, look, we’ll help you.
    0:32:30 We’ll get you off the ground.
    0:32:33 And then we’re going to get – the money just – it just flows around nicely.
    0:32:36 And so, that’s what he did with these guys’ whiz.
    0:32:38 And isn’t that a crazy setup?
    0:32:40 It’s amazing.
    0:32:41 So, I’m going to read you this.
    0:32:44 The numbers from his Cyberstarts fund are phenomenal.
    0:32:47 This was about six, seven years old now.
    0:32:52 It only has 22 companies, but the 22 companies’ combined value was $35 billion at the time.
    0:32:54 Now, whiz just sold for $32 billion itself.
    0:32:57 So, it says five of the 22 are unicorns.
    0:32:59 So, that’s an extremely high hit rate.
    0:33:07 So, a normal VC fund, I think between 1% and 3% of the companies will become unicorns.
    0:33:16 YC, which is the best accelerator in the world ever, I think their number is between 6% and 10%.
    0:33:19 And so, this guy is like double YC, right?
    0:33:23 So, five of the 22 are unicorns.
    0:33:28 Four of them sold in the last 12 months for a total of $1.5 billion.
    0:33:38 And then it says in all three of his funds, he shows an IRR, so his internal rate return, of more than 100%, which is obviously fantastic.
    0:33:43 Not a single company in the portfolio has closed to date.
    0:33:48 And he basically beats every VC fund in terms of his performance.
    0:33:52 His first fund, he turned $54 million into $1 billion.
    0:33:54 That was his stake.
    0:33:54 Yeah.
    0:33:55 Crazy, right?
    0:33:57 You describe the model well.
    0:34:01 So, basically, he’s got this network of CISOs, and they’re called the Cyberstarts.
    0:34:03 Cyberstarts, like CISO group.
    0:34:05 And they basically all talk.
    0:34:10 They say what problems they have, but they also get pitched solutions, and it’s like kind of the handpicked solution.
    0:34:12 They all start using it.
    0:34:15 They all have a share in the fund.
    0:34:17 So, if those companies take off, they win.
    0:34:22 It’s this kind of like, I mean, there’s definitely a conflict of interest with this, let’s be clear.
    0:34:25 But it’s, wow, what a powerful network.
    0:34:28 And what a powerful way to use a network.
    0:34:30 You know, like James Currier came on the podcast.
    0:34:32 I just did an interview with him.
    0:34:33 I don’t think it’s out yet.
    0:34:36 But he’s got this whole thing.
    0:34:37 His fund is called Network Effects.
    0:34:44 And he has this blog post called Your Life on Network Effects, or Your Life is a Network Effect.
    0:34:48 And it’s basically like everything you do from the college you choose, you’re not just choosing a school.
    0:34:50 You’re picking a network to join.
    0:34:54 Like I joined the Duke Alumni Network when I picked Duke, right?
    0:34:57 When you move to San Francisco, you’re picking a network of people to join.
    0:35:01 When you pick a company, you’re picking a network of people to join.
    0:35:04 And those are going to be the co-workers and future opportunities that open up for you.
    0:35:10 And so once you realize like your life is dictated by networks, you know, the church, the religion you’re in, that’s a network.
    0:35:12 The language you speak, that’s a network.
    0:35:13 The country you live in, that’s a network.
    0:35:29 And so similarly here, this is like such a powerful example of this guy having this network dating back to the Israeli kind of like security intelligence groups to the network of, you know, Fortune 500 CISOs.
    0:35:35 How valuable that is, that network turned out to be worth tens of billions of dollars.
    0:35:37 And it’s pretty amazing.
    0:35:39 He’s so precise about this.
    0:35:44 So look at the first YouTube link that I posted in our MDB doc.
    0:35:51 So basically, there’s this video that has 400 or 800 views, less than 1,000.
    0:35:53 It has 528 views.
    0:35:54 Do you see that 528 view video?
    0:35:59 In this video, he breaks down where he says, he goes,
    0:36:01 I’ve done this 35 times.
    0:36:10 I have a 9 to 18 month journey that I use to achieve product market fit before building any cybersecurity company.
    0:36:16 And he goes through the key phases, which is basically like exploring different pain points and how to find them.
    0:36:20 You spend seven months developing the right solution that mere mortals can use.
    0:36:23 And then here are the questions that you need to ask prospects.
    0:36:24 Here’s how you find prospects.
    0:36:25 This is great.
    0:36:26 What a great find.
    0:36:30 And only 500 views on this guy who’s given out like, you know, like a billion dollar playbook.
    0:36:36 And he goes, he talks about how he’s going to, you want to accelerate the timeline and what the benchmarks is.
    0:36:38 He gives this whole playbook that he uses.
    0:36:42 And he goes, I’ve done this 35 times and we’ve turned this into billions of dollars.
    0:36:44 It’s, it’s incredible.
    0:36:46 Now, here we are with Wiz.
    0:36:50 So Wiz was founded by a guy named, what is his first name?
    0:36:51 Asaf.
    0:36:52 Is it Asaf?
    0:36:54 Or his last name’s Rapoport.
    0:37:00 But he basically had a company that he had previously sold for something like $350 million.
    0:37:02 And he did it when he was like a kid still.
    0:37:06 So when you think what someone does that, well, why on earth are you going to join this thing?
    0:37:07 Well, he did join this thing.
    0:37:11 And he left Microsoft and even explains, he’s like, he sold this company to Microsoft and he left.
    0:37:13 And he’s like, I’m afraid to leave Microsoft.
    0:37:14 I’m not sure what to do.
    0:37:15 So he joins this thing.
    0:37:18 And listen to the timeline that Wiz went through.
    0:37:20 So Wiz was founded in roughly-
    0:37:22 When you say he joined this thing, he joined what?
    0:37:23 Gillies, Cyberstarts.
    0:37:24 Sorry.
    0:37:25 Oh, he joined Cyberstarts.
    0:37:25 Okay.
    0:37:27 He joined Cyberstarts, Gillies thing.
    0:37:34 And he starts the company in January of 2020.
    0:37:38 And they go through the, and because he’s already successful and he was part of this Gillies crew,
    0:37:42 right out the bat, they raised $21 million in funding.
    0:37:45 And they were able to hire a team of 10 to 20 people.
    0:37:50 By December of that first year, they raised $100 million.
    0:37:54 So fast forward one year to March.
    0:37:55 So we’re still in winter of 2021.
    0:37:58 That’s one year after founding.
    0:38:04 They’re only at 40 employees, but they are at roughly $100 million of AR.
    0:38:06 Is that crazy?
    0:38:08 So-
    0:38:09 That’s breakneck speed, right?
    0:38:13 Like this is, by the way, there’s a lot of, we do this, but there’s a lot of people who
    0:38:15 are like, dude, venture money.
    0:38:17 Don’t raise too much money.
    0:38:18 You know, growth, growth, growth.
    0:38:19 It’s a problem.
    0:38:21 You know, you got to bootstrap.
    0:38:25 You got to, you know, people, there’s different ways to win.
    0:38:30 This is a great example of like, no, raise a bunch of money out the gate,
    0:38:36 blitz scale this thing and keep raising money and just go for the huge prize.
    0:38:38 And I’m going to, and I have like a takeaway on that.
    0:38:43 But two years after the starting the company, we are now in winter of 2021.
    0:38:48 They raised $250 million at a $6 billion valuation.
    0:38:53 This is a handful of months after they’ve already reached 100 million in revenue with 40 people,
    0:38:54 18 months in.
    0:38:56 Now we’re in the year 2022.
    0:38:58 This is the second year of business.
    0:39:01 They are at, I believe that, yeah, second year of business.
    0:39:03 They’re at 100 employees.
    0:39:07 And by the end, by the end of that year, they’re at 400 employees.
    0:39:09 Now we’re going to fast forward each year.
    0:39:11 Here’s how fast they grew their revenue after 100 million in revenue.
    0:39:14 By year three, they’re at 200 million in revenue.
    0:39:16 By year four, they’re at 500 million in revenue.
    0:39:20 And by that same year, they sell for $32 billion.
    0:39:21 Is that insane?
    0:39:22 How on earth?
    0:39:29 Can you imagine going zero to five years in, and you’re creating between 500 and a billion
    0:39:32 in revenue with only like five or 600 employees?
    0:39:35 I was watching a clip of their CRO talking.
    0:39:42 And he was like, we were growing so fast that the only reliable benchmark we could use for
    0:39:54 how much to grow our headcount on our sales team was just, they were like, did you use, you know, like pipeline, leads, kind of like, how did you do market analysis, market studies?
    0:39:57 He goes, we just looked at how full the calendars were.
    0:40:05 And he’s basically like, for every product line and every category, we just looked at how, like, the calendar density of all of our sales reps.
    0:40:12 And in areas where the calendar density was high, we knew that area is working, hire more people, just hire more people based on the density.
    0:40:17 And we measured our calendar density of sales reps for booked calls for people looking for demos.
    0:40:24 And that’s how they knew that that was the only reliable leading indicator they could figure out for growth.
    0:40:29 And if you look at their Glassdoor review, the CEO has, like, people rave about them.
    0:40:31 And like, you could say, well, I don’t know, is Glassdoor even accurate?
    0:40:32 I’m not sure.
    0:40:34 Dude, you’re the only dude who looks at Glassdoor.
    0:40:36 They have one web visitor a month, and it’s you.
    0:40:39 Man, I’m telling you, you can get so much insight.
    0:40:46 So if you go to Glassdoor, you sort by negative, and you look at the negative reviews, and then you look at the positive reviews, and the truth is in the middle.
    0:40:50 And I’m telling you, you can learn so much information about what people are complaining about.
    0:40:56 All right, I got a public service announcement for all the tech founders that are listening to this.
    0:40:59 Listen, job number one for you is to get customers.
    0:41:01 And ideally, the bigger the customers, the better.
    0:41:05 And I know when I was trying to do that, we would get somebody interested.
    0:41:09 Oh, man, this is a big Fortune 500 company, or it’s a company that’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars.
    0:41:10 They want to work with us.
    0:41:10 This is so exciting.
    0:41:15 And then we hit the wall, and the wall was the security and compliance team.
    0:41:22 And all of a sudden, we could not land our biggest customers just because we were shooting ourselves in the foot by not being security ready and compliant.
    0:41:25 And so if you want to solve this, use Vanta.
    0:41:27 Vanta is an all-in-one solution.
    0:41:28 It helps you get audit ready.
    0:41:29 And it’s quick.
    0:41:30 It’s painless.
    0:41:30 It’s easy.
    0:41:32 They’re the number one guys at doing this.
    0:41:34 There are 8,000 companies that use them.
    0:41:35 YC companies use them.
    0:41:36 We use them.
    0:41:46 And so if you want Vanta to help simplify your security and compliance program, to help you streamline anything, take all those manual security tasks and automate them, you should use Vanta.
    0:41:48 If you listen to this, you actually get $1,000 off Vanta, too.
    0:41:49 So we got a deal for you.
    0:41:51 Go to Vanta.com slash million.
    0:41:55 That’s V-A-N-T-A dot com slash million.
    0:41:56 Use Vanta.
    0:41:57 That’s what all the cool kids are doing.
    0:42:03 Were you ever on Glassdoor with any of your companies?
    0:42:06 Like, was the hustle on Glassdoor?
    0:42:06 Yeah.
    0:42:10 And I didn’t look because the only people that left reviews were the people I fired.
    0:42:11 Correct.
    0:42:14 And do you think that they had an accurate view of, like, the company?
    0:42:18 Well, it’s an accurate view of the people who disliked me.
    0:42:22 Like, so, but there’s, like, there’s, like, so, like, what, I don’t even want to read it.
    0:42:23 But what’s it say?
    0:42:24 I’m trying to go.
    0:42:29 I don’t know if we have one anymore because we haven’t been in business for, like, independently for years.
    0:42:29 They could have shut it down.
    0:42:37 But, like, it was probably, like, the management is good, but the CEO, like, moves too fast and, like, is not communicating well.
    0:42:38 Which is, like, probably true.
    0:42:41 Too handsome, too ripped, moves too fast.
    0:42:44 Well, like, I would, like, make decisions, like, I’m, like, this feels…
    0:42:45 Intimidatingly smart.
    0:42:49 I would, like, make decisions quickly and I would say, this is what we’re doing now.
    0:42:51 And I just wouldn’t, like, communicate with my managers.
    0:42:52 I would just say, this is it.
    0:42:57 I just can’t believe you, like, reading the reviews of whiny employees of other companies.
    0:43:00 I just, like, what do you really get out of it?
    0:43:00 Like…
    0:43:02 It reveals so much truth.
    0:43:03 Like, it could say, like…
    0:43:06 But that thing you said is true about, like, every company.
    0:43:08 You know, like…
    0:43:09 Yeah, but, like, it could be…
    0:43:10 The CEO likes to move fast.
    0:43:11 It could be, like…
    0:43:17 Let’s say there’s this new startup and it says, like, you know, the market…
    0:43:21 Like, we were going to do, like, a BetterUp.
    0:43:22 You know what BetterUp is?
    0:43:23 It’s, like, a coaching platform for…
    0:43:25 Before Hampton, we were thinking about getting into that.
    0:43:26 And I read the reviews of BetterUp.
    0:43:30 And the reviews were, like, business boomed during COVID.
    0:43:33 But now we can’t get anyone to sign up for online coaching.
    0:43:37 So that’s, like, an interesting, like, macro insight into the market of coaching.
    0:43:39 Like, it boomed during COVID.
    0:43:39 Okay, that’s good.
    0:43:39 I like that.
    0:43:43 And so you’ll see that on, like, four different coaching platforms, glass door reviews.
    0:43:48 Or, like, you know, our valuation, if you see this in, like, five different ones, is way too high.
    0:43:50 I have no idea how we’re ever going to grow in this.
    0:43:54 That’s not something that you want to see on four different glass doors of companies in the same industry.
    0:43:56 So you get, like, insights like that.
    0:43:59 Or it could be, like, CEOs amazing at press.
    0:44:01 Don’t believe everything you see.
    0:44:06 And if you see a bunch of those, then I think to myself, oh, I’ve been, like, basing a lot of my insights off of public articles.
    0:44:08 I don’t know if I should actually do that.
    0:44:09 Do you know what I mean?
    0:44:20 Yeah, I just, I personally wouldn’t do, like, you know, I personally wouldn’t trust it because I think you’re going to get a lot of basically false negatives in this that would spook you.
    0:44:25 So, for example, did you ever work at a company that had Blind?
    0:44:28 I didn’t work at a company when that existed.
    0:44:29 No.
    0:44:31 Or, like, HubSpot probably had one.
    0:44:32 You probably just didn’t join it.
    0:44:38 But, like, Blind is basically a private social network.
    0:44:39 So let’s say you work at a big company.
    0:44:40 There’s an app called Blind.
    0:44:41 You log in.
    0:44:44 You have to use your, I think you have to show that you have a work email there.
    0:44:47 So, like, only people who work at the company can see it and can post there.
    0:44:48 And it still exists.
    0:44:49 But it’s all anonymous.
    0:44:50 Yeah, it still exists.
    0:44:51 And it’s all anonymous.
    0:44:56 And it’s basically just, like, a back channel for people to bitch and moan and complain.
    0:45:04 And then the upside would be that they, you know, there’s kind of, like, a whistleblower-y type of thing where you can call out hard truths that you’re not going to call out.
    0:45:07 But the reality is that it was all just complaints.
    0:45:10 And the problem was it was misguided complaints.
    0:45:14 So, like, for example, at Twitch, it’s like I was on the exec team.
    0:45:16 So I knew all the numbers of the company.
    0:45:17 I knew what was going on.
    0:45:18 I knew the strategy.
    0:45:19 I knew who was smart.
    0:45:21 I knew who wasn’t because I’m sitting with these people every day.
    0:45:31 And then you read a review on blind or, like, a post on blind from someone who’s, like, a, you know, just like a mid-level employee, you know, some engineering manager somewhere.
    0:45:35 They would often be like, oh, you know, there’s no way we’re going to hit our numbers.
    0:45:36 I’m like, dude, we’re hitting our numbers.
    0:45:37 What are you talking about?
    0:45:39 I could see the numbers.
    0:45:40 You don’t have access to the numbers.
    0:45:43 So you’re just, like, you know, just talking out your ass, basically.
    0:45:48 But, and the loudest, most sort of extreme voices would get the most play, right?
    0:45:49 They would get the most attention.
    0:45:56 And so it’s the same way, like, when Dropbox launches on Hacker News and the top comment is, like, no one’s ever going to use this.
    0:46:00 And he can give you a highly intelligent breakdown of why nobody’s ever going to use Dropbox.
    0:46:01 And then Dropbox becomes, like, so big, right?
    0:46:16 So I think, like, a lot of these message board, anonymous message board type things are too biased towards negativity from people who don’t have real information and are too prone to false negatives to be trusted.
    0:46:25 So, like, for every example you could find where you get signal, you’re going to find countersignal, which means to me I can’t use this because I can’t differentiate signal and countersignal properly.
    0:46:26 Only hindsight, you know?
    0:46:38 No, I think if you read enough of them, I think you can start it, like, for example, if you’re trying to understand, like, a macro trend or industry analysis, I think you can see trends in the Glassdoor reviews.
    0:46:43 And I think that it could help paint a picture, but not be, it’s not a fact.
    0:46:47 It’s just, like, is this, like, does this jive with other sources that I’m learning about?
    0:46:48 So that’s why I’m on board with it.
    0:46:50 By the way, I agree to disagree.
    0:46:50 Like, I think you’re right.
    0:46:51 I think you’re right.
    0:46:52 I don’t think you’re wrong.
    0:46:55 I think there’s some problems with it, but there’s some utility.
    0:46:57 You’re the only guy I know who uses it, which I find, like, funny.
    0:47:00 Well, like, I wanted to learn about the CEO.
    0:47:03 And I’m like, what makes a CEO so great?
    0:47:08 And I read an article about him, and it was like, don’t mistake this guy’s gentleness for ruthlessness.
    0:47:13 It said, don’t mistake Asaf’s gentleness for someone who is willing to play by the rules.
    0:47:13 Yeah.
    0:47:15 And I was like, that’s, like, an interesting title.
    0:47:20 So this guy’s, like, must be, like, a really nice guy, but he’s ruthless and he’s kind of a killer.
    0:47:22 That’s, like, an interesting trait.
    0:47:25 Like, is there, like, is there, like, anything I can learn from his personality?
    0:47:34 And I went and read his Glassdoor reviews, and he had glowing reviews as a CEO where people are, like, nice guy, but total hard ass.
    0:47:43 And I just thought, like, that is a, that mix, those mixes of, those two traits when you mix, like, you could be polite and, like, hardcore.
    0:47:44 I respect that.
    0:47:45 I like that.
    0:47:47 Is this a person I want to learn for?
    0:47:47 Learn from.
    0:47:53 That was kind of, like, my insight from looking at the Glassdoor reviews and also reading interviews, things like that.
    0:47:54 Right, right.
    0:47:55 And so I just thought it was fascinating.
    0:47:57 But we had Mark Laurie of the pod.
    0:48:03 Mark started Diapers.com, which he grew, like, during, like, the dot-com boom, and he sold for hundreds of millions of dollars.
    0:48:06 Then he did the same with Jet.com, sold that for billions of dollars.
    0:48:07 Now he’s got a new thing.
    0:48:07 Have you seen this new thing?
    0:48:09 It’s called, I think, Wonder.
    0:48:10 Wonder, yeah.
    0:48:12 And he had this thing when he came on the pod.
    0:48:16 By the way, when he came on the pod, we could tell that he didn’t have a laptop.
    0:48:19 And we were like, are you calling from your iPhone?
    0:48:21 And he was like, yeah, I don’t use laptops.
    0:48:24 And we were like, is that, like, a billionaire thing?
    0:48:25 And he was like.
    0:48:26 He was awesome, by the way.
    0:48:27 I love that guy’s energy.
    0:48:32 Like, he was super positive, super energetic, super optimistic.
    0:48:34 He was great, right?
    0:48:34 Charismatic.
    0:48:35 He was fun.
    0:48:36 He was a fun guest to have on the pod.
    0:48:37 I would love to have him on.
    0:48:38 Yeah, we got to get him back on.
    0:48:41 Well, on the pod, we asked him how he did it.
    0:48:46 And he had one phrase that has always stuck with me because it was almost like saying, I’ll explain why it’s
    0:48:46 stuck with me.
    0:48:49 But it was called Vision, Capital, and People.
    0:48:51 He goes, those are the three things I care about.
    0:48:55 He goes, I find a really big idea and a big opportunity.
    0:48:57 I raise a ton of money.
    0:48:58 And then I go and hire the best people.
    0:49:01 And I pay them all of that money that I raise.
    0:49:04 And I sort of get out of the way and let them do the work.
    0:49:07 And I have a bootstrap company.
    0:49:10 You have only done bootstrap, mostly done bootstrap companies.
    0:49:14 It’s really hard to do that because you don’t have a lot of money to pay people.
    0:49:15 So you’re doing the work.
    0:49:16 So it feels like a grind.
    0:49:21 And this company, Wiz, is sort of a good example of the founders.
    0:49:23 They found amazing opportunity.
    0:49:25 They raised shitloads of money.
    0:49:30 And this is a perfect example of how it’s done when you have a really big idea and you have
    0:49:32 a really big opportunity and you have a ton of money.
    0:49:37 And I think it’s as hard as a bootstrap startup.
    0:49:38 Do you know what I mean?
    0:49:40 They’re of equal challenging and stressfulness.
    0:49:42 Equal?
    0:49:43 I don’t know.
    0:49:48 This scaling at breakneck speed seems a lot more challenging to me.
    0:49:56 I think if you had a small bootstrap startup that was growing quickly, you would feel a similar amount of stress.
    0:50:02 But there is no chance that you would have a $32 billion exit in five years.
    0:50:13 One of the funny things about life is that if you decide to start a business, you’re going to spend, let’s just call it, 10 hours a day, maybe 12 early on, just obsessed.
    0:50:14 Your mind is just obsessed with this company.
    0:50:17 10 hours a day, 12 hours a day, every single day.
    0:50:19 It doesn’t matter if that’s a taco truck.
    0:50:22 It doesn’t matter if it’s whiz selling for $32 billion.
    0:50:26 It’s still going to take 10 to 12 hours a day of your time and mindshare.
    0:50:39 It’s still going to stress you out pretty much equally if you are doing a thing that’s, you know, $1 million in ARR and you’re trying to pay the bills and you’re trying to pay yourself and you’re trying to grow and you’re trying to do all those things.
    0:50:40 Well, guess what?
    0:50:42 These guys are also trying to pay the bills, trying to grow, trying to do all that stuff.
    0:50:48 So you’re right, like the stress levels are more based on you as a person than the company that you’re doing.
    0:50:54 And the time is equal whether you have, you know, it doesn’t matter how many zeros are at the end of the size of the business.
    0:50:57 This was probably one of the most important lessons my dad taught me.
    0:51:00 He was like, my first business was in the restaurant industry.
    0:51:03 And my dad worked in oil and gas his whole life.
    0:51:04 He worked for BP.
    0:51:08 And so he was like, yeah, the energy industry is just like the restaurant industry.
    0:51:14 You’re going to spend the same 10 hours a day, except in this one, there’s three extra zeros on the end of every project.
    0:51:18 And so would you rather spend that same time on a small project or a bigger project?
    0:51:20 Like that’s what you’re deciding between here.
    0:51:22 And I was like, okay.
    0:51:23 Which is sort of hard to hear, right?
    0:51:26 Like you’re like, I’m dedicating my life to this thing.
    0:51:29 You’re dedicating your life to this thing, but your prize is so much bigger.
    0:51:31 I didn’t think it was hard to hear.
    0:51:32 I was like, oh, that’s the truth.
    0:51:33 Okay, cool.
    0:51:33 Thank you.
    0:51:34 Like, okay, what do I do?
    0:51:38 And then I pretty much immediately switched and went and did a biotech thing with him in Australia.
    0:51:42 Like, you know, I was like, I was pretty ready to hear the truth.
    0:51:47 I think that most people you’re right don’t like to hear the truth.
    0:51:55 I like to hear the truth because I realized that basically the truth, while short-term painful, is actually long-term less painful.
    0:51:58 And I think most people don’t like the short-term pain.
    0:52:00 They’re willing to have long-term pain.
    0:52:02 Have you been following these guys, like getting acquired?
    0:52:06 Was there anything that you liked about the story or that stuck out to you?
    0:52:09 Well, remember when we first brought this up?
    0:52:12 We first brought this up because Wiz was rumored to be selling for $23 billion.
    0:52:19 And then something happened where it was like, no, that’s just a rumor or Google couldn’t do it because of antitrust.
    0:52:21 Or for some reason, the deal wasn’t going to happen.
    0:52:29 And if you remember, Asaf came out and he tweeted this like kind of like badass memo where it was like, first, deal information got leaked.
    0:52:32 They’re in rumors about an acquisition for $23 billion.
    0:52:36 Then he releases this thing and he’s like, we’re not looking to get acquired.
    0:52:39 I think he said like, let me cut to the chase.
    0:52:42 Our next milestones are a billion in ARR and an IPO.
    0:52:44 And everyone’s like, yeah, that’s it.
    0:52:45 That guy’s a killer.
    0:52:49 And most of us were like, most of us on the sideline were like, oh, nice negotiating.
    0:52:54 Like pretty sure it’s going to sell for, I don’t know, $25, $30 billion in the next 12 months.
    0:52:56 And that’s exactly what happened.
    0:52:59 It sold for $30 billion, $32 billion in the next 12 months.
    0:53:00 It like came exactly true.
    0:53:02 What a lot of people noticed, which was like.
    0:53:03 What was the first offer?
    0:53:05 The first offer was like $20 or $18?
    0:53:06 $23 billion.
    0:53:08 So we got $10 billion, $10 extra billion.
    0:53:13 And I don’t even know that the $23 billion was on the table.
    0:53:15 Maybe the $23 billion was what he wanted at the time.
    0:53:17 And they continued to grow.
    0:53:19 And this is all part of the negotiation, right?
    0:53:27 It’s not, this didn’t, I don’t think this leaked because somebody really just wanted the world to know.
    0:53:32 You know, this is part of a public negotiation.
    0:53:33 It’s a price setting.
    0:53:33 It’s an anchoring.
    0:53:37 It’s getting the second bidder to up their bid.
    0:53:39 There’s a whole bunch of stuff happening there.
    0:53:42 And when a CEO is like, we want to be independent.
    0:53:43 And it’s like, yeah, you do.
    0:53:47 But if the price is right, you know, we’ll see.
    0:53:48 We’ll see what happens.
    0:53:50 And almost always, once the price is right, they do it.
    0:53:54 I love hearing about this story.
    0:53:55 I’m very excited.
    0:54:01 The time that we’ve worked on this podcast, this guy has built and sold a $32 billion company.
    0:54:09 Well, when you put it like that.
    0:54:11 Yeah.
    0:54:13 But does he have 650,000 subscribers on YouTube?
    0:54:14 Probably not.
    0:54:17 And now he will try to.
    0:54:19 I bet you this guy’s going to get into podcasting.
    0:54:21 That was the funniest tweet I saw the other day.
    0:54:24 It goes, even kings and billionaires want to be podcasters.
    0:54:26 And I was like, it’s true, dude.
    0:54:32 Like you see, you know, whether it’s billionaires on the All In podcast or, you know, Bill Gurley
    0:54:40 and his podcast, you have Bill Gurley’s podcast, Elon is tweeting and like crazy and trying to be trying to get his word out there.
    0:54:44 You see Gavin Newsom starting the new, then his new podcast.
    0:54:47 They want, they all want what we got, Sam.
    0:54:49 They all want what we got.
    0:54:50 And we’ll sell it to them for $32 billion.
    0:54:52 It’s always been this way.
    0:55:03 You know, you look at like who has bought Time Magazine and with Washington Post and Bezos, you know, king or once you’ve, once you’re rich, you always want to be king.
    0:55:08 And to be king oftentimes is to own a media company for some reason.
    0:55:10 It’s been that way for hundreds of years.
    0:55:14 Yeah, it’s basically just like, there’s three buckets.
    0:55:18 If you’re rich, but lack status, you’re going to chase status.
    0:55:20 If you’re high status, but no money, you’re going to chase money.
    0:55:23 And if you have rich and status, you’re going to chase power.
    0:55:25 Those are the three.
    0:55:27 You will fill those up.
    0:55:36 Like somebody, I have a friend who’s, who, who knows Elon and he was telling me, he’s like, Elon gets all this criticism right now for, for backing Trump and Doge and all this stuff.
    0:55:43 And the thing people say is like, you know, he’s doing this to make, like, he’s doing this to like give Tesla or whatever an unfair advantage.
    0:55:44 He’s doing this to enrich himself.
    0:55:46 And he’s like, are you an idiot?
    0:55:48 He’s like, he’s not doing this to enrich himself.
    0:55:50 He wants status.
    0:55:54 Like, like, not that, oh, he’s doing this altruistically, but he wants status.
    0:55:58 That’s, of course, what people want when they, when they’re, when they have the money, they want the status.
    0:56:00 And when they have the status, they want the power.
    0:56:04 Like, those are the three, like, things that draw people to do crazy stuff.
    0:56:07 Yeah, he wants something, but it’s not money.
    0:56:13 Yeah, he’s got, I think at this point, when you have that much money, more money is probably boring.
    0:56:23 His father did a good thing on DJ Vlad, where he was talking about how he was like, Elon, I knew after he sold Zip2 that he wouldn’t stop until he was number one.
    0:56:24 The richest person in the world.
    0:56:25 He’s like, I knew that.
    0:56:29 Yeah, he goes, I, uh, he goes, I knew that was, that’s what he wanted to do.
    0:56:32 And he would never stop until he was number one.
    0:56:33 I could tell he was like that since he was a kid.
    0:56:36 Wait, so Elon’s dad did an interview with Vlad TV?
    0:56:37 Yeah.
    0:56:38 Didn’t we talk about this?
    0:56:40 Um, yeah, there’s a dude.
    0:56:42 What else was in this?
    0:56:42 This is incredible.
    0:56:47 So Vlad TV, part of black YouTube, one of my favorite niches of YouTube.
    0:56:51 Uh, he had, uh, what’s Elon’s dad’s name?
    0:56:53 I don’t know.
    0:56:53 I forget.
    0:56:54 Or something like that.
    0:56:55 Ah, I forget his name.
    0:56:58 He had his dad on, uh, the other day.
    0:57:00 And DJ Vlad is weird.
    0:57:02 He never just releases the whole episode.
    0:57:02 Errol.
    0:57:03 Errol Musk.
    0:57:03 Errol.
    0:57:08 He like releases like clips and he’s been releasing clips over the past month of this
    0:57:09 interview.
    0:57:14 And he talks about what Elon was like as a kid and how like, are the rumors true that you
    0:57:15 are rich?
    0:57:20 And it sounds like this guy and Elon are exactly the same where he made some money and then he’s
    0:57:23 like, we’re going to spend it all buying this farm and turn this farm into a thing.
    0:57:24 And it went broke.
    0:57:26 And he’s like, well, I’m going to come with some other people to give me money.
    0:57:27 We’re going to start this new thing.
    0:57:28 And that worked.
    0:57:30 And he went rich and bust like constantly.
    0:57:33 And he was like, I loaned Elon money to start zip two.
    0:57:35 And that turned into $30 million.
    0:57:40 And I knew when he made that money, he was never going to stop until he was number one.
    0:57:43 And he just tells these crazy stories along the way.
    0:57:45 Dude, we need to do a whole reacts video.
    0:57:46 Was the interview good?
    0:57:47 It’s pretty good.
    0:57:53 It’s shocking that like, if my father said any of this shit publicly, it’s weird, dude.
    0:57:59 It makes, it’s very like, they talk exactly the same the way they’re, they’re all the
    0:58:01 comments are like, his laugh is a DNA test in itself.
    0:58:05 Or they’re timestamping and it says, I swear, this is Elon.
    0:58:06 The face mimics it.
    0:58:08 The way he laughs, the way he rolls his eyes.
    0:58:09 I could see Elon here.
    0:58:12 This is, this is a, this laugh is a paternity test.
    0:58:15 Like the spacing and words, you know how Elon talks slow.
    0:58:18 He has like a very like unique structure, how he talks.
    0:58:20 It’s exactly the same.
    0:58:23 And his dad is insane, by the way.
    0:58:26 Like there’s like some crazy story about how he is now married to his stepdaughter.
    0:58:29 Like he does some wacky ass shit.
    0:58:30 He’s married to his stepdaughter.
    0:58:31 Something weird like that.
    0:58:33 He has a kid with a stepdaughter.
    0:58:34 Yeah.
    0:58:39 And there’s a, and there’s like, just when he’s talking, you see, I understand why the
    0:58:44 children who you raised, why they’re insane and why they’re ultra, like in order to be
    0:58:47 ultra successful, you have to have some type of like weird, like daddy issue.
    0:58:49 And I see him and I’m like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
    0:58:50 I get why you have a daddy issue.
    0:58:51 Cause you’re insane.
    0:58:52 Like he reveals stuff.
    0:58:56 Like he’ll be like, yeah, Elon like was crying to me when he was like 23.
    0:59:01 And I thought how weak, like he like, like we’ll tell a story where he’s like disrespecting his
    0:59:03 son in front of everyone.
    0:59:04 And I’m like, oh, you’re an asshole.
    0:59:06 That’s why your son behaves this way.
    0:59:09 Sometimes it’s like a very interesting interview.
    0:59:11 And it was, has been totally under talked about.
    0:59:12 Yeah.
    0:59:13 This is crazy.
    0:59:15 This is a two and a half hour interview.
    0:59:16 Oh, did he release the whole thing?
    0:59:17 Finally?
    0:59:18 When did that get released?
    0:59:23 Normally when he normally does like clips, like he releases two and a half hour interview
    0:59:24 released a month ago.
    0:59:26 Um, how many views does it have?
    0:59:28 171,000.
    0:59:29 That’s it.
    0:59:29 Yeah.
    0:59:37 Just, just to put that into, uh, into perspective here, DJ Vlad’s most popular interview.
    0:59:41 Um, is with, let’s see, who’s he got here?
    0:59:43 Uh, Boozy.
    0:59:45 Boozy has six point, six and a half million views.
    0:59:47 Cardi B, 5.7 million.
    0:59:50 I mean, Boozy’s a good, a good listen.
    0:59:53 It’s a great interview.
    0:59:54 DaBaby, 5 million.
    1:00:01 So we’re going to have to like watch the whole thing, but there’s like crazy good insight into
    1:00:01 all this.
    1:00:06 And, um, it, like my takeaway from all this is like, it’s not worth being successful if you
    1:00:09 and your father are, behave this way to one another.
    1:00:14 Um, like it’s very strange to see, like, you don’t have to be a psychologist to like watch
    1:00:19 this and be like, uh, I, I understand why this family screwed up.
    1:00:19 Yeah.
    1:00:19 I’ve messed up family.
    1:00:21 Okay.
    1:00:22 Wow.
    1:00:22 That’s amazing.
    1:00:23 All right.
    1:00:25 Corporate, corporate espionage stories.
    1:00:27 You got what you wanted ever.
    1:00:31 Remember everything on this podcast is allegedly, and this is a comedy podcast.
    1:00:32 Thank you very much.
    1:00:33 Uh, don’t come after us.
    1:00:34 All right.
    1:00:34 That’s it.
    1:00:34 That’s the pod.
    1:00:37 I feel like I can rule the world.
    1:00:39 I know I could be what I want to.
    1:00:43 I put my all in it like no days off on the road.
    1:00:44 Let’s travel.
    1:00:45 Never looking back.
    1:00:51 Hey, Sean here.
    1:00:53 I want to take a minute to tell you a David Ogilvie story.
    1:00:54 One of the great ad men.
    1:00:57 He said, remember the consumer is not a moron.
    1:00:58 She’s your wife.
    1:01:00 You wouldn’t lie to your own wife.
    1:01:01 So don’t lie to mine.
    1:01:03 And I love that you guys, you’re my family.
    1:01:05 You’re like my wife and I won’t lie to you either.
    1:01:09 So I’ll tell you the truth for every company I own right now, six companies.
    1:01:12 I use Mercury for all of them.
    1:01:16 So I’m proud to partner with Mercury because I use it for all of my banking needs across my
    1:01:18 personal account, my business accounts.
    1:01:20 And anytime I start a new company, it’s my first move.
    1:01:21 I go open up a Mercury account.
    1:01:24 I’m very confident in recommending it because I actually use it.
    1:01:25 I’ve used it for years.
    1:01:26 It is the best product on the market.
    1:01:32 So if you want to be like me and 200,000 other ambitious founders, go to mercury.com and apply
    1:01:33 in minutes.
    1:01:36 And remember, Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank.
    1:01:41 Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group and Evolve Bank and Trust members, FDIC.
    1:01:42 All right, back to the episode.

    💰 Get the Side Hustle Ideas Database [free]

    Episode 689: Sam Parr ( https://x.com/theSamParr ) and Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) break down the craziest stories of corporate espionage in history. 

    Show Notes: 

    (0:00) Rippling vs Deel

    (10:21) The British East India Company

    (17:11) Oracle vs Microsoft

    (21:28) Coke vs. Pepsi

    (24:14) Uber vs. Waymo

    (26:03) U.S. Intellectual piracy

    (28:10) Wiz sells for $32B

    (39:40) A case for Glassdoor

    (45:54) Marc Lore’s new thing

    (51:52) Money, Status, Power

    Links:

    • Errol Musk interview – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5WyTw0oXDs

    • Gili Ranaan interview – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG0SiUtBSh0&t=187s&ab_channel=MetisStrategy 

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    Need to hire? You should use the same service Shaan uses to hire developers, designers, & Virtual Assistants → it’s called Shepherd (tell ‘em Shaan sent you): https://bit.ly/SupportShepherd

    Check Out Sam’s Stuff:

    • Hampton – https://www.joinhampton.com/

    • Ideation Bootcamp – https://www.ideationbootcamp.co/

    • Copy That – https://copythat.com

    • Hampton Wealth Survey – https://joinhampton.com/wealth

    • Sam’s List – http://samslist.co/

    My First Million is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by HubSpot Media // Production by Arie Desormeaux // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano

  • Jensen Huang and Arthur Mensch on Winning the Global AI Race

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 This is the greatest force of reducing the technology divide the world’s ever known.
    0:00:12 It will have an impact on GDP of every country in the double digits in the coming years.
    0:00:15 Nobody’s going to do this for you. You’ve got to do it yourself.
    0:00:21 It’s up to organizations, to enterprises, to countries to build what they need.
    0:00:27 The stakes at play are basically the equivalent of modern digital colonialization.
    0:00:30 AI isn’t just computing infrastructure, it’s also cultural infrastructure.
    0:00:40 The race for AI dominance is not only constrained to companies, but is increasingly capturing the attention of countries.
    0:00:44 And that includes the infrastructure spanning every layer of the stack.
    0:00:50 The chips, the models, the applications, plus the energy required to run these, quote, AI factories,
    0:00:57 the talent needed to produce them, and well-designed policy that helps not hinders this entire ecosystem.
    0:01:01 And all of this together is turning critical.
    0:01:04 Setup is always hard. This is no different.
    0:01:06 The only question is, do you need to do it?
    0:01:16 If you want to be part of the future, and this is the most consequential technology of all time, not just our time, of all time.
    0:01:20 Digital intelligence, how much more valuable, how much more important can it be?
    0:01:29 In today’s episode, we explore sovereign AI, and this regional race for AI infrastructure across countries, big and small.
    0:01:35 And there is truly no one better to discuss this than our guests, Jensen Huang and Arthur Mensch.
    0:01:40 Jensen, of course, is the inimitable co-founder and longtime CEO of NVIDIA,
    0:01:47 a company known for its constant reinvention and ability to place critical bets like the GPU or graphics processing unit
    0:01:54 that has propelled it to be one of the largest companies at over $3 trillion in market cap as of this recording.
    0:02:01 Of course, the products that NVIDIA makes, like the GPU, are also the backbone to so much of our digital world today.
    0:02:04 Arthur, on the other hand, is the co-founder and CEO of Mistral,
    0:02:09 a leading AI lab that focuses on customizable, open-source frontier models,
    0:02:14 but also a growing number of tools to help companies, and even countries, engage with AI.
    0:02:19 Today, Arthur and Jensen sit down with A16’s e-general partner, Anjane Mera,
    0:02:23 as they explore the role of digital intelligence at the nation level,
    0:02:29 and how countries should think about ownership, codifying their culture, and the role that open-source should play.
    0:02:31 All right, let’s get started.
    0:02:37 As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only,
    0:02:40 should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice,
    0:02:42 or be used to evaluate any investment or security,
    0:02:47 and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
    0:02:53 Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
    0:02:58 For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com slash disclosures.
    0:03:09 Today we’re talking about sovereign AI, all things national infrastructure and open-source.
    0:03:15 So, let’s just start with the first question I usually get from nation-state leaders,
    0:03:17 which is, is AI actually a general-purpose technology?
    0:03:23 In the history of humanity, we’ve had maybe a handful of these, 22, 24.
    0:03:29 Economists call these specific technologies that accelerate economic progress broadly across society.
    0:03:31 Electricity, the printing press.
    0:03:36 And the question everybody’s asking right now, is that the right way to think about AI?
    0:03:41 Or why isn’t AI just another important, but ultimately narrow technology?
    0:03:46 I think it’s a general-purpose technology because it basically revisits entirely the way we are building software
    0:03:48 and the way we are using machines.
    0:03:53 And so, in the same way that internet was a general-purpose technology, AI is a general-purpose technology here.
    0:03:58 It allows you to build agents that are doing things on your behalf.
    0:04:02 And in that respect, it can be used in any vertical of the industry.
    0:04:05 It can be used for services, for public services.
    0:04:08 It can be used to change the life of citizens.
    0:04:09 It can be used for agriculture.
    0:04:12 It can obviously be used for defense purposes.
    0:04:15 So, it covers everything that a state needs to worry about.
    0:04:20 And so, in that respect, it’s very natural that any state makes it a priority
    0:04:22 and makes it a dedicated national AI strategy.
    0:04:25 By the way, everything Arthur said is 100% correct.
    0:04:30 It is also exactly the reason why everybody’s given up.
    0:04:32 And it’s precisely wrong.
    0:04:34 And the reason for that is this.
    0:04:39 If it’s a general-purpose technology and one company can build the ultimate general-purpose technology,
    0:04:41 then why shouldn’t anybody else do it?
    0:04:43 And that is the flaw.
    0:04:46 But that’s also the mind trick.
    0:04:54 To convince everyone that intelligence is only something that a few people ought to go build.
    0:04:55 Everybody ought to sit back and wait for it.
    0:04:59 I would advise that everybody engage AI.
    0:05:04 And it is not just a few companies in the world who should build it.
    0:05:05 Everybody should build it.
    0:05:09 Nobody’s going to care more about the Swedish culture and the Swedish language
    0:05:13 and the Swedish people and the Swedish ecosystem more than Sweden.
    0:05:19 Nobody’s going to care about the ecosystem of Saudi Arabia more than Saudi Arabia.
    0:05:21 And nobody’s going to care about Israel more than Israel.
    0:05:26 Despite the fact that the technology is general-purpose and absolutely true.
    0:05:28 How could intelligence not be general-purpose?
    0:05:31 It is also hyper-specialized.
    0:05:34 And the reason for that is because, let’s face it,
    0:05:42 I don’t think I’m waiting around for a general-purpose chatbot to be an expert in a particular area of disease.
    0:05:47 I still think that I would prefer to have somebody who is hyper-specialized in that field
    0:05:54 to fine-tune, to train, and post-train, if you will, an AI model that’s going to be specialized in that.
    0:06:00 It’s a general-purpose technology the same way a programming language is a general-purpose technology.
    0:06:05 And in addition to that, it’s also a culture-carrying technology.
    0:06:10 So I think what that means is that there’s an infrastructure.
    0:06:14 There are chips that obviously not every country are going to build.
    0:06:18 There are general-purpose models like base models, compression of the web,
    0:06:20 that are eventually going to be open source,
    0:06:24 and that can serve as the right basis for constructing specialized systems.
    0:06:31 But beyond that, I think it’s up to organizations, to enterprises, to countries, to build what they need.
    0:06:37 So the way to make it work is to take a general-purpose model, like an open-source model, for instance,
    0:06:46 and to get the knowledge you have specifically, or ask your citizens or ask your employees to distill their knowledge into the systems,
    0:06:48 into the agents that are going to be working on your behalf,
    0:06:55 so that progressively those agents become more accurate in following the instructions
    0:06:58 and the specifications that a country or an enterprise may have.
    0:07:04 So you need vertical experts, or you need cultural experts,
    0:07:10 or you need people with a certain national agenda to partner with technological companies
    0:07:16 that can expose the open-source infrastructure in a way that is easy to use,
    0:07:19 and in a way that is easy to specialize.
    0:07:21 So I think that’s where the frontier lies.
    0:07:25 It’s a very horizontal technology, but to make anything useful out of it,
    0:07:28 you need the partnership between the horizontal providers and the vertical experts.
    0:07:32 But unlike previous general-purpose technology waves in history,
    0:07:36 like electricity or the printing press, how is this one different?
    0:07:39 If I’m a nation-state leader and I’m trying to understand what the right framework is
    0:07:44 for me to think about AI in my country, should I think about it like digital labor,
    0:07:46 or should I think about it as akin to bridges?
    0:07:50 I think it’s similar to electricity in the sense that it will have an impact on GDP
    0:07:54 of every country in the double digits in the coming years.
    0:07:56 So that means that from an economical point of view,
    0:07:59 every nation needs to worry about it.
    0:08:01 Because if they don’t manage to set up infrastructure,
    0:08:05 to set up their own sovereign capacities at the right place,
    0:08:08 that means that this is money that might flow back to other countries.
    0:08:11 So that’s changing the economic equilibrium across the world.
    0:08:14 In the sense, that’s not very different from electricity.
    0:08:18 A hundred years ago, if you weren’t building electricity factories,
    0:08:20 you were preparing yourself to buy it from your neighbors,
    0:08:24 which at the end of the day isn’t great because it creates some dependencies.
    0:08:25 I think in that sense it is similar.
    0:08:29 What is fairly different, I think there’s two things.
    0:08:32 First of all, it’s kind of an amorphic technology.
    0:08:35 If you want to create digital labor with it, you need to shape it.
    0:08:38 You need to have infrastructure, talent, and software.
    0:08:40 And the talent needs to be created locally.
    0:08:41 I think this is quite important.
    0:08:45 And the reason for that is that, in contrast with electricity,
    0:08:47 this is a content-producing technology.
    0:08:51 So you have agents that are producing content, that are producing text,
    0:08:54 producing images, producing voice, interacting with people.
    0:08:58 And when you’re producing content and interacting with society,
    0:08:59 you become a social construct.
    0:09:07 And in that respect, social constructs carry cultures and values of either an enterprise or a country.
    0:09:12 And so if you want those values not to disappear and not to depend on a central provider,
    0:09:17 you need to engage with it more profoundly than you would be to engage with electricity, for instance.
    0:09:18 Would you agree with that, Jensen?
    0:09:20 A couple of ways to think about it.
    0:09:32 Your country’s digital intelligence is not likely something you would want to outsource to a third party without some consideration.
    0:09:37 Your digital intelligence is just now a new infrastructure for you.
    0:09:43 Your telecommunications, your healthcare, your education, your highways, your electricity.
    0:09:47 This new layer is your digital intelligence.
    0:09:51 It’s your responsibility to decide how you want this digital intelligence to evolve.
    0:09:56 And whether you want to outsource it so that you could never have to worry about intelligence again,
    0:09:59 or this is something that you feel you want to engage,
    0:10:03 maybe even control and shape into a national infrastructure.
    0:10:06 Of course, it has all the things that Arthur said,
    0:10:10 AI factories, infrastructure, et cetera.
    0:10:13 There’s another way you could think about it is your digital workforce.
    0:10:15 Now this is a new layer.
    0:10:25 And you’ve got to decide whether the digital workforce of your country or your company is something that you decide to outsource,
    0:10:28 hope it evolves the way that you would like it to,
    0:10:36 Or is it something that you want to engage, maybe even decide to control and nurture and make better.
    0:10:40 We hire general purpose employees all the time.
    0:10:42 We hire them out of school.
    0:10:44 Some of them are more general purpose than others.
    0:10:46 Some of them are more intelligent than others.
    0:10:58 But once they become our employees, we decide to onboard them, train them, guardrail them, evaluate them, continuously improve them.
    0:11:09 We make the investment necessary to make general purpose intelligence into super intelligence that we could benefit from.
    0:11:19 And so I think that that second layer, thinking about it as a digital workforce, in both cases, it contributes to the national economy.
    0:11:22 In both cases, it contributes to social advance.
    0:11:25 In both cases, it contributes to the culture.
    0:11:32 And I think that in both cases, a country needs to play a very active role in it.
    0:11:37 And so I think it’s back to your original question about sovereign AI, how to think about it.
    0:11:43 Yes, it is definitely a general purpose technology, but you have to decide how to shape it.
    0:11:48 Your country’s digital data belongs to you.
    0:11:58 Your national library, your history, for so long as you want to digitize it, you could make it available to everybody in the world.
    0:12:04 You could also make it available to companies or researchers and institutions in your own country.
    0:12:05 It belongs to you.
    0:12:07 Of course, these are all vaporous things.
    0:12:11 They’re very soft ideas, but it does belong to you.
    0:12:15 And you could decide it belongs to you in the sense that this is where you came from.
    0:12:20 You could decide how to put it to use for the benefit of your people.
    0:12:25 And it belongs to you in the sense that it’s your responsibility to shape its future.
    0:12:26 Sovereign AI.
    0:12:28 It’s your responsibility.
    0:12:33 There are several other types of assets that nation states fund and protect.
    0:12:35 The military, your electricity grid.
    0:12:40 Let’s say I have understood now the criticality of AI infrastructure and sovereign AI.
    0:12:44 Do I have to now take control of every part of the stack?
    0:12:47 So Jensen mentions, I guess, digital workforce.
    0:12:47 Right.
    0:13:05 And I think it’s a very good analogy that you need an onboarding platform for your AI workforce, which means you need to be able to customize the models and pour the knowledge that are sitting in your national libraries into the model so that suddenly speaks better your language.
    0:13:13 You need to get your systems to know about your laws so that suddenly the guardrails that are set when you’re deploying an AI software are compliant.
    0:13:28 And so that onboarding platform that requires to customize, to evaluate, and then when noticing that certain things need to be improved to fix things, to debug things, that’s the platform that we are building.
    0:13:38 So being able to deploy systems that are easy to tune and working with these platform providers to do the custom systems.
    0:13:43 And once the custom systems are made, it’s important to be able to maintain them yourself.
    0:13:51 So that means being able to deploy them on your own infrastructure, being able to ask your technological partners to potentially disappear from the loop.
    0:13:57 Your IT department is going to become the HR department of your digital workforce.
    0:14:07 And they’re going to use these tools that Arthur describes to onboard AIs, fine-tune AIs, guard rail them, evaluate them, continuously improve them.
    0:14:07 Right.
    0:14:12 And that flywheel will be managed by the modern version of the IT department.
    0:14:13 Right.
    0:14:17 And we’ll have biological workforce and we’ll have a digital workforce.
    0:14:18 It’s fantastic.
    0:14:20 And so nobody’s going to do this for you.
    0:14:22 You’ve got to do it yourself.
    0:14:28 That’s why even though we have so many technology companies in the world, every company still has their own IT department.
    0:14:30 I’ve got my own IT department.
    0:14:31 I’m not going to outsource it to somebody else.
    0:14:37 In the future, they’ll be even more important to me because they’ll be helping us manage these digital workforces.
    0:14:39 You’re going to do this in every country.
    0:14:41 You’re going to do this in every company within those countries.
    0:14:54 And so the space for what Arthur is describing to take this general purpose technology, but to really fine-tune it into domain experts.
    0:15:01 They’re national experts or they’re industrial experts or they’re corporate experts or functional experts.
    0:15:06 This is the future, the giant future space of AI.
    0:15:09 So you both said something that I just want to make sure I’m understanding correctly.
    0:15:11 You called it a soft concept like your culture.
    0:15:15 And you said there are a bunch of norms that the training data has that you customize the models on.
    0:15:25 You said norms that exactly means it’s soft versus rules, which are more hard, or algorithms and laws, which are very specific.
    0:15:29 There’s different things that you want to incorporate into your AI systems.
    0:15:35 There are some elements of style and of knowledge that you’re not going to enforce through strict guardrails.
    0:15:39 That you can enforce through continuous training of models, for instance.
    0:15:42 You take preferences and you distill it into the models themselves.
    0:15:48 And then you have a set of laws, you have a set of policies if you’re in a company, and those are strict.
    0:15:56 And so usually the way you build it is that you connect the models to the strict rules and you make sure that every time it answers, you verify that the rules are respected.
    0:16:01 On one side, you’re pouring and compressing knowledge in a soft way into the models.
    0:16:08 And on the other side, you’re making sure that you have a certain number of policies and rules that are strictly enforced and that have 100% accuracy.
    0:16:12 So on one side, this is soft, this is preference, this is culture.
    0:16:13 Preference.
    0:16:15 Somebody’s preference is multidimensional.
    0:16:17 You know, what do you prefer?
    0:16:18 It depends.
    0:16:20 It’s implicit many times in communication.
    0:16:23 Well, there’s just so many, there’s so many features that defines my preference.
    0:16:29 It takes AI to be able to precisely comply with the description that Arthur was describing just now.
    0:16:32 Could you imagine if a human had to write this in Python?
    0:16:37 Describe every one of these, capture every one of these things in C++?
    0:16:39 Based on this, I prefer that.
    0:16:41 But if you did that, I prefer that other thing.
    0:16:43 And I mean, the number of rules would be insane.
    0:16:43 Right.
    0:16:47 Which is the reason why AI has the ability to codify all of this.
    0:16:51 It’s a new programming model that can deal with the ambiguity of life.
    0:16:55 Well, it sounds like you’re saying AI isn’t just computing infrastructure.
    0:16:56 It’s also cultural infrastructure.
    0:16:57 Yes, it is.
    0:17:07 And it’s about making sure that your cultural infrastructure and the human expertise that are in your company or in your country makes it to the AI systems.
    0:17:08 Right.
    0:17:09 Culture reflects your values.
    0:17:17 We were just talking about how each one of these AI models, AI services, respond differently to the type of questions you’re asked.
    0:17:17 Right.
    0:17:24 Because they codify the values of their service or the values of their company into each one of their services.
    0:17:29 Could you imagine this now amplified at an international scale?
    0:17:40 This is an inherent limitation of centralized AI models, where you’re thinking that you can encode some universal values and some universal expertise into a general purpose model.
    0:17:49 At some point, you need to take the general purpose model and ask a specific population of employees or of citizens, what are their preferences and what are their expectations?
    0:17:57 And you need to make sure that you’re specializing the model in a soft way and in a hard way, through rules and through culture and preferences.
    0:18:02 And so that part is not something that you can outsource as a country.
    0:18:05 It’s not something that you can outsource as an enterprise.
    0:18:06 You need to own it.
    0:18:17 Well, then is it an exaggeration to say, if it is cultural infrastructure and I don’t own sovereignty of it, the stakes at play are basically the equivalent of modern digital colonialization?
    0:18:29 If you’re saying, Anj, you’ve got to think about AI as almost like your digital workforce and another country or somebody who’s not my sovereign nation can decide what my workforce can and can’t do.
    0:18:30 That’s a problem.
    0:18:32 Some of it is universal.
    0:18:42 For example, it is possible for certain companies to serve nations and society and companies around the world because it’s basically universal.
    0:18:45 But it cannot be the only digital intelligence layer.
    0:18:47 It has to be augmented by something regional.
    0:18:50 You know, I think McDonald’s is pretty good everywhere.
    0:18:51 All right.
    0:18:52 Kentucky Fried Chicken is pretty good everywhere.
    0:18:57 But you still want the local style, local taste that augments on top of that.
    0:18:57 The last mile.
    0:18:58 That’s right.
    0:19:03 The local cafes, the mom and pop restaurants, because it defines the culture.
    0:19:03 Right.
    0:19:05 It defines society.
    0:19:05 It defines us.
    0:19:09 I think it’s terrific that you have Walmart everywhere that you can count on everywhere.
    0:19:10 You know, I think it’s fine.
    0:19:18 But you need to have local taste, local style, local preference, local excellence, local services.
    0:19:19 Let me swing it another way.
    0:19:29 It is very likely that in the context of our digital workforce in the future, we will have some digital workers which are generic.
    0:19:35 They’re just really good at doing maybe basic research or something basic.
    0:19:36 Good college level graduate.
    0:19:38 Or they’re useful for every company.
    0:19:41 It’s unnecessary for me to create something new.
    0:19:43 I think Excel is pretty good.
    0:19:46 Microsoft Office is universally excellent.
    0:19:46 Right.
    0:19:48 I’m perfectly fine with it.
    0:19:50 Good reference architecture base.
    0:19:50 That’s right.
    0:19:51 Right.
    0:19:53 Then there’s industry-specific tools.
    0:19:53 Right.
    0:19:56 Industry-specific expertise that is really important.
    0:19:59 For example, we use Synopsys and Cadence.
    0:20:03 Arthur doesn’t have to because it’s specific to our industry, not his.
    0:20:06 We probably both use Excel.
    0:20:08 Probably both use PDFs.
    0:20:09 We both use browsers.
    0:20:12 And so there’s some universal things that we can all take advantage of.
    0:20:16 And there’ll be universal digital workers that we can take advantage of.
    0:20:16 Right.
    0:20:18 And then there’ll be industry-specific.
    0:20:20 And then there’ll be company-specific.
    0:20:20 Right.
    0:20:25 Inside our company, we have some special skills that are very important to us that defines us.
    0:20:26 Right.
    0:20:28 It’s highly biased, if you will.
    0:20:31 Very guardrailed to doing very specific work.
    0:20:34 Highly biased to the needs and the specialties of our company.
    0:20:35 Right.
    0:20:38 And so we become superhuman in those areas.
    0:20:42 Well, your digital workforce is going to be the same and AI is going to be the same.
    0:20:44 There’ll be some that you just take off the shelf.
    0:20:47 The new search will likely be some AI.
    0:20:47 Right.
    0:20:49 The new research will probably be some AI.
    0:20:54 But then there’ll be industrial versions of AIs that we’ll maybe get from Cadence and others.
    0:20:57 And then we’ll have to groom our own using Arthur’s tools.
    0:20:57 Right.
    0:20:59 And we’ll have to fine-tune them.
    0:21:00 We’ll onboard them.
    0:21:01 We’ll make them incredible.
    0:21:11 I very much agree with this vision of having a general-purpose model and then some layer of specialization for industries and then an extra layer of specialization for companies.
    0:21:14 You will have a tree of AI systems that are more and more specialized.
    0:21:18 And maybe to give a concrete example with what we recently did.
    0:21:21 So we released in January a model called Mistral Small.
    0:21:23 And it’s a general-purpose model.
    0:21:24 So it speaks all of the languages.
    0:21:26 It knows mostly about most things.
    0:21:34 But then what we did is that we took it and we started a new family of specialized models that were specialized in languages.
    0:21:40 So we took more languages in Arabic, more languages in Indian languages, and we retrained the model.
    0:21:44 And so we distilled this extra knowledge that the initial model hadn’t seen.
    0:21:52 And so in doing that, we actually made it much, much better in being idiomatic when it speaks Arabic and when it speaks languages from the Indian Peninsula.
    0:21:57 And so language, it’s probably like the first thing you can do when you’re specializing a model.
    0:22:04 The good thing is that for a given size of model, you can get a model that is much better if you choose to specialize it in a language.
    0:22:14 So today, our model, which is the 24B, it’s called Mistral Sabah, it’s a model tune in Arabic, is outperforming every other language model that are like five times larger.
    0:22:17 And the reason for that is that we did the specialization.
    0:22:19 And so that’s the first layer.
    0:22:22 And then if you think of the second layer, you can think of verticals.
    0:22:32 So if you want to build a model which is not only good at Arabic, but also good at handling legal cases in Saudi Arabia, for instance, well, you need to specialize it again.
    0:22:46 So there’s some extra work that needs to be done in partnership with companies to make sure that not only your system is good at speaking a certain language, but it’s good at speaking a certain language and understanding the legal work that is done in this language.
    0:22:52 And so it’s true for any combination that you can think of, of vertical and language.
    0:22:52 I see.
    0:23:02 You want to have a medical diagnosis assistant in French, well, you need to be good at French, but you also need to understand how to be good at speaking the French language of physicians.
    0:23:02 Right.
    0:23:07 And so those two things, it’s very hard to do as a general purpose model provider.
    0:23:32 If this is true and what you’re describing is real, that I need the capabilities to customize this AI layer on my local norms, my local data, which is fairly sophisticated from a technical capability perspective, how would you advise a big nation to think about the stack we’re talking about, the chips, the compute, the data center, the models that sit on top of the applications, and then ultimately what you were describing as the AI nurse or the AI doctor?
    0:23:37 And how would you advise someone that’s a smaller nation differently?
    0:23:43 I would say you need to buy and to set up the horizontal part of the stack.
    0:23:57 So you need the infrastructure, you need the inference primitives, you need the customization primitives, you need the observability, you need the ability to connect gadgets to models, to connect models to sources of information, of real-time information.
    0:24:03 Those are primitives that are fairly well factorized across the different countries, across the different enterprises.
    0:24:09 And once you have that, these are things that can be bought, then you can start working, then you can start building.
    0:24:15 You build from these primitives according to your values, according to your expertise, and thanks to your local talent.
    0:24:23 The question is where is the frontier and between what is horizontal and horizontal, if you’re a small enterprise or a small country, you should probably buy.
    0:24:28 And what is vertical and specific to you, and that’s definitely something that you need to build.
    0:24:32 You have to get it in your head that it’s not as hard as you think it is.
    0:24:36 First of all, because the technology is getting better, it’s easier.
    0:24:39 Could you imagine doing this five years ago?
    0:24:41 It’s impossible.
    0:24:43 Could you imagine doing this five years from now?
    0:24:44 It’ll be trivial.
    0:24:46 And so we’re somewhere in that middle.
    0:24:48 The only question is, do you have to do it?
    0:24:52 The truth of the matter is, I hate onboarding employees.
    0:24:54 And the reason for that is because it takes a lot of work.
    0:25:10 But once you set up an HR organization and leadership mentoring organization and processes, then your ability to onboard employees is easier and is systematically more enjoyable for everybody involved.
    0:25:12 But in the very beginning, it’s hard.
    0:25:13 Setup’s always hard.
    0:25:14 Setup is always hard.
    0:25:15 This is no different.
    0:25:17 The only question is, do you need to do it?
    0:25:29 If you want to be part of the future, and this is the most consequential technology of all time, not just our time, of all time.
    0:25:33 Digital intelligence, how much more valuable, how much more important can it be?
    0:25:42 And so if you come to the conclusion this is important to you, then you have to engage it as soon as you can, learn along the way, and just know that it’s getting easier and easier all the time.
    0:25:48 The fact of the matter is, if we try to do agentic systems, even three years ago, it was incredibly hard.
    0:25:50 But agentic systems are a lot easier today.
    0:26:02 And all of the tools necessary for curating data sets, for onboarding the digital employees, to evaluating the employees, to guard railing digital employees, all of those are getting better all the time.
    0:26:06 The other thing about technology is when it becomes faster, it’s easier.
    0:26:12 Could you imagine back in the old days, of course, I had the benefit of seeing computers from its earliest days.
    0:26:17 And the performance of the computers were so frustratingly slow, everything you did was hard.
    0:26:22 But these days, the type of things we do is just magical because it’s also fast.
    0:26:37 And so whether it’s motivated by your institutional need to engage the most consequential technology of all time, or the fact that it’s getting better all the time, so it’s not that hard.
    0:26:39 I think the number of excuses is running out.
    0:26:42 So let’s talk about that for a second, because change is hard.
    0:26:43 I’ve got an endless list.
    0:26:47 If I’m a nation-state leader, I’m facing increasing amounts of geopolitical risk.
    0:26:49 I don’t know who my allies are.
    0:26:50 Elections are coming.
    0:26:52 There’s any number of things I’ve got to deal with.
    0:26:55 But now, let’s say I understand that this is important.
    0:27:02 You guys spend so much time talking to nation-state leaders who are thinking about, what are the risks of adopting AI too fast?
    0:27:05 And you’re right, the zeitgeist has shifted based on the Paris Action Summit.
    0:27:09 It seemed like there’s a tone of optimism more than there was a tone of pessimism a year ago.
    0:27:16 But what are the most common questions you get from nation-state leaders when they’re asking you about risks and how to think about them?
    0:27:26 So I’ve heard several questions, but one of the risks is to see your population start getting afraid of the technology for fear of it replacing them.
    0:27:28 And that is something that can actually be prevented.
    0:27:34 If we collectively make sure that everybody gets access to the technology and is trained in using it.
    0:27:39 The skilling of the various citizens of the populations is extremely important.
    0:27:52 And stating AI as an opportunity for them to actually work better and showing the purpose of it through applications, through things that they can actually install on their smartphone, through public services.
    0:28:05 We’re working, for instance, with the French unemployment system to actually connect opportunities of jobs to unemployed people through AI agents that are being actionated by, obviously, human operators within the agency.
    0:28:12 That is a very palatable opportunity for people to find a job better.
    0:28:27 And so that’s part of the thing that can make sure that population understand the opportunity and the fact that AI is really just a new change for them to adopt, just the same way they had to adopt personal computers in the 90s and internet in the 2000s.
    0:28:32 The common aspect with these changes is that you need people to embrace the technology.
    0:28:42 And I think the biggest problem that nation states may have is to see AI increase the digital divide that is already relatively big.
    0:28:49 But if we work together and it’s done in the right way, we can make sure that AI is actually reducing the digital divide.
    0:28:51 AI is a new way to program a computer.
    0:28:56 It is because by typing in some words, you can make the computer do something.
    0:28:58 Just like we did in the past.
    0:28:58 Right.
    0:28:59 I know you talk to it.
    0:29:01 You can interact with it in a whole lot of ways.
    0:29:08 You can make the computer do things for you a lot easier today than it was before.
    0:29:20 The number of people who could prompt ChatGPT and do productive things just from a human potential perspective is vastly greater
    0:29:24 than the number of people who can program C++ ever.
    0:29:28 And therefore, we have closed the technology divide.
    0:29:30 Probably the greatest equalizer we’ve seen.
    0:29:31 It is by definition.
    0:29:31 Right.
    0:29:35 The greatest equalizer of technologies of all time.
    0:29:39 But you still need to have citizens to know about it.
    0:29:40 I think that’s the thing.
    0:29:41 I’m just describing the fact.
    0:29:42 Yes.
    0:29:50 The fact is, there are more people who program computers using ChatGPT today than there are people who program computers using C++.
    0:29:51 Right.
    0:29:52 That’s a fact.
    0:30:00 And so, the fact is, this is the greatest force of reducing the technology divide the world’s ever known.
    0:30:00 Right.
    0:30:11 It’s just perceived, and what Arthur’s saying, the perception through, I don’t know who, and I’m talking about it, and I don’t know how, talking about it.
    0:30:14 But the fact of the matter is, it is not stopping.
    0:30:15 Right.
    0:30:16 It’s not stopping anything.
    0:30:20 The number of people who are actively using ChatGPT today is off the charts.
    0:30:21 I think it’s terrific.
    0:30:23 It’s completely terrific.
    0:30:27 Anybody who’s talking about anything else apparently isn’t working.
    0:30:35 And so, I think people realize the incredible capabilities of AI and how it’s helping them with their work.
    0:30:36 I use it every single day.
    0:30:38 I used it this morning.
    0:30:40 And so, every single day I use it.
    0:30:42 And I think that deep research is incredible.
    0:30:48 My goodness, the work that Arthur and all of the computer scientists around the world are doing is incredible.
    0:30:49 And people know it.
    0:30:51 People are picking it up, obviously.
    0:30:51 Right?
    0:30:53 Just the number of active users.
    0:30:56 Let’s talk about open source for a bit.
    0:31:00 Because both of you have talked quite publicly about the importance of open models in the context of sovereign AI.
    0:31:05 At DeepMind, you’re part of the Chinchilla skating laws, which were openly published.
    0:31:07 Your co-founder, Guillaume, created Lama.
    0:31:13 And then last year, NVIDIA and Mistral worked on a jointly trained model called Mistral Nemo.
    0:31:16 Why are open models such a big part of your focus?
    0:31:23 Because it’s an horizontal technology and enterprises and states are going to be eventually willing to deploy it on their own infrastructure.
    0:31:28 Having this openness is important from a sovereignty perspective.
    0:31:29 That’s the first point.
    0:31:36 And then the second point of importance is that releasing open source models is a way to accelerate progress.
    0:31:51 And we created Mistral on the basis that what we’ve seen during our early career when we were doing AI in between 2010 and 2020 was an acceleration of progress because every lab was building on top of each other.
    0:31:57 And that’s something that kind of disappeared with the first large language models from OpenAI in particular.
    0:32:04 And so spinning back that open flywheel of I contribute something and then another lab is contributing something else.
    0:32:04 Right.
    0:32:07 And then we iterate from that is the reason why we created Mistral.
    0:32:13 And I think we did a good job at it because we started to release models and then Meta started to release models as well.
    0:32:18 And then we had Chinese companies like DeepSeq release stronger models and everybody benefit from it.
    0:32:28 So coming back to Mistral Nemo, one difficulty of creating AI models in an open way is that this is more a cathedral than a bazaar setting when it comes to open source.
    0:32:32 Because you have large spend to do to build a model.
    0:32:42 And so what we did with NVIDIA team is really to mix the two teams together, have them work on the same infrastructure, the same code, have the same problems, and combine their expertise to build the same model.
    0:32:48 And that has been very successful because NVIDIA brought a lot of things we didn’t know.
    0:32:50 I think we brought things that NVIDIA didn’t know.
    0:32:54 And at the end of the day, we produced something that was at the time the best model for its size.
    0:33:00 And so we really believe in such collaborations and we think that we should do them more and at a higher scale.
    0:33:03 And not only with only two companies, but probably with three or four.
    0:33:06 And that’s the way open source is going to prevail.
    0:33:07 I completely agree.
    0:33:20 The benefit of open source, in addition to accelerating and elevating the basic science, the basic endeavor of all of the general models and the general capabilities,
    0:33:30 is the open source versions also activate a ton of niche markets and niche innovation.
    0:33:36 All of a sudden, in healthcare, life sciences, physical sciences, robotics, transportation,
    0:33:43 the number of industries that were activated as a result of open source capabilities that are sufficiently good is incredible.
    0:33:50 Don’t ignore the incredible capabilities of open source, particularly in the fringe, the niche.
    0:33:52 But mission critical, where data might be sensitive.
    0:33:55 Yeah, it could be, for example, in mining energy.
    0:33:55 Right.
    0:33:58 Who’s going to go create an AI company to go mine energy?
    0:34:02 Energy is really important, but the mining of energy is not that big of a market.
    0:34:05 And so open source activates every single one of them.
    0:34:08 Financial services, it turns out, activates them.
    0:34:09 Healthcare, defense.
    0:34:19 Anything that is mission critical and that requires to do one’s own deployment, that potentially requires to do on-the-edge deployment as well.
    0:34:20 Right.
    0:34:27 And anything that requires some strong auditing and the ability to do a thorough evaluation of it.
    0:34:32 You can evaluate a model much better if you have access to the weights than if you only have access to APIs.
    0:34:40 And so if you want to build certainty around the fact that your system is going to be 100% accurate, I don’t think you should be using a closed source model.
    0:34:42 And you have to connect it into your flywheel.
    0:34:44 How are you going to connect?
    0:34:44 Your local data.
    0:34:44 Yeah.
    0:34:48 You have to connect it into your own, your local data, your own local experience.
    0:34:51 The more you use it, the better it becomes, that flywheel.
    0:34:54 You can’t do it without open source.
    0:34:56 But let’s say I’m a nation-state leader.
    0:34:58 I’ve been considering open source.
    0:35:02 I’m starting to hear things like, hey, open source is a threat to national security.
    0:35:09 We should not be exporting our models because these open models actually give away a ton of nation-state secrets.
    0:35:12 Or more importantly, the bad guys can use these open models too.
    0:35:13 And so this is a threat to security.
    0:35:18 Instead, what we should be doing is locking down maybe development amongst two or three labs that have the infrastructure
    0:35:23 to get licenses from the government to do training, to do the right safety and certification.
    0:35:25 I’ve certainly been hearing that a lot.
    0:35:28 How should I think about that versus what you’re telling me, which is actually, you know,
    0:35:29 open is better for mission-critical industries.
    0:35:34 Collaboration in between labs is going to be critical for humanity’s success.
    0:35:40 And if one state decides to lock things down, the only thing that is going to happen is that
    0:35:41 another state will take the leadership.
    0:35:47 Because cutting yourself from the open flywheel is just too high of a cost for you to maintain
    0:35:48 competitivity if you do that.
    0:35:51 This is a debate that has occurred in the United States.
    0:35:58 And effectively, if there’s some export control over weight, this is not going to stop any
    0:36:01 country in Europe, any country in Asia to continue its progress.
    0:36:05 And they will collaborate to actually accelerate that progress.
    0:36:10 So I think we just need to embrace the fact that this is an horizontal technology, very similar
    0:36:12 to programming languages.
    0:36:14 Programming languages, they’re all open source, right?
    0:36:17 So I think AI just needs to be open source in that respect.
    0:36:23 We’re glad to see that this realization that we could accelerate together by being more open
    0:36:25 about the way we build the technology.
    0:36:30 And so it’s great to see that open source has a lot of good days before it.
    0:36:32 It is impossible to control.
    0:36:35 Software is impossible to control.
    0:36:40 If you want to control it, then somebody else’s will emerge and become the standard.
    0:36:43 Just as Arthur mentioned.
    0:36:47 And the question is, is open source safer?
    0:36:53 Open source enables more transparency, more researchers, more people to scrutinize the work.
    0:37:00 The reason why every single company in the world is built, every cloud service provider is built
    0:37:06 on open source is because it is the safest technology of all.
    0:37:14 Give me an example of a public cloud today that’s built on an infrastructure stack that isn’t open source.
    0:37:25 You start from open source, you could customize it, but the benefit of open source is the contribution of so many people and the scrutiny.
    0:37:29 Very importantly, you can’t just put any random stuff into open source.
    0:37:30 You’ll get laughed off the internet.
    0:37:35 You’ve got to put good stuff on the open source because the scrutiny is intense.
    0:37:50 And so, so I think open source provides all of that great collaboration to accelerate innovation, escalate excellence, ensure transparency, attract scrutiny, all of that improves safety.
    0:37:59 In a sense, you’re saying it’s partly more secure because as we’ve seen with open source databases, storage, networking, compute, you get mass red teaming.
    0:38:04 The whole world can help you red team your technology versus just a small group of researchers inside your company.
    0:38:05 Is that roughly right, a right way to think about it?
    0:38:06 Yeah, yeah, exactly.
    0:38:14 By pulling a lot of organizations together to come up with a technology that they can all use and specialize on their own domains,
    0:38:18 you’re forcing the technology to be good for every one of them.
    0:38:21 And so that means you’re removing biases.
    0:38:27 You’re really making sure that the general purpose models that you’re building are as good as possible and don’t have failures.
    0:38:31 And I think open source in that respect is also a way to reduce the number of failure points.
    0:38:43 If as a company today, I decide to rely fully on a single organization and on its safety principles, on its red teaming organization as well, I’m trusting it a little too much.
    0:38:52 Whereas if I’m building my technology on open source models, I’m trusting the world to make sure that the basis on which I’m building is secure.
    0:38:58 So that’s a reduction of failure points and that’s obviously something that you need to do as an enterprise or as a country.
    0:39:04 We’re going to transition a little bit now into company building, which is something a lot of people are excited to hear from both of you about.
    0:39:06 So let’s start with you, Jensen.
    0:39:08 You’ve remarked that NVIDIA is the smallest big company in the world.
    0:39:11 What enables you to operate that way?
    0:39:14 Our architecture was designed for several things.
    0:39:23 It was designed to adapt well in a world of change, either caused by us or affecting us.
    0:39:26 And the reason for that is because technology changes fast.
    0:39:40 And if you over-correct on controllability, then you are underserving a system’s ability to become agile and to adapt.
    0:39:46 And so our company uses words like aligned instead of use words like control.
    0:39:52 I don’t know that one time I’ve used the word control in talking about the way that the company works.
    0:40:01 We care about minimum bureaucracy and we want to make our processes as lightweight as possible.
    0:40:08 Now, all of that is so that we can enhance efficiency, enhance agility, and so on and so forth.
    0:40:11 We avoid words like division.
    0:40:15 When NVIDIA was first started, it was modern to talk about divisions.
    0:40:15 Right.
    0:40:17 And I hated the word divide.
    0:40:20 Why would you create an organization that’s fundamentally divided?
    0:40:22 I hated the word business units.
    0:40:26 The reason for that is because why should anybody exist as one?
    0:40:30 Why don’t you leverage as much of the company’s resources as possible?
    0:40:42 I wanted a system that was organized much more like a computing unit, like a computer to deliver on an output as efficiently as possible.
    0:40:46 And so the company’s organization looks a little bit like a computing stack.
    0:40:50 And what is this mechanism that we’re trying to create?
    0:40:53 And in what environment are we trying to survive in?
    0:40:57 Is this much more like a peaceful countryside?
    0:41:00 Or is this like much more like a concrete jungle?
    0:41:02 What kind of environment are you in?
    0:41:06 Because the type of system you want to create should be consistent with that.
    0:41:14 And the thing that always strikes me odd is that every company’s org chart looks very similar, but they’re all different things.
    0:41:15 One’s a snake.
    0:41:16 The other one’s an elephant.
    0:41:18 The other one’s a cheetah.
    0:41:24 And everybody is supposed to be somewhat different in that forest, but somehow they all get along.
    0:41:29 Same exact structure, same exact organization doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
    0:41:33 I agree that it feels like companies have personalities.
    0:41:40 And despite the fact that they’re organized sometimes similarly, I should say that obviously we have a lot of things to learn.
    0:41:42 And I mean, the company is not even two years old.
    0:41:54 I guess one challenge we have with Mistral, and I think our competitors have the same challenge, is that this is one of the first times that a software company is actually a deep tech company that is driven by science.
    0:41:57 Science doesn’t have the same time scales as software.
    0:42:00 You need to operate on a monthly basis.
    0:42:03 Sometimes you don’t know exactly when the thing will be ready.
    0:42:08 But on the other hand, you have customers asking, when is the next model coming up?
    0:42:10 When is this capability going to be available?
    0:42:10 Etc.
    0:42:12 Yeah, so you need to manage expectation.
    0:42:23 And I think for us, the biggest challenge, and I think we’re starting to do a good job at it, is to manage the hinge in between the product requirements and what the science is able to do.
    0:42:25 Research and product.
    0:42:26 Research and product.
    0:42:31 And you don’t want the research team to be fully dedicated to making the product work.
    0:42:39 So you need to work, and I think we’ve started to do it, on making sure that you have several frequencies in your company.
    0:42:43 You have fast frequencies on the product side, iterating every week.
    0:42:56 And you have slow frequencies on the science side that are looking at why profoundly the product is failing on certain domains, and how they could fix it through research, through new data, through new architecture, through new paradigm.
    0:42:57 And I think that’s fairly new.
    0:43:03 This is not something that you would find in a typical SaaS company, because this is inherently a science problem.
    0:43:14 I mean, NVIDIA is one of the most successful companies that have, over a 30-year timeline, has figured out a way to keep science and research ahead of the rest of the world.
    0:43:25 Whether it was CUDA back in 2012, where there was fundamental systems research, or Cosmos today, which is now saying, you know, it’s definitely state-of-the-art on how simulation should work out.
    0:43:27 We’ve harmonized exactly what Arthur just said.
    0:43:29 Is that heuristic right for you?
    0:43:31 Yeah, we harmonize that inside our company.
    0:43:35 We have basic research, applied research, and then we have architecture, and then we have product development.
    0:43:38 And we have multiple layers of it.
    0:43:40 And these layers are all essential.
    0:43:40 Right.
    0:43:42 And they all have their own time clock.
    0:43:46 In the case of basic research, the frequency could be quite low.
    0:43:52 On the other hand, all the way to the product side, we have a whole industry of customers who are counting on us.
    0:43:54 And so we have to be very precise.
    0:44:06 And somewhere between basic research and discovering, hopefully, surprises that nobody expects, on the one hand, on the other hand, to be able to deliver on what everyone expects.
    0:44:07 Predictably.
    0:44:07 Okay.
    0:44:12 These two extremes, we manage harmoniously inside our company.
    0:44:16 There’s so many fascinating things about this market, but there’s one in particular that I want to call out.
    0:44:20 Both of you have customers that are also your competitors.
    0:44:24 And those competitors are huge and highly capitalized tech giants.
    0:44:27 NVIDIA sells GPUs to AWS, which is building its own chips called Trainium.
    0:44:34 And Arthur, you’re training models that you sell through AWS and Azure, who have funded labs like Anthropic and OpenAI.
    0:44:36 So how do you win an environment like this?
    0:44:38 And how do you manage those relationships?
    0:44:42 Because we talked about company building internally, but now I’m curious, externally, how do you survive?
    0:44:46 Jensen said it well, you give up control, but you work on alignment.
    0:44:52 And despite the fact that sometimes you have certain companies can be competitors, you may have aligned interests.
    0:44:56 And you can work on specific agendas that are shared.
    0:44:59 You have to have your own place.
    0:45:05 Obviously, these cloud service providers aren’t working with Arthur because they already have the same thing.
    0:45:06 They just want two of the same things.
    0:45:12 It’s because Arthur and Mistral has a position in the world that is unique to Mistral.
    0:45:16 And they add value in a particular place that is unique.
    0:45:25 A lot of the conversation we’ve had today are areas that Mistral and the work and their position in the world makes them uniquely good at.
    0:45:27 And we are different.
    0:45:29 We’re not just another ASIC.
    0:45:37 We can do things for the CSPs and do things with the CSPs that are not possible for them to do themselves.
    0:45:40 For example, NVIDIA’s architecture is in every cloud.
    0:45:47 And in a lot of ways, we are the first onboarding for amazing future startups.
    0:45:55 And the reason for that is because by onboarding to NVIDIA, they don’t have to make a strategic or business or otherwise commitment to a major cloud.
    0:46:04 They could go into every cloud and they could even decide to build their own system they like because the economics turns out to be better for them at some point.
    0:46:09 Or they would like access to capabilities that we have that are somewhat protective within the clouds.
    0:46:15 And so whatever the reasons are, in order to be a good partner to somebody, you still have to have a unique position.
    0:46:16 You need to have a unique offering.
    0:46:19 And I think Mistral has a very unique offering.
    0:46:21 We have a very unique offering.
    0:46:25 And our position in the world is important to even the people we compete against.
    0:46:35 And so I think when we are comfortable within that and comfortable with our own skin, then we can be excellent partners to all of the CSPs.
    0:46:36 And we want to see them succeed.
    0:46:42 I know that it’s a weird thing to say when you see them as a competitor, which is the reason we don’t see them as a competitor.
    0:46:45 We see them as a collaborator who happens to compete with us as well.
    0:46:50 And probably the single most important thing that we do for all the CSPs is bring them business.
    0:46:52 And that’s what a great computing platform does.
    0:46:54 We bring people business.
    0:47:00 I remember when Arthur and I first met, we sat down in London at a late night restaurant and sketched out the plan for his Series A.
    0:47:06 And we were figuring out why he needed so much capital for the Series A, which in hindsight was remarkably efficient.
    0:47:13 I think the Mistral Series A we put together was half a billion relative to other folks who had to spend multiple billions to get to the same place.
    0:47:15 But I asked him, what chips would you like to run on?
    0:47:22 And you looked at me so absurdly as if I had asked you a question that how could it be an answer other than NVIDIA, other than H100s?
    0:47:28 And I think that ecosystem has been the startup ecosystem that NVIDIA has invested in.
    0:47:32 Creates so much business for the clouds.
    0:47:38 What is the philosophy that led you to invest so deeply in startups and founders so early on, even before anybody knew about them?
    0:47:40 There are two reasons I would say.
    0:47:44 One, the first reason is I rarely call us a GPU company.
    0:47:47 What we make is a GPU, but I think of NVIDIA as a computing company.
    0:47:51 If you’re a computing company, the most important thing you think about is developers.
    0:47:52 Right.
    0:47:55 If you’re a chip company, the most important thing you think about is a chip.
    0:48:07 And all of our strategies, all of our actions, all of our priorities, all of our focus, all of our investments, 100% of it is aligned with the attitude that is developer first.
    0:48:11 It’s about the computing platform first, another way of saying ecosystem.
    0:48:12 Right.
    0:48:15 And so everything starts there.
    0:48:16 Everything ends there.
    0:48:17 GTC is a developer’s conference.
    0:48:18 Right.
    0:48:21 All of our initiatives inside the company is developer first.
    0:48:22 So that’s number one.
    0:48:31 The second thing is we were pioneering a new computing approach that was very alien to the world of general purpose computing.
    0:48:39 And so this accelerated computing approach was rather alien and counterintuitive and rather awkward for a very long time.
    0:48:48 And so we’re constantly seeking out, looking for the next incredible breakthrough, the next impossible thing to do without accelerated computing.
    0:48:57 And so it’s very natural that I would find and would seek out researchers and great thinkers like Arthur because, you know, I’m looking for the next killer app.
    0:49:03 And so that’s kind of a natural intuition, natural instinct of somebody who is creating something new.
    0:49:09 And so if there’s an amazing computer science thinker that we haven’t engaged with, that’s my bad.
    0:49:10 We got to get on it.
    0:49:13 That’s a perfect segue from a computing perspective.
    0:49:15 What are the most significant trends you see on the horizon?
    0:49:25 And in particular, for an audience who might be prime ministers or presidents or ministers of IT in some of the world’s fastest growing markets trying to understand where computing is going, how would you guide them?
    0:49:29 We are moving toward workloads that are more and more asynchronous.
    0:49:37 So workloads where you give a task to an AI system and then you wait for it to do 20 minutes of research before returning.
    0:49:42 So that’s definitely changing a bit the way you should be looking at infrastructure because that creates more load.
    0:49:45 So I guess it’s a bull case for data centers and for NVIDIA.
    0:49:54 As I’ve said, I guess, in the beginning of this episode, all of this is not going to happen well if you don’t have the right onboarding infrastructure for the agents.
    0:50:02 If you don’t have a proper way for your AI systems to learn about the people they interact with and to learn from the people they interact with.
    0:50:08 So that aspect of learning from human interaction is going to be extremely important in the coming years.
    0:50:19 And there’s another aspect which is around personalization of having, I guess, models and systems consolidate the representation of their users to be as useful as possible.
    0:50:22 I think we are in the early stage of that.
    0:50:32 But that’s going to change, again, pretty profoundly the interaction we have with machines that will know more about us and know more about our taste and how to be as useful as possible toward us.
    0:50:44 As a leader of a country, I want to think about education, about making sure that I have a local talent pool that understands AI enough to create specialized AI systems.
    0:50:50 And I want to think about infrastructure, both on the physical side, but also on the software side.
    0:50:52 So what are the right primitives?
    0:50:56 What is the right partner to work with that is going to provide you with the platform of onboarding?
    0:50:58 And so those two things are important.
    0:51:05 If you have this and you have the talent, and if you do deep partnerships, the economy of your state is going to be profoundly changed.
    0:51:14 The last 10 years, we’ve seen extraordinary change in computing, from hand coding to machine learning, from CPUs to GPUs, from software to AI.
    0:51:19 Across the entire stack, the entire industry has been completely transformed.
    0:51:22 And we’re going through that still.
    0:51:24 The next 10 years is going to be incredible.
    0:51:28 Of course, the industry has been wrapped up in talking about scaling laws.
    0:51:32 And pre-training is important, of course, and continues to be.
    0:51:40 Now we have post-training, and post-training is thought experiments and practice and tutoring and coaching.
    0:51:52 And all of the skills that we use as humans to learn the idea that thinking and agentic and robotic systems are now just around the corner is really quite exciting.
    0:51:56 And so what it means to computing is very profound.
    0:52:00 People are surprised that Blackwell is such a great leap over Hopper.
    0:52:09 And the reason for that is because we built Blackwell for inference, and just in time, because all of a sudden, thinking is such a big computing load.
    0:52:11 And so that’s one layer, is there’s a computing layer.
    0:52:15 The next layer is the type of AIs that we’re going to see.
    0:52:23 There’s the agentic AI, the informational digital worker AIs, but we now have physics AI that’s making great progress.
    0:52:26 And then there’s physical AI that’s making great progress.
    0:52:37 And physics AI is, of course, things that obey the physical laws and the atomic laws and the chemical laws and all of the various physical sciences that we’re going to see some great breakthroughs.
    0:52:38 And I’m very excited about that.
    0:52:40 That affects industry.
    0:52:41 That affects science.
    0:52:43 Affects higher education and research.
    0:52:56 And then physical AI, AI that understand the nature of the physical world, from friction to inertia, the cause and effect, object permanence, those kind of basic things that humans have common sense, but most AIs don’t.
    0:53:04 And so I think that that’s going to enable a whole bunch of robotic systems that are going to have great implications in manufacturing and others.
    0:53:09 The U.S. economy is very heavily weighted on knowledge workers.
    0:53:13 And yet many of the other countries are very heavily weighted on manufacturing.
    0:53:30 And so I think for many of the prime ministers and the leaders of countries to realize that the AIs that they need to transform and to revolutionize their industries that are so vital to them, whether it’s energy focused or manufacturing focused, it’s just around the corner.
    0:53:33 And they ought to stay very alert to this.
    0:53:38 I would encourage people not to over-respect the technology.
    0:53:44 And sometimes when you over-admire a technology, over-respect the technology, you don’t end up engaging it.
    0:53:46 You’re afraid of it somehow.
    0:53:53 Some of the things that we said today about AI closing the technology divide is really something that ought to be recognized.
    0:53:59 This is of such incredible national interest that you have the responsibility to engage it.
    0:54:01 Anyhow, exciting times ahead.
    0:54:02 That was incredible.
    0:54:04 Thank you both so much for making time.
    0:54:07 If they want to go learn more, they want to figure out how to partner with the new companies.
    0:54:07 Call us.
    0:54:08 Are you kidding me?
    0:54:09 You can call us, yes.
    0:54:10 You can call us.
    0:54:11 There are two of us.
    0:54:11 You’re kidding me.
    0:54:14 We’ll start with listening to this podcast and then giving them a speed dial.
    0:54:16 We’ll put their numbers in the show notes.
    0:54:18 JensenandNVIDIA.com.
    0:54:19 Job done.
    0:54:21 You heard it here.
    0:54:23 We’re very responsive.
    0:54:24 I can attest to that.
    0:54:25 All right.
    0:54:26 Thank you so much, guys.
    0:54:26 All right.
    0:54:27 Thank you, Anj.
    0:54:27 Thank you.
    0:54:27 All right.
    0:54:28 Thank you.
    0:54:30 All right.
    0:54:31 That is all for today.
    0:54:34 If you did make it this far, first of all, thank you.
    0:54:38 We put a lot of thought into each of these episodes, whether it’s guests, the calendar,
    0:54:42 Tetris, the cycles with our amazing editor, Tommy, until the music is just right.
    0:54:47 So if you like what we’ve put together, consider dropping us a line at ratethispodcast.com
    0:54:48 slash A16Z.
    0:54:51 And let us know what your favorite episode is.
    0:54:52 It’ll make my day.
    0:54:54 And I’m sure Tommy’s too.
    0:54:56 We’ll catch you on the flip side.
    0:54:56 We’ll catch you on the flip side.

    The global race for AI leadership is no longer just about companies—it’s about nations. AI isn’t just computing infrastructure; it’s cultural infrastructure, economic strategy, and national security all rolled into one.

    In this episode, Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA, and Arthur Mensch, cofounder and CEO of Mistral, sit down to discuss sovereign AI, national AI strategies, and why every country must take ownership of its digital intelligence.

    • How AI will reshape global economies and GDP
    • The full AI stack—from chips to models to AI factories
    • Why AI is both a general purpose technology and deeply specialized
    • The open-source vs. closed AI debate and its impact on sovereignty
    • Why no one will build AI for you—you have to do it yourself

    Is this the most consequential technology shift of all time? If so, the stakes have never been higher.

    Resources: 

    Find Arthur on X: https://x.com/arthurmensch

    Find Anjney on X: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anjney/

    Find NVIDIA on X: https://x.com/nvidia

    Find Mistral: https://x.com/MistralAI

     

    Stay Updated: 

    Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z

    Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z

    Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/

    Follow our host: https://twitter.com/stephsmithio

    Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.

  • Should America Be Run by … Trader Joe’s? (Update)

    AI transcript
    0:00:10 Hey there, it’s Stephen Dubner, and I wanted to say thanks for the overwhelming response
    0:00:15 to our most recent episode, which was called 10 Myths About the U.S. Tax System.
    0:00:20 There were a lot of good suggestions for follow-up episodes, and we will certainly keep those
    0:00:20 in mind.
    0:00:26 One of the joys of making this show is going after stories that simply seem interesting
    0:00:29 and worthwhile without any set agenda to follow.
    0:00:33 And you never know which episodes are going to strike a chord like this one did.
    0:00:38 Today, we have gone into the archive to play you another episode that struck a chord when
    0:00:39 it was first published.
    0:00:43 It’s called Should America Be Run by Trader Joe’s?
    0:00:46 We have updated facts and figures as necessary.
    0:00:51 I should note that Trader Joe’s did not participate in the making of this episode.
    0:00:53 Their executives don’t tend to give interviews.
    0:00:59 Although we did receive a note from then-CEO Dan Bain after we first published this
    0:01:01 episode in 2018, he wrote,
    0:01:04 You pose the question, should America be run by Trader Joe’s?
    0:01:08 We are pretty sure such work would likely require a coat and tie.
    0:01:11 We like Hawaiian shirts, so we will pass.
    0:01:12 Thanks.
    0:01:14 Let me know what you think of this episode.
    0:01:20 You can always leave a comment on your podcast app or send us an email to radio at
    0:01:21 Freakonomics.com.
    0:01:23 As always, thanks for listening.
    0:01:34 Let’s play Shark Tank today.
    0:01:35 You’re the investors.
    0:01:42 Shark Tank, if you don’t know, is the TV show where people pitch business ideas to famous investors.
    0:01:44 You might be Mark Cuban or Mr. Wonderful.
    0:01:47 You’re trying to decide, would you invest?
    0:01:48 And that is Michael Roberto.
    0:01:53 He’s a business professor at Bryant University, formerly of the Harvard Business School.
    0:01:58 There’s one lecture he likes to start by giving his students this fictional Shark Tank pitch.
    0:02:01 I’d like to open a new kind of grocery store.
    0:02:04 We’re not going to have any branded items.
    0:02:05 It’s all going to be private label.
    0:02:10 We’re going to have no television advertising and no social media whatsoever.
    0:02:12 We’re never going to have anything on sale.
    0:02:15 We’re not going to accept coupons.
    0:02:17 We’ll have no loyalty card.
    0:02:20 We won’t have a circular that appears in the Sunday newspaper.
    0:02:22 We’ll have no self-checkout.
    0:02:24 We won’t have wide aisles or big parking lots.
    0:02:26 Would you invest in my company?
    0:02:31 And of course, you’re supposed to think, there is no way I’d invest in that company.
    0:02:34 That sounds like the stupidest company ever.
    0:02:37 And of course, you get a lot of consternation.
    0:02:43 That’s when Roberto reveals that not only does such a grocery store already exist, but they’re crushing the competition.
    0:02:46 They’re at the top by a wide, wide margin.
    0:02:49 The sales per square footage estimates are unbelievable.
    0:02:53 I mean, three and four times better than some of the leading players in the industry.
    0:02:59 So, it sounds like customers love this place, but you might think a store like this would be brutal to work for.
    0:03:04 And yet, it’s ranked among the hundred best American companies to work for.
    0:03:06 So, what’s it called?
    0:03:07 Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:08 Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:09 Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:09 Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:10 Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:18 There’s a good chance that you have never shopped at a Trader Joe’s.
    0:03:20 Maybe never even heard of it.
    0:03:23 It’s got just over 600 stores.
    0:03:27 The big chains like Kroger and Albertsons have well over 2,000.
    0:03:31 Walmart sells groceries in more than 4,000 of its stores.
    0:03:38 And, as Michael Roberto told us, Trader Joe’s doesn’t advertise or do a lot of things the typical grocery store does.
    0:03:40 A typical grocery store has a SKU count.
    0:03:43 SKU stands for stock-keeping unit.
    0:03:45 So, it’s that number of different items carried in a store.
    0:03:50 Well, typically, a grocery store or a supermarket might have 35,000 SKUs, right?
    0:03:52 A tremendous selection of varieties.
    0:03:57 You go to Trader Joe’s, and they only have, say, 3,000 stock-keeping units in a typical Trader Joe’s.
    0:04:05 The grocery business is famous for low profit margins, lots of competition, and, lately, an even bigger problem.
    0:04:10 American consumers now spend more money in restaurants and bars than in grocery stores.
    0:04:14 Trader Joe’s does seem to be bucking this downward trend.
    0:04:16 It doesn’t just have customers.
    0:04:18 It has fans.
    0:04:24 The first thing I do when I know I’m going somewhere is get on the Internet and find where the closest Trader Joe’s is.
    0:04:32 It’s never been easy to run a grocery chain, but Trader Joe’s makes it look easy and, weirdly, fun.
    0:04:37 I don’t walk into Trader Joe’s with a strong to-do list.
    0:04:38 It’s not a chore.
    0:04:43 When I walk into Trader Joe’s, it’s a variety-seeking exercise.
    0:04:45 So, how do they do it?
    0:04:48 That’s the question we’ll try to answer today.
    0:04:53 A question made more difficult by the fact that Trader Joe’s is a fairly secretive company.
    0:04:57 I think that some of the secrecy is probably due to who owns them.
    0:05:04 So, we put on our Freakonomics goggles in an attempt to reverse-engineer the secrets of Trader Joe’s.
    0:05:08 Which, it turns out, are incredibly Freakonomical.
    0:05:12 Things like choice architecture and decision theory.
    0:05:15 Things like nudging and an embrace of experimentation.
    0:05:21 In fact, if Freakonomics were a grocery store, it might be a Trader Joe’s.
    0:05:22 Or at least try to be.
    0:05:27 It’s like a real-life case study of behavioral economics at work.
    0:05:29 So, here’s the big question.
    0:05:34 If Trader Joe’s is really so good, should their philosophy be applied elsewhere?
    0:05:36 Should Trader Joe’s…
    0:05:39 I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but…
    0:05:41 Should Trader Joe’s be running America?
    0:06:00 This is Freakonomics Radio.
    0:06:03 The podcast that explores the hidden side of everything.
    0:06:06 With your host, Stephen Dubner.
    0:06:18 I first got interested in Trader Joe’s around 15 years ago.
    0:06:21 I’d never been to one of their stores, but I had a general impression.
    0:06:23 Cheap and cheerful.
    0:06:27 Relatively laid-back and sort of groovy for a grocery store.
    0:06:30 Apparently a reflection of its surfy California roots.
    0:06:35 Also, not aggressively health-conscious, but leaning in that direction.
    0:06:40 And then I read a Wall Street Journal article about a German grocery chain called Aldi
    0:06:43 that was ramping up its U.S. expansion.
    0:06:47 Aldi is a super cheap, super generic grocery store.
    0:06:50 95% of its products were house brands.
    0:06:53 And it was beating even Walmart on price.
    0:06:57 The article said the Aldi chain had two branches back in Germany,
    0:07:01 separately owned by two wealthy brothers named Albrecht.
    0:07:04 And that one of those branches also owned Trader Joe’s.
    0:07:10 I found this fact surprising only because when I think of German business practices,
    0:07:14 I don’t think of a groovy, earthy, crunchy, California surfy vibe.
    0:07:15 But there it was.
    0:07:20 I also learned that Trader Joe’s stores were much smaller than typical supermarkets,
    0:07:23 that they had their own way of doing things,
    0:07:28 and that places without Trader Joe’s often started petitions to bring one to their town.
    0:07:33 It was a sort of loony devotion usually reserved for sports teams or your favorite band.
    0:07:36 What kind of grocery store has a following like that?
    0:07:41 And then when I learned that Trader Joe’s outsells all other grocery stores per square foot,
    0:07:43 I really started paying attention.
    0:07:47 Then one opened up near my office here in New York.
    0:07:50 I started shopping there and, for the most part, loving it.
    0:07:52 I realized it’s not for everyone.
    0:07:56 In fact, part of their strategy is trying not to be for everyone.
    0:08:00 But I did want to know the secrets to their success.
    0:08:04 We reached out to the Trader Joe’s headquarters in Monrovia, California,
    0:08:07 and were politely told to get lost.
    0:08:10 As we mentioned earlier, the company is known for its secrecy.
    0:08:14 The two brothers who founded Aldi North and Aldi South in Germany,
    0:08:16 you know, have a record of that.
    0:08:18 Michael Roberto again.
    0:08:21 That was kind of the family heritage of really being pretty secretive
    0:08:22 about their business operations.
    0:08:25 And really, they weren’t even, you couldn’t even find photos of them,
    0:08:26 like, on the internet for years, you know.
    0:08:28 I mean, they were very secretive.
    0:08:30 It’s a strange combination.
    0:08:34 A firm that prides itself on user-friendliness while also keeping its distance.
    0:08:37 Which means that a lot of what’s known about it
    0:08:40 comes from industry analysts and other secondary sources.
    0:08:42 But let’s start here.
    0:08:48 In the very beginning, there really was a Joe behind Trader Joe’s, Joe Cologne.
    0:08:52 He opened the first store in 1967 in Pasadena, California.
    0:08:57 He went with a South Seas theme, beachy tchotchkes, Hawaiian shirts,
    0:09:00 calling employees captains and crew members.
    0:09:07 In 1979, Cologne sold the chain to one of the secretive Albrecht brothers, Theo.
    0:09:11 Theo Albrecht was a recluse, perhaps it was said,
    0:09:16 because he had once been kidnapped and held for ransom for 17 days in Germany.
    0:09:23 Albrecht died in 2010, but Trader Joe’s remains notoriously press shy.
    0:09:29 It’s also a privately held company, so no earnings calls with investment analysts,
    0:09:33 no public proclamations of any sort, really, about how it does business.
    0:09:39 And so, to figure out how it works, we’ll rely on a few people who’ve spent a lot of time
    0:09:43 thinking about Trader Joe’s, including the business school professor, Michael Roberto,
    0:09:45 whom you’ve already met.
    0:09:45 Correct.
    0:09:49 Also, the Columbia Business School professor, Sheena Iyengar,
    0:09:52 whose research specialty is particularly relevant here.
    0:09:54 So, I’ve been studying choice.
    0:09:56 Why do we want choice?
    0:09:59 What are the things that affect how and what we choose?
    0:10:03 And what are some things we can do to improve our choice-making abilities?
    0:10:06 We’ll also talk to a Trader Joe’s superfan.
    0:10:08 My name is Kirk DeSarmia.
    0:10:10 I reside in Seward, Alaska.
    0:10:14 Seward, by the way, does not have a Trader Joe’s,
    0:10:16 nor does the state of Alaska.
    0:10:23 The closest store from DeSarmia’s house is 2,295 miles away by car in Bellingham, Washington.
    0:10:26 DeSarmia is the guy who we heard earlier say this.
    0:10:29 The first thing I do when I know I’m going somewhere is
    0:10:32 get on the internet and find where the closest Trader Joe’s is.
    0:10:37 And we’ll hear from a spy in the house of Trader Joe’s,
    0:10:39 a former advertising executive named Mark Gardner,
    0:10:41 who became obsessed with the chain.
    0:10:44 And I just had this thought, like, you know,
    0:10:47 what if I just went and worked there?
    0:10:50 What would I learn about this company?
    0:10:59 What Gardner learned about the company is that just about everything Trader Joe’s does,
    0:11:04 outside of exchanging food for money, is unorthodox for a modern grocery store.
    0:11:06 There’s a lot to talk about.
    0:11:07 The products, of course.
    0:11:10 The economics of their business model.
    0:11:13 Their very homemade, do-it-yourself aesthetic,
    0:11:17 including the hand-painted murals that reflect the neighborhood of every store.
    0:11:21 But let’s start with one of the first things I noticed when I started shopping there,
    0:11:22 the employees.
    0:11:27 Yes, they are friendly and helpful and enthusiastic.
    0:11:31 At Trader Joe’s, what they want is employees in the aisles who have sampled the product,
    0:11:32 who know the product, who can say,
    0:11:35 have you tried this wine or that cheese?
    0:11:39 But what really caught my eye was the sheer number of employees.
    0:11:41 There are so many of them.
    0:11:45 If you go in during a slow time, you can easily be outnumbered by employees
    0:11:48 in their TJ’s t-shirts and Hawaiian prints.
    0:11:53 One reason is that rather than stocking shelves overnight, like most grocery stores,
    0:11:56 Trader Joe’s stocks them during business hours.
    0:11:57 Why?
    0:12:00 As Mark Gardner learned when he went to work there,
    0:12:04 the priority is to maximize customer interaction.
    0:12:07 So they would tell us, you’re going to be looking for customers
    0:12:11 who seem like they can’t find something that they want
    0:12:13 or just seem curious about something.
    0:12:16 You’re going to initiate conversations with these people.
    0:12:19 And that we want you to be friendly.
    0:12:21 We want you to be chatty.
    0:12:22 We want you to be empathetic.
    0:12:26 And more than anything else, we want you to do what it takes
    0:12:29 to make customers feel appreciated and wanted.
    0:12:33 So that explains why there are so many employees in the aisles.
    0:12:37 But there are also a ton of employees staffing the checkout.
    0:12:40 On one level, this makes sense.
    0:12:42 It makes the long checkout line move fast.
    0:12:46 And the checkout, after all, is where a store takes the customer’s money.
    0:12:52 Lesson number one in sales, don’t make it hard for people to give you their money.
    0:12:57 But Trader Joe’s also has employees directing traffic at the checkout line.
    0:13:00 One telling you which register to go to.
    0:13:04 One pulling you out of the big queue and into the final queue.
    0:13:10 And one or two holding up handmade signs marking the middle of the queue and the beginning.
    0:13:15 That’s three or four employees to do the job that most stores use zero employees to do.
    0:13:17 Or maybe they use some software.
    0:13:21 But Trader Joe’s seems to be aggressively low-tech.
    0:13:23 No self-checkout aisles.
    0:13:25 No online ordering and pickup.
    0:13:27 No customer loyalty programs.
    0:13:32 And apparently Trader Joe’s gathers no significant data on customers at all.
    0:13:36 In the modern business world, this is heresy.
    0:13:44 If you shop at Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, you can be sure the company has an algorithmic target on your back.
    0:13:46 Trader Joe’s, meanwhile?
    0:13:53 It really didn’t matter if it was a little old lady that was looking for one $5 bottle of wine.
    0:14:01 And if the wine shipment had just come in the back and I would go and look through a hundred different cases and see if I could find the one that she wanted.
    0:14:12 And get her that one bottle of wine, if I spent 15 minutes doing that and that made that customer really happy, then the managers were happy and the store was happy.
    0:14:16 So this is a riddle.
    0:14:22 Here’s a company that doesn’t harness big data and doesn’t generally seem to embrace a lot of technology.
    0:14:26 It employs a lot of real live people and offers decent pay and benefits.
    0:14:30 But this is also a company that sells its products at low prices.
    0:14:43 One head-to-head comparison of grocery prices in Washington state found that Trader Joe’s was 19% cheaper than the local average, 12% cheaper than Target and 24% cheaper than Whole Foods.
    0:14:50 So how on earth can Trader Joe’s, as Michael Roberto told us, take in the most revenue per square foot in the industry?
    0:14:53 They’re at the top by a wide, wide margin.
    0:15:00 A 2024 analysis found that Trader Joe’s sells around $1,750 of groceries per square foot.
    0:15:03 Kroger, $800.
    0:15:05 Walmart, $600.
    0:15:07 How is this happening?
    0:15:11 We should probably start with the products that Trader Joe’s sells.
    0:15:15 Here, let me read some of what they say are their most popular items.
    0:15:26 Mandarin orange chicken, mushroom and black truffle flatbread, butter chicken and basmati rice, Italian truffle cheese, dark chocolate peanut butter cups, spicy tempura seaweed snacks.
    0:15:38 These are the sort of foods that light up Instagram accounts and Facebook pages that inspire fanatical devotion, even among people who don’t have a Trader Joe’s within 2,300 miles.
    0:15:44 Like Kirk DeSermia, who works as a facilities manager for the National Park Service in Alaska.
    0:15:55 Whenever I leave the state, I usually buy a couple hundred dollars worth of goods and I have an extra suitcase or duffel bag with me in my luggage.
    0:15:58 DeSermia and his duffel bag have been all over.
    0:16:06 I’ve been, I know, to some in Portland, Oregon, Reno, Nevada, all over Southern California.
    0:16:07 There’s a number of them.
    0:16:15 My wife is from Kentucky and so we’ve been to, they have one in Louisville now, as well as Indianapolis.
    0:16:22 I go to D.C. about once a year for work and I love to go to the Trader Joe’s in Georgetown.
    0:16:30 What is it about Trader Joe’s foods that creates such a lust?
    0:16:38 Let’s put aside for a moment the question of how good their food is, especially since taste is subjective, at least to some degree.
    0:16:43 But there are a few things to say about how Trader Joe’s is at least different from a typical grocery store.
    0:16:47 First, there is a sense of globetrotting adventure.
    0:16:51 The tikka masala, the carne asada, the gochujang almonds.
    0:16:58 That’s why Sheena Iyengar thinks of shopping there as a variety-seeking exercise.
    0:17:00 Oh, let’s see what kind of candy bars they have.
    0:17:02 They usually have cool candy bars.
    0:17:05 Let’s see what kind of deals they might have on wines or cheeses.
    0:17:08 Are their prepared food sections kind of cool?
    0:17:13 What might they have that could add some more variety to the house?
    0:17:19 They also offer a rather unsubtle blend of healthy, or at least healthy-seeming, and hedonistic.
    0:17:31 Yes, you can buy kohlrabi salad and cauliflower crust pizza, but you’ve also got your peanut butter-filled pretzels and sea salt and turbinado sugar chocolate almonds.
    0:17:41 Speaking of which, turbinado sugar, also known as natural brown sugar, but still sugar, why add the turbinado?
    0:17:43 I have a few guesses.
    0:17:49 One, to say you’re just adding sugar to your already chocolate-covered almonds doesn’t sound very healthy.
    0:17:52 But, turbinado sugar?
    0:17:56 Hmm, intriguing, possibly even sophisticated.
    0:18:04 Additionally, Trader Joe’s seems to understand what everyone in sales understands, especially real estate agents.
    0:18:11 Adjectives are inexpensive and often useful, especially when the actual virtues are limited.
    0:18:16 A charming house is often, in fact, a small house.
    0:18:24 Trader Joe’s reportedly puts a great deal of effort into scouting, sourcing, and producing food that their customers truly love.
    0:18:29 But they also pay a lot of attention to package design and descriptive salesmanship.
    0:18:37 They publish an old-fashioned newsprint bulletin, the Fearless Flyer, with in-depth descriptions of new products.
    0:18:44 When you walk into a Trader Joe’s, there’s a playful vibe, as if to say, hey, you’re just buying food.
    0:18:48 Food is delicious, so enjoy yourself.
    0:18:52 There’s also an artsy vibe, a writerly vibe.
    0:18:55 More so, oddly enough, than in a typical bookstore.
    0:19:01 These details, as casual as they might seem, would also appear to be strategic.
    0:19:09 In a 2011 interview with the LA Times, Joe Colombe said that when he started Trader Joe’s in the 1960s,
    0:19:16 He was inspired by an article he read in Scientific American about the huge spike in Americans attending college.
    0:19:21 I felt this newly educated class of people would want something different, he recalled.
    0:19:24 And that was the genesis of Trader Joe’s.
    0:19:27 Why did he choose Pasadena as the first store location?
    0:19:33 Because, he said, Pasadena is the epitome of a well-educated town.
    0:19:44 Trader Joe’s is for over-educated and underpaid people, for all the classical musicians, museum curators, and journalists, he said.
    0:19:49 This suggests that from the very beginning, Trader Joe’s understood cream skimming,
    0:19:53 targeting a certain kind of customer and letting the rest slide by.
    0:20:00 As for the underpaid part of Colombe’s equation, that would appear to be outdated.
    0:20:06 An analysis by the research firm AgData found that Trader Joe’s stores today are located in counties
    0:20:11 with higher household median income than any other grocery chain, including Whole Foods,
    0:20:15 and about $10,000 higher than the U.S. median income.
    0:20:21 But, and this seems to be another key component of Trader Joe’s success, they also value frugality.
    0:20:27 As Michael Roberto found, they usually set up shop in the cheaper parts of the expensive areas.
    0:20:32 Frankly, in many cases, they’re in sort of old strip malls, so they’ve saved money on the real estate.
    0:20:40 The real estate firm Zillow found that homes near Trader Joe’s stores appreciate more quickly than homes in the city as a whole,
    0:20:45 concluding that either Trader Joe’s is really good at picking areas that are on the rise,
    0:20:48 or that they are in part causing the rise.
    0:20:53 So, how about a new store in Seward, Alaska?
    0:20:56 That is Kirk DeSermia’s dream.
    0:21:01 So, I started a Facebook page called Bring Trader Joe’s to Alaska.
    0:21:03 This was in 2012.
    0:21:07 I thought, man, these guys, maybe they just don’t know what they’re missing yet.
    0:21:12 And if I can create this Facebook page, and I can get people around the state to start liking it,
    0:21:17 and sending Trader Joe’s an email to say, hey, we would really love to see your store here,
    0:21:20 then maybe Trader Joe’s will actually listen to us.
    0:21:24 So, after one of his out-of-town Trader Joe’s shopping binges…
    0:21:31 When I come home with a suitcase full, I like to throw it on the kitchen table and take a picture of it
    0:21:38 and put it out there, hopefully to motivate people to send that email to Trader Joe’s and let them know we’re out here.
    0:21:42 His Facebook page got some traction, about 1,200 likes.
    0:21:48 I would say most of my friends in Seward are aware that this is something that I would like to see happen.
    0:21:53 Unless you think DeSermia is one of those guys who makes a Facebook page for everything.
    0:21:57 No. Some of my friends might say I’m fairly politically active,
    0:22:03 but, you know, I honestly can’t think of any other store that I might think to start a page to bring up here.
    0:22:07 Seward, Alaska, does have a relatively high median household income.
    0:22:10 But the population is a problem.
    0:22:12 Fewer than 3,000 people.
    0:22:15 DeSermia concedes that Anchorage, a few hours away,
    0:22:19 would be a more sensible site for the first Trader Joe’s in Alaska,
    0:22:21 and he’d happily make the drive.
    0:22:23 He just really wants a Trader Joe’s.
    0:22:26 Every time I go to a Trader Joe’s in the lower 48,
    0:22:31 they always look sideways at me when I’m getting $200 to $300 worth of goods.
    0:22:36 But I tell them, you know, it’s because we live in Alaska and we can’t get you guys to come up here.
    0:22:41 Since I started this page in 2012 and they’ve never responded to a single email,
    0:22:46 it seems a little unlikely, but hopefully they’re going to listen to this interview
    0:22:48 and then my percentage will go up.
    0:22:57 Coming up after the break, we’ll get into the economic details of Trader Joe’s success.
    0:23:01 We’ll hear how they flipped the script on customer relations.
    0:23:03 Just imagine if you would.
    0:23:06 What if you changed the rules?
    0:23:10 What if you guys were both on the same side?
    0:23:13 And we’ll answer the question we know you’ve been thinking.
    0:23:17 What does Trader Joe’s have in common with Michelangelo?
    0:23:19 It’s coming up right after this.
    0:23:35 Of all the mysteries concerning the success of Trader Joe’s, here’s what strikes me as the most interesting one.
    0:23:41 Their stores, as we’ve learned, are generally quite small, roughly a third the size of a typical supermarket.
    0:23:43 Michael Roberto again.
    0:23:48 We’re all acclimated to every other supermarket looks the same.
    0:23:50 It has 35,000 items.
    0:23:53 It has 7 million varieties of toothpaste and tomato sauce.
    0:23:55 Every other player has all those things.
    0:24:01 But Trader Joe’s, they only have, say, 3,000 stock-keeping units in a typical Trader Joe’s,
    0:24:04 or 4,000 at most, in one of their larger stores.
    0:24:09 Moreover, as we’ve learned, Trader Joe’s prices are relatively low.
    0:24:15 And yet, they also take in much higher revenues in stores that have more variety and more expensive items.
    0:24:17 So, how?
    0:24:22 Remember, Trader Joe’s doesn’t sell a lot of brand-name groceries.
    0:24:27 Roughly 80% of their products are private label items, also known as store brands.
    0:24:32 What that means is Trader Joe’s has mitigated the power that suppliers might have over them.
    0:24:36 So while they’re not nearly as big as Kroger’s, they can get great purchasing power.
    0:24:43 Because they’re condensing all they’re buying in tomato sauce to one vendor for a very limited number of items.
    0:24:48 And when you’re selling something that you also manufacture, or at least source directly,
    0:24:52 you obviously stand to make more money than if you’re buying from a middleman.
    0:24:56 That said, even store-branded products need to taste good.
    0:24:59 Judging from the chain’s success, they do.
    0:25:05 In fact, some Trader Joe’s branded items may taste identical to brand-name foods.
    0:25:07 Why?
    0:25:10 Because, it appears, they are identical.
    0:25:16 An investigation by the food website Eater, using Freedom of Information Act requests,
    0:25:23 found that many Trader Joe’s items are, in fact, manufactured by the same companies that make the brand-name versions of products
    0:25:27 that you can buy in many other grocery stores, usually for significantly more money.
    0:25:31 For instance, those Trader Joe’s pita chips with sea salt?
    0:25:37 They appear to be exactly the same as Stacey’s Simply Naked pita chips.
    0:25:42 Trader Joe’s gluten-free chocolate chip cookies, according to the investigation, are, quote,
    0:25:48 nearly identical in taste, packaging, and ingredients to Tate’s Bakeshop cookies.
    0:25:55 There’s nothing wrong with this, and it’s hardly unusual for brand-name manufacturers to run a side business selling to private labels.
    0:26:05 But most places that sell a lot of house brands are seen as down-market discounters, not upmarket superstars like Trader Joe’s.
    0:26:08 So, why are they different?
    0:26:13 Some of the credit must go to the clever packaging and the artful product descriptions.
    0:26:20 But to get to the real secret of Trader Joe’s, what I think might be the single biggest reason for its success,
    0:26:23 you have to go back to Sheena Iyengar.
    0:26:33 I have been at the Columbia Business School since 1998, and I started to study choice way back in 1990.
    0:26:36 Iyengar’s PhD is in social psychology.
    0:26:40 As an undergrad, she double-majored in psychology and economics.
    0:26:44 She was born in Toronto to parents who’d immigrated from India.
    0:26:50 Her background, she believes, gave her a different perspective on decision-making when she started working in the field.
    0:26:56 And I got very interested in the kinds of questions that we wouldn’t have ordinarily asked,
    0:27:00 like, well, do all cultures see choice in the same way?
    0:27:03 We had assumed that it was innate.
    0:27:06 We had assumed that everybody saw it the same way, that it was somehow universal.
    0:27:12 And I think because I was an Asian American, I didn’t see it as that obvious.
    0:27:16 She wanted to explore this question with kids from different backgrounds.
    0:27:22 Her theory was that Asian American kids and white American kids might think differently about choice.
    0:27:29 Before comparing the two groups, she wanted to establish a baseline to confirm that for the white kids,
    0:27:32 choice indeed had a positive effect.
    0:27:36 This baseline experiment turned out to be pretty interesting on its own.
    0:27:37 Here’s how it worked.
    0:27:43 She brought a bunch of three-year-olds, one by one, into a room full of toys.
    0:27:48 Half of them were allowed to choose any toy, and they could switch as they pleased.
    0:27:53 The other half would be given just one toy with no option to switch.
    0:27:57 I started by looking at white American kids because I had to first, you know,
    0:28:01 show that I’m capable of actually replicating what prior scientists would say.
    0:28:07 What prior scientists would say, and had been saying for decades, is that choice is motivating.
    0:28:13 That having choice, or even the illusion of choice, is associated with increased satisfaction
    0:28:16 and feeling more control over your life.
    0:28:21 Therefore, the kids who could choose their toy should be happier for having the options
    0:28:23 and more likely to play longer.
    0:28:27 These ideas about choice were prominent not just in psychology.
    0:28:31 They were baked into the foundation of economic thinking at the time.
    0:28:34 That more choice is almost always better than less choice.
    0:28:40 But when Iyengar started her study and brought in the kids who could choose from an entire
    0:28:42 room full of toys…
    0:28:50 The white kids would come in, and they would look at all these toys and stare outside the window.
    0:28:54 And then when I would just give them Legos, they were really happy, and they were playing,
    0:28:57 and I was like, wait, this goes totally against what I’m supposed to find.
    0:28:58 There’s something wrong here.
    0:29:04 So, Iyengar went back and examined some of those earlier studies about choice and decision-making.
    0:29:09 She realized that when those researchers described giving people lots of choice,
    0:29:13 in reality, that meant something like two to six options.
    0:29:16 Not a room full, like she had tried.
    0:29:20 So, Iyengar ran a different study, this time limiting the number of choices.
    0:29:23 And now she confirmed what her predecessors had found.
    0:29:29 But she kept thinking about what happened in that first study, with the room full of toys.
    0:29:31 Why were they staring out the window?
    0:29:32 I don’t get it.
    0:29:34 I gave them really, really cool toys.
    0:29:36 I gave them all the most modern toys.
    0:29:41 At the same time, I was going to this upscale grocery store.
    0:29:45 The store is called Drager’s Market.
    0:29:47 It’s a Northern California institution.
    0:29:49 Iyengar was at Stanford at the time.
    0:29:56 So, they had like 250 different kinds of mustards and vinegars and mayonnaises and 500 different
    0:29:59 kinds of fruits and vegetables and 100 different kinds of olive oils.
    0:30:01 And, oh my God, it was amazing.
    0:30:06 And I would go to all these little tasting sessions and try out like 10 different kinds
    0:30:06 of vinegars.
    0:30:12 And I also then thought to myself, well, how come you never buy any of those things you taste?
    0:30:19 And I then went to the store manager and I asked him whether his model of offering people
    0:30:20 all this choice was working.
    0:30:22 Now, he said it did.
    0:30:24 And he pointed to the traffic.
    0:30:26 And this store did have a lot of traffic.
    0:30:29 But it was still an empirical question.
    0:30:31 Was it helping or was it not?
    0:30:35 So, Iyengar designed an experiment at Drager’s to answer the question.
    0:30:40 She set up a tasting booth for jams and she alternated the choice set.
    0:30:45 Sometimes the booth would feature six different jams and sometimes 24.
    0:30:47 And we looked at two things.
    0:30:52 First, we looked at in which case did more people stop to sample some jam.
    0:30:55 And we found that more people stopped when they were 24 on display.
    0:31:01 So, 60% stopped when they were 24 on display versus when there were six on display, only
    0:31:03 40% of the people stopped.
    0:31:10 And then when people stopped, we gave everybody a coupon giving them $1 off if they bought a
    0:31:11 jar of jam.
    0:31:15 And in the back of the coupon was a code that told us if they saw six versus 24.
    0:31:23 Now, what we found was that of the people who stopped when they were 24 on display, only
    0:31:27 3% of those coupons were redeemed.
    0:31:34 Whereas of the people who stopped when there were six on display, 30% of the coupons were
    0:31:35 redeemed.
    0:31:38 Interesting.
    0:31:42 A larger choice set generates more interest.
    0:31:45 The smaller choice set generates more action.
    0:31:51 Sheena Iyengar’s JAM study, very simple but very powerful, would go on to become one of the
    0:31:56 most famous studies in decision science, because it illustrates what a lot of us feel when we
    0:31:59 enter, for instance, a gigantic supermarket.
    0:32:04 With the finding illustrated, we said, we want more choice, presumably because of all the
    0:32:06 opportunities it provides us.
    0:32:11 But when it comes down to making a choice, we don’t want that choice to be too hard or too
    0:32:14 conflict-ridden or too burdensome.
    0:32:20 Iyengar followed up her JAM study with a look at employee participation in retirement savings
    0:32:21 plans.
    0:32:27 And essentially what we found was that the plans that offered their employees more options,
    0:32:30 you saw a real decrease in participation rates.
    0:32:36 So if you had a plan that offered people less than five options, the likelihood to participate
    0:32:38 was roughly around 75%.
    0:32:45 And by the time you got to plans that offered people around 60 options, now participation
    0:32:48 rates had dropped below 60%.
    0:32:52 This phenomenon has come to be called the paradox of choice.
    0:32:55 But Iyengar doesn’t think that’s quite right.
    0:32:59 It’s not that more choice is always worse and that less is always better.
    0:33:04 She argues that choice is both a limiting and a powerful tool.
    0:33:07 Every context is different.
    0:33:13 You can imagine that a huge choice set is particularly welcome in the digital realm, where you can search
    0:33:18 for exactly what you want with a few keystrokes, assuming that is, you know what you want.
    0:33:25 But in the analog world, in the world of a grocery store, for instance, the size of a choice
    0:33:31 set matters, not just because of the cost of real estate and transportation, storage and labor
    0:33:36 to stock the shelves, but because of how we, people, make decisions.
    0:33:39 Envision a shelf in a typical supermarket.
    0:33:42 It has 7 million varieties of toothpaste and tomato sauce.
    0:33:44 And a Trader Joe’s shelf.
    0:33:46 It doesn’t overwhelm me.
    0:33:49 It usually gives me just a few choices per domain.
    0:33:55 And having just a few choices per domain is more likely to lead to action.
    0:34:02 Imagine yourself standing in an aisle in Trader Joe’s and you come across their 5-seed almond
    0:34:09 bars and your lizard brain says, well, there are no 4-seed almond bars or 6-seed almond
    0:34:09 bars.
    0:34:14 I don’t even know why I need seeds in my almond bars, but sure, I think I’ll get some of those.
    0:34:18 Trader Joe’s understands less is more.
    0:34:23 It understands, to use a word of the moment, curation.
    0:34:28 They don’t overwhelm you with choice, which is why you’re more willing to examine each
    0:34:29 novel choice.
    0:34:36 There is a story, probably not true, about Michelangelo.
    0:34:43 Someone supposedly asked him how difficult it had been to sculpt his famous David, and he
    0:34:47 said, it’s easy, just chip away the stone that doesn’t look like David.
    0:34:53 I am not saying Trader Joe’s is quite on Michelangelo’s level, but you get the idea.
    0:34:56 There is great value in clearing away the clutter.
    0:35:02 Which is one reason Sheena Iyengar personally loves shopping at Trader Joe’s.
    0:35:07 It doesn’t give me the boring stuff, right? It keeps me excited because I want to see what
    0:35:08 do they have.
    0:35:13 And what do they have that might get me thinking about something I don’t ordinarily think about.
    0:35:16 So they also maintain the mystery of novelty for me.
    0:35:22 Novelty is also a powerful tool in sales, and this too Trader Joe’s understands.
    0:35:28 It is famous for constantly introducing new products, experimenting with them really,
    0:35:30 which means old products have to go.
    0:35:33 Maybe they’ll come back, maybe they won’t.
    0:35:35 This strategy would appear to be risky.
    0:35:40 The typical grocery store, if the item that you typically bought isn’t there, you’re really
    0:35:41 pissed, right? You’re mad.
    0:35:43 Michael Roberto again.
    0:35:47 At Trader Joe’s, customers have come to understand that that’s part of the trade-off.
    0:35:53 You might see your peach mango salsa disappear, but there’ll be something new to try that you
    0:35:56 can offer at your next cocktail party and wow people with.
    0:36:02 Iyengar notes this strategy also gives every trip to Trader Joe’s a sense of a treasure hunt,
    0:36:07 but that our appetite for novelty is domain-specific.
    0:36:10 I deliberately go into that venue.
    0:36:12 That venue being Trader Joe’s.
    0:36:16 Because I want to learn about some choices.
    0:36:19 I’m trying to update my brain on choices.
    0:36:27 But when I go into my coffee shop in the morning, I do not engage in any act of updating.
    0:36:28 I don’t want to know.
    0:36:31 I walk into my coffee shop every morning.
    0:36:33 I don’t even say anything.
    0:36:38 They just bring me out exactly what they bring me every other day.
    0:36:40 And it’s made exactly the same.
    0:36:45 And I have no interest in engaging in any kind of variety seeking.
    0:36:55 After the break, does Trader Joe’s have anything to teach governments about how to run their operations?
    0:36:56 I’m Stephen Dubner.
    0:36:59 This is Freakonomics Radio, and we will be right back.
    0:37:19 For most retailers, advertising is an important part of how they do business.
    0:37:21 Not so for Trader Joe’s.
    0:37:25 I discovered Trader Joe’s totally by accident.
    0:37:30 That’s Mark Gardner again, the former advertising executive who wound up working at Trader Joe’s.
    0:37:32 He was living in California at the time.
    0:37:34 I thought it was a local store.
    0:37:36 It had a kind of a surf theme.
    0:37:41 And I didn’t know any better because they don’t do any advertising.
    0:37:44 I only was exposed to it because it happened to be in my neighborhood.
    0:37:46 Then Gardner moved to Kansas City.
    0:37:47 Yes.
    0:37:53 And that’s when I really learned about Trader Joe’s as a company because there was no Trader Joe’s.
    0:37:58 But there were these rumors, oh, but we’re going to get a Trader Joe’s.
    0:38:00 And there was so much excitement.
    0:38:07 There’s a Facebook page called Bring Trader Joe’s to Kansas City that has 5,000 friends.
    0:38:11 As a former advertising guy, Gardner was impressed.
    0:38:19 I think the number one thing that struck me about Trader Joe’s is that they almost don’t advertise at all.
    0:38:20 They don’t market.
    0:38:24 They have a pretty good website now.
    0:38:27 But for years, they had a rudimentary website.
    0:38:29 They had almost no social media presence.
    0:38:33 They had almost no kind of public relations.
    0:38:42 So they didn’t do a whole bunch of the things that I had spent my entire working life thinking, well, you know, these are the things that you do when you build a brand.
    0:38:45 So that was really striking to me.
    0:38:51 And I just had this thought, like, you know, what if I went and worked there?
    0:38:54 What would I learn about this company?
    0:39:01 Gardner learned enough about the company by working there that he wrote a book about it called Build a Brand Like Trader Joe’s.
    0:39:03 How did Trader Joe’s respond?
    0:39:07 Well, as you know, they’re a very, very secretive company.
    0:39:14 So they responded exactly the way I expected, which was with utter silence.
    0:39:23 What initially impressed Gardner was how Trader Joe’s had grown so much without spending all the money that most firms spend on marketing, advertising, and so on.
    0:39:30 But what impressed him once he got inside, working as a crew member for $12 an hour, was the company’s culture.
    0:39:41 Well before the new Kansas City store had opened, on the first or second day of training, a Trader Joe’s executive came in to meet with the roughly 50 new hires, including Gardner.
    0:39:48 The proceedings began with that standard, horrifying request to say your name and tell a story about yourself.
    0:39:51 And I am not kidding you, 50 hands went up.
    0:39:55 It was like all these people were like, pick me.
    0:39:57 I want to be the first.
    0:39:57 I want to start.
    0:39:59 I want to tell you my story.
    0:40:06 And I looked around at that group of hands going up, and mine was up too, you know, because I love talking about myself.
    0:40:09 But most people don’t, at least not to a group of strangers.
    0:40:13 And I thought, wow, this is not an ordinary group of people.
    0:40:34 As the training progressed, these guys really weren’t too worried about teaching me how to operate a grocery store, right?
    0:40:40 I mean, there was some discussion about, you know, keeping the cold things cold and how important that is.
    0:40:44 And there was a little bit of discussion about this is how a cash register works.
    0:40:47 About, you know, when you’re bagging groceries, this is how you do it.
    0:40:51 There was some discussion of process.
    0:40:58 But actually, there was a lot of discussion of Trader Joe’s values.
    0:41:05 There was a tremendous amount of discussion about how are you going to be with the customers.
    0:41:19 No matter how crazy the store was, no matter how much pressure there was to do something else, if you were doing something for a customer, that trumped everything.
    0:41:28 Seeing how Trader Joe’s encouraged its employees to interact with customers, to partner up with them, didn’t just make sense to Gardner.
    0:41:36 It inspired him to wonder why this theoretically obvious approach is, in fact, quite rare.
    0:41:41 Consider, he says, a standard trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
    0:41:44 But what happens when you go to the DMV?
    0:41:50 Well, what happens is you stand on one side of a counter, and then there’s your opponent on the other side of the counter.
    0:42:04 And it’s as if you’re in sort of a game or a sport where you’re trying to get your license plate or a driver’s license, and they’re going to say, oh, yeah, but you don’t have an up-to-date inspection certificate for your cars.
    0:42:06 So get out of here, right?
    0:42:08 It’s like a volleyball game, practically.
    0:42:10 And it’s you against them.
    0:42:12 Now, what if you change the rules?
    0:42:15 And what if you said you guys are both on the same side?
    0:42:21 Your goal is to get them that driver’s license or that license plate that they need.
    0:42:31 And so instead of just saying, like, you don’t have the right inspection, what if you told them, look, this is what’s wrong with the certificate that you’ve got.
    0:42:34 It’s either out of date or it’s from the wrong state or whatever.
    0:42:38 And this is where you would go to get the inspection that you need, right?
    0:42:41 And let me look at all your other things while I’ve got you here.
    0:42:49 And if there’s anything else you need, I’ll tell you what you need so that the next time you come, it’s going to be a slam dunk for you.
    0:42:52 What if that was – what if it wasn’t adversarial?
    0:42:54 What if you guys were both on the same side?
    0:43:01 What if you guys were both on the same side?
    0:43:03 It’s a good question, don’t you think?
    0:43:13 Look, I’m not saying Mark Gardner’s example is necessarily fair to the DMV, nor am I saying that Trader Joe’s should win the Nobel Peace Prize.
    0:43:21 But it does strike me that a lot of interactions in the modern world are set up to be more competitive than they need be.
    0:43:25 And that the benefits of collaboration are often undervalued.
    0:43:41 I think back to an interview we did with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who’s been reversing Microsoft’s longstanding policy of treating tech rivals like Google and Apple as pure rivals and instead sometimes partnering with them.
    0:43:43 Nothing can be taken for granted.
    0:43:47 There’s no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
    0:43:53 What you have to do is be good at being able to refresh yourself at the crucial times.
    0:44:00 So, if you had the choice, would you have Trader Joe’s run the Department of Motor Vehicles?
    0:44:08 And maybe even – I’m not serious here, except maybe I am – would you have them run America?
    0:44:17 Or at least would you try to export some of their collaborative, frugal, don’t-take-yourself-so-seriously methodologies?
    0:44:24 Michael Roberto, the business school professor who’s analyzed Trader Joe’s, warns it’s not so easy.
    0:44:29 That it wouldn’t even be easy for another grocery store to replicate the Trader Joe’s experience.
    0:44:33 To do what they do, you can’t just hire the same people they hire.
    0:44:40 You have to emulate the private label strategy, the real estate strategy, the pricing, the quirky culture.
    0:44:46 And it’s often the soft things, not just the kind of people you hire, but the way you train them and the culture you create.
    0:44:48 I mean, we can build a store that looks like a Trader Joe’s.
    0:44:52 But when we have people walk in, can they have the same experience?
    0:44:54 Well, that’s very hard to replicate.
    0:45:06 Fair enough, and again, I don’t mean to heap undue praise on a grocery chain just because they found a way to make their appealing food cheap and treat people pretty well along the way.
    0:45:08 But I will say this.
    0:45:18 We spend a lot of time on this show and in modern society at large pointing out problems and failures and sundry idiocies.
    0:45:33 It’s nice once in a while to come across an institution, even if it’s just a grocery store, that seems to work well for several constituencies on several dimensions and to see what can be learned from it.
    0:45:41 If you have an idea for a future episode about something else that’s working well and what we can learn from it, let us know, would you?
    0:45:44 We’re at radio at Freakonomics.com.
    0:45:48 Meanwhile, coming up next time on the show.
    0:45:54 This is my example of sludge.
    0:45:55 Sludge.
    0:45:55 Sludge.
    0:45:55 Sludge.
    0:45:56 Sludge.
    0:45:56 Sludge.
    0:45:57 Sludge.
    0:45:57 Sludge.
    0:45:58 Sludge.
    0:45:59 Sludge.
    0:46:01 The sludge was impenetrable.
    0:46:06 You may not know it by that name, but you certainly know what sludge is.
    0:46:10 It’s the subscription that’s easy to sign up for and impossible to cancel.
    0:46:17 It’s the list of doctors your insurance company gives you, which seems to include zero doctors who will actually take an appointment.
    0:46:21 It’s the government form that takes two hours to fill out.
    0:46:27 It’s not that somebody designed them to make fools of people.
    0:46:29 This was just incompetence.
    0:46:33 But is sludge really just incompetence?
    0:46:35 Is it unintentional?
    0:46:37 No, not unintentional.
    0:46:42 You’re not going to read page 97 in the booklet about this is what we do for prior authorization.
    0:46:47 Sludge is everywhere and it’s time to fight back.
    0:46:49 That’s next time on the show.
    0:46:51 Until then, take care of yourself.
    0:46:53 And if you can, someone else too.
    0:46:57 Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
    0:47:00 You can find our entire archive on any podcast app.
    0:47:05 Also at Freakonomics.com, where we publish transcripts and show notes.
    0:47:09 This episode was produced by Alvin Melleth with an update by Augusta Chapman.
    0:47:15 The Freakonomics Radio Network staff includes Alina Cullman, Dalvin Abuaji, Eleanor Osborne, Ellen Frankman,
    0:47:24 Elsa Hernandez, Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippin, Jasmine Klinger, Jeremy Johnston, John Schnars, Morgan Levy, Neil Carruth, Sarah Lilly, Teo Jacobs, and Zach Lipinski.
    0:47:30 Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by the Hitchhikers and our composer is Luis Guerra.
    0:47:32 As always, thank you for listening.
    0:47:38 Yeah, sorry.
    0:47:44 I’m just actually thinking about the Trader Joe’s parking lot sent me into a brief temporary coma there.
    0:47:50 The Freakonomics Radio Network.
    0:47:52 The hidden side of everything.

    The quirky little grocery chain with California roots and German ownership has a lot to teach all of us about choice architecture, efficiency, frugality, collaboration, and team spirit.

     

     

     

  • Moment 205: Neuroscientist Reveals 4 Hacks to Rewire Your Brain For Growth & Success! – Dr Tara Swart

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:03 In your book, you talk about the mechanisms of neuroplasticity.
    0:00:09 What are the mechanisms of neuroplasticity and the three factors that have the biggest impact on changes in the brain?
    0:00:19 So the first one is myelination and anyone who does a lot of sport who repeats a certain, you know, weight training will understand that that’s what’s happening in their muscles.
    0:00:26 You know, when I said, you know, you come here pretty much every day and you sit with someone and you interview them and you’re really great at asking questions.
    0:00:32 That’s like something you’re super good at that because you repeat it, it becomes like a superpower.
    0:00:35 And that means that what’s happening there is myelination.
    0:00:43 So myelin is a fatty substance that coats some neural pathways and those pathways become fast pathways.
    0:00:48 Now, there’s a reason from evolution why we have some fast pathways and some slow pathways.
    0:00:55 And the reason is that if you put your hand in the fire, your reflex to snatch your hand out is a fast pathway.
    0:01:03 But your pain reflex is a slow pathway because if you were incapacitated by pain, the minute you put your hand in the fire, you wouldn’t be able to get away from it.
    0:01:08 One of the mechanisms of neuroplasticity is becoming even better at something that you’re really good at.
    0:01:10 And that’s happened through myelination.
    0:01:14 The most common one, which is something that you’re quite good at.
    0:01:22 But if you had loads of time, you could become really good at it, but you maybe don’t have loads of time happens through synaptic connection.
    0:01:25 So that’s the one that can feel like quite hard work.
    0:01:29 But if you put in the effort, then you can change your brain.
    0:01:35 So that means that neurons that already exist in the brain connect up with each other and start to form new pathways.
    0:01:45 And the third mechanism, which doesn’t happen a lot in the adult brain, but it does happen around the hippocampus because we do lay down new memories in life, happens a lot in children’s brains.
    0:01:47 It’s called neurogenesis.
    0:01:59 And that is little embryonic nerve cells that float around in the brain, actually becoming fully formed nerve cells, neurons, and connecting up through synaptic connection and maybe getting myelinated.
    0:02:11 And there’s a factor, a growth factor that’s involved in that, the embryonic cell becoming an adult cell, which is called BDNF or brain derived neurotrophic factor.
    0:02:13 And trophic means growth.
    0:02:14 So neurotrophic is growth of neurons.
    0:02:22 And the things that contribute mostly to that are aerobic exercise and eating dark skinned foods.
    0:02:23 Yeah.
    0:02:27 Dark skinned foods.
    0:02:27 Yeah.
    0:02:39 So let me just cover the exercise one first, because this is one of my fun facts, which is that if you are regularly doing aerobic exercise, the turnover of those cells in your brain is about 13, 14%.
    0:02:43 So like the amount and the speed in which they like die, die off.
    0:02:46 No, the speed in which they go from embryonic to full grown cell.
    0:02:46 Oh, okay.
    0:02:47 Yeah.
    0:02:48 Okay.
    0:02:50 So, because we want neurogenesis to happen.
    0:02:51 Okay.
    0:02:58 If you haven’t been doing exercise for a while, and then you start, the rate of cell turnover is like 30%.
    0:03:03 So it increases after a period of inactivity with new aerobic exercise.
    0:03:08 So that’s my excuse for like, being a couch potato half the time and then starting up again.
    0:03:10 Oh, yeah.
    0:03:11 Who are you kidding?
    0:03:13 Okay.
    0:03:17 So it will accelerate the speed in which you’re making those connections.
    0:03:17 Yeah.
    0:03:23 Making the embryonic cells grow into new cells and then connect up with existing ones.
    0:03:26 So I want to make sure I’m super clear on this.
    0:03:33 So if I’m trying to develop, if I’m trying to speak a different language, by doing exercise that has an impact on…
    0:03:35 Oh, it will help you learn and retain memories.
    0:03:35 Yeah.
    0:03:46 So in simple language, if I’m doing aerobic exercise, my ability to accelerate my neuroplasticity will increase.
    0:03:46 Yeah.
    0:03:47 Oh.
    0:03:52 What if it’s like not aerobic exercise?
    0:03:53 What if I’m just lifting big weights?
    0:04:00 There are benefits to your brain of other types of exercise, but weight training doesn’t relate to neurogenesis as much.
    0:04:00 Okay.
    0:04:07 This isn’t so much about language, but it’s another example of mind over matter.
    0:04:12 So this was an experiment done on two groups of weightlifters.
    0:04:13 Thought you might like this one.
    0:04:15 That’s a big compliment.
    0:04:16 Thank you so much.
    0:04:18 You think I’m a weightlifter.
    0:04:19 You think I identify as a weightlifter.
    0:04:21 You looked at me and thought weightlifter.
    0:04:22 Totally.
    0:04:23 Thank you so much.
    0:04:28 This was finger and elbow weights, though, so maybe not so glamorous in this experiment.
    0:04:28 Okay.
    0:04:33 So one group lifted finger or elbow weights.
    0:04:43 I think this was a two-week study, and they showed, I think it was about a 40% increase in muscle mass of the targeted muscle group for those weights.
    0:04:49 Their counterparts only imagined lifting weights for two weeks.
    0:04:51 They lifted no weights for two weeks.
    0:04:54 They just sat there, and they visualized themselves lifting weights.
    0:04:59 And they had a 13% increase in muscle mass.
    0:05:01 Interesting.
    0:05:04 So we can tell our brain to grow muscle.
    0:05:08 Have you been secretly doing that, Steve?
    0:05:09 No, but I could be doing that instead.
    0:05:10 I’ve been going to the gym.
    0:05:15 It’d be much easier if I could just watch the football and tell myself that I’m lifting weights.
    0:05:17 Well, I don’t think you can watch the football.
    0:05:22 I think the whole, like, visualization and, you know, intention and attention stuff was an important part of it.
    0:05:25 I mean, that speaks to the power of our thoughts again, doesn’t it, really?
    0:05:30 If our thoughts can tell our brain to grow muscles.
    0:05:32 Has that been, is that?
    0:05:33 It’s in the book.
    0:05:39 But is it like, is it, is that widely accepted as the truth?
    0:05:43 I’m surprised there’s not, like, personal trainers that just sit you down in an empty room and just go, right.
    0:05:47 Well, think about the number of athletes that use visualization as part of their training.
    0:05:54 Of course, they do the exercise and the practice and everything, but they, that’s hugely used in sports.
    0:05:56 Interesting.
    0:06:07 It’s obviously not a case that I would just then go home and start imagining working out, but it does, it does, again, remind me of the importance of just thinking about positive things that are in line with my goals.
    0:06:17 Yeah, I mean, what’s the harm in imagining yourself more muscular or more youthful alongside eating the dark foods and getting enough sleep, you know?
    0:06:19 It’s like, it’s part of the package.
    0:06:21 Do you want to know what you should eat so that you can…
    0:06:23 Please, what is this dark skinned foods?
    0:06:29 So, basically, you know, at the basic level, we want people to have a healthy, balanced diet, mostly plant-based.
    0:06:43 But where you can choose a darker version of a food, the pigment in the skin of that food has higher levels of antioxidants called anthocyanins, and they also contribute to neurogenesis.
    0:06:53 So, it’s basically like eating black beans instead of white beans or eating blueberries instead of strawberries, dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate, purple sprouting broccoli instead of green broccoli.
    0:06:58 And good quality coffee counts as well.
    0:07:07 Yeah, so, you know, I try to vary what I eat, but also always choose the darker option if I can.
    0:07:13 Okay, so is there anything else that one needs to know about the process of neuroplasticity?
    0:07:20 So, from what I’ve ascertained so far, it’s about understanding the patterns we have in our brain, understanding the consequences of them.
    0:07:23 Repetition is key to establishing new pathways.
    0:07:26 Is there anything else that I need to be really aware of?
    0:07:29 Because I do want to grow my brain and change my brain.
    0:07:29 Yeah.
    0:07:37 So, the accountability piece, which we discussed, but also creating the conditions in your body for your brain to be able to do all of that stuff.
    0:07:45 And so, you know, this is a bit of repetition, but sleeping roughly eight hours a night, having regular sleep and wake times seems to have an additional benefit.
    0:07:46 We don’t know why.
    0:07:48 So, within an hour.
    0:07:51 So, go to sleep between 10 and 11, wake up whenever.
    0:07:53 Not being sedentary.
    0:07:57 So, being physically active doesn’t necessarily mean you have to pound it at the gym.
    0:08:05 To be honest, in terms of neuroplasticity, you don’t want to do too much high-intensity exercise because it spikes your cortisol levels.
    0:08:07 So, it’s better to do kind of quite gentle exercise.
    0:08:14 Eating 30 different plant products a week and varying the color as much as possible.
    0:08:20 You know, managing your stress, whether it’s through meditation or just like removing the causes of stress.
    0:08:22 If you’re doing and being hydrated.
    0:08:29 If you are doing all of those things and you want to play at level two of the game, you could start doing time-restricted eating.
    0:08:34 So, only eating between, I only eat between 12 noon and 8pm.
    0:08:36 But you could do 8am to 8pm.
    0:08:39 So, that kind of fasting is very beneficial for your brain as well.
    0:08:41 But only if you’ve got the foundations right.
    0:08:43 It’s not going to help you if you don’t.
    0:08:46 What does it do for the brain fasting, intermittent fasting?
    0:08:49 Well, it helps to regulate your blood sugar levels.
    0:08:55 So, you know, spiking blood sugar levels aren’t good for your body or your brain.
    0:09:03 And fasting and calorie restriction, they do have like brain health and longevity benefits.
    0:09:09 But that, you know, only if your foundations are right.
    0:09:17 You know, somebody who’s stressed or eats badly or doesn’t sleep enough will not benefit from time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting.
    0:09:20 Because it is a form of stress on your body.
    0:09:27 But it’s a form of stress that your body can take and use to build resilience if the baseline level of stuff is good.
    0:09:33 And for neuroplasticity to happen, we need to be taking on big cognitive challenges.
    0:09:36 Challenges that kind of break existing pathways.
    0:09:37 Yeah.
    0:09:39 So, I want to learn to DJ.
    0:09:41 I’ve been learning for about 12 months now.
    0:09:45 That feels like a big cognitive challenge for me.
    0:09:46 Yeah, that’s great.
    0:09:50 That’s the type of thing that would establish a new pathway in my brain.
    0:09:51 Absolutely.
    0:09:54 Someone’s just looking to build their self-esteem and their confidence.
    0:09:58 What does the brain tell us about the process of doing that?
    0:10:07 Does it go back again to what we said about awareness, about understanding the feelings and the consequences and about setting goals and repetition and accountability?
    0:10:23 It will get to that, but there’s actually a little bit of a jump start to that, which is really helpful, particularly in terms of confidence and self-esteem, which is that usually there’s a particular recurring negative thought that’s associated with feelings of lack of confidence.
    0:10:38 So, if you can identify what that is and create a positive affirmation that’s like the opposite of it or something that counteracts it, then that can be a great way to get started.
    0:10:42 My phrase would have been, it has to be perfect and it’s not going to be perfect.
    0:10:48 I wouldn’t have been able to say this last year, but now I would probably be able to say it is going to be better than perfect.
    0:10:49 It is going to be amazing.
    0:10:50 Like, I know it.
    0:10:56 But to get myself there, I could have said, it doesn’t have to be perfect, but it’s going to be great.
    0:10:59 Or I could have said, maybe it will be perfect.
    0:11:04 Sometimes the question I ask myself is, what’s the best possible outcome that could happen here?
    0:11:08 So, it’s changing your language in your mind about the things that you think.
    0:11:14 So, that’s basically metacognition, which is that you can understand your own thinking.
    0:11:25 And then reversing that narrative quite strongly, even if it doesn’t feel like it’s totally true, and just repeating that so much that you start to wear down that other pathway.
    0:11:27 Does language really matter?
    0:11:29 The language we say to ourselves and say to others.
    0:11:31 Yeah, yeah, it really matters.
    0:11:32 Yeah, how we speak about ourselves.
    0:11:34 How do we know that matters?
    0:11:36 I mean, it’s neuroplasticity.
    0:11:46 If you’re repeating something in your mind or out loud, then if that’s being repeated more than another statement, it’s the one that your brain’s going to believe.
    0:11:53 So, we can trick our brains effectively by saying something else to ourselves repeatedly.
    0:12:03 Because there’s this whole movement in, you know, the personal development community, which says you just kind of look in the mirror and you say to yourself, like, I’m beautiful, I’m attractive, everyone’s going to love me, I’m going to be rich.
    0:12:06 And I’ve found it hard to get on board with that train.
    0:12:09 That one…
    0:12:10 Because I know I’m bullshitting myself.
    0:12:20 You know, in my, like, subconscious or whatever, I just know if I said those things, I’m not saying about myself, but saying those very, very far away things, I just think my brain is smart enough to know that I’m bullshitting myself.
    0:12:23 Yeah, I think there’s an element of reality to it.
    0:12:28 So, there’s a few things there, which is those particular things that you said are very shallow.
    0:12:32 They are not really the things that people should, you know, need to be saying to themselves.
    0:12:43 And what I find, and I picked this up from the podcast with Lewis, is he said that sometimes he would just say to himself, I’m safe, I’m safe, I’m okay.
    0:12:48 And actually just sometimes saying to myself, I’m safe, is that’s what I need to hear.
    0:12:50 Not, I’m beautiful and I’m amazing.
    0:12:56 That does feel like, A, it’s the kind of thing that everybody probably wants to say.
    0:12:59 B, it’s not addressing the underlying issues.
    0:13:01 Yeah, it’s not addressing, and I’m going to be rich.
    0:13:05 I mean, that’s the worst one because you actually have to do stuff to make that happen.
    0:13:07 You know, you can’t just say that.
    0:13:19 So, I think finding the stuff that you need to say to yourself that is not to do with social expectation or parental expectation or, you know, social group, what everybody else is doing.
    0:13:29 Like, what you really want to know for yourself, that’s going to set you up to be able to go out into the real world and do the stuff that you need to do to get the other things that you want.
    0:13:33 There you said, you can’t just say it, you have to go out and do it.
    0:13:40 Now, when people hear this term manifestation, it’s highly associated with just kind of saying stuff or thinking stuff.
    0:13:43 And it’s less associated with actually going out and doing it.
    0:13:51 So, a lot of people just turn off when someone talks about manifestation because it sounds kind of woo-woo, put it on the vision board and it will happen.
    0:14:01 And in fact, I think I’ve said this a few times, but I had, I wouldn’t say it was an argument, but a disagreement which resulted in the person I was speaking to literally getting out of a taxi in the middle of New York City and walking off.
    0:14:06 I was on a date many years ago and the girl was saying to me that she goes, you can just manifest anything into your life.
    0:14:08 So, you can just think about it and then it will happen.
    0:14:12 So, I said to her, I was like, you think you could just like think about becoming a millionaire and then it will happen?
    0:14:13 And she goes, yeah.
    0:14:16 And I go, and you wouldn’t even have to like do all the stuff.
    0:14:20 And she was like, no, you could just like think about it and the universe will attract it into your life.
    0:14:27 Do you believe in manifestation and if so, what form of manifestation and how is that supported with neuroscience?
    0:14:36 So, I believe in manifestation based on your brain.
    0:14:39 So, your thoughts, your beliefs, your actions.
    0:14:46 So, where I’ve called my book The Source, I have said your brain is the source of you being able to attract everything that you want into your life.
    0:14:57 So, I sat down one summer and I like researched the laws of attraction and just looked at whether I could explain them through cognitive science, which is psychology and neuroscience.
    0:14:59 And I could.
    0:15:01 So, I was kind of like, oh, I’m onto something here.
    0:15:07 And the first stage for me was understanding that it is absolutely to do with the way that you think.
    0:15:11 But then it’s not magically like attracting something in the atmosphere.
    0:15:14 It’s to do with the changes that you make based on your thought process.
    0:15:21 I do believe in vision boards, but I call them action boards because I see them as a representation of what I want.
    0:15:24 But I still have to go out there and make those things happen.
    0:15:35 I think it’s also much more empowering to believe that it’s your brain that’s making that stuff happen and not some external force that you’re not really sure what it is.
    0:15:38 This point about ageing generally, longevity and ageing.
    0:15:45 One of the really interesting things you talk about in the book is this idea of sort of psychological priming and psychological priming of ageing.
    0:15:51 And that psychological priming is the effect that the mindset of ageing has on our physical body.
    0:15:55 How our thoughts about ageing affect our physical abilities.
    0:16:00 What I interpreted from that is our thoughts about ageing have an impact on our ageing.
    0:16:01 Yeah.
    0:16:03 So actually, there’s a really fascinating study.
    0:16:08 It’s one of my favorite ones to talk about, which was three groups of octogenarians.
    0:16:10 What’s an octogenarian?
    0:16:11 People in their 80s.
    0:16:11 Okay.
    0:16:14 And one group was the control group.
    0:16:15 So they just lived like normal for a week.
    0:16:24 One group had to reminisce about being in their 60s for most of the week whenever they had an opportunity to.
    0:16:33 And one group were actually driven to retrofitted versions of their homes that looked like what their house looked like 20 years ago.
    0:16:37 They were given newspapers dated from 20 years ago.
    0:16:41 They had photos of themselves in that house when they were in their 60s.
    0:16:49 And one of the things was they got there and they were sort of like, okay, you know, who’s going to carry our suitcase up to the bedroom or whatever?
    0:16:51 And they were like, no, you’re 60 now.
    0:16:52 You carry your own suitcase.
    0:16:55 So it literally started from the minute they got there.
    0:16:59 And these little old ladies and gentlemen had to carry their cases up.
    0:17:10 After one week, the people in that group were taller because their posture improved.
    0:17:15 They had better musculoskeletal coordination than they had a week before.
    0:17:27 In before and after photos that were shown to people that didn’t know them, they were rated as younger in the one week after photos than the photos from arriving at that place.
    0:17:35 And the reminiscing group also had some improvements, but not as much as a group that lived like they were in their 60s.
    0:17:38 And so there was three groups.
    0:17:39 Yeah.
    0:17:42 The ones that went back and relived their life, the ones that reminisced and the ones that did nothing at all.
    0:17:42 Yeah.
    0:17:43 Wow.
    0:17:52 And that really goes to show the impact of what we think about ourselves and then all of the physiological consequences of that.
    0:17:55 You talk about this, your eyes as well.
    0:17:56 Hmm.
    0:17:59 About you were going to get, was it like laser eye surgery or something?
    0:18:00 No, it’s just like.
    0:18:02 People told you you needed glasses.
    0:18:03 Well, my optician told me.
    0:18:07 So he’s of Indian origin, same age as me.
    0:18:11 And he said, oh, I think, you know, you’re probably going to need reading glasses next year.
    0:18:13 And I was like, no, I do not want reading glasses.
    0:18:14 That makes you look really old.
    0:18:16 And he was like, yeah, I know.
    0:18:18 I know we both look younger than we are.
    0:18:22 But, you know, your eyes are going to age just like anybody else’s.
    0:18:24 And I was like, no, they are not.
    0:18:27 So I left, came back a year later.
    0:18:28 He said, oh, how’s it going with the reading?
    0:18:29 So it’s fine.
    0:18:32 And he sort of went, OK, Tara.
    0:18:34 So he’s doing my eye test.
    0:18:41 He spins around on his little chair halfway through and says, your eyes haven’t got worse.
    0:18:42 They haven’t even stayed the same.
    0:18:43 They’ve got better.
    0:18:45 And I said, I know.
    0:18:46 And he said, what have you been doing?
    0:18:51 And I said, well, I just said no to you when you said I’m going to have to get reading glasses.
    0:18:57 And when I’m like looking at my phone or a book and it feels like it would be a bit easier if I moved it further away, I just don’t.
    0:19:00 And what’s that doing in the brain?
    0:19:01 Why is that?
    0:19:03 Why did that improve your reading?
    0:19:10 Well, I hadn’t experienced a problem with my reading, but he was obviously seeing the numbers slightly change.
    0:19:13 I really didn’t do much more than what I’ve just said.
    0:19:17 So it was like not accepting the limitation and then not changing my behavior.
    0:19:25 And I think that’s what you see from the third group of people, which is that they had to change their behavior to to live like.
    0:19:30 without any help and in a way that they had to when they were younger.
    0:19:40 So that essentially removed the limitations that we impose on ourself, which is that if I’m X age, it must mean that I need reading glasses or I need a walking stick or whatever it is.
    0:19:47 There’s a kind of opposite experiment to that, too, which was done with young medical students in Florida.
    0:19:54 And they had to walk between five rooms and on the table were five pieces of paper with a word on it.
    0:19:55 And you had to string a sentence out of it.
    0:19:58 And but that wasn’t the real experiment.
    0:20:00 They thought that was the experiment.
    0:20:09 The real experiment was that in one of the rooms, the words that were on the table were Florida, beach, sunshine, walk, bungalow.
    0:20:18 And all of them walked more slowly out of that room than any of the other rooms because those words are associated with retirement.
    0:20:25 And that made them slow down that you asked me, is language important to our brain?
    0:20:27 That’s how important it is.
    0:20:33 So just saying words can change our behavior so quickly.
    0:20:35 That’s what the experiment showed.
    0:20:36 I’ve been thinking a lot.
    0:20:39 You know, I said I’ve got this vlog on YouTube called Behind the Diary.
    0:20:46 And in two of the episodes, I’ve caught myself out while I’m filming because I said words that I thought would be unhelpful.
    0:20:52 I think people, someone in the comments actually challenged me because there’s one day when I’m filming Dragon’s Den and I’m filming myself.
    0:20:54 I’m just talking about what’s going on.
    0:20:55 And I go, oh, I really need a coffee this morning.
    0:20:58 And I stop myself and say, I shouldn’t say need.
    0:21:05 And then I go, there’s something about this casual use of the word need throughout our lives that is disempowering me.
    0:21:06 It’s making me a slave to the coffee.
    0:21:09 So I make this point, which I’m sure people think I’m a little bit weird for making,
    0:21:20 that I should, I really need to not say the word need associated to the things because I will then probably develop a psychological and maybe a physical, like a somewhat of a physical need for that, for that thing.
    0:21:24 And it’s also just bringing that word need into your life.
    0:21:27 Like you don’t have enough, like that you need something.
    0:21:32 I’m constantly changing my words, like, you know, tweaking them like that.
    0:21:36 So I would say, oh, I’m going to treat myself to a coffee.
    0:21:38 And that was your decision.
    0:21:38 And that was your decision.
    0:21:39 You were powerful there.
    0:21:40 Yeah.
    0:21:41 That’s a choice you made.
    0:21:41 Yeah.
    0:21:44 There’s an overarching point here about personal responsibility as well.
    0:21:48 When people talk about, I can’t exercise.
    0:21:50 I don’t have any time.
    0:22:00 It feels like a really disempowering frame versus I’ve got other priorities, which feels empowering.
    0:22:05 And I think about this all the time, because if you ask someone why they don’t exercise, they’ll typically blame it on some force.
    0:22:12 The frame makes it seem like there’s a force that’s controlling their life for them that has not given them the time or that they could not.
    0:22:19 Whereas really, it’s just typically a case of priorities and your child or your job that pays your mortgage can be your priority.
    0:22:21 But I think it’s important.
    0:22:31 I’ve always felt it’s important to acknowledge the fact that you made the choice to take care of your child or to go to your mortgage paying job versus I didn’t, you know, I didn’t have any time.
    0:22:32 Yeah.
    0:22:39 This is why I think about language so much and the language that I use and how that’s dominating my life, even constantly telling myself that I’m unorganized, like messy.
    0:22:43 How that’s probably making me a messy person.
    0:22:49 What haven’t we talked about that we probably should have talked about?
    0:23:00 Is there anything at all, any studies or any insights into the brain and how we change habits that are stubborn or anything else at all that you’ve learned from the ancient wisdom?
    0:23:24 You know, I know that we’ve talked like very broadly on lots of different things, but I hope that for me, my intention with every sentence that I’ve said to you is that people should realize how much potential they have in their brains, like how capable they are of having an even more amazing life than they have already.
    0:23:32 I think I accept that now more than I ever have before, because I’ve had this conversation with you.
    0:23:42 I think I accept that there’s so much untapped potential in me and that I’m not this kind of fully formed, rigid lump of cells.
    0:23:50 I think a lot of people probably, if they’ve gotten to this point in the conversation will also accept that.
    0:24:04 If you were to close with, I guess, the step one, like the thing that I should immediately do as I move forward in my life from here, that would help me to start moving towards that person that I want to become.
    0:24:15 The organized, great partner, successful in his business, great with his podcast, all of those things.
    0:24:16 What is that first step?
    0:24:24 And do you know what’s funny is because my brain keeps thinking about the taxi driver that I met on the way here, who said he’d listened to the podcast and he told, gave me a little bit of a window into his world.
    0:24:26 So he’s driving the cab every day.
    0:24:28 And I meet a lot of cab drivers that listen to the podcast and we chat.
    0:24:33 And oftentimes they, sometimes they have dreams of doing other things.
    0:24:36 So they might say to me, do you know, I want to start my own business one day.
    0:24:41 And I’m just looking, I’m looking for the first couple of steps.
    0:24:49 But I reflect on what you said and go, they’re going to be so hardwired into their patterns and their jobs and their habits and their routines that it’s very hard to make that jump.
    0:24:49 Yeah.
    0:24:59 So if I could give people a takeaway to start with, that’s really simple, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of hard work at the other end of it.
    0:25:02 It would be, be very clear on what it is that you want.
    0:25:04 So you’ve mentioned a few things.
    0:25:11 Spend five minutes sitting down and visualizing those things being true.
    0:25:13 And then give gratitude for that.
    0:25:16 That would be my first step.
    0:25:18 Give gratitude for?
    0:25:19 Those things being true.
    0:25:22 Just five minutes.
    0:25:23 I’m a great partner.
    0:25:24 I’m not messy.
    0:25:26 My podcast is super successful.
    0:25:33 Like, see it, feel it in your body, taste it in your mouth, hear it in your ears.
    0:25:42 Completely immerse yourself in that five minutes, longer if you can, and then just be so grateful for all of that.
    0:25:47 Essentially, what you’re doing is moving your brain from a fear state to a trust state.
    0:25:50 And that is the gateway to making these changes.
    0:25:50 Thank you.
    Trong cuốn sách của bạn, bạn nói về cơ chế của sự thần kinh mềm dẻo. Những cơ chế nào góp phần vào sự mềm dẻo thần kinh và ba yếu tố nào có ảnh hưởng lớn nhất đến sự thay đổi trong não bộ?
    Đầu tiên chính là myelin hóa, và bất kỳ ai thường xuyên tập thể thao, lặp đi lặp lại một bài tập nâng tạ cụ thể nào đó sẽ hiểu đó chính là điều đang diễn ra với cơ bắp của họ. Bạn biết đấy, khi tôi nói rằng bạn đến đây gần như mỗi ngày và ngồi phỏng vấn ai đó và bạn rất giỏi trong việc đặt câu hỏi. Đó là điều mà bạn rất xuất sắc, bởi vì bạn lặp lại nó, nó trở thành một siêu năng lực. Và điều đó có nghĩa là cái đang diễn ra ở đây là myelin hóa. Myelin là một chất béo bao quanh một số con đường thần kinh, và những con đường đó trở thành những con đường nhanh. Bây giờ, có lý do từ quá trình tiến hóa mà một số con đường nhanh và một số con đường chậm là có lý do. Và lý do là nếu bạn cho tay vào lửa, phản xạ để kéo tay ra là một con đường nhanh. Nhưng phản xạ đau đớn của bạn là một con đường chậm, bởi vì nếu bạn bị thương do đau, ngay khi bạn cho tay vào lửa, bạn sẽ không thể rời khỏi đó.
    Một trong những cơ chế của sự thần kinh mềm dẻo là trở nên tốt hơn ở một điều mà bạn thực sự giỏi. Và điều đó xảy ra thông qua myelin hóa. Cái phổ biến nhất, là điều mà bạn khá giỏi. Nhưng nếu bạn có rất nhiều thời gian, bạn có thể trở nên thực sự giỏi ở nó, nhưng có thể bạn không có quá nhiều thời gian lại diễn ra thông qua kết nối synap. Điều đó làm cho nó có thể cảm thấy khá vất vả. Nhưng nếu bạn bỏ ra nỗ lực, thì bạn có thể thay đổi não của mình. Điều đó có nghĩa là các nơ-ron đã tồn tại trong não kết nối với nhau và bắt đầu hình thành các con đường mới.
    Và cơ chế thứ ba, mà không xảy ra nhiều trong não người trưởng thành, nhưng xảy ra xung quanh hồi hải mã vì chúng ta tạo ra những ký ức mới trong cuộc sống, xảy ra rất nhiều trong não của trẻ em. Nó được gọi là sự thần kinh sinh. Và đó là những tế bào thần kinh phôi thai nhỏ nổi trong não, thực sự trở thành các tế bào thần kinh hoàn chỉnh, và kết nối thông qua kết nối synap và có thể nhận được myelin. Và có một yếu tố, một yếu tố tăng trưởng liên quan đến điều đó, là tế bào phôi thai trở thành tế bào trưởng thành, được gọi là BDNF hay yếu tố thần kinh có nguồn gốc từ não. Và trophic có nghĩa là tăng trưởng. Vì vậy, thần kinh trophic là sự tăng trưởng của các nơ-ron. Và những điều góp phần chủ yếu vào điều đó là tập thể dục nhịp điệu và ăn thực phẩm có vỏ màu tối.
    Chà. Thực phẩm có vỏ màu tối.
    Vì vậy, hãy để tôi đề cập đến yếu tố tập thể dục trước, vì đây là một trong những thông tin thú vị của tôi, rằng nếu bạn thường xuyên tập thể dục nhịp điệu, tốc độ chuyển hóa của những tế bào đó trong não của bạn khoảng 13, 14%. Tức là số lượng và tốc độ mà chúng chết đi, chết dần. Không, tốc độ mà chúng chuyển từ tế bào phôi thai sang tế bào trưởng thành. Ồ, được rồi. Vâng.
    Vì vậy, vì chúng ta muốn sự thần kinh sinh xảy ra. Được rồi. Nếu bạn chưa tập thể dục một thời gian, và sau đó bạn bắt đầu, tỷ lệ chuyển hóa tế bào sẽ là khoảng 30%. Vì vậy, nó tăng lên sau một thời gian không hoạt động với tập thể dục nhịp điệu mới. Đó là lý do cho việc không hoạt động giữa chừng và sau đó bắt đầu lại.
    Ồ, vâng. Ai mà không hiểu cơ chứ? Được rồi. Vậy nó sẽ tăng tốc độ mà bạn tạo ra những kết nối đó. Vâng. Làm cho các tế bào phôi thai phát triển thành các tế bào mới và sau đó kết nối với những tế bào hiện có. Vì vậy, tôi muốn chắc chắn rằng tôi rất rõ ràng về điều này. Nếu tôi cố gắng phát triển, nếu tôi cố gắng nói một ngôn ngữ khác, bằng cách tập thể dục có ảnh hưởng đến… Ồ, nó sẽ giúp bạn học và giữ lại ký ức. Vâng.
    Vì vậy, bằng ngôn ngữ đơn giản, nếu tôi đang tập thể dục nhịp điệu, khả năng tăng tốc sự thần kinh mềm dẻo của tôi sẽ tăng lên. Vâng. Ồ. Thế còn nếu nó không phải là tập thể dục nhịp điệu thì sao? Nếu tôi chỉ nâng tạ lớn? Có lợi ích cho não của bạn từ các loại tập thể dục khác, nhưng tập tạ không liên quan đến sự sinh thần kinh nhiều. Ổn rồi.
    Điều này không phải về ngôn ngữ, nhưng đây là một ví dụ khác về tâm trí vượt lên cơ thể. Đây là một thí nghiệm được thực hiện trên hai nhóm người nâng tạ. Tôi nghĩ bạn sẽ thích thí nghiệm này. Đó là một lời khen lớn. Cảm ơn rất nhiều. Bạn nghĩ tôi là một người nâng tạ. Bạn nghĩ tôi nhận diện mình là một người nâng tạ. Bạn nhìn tôi và nghĩ đến một người nâng tạ. Hoàn toàn đúng vậy. Cảm ơn rất nhiều. Đây là tạ ngón tay và khuỷu tay, vì vậy có thể không quá lung linh trong thí nghiệm này.
    Được rồi. Một nhóm nâng tạ ngón tay hoặc khuỷu tay. Tôi nghĩ đây là một nghiên cứu kéo dài hai tuần, và họ cho thấy, tôi nghĩ rằng có khoảng 40% tăng trưởng về khối lượng cơ bắp của nhóm cơ mục tiêu cho những trọng lượng đó. Những người còn lại chỉ tưởng tượng nâng tạ trong hai tuần. Họ không nâng bất kỳ trọng lượng nào trong hai tuần. Họ chỉ ngồi đó và hình dung họ đang nâng tạ. Và họ đã có 13% tăng trưởng về khối lượng cơ bắp. Thú vị. Vậy chúng ta có thể bảo não của mình phát triển cơ bắp. Bạn có đang âm thầm làm điều đó không, Steve? Không, nhưng tôi có thể làm điều đó thay vào đó. Tôi đã đến phòng gym. Sẽ dễ dàng hơn nhiều nếu tôi chỉ xem bóng đá và nói với bản thân rằng tôi đang nâng tạ.
    Chà, tôi không nghĩ bạn có thể xem bóng đá. Tôi nghĩ toàn bộ, chẳng hạn như sự hình dung và, bạn biết đấy, ý định và chú ý đã là một phần quan trọng của nó. Ý tôi là, điều đó nói lên sức mạnh của tư duy của chúng ta một lần nữa, đúng không? Nếu những suy nghĩ của chúng ta có thể bảo não chúng ta phát triển cơ bắp. Điều đó đã được chấp nhận chưa? Nó có trong sách. Nhưng liệu điều đó có được chấp nhận rộng rãi là sự thật không? Tôi rất ngạc nhiên khi không thấy các huấn luyện viên cá nhân chỉ ngồi bạn xuống trong một căn phòng trống và nói, được rồi.
    Chà, hãy nghĩ về số lượng vận động viên sử dụng hình dung như một phần của việc tập luyện của họ. Tất nhiên, họ thực hiện các bài tập và luyện tập và mọi thứ, nhưng điều đó được sử dụng rất nhiều trong thể thao. Thú vị.
    Rõ ràng không phải là tôi sẽ chỉ về nhà và bắt đầu tưởng tượng về việc tập thể dục, nhưng điều đó, lại nhắc nhở tôi về tầm quan trọng của việc suy nghĩ về những điều tích cực liên quan đến mục tiêu của tôi.
    Vâng, ý tôi là, có điều gì sai khi tưởng tượng về việc bạn có thân hình cơ bắp hơn hoặc trẻ trung hơn song song với việc ăn thực phẩm tối và ngủ đủ giấc, bạn biết không?
    Nó giống như, nó là một phần của gói.
    Bạn có muốn biết bạn nên ăn gì để có thể…
    Làm ơn, thực phẩm có màu da tối là gì?
    Vì vậy, về cơ bản, bạn biết đấy, ở cấp độ cơ bản, chúng tôi muốn mọi người có một chế độ ăn uống lành mạnh, cân bằng, chủ yếu là dựa trên thực vật.
    Nhưng ở nơi bạn có thể chọn phiên bản màu tối hơn của một loại thực phẩm, sắc tố trong vỏ của loại thực phẩm đó có mức độ chất chống oxy hóa cao hơn gọi là anthocyanins, và chúng cũng góp phần vào quá trình tạo ra tế bào thần kinh.
    Vì vậy, nó chủ yếu giống như ăn đậu đen thay vì đậu trắng hoặc ăn việt quất thay vì dâu tây, sô cô la đen thay vì sô cô la sữa, bông cải xanh tím thay vì bông cải xanh.
    Và cà phê chất lượng tốt cũng được tính luôn.
    Vâng, vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, tôi cố gắng đa dạng hóa những gì tôi ăn, nhưng cũng luôn chọn lựa chọn tối màu hơn nếu tôi có thể.
    Được rồi, vậy có điều gì khác mà một người cần biết về quá trình tái cấu trúc thần kinh không?
    Vì vậy, từ những gì tôi đã nắm bắt được cho đến nay, điều này liên quan đến việc hiểu các mẫu hình mà chúng ta có trong não, hiểu các hệ quả của chúng.
    Sự lặp lại là chìa khóa để thiết lập các con đường mới.
    Có điều gì khác mà tôi cần thực sự nhận thức không?
    Bởi vì tôi muốn phát triển não của mình và thay đổi nó.
    Vâng.
    Vì vậy, phần trung thực mà chúng ta đã thảo luận, nhưng cũng tạo ra các điều kiện trong cơ thể của bạn để não của bạn có thể làm tất cả những điều đó.
    Và vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, điều này có một chút lặp lại, nhưng ngủ khoảng tám giờ mỗi đêm, có thời gian ngủ và thức dậy đều đặn dường như có lợi ích bổ sung.
    Chúng tôi không biết tại sao.
    Vì vậy, trong vòng một giờ.
    Vì vậy, đi ngủ giữa 10 giờ và 11 giờ, thức dậy khi nào cũng được.
    Không ngồi yên.
    Vì vậy, việc hoạt động thể chất không nhất thiết có nghĩa là bạn phải tập thể dục mệt mỏi ở phòng gym.
    Thành thực mà nói, về mặt tái cấu trúc thần kinh, bạn không muốn thực hiện quá nhiều bài tập cường độ cao vì nó tăng mức cortisol của bạn.
    Vì vậy, tốt hơn là làm những bài tập nhẹ nhàng.
    Ăn 30 loại thực phẩm thực vật khác nhau mỗi tuần và thay đổi màu sắc nhiều nhất có thể.
    Bạn biết đấy, quản lý căng thẳng của bạn, dù đó là thông qua thiền định hay chỉ đơn giản là loại bỏ nguyên nhân gây căng thẳng.
    Nếu bạn đang làm và giữ gìn đủ nước.
    Nếu bạn thực hiện tất cả những điều đó và bạn muốn chơi ở cấp độ hai của trò chơi, bạn có thể bắt đầu thực hiện ăn kiêng theo thời gian.
    Vì vậy, chỉ ăn giữa, tôi chỉ ăn giữa 12 giờ trưa và 8 giờ tối.
    Nhưng bạn có thể làm từ 8 giờ sáng đến 8 giờ tối.
    Vì vậy, loại nhịn ăn đó cũng rất có lợi cho não của bạn.
    Nhưng chỉ nếu bạn đã thiết lập đúng nền tảng.
    Nó sẽ không giúp bạn nếu bạn không.
    Nhịn ăn ảnh hưởng đến não như thế nào, nhịn ăn gián đoạn?
    Chà, nó giúp điều chỉnh mức đường huyết của bạn.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, mức đường huyết tăng vọt không tốt cho cơ thể hay não của bạn.
    Và nhịn ăn và hạn chế calorie, chúng thực sự có lợi ích đối với sức khỏe não và tuổi thọ.
    Nhưng điều đó, bạn biết đấy, chỉ nếu nền tảng của bạn là đúng.
    Bạn biết đấy, ai đó đang bị căng thẳng hoặc ăn uống kém hoặc không ngủ đủ sẽ không được lợi từ ăn kiêng có thời gian hoặc nhịn ăn gián đoạn.
    Bởi vì đó là một dạng căng thẳng đối với cơ thể của bạn.
    Nhưng đó là một dạng căng thẳng mà cơ thể bạn có thể chịu đựng và sử dụng để xây dựng sức đề kháng nếu mức độ cơ bản là tốt.
    Và để tái cấu trúc thần kinh xảy ra, chúng ta cần phải tiếp nhận những thách thức nhận thức lớn.
    Những thách thức mà phá vỡ các con đường hiện có.
    Vâng.
    Vì vậy, tôi muốn học làm DJ.
    Tôi đã học trong khoảng 12 tháng nay.
    Điều đó cảm giác như một thách thức nhận thức lớn đối với tôi.
    Vâng, điều đó thật tuyệt.
    Đó là loại điều sẽ thiết lập một con đường mới trong não của tôi.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Ai đó chỉ muốn xây dựng lòng tự trọng và sự tự tin của họ.
    Não nói gì với chúng ta về quá trình làm điều đó?
    Có phải quay lại những gì chúng ta đã nói về sự nhận thức, về việc hiểu cảm xúc và hậu quả và về việc đặt mục tiêu và lặp lại và tính trách nhiệm không?
    Nó sẽ dẫn đến điều đó, nhưng thực sự có một khởi đầu nhỏ cho điều đó, điều này rất hữu ích, đặc biệt là về mặt tự tin và lòng tự trọng, đó là thường có một ý nghĩ tiêu cực tái diễn đặc biệt liên quan đến cảm giác thiếu tự tin.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn có thể xác định điều đó là gì và tạo ra một khẳng định tích cực tương tự như điều ngược lại của nó hoặc điều gì đó phản kháng lại nó, thì đó có thể là một cách tuyệt vời để bắt đầu.
    Câu nói của tôi sẽ là, nó phải hoàn hảo và nó sẽ không hoàn hảo.
    Tôi sẽ không thể nói điều này vào năm ngoái, nhưng bây giờ tôi có thể nói rằng nó sẽ tốt hơn cả hoàn hảo.
    Nó sẽ thật tuyệt.
    Như, tôi biết điều đó.
    Nhưng để đưa bản thân đến đó, tôi có thể đã nói rằng, nó không cần phải hoàn hảo, nhưng nó sẽ thật tuyệt.
    Hoặc tôi có thể đã nói, có thể nó sẽ hoàn hảo.
    Đôi khi câu hỏi tôi tự hỏi là, kết quả tốt nhất có thể nào có thể xảy ra ở đây?
    Vì vậy, điều này làm thay đổi ngôn ngữ của bạn trong tâm trí về những điều bạn nghĩ.
    Vì vậy, đó chủ yếu là siêu nhận thức, mà bạn có thể hiểu suy nghĩ của chính mình.
    Và sau đó đảo ngược câu chuyện đó một cách mạnh mẽ, ngay cả khi nó không cảm thấy hoàn toàn đúng, và chỉ lặp lại điều đó nhiều đến mức bạn bắt đầu mài mòn con đường khác đi đó.
    Ngôn ngữ có thực sự quan trọng không?
    Ngôn ngữ mà chúng ta nói với chính mình và nói với người khác.
    Vâng, vâng, nó thực sự quan trọng.
    Vâng, cách chúng ta nói về chính mình.
    Làm thế nào chúng ta biết điều đó quan trọng?
    Ý tôi là, đó là sự tái cấu trúc thần kinh.
    Nếu bạn đang lặp lại một cái gì đó trong tâm trí hoặc nói ra, thì nếu đó được lặp lại nhiều hơn một tuyên bố khác, đó là điều mà não của bạn sẽ tin vào.
    Dưới đây là bản dịch sang tiếng Việt:
    Vì vậy, chúng ta có thể đánh lừa bộ não của mình một cách hiệu quả bằng cách lặp đi lặp lại một điều gì đó khác cho chính mình. Bởi vì có cả một phong trào trong cộng đồng phát triển cá nhân, họ nói rằng bạn chỉ cần nhìn vào gương và tự nhủ, như là, tôi đẹp, tôi hấp dẫn, mọi người sẽ yêu mến tôi, tôi sẽ trở nên giàu có. Và tôi thấy khó để tham gia vào cái tư tưởng đó. Điều đó… Bởi vì tôi biết tôi đang lừa dối chính mình. Bạn biết đấy, trong tiềm thức của tôi hay một cái gì đó tương tự, tôi chỉ biết rằng nếu tôi nói những điều đó, tôi không phải nói về bản thân mình, mà đang nói về những điều rất, rất xa vời, tôi chỉ nghĩ bộ não của tôi đủ thông minh để biết rằng tôi đang tự lừa dối mình. Vâng, tôi nghĩ có một yếu tố thực tế trong đó. Vì vậy, có một vài điều ở đây, những điều cụ thể mà bạn đã nói thực sự rất nông cạn. Chúng không thực sự là những điều mà mọi người nên, bạn biết đấy, cần phải tự nói với chính mình. Và điều tôi nhận thấy, và tôi đã học được điều này từ podcast với Lewis, là thỉnh thoảng anh ấy chỉ tự nhủ, tôi an toàn, tôi an toàn, tôi ổn. Và thực tế là đôi khi chỉ cần nói với chính mình, tôi an toàn, đó là điều tôi cần nghe. Không phải, tôi đẹp và tôi tuyệt vời. Điều đó thực sự có vẻ như, A, là thứ mà mọi người có thể muốn nói. B, nó không giải quyết được các vấn đề cơ bản. Vâng, nó không giải quyết được, và tôi sẽ trở nên giàu có. Ý tôi là, đó là điều tồi tệ nhất vì bạn thực sự phải làm điều gì đó để biến điều đó thành hiện thực. Bạn biết đấy, bạn không thể chỉ nói như vậy. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ việc tìm ra những điều bạn cần nói với chính mình mà không liên quan đến mong đợi xã hội hay mong đợi từ cha mẹ hay, bạn biết đấy, nhóm xã hội, những gì mọi người khác đang làm. Như, những gì bạn thực sự muốn biết cho chính mình, điều đó sẽ giúp bạn có khả năng ra ngoài thế giới thực và làm những điều bạn cần làm để có được những điều khác mà bạn muốn. Ở đó bạn nói, bạn không thể chỉ nói nó, bạn phải ra ngoài và làm nó. Giờ thì, khi mọi người nghe thấy thuật ngữ hiện thực hóa, nó thường liên quan đến việc chỉ cần nói ra hoặc nghĩ đến điều gì đó. Và nó ít liên quan đến việc thực sự ra ngoài và làm điều đó. Vì vậy, nhiều người chỉ tắt đi khi ai đó nói về hiện thực hóa vì nó nghe có vẻ mờ mịt, đặt lên bảng tầm nhìn và nó sẽ xảy ra. Và thực tế là, tôi nghĩ tôi đã nói điều này vài lần, nhưng tôi đã có, tôi sẽ không nói là một cuộc cãi vã, mà là một sự bất đồng dẫn đến việc người tôi đang nói chuyện với đã ra khỏi taxi giữa Thành phố New York và bỏ đi. Tôi đã hẹn hò nhiều năm trước và cô gái đã nói với tôi rằng cô ấy có thể biến bất cứ điều gì thành hiện thực trong cuộc sống của mình. Vì vậy, bạn chỉ cần nghĩ về nó và rồi nó sẽ xảy ra. Vì vậy, tôi đã nói với cô ấy, tôi kiểu như, bạn nghĩ bạn có thể chỉ việc nghĩ về việc trở thành triệu phú và sau đó điều đó sẽ xảy ra? Và cô ấy nói, vâng. Và tôi nói, và bạn thậm chí không cần phải làm tất cả những thứ đó. Và cô ấy nói, không, bạn có thể chỉ nghĩ về nó và vũ trụ sẽ thu hút nó vào cuộc sống của bạn. Bạn có tin vào hiện thực hóa không và nếu có, hình thức nào của hiện thực hóa và điều đó được hỗ trợ như thế nào bởi khoa học thần kinh? Vì vậy, tôi tin vào hiện thực hóa dựa trên bộ não của bạn. Vì vậy, những suy nghĩ, những niềm tin, những hành động của bạn. Vì vậy, nơi tôi đặt tên cho cuốn sách của mình là Nguồn, tôi đã nói bộ não của bạn là nguồn để bạn có thể thu hút mọi thứ mà bạn muốn vào cuộc sống của mình. Vì vậy, tôi đã ngồi xuống một mùa hè và tôi đã nghiên cứu các quy luật hấp dẫn và chỉ xem liệu tôi có thể giải thích chúng qua khoa học nhận thức, vốn là tâm lý học và khoa học thần kinh hay không. Và tôi có thể. Vì vậy, tôi đã kiểu như, ôi, tôi đã phát hiện ra điều gì đó ở đây. Và giai đoạn đầu tiên đối với tôi là hiểu rằng điều đó hoàn toàn liên quan đến cách mà bạn suy nghĩ. Nhưng sau đó nó không phải là sự kỳ diệu như thu hút một cái gì đó từ bầu khí quyển. Nó liên quan đến những thay đổi mà bạn thực hiện dựa trên quá trình suy nghĩ của bạn. Tôi thực sự tin vào bảng tầm nhìn, nhưng tôi gọi chúng là bảng hành động vì tôi xem chúng như là một đại diện cho những gì tôi muốn. Nhưng tôi vẫn phải ra ngoài và biến những điều đó thành hiện thực. Tôi nghĩ cũng sẽ mạnh mẽ hơn nhiều khi tin rằng chính bộ não của bạn đang khiến những thứ đó xảy ra chứ không phải một lực bên ngoài nào đó mà bạn không thực sự chắc chắn là gì. Điểm này về lão hóa nói chung, tuổi thọ và lão hóa. Một trong những điều thực sự thú vị mà bạn nói đến trong cuốn sách là ý tưởng về sự kích thích tâm lý và sự kích thích tâm lý liên quan đến lão hóa. Và sự kích thích tâm lý là tác động mà tư duy về lão hóa có lên cơ thể vật lý của chúng ta. Cách mà những suy nghĩ của chúng ta về lão hóa ảnh hưởng đến khả năng thể chất của chúng ta. Điều tôi hiểu từ đó là những suy nghĩ của chúng ta về lão hóa có tác động đến quá trình lão hóa của chúng ta. Vâng. Thực tế là, có một nghiên cứu thực sự thú vị. Đó là một trong những nghiên cứu tôi thích nói nhất, nói về ba nhóm người cao tuổi. Người cao tuổi là gì? Là những người ở độ tuổi 80. Được rồi. Và một nhóm là nhóm đối chứng. Vì vậy họ chỉ sống bình thường trong một tuần. Một nhóm phải hồi tưởng về thời kỳ ở độ tuổi 60 của họ trong hầu hết tuần khi họ có cơ hội. Và một nhóm thì được đưa đến những phiên bản cải tạo của ngôi nhà họ trông như thế nào 20 năm trước. Họ được đưa cho những tờ báo có ngày cách đây 20 năm. Họ có những bức ảnh của chính họ trong ngôi nhà đó khi họ ở độ tuổi 60. Và một trong những điều là khi họ đến đó, họ kiểu như, được rồi, ai sẽ mang vali của chúng ta lên phòng ngủ hay cái gì đó? Và họ đã nói, không, bạn đã 60 rồi. Bạn tự mang vali của mình. Vì vậy, nó thực sự bắt đầu từ phút họ đến đó. Và những bà cụ và ông cụ nhỏ nhắn đó đã phải mang vali của họ lên. Sau một tuần, những người trong nhóm đó đã cao hơn vì tư thế của họ cải thiện. Họ có sự phối hợp cơ xương tốt hơn so với một tuần trước.
    Trong những bức ảnh trước và sau được trình chiếu cho những người không biết họ, họ được đánh giá là trẻ hơn trong những bức ảnh một tuần sau đó so với những bức ảnh từ lúc mới đến nơi đó. Nhóm hồi tưởng cũng có một số cải thiện, nhưng không nhiều bằng nhóm sống như thể họ đang ở độ tuổi 60. Vậy nên có ba nhóm. Đúng vậy. Những người đã quay trở lại và sống lại cuộc đời của họ, những người hồi tưởng và những người không làm gì cả. Đúng vậy. Wow. Và điều đó thực sự cho thấy tác động của những gì chúng ta nghĩ về bản thân và tất cả các hậu quả sinh lý của điều đó. Bạn cũng nói về đôi mắt của mình. Hmm. Về việc bạn sẽ đi phẫu thuật mắt bằng laser hay điều gì đó tương tự? Không, nó chỉ như vậy thôi. Mọi người bảo bạn cần kính. Thực ra, bác sĩ nhãn khoa của tôi đã nói với tôi. Anh ấy có nguồn gốc Ấn Độ, cùng tuổi với tôi. Anh ấy bảo, ôi, tôi nghĩ rằng, bạn có thể sẽ cần kính đọc trong năm tới. Và tôi đã nói, không, tôi không muốn cần kính đọc. Điều đó làm bạn trông thật sự già. Và anh ấy nói, vâng, tôi biết. Tôi biết chúng ta đều trông trẻ hơn tuổi của mình. Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, mắt của bạn sẽ già đi giống như bất cứ ai khác. Và tôi đã nói, không, chúng không vậy. Vậy nên tôi đã ra về, và một năm sau trở lại. Anh ấy hỏi, ôi, việc đọc của bạn thế nào rồi? Nó vẫn ổn. Và anh ấy kiểu như, được rồi, Tara. Anh ấy đang kiểm tra mắt của tôi. Anh ấy xoay trên cái ghế nhỏ của mình giữa chừng và nói, mắt của bạn không tệ hơn. Chúng thậm chí còn không giữ nguyên trạng. Chúng đã tiến bộ. Và tôi đã nói, tôi biết. Và anh ấy hỏi, bạn đã làm gì? Và tôi trả lời, tôi chỉ đơn giản là đã từ chối bạn khi bạn nói rằng tôi sẽ phải có kính đọc. Và khi tôi nhìn vào điện thoại hoặc một quyển sách và cảm thấy nếu di chuyển xa một chút thì sẽ dễ hơn, tôi chỉ không làm vậy. Và điều đó đang diễn ra trong não bộ? Tại sao lại như vậy? Tại sao điều đó cải thiện khả năng đọc của bạn? Thực ra, tôi chưa từng gặp vấn đề với việc đọc, nhưng rõ ràng là anh ấy thấy những con số thay đổi nhẹ. Tôi thực sự không làm gì nhiều hơn những gì tôi vừa nói. Vậy nên giống như không chấp nhận sự hạn chế và không thay đổi hành vi của mình. Và tôi nghĩ đó là điều bạn thấy ở nhóm người thứ ba, đó là họ phải thay đổi cách sống của mình mà không cần sự trợ giúp, theo cách mà họ đã phải làm khi còn trẻ. Vì vậy, điều đó thực sự loại bỏ những giới hạn mà chúng ta áp đặt lên bản thân, rằng nếu tôi ở độ tuổi X, điều đó nhất định có nghĩa là tôi cần kính đọc hoặc cần một cây gậy đi bộ hoặc bất cứ thứ gì. Cũng có một thí nghiệm ngược lại với điều đó, diễn ra với những sinh viên y khoa trẻ ở Florida. Họ phải đi bộ giữa năm căn phòng và trên bàn có năm mảnh giấy với một từ trên đó. Và bạn phải xâu chuỗi lại thành một câu. Nhưng đó không phải là thí nghiệm thực sự. Họ nghĩ đó là thí nghiệm. Thí nghiệm thực sự là trong một trong những phòng đó, các từ trên bàn là Florida, bãi biển, ánh nắng, đi bộ, bungalow. Và tất cả họ đi ra khỏi căn phòng đó chậm hơn bất kỳ căn phòng nào khác vì những từ đó gợi nhớ đến việc nghỉ hưu. Và điều đó khiến họ chậm lại. Bạn đã hỏi tôi, ngôn ngữ có quan trọng đối với não bộ của chúng ta không? Đó là tầm quan trọng của nó. Chỉ cần nói ra những từ cũng có thể thay đổi hành vi của chúng ta một cách nhanh chóng. Đó là điều mà thí nghiệm đã chỉ ra. Tôi đã nghĩ rất nhiều. Bạn biết đấy, tôi đã nói tôi có vlog này trên YouTube mang tên “Đằng Sau Cuốn Nhật Ký”. Trong hai tập của chương trình, tôi đã bắt gặp bản thân ở giữa khi tôi đang quay phim vì tôi đã nói những từ mà tôi nghĩ là không có ích. Tôi nghĩ có người, ai đó trong phần bình luận thực sự đã thách thức tôi vì có một hôm khi tôi quay phim “Dragon’s Den” và tôi đang quay chính mình. Tôi chỉ đang nói về những gì đang diễn ra. Và tôi đã nói, ôi, tôi thực sự cần một tách cà phê sáng nay. Và tôi tự dừng lại và nói, tôi không nên nói cần. Và sau đó tôi nhận ra có điều gì đó về việc sử dụng từ “cần” một cách tùy tiện trong cuộc sống của chúng ta đang làm tôi cảm thấy thiếu sức mạnh. Nó khiến tôi trở thành nô lệ của cà phê. Vậy tôi nêu ra điểm này, mà tôi chắc là mọi người nghĩ tôi hơi kỳ quặc khi nói ra, rằng tôi thực sự phải không sử dụng từ “cần” liên quan đến những thứ vì sau đó tôi sẽ có thể phát triển một nhu cầu tâm lý và có lẽ là một nhu cầu thể chất nào đó cho nó. Và thực tế là chỉ việc mang từ “cần” vào cuộc sống của bạn. Như thể bạn không đủ, như thể bạn cần một cái gì đó. Tôi liên tục thay đổi từ ngữ của mình, như bạn biết đấy, tinh chỉnh chúng như vậy. Tôi sẽ nói, ôi, tôi sẽ tự thưởng cho mình một tách cà phê. Và đó là quyết định của bạn. Đó là quyết định của bạn. Bạn đã có sức mạnh ở đó. Đúng vậy. Đó là sự lựa chọn bạn đã làm. Đúng vậy. Có một điểm chung lớn hơn ở đây về trách nhiệm cá nhân nữa. Khi mọi người nói, tôi không thể tập thể dục. Tôi không có thời gian. Nó có vẻ như một khung nhìn thực sự làm hạn chế sức mạnh so với việc tôi có những ưu tiên khác, điều mà cảm thấy mang lại sức mạnh. Và tôi nghĩ về điều này suốt, vì nếu bạn hỏi ai đó tại sao họ không tập thể dục, thường họ sẽ đổ lỗi cho một cái gì đó khác. Khung nhìn làm cho điều đó trở nên như có một lực lượng nào đó kiểm soát cuộc sống của họ, đã không cho họ thời gian hoặc rằng họ không thể. Trong khi thực tế, đó thường là một vấn đề về ưu tiên và đứa trẻ của bạn hoặc công việc trả tiền cho khoản thế chấp của bạn có thể là ưu tiên. Nhưng tôi nghĩ điều đó quan trọng. Tôi luôn cảm thấy điều quan trọng là thừa nhận thực tế rằng bạn đã chọn chăm sóc đứa trẻ của mình hoặc đi làm công việc trả khoản thế chấp, chứ không phải là tôi không có thời gian. Đúng vậy. Đây là lý do tại sao tôi nghĩ về ngôn ngữ nhiều như vậy và ngôn ngữ mà tôi sử dụng và cách mà nó chi phối cuộc sống của tôi, thậm chí liên tục tự nói với bản thân rằng tôi không có tổ chức, như rối rắm. Cách mà điều đó có thể đang khiến tôi trở thành một người bừa bộn.
    Chúng ta chưa nói về điều gì mà có lẽ chúng ta nên nói đến? Có điều gì đó, bất kỳ nghiên cứu hay hiểu biết nào về não bộ và cách mà chúng ta thay đổi những thói quen cứng đầu, hoặc bất kỳ điều gì khác mà bạn đã học từ sự khôn ngoan cổ xưa? Bạn biết đấy, tôi biết rằng chúng ta đã nói chuyện rất rộng rãi về nhiều điều khác nhau, nhưng tôi hy vọng rằng đối với tôi, ý định của tôi với mỗi câu tôi đã nói với bạn là mọi người nên nhận ra họ có bao nhiêu tiềm năng trong não bộ của họ, như họ có khả năng sống một cuộc đời tuyệt vời hơn cả những gì họ đã có. Tôi nghĩ tôi chấp nhận điều đó nhiều hơn bao giờ hết, vì tôi đã có cuộc trò chuyện này với bạn. Tôi nghĩ tôi chấp nhận rằng có rất nhiều tiềm năng chưa được khai thác trong tôi và rằng tôi không phải là một khối tế bào cứng nhắc đã hình thành đầy đủ. Tôi nghĩ nhiều người cũng có thể sẽ chấp nhận điều đó, nếu họ đã đến được điểm này trong cuộc trò chuyện. Nếu bạn có thể kết thúc với, tôi đoán, bước đầu tiên, như điều tôi nên làm ngay lập tức khi tiến dần trong cuộc sống từ đây, điều đó sẽ giúp tôi bắt đầu tiến tới người mà tôi muốn trở thành. Người bạn đời tổ chức, thành công trong việc kinh doanh, nổi bật với podcast của mình, tất cả những điều đó. Bước đầu tiên đó là gì? Và bạn có biết điều gì buồn cười không là vì não tôi cứ nghĩ đến tài xế taxi mà tôi gặp trên đường đến đây, người đã nói rằng anh ấy đã nghe podcast và đã cho tôi một chút cái nhìn vào thế giới của anh ấy. Anh ấy lái taxi mỗi ngày. Tôi gặp rất nhiều tài xế taxi nghe podcast và chúng tôi trò chuyện. Và thường thì, đôi khi họ có ước mơ làm những điều khác. Họ có thể nói với tôi, bạn biết đấy, tôi muốn bắt đầu kinh doanh riêng một ngày nào đó. Vậy tôi chỉ đang tìm kiếm vài bước đầu tiên. Nhưng tôi suy ngẫm về những gì bạn đã nói và nghĩ rằng họ sẽ bị ràng buộc rất nhiều vào các kiểu thói quen, công việc, thói quen và thói quen của họ nên rất khó để thực hiện cú nhảy đó. Vâng. Vậy nếu tôi có thể đưa cho mọi người một điều gì đó đơn giản để bắt đầu, thì đó thực sự đơn giản, nhưng không có nghĩa là không có rất nhiều công việc khó khăn ở phía bên kia. Điều đó sẽ là, hãy rất rõ ràng về điều bạn muốn. Bạn đã đề cập đến một vài điều. Hãy dành năm phút ngồi xuống và hình dung rằng những điều đó là sự thật. Và sau đó hãy bày tỏ lòng biết ơn về điều đó. Đó sẽ là bước đầu tiên của tôi. Bày tỏ lòng biết ơn cho? Những điều đó trở thành sự thật. Chỉ năm phút. Tôi là một người bạn đời tuyệt vời. Tôi không bừa bộn. Podcast của tôi rất thành công. Như vậy, hãy nhìn thấy, cảm nhận nó trong cơ thể của bạn, nếm thử trong miệng của bạn, nghe nó trong tai của bạn. Hãy hoàn toàn đắm chìm trong năm phút đó, lâu hơn nếu bạn có thể, và chỉ cần biết ơn mọi điều đó. Về cơ bản, những gì bạn đang làm là chuyển não của bạn từ trạng thái sợ hãi sang trạng thái tin tưởng. Và đó là cánh cửa để thực hiện những thay đổi này. Cảm ơn bạn.
    在你的書中,你談到了神經可塑性的機制。
    神經可塑性的機制是什麼,以及對大腦變化影響最大的三個因素是什麼?
    首先是髓鞘化,任何從事大量運動的人,如果重複某種,比如說舉重訓練,會理解這在他們的肌肉中發生著。
    你知道,當我提到,你幾乎每天都來這裡,與某人坐在一起,進行訪談,而且你非常擅長提問。
    這是你非常擅長的事情,因為你重複這個過程,它變成了你的超能力。
    這意味著,發生在那裡的是髓鞘化。
    髓鞘是一種脂肪物質,包裹著某些神經通路,這些通路變成了快速通路。
    現在,從進化的角度來看,我們為什麼會有一些快速通路和一些慢速通路,是有原因的。
    原因在於,如果你把手放在火中,你迅速將手抽回的反射是一個快速通路。
    但是你的疼痛反射是一個慢速通路,因為如果你因疼痛而癱瘓,當你把手放進火中,你將無法立即逃脫。
    神經可塑性的其中一個機制,就是在你非常擅長的事情上變得更好。
    這是通過髓鞘化實現的。
    最普遍的情況是,如果你有很多時間,你可能會變得相當擅長,但如果你沒有太多時間,則通過突觸連接發生。
    所以這是感覺起來比較辛苦的那一個。
    但是如果你付出努力,你就能改變你的大腦。
    這表示,大腦中已經存在的神經元之間相互連接,開始形成新的通路。
    第三種機制,在成年大腦中不常發生,但在海馬體周圍確實會發生,因為我們在生活中會形成新的記憶,這種情況在兒童的大腦中發生得很頻繁。
    它被稱為神經生涯。
    那是漂浮在大腦中的小胚胎神經細胞,實際上變成完全成熟的神經細胞,並通過突觸連接相連接,並可能進行髓鞘化。
    並且有一種與此相關的生長因子,促進胚胎細胞轉變為成年細胞,稱為BDNF或腦源性神經滋養因子。
    而滋養則意味著生長。
    因此,神經滋養就是神經元的生長。
    對此影響最大的因素是有氧運動和食用深色外皮的食物。
    對。
    深色外皮的食物。
    對。
    所以我先談談運動的部分,因為這是我一個有趣的事實,就是如果你定期進行有氧運動,大腦中這些細胞的週轉率約為13%至14%。
    所以,它們的數量和死亡的速度。
    不,是它們從胚胎發展到成熟細胞的速度。
    哦,明白了。
    是的。
    所以,我們希望神經生涯的發生。
    如果你有一段時間沒有運動,然後開始,細胞的週轉率則會達到30%。
    因此,在一段不活動期間後,開始新的有氧運動,週轉率會增加。
    所以這是我懶惰的藉口,像個沙發土豆過著一半的時間,然後又開始運動。
    哦,對啊。
    你在逗誰呢?
    好吧。
    所以,它將加速你建立那些連接的速度。
    是的。
    讓胚胎細胞生長成新的細胞,然後與現有細胞相連接。
    所以我想確保這一點非常清楚。
    所以如果我努力學習,試著講一種不同的語言,透過運動對此有所影響……
    哦,這會幫助你學習和保留記憶。
    是的。
    用簡單的語言來說,如果我進行有氧運動,我加速我的神經可塑性的能力將會增加。
    是的。
    哦。
    如果不是有氧運動怎麼辦?如果我只是舉重?
    其他類型的運動對你的大腦有好處,但舉重與神經生涯的關係不大。
    好吧。
    這不太涉及語言,但這是另一個心智控制身體的例子。
    這是一項對兩組舉重者進行的實驗。
    我想你會喜歡這個。
    這是一個很大的讚美。非常感謝。
    你認為我是一名舉重者。
    你認為我認同自己是一名舉重者。
    你看著我,認為我是舉重者。
    完全是的。
    非常感謝。
    不過這是用手指和肘部的重物,也許在這項實驗中並不是那麼光彩。
    好吧。
    所以一組人舉起手指或肘部的重物。
    我想這是一個為期兩週的研究,他們顯示出目標肌肉群的肌肉量增加了約40%。
    而他們的對照組在這兩週內只是不斷想像自己在舉重。
    他們兩週內沒有舉重,只是坐在那裡,想像自己在舉重。
    他們的肌肉量增加了13%。
    有趣。
    所以我們可以告訴我們的腦部去增長肌肉。
    你一直在秘密進行這個嗎,Steve?
    不,但我可以這樣做。
    我一直去健身房。
    如果我只需看足球並告訴自己我正在舉重,那就簡單多了。
    那我想你不能只看足球。我認為整個可視化和意圖、注意的過程是其中一個重要部分。
    這再一次表明我們思想的力量,對吧?
    如果我們的想法可以告訴我們的腦部去增長肌肉。
    這是已經被接受的事實嗎?
    我很驚訝沒有私人教練只是把你放在一個空房間裡,然後說,好吧。
    想想多少運動員將可視化作為他們訓練的一部分。
    當然,他們會做運動、練習和所有事情,但這在體育中是非常普遍的使用。
    有趣。
    這顯然不是一個我會回家後就開始想像健身的情況,但它確實讓我再次想起專注於與我的目標一致的積極事物的重要性。嗯,我的意思是,想像自己更有肌肉或更年輕,搭配吃一些深色食物和獲得足夠的睡眠,這有什麼壞處呢?這就像是整個方案的一部分。你想知道應該吃些什麼以便…請問這些深色食物是指什麼?
    基本上,我們希望人們擁有一個健康、均衡的飲食,主要以植物為基礎。但如果你可以選擇食物的深色版本,那麼該食物外皮的色素含有較高水平的抗氧化劑,稱為花青素,這也有助於神經生成。因此,這基本上就像吃黑豆而不是白豆,或吃藍莓而不是草莓,吃黑巧克力而不是牛奶巧克力,吃紫色芽花椰菜而不是綠色花椰菜。而優質的咖啡也算在內。所以,你知道,我會嘗試變換我的飲食,但如果可以的話,我總是選擇深色的選項。
    那麼,關於神經可塑性的過程,還有其他需要知道的事情嗎?根據我目前所了解的,這關於理解我們大腦中的模式,理解它們的後果。重複是建立新神經通路的關鍵。還有什麼其他我需要特別注意的地方嗎?因為我確實想增強我的大腦並改變我的大腦。是的。
    我們討論過的責任感,不過還有在你體內為你的大腦創造條件,使其能夠完成所有這些事情。所以,你知道,這有點重複,但每晚大約睡八小時,擁有規律的睡眠和起床時間似乎有額外的好處。我們不知道為什麼。所以,每晚睡覺的時間在10點到11點之間,然後隨時醒來。不要久坐。因此,身體活動並不一定意味著你必須在健身房裡猛擊。老實說,從神經可塑性來看,你不想做太多高強度的運動,因為那會讓你的皮質醇水平飆升。因此,最好做一些比較輕柔的運動。每週吃30種不同的植物產品,並儘量變換顏色。管理你的壓力,無論是通過冥想還是消除壓力的原因。如果你做到這些並保持水分。如果你做了這些,並且想要進一步發展,那麼你可以開始限制進食時間。因此,我只在中午12點到晚上8點之間進食。但你也可以從早上8點到晚上8點進食。這種斷食對你的大腦也非常有益。但前提是你得先把基礎打好。如果你的基礎不對,那麼這不會對你有幫助。
    那麼,斷食和間歇性斷食對大腦有什麼好處?嗯,它有助於調節你的血糖水平。你知道,血糖水平的飆升對你的身體或大腦都不好。斷食和卡路里限制確實有助於大腦健康和長壽的好處。但這只有在你的基礎打好時才這樣。你知道,那些有壓力、飲食不佳或睡眠不足的人不會從限制進食或間歇性斷食中獲益,因為這對你的身體來說是一種壓力。但這是一種你的身體可以承受並利用來建立韌性的壓力,前提是基本的健康狀況良好。為了讓神經可塑性發生,我們需要面對重大的認知挑戰。那些能打破現有通路的挑戰。是的。所以,我想學習當DJ。我已經學習了大約12個月。對我來說這感覺是一個巨大的認知挑戰。是的,這很好。這就是能在我大腦中建立新通路的事物。
    絕對的。對於那些只是想提升自尊和信心的人來說,大腦告訴我們有關這個過程的什麼?它是不是又回到了我們所說的關於意識、理解情感和後果,還有設置目標以及重複和責任感的話題?這會涉及到,但其實還有一個小的啟動,對於增強信心和自尊來說非常有幫助,就是通常有一個特定的重複負面思想與缺乏信心的感覺相關聯。所以,如果你能識別出這一點,並創建一個與之相對的正面肯定句,或者某項可以抵消它的東西,那麼這將是個很好的起點。
    我以前的說法是,必須完美,而它不會完美。去年我不會這麼說,但現在我可能會說它會比完美更好。它會非常棒。我知道這一點。但為了讓自己達到這一點,我可以這樣說,它不必完美,但它會很棒。或者我可以這樣說,可能它會完美。有時我會問自己,這裡可能發生的最佳結果是什麼?所以,這是在改變你心中對事情的語言。所以,這基本上就是元認知,這表明你可以理解自己的思維。然後強烈地逆轉這種敘述,即使它感覺並不完全真實,並且重複如此多次,以至於你開始磨損那另一條通路。
    語言真的重要嗎?我們對自己和他人說的語言。是的,是的,真的很重要。是的,我們如何談論自己。我們怎麼知道這很重要?我的意思是,這就是神經可塑性。如果你在心中或大聲重複某些東西,那麼如果它被重複的次數超過了其他陳述,那麼這就是你的大腦將相信的內容。
    所以,我們可以透過反覆對自己說其他話來有效地欺騙自己的大腦。因為在個人發展社群中,這整個運動就是說,你只需要對著鏡子看,對自己說:「我很美,我有吸引力,大家都會愛我,我會致富。」我發現很難與這種說法契合。那個說法……因為我知道自己在自欺欺人。你知道,在我的潛意識中,我知道如果我說那些話,我並不是在談論我自己,而是在說那些非常遙遠的事情,我覺得我的大腦足夠聰明,知道我在自欺欺人。是的,我認為這其中有一些現實的元素。所以,這裡有幾件事,那些你所提到的特定內容非常膚淺。它們並不是人們應該說的話。 我發現,這是我從與路易斯的播客中聽到的,他說有時他會對自己說:「我很安全,我很好。」事實上,有時對自己說「我很安全」就是我需要聽到的,而不是「我很美,我很棒」。那確實讓我覺得,A,這是每個人可能都想說的話;B,它並沒有解決潛在的問題。是的,它沒有面對,我將會致富。我是說,這是最糟糕的,因為你實際上必須付出努力才能實現這一點。你知道,光說是不行的。所以,我認為找到那些你需要對自己說的話,這些話不受社會期望、父母期望或社交圈的影響,這些都是所有人正在做的事。像是,你真正想知道的東西,這將使你能夠進入現實世界,去做那些你需要做的事情,以獲得你想要的其他東西。你剛才說的,你不能僅僅說出來,你必須去做。現在,當人們聽到「顯化」這個詞,它通常和僅僅說出一些話或思考一些東西高度相關,與實際行動的關聯較少。所以,當有人談論顯化時,很多人會關掉,因為聽起來有點神秘,仿佛只要把它放在願景板上就會實現。事實上,我想我已經說過幾次,但我曾經有過一次不算爭論的分歧,結果那個和我交談的人字面上在紐約市的中間下了計程車就走了。很多年前,我正在約會,女孩告訴我,她說:「你可以將任何東西顯化到你的生活中。」所以,你可以只是考慮一下,然後它就會發生。於是我對她說,「你真的認為你可以只是想著成為百萬富翁,然後它就會發生嗎?」她說,「是的。」然後我問,「而且你甚至不需要去做所有的事情。」她回答:「不,你可以只是想著它,宇宙會將它吸引進入你的生活。」你相信顯化嗎?如果相信的話,哪種形式的顯化,而這怎麼與神經科學相互支持?所以,我相信基於你的大腦的顯化。因此,這涉及你的思想、信念和行動。至於我為什麼稱我的書為《源頭》,我說你的大腦是你能夠吸引所有你想要的東西進入你生活的源頭。因此,我在一個夏天坐下來,研究吸引法則,並考慮我是否可以通過認知科學來解釋它們,這包括心理學和神經科學。結果我可以。所以,我心想,我似乎找到了什麼。對我來說,第一個階段是理解這絕對與你的思維方式有關。但然後,它並不是神秘地像在空氣中吸引某樣東西。這與你根據你的思維過程所做的變化有關。我確實相信願景板,但我稱之為行動板,因為我把它們看作是我所想要的東西的表現,但我仍然必須去努力實現那些事情。我認為,相信是你的大腦在使這些事情發生,而不是某種你並不確定是什麼的外部力量,這樣的信念更加賦予你力量。這一點關於衰老,壽命和衰老的一般看法。在書中你提到的一些非常有趣的事情是心理誘發的這個概念,及其在衰老中的心理誘發。而心理誘發是衰老心態對我們身體的影響。我們對衰老的想法如何影響我們的身體能力。我從中解讀到的是,我們對衰老的想法對我們的衰老有影響。是的。因此,實際上,有一項非常引人入勝的研究。這是我最喜歡談論的之一,研究了三組八十多歲的人。什麼是八十多歲的人?指的是80多歲的人。明白了。而一組是對照組。所以他們只是在一周內正常生活。另一組在大多數時候有機會時,必須回憶一下自己在60多歲時的時光。而第三組則實際上是被帶到了他們家裡重新裝修的版本,看起來就像他們20年前的房子。他們得到了20年前的報紙,他們有他們60多歲時在那所房子裡的照片。這裡有一件事情是,他們到了那裡,並且有點像,「好吧,誰來幫我們把行李提到臥室呢?」而他們被告知,「不,現在你60歲了,你自己提行李。」所以,從他們到達的那一刻起,就開始了。這些小老太太和老先生們不得不自己抬行李。一周後,這組中的人因為姿勢的改善而更高。他們的肌肉骨骼協調性比一週前更好。
    在對那些不認識他們的人展示的前後照片中,一周後的照片被評價為更年輕,而不是到達那個地方的照片。 回憶的群體也有一些改善,但不如那個像60歲一樣生活的群體多。 因此總共有三個群體。 嗯嗯。 一個是回到了過去生活的,另一個是回憶的,還有一個是完全什麼也不做的。 嗯。 哇。 這確實顯示出我們對自己所想的影響,以及這些想法所帶來的所有生理後果。 你也提到你的眼睛。 嗯。 你說你要去做激光眼睛手術還是什麼的? 不,只是這樣。 大家告訴你需要佩戴眼鏡。 嗯,我的驗光師告訴我。 他是印度裔,和我同齡。 他說,哦,我想,你明年可能會需要閱讀眼鏡。 我當時說,不,我不想要閱讀眼鏡。 那樣看起來真的會讓你老。 他說,是的,我知道。 我們都看起來比實際年齡年輕。 但是,你的眼睛會像其他任何人的眼睛一樣老去。 我當時說,不,它們不會。 所以我離開了,一年後回來。 他說,哦,閱讀情況怎麼樣? 我說,還好。 他便開始為我檢查視力。 中途他在椅子上旋轉了一下,說,你的眼睛沒有變差。 甚至不是保持不變,而是變好了。 我說,我知道。 他問,我這一年做了什麼? 我說,嗯,我只是對你說不,當你說我需要戴閱讀眼鏡時。 當我在看手機或書本時,覺得如果把它移得遠一點會更容易,我就不這麼做。 這在大腦中有什麼作用? 這是為什麼? 為什麼這改善了你的閱讀能力? 嗯,我沒有感覺到閱讀有問題,但他顯然看到數據略有變化。 我真的沒有做比我剛才說的更多的事情。 所以就像是不接受限制,然後不改變我的行為。 我認為這是你從第三組人身上看到的,他們必須改變自己的行為來生活。 以一種他們年輕時候就必須這樣做的方式,而沒有任何幫助。 所以基本上去除了我們自己強加的限制,就是如果我到達某個年齡,就必須需要閱讀眼鏡,或拐杖,或者其他什麼。 還有一個與此相對的實驗,在佛羅里達進行,對年輕醫學生進行的。 他們必須在五個房間之間行走,桌子上有五張寫著單詞的紙。 你必須用這些單詞組成一句話。 但那並不是真正的實驗。他們認為那是實驗。 真正的實驗是在其中一個房間裡,桌子上的單詞是佛羅里達、海灘、陽光、散步、平房。 所以他們所有人在那個房間裡走得比其他房間慢,因為那些單詞與退休有關。 這讓他們慢下來了,你問我,語言對我們的大腦是否重要? 這就是它的重要性。 所以僅僅是說出單詞就可以如此快速地改變我們的行為。 這就是這個實驗所顯示的。 我一直在思考這些。 我知道我有一個名為《日記背後》的YouTube博客。 在兩集中,我在拍攝的時候自我揭穿,因為我說了一些我認為不太有幫助的話。 我想有些人,其實在評論中挑戰過我,因為有一天我在拍攝《龍穴》的時候,拍攝自己,只是在談論發生的事情。 我說,哦,我今早真的很需要一杯咖啡。 然後我停下來說,我不應該說需要這個詞。 然後我說,這種隨意使用「需要」這個詞的習慣,在生活中讓我感到無能。 它讓我成為咖啡的奴隸。 所以我提出這一點,我確信人們會覺得我有點奇怪,因為我認為我真的應該不再把「需要」這個詞與事物聯繫起來,因為我可能會因此產生心理上,甚至是身體上的需求。 而且這也是把「需要」這個詞帶入你的生活,像是你不夠用,認為自己需要什麼。 我一直在改變我的詞彙,像這樣不斷微調。 我會說,哦,我要犒賞自己喝一杯咖啡。 這是你的決定。 這是你的決定。 這是你擁有的權力。 嗯。 這是你做出的選擇。 嗯。 這裡有一個關於個人責任的概括性觀點。 當人們說,「我無法運動,我沒有時間時」,這感覺就像是一種非常無能的框架;而「我有其他優先事項」,則感覺更有範圍。 我時常考慮這些,因為如果你問一個人為什麼不運動,他們通常會把責任推給某個力量。 這種框架讓它看起來像有某種力量在控制他們的生活,沒有給他們時間,或者他們無法運動。 然而,實際上,通常只是優先級的問題,而你的孩子或者支付你的抵押貸款的工作可以是你的優先事項。 不過我認為重要的是,我一直覺得承認你選擇了照顧你的孩子或者去參加支付抵押貸款工作的選擇是重要的,而不是說「我沒有時間」。 嗯。 這就是為什麼我如此關注語言和我所使用的語言,以及這對我的生活的影響,甚至不斷告訴自己我不善於組織、凌亂。 這可能讓我成為一個凌亂的人。
    我們還沒談到哪些話題,可能應該談談呢?是否有任何事情、任何研究或任何關於大腦以及我們如何改變固執習慣的見解,或者是你從古老智慧中學到的任何其他事情?你知道的,我知道我們已經廣泛談論了許多不同的事情,但我希望對我來說,我說的每一句話的意圖是,讓人們意識到他們大腦中擁有多麼大的潛力,像是他們能夠擁有比目前更驚人的生活的能力。我想我現在比以往任何時候都更能接受這一點,因為我和你有過這樣的對話。我覺得我接受自己的內心中存在著如此多未開發的潛力,我不是那種完全形成、僵硬的細胞團塊。我想很多人如果已經談到這一步,也會接受這一點。如果要你總結一下,我想知道第一步是什麼,即我在這裡生活中應該立刻做的事情,這樣我就能朝著我想成為的那個人邁進。那個組織有序、優秀的伴侶、在他的事業上成功、在播客方面也很出色,所有這些。有那個第一步嗎?有趣的是,我的腦海裡不斷回想起我在過來途中遇到的那位計程車司機,他說他有聽播客,讓我窺探到他的世界。他每天開計程車。我也遇到很多聽播客的計程車司機,並且和他們聊天。許多人有時候會夢想著做其他事情。他們可能會對我說,你知道嗎,我想有一天開自己的生意。而我只是在找尋第一幾步。但是我反思你所說的,發現他們會深深地執著於自己的模式、工作、習慣和日常,因此很難做出轉變。如果我能給人們一個簡單的啟發來開始,那真的是非常簡單,但並不意味著在另一端沒有很多的辛苦工作,那就是要非常明確自己想要什麼。所以你提到了一些事情。花五分鐘坐下來,想像那些事情成為現實,然後對此表示感激。這將是我的第一步。感激什麼?對於那些事情成為現實。只需五分鐘。我是一個出色的伴侶。我不會亂七八糟。我的播客非常成功。像這樣,去看見它,感受它在你的身體裡,品嚐它在你的嘴裡,聽見它在你的耳中。完全沉浸在這五分鐘中,如果可以多待一會兒,那就更好,然後對此深感感激。實質上,你所做的就是將你的大腦從一種恐懼狀態轉移到信任狀態。而這就是實現這些改變的關鍵。謝謝你。

    Your thoughts are more powerful than you think! Neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart reveals how positive language, visualisation, and certain foods and exercises can supercharge neuroplasticity, rewiring your brain for growth and success.

    Listen to the full episode here –

    Spotify – https://g2ul0.app.link/GRR8PSOdTRb

    Apple – https://g2ul0.app.link/lY2wnQVdTRb

    Watch the Episodes On YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/c/%20TheDiaryOfACEO/videos

    Dr. Tara Swart – https://www.taraswart.com/

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • 662: From Zero to $50k/mo in Vending Revenue in 16 months

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 From zero to 50 grand in monthly vending revenue in 16 months.
    0:00:08 What’s up? What’s up? Nick Loper here. Welcome to the side hustle show where we’ve been helping
    0:00:13 people make extra money since 2013. Today we’re talking about the popular quote unquote passive
    0:00:19 income business of vending machines and how my guest was able to scale up his operation to 30
    0:00:26 locations in over 50 grand in monthly revenue in under a year and a half. From H&H Vending,
    0:00:32 Cologia. Welcome to the side hustle show. Hey, Nick. Thanks for having me. You bet. Stick around in
    0:00:36 this one. We’re going to learn how to negotiate your first vending machine placements, the right
    0:00:42 locations that make the best fit there, the startup costs involved, and just how passive and profitable
    0:00:47 the business really is if you’re constantly having to restock products. But Anthony, take me back to
    0:00:52 the beginning, not that long ago, year and a half ago. And you’re thinking, why I ought to get into
    0:00:57 this vending machine business. I’m going to turn some snacks and drinks into some monthly cash flow.
    0:01:03 I’ve been in the real estate industry since like 2009. And I was like talking with my wife and I’m
    0:01:07 like, my kids were three and five at the time. And I’m like, you know what? I’ve had the real estate
    0:01:14 business. You know, I’ve been doing this here for, you know, 15 years. I go, I really want to do
    0:01:19 something for like the kids. And I want to teach them like entrepreneurship and like work ethic. You know,
    0:01:24 now that I’m making this transition from this other real estate job I was doing, I go,
    0:01:28 we should look for some type of business that I could, you know, put the same blood, sweat and
    0:01:33 tears that I’m putting in on the real estate side, you know, and put it into basically a business that
    0:01:37 could be like a recurring income stream. Because with real estate, obviously there’s the highs and
    0:01:42 lows and peaks and valleys. So, you know, once you sell a house or flip a house, it’s like, okay,
    0:01:48 got to do it all over again. I came a guy across, uh, Mike Hoffman on Twitter and he had this
    0:01:52 vendingpreneur community. Yes. Mr. Passive on Twitter, right? Mr. Passive. Yes, exactly.
    0:01:58 And I was like, hmm, vending. Interesting. I go, and then I started like reading more about it.
    0:02:02 And then I was like, you know what? I go to my wife’s name is Taylor. And I go, you know what?
    0:02:07 I go, I think this could be a really good business that we could do. Not a lot of upfront capital
    0:02:13 initially. We could grow it into something passively, you know, and do it with the kids. I can teach them
    0:02:19 entrepreneurship and work ethic. And I think that would be a really good idea for us to kind of go
    0:02:24 full blown. So it was like a two, three weeks. I was going back and forth with Mike and his team
    0:02:31 and I ended up joining this community like end of September. And I just went full blown, like all in
    0:02:37 at the time. Fast forward, you know, 15 months later, you know, we did, uh, with it just being the end of
    0:02:42 February a couple of days ago, you know, we were over $65,000 in revenue, you know, and I’m looking
    0:02:48 to be at over 75,000 by the end of April. Cause I have other machines that have just got installed
    0:02:53 this past week. And I got three more that are going in, uh, three locations going in like next week.
    0:02:59 And so that’s the name of the game is stacking locations and machines. And now what, what’s your
    0:03:04 take on this? Like, is there a place for one machine, two, two machines, like, you know,
    0:03:09 the toe dip, Hey, I want to get my kids, you know, some exposure to supply and demand and cashflow
    0:03:14 and product inventory turnover. Or it’s like, do you need to go big? Like, do you need dozens of
    0:03:18 machines to make it into like full-time thing? I mean, a full-time thing. Yes. But just to,
    0:03:24 to be able to operate. Yeah, that’s a great question, Nick. And you know, my story is different from like
    0:03:29 everybody else’s story. Like, so, like I said, I ended up joining Mike’s vendingpreneur community.
    0:03:36 And when I was in there, I talked to a lot of other different people that had different routes.
    0:03:41 I was kind of like treating them as like my board of directors, but there was a guy down in Texas.
    0:03:48 He’s a high school football coach and a teacher, and he has only four locations and he’s doing 20 K a
    0:03:55 month. Wow. You know, so you could be very selective with your locations of like how, like, depending on
    0:03:59 your goals or what your time is like, Hey, I’m a fireman or I’m retired. I just want some supplemental
    0:04:08 income, you know, or I’m a teacher and I want to teach my kids to do this. They’re 18 and 19 and
    0:04:12 you’ve got some built-in stockers already and stuff. So it all depends on like what your goals are.
    0:04:18 So for me, when I first got into the business, like I was like so antsy. I was like, Oh my God,
    0:04:22 I got to get a location. Let’s do this. Let’s go. Let’s go. But the biggest thing I tell people now,
    0:04:28 when they, when they’re going to start out something, I go, be poised, wait for the right location.
    0:04:34 If it takes four or five months to wait for the right location, wait for it. Don’t just do your,
    0:04:39 let me use a sports analogy here. Don’t use your spring training or training camp and like, um,
    0:04:45 football on a, on a location that is not going to be the best. That’s what happened with me.
    0:04:48 When I did it, I ended up getting a location that was five minutes from my house.
    0:04:53 And unfortunately it’s only been doing like $700 a month because there were certain questions
    0:04:59 questions that I didn’t maybe ask in the beginning of when I was basically looking when I was basically
    0:05:04 qualifying that property. When I first initially went, I don’t know, 700 bucks a month is not
    0:05:10 nothing. Well, 700 bucks a month of revenue. So once you deduct your cost of goods and your fees and all
    0:05:14 this stuff, you know, usually your cost of goods, you want to shoot from like anywhere from like around
    0:05:20 35%, you want to be like 35%. If you’re growing exponentially, like kind of how I am, you’re
    0:05:26 buying so much inventory because you’re constantly refilling up new machines. I’ve been averaging a cost
    0:05:31 of goods of maybe like anywhere between like 40 and 43%, you know, but like once I plateau,
    0:05:38 my goal is to be 35 to 33 ish percent cost of goods, you know, at that point.
    0:05:42 Okay. So interesting. Raw number is like sell something for a dollar. That means you bought
    0:05:48 it for 30 cents. That’s correct. Okay. Yep. So I try to shoot for margins for drinks and chips. I try
    0:05:55 to shoot for 65% plus candy can’t get there. Cocoa has gone up in price, you know, and just like with
    0:05:58 everything with inflation, you know, candy is going to probably be like one of your worst margins,
    0:06:05 you know, like it’s, you’re probably going to be like 50 to 57% on your candy. And then what I’ve
    0:06:09 been doing is since I’ve been going into a lot of class A luxury apartments, a lot of the seven
    0:06:17 11s and Walgreens and, you know, just have been closing, you know? And so what I’ve been doing
    0:06:20 is I’ve been going in there with my pitch and saying to these property managers and say, Hey, you know
    0:06:25 what? I’m like, I’m also going to, it’s not old school machines. I’m using these AI powered smart
    0:06:31 markets now. And I’m saying, Hey, I could put incidental items in there, you know, Tylenol,
    0:06:37 toilet paper, paper towels, Vizine, Mucinex, NyQuil, Tide Pods, Bounce Sheets, whatever.
    0:06:40 Okay. Yeah. Yeah. More than just snacks and drinks. Sure.
    0:06:45 Yeah. You know, you, those are a little bit like around a smaller margin, maybe like 45 to 50%,
    0:06:50 but I put it in there because when I go in there to pitch a location, it’s a value add that may be
    0:06:54 a certain person, a certain operator that has machines in there right now, they can’t offer.
    0:06:54 Okay.
    0:06:56 You know, so they see the value in me.
    0:07:00 Let’s go back to this first location. The one that you said is doing 700 bucks a month.
    0:07:01 Yes.
    0:07:05 Sits super close to home. It sounds like, you know, business with training wheels,
    0:07:10 like a, you know, low risk kind of a, kind of a thing. I could stock it myself as, as need be.
    0:07:10 Yep.
    0:07:15 You don’t have the machine yet. I imagine you get a yes from the property manager. What’s the
    0:07:20 conversation like? Hey, have you, have you thought about Mike was, so Mike was on the show episode
    0:07:25 599 last year. You go back, listen to that one, but he was like, don’t say the V word. He’s like,
    0:07:30 lead with like modern amenities. Don’t say vending, but what’s your, what’s your conversation like
    0:07:31 with this building or with this operator?
    0:07:37 Yeah. Uh, vending it’s out of my vocabulary. Um, I, I, I say it’s, it’s, uh, there are smart
    0:07:43 markets is basically what they are. The AR, the AI, their AI smart markets. And that’s what I lead
    0:07:49 with. And then this is going to be amenity for your workforce. Uh, this is going to be an amenity
    0:07:54 for your building, you know, cause if you don’t want it, I’m going to go down the street anyway.
    0:07:58 And I’m going to talk to, you know, the other competitor. And if they say yes, that’s an amenity
    0:08:03 that they’re going to have and that your building won’t have, you know? So it’s, it’s a competition
    0:08:08 type business, especially, you know, like in luxury real estate, but like in manufacturing or
    0:08:13 that’s the one warehouse that I’m in at right now, you know, they want their people to be satisfied
    0:08:18 and work hard and it’s a nice amenity for them. You know, was that, was it an apartment
    0:08:21 building that first location? No, the first location. So this is where I made the mistake.
    0:08:26 So whoever’s listening and wants to start your own vending route, make sure you’ve qualified
    0:08:31 the location thoroughly. So when I went there, they told me they had two shifts and it was 75
    0:08:39 employees. So I assumed that it was 75 employees for both shifts. Well, it turned out to be that
    0:08:44 there were 70 employees for the first shift. And then for the night shift, there were four.
    0:08:51 So I was thinking that this thing was going to be 150 employee place. And it was just a mistake
    0:08:55 on my part. You live and you learn, but you know, make sure you’re thorough and you ask those questions
    0:08:59 and make sure you understand what the, you know, how many people are working there. I mean, especially
    0:09:04 if you come across like one of these commercial buildings or office buildings, you know, what’s
    0:09:08 the vacancy? Okay. Well, that’s great. But how many people, how many of these suites and
    0:09:13 these people are working from home, how many of these companies inside this office building
    0:09:18 are supplying goods for free, you know, cause it might be like a wealth management, you know,
    0:09:22 team or office in there that has maybe a hundred employees that go in there, but then, but they’re
    0:09:26 supplying everything for their employees for free protein bars, water, all that stuff. That’s,
    0:09:32 that’s going to deter you to them from going there. So just make sure you’re very thorough with,
    0:09:36 with like asking your questions once you go there, just so you’re qualifying the property
    0:09:40 correctly. Because they might say, Hey, we’re 80% occupied, but if there’s, they’re only reporting
    0:09:47 into work two days a week, it’s not a lot of foot traffic. Yeah. 80% times 40% of the week is a
    0:09:54 little bit, a little bit lower. Is there a sweet spot that you found in terms of, you know, building
    0:10:01 size, number of residents, number of workers, or, you know, before anything lower and just like,
    0:10:06 it doesn’t really make sense. If I’m evaluating a property site, it’s got to have for residential
    0:10:12 real estate, it’s got to have a minimum of 200 units. Okay. And I don’t like garden apartments.
    0:10:17 So I don’t want like the, the machines being in a clubhouse. And then there’s a 800 units that are
    0:10:22 like a four block radius. And then people have to walk to the clubhouse. I don’t like those.
    0:10:26 I need a building that is a, it’s all one building. So the elevator takes you down to the
    0:10:31 vending machine. You know, it takes you up. You can’t walk outside because again, convenience.
    0:10:37 Yeah. Manufacturing facilities. I would want to be in there with at least 150 employees.
    0:10:42 If it’s an office building, I mean, I’ll tell you, I’ve been looking at some of the most beautiful
    0:10:47 skyscrapers in downtown Chicago for the past eight months. And I’ve had a ton of meetings with a lot
    0:10:51 of them down there because I’ve just been getting referred to them, but I would go through the same
    0:10:55 questions now of when I’m asking them, okay, what’s the vacancy? Oh, 60%. How many people are working
    0:11:00 from home? Oh, well, you know, it’s Mondays and Thursdays are there’s about maybe a thousand
    0:11:05 people through the turn dial, you know, and then maybe Fridays there’s maybe 300. I’m like, okay,
    0:11:09 so we’re working with like around 2,300 people a week. So times that by four, you know, we’re like
    0:11:15 around 9,200, you know, for the month. It’s like, I’m like, all right. I’m like, but I don’t know
    0:11:18 like how good it’s going to do. And a lot of these commercial buildings, they have these empty
    0:11:23 seven 11s or the bookstores that they used to have where they were cooking before COVID, you know,
    0:11:28 they got all these empty spaces, but I just don’t want to be the Guinea pig. So what I’ve been doing
    0:11:31 is, and I haven’t got anyone to take one yet. Mike has been a lot better than me. He’s actually had
    0:11:36 some people that have subsidized. So what I do is, is with those commercial buildings, just so I’m not
    0:11:41 losing in the beginning is that I will go in there and then I will offer them. And I’ll say here, I
    0:11:45 don’t know what your location is going to go ahead and do. I go, but I need a, and I’ll work my numbers
    0:11:49 backwards with like what I need to be profitable on that location. And I’ll just say, for an example,
    0:11:53 I need to make $2,000 in revenue. That way it could cover my cost of goods, my stock or any
    0:11:59 spoilage. This monthly or weekly? Monthly. Okay. Yeah. So if the machine without me knowing it,
    0:12:04 if it goes in there to does $1,300 a month, you know, okay, I’m going to invoice you for the
    0:12:09 difference of $700 where you’re building or your owner is going to have to pay. I know you guys want
    0:12:15 these amenities and stuff like that, but I can’t take that risk of being a Guinea pig here and having
    0:12:19 this thing, having me lose money. And then I have to move the machine for relocation and all that.
    0:12:23 And then like, I’m, I don’t win, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t set me up for success. I haven’t
    0:12:28 had anybody take me up on that yet. Mike has maybe done two or three of those out for him out in the
    0:12:32 West, out in Oregon by you guys. Like he has done, like he’s been like a master at it.
    0:12:38 Got it. So that is, so that’s the pitch is like, look, we could offer these, um, amenities,
    0:12:43 snack, drink, you know, food service ourselves as the business owners, or we could hire
    0:12:47 Anthony to do it. And we understand he’s got to make some money and this is his minimum.
    0:12:50 And if it doesn’t hit that minimum, then we’re going to have to subsidize it,
    0:12:55 but it’s still worthwhile because it keeps our employees, you know, keeps the tenants happier.
    0:12:58 That’s the pitch anyways. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, no, absolutely.
    0:13:02 More with Anthony in just a moment, including what happens when your prospect building
    0:13:07 already has a vending machine and how much you might have to pay to place a new machine right after
    0:13:12 this. Some businesses are quite adept at helping you part with your money,
    0:13:18 with their crazy high bills, bogus fees, and quote unquote, free perks that actually cost you more in
    0:13:23 the long run. I would lump traditional wireless carriers into this category. And that’s why I made
    0:13:29 the switch to Mint Mobile in 2019 and haven’t looked back. With our sponsor, Mint Mobile, you get premium
    0:13:35 wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk
    0:13:40 and text on the nation’s largest 5G network. You can bring your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan
    0:13:46 and even bring over your existing phone number and all your existing contacts. So join me in ditching
    0:13:51 overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a
    0:13:57 month. If you like your money, Mint Mobile’s for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash side hustle.
    0:14:04 That’s mintmobile.com slash side hustle. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month five-gigabyte plan
    0:14:09 required. Equivalent to $15 per month. New customer offer for first three months only. Then full price
    0:14:15 plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. On the side hustle show,
    0:14:20 we spent a lot of time on generating ideas and the marketing tactics that drive traffic and make sales
    0:14:27 and intentionally less time on the behind the scenes mechanics of how those sales actually happen.
    0:14:32 And the reason for that is for tons of side hustle show guests like Randall Pulfer, Mike Ettenberg,
    0:14:38 Becky Beach, Lou Rice, and more, the business behind the business is all the same. It’s Shopify.
    0:14:43 Nobody does selling better than Shopify and that’s why it’s the number one checkout on the planet.
    0:14:49 Plus, when you use Shopify, you’ll be giving your customers access to ShopPay, which boosts conversions
    0:14:56 up to 50% meaning a lot less abandoned carts and a whole lot more sales going. Shopify is the commerce
    0:15:02 platform that helps you sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling online, in person, in
    0:15:06 their feed, and everywhere in between. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout used by dozens
    0:15:13 of successful side hustle show guests. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com
    0:15:20 slash side hustle, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash side hustle to upgrade your selling today.
    0:15:27 Shopify.com slash side hustle. I asked Mike the same question, like if this building has been around for
    0:15:33 10, 15, 20 years, like have they literally never thought about this before? It’s hard to imagine
    0:15:38 an office building or even a residential building that didn’t already have this vending machine in the
    0:15:44 lobby or in the elevator bay. What I have found out in this business is extremely archaic.
    0:15:50 All these property managers, majority of them had operators in there, but they just couldn’t get a
    0:15:56 hold of them or they weren’t stocking it. So what I do is when I go into an appointment, I tell them,
    0:16:00 hey, I’m local. You could call me. You’re going to call this cell phone number. You’re going to get me.
    0:16:04 Okay. And I’m going to get back to you right away. When you’re dealing with these property managers,
    0:16:08 these people that have decisions they have to make, they don’t want another headache of chasing you
    0:16:12 down as a vendor, you know, and that, cause already doing that and dealing it with all these other
    0:16:14 fires that they’re dealing with through the building. They’re dealing with the painter,
    0:16:18 the scaffolder, the window company, the, you know, all these other different trades that they’re
    0:16:22 dealing with. If you just call and you give them a nice experience of customer service back,
    0:16:27 it’s refreshing to them. So when I go look at a property, I put a proposal together. I send it,
    0:16:33 I take pictures and video. I send it over to my mock-up guy. He gets it over to me within 24 hours
    0:16:36 and I send them a proposal within 24 hours. And every single time when I do that,
    0:16:41 they are floored away of how quickly they got that proposal. So get back to people quickly,
    0:16:45 you know, set expectations from the beginning. A lot of these, like I said, a lot of these property
    0:16:50 managers, they are, they’re, they’re worried about when is it going to be stocked because it hasn’t
    0:16:54 been regularly stocked. So I, I go on that first meeting and I set up the expectation. I tell them,
    0:17:00 I go here, when I’m, when we sign up, I’m going to let you know what day your property is going to be
    0:17:05 stocked on. So then that way, if you’re getting down to like four Cokes or three Snickers, I don’t,
    0:17:10 I don’t need to have 30 property managers texting me. Hey, it’s getting low. I’ve already set the
    0:17:14 expectation of knowing that, Hey, your machine is going to be filled up on Tuesdays. So if it’s
    0:17:18 Monday or Sunday and it’s low, I mean, we’re going to be refilling it shortly. So they know I’m coming,
    0:17:23 setting that expectation. And I let them know after the first month, if I feel like your machine needs
    0:17:27 to be stocked twice a week or three times a week, we’ll make the adjustments in our route schedule.
    0:17:31 we’ll make sure that it’s going to be filled. Okay. So you find a lot of time you’re conquesting
    0:17:39 market share from some legacy providers that have gotten, um, you gotten complacent or, you know,
    0:17:44 they’re not answering the phone. They’re not performing the way that you would like for somebody
    0:17:48 who’s new to the business, who’s young and hungry, who wants to go out and get it with a, with a more
    0:17:52 modern experience or more modern machine. A hundred percent. Okay. Because a lot of the locations that I go
    0:17:56 into, some of them had the same machines that I had in, but the other half, you know, they had
    0:18:00 maybe the old school coil machines that maybe when me and you were growing up that we would see.
    0:18:07 Yeah. I remember, you know, banging on, come on. Exactly. You know, it was like, so now I go in,
    0:18:12 I show exactly now this new machine, these new machines that I have. And, um, you know, they’re
    0:18:16 blown away, you know, they’re blown away. Okay. So that’s what’s in the proposal. The proposal says,
    0:18:20 this is the machine that we’re going to use. You need to check out the specs, the model number,
    0:18:24 you know, how, what it’s, what it could potentially hold in terms of inventory. This is when we’re
    0:18:29 going to come by your stocking, restocking day is Tuesdays. And, you know, here it is sign on the
    0:18:36 bottom line. Are they looking for concessions from you in terms of, well, you’re going to take up,
    0:18:41 you know, 12 square feet of our floor space. We’re going to charge you rent for that on a monthly
    0:18:47 basis, or we’re going to charge you a percentage of sales. Like what’s, what’s typical in terms of
    0:18:52 that arrangement? So usually there’ll be a rev share agreement that I’ll give them when I go
    0:18:56 into there. You know, when I first initially thought when I got in this business, I’m like,
    0:19:00 ah, do I give rev shares? Why not? But I don’t need Anthony 2.0 coming down the line and offering
    0:19:04 rev share to all my buildings and trying to boot me out, you know, uh, you know, a year down the line.
    0:19:06 It’s always another person coming down the line.
    0:19:11 Exactly. After I just spent $400,000 on equipment, you know, this past year. But like,
    0:19:16 what I’m saying is I go in there and I say, here, I offer it from them to the beginning of
    0:19:21 a rev share. And because I want to view it as a partnership, if I’m doing the job of what I’m
    0:19:26 doing and I’m constantly evolving, uh, and I’m making certain changes and I’m doing different
    0:19:32 things there, like with the machines and trying out new products. And I’m just very, I tell everybody,
    0:19:36 I’m a very collaborative person. I don’t care what it is to put into these machines. I don’t care.
    0:19:41 Like I will put whatever I have my variety that I put in there initially because I tell the,
    0:19:45 I tell everyone it’s like dating, you know, it’s like a month or so. And so you kind of learn that
    0:19:49 building. What do they like? Do they like Pepsi? Do they like Coke? Do they like Doritos? Do they
    0:19:54 like Cheetos? Like, do they have more protein? Do they like kind bars? If somebody has a suggestion,
    0:19:59 that person, that resident could scan that QR code and they could go ahead and send that back to me.
    0:20:03 And my staff gets it. And we review those weekly. And then we make those changes, you know,
    0:20:08 on certain those machines. If somebody has got a request for, um, a La Columbe black coffee,
    0:20:12 I’ll go in there and I’ll take out one of the drinks that are maybe not selling. Maybe the Pepsi
    0:20:15 isn’t selling and I’ll just replace it the following week and put it in there.
    0:20:19 Okay. That’s, yeah, that’s kind of cool to crowdsource that wisdom a little bit. Yeah.
    0:20:23 You can take a stab at the beginning. This is what we’re going to put in.
    0:20:23 Yeah.
    0:20:28 And then you get some data pretty quickly. If you got 200 residential units to say, well,
    0:20:32 what’s, what’s actually moving here? And then take out the bottom 10%, bottom 20%,
    0:20:33 try something new.
    0:20:37 Exactly. No, absolutely. You know? And then basically that’s kind of like what I do. So
    0:20:41 if I get those suggestions, I’ll review those weekly. And then I basically do a review of all
    0:20:43 the machines, like, you know, basically monthly.
    0:20:46 Okay. On the rev share side, what’s typical?
    0:20:52 Three to 5%. Yeah. So when I go in there and it’s of gross sales, you know, because, um,
    0:20:56 if you do it off profit, like, you know, profit could get like a little, it’s, it’s a little
    0:20:56 tough.
    0:21:00 Not, not a ton, but it’s, it’s just something to throw the property management company or
    0:21:02 throw the building owner.
    0:21:06 Throw the owner. Yeah, absolutely. You know, it’s more about them getting a little bit of
    0:21:10 something back. You know, they feel validated that they’re getting something for return for
    0:21:10 this amenity.
    0:21:15 Because the alternative is they could just do it themselves. And I’ve been reviewing some like
    0:21:20 performa, like real estate syndication type of documents. And there’s a line item on there
    0:21:25 for like laundry and vending. Like they count on this as the investment group as part of their
    0:21:31 revenue. And so there’s some segment of the building owner populations like, no, we’ll just
    0:21:36 keep that in house. We’ll keep, you know, all that margin. But there’s another segment, like the kind
    0:21:40 that you’re catering to is like, we don’t want to deal with the logistics of product and restocking
    0:21:44 and machine maintenance or anything like that. We’ll just, Hey, you want to give us 5%? Cool.
    0:21:46 You, you deal with it.
    0:21:50 Yeah, they don’t. Because a lot of the people that I’ve experienced with is that they just have
    0:21:54 so many fires that they’re putting out, fix this punch list on this unit here, this move in there,
    0:22:00 like all this stuff. So like I am, you know, there’s just, there’s just a lot of, you know,
    0:22:05 fires that they’re putting out and to have them focus on restocking. That is just something that
    0:22:09 it’s like the ROI is not there for them. That’s not the best use of those, uh, those property
    0:22:09 managers time.
    0:22:15 Got it. So you mentioned, you kind of alluded to this equipment cost here. What does a vending machine
    0:22:23 cost? What is, what’s your take on financing versus buying versus new versus use? Like lots
    0:22:24 of different routes that you can go here.
    0:22:30 I have like five different machines, which is kind of hectic because now I’m dealing with five
    0:22:34 different operating systems, uh, in their backend and trying to have them all communicate to each
    0:22:39 other with me, just pulling reports and all that stuff as well too. So, um, it’s a little bit of a pain
    0:22:43 in the butt, but, uh, I’m working through it. It’s not like, like, it’s not like hard and it’s
    0:22:48 like so much like extra work, but it is, you know, it is a nuisance in contrast to like the Southwest
    0:22:53 model where we’re going to fly one type of airplane. So every, you know, any mechanic can work on any
    0:22:57 plane, like that kind of thing versus, okay. It adds just a little bit of complexity.
    0:23:02 Yep. Absolutely. So like the, I have a futuro combo machine, which it might be like one of those
    0:23:07 ones with like the coil and that one takes cash. You know, those, I have a, I have four of those
    0:23:13 machines at a shelter and those cost me like around 5,000 and I bought those refurbished.
    0:23:18 Okay. Brand new. They would probably go for 6,500. I think is the new pricing as of 2025.
    0:23:24 The micro markets. I have three of those. When I, when I say micro market, those are like those open
    0:23:32 markets, people, you know, honest policy people could check out at a kiosk, you know, and those roughly,
    0:23:37 and then I’d have to build and put those together and those run anywhere from like eight to like,
    0:23:42 nine grand of what those are. But in those items, you got to look because you have some theft,
    0:23:48 you know? So it adds a little bit to my guy when he goes to stock it. Cause one of our policies are,
    0:23:54 one of our processes are when he goes to restock that micro market, he counts, he, he stocks the
    0:23:59 whole unit. And then he has to go and verify all the inventory that is there, every single item.
    0:24:04 And then if there’s 10 Cheetos that says on the system, but there’s only physically eight,
    0:24:07 he has to change it to eight. Cause what happened to those other 10? Well,
    0:24:12 somebody probably stole it. Yeah. You know? So those are the micro markets. I have Stockwell’s,
    0:24:20 which are an AI smart machine. Those run like around like eight grand, like 80, like nine grand,
    0:24:26 probably once, once it’s delivered with freight. And then the newest and latest machine that I’ve been
    0:24:31 installing, I’ve installed 33 of them within the past four months has been these micro marts.
    0:24:36 so they are a refrigerator. They’re AI power machines work like a Stockwell, but they hold
    0:24:43 more inventory, but they actually have a video digital board that runs on the machine. So,
    0:24:48 which is very powerful for me because like I can run ads on there is what I’m feeling like what I can
    0:24:52 do down the line. Once I have the data and that could be additional revenue that I could get in without
    0:24:57 even like, I haven’t even tapped into yet. Sounds fancy. Dude. When I was installing one of these last
    0:25:02 weeks in the Fulton market area, which is like an emerging area, like in the West loop in Chicago,
    0:25:07 like it’s like where Google has their space and there’s new buildings being built all the time
    0:25:14 over there. The property manager was doing a tour, a owner’s tour and I was installing them. And when he
    0:25:17 was, when he was walking, when one of the people were walking by, they like looked at it, they took a
    0:25:21 picture and you know, because they couldn’t believe what they were seeing. It’s not like anything that
    0:25:25 they have seen. It’s a really good looking machine. So property manager comes around the corner and
    0:25:31 gives me a fist bump, you know, cause I made them look good on his tour. Nice. What are those things
    0:25:37 run you? So those with freight, they are like around like 12 K on there, you know, so they’re a little
    0:25:45 bit more expensive, but I’m, I’m, I’m counting on the ad space that I could potentially be selling down
    0:25:49 the line. Once I have the data in front of me, Hey, I’m at a 500 unit building. I’ve had,
    0:25:55 you know, there’s a monthly, I have over, you know, 800 transactions. There’s been this amount
    0:25:59 of dollars, you know, and then, Hey, Coke, Pepsi, Chicago Cubs, you guys are playing the Cardinals
    0:26:03 this week. Okay. But you want to put, you know, something in ad space on here for a hundred bucks
    0:26:07 a month or 50 bucks a month, you know, and run it. Okay. Yeah. Now you’re in the media business.
    0:26:11 Exactly. Right. Got a little mini billboard here for you. That’s what I’m hoping. I mean,
    0:26:15 that’s, that’s my goal there to kind of really increase the revenues on those machines. So like
    0:26:19 that, that is my goal. So next year, I’ll hopefully have a better idea about how that went.
    0:26:24 This is helpful at the risk of doing public math, which I’ve sworn off doing, but it’s kind of this
    0:26:31 upfront capital in equipment and inventory. And then, you know, a payback period of a number of
    0:26:37 months or potentially years, if it’s a slow location, but like, how do you think about a winning
    0:26:42 location or what’s kind of a target ROI, if you think about it that way, in terms of,
    0:26:44 you know, the payback period on one of these machines?
    0:26:50 So with me being initially started, I wanted to increase my cash flows right away on these,
    0:26:56 on these routes that I had. Cashflow was very important to me. So I actually ended up paying
    0:27:03 some of my first locations cash just so I didn’t have a finance payment. And that way I was able to
    0:27:08 increase like my cashflow net. I wouldn’t have to factor that, you know? So one of those machines
    0:27:16 that I bought was like nine grand with, it was doing like 23, 22 to $2,500 a month. So my net payment
    0:27:23 of like what would come to me off of all that would be like around like 750 or 800 bucks. So I was like,
    0:27:28 okay, my net payment is 750, 800. I’m going to break even on this and like less than a year. And then like,
    0:27:34 if I look at my return on that, like every year over going over, like I’m going to be making that
    0:27:38 it’s like a hundred percent return. So I’m like, right after it’s paid off. I mean, there’s depreciation,
    0:27:43 there’s maintenance involved, I imagine, but you’ve covered your expenses and then it’s all gravy.
    0:27:46 Yeah. Then it’s all gravy. And then like, I’m running the numbers. I’m like, okay, here, it’s
    0:27:49 like a, each year it just goes up a hundred percent return, return, return, return. And then obviously
    0:27:54 there might be maintenance and it might not be go up as high each year’s as that. But so when I was
    0:27:58 looking at the numbers, I was like, oh my gosh, I’m like, I have to like, I’m making like 8% over
    0:28:02 here. I’m like, I’m just going to take my money out and then just invest it into my machines. You
    0:28:06 know, it’s like a better return. Right. Cause if you’re looking at a a hundred percent return
    0:28:11 potentially. Yeah, exactly. So that’s the way I looked at it, you know, initially now what I did
    0:28:16 was is that since I was growing, I leveraged like financing capabilities, you know? So some of these
    0:28:21 places had, um, financing options. Basically what that meant was it would be like 0% down and then
    0:28:25 they would finance it over 60 months and then maybe be like a 12%, you know, interest note.
    0:28:31 And then maybe that machine would cost me like 160 or 175 bucks a month, you know? But if I’m making
    0:28:37 1500, $1,600, you know, the one 60, one 75, it really wasn’t, you know, the end of the world,
    0:28:41 like for me to go ahead and pay that, make that payment. Cause now I got extra cash where I could
    0:28:47 go reinvest back into the business by just, you know, buying inventory, you know, building out the
    0:28:51 warehouse and all that stuff as well too, which I’ll kind of talk about like how my transition went from
    0:28:57 like me actually like growing. And then when I actually hired my first person and like when I
    0:29:04 actually did that. Yeah. But yeah, so that’s kind of like where I was at within regards to like
    0:29:08 evaluating these things, if I should pay cash or if I should go ahead and finance it, I will say
    0:29:13 besides those first couple of machines that I paid cash, I financed every single one since.
    0:29:19 More with Anthony in just a moment, including how he turns one location lead into three and hiring some
    0:29:23 help. So we didn’t have to keep stocking the machines all by himself right after this.
    0:29:30 In the next 60 seconds, 23 entrepreneurs are going to hire their next team member on Indeed. I’m
    0:29:34 excited to partner with Indeed for this episode because when you need to find amazing candidates
    0:29:40 fast, you need the powerful matching tech and unmatched reach of our sponsor Indeed. Plus Indeed’s
    0:29:45 sponsored jobs help you stand out and hire even faster. It’ll make your job post jump to the top of
    0:29:50 the page for your relevant candidates. And the proof is in the results. Sponsored jobs posted
    0:29:56 directly on Indeed. Get 45% more applications. Stop struggling to get your job post seen on other
    0:30:01 job sites. That’s why for my next hire, I’m using Indeed and there’s no need to wait any longer. Speed
    0:30:07 up your hiring right now with Indeed. Side Hustle Show listeners get a $75 sponsored job credit to get
    0:30:15 your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash Side Hustle Show. Just go to Indeed.com slash Side Hustle Show
    0:30:21 right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash Side
    0:30:25 Hustle Show. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring. Indeed is all you need.
    0:30:33 You hear that? That’s the sound of your marketing working. And as an entrepreneur, you know that every
    0:30:38 call is an opportunity. But if you miss it, potential customers don’t wait. They just call the next
    0:30:43 business on their list. With our sponsor, Open Phone, you’ll never let another customer’s call
    0:30:48 go unanswered. Open Phone is the number one modern business phone system that helps you separate your
    0:30:54 personal life from your growing business. For just 15 bucks a month, you get complete transparency and
    0:30:58 visibility into everything happening with your business phone number. Open Phone works through an
    0:31:04 app on your phone or computer and integrates with HubSpot and hundreds of other systems. One of my favorite
    0:31:09 features is their AI-powered call transcripts and summaries, so you can streamline client communication
    0:31:15 and get a summary of every phone call with action items right when you hang up. That means no more
    0:31:20 note-taking, no more forgotten to-dos. And right now, Open Phone is offering Side Hustle Show listeners
    0:31:23 20% off your first six months when you go to
    0:31:40 openphone.com/sidehustle. And if you have existing numbers with another service, Open Phone will port them
    0:31:49 Okay, this is really helpful because yeah, I think we hear all $400,000 in equipment costs. Like, you know, the
    0:31:56 jaw kind of hits the floor. But there are different creative options. Think about your return on monthly
    0:32:04 cash flow, right? If you said, Oh, my financing payment on this machine is $175, $200 a month. And I’m clearing, call it
    0:32:12 $300 even in monthly profit on maybe $1,000 in sales. Like if we’ve got those, that’s even like really low
    0:32:18 margins. You’re paying for the machine, you’re paying for your inventory. And even if you’re breaking even
    0:32:22 for the duration of that payment period, like you’re adding equity to the business, which is another
    0:32:26 really interesting thing. It’s just like, yes, there’s this monthly, you know, semi-passive cash flow
    0:32:31 play. But there’s also like, okay, now if I’ve got this route that’s doing 50, 60 grand a month,
    0:32:38 like there’s a multiple that a new another vending operator would come in and buy that from you. Did you consider
    0:32:45 buying existing routes like to grow through acquisition, if you know, from that old tired operator that you just wanted
    0:32:50 out? Or has it all been kind of new, new conquest or new, new placements?
    0:32:56 No, but I actually we I actually bought one in downtown Chicago, there was a kid through the community, Mike’s community
    0:33:02 that was moving back home. And we, I basically bought it from him and we transitioned him out as
    0:33:07 he moved back home. And I basically took over his route. Okay. When I joined his community in like
    0:33:12 October of like 2023, he has like a lead generation service and stuff like that. So I like paid for him
    0:33:16 to handle all that stuff. So as I was doing that, I was doing pop-up, pop-ins, hitting the ground and
    0:33:21 everything. Like it was very like light for me, like in the beginning, like I, like I got some leads, but
    0:33:26 like they weren’t really like good locations to do. And then like February of 2024, it just like all
    0:33:30 happened like a waterfall. Like every property manager was answering the email campaigns that
    0:33:35 his team set up. And it was like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And I was like, what the, yeah, it was,
    0:33:41 it took me off guard. So I went to every one of those meetings and I closed them. Now I live an hour and a
    0:33:46 half away from the city of Chicago. So I didn’t want to build a business model where I had to go down to
    0:33:51 the city. I wanted to build it out by my house and I wanted to do it within like 25 minutes of
    0:33:56 driving. Didn’t work out like that. So I pivoted in my business and I ended up getting a storage unit
    0:34:03 downtown, started off in an 80 square foot unit, went to 150 square foot unit. And then we just like in
    0:34:08 September of last year, you know, we went to a 700 square foot unit spot. You know, when I went into
    0:34:14 those meetings with those property managers, I went in there and I closed every single one of them.
    0:34:18 And then what I did was the reason why I was able to grow so quickly was I was able to turn one of
    0:34:24 those leads into three other locations by saying, Hey, you have another property manager. You have a
    0:34:28 regional manager that oversees other properties that would like to see our, get value from our
    0:34:32 amenity and see those other buildings. And then it was just like, introduce me here to there. I would
    0:34:36 go look at those things, put the proposal together for that one and then close it and go.
    0:34:41 So turning one customer into two, turning one lead into three. Say again, how are you incentivizing
    0:34:44 those people to introduce you to other property managers?
    0:34:47 So like going back to the rev share, like people will talk about it and say, Hey,
    0:34:51 will you offer rev share? Yeah, I do. Well, and then what I would say is like, okay,
    0:34:56 it doesn’t start until six months after. Cause I have a huge front upfront costs of like buying the
    0:35:00 machines and everything like that. I’m like, so what I’ll do is I’ll start rev share after six
    0:35:04 months, but I will expedite, I will cancel that out and expedite the rev share for you.
    0:35:08 You know, if you refer me to over three other sister properties that you have within your network
    0:35:11 and they’re like, Oh, well, we’ll take it. Some of them, some of them jump on it. Some of them
    0:35:16 don’t majority of them did. And then I was able to get into these other, you know, locations relatively
    0:35:22 quickly and kind of grow the route pretty quick. Do you find that? Is that just a virtue of like
    0:35:26 podcasters, no other podcasters, property managers, no other property managers. So it’s just like,
    0:35:29 well, this, you know, ownership group just has other buildings around the city.
    0:35:34 It’s more of that property manager, the company that they work for, how many buildings do they manage?
    0:35:39 Yeah. Okay. Okay. And there’s some of them out there that manage 700,000 properties throughout
    0:35:43 the United States. There’s other ones that manage 500,000. Yeah. But there’s also other ones that
    0:35:47 are like smaller, which are good, you know, that you can go in and they might have 20 properties and
    0:35:51 you could gain access to all 20 of those. So it all depends.
    0:35:56 Yeah. So then you have a warm lead versus a completely cold, cold call or cold email to some
    0:36:00 random property manager. It’s like your coworker or your peer, you know, around the corner,
    0:36:05 you said we ought to get in touch and we can start that conversation. At what point do you bring on
    0:36:09 somebody to help stock these things? It sounds like you’re spending a lot of time on the business
    0:36:15 development time. Yeah. Meetings with property managers, dealing with the higher level type of
    0:36:19 stuff, but at the same time, like, oh shoot, we’re sold out of Snickers on third street. So now I got to
    0:36:23 go over here. It’s like, talk to me about the logistics maybe early on and then what that kind
    0:36:28 of has transitioned to today. Absolutely. So my first machine was installed of December of 2023.
    0:36:33 I then had a bunch of other, these ones, I had another one installed in January 23 or 24 and then
    0:36:37 another one in March of 24. So I had three that were up and running like out in the Western suburbs,
    0:36:42 like by me that I was handling and I was using a, I was basically using the third car garage out of my
    0:36:48 house for this, which my wife, you know, God bless her. She’s been unbelievably supportive and amazing,
    0:36:52 you know, throughout this whole process. But you know, she was like, okay, I don’t know if I want
    0:36:58 to make this into our warehouses, our garage, you know? So you had to battle that stuff for a little
    0:37:03 bit. So then once I started growing into the city and then when I bought that route in May of 2024,
    0:37:09 I had them still stock the route in May for me. So it was good. Cause it gave me like time to get my
    0:37:13 stuff settled down there in the city, find a storage unit, you know, which was a pain in the butt,
    0:37:18 you know, because a lot of these life smart and life cubes and life storage facilities,
    0:37:22 they don’t allow you to have delivered food there cause they don’t want infestation. So I was
    0:37:28 actually able to find a place that was basically like a shared office space that, that hosted weddings
    0:37:31 and stuff like that. So they didn’t care about food and they had a loading dock and everything.
    0:37:36 So I was thinking down the line with me growing this, I need to find something with a loading dock.
    0:37:40 So if there’s a pallet that’s going to be dropped off once my route gets big enough,
    0:37:45 like I need those tools and that accessibility eventually down the line. So that way I’m not
    0:37:50 jumping to another location. Okay. I didn’t even think about that. Like, yeah, you got to have an
    0:37:56 animal proof type of space. Are you at that point now ordering like from, I don’t know, from
    0:37:59 corporate or like a distributor? What happened? Like, how do you get the stuff?
    0:38:05 Yeah. So what I did was originally I was buying all the stuff from the big box stores, Mike,
    0:38:10 but what he did was he actually went with like the mothership since that community has grown so much.
    0:38:15 And he basically negotiated distributor ships with all these different companies. And he went there
    0:38:20 with the volume basis of the community. So it was great. So what happened was we went to this one
    0:38:27 distributor and then now I could have pallets being dropped off at my warehouse now, because now where
    0:38:33 my route is at, like I order a lot of inventory weekly last month’s cost of goods for me when I
    0:38:41 did 65,000 was like $27,000, you know, and cost of goods again, a higher number because I’m buying,
    0:38:47 I installed so many machines. So I had to install and stock so many machines that were bare right now.
    0:38:53 That number will come down once, once it’s stabilized. Yeah, exactly. So what happened was I started
    0:38:58 interviewing people last year in June. I was stocking all the stuff myself in June. Mike really
    0:39:02 pushed me because Mr. Passive is like, you can’t be stocking these machines. You know, you’re not
    0:39:07 saying that you’re not saying I’m not good enough for a 25 hour job, but like my skill set, I should
    0:39:11 be using it and focusing on stuff that’s 800 or 900 or a thousand dollars per hour. I had to focus on
    0:39:17 business development and growing the route. Yeah. So he’s like, but I’m like, Mike, I can’t like afford it,
    0:39:21 you know, because I’m, I won’t be in the red for a little bit, you know, with bringing on a guy and all
    0:39:27 this stuff. He’s like, just do it. Just like, all right. So I did it. I went out there, I posted an
    0:39:33 ad and I was interviewing people and I was interviewing people based off of their car and
    0:39:37 their van. And do you have a van? Do you have a truck? Cause I needed somebody to put all these
    0:39:42 tow containers like in there. So I’m telling Mike and he goes, Anthony, he goes, just buy a van. I go,
    0:39:46 Mike, I go, I’ve talked to you in two days. Every time I talked to you, you’re costing me money.
    0:39:50 You’re costing me 30 grand here, you know, with a van I got to buy now and all this stuff. But
    0:39:54 you know what I bought in and he goes, you know what, Anthony, you have to,
    0:39:58 because how are you going to grow the route? If you’re going to be stocking and doing these machines
    0:40:02 six hours a day, you know, when are you going to do it? You’re never going to see your family.
    0:40:06 It’s going to be like another job for you. Yeah. The driver that you hired because he had a van
    0:40:11 leaves for whatever reason. And then you’re back to ground zero. Yeah. Back to ground zero. So I bought
    0:40:16 the van. I bought one of those four transit connect vans. They’re like 103,000 miles on it. I bought
    0:40:21 it, put zero down. It was like a $300 a month, monthly payment. Car insurance is maybe like a
    0:40:26 buck 75 or something like that. So I bought it. Then I was, I went back to interviewing people and I was
    0:40:31 able to interview people based on the best quality candidate that I could get instead of worrying
    0:40:36 about their, if they had a van or a car or a truck. Yeah. Yeah. So I was able to do that. I ended up
    0:40:41 hiring somebody, brought them on. It’s nice that the facility that I have my warehouse at,
    0:40:45 they allow me to park in their parking lot. Now it costs me a hundred bucks a month, but
    0:40:51 that way I have the car parked there, you know, on site for my, for my guy to use.
    0:40:55 Yeah. And at that time I had like 2000 units I had at the time.
    0:40:58 Sorry, like rows of product in a machine?
    0:41:02 No. So what I mean, 2000 units, I meant like 2000, like luxury apartment units over five buildings at
    0:41:06 the time. Okay. Got it. Got it. Like one building was 200 units. The other one was 250,
    0:41:12 one was 600, you know, so I had 2000 units. So I needed to hit the pavement, start going around and,
    0:41:18 you know, start building that up, you know? So just this past month, I’ve eclipsed 10,000 units total
    0:41:27 across my whole locations. And I have like 36 locations actually now. I’m counting the three that
    0:41:32 are going to be delivered and it would be installed here this week. But, you know, I would have not been
    0:41:39 able to add 8,000 units to my route if I was picking and stocking. So like, sure. Thank goodness. I took
    0:41:44 his advice and I leaped and it sucked. I mean, I was nervous about it initially, but you know,
    0:41:50 I jumped and I went after it, you know, I don’t want to say like a cliche saying, but like, you got to
    0:41:55 start being like comfortable with being uncomfortable. And I know that’s a cliche that a lot of people say.
    0:42:01 And literally that’s what I did. And I leveraged myself and I went after it.
    0:42:07 Yeah. It’s that kind of hold your breath for this short-term period. And it’s like that in a lot
    0:42:11 of side hustles where it’s like, I can kind of see the light at the end of the tunnel and I know it’s
    0:42:16 going to be uncomfortable to get there, but hopefully it’s a short-term thing. And I believe in the
    0:42:21 business. I believe we can get there, but it’s, it’s not going to be fun for a minute.
    0:42:26 Yeah. You know, and it’s going back to that cliche. Like I talked to somebody the other day and he’s
    0:42:29 like, Hey, Anthony, I really want to get on. And he told me this and he was like, you know,
    0:42:33 I’m an IT guy and I’m an introvert. And you know, do you have to be really good at sales? Like when
    0:42:37 you go out and all this stuff. And I’m like, I’m like, here man, you are, you’re going to not saying
    0:42:41 you have to be the best at sales. I’m like, my pitch now is totally different from when I started 15
    0:42:45 months ago. I go, but I asked him, I go, are you married? You have a partner? He goes, yeah,
    0:42:48 I’m married. I got two kids. I go, well, dude, I’m like, you had to sell your wife on marrying you.
    0:42:54 You know, I’m like, you had some type of sales quality to convince her to know that she wanted
    0:42:59 to spend the rest of your life with you. I go. So I go dig down. You have the ability
    0:43:04 and just know that it’s a numbers game and you’re going to hear a lot and a lot of no’s before you
    0:43:08 hit a, hear a lot more yeses. And you’re just gonna have to be, you have to get through it. And
    0:43:11 it’s just a numbers game, brother. And you just have to work through it.
    0:43:14 What kind of common objections do you hear from property managers when you
    0:43:17 are making the initial outreach or even after you sent your proposal?
    0:43:23 With them, it’s always like follow-ups because vending is not like their first priority.
    0:43:29 They’re dealing with so much other stuff that’s going on there throughout the building. So there’ll
    0:43:35 be times where I send a proposal and, you know, I won’t get assigned one back for a month and a half
    0:43:40 or two. You know, there’s one right now that I’ve sent over last July and I’m still popping in and
    0:43:45 just touching base and doing all these different things monthly because that’s the name of the
    0:43:49 game in sales and pipeline. You just got to build your pipeline up. And then once one says yes,
    0:43:53 one will say another yes. I mean, I got an email last week from somebody. Hey, Anthony, I talked to
    0:43:58 you back in October. When can I get the machines in? I’m like, okay, sounds good. Nice to hear from
    0:44:03 you, you know, but like, uh, so it does take some follow-up. It does take some sales strategy of like
    0:44:08 how you want to go ahead and follow up. You know, you don’t want to be following up with people saying,
    0:44:13 Hey, did you get my proposal? Where are you at now? You know, like I always follow up and I always
    0:44:18 want to add like some type of value. Hey, I, I just talked to the CEO and I’m going to be ordering
    0:44:23 machines this week. You know, can I get that signed proposal back where I can kind of add you to that
    0:44:27 order, you know, creating some type of urgency, doing some type of different type of sales follow-ups
    0:44:32 to kind of always add value. I’m not a big person of like, Hey, when are you going to get it back?
    0:44:36 Cause like if somebody reads that, like I know when I read it, when I’m so busy, like, it’s just like,
    0:44:39 I’m like, all right, uh, I’ll respond back to you later. Like there was no value, but it’s like,
    0:44:44 Hey, I made a new vendor. I’m going to be installing crumble cookies in our machines. Now what this
    0:44:47 guy’s gonna be installing crumble cookies. Oh my God. That’s so great. This is what, you know,
    0:44:51 and then they respond. Okay. Have you been able to get the kids involved at all? Oh yeah, no,
    0:44:57 absolutely. So on the weekends we do our Costco runs and do the picking in the garage. I’ll actually
    0:45:02 brought them to some locations with me where I actually stocked them myself because the stocker at the
    0:45:06 time couldn’t stock it for me. So I go, come on kids, let’s go, let’s get in the car and let’s go.
    0:45:12 And I got photos of them doing it. And I’ll tell you that, that was the main mission for me was to
    0:45:17 teach them entrepreneurship and work ethic when we first started. And then they were three and five at
    0:45:22 the time. And they’re now going to be five and seven here, you know, come in May, but just their
    0:45:28 transformation of their minds of like how they think about things like within regards of value.
    0:45:31 You know, we used to walk into target all the time. We used to always be like, okay,
    0:45:35 we got to get one, get something, get something. You know, now I taught them about like coupons and
    0:45:40 discounts. And then they would look at like, Hey, maybe this could be good, something value for the
    0:45:45 vending machine. And then, you know, something that I did not realize that they just got so obsessed
    0:45:50 with vending machines. Like, so like we’re watching Despicable Me 4 and there’s a vending machine in the
    0:45:55 back. Dad, there’s a vending machine in the background. Or if it’s a Taylor, like the Taylor Swift song,
    0:46:00 we’re listening to it in the car last summer and it’s her song, Cruel Summer. And like 48 seconds
    0:46:05 into that song, there’s a verse that where she says with the light of the glow of the vending machine
    0:46:10 hits your face or something like that. And then they went crazy, like in the backseat of the car, dad,
    0:46:16 vending machine. So like, um, that’s the stuff that really moves me, man. And that’s what motivates me
    0:46:23 every single day. Yeah. It’s just, that’s been so great for me to experience, you know, this past
    0:46:29 year is the impact of what it had on the kids. Because even when I was talking to other successful
    0:46:34 type people and just anybody actually, and they would always reminisce about, Hey, I used to go with my dad
    0:46:38 when he used to be a painter here, when my dad used to buy this, you know, and they’re, they get those
    0:46:45 little doses of real life experience, you know, uh, at such a young age. And that’s what I really
    0:46:49 want to instill in them. Yeah. It’s really cool. Cause it’s an example of a business that is super
    0:46:55 easy to understand. Okay. Buy something for a dollar, sell it for two. Yeah. And Oh wait, I didn’t have to
    0:47:00 be there to make that say, you know, that’s like that little flip that can switch from like, Oh, you’re
    0:47:04 grow up, go to school, get a good job. And, you know, trade time for money. It’s like, here’s this
    0:47:08 little fork in the road. It was, I think it’s really interesting that, and it’s cool that you’re exposing
    0:47:14 to them, that to them at a young age. Thank you. I was so addicted when I first got into this business.
    0:47:18 I would be checking my, I would be refreshing my sales reports weekly. I mean, I mean, I weekly, I mean
    0:47:23 like every like hour, like it was, it was so obsessive because I was so new to it. I would wake up in the
    0:47:27 morning. Oh my God, how much did we make overnight? You know? And it’s awesome because like in the city,
    0:47:32 you know, some of these kids, they’re going out for Halloween night or St. Patrick’s day. Like I know
    0:47:37 Saturday night between one and 4am, that thing’s going to be cleared out at these luxury apartments
    0:47:42 because these kids are just going to go back and just wipe it out. Yeah. Refresh on the reports or
    0:47:46 pulled. Yeah. That’s great. Any big surprises, whoops, surprises or mistakes. We’ll tee it up like that.
    0:47:50 Yeah. Like I said in the beginning, just make sure you, when you’re qualifying that location,
    0:47:55 make sure you’re asking all the questions, you know, make sure you’re figuring out how many people are
    0:47:59 working there. What’s the times that they’re working there. You know, just quantify that. Don’t assume a
    0:48:03 second shift is the same as the first shift like me. And then don’t overthink it. Like I come from
    0:48:07 a real estate world. That’s always says like location, location, location, same thing here
    0:48:11 with vending, but it’s foot traffic, foot traffic, foot traffic. So if there’s going to be foot traffic
    0:48:14 and there’s going to be people that are going to be walking by it, there are going to be sales.
    0:48:21 So just make sure that you are very conscious of the foot traffic that is there.
    0:48:25 Very good. What’s next for you? What are you excited about this year? Where do you want to take it?
    0:48:28 If you asked me 15 months ago, if this is where I was going to be at,
    0:48:33 I would be like, you’re nuts. There’s no way that would be here. So my goal is to be at a hundred
    0:48:37 thousand dollars per month. I’m going to reassess the business and see if I want to go ahead and
    0:48:42 double down or triple down and then grow it to a 200 or 300,000 or for even a $400,000 a month
    0:48:48 business. Wow. And then some serious, serious equity involved at that point. Now you’re talking
    0:48:53 about a multimillion dollar valuation. Yeah, no, absolutely. So like, these are some of the
    0:48:57 things that I’m like tossing around and going around about. So I’m trying to think, you know,
    0:49:01 where do I want it to go? Because I just don’t want it to get it too big where it pulls me away
    0:49:08 and my stocker, a guy that I hired, he only taken off four days in six months. So great hire that I
    0:49:14 had, but he was sick in January and he had the flu or whatever. So I had to wake my butt up and go out
    0:49:19 there and pick and stock and do it. And it sucked. It just did. It sucked. Uh, but my kid, he had a
    0:49:24 basketball practice. His first basketball practice started at 4 PM and I wasn’t missing it. So I told my
    0:49:29 wife, I go, you know, I’m going to wake up at 2 AM, go do the route, pick all the stuff to make
    0:49:32 sure that I’m back in time. You’re going to have to take care of the kids in the morning. She still
    0:49:36 works. She’s a public school teacher out here in the Western suburbs for 22 years. And she’s like,
    0:49:40 yep. She goes, I’ll do it. I’ll take care of the kids that morning. You go out and do it.
    0:49:46 And, um, so it’s been good. Like, cause to have a supportive partner like that has been like,
    0:49:50 I wouldn’t be here without her and with her support and just having the sacrifice and some of those
    0:49:53 days where I had to get out there and do it and hustle and not come home till late. Cause maybe
    0:49:57 the machine was delivered and the machine was acting up and it wasn’t working the right way.
    0:50:01 And I’m on the phone with customer support till nine o’clock at night and she’s handing the kids
    0:50:04 and putting them to bed. So there’s Murphy’s law for sure. No matter what.
    0:50:10 Absolutely. Yeah. Whenever you’re moving bulky technology, giant machines around physical
    0:50:14 inventory, there’s people involved. Yeah. Things are going to happen, but that’s part of being a
    0:50:18 business owner and you figure it out as you go. Absolutely. So this has been awesome. Anthony,
    0:50:23 I really appreciate you spending some, some time with us and schooling us on the rapid
    0:50:27 growth vending model here at Chicago. H and H vending.com. You can find them over there.
    0:50:32 Let’s wrap this thing up with your number one tip for side hustle nation. This does not have to be
    0:50:37 vending specifically related. This could be whatever entrepreneurial wisdom you’d like to impart.
    0:50:41 Yeah. So you are going to experience some adversity, but you’re going to have to push through it.
    0:50:48 And if you push through it and persevere, you will be successful. If you are, weren’t,
    0:50:52 if you’re thinking about a certain job that you’re at and you want to, Hey, I need a change or I need to
    0:50:58 do this. I tell somebody jump and make the jump and go ahead and do it and push forward and, you know,
    0:51:02 try to make it happen. So that way down the line, you don’t have any regrets, you know, and say, Hey,
    0:51:07 I should have tried this. I should have did this. Just go out there and try it. And then you’ll leverage
    0:51:11 yourself to make sure that you’re successful and it’ll happen. You’ll just have to push through it.
    0:51:15 That’s right. Keep your risks low, keep your upsides high and go to town. Um, again,
    0:51:21 H and H vending.com. Awesome episode. A couple of takeaways for me. You just alluded to this. Hey,
    0:51:26 real estate is, uh, the rule is location, location, location in this business, foot traffic, really
    0:51:32 similar to this location. How many people are going to be, uh, having exposure to this machine? How many
    0:51:35 people, you know, certain percentage of those people are going to buy something if you stock it right
    0:51:40 and figure out the right product mix there. And the other side of it is, yeah, on the surface,
    0:51:46 Hey, you know, buy the thing for a dollar, sell it for two simple, but on the backside of that is
    0:51:51 this, it’s a sales machine, right? How do we get in front of the decision makers? How do we do that
    0:51:55 consistently? How do we turn one lead into three? Really like that. Hey, well, the typical, you know,
    0:51:59 uh, moratorium on the, uh, rev share is six months just cause we got to pay back the machine. Like,
    0:52:04 I love this line. Hey, but we could shortcut that. We can cut that out. If you throw me to two other
    0:52:09 buildings, three other buildings really like that building and nurturing that sales pipeline and
    0:52:14 recognizing that this is not their top priority, right? Do the follow-ups and make sure that you’re,
    0:52:18 uh, top of mind. Cause there might be another Anthony knocking at their door, sending them an email,
    0:52:24 a cold calling them to, uh, to try and get his machine in, her machine in. So try and be top of
    0:52:29 mind, uh, on that front. We referenced episode 599 with Mike Hoffman, the, uh, the vendingpreneur,
    0:52:34 Mr. Passive on Twitter. Um, I think he’s got a discount for side hustle show listeners on the
    0:52:38 vendingpreneur community, not positive on that, but if you mentioned side hustle nation or side hustle
    0:52:43 show, I know he’ll take good, uh, good care of you on that and go back and listen to his original
    0:52:47 episode. If you’re interested in learning a little bit more, big thanks to Anthony for sharing his
    0:52:52 insight. Big thanks to our sponsors for helping make this content free for everyone. As always,
    0:52:58 you can hit up side hustle nation.com slash deals for all the latest offers from our sponsors in one
    0:53:03 place. That is it for me. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you’re finding value in the show,
    0:53:08 that is to share it with a friend. So fire off that text message for me to that person in your
    0:53:14 life who is looking for creative ways to make extra money, uh, outside of their job until next time,
    0:53:18 let’s go out there and make something happen. And I’ll catch you in the next edition of the
    0:53:20 side hustle show. Hustle on.

    Vending machines are a classic passive income source that continues to be profitable today.

    We had Mr. Passive himself, Mike Hoffman, on the show before to talk about how to scale up his vending machine business.

    And one of his mentees is here today.

    Anthony Kolodziej from H&H Vending scaled his vending operation from zero to over $50k per month in just 16 months.

    That’s 30+ locations, thousands of transactions, and a strategy that turns vending into something way beyond the old-school snack machine in the corner of a breakroom.

    Tune in to Episode 662 of the Side Hustle Show to learn:

    • how to land prime locations
    • how to negotiate deals
    • why he never says the word “vending” when pitching a property manager

    Want to go deeper? Check out Mike Hoffmann’s Vendingpreneur training program. (Side Hustle Show listeners get 10% off!)

    Full Show Notes: From Zero to $50k in Vending Revenue in 16 months

    New to the Show? Get your personalized money-making playlist here!

    Sponsors:

    • Airbnb — Discover how much your home could be worth and find a professional co-host today!
    • Mint Mobile — Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month!
    • Indeed – Start hiring NOW with a $75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post!
    • OpenPhone — Get 20% off of your first 6 months!
    • Shopify — Sign up for a $1 per month trial!
  • What’s Next for the Russia-Ukraine War — with Dr. Fiona Hill

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 The support for the show comes from UserTesting.
    0:00:05 Your brand is only as strong as the decisions behind it.
    0:00:13 UserTesting’s human insights engine helps marketing product and business leaders make smarter, faster decisions with real human feedback,
    0:00:17 AI-driven insights, and the world’s strongest participant network.
    0:00:24 Equip your team with the power to validate every decision, co-innovate at scale, and build digital and in-person experiences with confidence.
    0:00:27 The best brands don’t guess, they test.
    0:00:30 See how at UserTesting.com slash PropG.
    0:00:42 Make memories, not medical bills, with travel insurance from BC’s health experts, Pacific Blue Cross.
    0:00:51 Their affordable travel plans offer protection from unexpected travel costs like medical emergencies, trip cancellation fees, baggage issues, and more.
    0:00:56 Plus, kids of all families are covered for free, and there’s no deductible in the event of a claim.
    0:00:59 Buy worry-free travel insurance in minutes.
    0:01:02 Visit pac.bluecross.ca.
    0:01:07 There’s over 500,000 small businesses in BC, and no two are alike.
    0:01:08 I’m a carpenter.
    0:01:10 I’m a graphic designer.
    0:01:11 I sell dog socks online.
    0:01:16 That’s why BCAA created one-size-dozen’t-fit-all insurance.
    0:01:18 It’s customizable, based on your unique needs.
    0:01:26 So whether you manage rental properties or paint pet portraits, you can protect your small business with BC’s most trusted insurance brand.
    0:01:32 Visit bcaa.com slash smallbusiness and use promo code radio to receive $50 off.
    0:01:33 Conditions apply.
    0:01:35 Episode 341.
    0:01:38 341 is the area code covering California’s East Bay Area.
    0:01:41 In 1941, Captain America debuted.
    0:01:44 What’s the similarity between politicians and Marvel characters?
    0:01:48 They’re now fighting amongst themselves to stay in business.
    0:01:52 Go, go, go!
    0:02:04 Welcome to the 341st episode of the Prop G-Pod.
    0:02:04 I didn’t like that joke.
    0:02:08 It was an attempt to be clever, but I didn’t think it was that funny.
    0:02:10 I just, I gotta go back to the dick stuff.
    0:02:12 Anyways, welcome to the pod.
    0:02:12 What’s happening?
    0:02:23 I’ve been to Tulum a bunch.
    0:02:26 People say it’s really affected and overly expensive.
    0:02:30 It’s basically kind of like granola, sort of four-star service, six-star prices.
    0:02:33 Although, Mexico is absolutely my favorite place to vacation in the world.
    0:02:34 I think it’s the best value.
    0:02:42 And I do like the idea of being on the beach all day, pretending to be healthy so you can go out and abuse hallucinogens and listen to a DJ for, you know,
    0:02:44 a $700 bottle of alcohol.
    0:02:45 Yeah, that makes sense.
    0:02:46 Namaste.
    0:02:47 Namaste.
    0:02:49 Anyways, I love it there.
    0:02:51 This was a different type of trip.
    0:02:51 It was a wedding.
    0:02:58 It was a mix of fabulous and nice people who seemed to be really, I don’t know, into being together and celebrating people’s love.
    0:03:00 Their love for one another.
    0:03:02 Anyway, very much enjoyed it.
    0:03:04 Back in the UK, it is a spectacular day.
    0:03:06 Living in London is like living in San Francisco.
    0:03:07 I used to live in San Francisco.
    0:03:11 And the nine nights a year that you could actually dine outdoors, no one was ready for it, so we didn’t know what to do.
    0:03:12 We were paralyzed.
    0:03:14 And it is such a beautiful day here today.
    0:03:16 I don’t know how to respond.
    0:03:17 I don’t know if I should take a walk.
    0:03:18 I don’t know if I should take my dogs out.
    0:03:20 I just don’t know what to do.
    0:03:24 I’m so flummoxed by this round, hot, yellow thing in the sky.
    0:03:26 Anyways, need to get settled.
    0:03:26 Need to get back in.
    0:03:28 I slept for 11 hours last night.
    0:03:29 I haven’t done that in a while.
    0:03:30 I mean, crazy.
    0:03:33 Just absolutely crazy.
    0:03:48 So up today, speaking of London, speaking of London and Europe and Russia, we have Dr. Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at Brookings, chancellor of Durham University, and a former U.S. National Security Council official specializing in Russian and European affairs.
    0:03:54 We discussed with Dr. Earl Trump’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war, the future of U.S.-Russia relations, and the broader geopolitical effects of the conflict.
    0:03:56 I learned a lot from this conversation.
    0:04:00 It’s a complex situation, but she kind of breaks things down in a pretty sober way.
    0:04:03 I enjoyed sort of the way she framed everything.
    0:04:08 I also like the fact I couldn’t figure out her politics, which I always enjoy in someone we interview.
    0:04:11 Moving on, some news in the higher ed space.
    0:04:17 Harvard announced we’ll offer free tuition for families earning $200,000 a year or less.
    0:04:23 Also starting this fall, undergraduate students from families making under $100,000 will receive full coverage for tuition, housing, and food.
    0:04:28 Even those earning above that could qualify for some aid, depending on factors including debt and cost of living.
    0:04:36 Harvard estimates that 86% of U.S. families could now qualify for some level of financial assistance under the new system.
    0:04:39 So I think this is a really nice press release.
    0:04:41 They’ll get a lot of nice accolades for it.
    0:04:42 And let me be clear.
    0:04:49 I think this is fucking bullshit and a total misdirect from what is the underlying corruption that plagues Harvard and every other higher education institution.
    0:04:49 Let’s break this down.
    0:04:52 It’s not about affordability.
    0:04:53 As a matter of fact, this makes things worse.
    0:04:56 And that is, if you hit the lottery and you’re one of two things,
    0:05:03 you’re either the child of a rich person or you’re freakishly remarkable, then you get shot into outer space of prosperity at an unbelievable speed of light.
    0:05:05 You don’t even have, you don’t have to take on student debt.
    0:05:09 But what about the middle class kid who’s just good, not great, who’s not freakishly remarkable,
    0:05:23 and whose father doesn’t know somebody who has their name on the side of a Harvard building that gets arbitraged down from an elite university to an okay university that doesn’t have the endowment of Harvard and ends up taking out huge student loans for a credential that’s not nearly as powerful.
    0:05:29 Because fucking Harvard won’t do what it’s supposed to do and should do and expand its freshman class.
    0:05:30 This isn’t about affordability.
    0:05:35 The Ivy League has been affordable for a long time because they have so much goddamn money.
    0:05:37 This is an issue of accessibility.
    0:05:39 This isn’t about who gets in.
    0:05:40 That’s another misdirect.
    0:05:41 Oh, isn’t it great?
    0:05:44 60% of Harvard’s freshman class is non-white.
    0:05:49 But wait, 70% of those people come from dual-income homes in the upper quintile of income earning a household.
    0:05:53 So letting in the dot of a private equity Taiwanese billionaire is not diversity.
    0:06:01 And giving a little bit of money away to people who couldn’t afford it or, quite frankly, are the ones who could afford to take out student loans because they’re going to graduate from fucking Harvard.
    0:06:08 An average salary of undergrads, I think about 120 grads, average salary of HBS grads is about a quarter of a million first year.
    0:06:10 They can afford student loans.
    0:06:17 The people who can afford student loans are the ones that get arbitraged to less than universities because fucking Harvard’s full of people like myself who are narcissists.
    0:06:28 And through a mix of arrogance and self-aggrandizement, put out press releases talking about financial aid when they should be putting out press releases saying, I know, let’s let in more people than a good Starbucks serves on a Tuesday.
    0:06:46 If you had a drug, a pill, that would make you less likely if you took this pill to be depressed, more likely to get married, more likely to end up in civil service, less likely to kill yourself, much less likely to kill others, much less likely to be depressed, end up incarcerated,
    0:06:50 end up being a ward of the state, would you hoard that drug?
    0:06:54 Would you say, sorry, sorry, we have tens of billions of dollars.
    0:07:03 We could distribute this drug to not just 1,500 people, but to 15,000 with absolutely no sacrifice in the quality of the freshman class.
    0:07:04 Oh, that would hurt the brand.
    0:07:05 Bullshit.
    0:07:08 When I got into UCLA, the admissions rate was 76%.
    0:07:08 Now it’s 9%.
    0:07:12 It wasn’t exactly a Joey Bag of Donuts brand back then.
    0:07:17 Whether it’s owning a house or having a degree from an elite institution, this is what we’re going to do to you young people.
    0:07:30 We’re going to come up with all sorts of virtue signaling and talk about research and talk about brand and essentially say, okay, if you’ve got a shit ton of money you get in, and if you’re freakishly remarkable, that’s the Vaseline we rub over the lens of this corruption.
    0:07:33 It’s not about affordability, it’s about access.
    0:07:49 And if these universities that have an endowment over a billion dollars don’t expand their freshman class faster than population growth, regardless of the bullshit press releases they put out around financial aid, which is literally the dandruff off their fucking sleeves that means nothing, then they should lose their tax-free status.
    0:07:50 Because they’re no longer public servants.
    0:07:52 They think they’re fucking Birkin bags.
    0:07:54 That was a rant.
    0:07:57 With that, here’s our conversation with Dr. Fiona Hill.
    0:08:04 Dr. Hill, where does this podcast find you?
    0:08:08 It finds me in my office at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
    0:08:09 Good.
    0:08:11 Let’s bust right into it.
    0:08:13 We’re recording this on Tuesday.
    0:08:18 Trump is speaking with Putin today, ostensibly, to discuss ending the war in Ukraine.
    0:08:25 Give us what you believe is the state of play, what each party wants from this, and what you think the likely outcome will be.
    0:08:35 Well, it’s actually a pretty complicated situation because we’re tending to see this in a bilateral sense between the U.S. and Russia, and also then with Russia and Ukraine.
    0:08:42 President Trump has inserted himself into what he’s basically saying is a conflict with two sides, with Ukraine and Russia.
    0:08:44 But it’s far beyond that.
    0:08:56 Russia’s been supported certainly since well into the war in the first year in 2022 by an array of other countries and its ability to continue the fight with Ukraine.
    0:09:01 It’s gone from being a special military operation to the largest land war in Europe since World War II.
    0:09:05 China, North Korea, and Iran have come in on Russia’s side.
    0:09:13 Initially, on the parts of Iran and North Korea, to provide Russia with all kinds of ammunition and drones that it didn’t actually have in its arsenal.
    0:09:23 And China has facilitated the transfer of all kinds of other dual-use products, although it hasn’t actually actively supported Russia in the same way as Iran and North Korea.
    0:09:28 There are North Korean troops fighting against Ukrainians on the Russian side.
    0:09:31 And the Iranians have been building drone factories in Russia.
    0:09:37 And I want to put that on the table because it just shows how complicated this whole situation is.
    0:09:41 And on the part of Ukraine, obviously, Ukraine is a European country.
    0:09:48 And this has really serious implications for all of Ukraine’s immediate neighbors, including the Baltic states and Poland,
    0:09:56 because Belarus, which is another supposedly independent country which Russia is in a tight union-like arrangement with,
    0:10:01 has been used as a launching pad for the war into Ukraine as well.
    0:10:05 Belarus directly borders the Baltic states and also Poland.
    0:10:10 And, of course, for Europe, this is an existential European security issue.
    0:10:21 They’re under assault 24-7 from Russia one way or another, either by cyber attacks or critical national infrastructure attacks, poisonings, assassinations, all kinds of things, sabotage operations.
    0:10:39 It’s just been announced in the last day or so, right ahead of these negotiations, that the GRU, the Russian military intelligence, are being held responsible for arson attacks at shopping centers in Poland and also in Lithuania, as well as other sabotage attacks at warehouses around Europe.
    0:10:42 So, this is a very complicated situation.
    0:10:45 Trump wants to get FaceTime with Putin.
    0:10:49 I mean, we should already anticipate, I think, that he’s had a whole host of phone calls.
    0:10:57 I find it hard to believe that Steve Whitcoff has been talking for hours with Putin without any other sets of interactions with President Trump in the meantime.
    0:11:05 And, basically, what President Trump wants is Ukraine put to one side so that he can get on with having a big deal with Russia.
    0:11:22 We’ve heard reports today coming out of Russia that there are plans for the head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the Russian Space Agency, and others to meet with Elon Musk to talk about space collaboration, including with Musk’s aim of getting to Mars.
    0:11:30 I mean, remember, of course, that the Soviet Union and Russia were the countries that put the first satellite, the first dog, the first man, the first woman in space.
    0:11:36 And, obviously, a personal dream of Musk, not just to access space, but also to get to Mars.
    0:11:37 So, there’s a lot going on here.
    0:11:46 And in the midst of all of this is Ukraine that was basically fighting for its survival, and Russia wants a maximalist approach still with Ukraine.
    0:11:56 It’s been very apparent from all the statements coming out of Russia that Putin is not prepared at all to concede beyond the goals that he laid out at the beginning of this conflict,
    0:12:02 which was taking control, one way or another, of key territories in Ukraine and having a say about where Ukraine goes in the future.
    0:12:16 So, it feels to me like Putin and Trump are, to a certain extent, negotiating against themselves in the sense that without Ukraine or Europe at the table, they can agree to whatever they want.
    0:12:24 It feels to me that they’re under the impression they get to decide what happens here without getting the OK from Europe, who’s been providing 60% of the funding,
    0:12:30 or the people actually doing the fighting who would have to put down their weapons, which is the Ukrainian people and their army.
    0:12:36 Isn’t this a bit of a, quite frankly, more symbolic than real in terms of what actually happens?
    0:12:38 I’m completely with you, Scott.
    0:12:39 I mean, it’s not naive at all.
    0:12:45 And I think you’re just calling it like you see it, which I think is how most people see it, you know, including in Europe and in Ukraine.
    0:12:48 President Trump was recently on Air Force One.
    0:12:56 I think yesterday I was reading, you know, some reports where he was talking about how over the weekend he got it all worked out in Mar-a-Lago.
    0:12:58 Well, who was he working it out with, his own team?
    0:13:06 You know, there’s a lot of, you know, as you’re putting it here, negotiating with ourselves on the US side, or at least, you know, Trump and his immediate circle.
    0:13:16 A lot of talking to Putin going on, Steve Wyckoff, you know, meeting with Putin for many hours and hearing Russia’s side of the argument here.
    0:13:19 And then them going to Ukraine and putting a lot of pressure on Ukraine.
    0:13:25 And as you’re also pointing out, the Europeans have had to basically go into a parallel negotiation channel.
    0:13:35 I mean, it’s certainly the case that we’ve had President Macron of France, Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom, and others were trying to interact with President Trump on this.
    0:13:44 But it really feels, in many respects, like they’re fighting, in some respects, a rearguard action diplomatically, trying to kind of figure out, you know, how on earth they salvage something from this.
    0:13:51 It really smacks, not just of 19th century or early 20th century secret diplomacy, but frankly, of 18th century.
    0:13:58 Trump is going to preside next year over the 250th anniversary of American independence, you know, the American Revolution.
    0:14:06 And at that same time frame, if you kind of look back to that later part of the 18th century, there was all kinds of diplomacy going on in Europe over the heads of other countries.
    0:14:09 There was the partition of Poland, you know, for example.
    0:14:11 We’re in that kind of historic space.
    0:14:18 And that’s, you know, something that most of us would never have anticipated, you know, given how far we’ve gone in this last 250 years.
    0:14:25 But we seem to be just right back to that whole period where great powers just think that they can carve up the world and then make everybody else go along with it.
    0:14:28 I always like to ask what could go right.
    0:14:38 And let me outline a scenario and you tell me if you think there’s any veracity or likelihood or if I’m just, you know, there’s too many biases in my scenario here.
    0:14:42 But the EU combined has an economy of $19 trillion.
    0:14:44 You listed North Korea.
    0:14:51 They’re basically, I mean, they have, they’re willing to send their kids into a meat grinder, but their economy is about, I think, about $30 billion.
    0:14:53 Iran’s is $500 billion.
    0:14:57 China, obviously, that’s a huge economic power.
    0:15:04 But my sense is they actually have a vested interest in keeping this war going because they get to get oil on sale from Russia because no one will buy their oil.
    0:15:14 If the EU gets its act together, coordinates their incredible military infrastructure, they have great military, great weapons manufacturers, they have incredible IP.
    0:15:26 If they could find the resolve to coordinate and perhaps, you know, make the requisite commitment, take their defense spending from 1.9 to 3%, which they’ve stated, quite frankly, they don’t need the Americans.
    0:15:37 Isn’t there a silver lining here that Europe can actually do what they did in 1939 and say, no, we’re not backing down to a murderous autocrat, regardless of whether the U.S. backs us or not?
    0:15:44 Isn’t there an opportunity here for Europe to become a union and push back on their own with or without the U.S.’s help?
    0:15:45 There absolutely is.
    0:15:48 And I think we’re seeing some signs of this already.
    0:15:55 There’s just a couple of issues that are probably, you know, quite significant obstacles right now, but it doesn’t mean to say that they can’t be overcome.
    0:15:56 And I think you’ve laid it out perfectly.
    0:16:02 And, you know, you didn’t also talk about the limited extent of the Russian economy.
    0:16:06 And there’s a lot of talk about trades being restored between the U.S. and Russia.
    0:16:14 But when we look back to the previous levels of trade, the volumes of trade between Russia and the United States, it was the same level as the U.S. and Costa Rica.
    0:16:19 So it just reinforces the point that you’ve made and you’ve laid out there, you know, very succinctly.
    0:16:32 The obstacles are really that we’re seeing in aggregate a lot of the efforts being taken by the European Union to basically put money on the table for reinvigorating the defence and manufacturing sector of Europe.
    0:16:35 And of course, not all of the key countries are members of the EU.
    0:16:44 The UK famously took itself out with Brexit and that’s obviously the UK revitalising its manufacturing sector will be pretty critical here.
    0:16:47 You’ve got Norway, which, of course, has a major sovereign wealth fund.
    0:16:56 And as you’ve pointed out, is also a major arms and manufacturing power, obviously not to the kind of scale of others, but it’s pretty significant.
    0:17:05 You’ve also got Turkey, which is a NATO member and has a really serious manufacturing capacity and also pretty serious military capabilities as well.
    0:17:13 And Switzerland, which is in obviously a strange position debating its own neutrality, but also has a lot of capacity in manufacturing, including in the weapons sphere.
    0:17:16 So absolutely, there is an opportunity there.
    0:17:24 The obstacles is getting past these seeming constraints of who’s in what and actually agreeing to work on this together.
    0:17:32 I think we’re seeing signs of that because you are seeing all kinds of different meetings going on, all kinds of agreements of pooling funds and pooling some of this manufacturing capability.
    0:17:45 But the second obstacle is really speed because, you know, the US is barreling along on this path or Trump is barreling along on this path towards a ceasefire and is also cutting relationships with Europeans at the same time.
    0:17:47 These tariffs are essentially a sanction on your allies.
    0:18:00 And if you’re imposing tariffs on the EU and on other European countries that might not be part of the EU, but a part of NATO, you’re making hostile claims against your NATO allies, including Denmark over Greenland.
    0:18:04 Remember, Greenland is actually a member of NATO through its association with Denmark.
    0:18:08 You’re menacing Canada and imposing enormous tariffs on Canada.
    0:18:12 And remember, Canada is also a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
    0:18:18 You’re actually also then hobbling, you know, your allies at a time when they actually do have this opportunity to stand up.
    0:18:38 So I think that, you know, what we’re going to have to see is European countries and Canada, which is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, really push back and get together and figure out ways in which they can actively cooperate on the military defense sector, as well as, as you’re suggesting, diversifying away from their reliance on the United States.
    0:18:39 It’s long overdue, frankly.
    0:18:41 I mean, they should have been doing this decades ago.
    0:18:54 It strikes me that a lot of this comes down to resources or money and who’s going to foot the bill to continue the fight, if you will, or at least put us in a stronger position such that we can negotiate from a position of strength.
    0:19:04 And it also strikes me that the most obvious and simplest means of funding the war for another two years is to seize Russian assets.
    0:19:08 We have somewhere between $200 and $300 billion in Brussels.
    0:19:16 And the fear is that people don’t want to do business with Russia or, excuse me, with the EU if they’re worried that geopolitically their assets can be seized.
    0:19:27 I would argue that that incentive or disincentive to work with Europe is vastly dwarfed by the disincentive we should put in place not to invade your neighbor.
    0:19:34 Your thoughts on seizing $200 to $300 billion in Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s fight?
    0:19:39 There’s no question that this is the way that Europe should go.
    0:19:50 I mean, a lot of the debate before was if the US, this is here, of course, in the United States, was that this could be, you know, very detrimental to trust in the US economy, in US financial markets, in the Treasury.
    0:20:02 I mean, if we go back to Trump 1.0, for example, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was always extraordinarily concerned about the impact on the dollar and the dollar’s future as the reserve currency and the global currency.
    0:20:08 There was too much emphasis all the time on the punitive side of financial sanctions.
    0:20:30 Well, look, I mean, the United States, I think, is raising all of those questions, irrespective of all of that, again, by the tariffs, which is, again, sanctioning your allies, adding a value-added tax onto every particular product here, and just the kind of chaotic nature in which all of this is being played out, as well as the hostile rhetoric towards the allies.
    0:20:39 So, at this particular stage, if there’d been any qualms on the European side that were basically being transmitted from the US, those should have gone.
    0:20:47 And as Europe is now confronting the fact, as you’ve laid out very clearly here, that it’s pretty much going to be on its own in sort of dealing with the aftermath.
    0:20:52 Because what Trump seems to suggest is, I’m going to give you a ceasefire and then I’m going to cut and run.
    0:21:05 But, you know, we’re already, today as we’re recording this, looking at the breakdown of the ceasefire in Gaza, which Trump has made, you know, a lot of noise about and, you know, kind of basically put into place with greater claim.
    0:21:10 That’s being basically pushed back on by Israel at this particular juncture.
    0:21:16 So, we can’t really expect that a ceasefire or a truce is going to hold for any particular length of time.
    0:21:18 The Russians are most likely to drag off the negotiations.
    0:21:31 They’re likely to, you know, perhaps even agree to something, but again, with all of these preconditions and immediately, you know, look for some pretext to violate it again and put the blame on Europe or on the Ukrainians or both.
    0:21:42 Which will put Europe in a very tricky position, where they’re going to basically need to move with speed, with real speed, to build up the defensive capacity.
    0:21:55 And that is going to put the onus right back on the frozen assets, as you have suggested, along with basically the aggregate of their own capacities, which is, again, as you’ve said, pretty significant.
    0:21:59 We’ll be right back.
    0:22:06 This week on Unexplainable.
    0:22:13 I, like, decided at some point in high school that I would dedicate my life to trying to do as much good as possible.
    0:22:16 How a group of moral philosophers started a movement.
    0:22:21 I think it appeals to young people. I think it feels like you can do anything.
    0:22:22 Whose mission?
    0:22:29 I think AI is one of the biggest threats, but I think we can aspire to guide it in a direction that’s beneficial to humanity.
    0:22:32 To prevent the AI apocalypse.
    0:22:35 I’m like, damn, I think I can actually move the needle on this.
    0:22:38 Good Robot.
    0:22:42 A four-part series about AI from Julia Longoria and Unexplainable.
    0:22:43 Wherever you listen.
    0:22:52 This week on The Verge Cast, we have questions about smartphones.
    0:22:55 Questions like, why isn’t Siri better?
    0:22:59 And where is the better Siri that Apple has been promising for a long time?
    0:23:03 Questions like, why are all of our smartphones kind of boring now?
    0:23:13 And why is it that all of the interesting ideas about how smartphones could look or how they could work or what they could do for you happening in countries like China and not in the United States?
    0:23:21 We have answers, and we have some thoughts, and we also have a lot of feelings about what a smartphone is actually supposed to be in our lives.
    0:23:36 I’m Josh Muccio, host of The Pitch, where startup founders raise millions and listeners can invest.
    0:23:44 For Lucky Season 13, we looked at 2,000 companies and selected 12 of the very best founders to pitch in Miami.
    0:23:48 They flew in from all over the country and the world.
    0:23:49 My name is Michele.
    0:23:50 And I’m from Italy.
    0:23:53 I’m originally from Medellin, Colombia.
    0:23:55 I was born and raised in Maisel, Kentucky.
    0:23:57 I’m from Baltimore, Maryland.
    0:23:58 And I am from Finland.
    0:24:07 This season, we’re diving even deeper into the human side of venture, as these founders pitch the sharpest early-stage VCs in the game.
    0:24:10 I normally don’t like ed tech, but I really like you.
    0:24:11 I echo those sentiments.
    0:24:13 I do want to push back, though.
    0:24:14 Toughen up there, lady.
    0:24:15 That’s healthcare.
    0:24:17 I feel like I’m the lone dissenter.
    0:24:18 Ooh, Charles, spicy.
    0:24:19 So I’m out.
    0:24:23 I’m sure when they air this episode, they’ll be like, Charles was really dumb.
    0:24:25 For those who can’t see, my jaw is currently on the floor.
    0:24:27 Season 13 of The Pitch is out now.
    0:24:32 Episodes are available to watch on YouTube or listen on your podcast player of choice.
    0:24:35 So subscribe to The Pitch right now.
    0:24:46 You listed China in the same group as Iran and North Korea in terms of their support of Russia.
    0:24:53 And my impression, it might be the wrong impression, is that China wants to stay on good terms mostly with everybody.
    0:25:00 And they’re being polite, maybe even supportive of Russia, but don’t want to alienate the rest of the world.
    0:25:12 I mean, China, my sense is if China weighed in kind of feet first behind Russia in this conflict, it would be really, really meaningful.
    0:25:17 Describe or give us some nuance to what you meant by the Chinese support of Russia in this conflict.
    0:25:23 Yeah, I did say that it wasn’t the same as North Korea and Iran in terms of supplying weapons.
    0:25:35 And frankly, there was other countries like India that have been sending, you know, kind of weapons to Russia because they have also very tight relationships with Russia on the arms sales side.
    0:25:39 India traditionally got all of its weapons from the Soviet Union and also from Russia.
    0:25:44 But India hasn’t rhetorically, you know, come out in support of Russia in the way that China has.
    0:25:49 President Xi and President Putin have very close personal relationships.
    0:25:54 You can’t basically underscore enough about how close that personal relationship is.
    0:25:59 They have the same rough birth date, the same outlook on the world.
    0:26:03 They’ve met each other more times than any other, you know, set of leaders.
    0:26:23 And if you recall, just before Russia’s launch of its invasion of Ukraine, there was the meeting on the sidelines of the Beijing Olympics between the Winter Olympics, that is, between Putin and Xi, in which they declared basically a strategic bilateral relationship, a partnership without limits.
    0:26:32 Now, the Chinese have been quick to try to point out that they didn’t realize that Putin was essentially going to move into Ukraine quite so soon afterwards.
    0:26:38 I think there’s a lot of regret that, you know, a bit of buyer’s remorse there that they made this statement.
    0:26:41 And then that was so soon on the heels of this invasion.
    0:26:47 Of course, if it had turned out differently, it was indeed a special military operation, not this largest land war in Europe since World War II.
    0:26:51 You know, China might have felt a little bit more sanguine about this.
    0:26:59 But nonetheless, all the way through, the Chinese have made it very clear to Ukrainians and others that they do not want to see Russia lose.
    0:27:05 Now, ironically, China was also the largest investor in Ukraine as a single country before the war.
    0:27:06 They have no beef with Ukraine.
    0:27:08 They’ve made that very clear to the Ukrainians.
    0:27:09 They’ve also said this to the Europeans.
    0:27:12 They see this as a proxy war against the United States.
    0:27:15 And so they don’t want to see Russia lose.
    0:27:19 Now, the interesting factor is that the United States is pulling out of this.
    0:27:21 Trump has also recognized this.
    0:27:23 He said that, you know, he never wanted to be part of this.
    0:27:25 They’ve recently started to say this.
    0:27:31 Now, the United States was never actually embarking on a proxy war against Russia.
    0:27:39 Like Europeans, they were trying to basically help Ukraine defend itself, which Ukraine has every right to under the terms of the UN Charter.
    0:27:45 And of course, it’s very similar to Kuwait, you know, back in the day and to other countries that have been invaded by a much larger neighbor.
    0:28:01 But for China, basically, the failure of Putin to prevail in Ukraine would be very symbolic then of a mistake that would have been made by Xi in backing Putin as his horse in this race.
    0:28:18 And so the Chinese have been saying to the Europeans, and I was at the Munich Security Conference in February, you know, through the infamous J.D. Vance speech there, but where the Europeans were hearing from the Chinese, a lot of pleasure, frankly, about the rift between Europe and the United States.
    0:28:23 And China is saying to Europe, look, there was nothing personal in our support of Russia here.
    0:28:24 I’m sure you understand our position.
    0:28:27 And we’re going to be there for you, you know, when this war ends.
    0:28:29 We’re going to help in terms of construction and investment.
    0:28:37 You know, there’s been a great deal of desire on the Chinese part to pull away European countries from the United States.
    0:28:39 But I think they’ve got a fundamental misreading of the situation.
    0:28:43 In fact, they’re aiding and abetting this major war in Europe.
    0:28:46 And in World War II, China was on the other side of the ledger, right?
    0:28:48 I mean, China was part of the Allied powers.
    0:28:53 Of course, that was in its war with Japan after all the Japanese invasions of China.
    0:29:01 But this time, for the first time in history, China is on the wrong side from the European perspective of a major land war in Europe.
    0:29:13 And again, even if it isn’t to the same extent as North Korea and Iran, China has been putting all of its focus on making sure that Putin and Russia are propped up and that they don’t fail in this endeavour.
    0:29:14 And really, what is this endeavour?
    0:29:18 It’s a slice and dice Ukraine and to dominate Europe.
    0:29:31 So loosely, kind of a crude overview is that the world is bifurcating and it’s sort of the US and Europe and some of democracies globally, whether it’s Japan or Australia.
    0:29:40 And then there’s Russia, Iran, North Korea, and to a certain extent, China.
    0:29:41 And there’s some nuance there.
    0:29:58 But just as the swing voter is the most important voter in the US, that small group of people that swing elections one way or the other, it feels as if this new swing voters in terms of size of economy and playing both sides a little bit are India and the kingdom.
    0:30:04 And it sounds like you’re saying India, if you had to tilt them towards one side, it’s towards Russia.
    0:30:08 One, I just want to confirm that that thesis is correct.
    0:30:12 And two, I’m curious what the kingdom’s role in all of this is.
    0:30:14 I think that’s a great observation, Scott.
    0:30:15 And I’d just like to be a little clearer about India.
    0:30:22 I don’t think they’re really tilted towards Russia in so much as that was the original relationship.
    0:30:27 India and the Soviet Union, you know, had this very close relationship for decades.
    0:30:29 And India was, of course, always unaligned.
    0:30:31 And India just doesn’t want to choose sides.
    0:30:36 And, of course, you know, where there’s an option for, you know, expanding some of the relationships, some of the arms sales.
    0:30:40 I mean, the US didn’t kind of come through, you know, particularly quickly on offering an alternative.
    0:30:48 And remember, of course, that India always feels itself in a standoff also with Pakistan, but very importantly with China.
    0:30:53 We’ve had a real hot conflict on the border between China and India in the Himalayas.
    0:30:58 That’s a hot dispute all the time where, you know, soldiers have died on the Indian side.
    0:31:03 And India has always been wanting to try to see if it could indeed pull Russia away from China.
    0:31:13 I think India has kind of given up on that idea, but it never quite basically gives up the ghost, but understands it has to keep this relationship with Russia.
    0:31:16 India also wants to have a relationship with the United States.
    0:31:28 It also, just to underscore, has deep interests in Europe, especially in the other kingdom, the United Kingdom, where you’ve got a kind of a reversal of the old colonial relationship.
    0:31:31 India is a major investor in India.
    0:31:39 There are, of course, very prominent Anglo-Indian populations, most notably Rishi Sunak, a former UK prime minister.
    0:31:42 India has been heavily invested in steel and manufacturing.
    0:31:53 India is also heavily invested in global education, has been building universities and all kinds of relationships with UK and other educational sectors.
    0:31:54 So India is complex.
    0:31:56 India doesn’t want to have to choose.
    0:32:02 It wants to basically chart its own course, which, you know, fits back to the old role in the unaligned movement.
    0:32:07 But as you know, you’re saying they’re very much a swing voter and a lot of complexity there.
    0:32:13 In terms of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I think it’s absolutely fascinating that the role that they’re likely to play.
    0:32:16 I’ve had a number of conversations with them in other settings as well.
    0:32:17 It’s not just about Russia.
    0:32:21 It’s not just about what’s happening with Iran in the region.
    0:32:23 It’s not just about the United States either.
    0:32:30 You’ve got to remember that also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom have very close relationships.
    0:32:33 Lots of investment by the Saudis in the UK.
    0:32:43 And as the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund diversifies its activity, you know, in many respects, they’re going to be the financiers of lots of global projects.
    0:32:57 I kept thinking as I was kind of listening to some of the things that the Saudis were saying, it’s almost like the Rothschilds of another century in terms of being the bankers, you know, to the world, not just to Europe and the crown heads of Europe with the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund.
    0:33:04 They’re heavily thinking about what does Saudi Arabia become and what do they do beyond oil and gas?
    0:33:06 So there’s a lot to look into there.
    0:33:09 But beyond that, there’s Brazil, there’s South Africa.
    0:33:16 I mean, Turkey is a kind of swing voter in the European and, you know, kind of broader Middle Eastern perspective.
    0:33:25 We’ve seen Israel, you know, driving its own future and not being aligned with the United States on every front by any stretch of the imagination.
    0:33:35 So, look, I think we’ve got a world here where there’s a lot of other powers, regional powers and some with global impacts who do not want to have to make a choice here.
    0:33:40 They don’t want to be caught between the Russia or the United States and anywhere the United States seems to be coming over to the Russian perspective.
    0:33:47 And they certainly don’t want to be a part of a world in which the United States, China and perhaps Russia are carving things up for themselves.
    0:33:51 And within that, I mean, Europe gets back to where you started with.
    0:34:07 Europe itself, in its various different connotations of EU, European members of NATO, if they start to, you know, set up their own sub-NATO regional alliances, could all play swing roles in all of these issues.
    0:34:14 So this is not a world dominated just by great powers in the old 18th, 19th or 20th century.
    0:34:17 The 21st century is a much more complex and messy place.
    0:34:25 So, you’ve worked on Russia policy across three different administrations, Bush, Obama, and Trump.
    0:34:29 So I want to ask a more basic question.
    0:34:37 And that is, it is difficult for a lot of us to understand the endgame here and the strategy behind what Trump’s approach to Ukraine.
    0:34:41 It feels as if he started the negotiation with Russia by folding.
    0:34:42 Like, okay, you can have everything.
    0:34:44 Now let’s start the negotiation.
    0:34:56 And from someone such as myself, who I think has a bias against Trump, it feels to me like Putin has agreed to buy billions of dollars of Trump coin.
    0:35:04 And that in exchange, they’ve decided they’re going to have two spheres of influence between two autocrats and carve up the world for their own financial benefit.
    0:35:13 Steel man, a more logical explanation of the current complexion of Trump as it relates to Ukraine.
    0:35:16 In sum, what are they thinking?
    0:35:17 What is the endgame?
    0:35:20 Well, look, this isn’t about America, Scott.
    0:35:20 Let’s be frank.
    0:35:25 And, you know, if I really kind of think about it, I mean, you cover this a lot on your podcast.
    0:35:26 It’s the kind of thing that I also look at.
    0:35:30 This whole de-industrialization of the United States.
    0:35:35 I wrote a book a few years ago about this in the United States, Russia, and, you know, UK context.
    0:35:41 There’s a whole host of issues that have been decades in the making that need to be addressed.
    0:35:46 And this isn’t one way of doing them, you know, basically a convergence between Russia and the United States.
    0:35:49 It’s a convergence of autocratic thinking, to be honest.
    0:35:53 I mean, we’re talking about the very top of our economic pyramid here.
    0:35:58 And it’s really driven in a large part by Trump and his own worldview.
    0:36:00 And I’ll get to that in a second, but also by people like Elon Musk.
    0:36:06 I mean, Musk has a vested interest, I mentioned this earlier, in basically engaging directly with Russia.
    0:36:08 And I think he’s been a big driver of this as well.
    0:36:13 In part, it’s for Starlink and for the relay stations, the terrestrial relay stations.
    0:36:14 He needs to have global coverage.
    0:36:19 Russia is the largest territory in the world, you know, along with China and then, you know, Iran,
    0:36:22 as well as the United States, Canada, all these giant countries.
    0:36:27 You know, he needs to have those within his frame for his business to succeed.
    0:36:29 And look at SpaceX.
    0:36:37 It developed using, you know, the first rocketry and all of the systems developed first in the Soviet Union and Russia.
    0:36:44 The first inventor of the rocket ship was a Russian scientist, an autodidact, very similar to Musk, frankly,
    0:36:47 you know, back at the period before the Russian Revolution.
    0:36:51 So the Soviet Union and Russia have been the pioneers in space.
    0:36:59 And as I said, there’s now discussions going on about how to work for Musk with the Russian Space Agency,
    0:37:02 the Russian Atomic Agency, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
    0:37:04 So there’s that.
    0:37:08 And then there’s also this great desire that Trump has had since the 1980s of doing business with the Soviet Union
    0:37:13 and with Russia on a whole host of different fronts from his family perspective.
    0:37:15 And that’s definitely out there.
    0:37:19 And you mentioned cryptocurrency and all the other kinds of issues that are out there on the table.
    0:37:22 So that’s a major part of this.
    0:37:23 Of course, it is.
    0:37:25 And it’s autocrat to autocrat, oligarch to oligarch.
    0:37:27 You know, very similar sort of setup here.
    0:37:31 It’s got nothing to do with Americans, particularly given back, as we said before,
    0:37:35 about the paucity of the trade relationship between Russia and the United States in the past.
    0:37:38 But it could be very significant in this few set of areas.
    0:37:42 But the other thing is, and Trump is genuine about this,
    0:37:49 he is extraordinarily concerned about the risk of World War III, nuclear Armageddon,
    0:37:57 and, you know, the real risks that are still prevalent in the tense relationship between the United States and Russia
    0:37:59 as it comes to nuclear weapons.
    0:38:02 Next year is the end, the formal end of New START,
    0:38:08 the Brahms Regulation Treaty that was first put into play in 2010,
    0:38:13 the Biden administration extended it, but it expires now in 2026.
    0:38:15 This is the year that you would have to negotiate something.
    0:38:20 And Trump always has a fixation on nuclear weapons.
    0:38:22 I think he’s a nuclear zero guy.
    0:38:23 I’ve talked about this in, you know, other settings.
    0:38:28 He would like to see, basically, a process in which he works with Putin
    0:38:31 to lead towards a major arms reduction.
    0:38:34 So the Super Trump Arms Regulation Treaty for a new start.
    0:38:40 He wanted to do that in Trump 1.0, but it all got lost in the whole mix of the Mueller reports
    0:38:46 and investigations and all of the drama about Russian interference in the 2016 and, you know,
    0:38:50 2017 election and first parts of Trump’s presidency.
    0:38:52 He could never get, you know, to that stage.
    0:39:00 The Helsinki infamous meeting between Trump and Putin was supposed to start those strategic nuclear discussions.
    0:39:05 That was basically the whole frame for those meetings in Helsinki,
    0:39:12 just as Gorbachev and Reagan and Reagan and H.W. Bush had met in places like Helsinki and Reykjavik and Geneva in the past.
    0:39:17 Trump has said multiple times that he wants to get back to this and he wants to get Ukraine out of the way.
    0:39:22 He basically believes, when he said to Zelensky in the Oval Office, when you’re gambling with World War III,
    0:39:27 that the real risk from his perspective, if it’s Ukraine dragging everybody into a conflict,
    0:39:33 when he actually wants to get this gone off the page, he doesn’t like the slaughter of people either.
    0:39:34 He’s genuine about that.
    0:39:38 He really just doesn’t understand that for Putin, this is a price he’s willing to bear.
    0:39:41 And for Ukraine, obviously, it’s a fight for their survival.
    0:39:45 So, of course, you know, they’ve been engaged in this horrible fight.
    0:39:47 But for Trump, this is just incomprehensible.
    0:39:50 He wants it gone and he wants to sit down with Putin on nuclear weapons.
    0:39:54 The problem with this thinking, of course, is that Ukraine was once a nuclear power.
    0:40:00 It was part of the Soviet Union and it inherited, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, a strategic nuclear arsenal.
    0:40:05 Admittedly, it didn’t inherit the command and control aspects of this, but it did have the weapons.
    0:40:06 It had leverage.
    0:40:13 And in 1990s, we pushed the United States and the UK as another nuclear power, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan,
    0:40:16 to return those weapons or send those weapons.
    0:40:21 It weren’t really turning them because they were on their soil to Russia for dismantling.
    0:40:27 So after that, we gave promises and assurances to Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan that nothing bad would happen to them.
    0:40:30 The UK signed that along with the United States and Russia.
    0:40:31 And only the UK has taken that seriously.
    0:40:34 Those assurances and guarantees.
    0:40:38 And what this means is that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons.
    0:40:39 And what happened?
    0:40:40 It got trashed.
    0:40:43 Similar thing happened to Mama Gaddafi in Libya.
    0:40:46 He was persuaded to give up nuclear weapons.
    0:40:46 And what happened?
    0:40:52 He got shot in a pipe, basically, you know, kidnapped and taken in by his rebels and his whole system
    0:40:53 collapsed.
    0:40:58 So this is a signal to the rest of the world, to the Indias, the Pakistans, the South Africans,
    0:41:04 the Israels, all of the countries like Iran and North Korea that have been thinking about
    0:41:11 or pursuing nuclear weapons, the Japans, the South Koreans, Taiwan and other European players,
    0:41:15 that if you don’t have a nuclear weapon and you don’t have a guarantee by a nuclear power,
    0:41:16 you’re in big trouble.
    0:41:18 That’s the lesson of this.
    0:41:23 And what’s more likely to happen than Trump being able to sit down with Putin and then
    0:41:28 perhaps later with Xi, and he’s already made approaches to, obviously, North Korea in his
    0:41:33 previous administration and now again to Iran for nuclear talks, is that you’re going to
    0:41:37 end up instead of disarmament, but with more proliferation.
    0:41:42 Because the message is that the United States doesn’t live up to its guarantees and its promises.
    0:41:47 And why should the United States then be trusted as the nuclear guarantor for all of these
    0:41:52 other countries that fall under it by treaty alliances, or the likelihood that they could
    0:41:55 turn to the United States when they’re under duress?
    0:41:57 So this is a huge problem.
    0:42:02 It’s one of the key issues that is underappreciated about Trump.
    0:42:03 He’s serious about this.
    0:42:08 And I think to his credit, he’s serious about wanting to stop, as he puts it, the sense of
    0:42:10 slaughter of young men at the front.
    0:42:13 But he’s not really fully appreciating the dynamic.
    0:42:15 Putin doesn’t care about all this death and destruction.
    0:42:19 And also, why now would Putin give up the nuclear arsenal?
    0:42:26 Because for Russia, that’s the ultimate guarantor and guarantee of its prowess on the battlefield,
    0:42:32 its ability to force Ukraine to capitulate, and also its ability to deter Europe, the United
    0:42:34 States and all these other countries.
    0:42:38 And Putin has lowered the threshold for at least rhetorically talking about using nuclear weapons,
    0:42:42 because he’s threatened, basically, to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainians when
    0:42:45 he was losing on the battlefield in 2022.
    0:42:48 So this is a really intensely difficult situation.
    0:42:54 And although I think Trump is very sincere, I don’t think he’s fully grasping the implications
    0:42:56 of some of the things that he’s done and said.
    0:42:58 How do you think this plays out?
    0:43:04 Many of us are just befuddled trying to figure out the incentive structure here, trying to figure
    0:43:12 out geopolitically if Europe steps up the resolve of Russia, whether the US is in, out, in, out
    0:43:15 regarding funding, intelligence, sanctions.
    0:43:22 If you were trying to do scenario planning here, maybe it’s unfair to limit you to one outcome.
    0:43:27 What do you think are the most likely scenarios for how this plays out through the rest of
    0:43:28 25 and into 26?
    0:43:33 Well, it is difficult because we’re not talking really about the United States, let’s be frank.
    0:43:36 We’re talking about one guy and a group of people around him.
    0:43:38 I mean, that is, you know, kind of unprecedented.
    0:43:39 We’re talking about Trump.
    0:43:44 Because I think for Putin, and sometimes I mix the two up myself, you know, because there’s
    0:43:49 a very similar, you know, outlook and, you know, often sometimes game plan.
    0:43:54 But there’s, and also in terms of, you know, the unchecked nature of their power.
    0:44:00 But there’s a couple of very specific differences between the two, which are very important in
    0:44:01 thinking about how this plays out.
    0:44:04 First of all, Putin’s been in power for 25 years.
    0:44:09 And the people around him, the people who’ve been around him for decades, they know their stuff.
    0:44:11 They have a proper plan.
    0:44:18 Basically, Putin wants to dominate again the regions that were formerly part of the Russian
    0:44:20 Empire, formerly part of the Soviet Union, one way or another.
    0:44:23 Doesn’t mean he’s going to send in tanks, you know, here, there and everywhere.
    0:44:27 But he wants the veto on what they do, what they say, where they go.
    0:44:30 And he certainly doesn’t want them to have any other options.
    0:44:35 And he’s absolutely hell-bent, you know, on basically preventing the Europeans from getting
    0:44:36 their act together as well.
    0:44:39 There’s all these acts of sabotage, and I said, and psychological operations.
    0:44:42 There’s an interference going on there all the time as well.
    0:44:47 Now, Trump also doesn’t want Europe to get their act together, but, you know, for all kinds
    0:44:47 of different reasons.
    0:44:51 I mean, actually, Trump and Putin both don’t want to see NATO continue.
    0:44:55 Trump thinks it’s because Europe rips him off, or rips the US off.
    0:44:59 And he’s not wrong that Europe should have been doing a heck of a lot more for a lot longer
    0:45:00 time about its own security.
    0:45:05 And they should have got this message decades ago, not even just when Obama made the points
    0:45:08 in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea.
    0:45:15 But there’s been every conceivable US administration going back to the 1960s and to Kennedy.
    0:45:18 There’s been actually saying to Europe, come on, come on, you know, get going.
    0:45:21 This is not just all reliance on the US time.
    0:45:25 And that’s beyond, obviously, the strategic nuclear umbrella, but in terms of building
    0:45:29 up and taking up more responsibility for their security.
    0:45:33 Now, of course, Europe thought after 1989, this is great, peace, dividend, we can just
    0:45:34 kind of move on and do other things.
    0:45:38 But, you know, that message has still been coming through loud and clear.
    0:45:41 So, actually, Trump now is basically saying the Europeans are right, you’re on your own.
    0:45:43 That’s catnip for Putin.
    0:45:44 That’s fantastic.
    0:45:49 You know, the fact that Trump’s basically saying we’re not going to give Article 5 guarantees
    0:45:51 to Europe unless it’s Article 5%.
    0:45:56 They have to be paying 5% of their GDP, you know, and otherwise, you know, we might not
    0:46:01 even contemplate supporting them under extreme circumstance.
    0:46:03 That’s another thing that Putin’s been looking for.
    0:46:08 So, I mean, basically, what I’m trying to say here is what it’s more likely to be is that
    0:46:13 the United States is going to be supporting the Russian position because there’s so many
    0:46:17 things that, you know, Trump actually also sees eye to eye with Putin on.
    0:46:21 But we’re going to end up in an extraordinarily messy situation.
    0:46:22 That’s really what I foresee.
    0:46:23 I foresee my crystal ball.
    0:46:24 It’s very cloudy.
    0:46:28 There’s all kinds of, you know, things going on, you know, all over the place.
    0:46:33 And in part, that comes down to the other big difference between Trump and Putin is Trump
    0:46:34 is a totally one-man show.
    0:46:36 He’s destroying the state.
    0:46:42 He’s not acting with Congress and with the Senate, unless they’re like rubber stamps,
    0:46:46 which actually for Putin also, the Russian doom and the Russian parliament is also a rubber
    0:46:46 stamp.
    0:46:48 But Putin operates within the state.
    0:46:50 He’s a creature of the deep state.
    0:46:52 He’s not dismantling the Russian state.
    0:46:56 That was already dismantled, you know, under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin from the
    0:46:57 Soviet and Russian times.
    0:46:59 You know, the Russians have moved on beyond that.
    0:47:07 He works through his state negotiators, Lavrov, the foreign minister, you know, for example,
    0:47:10 his advisors, Ushakov, as well as through oligarchs and business people.
    0:47:12 They all work for him.
    0:47:15 And they’re all one very tight team.
    0:47:18 For Trump, he doesn’t really pay any attention to any of the people around him.
    0:47:21 He uses them as emissaries and envoys, but he doesn’t do his homework.
    0:47:23 They can’t actually advise him on anything.
    0:47:25 They just kind of come back.
    0:47:27 God knows what kind of conversations they have.
    0:47:28 Do they have notes?
    0:47:30 Do they fully understand, you know, what they’ve heard?
    0:47:32 And that makes Trump very unpredictable.
    0:47:37 So I think if Putin’s looking at his own crystal ball, he also can’t say where this is going
    0:47:37 to go.
    0:47:41 He’s going to have to be constantly on the ball, not just the crystal ball, but on the other
    0:47:44 ball, you know, trying to kind of figure out how he can push Trump in his direction.
    0:47:50 And so things will change very dramatically if others push back, if the Europeans push
    0:47:55 back, for example, or if any part of the US firmament pushes back as well.
    0:48:00 If Congress, you know, suddenly realise that they’re a co-equal branch of government and
    0:48:02 have their own powers, or if the Senate do.
    0:48:05 So there’s all kinds of different constraints there.
    0:48:11 And in Trump 1.0, Putin was very frustrated because he thought that Trump would already do
    0:48:15 a lot of the things he’s already doing now, but there were all kinds of constraints.
    0:48:17 So unfortunately, what I foresee here is a mess.
    0:48:22 I could actually see that there could be a truce, there could be a ceasefire, but then
    0:48:27 it’s when all of these other externalities, all of these other independent variables come
    0:48:28 into play.
    0:48:33 So, you know, I fear that we’re going to be in this very messy situation for some time,
    0:48:40 but gets back to what you said again, there could be a more positive outcome if the Europeans
    0:48:42 move very quickly to get their act together.
    0:48:46 And there are signs of that, but they’ve got to have the political will.
    0:48:52 And they’ve also got to realise that they can’t depend on the United States, and that they
    0:48:55 also have to kind of come up with some kind of solution there.
    0:49:00 So, I mean, maybe we should revert back onto this, you know, in a kind of a few weeks, also
    0:49:02 to see where we are, because the situation is incredibly fluid.
    0:49:05 We’ll be right back.
    0:49:19 We’re back with more from Dr. Fiona Hill.
    0:49:23 So I want to transition.
    0:49:28 You’re the Chancellor of Durham University, one of the UK’s top institutions, and I would
    0:49:31 just love to get, but you’re also very familiar with the US.
    0:49:36 And the US does a small number of things really, really well.
    0:49:37 We’re great with technology and software.
    0:49:38 We’re great at media.
    0:49:40 We make the best weapons in the world.
    0:49:45 And I would argue that on a balanced scorecard, we dominate higher education, which isn’t to
    0:49:51 say there aren’t other pockets of outstanding higher ed, including in the UK, but as the
    0:49:56 leader of a UK higher ed institution, how would you compare and contrast higher education in
    0:49:59 the UK versus the US, and what can we learn from each other?
    0:50:03 Well, there’s a lot of interesting lessons there, and I know, Scott, that you pay a lot
    0:50:04 of attention to this.
    0:50:07 So I actually also, I’m on the board of overseers of Harvard.
    0:50:10 I was elected to that just a couple of years ago.
    0:50:14 And of course, I came to the United States, as many people did, to study.
    0:50:19 I came in 1989, and I came because there was much more opportunity in the US system.
    0:50:21 I had a full scholarship from Harvard.
    0:50:22 You know, my father was a coal miner.
    0:50:28 There was, you know, no real opportunities for education for his generation.
    0:50:33 And, you know, my generation was lucky that, you know, I had a reasonably good level of elementary
    0:50:34 schooling.
    0:50:37 My secondary school wasn’t great, but there was this opportunity for scholarships.
    0:50:42 I went to university in the UK to St. Andrews, basically funded by my local education authority.
    0:50:47 But the real step up, as you’re basically hinting at here, was when I came to Harvard.
    0:50:49 I was blown away by the resources.
    0:50:53 You know, of course, I studied history and Russian and, you know, all the things that I’m
    0:50:54 using today.
    0:50:56 And there was that aspect also.
    0:51:02 The founding of the Russian Research Centre, other regional studies centres, the massive investment
    0:51:04 in language study history.
    0:51:10 I studied with Richard Pipes, one of the greatest, you know, figures in Russian history, for example,
    0:51:12 is one of his last graduate students.
    0:51:18 All of that was greatly admired around the world, as well as all of the scientific research,
    0:51:22 biosciences that has been started off by the US.
    0:51:26 Of course, that was one of the secrets of the United States success after World War II, was
    0:51:30 this massive investment in education and in research.
    0:51:35 And the difference with the UK, which is the closest proximate to the United States, is it’s
    0:51:36 all the public sector.
    0:51:40 So the role that I have at Durham as the Chancellor is more as an ambassador.
    0:51:43 I have a non-fiduciary, you know, role at the institution.
    0:51:51 The 140 plus UK universities are almost all the basically public, publicly funded by the
    0:51:55 government, which, of course, has all kinds of constraints on this, because it’s very
    0:51:59 difficult for them to build up the kind of private endowment and investments that you
    0:52:00 see in the US.
    0:52:02 Only a few universities have managed to do that.
    0:52:06 Oxford and Cambridge, most notably to some degree, St. Andrews, where I was a undergraduate
    0:52:07 and also Durham.
    0:52:10 But, you know, these are really small in comparison.
    0:52:16 And they are very dependent also on student fees, which are capped, and, you know, also,
    0:52:18 you know, kind of on international students.
    0:52:23 And they don’t have the research capacity that the US does.
    0:52:27 And there’s one thing that I think most people in the United States are completely unaware of,
    0:52:35 is that the United Kingdom, through its UK research and innovation funds, and Germany and many
    0:52:38 other countries invest heavily in US higher education.
    0:52:43 They’re also, for the big universities like Harvard, are on bond markets and on the international
    0:52:46 markets as investment opportunities.
    0:52:49 And all of this is going to take an enormous hit.
    0:52:55 You know, some of this freezing of grants and, you know, funding that we’ve already seen through
    0:52:56 NIH, etc.
    0:53:02 There’s also matching funding from Germany, from the UK and, you know, from other countries.
    0:53:05 Huge investments in the US higher education.
    0:53:11 Also, students, you know, all of this movement now to expel students who own visas and green
    0:53:16 card holders, you know, irrespective of, you know, the circumstances around this is going
    0:53:17 to have a huge chilling effect.
    0:53:23 The cutting of NIH grants, the cutting of USAID, you know, the federal funding, looking at what’s
    0:53:29 just happened to Johns Hopkins, you know, for example, 800 million of money earner that’s
    0:53:31 gone from USAID that was on global public health.
    0:53:35 I mean, again, these are all areas that other countries were heavily invested in.
    0:53:39 So I actually think that, you know, what’s happening right now is the killing of the golden
    0:53:39 goose.
    0:53:44 Because another thing that I know from the US and the UK perspective is that universities are
    0:53:47 anchor institutions in the regions.
    0:53:54 And it’s not just private Ivy League universities that are key in the United States.
    0:53:59 It’s obviously the public and land grant universities, which were set up in the 1860s to the 1890s.
    0:54:05 Other intermediate universities, community colleges, they all have a huge impact in terms of the
    0:54:08 revenue that they generate and in terms of the jobs and employment.
    0:54:12 In the UK context, for example, in the northeast of England, which is one of the poorest regions
    0:54:21 in Europe, let alone in the UK, 2.2 billion annually is generated just by the cluster of
    0:54:24 universities there, including Durham, which is the largest of the research universities.
    0:54:29 You know, in terms of the United Kingdom at large, you know, there’s something almost at
    0:54:36 800,000 jobs and literally tens of billions in the hundreds of billions of revenue every year.
    0:54:38 And of course, you scale that up even larger.
    0:54:44 You think about Massachusetts, Boston, all of the economies of these regions, research triangle
    0:54:51 in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon driving change
    0:54:52 in those cities.
    0:54:58 It’s not just in the, you know, the coast, it’s in the old industrial heartlands where change
    0:55:00 has been driven by universities.
    0:55:05 University of Idaho, the University of Nebraska, all of these universities are taking huge hits.
    0:55:08 This is going to have enormous ripple effects across the entire country.
    0:55:11 So I can’t resist.
    0:55:13 I didn’t realize you’re on the board of overseers of Harvard.
    0:55:20 So my sense is that there’s just a different zeitgeist in higher ed, or one of the differences
    0:55:26 is that people in the UK think of universities as sort of a public good, and they don’t feel
    0:55:31 the same obligation or gratification or ego boost by giving money back to the university.
    0:55:38 I just pulled up that the endowment at Durham is 110 million pounds or about $140 million.
    0:55:39 Is that accurate?
    0:55:40 That’s about right.
    0:55:40 Yeah.
    0:55:46 And I’ve actually, you know, given money myself to the university out of my recent book, you
    0:55:50 know, for the small stipends and, you know, bursaries for the students.
    0:55:56 It’s just not the same scale that it is here in the U.S., including for the public, you
    0:56:00 know, and land-grant universities, you know, the big state universities where people tend
    0:56:04 to, you know, to give money as well, high schools, the whole education sector.
    0:56:10 But where I was headed with it was, Harvard, I believe, has a $53 billion endowment, and it
    0:56:13 lets in 1,500 people a year.
    0:56:20 And in the U.S., I believe that higher ed, that we’re basically the enforcers of the
    0:56:25 caste system, that we have, we create artificial scarcity despite having the resources to dramatically
    0:56:30 increase our freshman seats such that we can feel better about ourselves and the value of
    0:56:35 the degree goes up for the incumbents at the cost of the entrance and society real large.
    0:56:43 Do you think there’s an issue with a place like Harvard, with $53 billion endowment letting
    0:56:47 in 1,500 kids a year, do you think the accusation that it’s a hedge fund with offering classes
    0:56:50 and not really a public servant, do you think there’s some truth to that accusation?
    0:56:53 Well, I think that’s an issue that the university is addressing.
    0:56:56 I mean, it’s one of the reasons that I ended up, you know, honestly on the board of overseers.
    0:57:00 There’s kind of like this view on the outside, you know, that this is some kind of, you
    0:57:03 know, kind of weird start-game setup, but there’s a lot of people from all kinds of diverse
    0:57:09 backgrounds there. And I came there as first generation. I mean, my father left school at
    0:57:14 14, went down a coal mine, my mother became a nurse, but also left school at 16. You know,
    0:57:20 so basically I came from a family with absolutely no means whatsoever, nothing, no savings. And
    0:57:25 basically I got to Harvard on a scholarship. I was immediately struck, you know, by many of
    0:57:29 the things that you’re talking about there. I’ve given money back, you know, for scholarships
    0:57:34 for people like, you know, myself and at the board, and there’s been a lot more discussion
    0:57:38 and there’s been a lot more discussion going on at the university over, you know, the last
    0:57:42 several decades because they’ve got people like Raj Chetty and others, you know, kind of pushing
    0:57:47 out and research this. A man named Anthony Jackson Education School making these same, you know,
    0:57:52 kinds of cases. The university has been discussing this in their admissions for some time now.
    0:57:57 Many of the people who have come to prominence were first generation. And in fact, the university
    0:58:06 just this week announced basically an expansion of its financial aid to students coming from families
    0:58:11 would be prospective students who, you know, are in those lowest brackets. But it has to do more
    0:58:16 in terms of expanding its access. And there’s all kinds of discussions about this going on
    0:58:20 about different platforms. I think the argument could be, well, you know, this could have been
    0:58:25 done a lot more quickly. And Harvard and other major universities like it have to actually show
    0:58:29 leadership. So there’s absolutely there needs to be this kind of debate about higher education.
    0:58:34 But I think the solution to it is not destroying it. And in fact, it’s really getting universities
    0:58:38 like the Ivy Leagues, those with the big endowments to work across the entire education sector,
    0:58:44 not just higher ed, with trade schools, with community colleges, with the public land grants and
    0:58:49 state level universities. So while you’re coming up with these kinds of ideas, I think what we have to
    0:58:54 really kind of push the educational sector, and I keep saying educational sector, because I think it
    0:58:58 has to be high schools, it has to be libraries, and all the other, you know, kind of parts of all this,
    0:59:03 is to kind of find ways of working together. I was just at a conference in Houston, a week ago,
    0:59:09 of all the associations that deal in international education. So this is language instruction,
    0:59:14 study abroad, you know, and this is not just the elite universities. I mean, I was a kid, you know,
    0:59:20 from again, from a mining community, the British underwrote, study abroad, this is a, you know,
    0:59:28 mind expanding opportunity and a life changing opportunity for people. So I’m, you know, look,
    0:59:31 I’m in agreement that there’s something needs to be done, and something quite drastic. We can’t just
    0:59:34 talk about this for another decade. We’re in the crisis now.
    0:59:40 Dr. Fiona Hill is a senior fellow at Brookings, chancellor of Durham University, and a former U.S.
    0:59:45 National Security Council official specializing in Russian and European affairs. Dr. Hill gained
    0:59:50 national recognition for her testimony during the 2019 Trump impeachment inquiry. She’s also a
    0:59:56 best-selling author and leading expert on geopolitics. Dr. Hill very much enjoyed this conversation and
    1:00:03 hope and trust that we’ll have you on again. Really, really, I love how sort of just sober and calm in
    1:00:08 the way you deliver or try to break down or distill what are very complex issues. Really appreciate
    1:00:09 your time. No, thank you so much, Scott.
    1:00:32 Algebra of happiness. What makes a great day for you? For a long time for me, that was if I worked out. If I work
    1:00:38 any given day, I feel like, okay, that was at least a reasonable to good day. That I exercised,
    1:00:43 I feel more mentally set. I’m sort of, I’ve always had body dysmorphia. I always feel kind of weak and
    1:00:49 skinny. So working out makes me feel better about myself. It’s good for me mentally. I associate a lot
    1:00:55 of good things with working out. So any day I worked out was a good day. That has changed for me. And that
    1:01:01 is now my new sort of go-to around this is a good day, is if I can FaceTime with my oldest son,
    1:01:06 who’s at boarding school during the week, and I can have some time with my youngest. I usually
    1:01:11 lay in bed with him just before he falls asleep and we just kind of chat for 10 or 12 minutes.
    1:01:18 If I can do those two things, then it was a good day. They make me feel like a good dad. It’s very
    1:01:23 cathartic for me. I feel grounded. I like to know that they’re doing all right and they are doing all right.
    1:01:28 But when I don’t see them or speak to them every day, my brain goes crazy. Are there something gone
    1:01:34 wrong? Are they all right? My communication, this is sort of a corporate lesson. Communication is with
    1:01:37 the listener. When you don’t communicate with your employees regularly, they will start communicating
    1:01:42 with themselves and coming up with all sorts of crazy, batshit ideas or conspiracies for what’s
    1:01:47 actually happening at the firm. You need to communicate consistently. And I find if I’m
    1:01:52 not around my sons a lot and I’m not communicating with them a lot, that I start getting anxious
    1:01:55 about things. So what I want you to do or what I would suggest you do is the following.
    1:02:01 First, find out what is that one thing that every day makes it a good day for you? Is it going to
    1:02:06 church? Is it working out? And just be cognizant of it. And also, also, it’s not a bad idea to say,
    1:02:12 what one person in my life that I love immensely and know, I know loves me immensely. Does it make
    1:02:16 sense to check in every day, whether it’s a text message, a FaceTime, or just to speak to them?
    1:02:20 And does that give you comfort every day? What makes a great day for you?
    1:02:27 This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Our intern is Dan Shallon. Drew Burrows is our
    1:02:31 technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G Pod from the Box Media Podcast Network.
    1:02:36 We will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy, No Malice, as read by George Hahn.
    1:02:42 And please follow our Prop G Markets pod wherever you get your pods for new episodes every Monday and
    1:02:42 Thursday.
    1:02:56 I’m good now. I don’t know if it’s the edibles I’m eating or the Xanax I had on the plane to get
    1:03:00 over the jet lag. Daddy, daddy’s even angrier than usual.

    Dr. Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at Brookings, chancellor of Durham University, and a former U.S. National Security Council official specializing in Russian and European affairs, joins Scott to discuss Trump’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war, the future of U.S.-Russia relations, and the broader geopolitical effects of the conflict.

    Scott opens with his take on Harvard’s announcement that it will provide free tuition for families earning $200,000 or less per year.

    Algebra of Happiness: what makes a great day for you?

    Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice

    Buy “The Algebra of Wealth,” out now.

    Follow the podcast across socials @profgpod:

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Supercharge Exercise Performance & Recovery with Cooling | Huberman Lab Essentials

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:02 Welcome to Huberman Lab Essentials,
    0:00:04 where we revisit past episodes
    0:00:07 for the most potent and actionable science-based tools
    0:00:09 for mental health, physical health, and performance.
    0:00:12 I’m Andrew Huberman,
    0:00:15 and I’m a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology
    0:00:17 at Stanford School of Medicine.
    0:00:19 This podcast is separate from my teaching
    0:00:21 and research roles at Stanford.
    0:00:23 It is, however, part of my desire and effort
    0:00:25 to bring you zero cost to consumer information
    0:00:27 about science and science-related tools
    0:00:29 to the general public.
    0:00:31 We just closed out the episodes on hormones.
    0:00:33 Now we are going to talk about
    0:00:37 how to optimize physical performance and skill learning.
    0:00:40 There are so many variables to physical performance,
    0:00:44 and we can manage physical performance and skill learning
    0:00:46 from a variety of contexts.
    0:00:48 I made just a short list of some of the things
    0:00:50 that come to mind that can powerfully impact
    0:00:52 physical performance and skill learning.
    0:00:55 Some of them are what I would consider foundational.
    0:00:59 They allow you to show up with your current ability,
    0:01:01 and if you were to disrupt those,
    0:01:03 you would perform less well.
    0:01:05 So things like getting a good night’s sleep,
    0:01:08 things like being properly hydrated,
    0:01:10 things like being well-nourished.
    0:01:12 There are supplements, there are drugs,
    0:01:13 there are different ways to breathe.
    0:01:17 There are so many tools related to mindset, visualization.
    0:01:21 It’s just a vast space, but it’s not infinite.
    0:01:25 And there are a few things in the list of things
    0:01:29 that can impact and even optimize physical performance
    0:01:32 and skill learning that have an outsized effect
    0:01:33 that any of you can use.
    0:01:37 So today we are going to focus on what I believe
    0:01:40 to be one of the most powerful tools
    0:01:43 to improve physical performance and skill learning
    0:01:45 and recovery.
    0:01:48 And we’ll talk about why that’s important.
    0:01:50 And that’s temperature.
    0:01:51 Believe it or not,
    0:01:54 temperature is the most powerful variable
    0:01:58 for improving physical performance and for recovery.
    0:02:01 There are two aspects to temperature, of course.
    0:02:04 There’s heat and there’s cold.
    0:02:07 We are mainly going to focus on cold
    0:02:09 as a way to buffer heat.
    0:02:11 We’re going to talk about cold
    0:02:14 from the standpoint of thermal physiology.
    0:02:18 This is a literature that’s rich in scientific information
    0:02:22 that goes back very deep into the last century
    0:02:25 where physiologists and neuroscientists figured out
    0:02:28 that there are different compartments in your body
    0:02:30 that heat and cool you differently
    0:02:32 and that you can leverage those
    0:02:34 in order to double, even triple
    0:02:36 or quadruple your work output,
    0:02:38 both strength, repetitions, and endurance.
    0:02:41 So this is not weak sauce, as they say.
    0:02:45 This is the stuff that can really shift the needle
    0:02:46 quite a bit.
    0:02:48 And it’s not just about performing well once.
    0:02:50 It’s about being able to perform well
    0:02:52 and recover from that performance
    0:02:54 so that you do even better
    0:02:55 when you’re not incorporating these tools
    0:02:58 on days where, for instance,
    0:03:01 you can’t access cold or an ice pack
    0:03:03 or an ice bath or things of that sort.
    0:03:04 I’d like to take a quick break
    0:03:06 and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1.
    0:03:10 AG1 is a vitamin, mineral, probiotic drink
    0:03:12 that also includes prebiotics and adaptogens.
    0:03:14 As somebody who’s been involved in research science
    0:03:15 for almost three decades
    0:03:18 and in health and fitness for equally as long,
    0:03:20 I’m constantly looking for the best tools
    0:03:21 to improve my mental health,
    0:03:22 physical health, and performance.
    0:03:25 I discovered AG1 way back in 2012,
    0:03:27 long before I ever had a podcast
    0:03:29 or even knew what a podcast was,
    0:03:31 and I’ve been taking it every day since.
    0:03:33 I find that AG1 greatly improves
    0:03:34 all aspects of my health.
    0:03:37 I simply feel much better when I take it.
    0:03:39 AG1 uses the highest quality ingredients
    0:03:40 in the right combinations,
    0:03:42 and they’re constantly improving their formulas
    0:03:44 without increasing the cost.
    0:03:47 Whenever I’m asked if I could take just one supplement,
    0:03:48 what would that supplement be?
    0:03:50 I always say AG1.
    0:03:51 If you’d like to try AG1,
    0:03:54 you can go to drinkag1.com slash Huberman
    0:03:56 to claim a special offer.
    0:03:58 Right now, they’re giving away five free travel packs
    0:04:01 plus a year’s supply of vitamin D3, K2.
    0:04:05 Again, that’s drinkag1.com slash Huberman
    0:04:06 to claim that special offer.
    0:04:08 Let’s start by talking about temperature.
    0:04:11 How does temperature impact the body
    0:04:13 and its ability to perform,
    0:04:15 including learn new skills?
    0:04:18 So everyone probably remembers
    0:04:21 or has at least heard of the word homeostasis, right?
    0:04:23 That the body wants to remain
    0:04:26 in a particular range of temperatures,
    0:04:29 that it doesn’t like to be too hot or too cold.
    0:04:32 Heating up too much is just plain bad.
    0:04:34 It’s not just bad for physical performance.
    0:04:37 It’s bad for all tissue health.
    0:04:39 Cells stop functioning.
    0:04:41 They stop being able to generate energy.
    0:04:44 They stop being able to digest things.
    0:04:46 You stop being able to think.
    0:04:50 And eventually those cells start dying off entirely.
    0:04:53 Now, you don’t want to become hypothermic either.
    0:04:54 You can die from hypothermia
    0:04:56 just like you can die from hyperthermia.
    0:05:01 However, that you have a lot more range
    0:05:05 to be cold than you do to be too warm, okay?
    0:05:08 And in general, the idea is to keep the body and brain
    0:05:12 in a particular range, but anytime we do anything,
    0:05:14 our body temperature can shift.
    0:05:19 So for instance, if you were to stand next to a campfire
    0:05:21 where you were outside on a hot day,
    0:05:24 various things would happen to dump heat from your body.
    0:05:26 Now, what are those things?
    0:05:28 Well, there are a huge category of them,
    0:05:31 but the simplest way to think about this process
    0:05:36 is that when we get cold, we tend to vasoconstrict.
    0:05:38 We tend, our blood vessels tend to constrict.
    0:05:42 And we tend to push energy toward the core of our body
    0:05:44 to preserve our core organs, okay?
    0:05:47 So our periphery, our hands and our feet and our toes
    0:05:48 and our legs become colder.
    0:05:52 And our core, therefore, can maintain blood to that area
    0:05:54 and we are insulating our core.
    0:05:57 Conversely, when we heat up,
    0:05:59 our blood vessels vasodilate.
    0:06:03 They expand a bit and more blood flows to our periphery
    0:06:07 and more blood can move throughout the body generally,
    0:06:10 and we will perspire, we will sweat.
    0:06:14 Water will actually get pulled out of the blood to some extent,
    0:06:15 moved up through sweat glands
    0:06:18 and will be brought to the skin surface
    0:06:20 so that it can be dumped.
    0:06:21 We are dumping heat.
    0:06:25 So it’s very important that if you want to understand
    0:06:29 how you can leverage temperature for physical performance,
    0:06:32 you have to understand that you have vasoconstriction
    0:06:34 to conserve heat, vasodilation to dump heat,
    0:06:36 that you have sweating to dump heat
    0:06:38 and you have conservation of fluids
    0:06:40 in order to preserve heat.
    0:06:43 That’s the most important thing
    0:06:45 in terms of understanding the mechanisms
    0:06:47 of maintaining and dumping heat.
    0:06:49 And now the most important thing to understand
    0:06:52 is that if you get too hot,
    0:06:55 your ability to contract your muscles stops.
    0:06:57 Okay, I’m going to repeat this
    0:06:59 because it’s vitally important.
    0:07:02 ATP is involved in the process
    0:07:04 of generating muscle contractions.
    0:07:08 The range of temperatures within which ATP can function
    0:07:11 and muscles can contract is very narrow.
    0:07:14 somewhere around 39 or 40 degrees Celsius,
    0:07:17 it drops off and you will not be able
    0:07:19 to generate more contractions.
    0:07:20 Now that’s pretty hot,
    0:07:24 but that temperature can be generated locally really fast.
    0:07:28 Put simply, if you get too hot, you stop exercising.
    0:07:30 You may not even realize it,
    0:07:32 but your will to exercise further,
    0:07:36 your ability to push harder is entirely dependent
    0:07:37 on the heat of the muscle,
    0:07:39 both locally and your whole system.
    0:07:43 If you can keep temperature in range, however,
    0:07:44 in a proper range,
    0:07:47 you will be able to do more work.
    0:07:50 You will be able to create greater output.
    0:07:51 You’ll be able to lift more weight,
    0:07:53 more sets, more reps,
    0:07:55 and you’ll be able to run further.
    0:07:58 Now, there are data that I’m going to talk about
    0:08:00 in a little bit that are absolutely striking
    0:08:01 that underscore that statement.
    0:08:02 There are data from my colleague,
    0:08:03 Craig Heller’s lab
    0:08:05 in the Department of Biology at Stanford.
    0:08:07 Many, if not all,
    0:08:10 the NFL teams are now using this technology
    0:08:11 as well as military uses it.
    0:08:13 And not just for sports performance,
    0:08:14 but also firefighters,
    0:08:16 construction workers,
    0:08:19 other professions where elevated heat
    0:08:21 becomes a barrier to performance.
    0:08:22 And you can leverage this
    0:08:24 to really improve your workouts.
    0:08:26 So how do you dump heat
    0:08:30 in order to perform longer safely?
    0:08:32 Well, in order to understand that,
    0:08:34 you have to understand that the body
    0:08:36 has three main compartments
    0:08:37 for regulating temperature.
    0:08:38 Okay?
    0:08:40 We don’t just have a center and a periphery.
    0:08:41 We have three main compartments.
    0:08:43 And there’s one compartment in particular
    0:08:45 that all of you,
    0:08:46 or most all of you,
    0:08:47 I have to assume,
    0:08:51 and if you can understand how that works,
    0:08:53 you can do tremendous things
    0:08:54 for your performance
    0:08:55 and for your recovery.
    0:08:56 One is your core.
    0:08:58 We already talked about that.
    0:08:59 Your core organs,
    0:09:00 your heart,
    0:09:00 your lungs,
    0:09:01 your pancreas,
    0:09:02 your liver,
    0:09:03 the core of your body.
    0:09:06 The other is your periphery,
    0:09:08 which are obviously your arms
    0:09:09 and your legs
    0:09:10 and your feet and your hands.
    0:09:12 But then there’s a third component,
    0:09:15 which is there are three locations
    0:09:16 on your body
    0:09:18 that are far better
    0:09:20 at passing heat out of the body
    0:09:23 and bringing cool into the body
    0:09:25 such that you can heat up
    0:09:29 or cool your body everywhere very quickly.
    0:09:32 Those three areas are your face,
    0:09:34 the palms of your hands,
    0:09:36 and the bottoms of your feet.
    0:09:39 Now, the skin on your hands
    0:09:40 and on the bottoms of your feet
    0:09:41 and to some extent on your face
    0:09:43 are called glabrous skin.
    0:09:47 That’s G-L-A-B-O-R-O-U-S,
    0:09:48 glabrous skin.
    0:09:53 And what’s special about those areas of your body
    0:09:54 and the glabrous skin
    0:09:58 is that the arrangement of vasculature,
    0:10:00 of blood vessels, capillaries,
    0:10:02 and arteries that serve those regions
    0:10:03 is very different
    0:10:05 than it is elsewhere in your body.
    0:10:08 In these three regions of your hands,
    0:10:11 your face and the bottoms of your feet,
    0:10:14 we have what are called A-V-A-S.
    0:10:18 A-V-A-S are a very special pattern of vasculature.
    0:10:22 A-V-A-S are arteriovenous astomosis,
    0:10:25 A-R-T-E-R-I-O,
    0:10:27 arteriovenous,
    0:10:29 V-E-N-O-U-S,
    0:10:33 arteriovenous anastomosis,
    0:10:37 A-N-A-S-T-O-M-O-S-E-S,
    0:10:40 arteriovenous astomosis, okay?
    0:10:43 You want to know about arteriovenous astomosis,
    0:10:44 trust me.
    0:10:46 A-V-A-S are direct connections
    0:10:48 between the small arteries and the small veins.
    0:10:51 They bypass the capillaries to some extent.
    0:10:54 They’re little short vessel segments.
    0:10:57 They have a big, large inner diameter,
    0:11:00 and they have this very thick muscular wall.
    0:11:02 And they get input
    0:11:04 from what are called adrenergic neurons.
    0:11:06 They get input from neurons
    0:11:09 that release norepinephrine and epinephrine,
    0:11:12 which allows them to contract or dilate.
    0:11:14 Now there’s some rules of physics
    0:11:16 that talk about how the radius of a pipe
    0:11:19 and small changes in the radius of a pipe
    0:11:23 leads to massive increases in the rate
    0:11:25 and amount of stuff
    0:11:28 that can flow through that pipe, okay?
    0:11:29 It’s a rule of physics that says essentially
    0:11:32 that the radius is proportional
    0:11:34 to the amount of stuff
    0:11:36 that can flow through something to the fourth power.
    0:11:38 What you need to know,
    0:11:39 even if you don’t want to know
    0:11:40 any of the underlying physics,
    0:11:43 is that these AVAs allow more heat
    0:11:45 to leave the body more quickly
    0:11:48 and more cool to enter the body more quickly
    0:11:55 than other venous arterial capillary beds
    0:11:56 throughout the body.
    0:11:56 In other words,
    0:11:58 you can heat up best at the face,
    0:11:59 the palms,
    0:12:01 and the bottoms of the feet,
    0:12:03 and you can cool down best at the face,
    0:12:05 the palms,
    0:12:05 and the bottoms of the feet
    0:12:08 than you can anywhere else on your body.
    0:12:09 These three compartments of your body,
    0:12:10 palms,
    0:12:11 bottoms of feet,
    0:12:12 and face
    0:12:15 are your best leverage points
    0:12:16 for manipulating temperature
    0:12:19 to vastly improve physical performance.
    0:12:21 I’d like to take a quick break
    0:12:22 and acknowledge our sponsor,
    0:12:23 Eight Sleep.
    0:12:25 Eight Sleep makes smart mattress covers
    0:12:26 with cooling, heating,
    0:12:27 and sleep tracking capacity.
    0:12:30 Now, I’ve spoken before on this podcast
    0:12:31 about the critical need
    0:12:32 for us to get adequate amounts
    0:12:34 of quality sleep each and every night.
    0:12:35 Now, one of the best ways
    0:12:36 to ensure a great night’s sleep
    0:12:38 is to ensure that the temperature
    0:12:39 of your sleeping environment is correct.
    0:12:41 And that’s because in order to fall
    0:12:43 and stay deeply asleep,
    0:12:45 your body temperature actually has to drop
    0:12:46 about one to three degrees.
    0:12:47 And in order to wake up
    0:12:48 feeling refreshed and energized,
    0:12:51 your body temperature actually has to increase
    0:12:52 by about one to three degrees.
    0:12:54 Eight Sleep automatically regulates
    0:12:55 the temperature of your bed
    0:12:56 throughout the night
    0:12:58 according to your unique needs.
    0:13:00 Now, I find that extremely useful
    0:13:01 because I like to make the bed
    0:13:03 really cool at the beginning of the night,
    0:13:05 even colder in the middle of the night,
    0:13:06 and warm as I wake up.
    0:13:07 That’s what gives me
    0:13:08 the most slow wave sleep
    0:13:10 and rapid eye movement sleep.
    0:13:11 And I know that because Eight Sleep
    0:13:12 has a great sleep tracker
    0:13:14 that tells me how well I’ve slept
    0:13:15 and the types of sleep
    0:13:16 that I’m getting throughout the night.
    0:13:17 Their latest model,
    0:13:18 the Pod 4 Ultra,
    0:13:20 also has snoring detection
    0:13:21 that will automatically lift your head
    0:13:22 a few degrees
    0:13:24 in order to improve your airflow
    0:13:25 and stop you from snoring.
    0:13:26 If you decide to try Eight Sleep,
    0:13:28 you have 30 days to try it at home
    0:13:29 and you can return it
    0:13:30 if you don’t like it.
    0:13:31 No questions asked,
    0:13:32 but I’m sure that you’ll love it.
    0:13:35 Go to eightsleep.com slash Huberman
    0:13:37 to save up to $350 off
    0:13:38 your Pod 4 Ultra.
    0:13:39 Eight Sleep ships
    0:13:40 to many countries worldwide,
    0:13:42 including Mexico and the UAE.
    0:13:45 Again, that’s eightsleep.com slash Huberman
    0:13:47 to save up to $350 off
    0:13:48 your Pod 4 Ultra.
    0:13:50 So what Craig and his colleagues did
    0:13:52 really illustrates perfectly
    0:13:54 what these body surfaces can do
    0:13:55 and why.
    0:13:59 They were studying overheating
    0:14:02 in athletes and in military
    0:14:04 and in construction workers
    0:14:05 and trying to prevent it.
    0:14:07 what they essentially found
    0:14:09 was that cooling the palms,
    0:14:10 palmer cooling,
    0:14:13 allowed people,
    0:14:16 athletes and recreational athletes
    0:14:18 to run much further,
    0:14:19 to lift more weight
    0:14:21 and to do more sets and reps
    0:14:25 to a absolutely staggering degree.
    0:14:28 Let’s talk for a second
    0:14:31 a bit more about why we stop,
    0:14:33 why we shut off effort
    0:14:35 when we get too hot.
    0:14:37 When muscle heats up,
    0:14:41 enzymes start getting disrupted
    0:14:43 and ATP in muscles
    0:14:44 can’t work so well
    0:14:46 and those muscles can’t contract.
    0:14:48 The enzyme that’s involved here
    0:14:50 is something called pyruvate kinase.
    0:14:52 and pyruvate kinase
    0:14:55 is essentially
    0:14:57 a rate limiting step.
    0:14:58 It’s a critical step
    0:14:59 that you can’t bypass
    0:15:00 if you want muscles to contract
    0:15:02 and it’s very temperature sensitive.
    0:15:05 Therefore,
    0:15:08 if you can keep temperature lower,
    0:15:10 you can do more work
    0:15:11 per unit time.
    0:15:12 You can do more pull-ups.
    0:15:13 What they essentially did
    0:15:14 is they brought someone
    0:15:15 into their laboratory
    0:15:17 who could do
    0:15:19 10 pull-ups on the first set
    0:15:20 and they were able
    0:15:21 to get 10,
    0:15:22 rest two or three minutes,
    0:15:23 get another 10,
    0:15:24 rest two or three minutes
    0:15:25 and if you’ve ever tried this,
    0:15:26 what you find is
    0:15:26 that you start dropping
    0:15:27 to eight,
    0:15:28 seven,
    0:15:29 six,
    0:15:29 et cetera.
    0:15:30 Now,
    0:15:31 the person might not necessarily
    0:15:33 feel like they’re overheating
    0:15:35 but the muscle is heating up.
    0:15:36 Then,
    0:15:38 with their knowledge
    0:15:39 that these AVAs,
    0:15:42 that these portals
    0:15:43 in the palms
    0:15:44 are a great way
    0:15:46 to both heat the body
    0:15:47 but also to dump heat
    0:15:48 from the body,
    0:15:50 they used a device
    0:15:51 and I’ll talk about
    0:15:52 what you can do at home
    0:15:53 but a device
    0:15:54 where they had people
    0:15:55 hold on to what was
    0:15:58 essentially a cold tube.
    0:15:59 Now,
    0:16:00 this is crucial.
    0:16:02 The tube can’t be so cold
    0:16:04 that it causes vasoconstriction
    0:16:05 because then the cold
    0:16:06 won’t pass
    0:16:07 from the tube
    0:16:08 to the hand
    0:16:09 and to the core
    0:16:11 but if it’s
    0:16:12 the right temperature,
    0:16:13 it’s neither too hot
    0:16:14 nor too cold,
    0:16:16 that cool
    0:16:17 from the cold tube
    0:16:19 passes into the hand,
    0:16:21 these so-called
    0:16:22 palmar regions
    0:16:24 and then cools the core
    0:16:25 and in theory
    0:16:27 by lowering body temperature
    0:16:28 would allow the person
    0:16:29 or the athlete
    0:16:30 to do more work
    0:16:31 and indeed,
    0:16:32 that’s what they saw.
    0:16:34 the actual data,
    0:16:35 the specific data
    0:16:37 showed that subjects
    0:16:37 could do,
    0:16:38 at least the subjects
    0:16:39 they worked with,
    0:16:40 on their first day
    0:16:41 with no cooling
    0:16:42 about a hundred pull-ups
    0:16:46 across the time frame
    0:16:46 that they had.
    0:16:48 Then they came back
    0:16:49 and did the cooling.
    0:16:51 They did it the very next day
    0:16:52 which if you’ve ever
    0:16:53 trained a muscle
    0:16:54 the very next day,
    0:16:54 typically,
    0:16:56 you wouldn’t do as well
    0:16:57 in its training
    0:16:58 if it took any damage
    0:16:59 from the previous session
    0:17:00 or you at least do as well
    0:17:01 but you probably
    0:17:02 wouldn’t do
    0:17:03 what they then observed
    0:17:04 which was
    0:17:05 they started cooling
    0:17:06 after every other set.
    0:17:07 The person would just
    0:17:08 hold the cold tube,
    0:17:09 cool down the body
    0:17:11 after every other set,
    0:17:11 rest,
    0:17:12 everything else
    0:17:13 was kept the same
    0:17:14 and they found
    0:17:14 that they went
    0:17:16 to 180 pull-ups
    0:17:18 which is incredible.
    0:17:19 It’s a near doubling.
    0:17:19 Now,
    0:17:21 you may be asking
    0:17:24 what about endurance?
    0:17:25 With endurance,
    0:17:27 similar increases
    0:17:28 have been shown
    0:17:29 and the way
    0:17:29 that they would do
    0:17:30 those tests
    0:17:31 are a little bit different
    0:17:32 and they also point
    0:17:33 to a really important
    0:17:35 mechanism of why
    0:17:36 we stop doing work
    0:17:37 at all
    0:17:39 when we perceive
    0:17:39 that we are putting
    0:17:40 in too much effort.
    0:17:41 So it gets right
    0:17:41 to the heart
    0:17:42 of the relationship
    0:17:43 between temperature
    0:17:44 in muscles
    0:17:45 and your willpower.
    0:17:47 Those are directly related.
    0:17:49 Your body heat
    0:17:49 and your willpower
    0:17:50 are linked
    0:17:52 in a physiological way.
    0:17:52 Okay,
    0:17:53 so let’s talk about
    0:17:54 willpower and heat
    0:17:55 and how heat
    0:17:56 shuts you down.
    0:17:57 In other words,
    0:17:59 if you are cool,
    0:18:00 if your body temperature
    0:18:02 is in a particular range,
    0:18:04 not only can you go further,
    0:18:05 but you will go further
    0:18:07 if you want to.
    0:18:09 Said differently,
    0:18:11 if you heat up too much,
    0:18:12 you will stop
    0:18:13 or you will die.
    0:18:15 But there’s a reflex
    0:18:18 that relates the body
    0:18:19 to the brain
    0:18:20 and the brain
    0:18:21 to the body
    0:18:22 that shuts off
    0:18:22 our effort
    0:18:24 when we get too hot.
    0:18:25 So what Craig
    0:18:26 and his colleagues
    0:18:26 and now others
    0:18:27 have done
    0:18:28 is to do a test
    0:18:29 in the laboratory
    0:18:30 where rather than
    0:18:30 ask people
    0:18:32 to run outside
    0:18:33 until they absolutely
    0:18:34 don’t want to run anymore,
    0:18:36 you put them on a treadmill
    0:18:37 and you set the speed.
    0:18:38 Okay,
    0:18:39 so they have to keep up
    0:18:40 with the treadmill
    0:18:41 and at some point
    0:18:42 they quit.
    0:18:45 And you take groups
    0:18:46 and you do those
    0:18:48 in different temperature
    0:18:49 environments.
    0:18:51 so some people
    0:18:51 are running
    0:18:53 in a nice chilly laboratory.
    0:18:55 They get their heart rate up
    0:18:55 so they’re getting
    0:18:56 to a steady state
    0:18:57 cadence or rhythm
    0:18:58 and their heart is beating
    0:18:59 at more or less
    0:18:59 a steady state.
    0:19:01 People will continue
    0:19:03 at that temperature
    0:19:05 and at that heart rate
    0:19:06 unless you start
    0:19:07 turning up the temperature
    0:19:08 in the room.
    0:19:10 And at some point
    0:19:11 they will stop
    0:19:11 and they’ll stop
    0:19:12 much earlier
    0:19:14 when it gets hot
    0:19:15 because of something
    0:19:16 called cardiac drift.
    0:19:17 Okay,
    0:19:18 so let’s say
    0:19:18 I’m running
    0:19:19 and I’m running
    0:19:20 at a steady cadence
    0:19:21 on this treadmill
    0:19:22 and my heart rate
    0:19:23 is 85 beats per minute
    0:19:24 or 100 beats per minute.
    0:19:25 It doesn’t matter.
    0:19:25 Let’s say 100
    0:19:26 just for sake of example.
    0:19:28 Well,
    0:19:29 just making the room hotter
    0:19:31 is going to increase
    0:19:32 my heart rate further
    0:19:33 even though
    0:19:34 I’m at the same output
    0:19:36 and the brain
    0:19:38 does a computation.
    0:19:40 It somehow figures out
    0:19:41 that there’s a heat component
    0:19:43 that’s increasing heart rate
    0:19:44 and there’s an effort component
    0:19:45 from running
    0:19:46 that’s driving heart rate
    0:19:48 and if the heat component
    0:19:50 and the heart rate output
    0:19:51 from the effort
    0:19:52 get to hit
    0:19:53 a certain threshold
    0:19:54 I stop.
    0:19:56 Increasing temperature
    0:19:58 increases the rate
    0:19:59 of quitting
    0:20:00 in part
    0:20:01 not entirely
    0:20:01 but in part
    0:20:02 because of this thing
    0:20:03 called cardiac drift.
    0:20:05 Heat increases heart rate.
    0:20:08 Effort increases heart rate.
    0:20:09 At a steady effort
    0:20:10 you’ll have a steady heart rate
    0:20:12 if you increase the heat
    0:20:13 in the environment
    0:20:15 that you’re engaging
    0:20:16 in that steady heart rate
    0:20:17 your heart rate
    0:20:18 will now go up
    0:20:19 due to cardiac drift
    0:20:20 and you will quit.
    0:20:23 So Heller and colleagues
    0:20:24 have done experiments
    0:20:25 where they do
    0:20:26 palmer cooling
    0:20:27 under these environments
    0:20:29 and that’s wonderful
    0:20:31 because not only
    0:20:32 does it enable people
    0:20:33 to go further
    0:20:34 and faster
    0:20:37 for much longer
    0:20:38 that’s been shown
    0:20:39 statistically significant
    0:20:40 every time
    0:20:42 but it also protects
    0:20:43 the brain and body
    0:20:44 against hyperthermia
    0:20:45 overheating
    0:20:46 coma
    0:20:47 nerve injury
    0:20:47 nerve death
    0:20:49 and actual death.
    0:20:50 Okay so you can see
    0:20:51 why this is such
    0:20:52 a valuable tool.
    0:20:54 So how can you
    0:20:55 start to incorporate this?
    0:20:55 Well
    0:20:57 first of all
    0:20:59 I always get asked
    0:21:00 how cold
    0:21:01 should the water be?
    0:21:02 Should it be ice water?
    0:21:02 Should it be
    0:21:03 very cold water?
    0:21:05 The answer is no.
    0:21:08 If you want to experience
    0:21:09 some of this effect
    0:21:10 without a device
    0:21:11 one thing you could do
    0:21:12 would be for instance
    0:21:13 to do
    0:21:14 I don’t know
    0:21:15 I’ll use the gym
    0:21:15 or the treadmill
    0:21:16 as an example
    0:21:17 you could do
    0:21:18 your maximum number
    0:21:19 of pull-ups
    0:21:20 stop
    0:21:20 and then you could
    0:21:21 actually put your
    0:21:23 hands into
    0:21:24 or on the surface
    0:21:26 of a sink
    0:21:27 that is presumably
    0:21:28 stopped up
    0:21:30 with cool water
    0:21:32 so not ice water
    0:21:34 not freezing cold
    0:21:35 but cool water
    0:21:37 slightly cooler
    0:21:39 than body temperature
    0:21:40 before you started
    0:21:40 training
    0:21:41 would be a good place
    0:21:42 to start
    0:21:43 you do that
    0:21:44 for 10 to 30 seconds
    0:21:46 then you could go back
    0:21:47 and do your next set
    0:21:48 you would repeat
    0:21:49 the cooling
    0:21:50 you would want
    0:21:50 to extend
    0:21:50 the amount
    0:21:51 of cooling somewhat
    0:21:52 so you might want
    0:21:52 to do that
    0:21:53 for 30 seconds
    0:21:54 to a minute
    0:21:55 this is not going
    0:21:55 to be perfect
    0:21:55 you’re going
    0:21:56 to have to play
    0:21:57 with how cold
    0:21:58 to make it
    0:21:59 in order to get
    0:22:00 the optimal effect
    0:22:01 but you ought
    0:22:02 to see an effect
    0:22:02 nonetheless
    0:22:04 the same is true
    0:22:04 if you’re running
    0:22:06 and you’re fatiguing
    0:22:07 obviously you don’t
    0:22:07 want to become
    0:22:08 hyperthermic
    0:22:10 cooling the hands
    0:22:10 or the bottoms
    0:22:11 of your feet
    0:22:12 or the face
    0:22:13 would be the ideal
    0:22:14 way to dump heat
    0:22:15 in order to be able
    0:22:15 to generate
    0:22:16 more output
    0:22:18 now the face
    0:22:19 is something
    0:22:19 that we haven’t
    0:22:20 talked a lot about
    0:22:22 everything I’ve told
    0:22:22 you up until now
    0:22:23 also says that
    0:22:24 if you are somebody
    0:22:25 who tends to get cold
    0:22:26 when you are outside
    0:22:27 say in the winter
    0:22:29 or even in the fall
    0:22:30 you tend to run cold
    0:22:32 warming your face
    0:22:32 is going to be
    0:22:33 the most important
    0:22:34 thing that you can do
    0:22:35 now you understand
    0:22:36 the principle
    0:22:36 and the locations
    0:22:37 at which to deliver
    0:22:38 heat and cold
    0:22:40 so let’s say
    0:22:40 that you are
    0:22:41 out for a run
    0:22:42 and you want
    0:22:43 to incorporate
    0:22:44 this cooling mechanism
    0:22:45 I talked to Craig
    0:22:46 about this
    0:22:46 I said what would
    0:22:47 be the kind
    0:22:48 of poor person’s
    0:22:49 approach to this one
    0:22:50 he said well
    0:22:51 you could take
    0:22:52 a frozen
    0:22:54 juice can
    0:22:55 if you have
    0:22:55 one of those
    0:22:56 or a very cold
    0:22:57 can of soda
    0:22:58 and you would
    0:22:58 want to pass
    0:22:59 it back and forth
    0:23:01 between your two
    0:23:02 hands
    0:23:02 the reason the
    0:23:03 passing back and
    0:23:03 forth is really
    0:23:04 important
    0:23:05 is because you
    0:23:06 again you don’t
    0:23:06 want to be so
    0:23:07 cold that you
    0:23:08 constrict those
    0:23:10 venous portals
    0:23:11 that will allow
    0:23:12 cold to go into
    0:23:13 the body
    0:23:14 now there are
    0:23:16 certainly people
    0:23:16 that are working
    0:23:17 on bike handles
    0:23:18 and that can
    0:23:19 actually cool
    0:23:20 the hands
    0:23:21 here’s what you
    0:23:22 don’t want to
    0:23:22 do
    0:23:23 you don’t want
    0:23:24 to cool the
    0:23:25 core if you
    0:23:26 want to cool
    0:23:26 the body
    0:23:27 right
    0:23:28 if it’s a very
    0:23:29 hot day and
    0:23:29 you’re going to
    0:23:30 train getting into
    0:23:31 an ice bath
    0:23:32 first sure it
    0:23:33 will it will
    0:23:34 cool you down
    0:23:35 but that’s
    0:23:36 not going to
    0:23:36 be as
    0:23:37 effective as
    0:23:38 cooling the
    0:23:38 palms the
    0:23:39 bottoms of
    0:23:39 the feet and
    0:23:40 the face
    0:23:41 the one that
    0:23:42 I’ve tried
    0:23:43 because in
    0:23:43 anticipation of
    0:23:44 this episode
    0:23:45 was the
    0:23:46 dips where
    0:23:47 then I would
    0:23:47 cool my
    0:23:48 hands I
    0:23:48 actually decided
    0:23:49 to cool the
    0:23:49 bottoms of
    0:23:50 my feet as
    0:23:50 well because it
    0:23:51 just feels good
    0:23:51 and it’s
    0:23:52 particularly hot
    0:23:52 out lately so
    0:23:53 no shoes or
    0:23:54 socks on put
    0:23:55 my feet into
    0:23:57 the bottoms of
    0:23:57 my feet just
    0:23:58 kind of hovering
    0:23:58 about a
    0:23:59 centimeter or two
    0:24:00 below the
    0:24:01 surface of a
    0:24:02 bucket of water
    0:24:02 that was just
    0:24:03 slightly it felt
    0:24:04 cool slightly
    0:24:05 cooler than
    0:24:06 body temperature
    0:24:07 or so it just
    0:24:08 basically what came
    0:24:09 out of the spigot
    0:24:10 after I let it run
    0:24:10 for a little bit
    0:24:12 and indeed I saw
    0:24:14 a 60% increase in
    0:24:15 the number of dips
    0:24:15 I can do in a
    0:24:16 single session so
    0:24:18 it’s actually a
    0:24:18 quite significant
    0:24:19 effect and you
    0:24:20 don’t have to be
    0:24:21 perfectly precise in
    0:24:21 order to do it
    0:24:23 I’d like to take a
    0:24:23 quick break and
    0:24:24 acknowledge one of
    0:24:25 our sponsors
    0:24:26 Function last
    0:24:27 year I became a
    0:24:28 Function member
    0:24:28 after searching for
    0:24:29 the most
    0:24:30 comprehensive approach
    0:24:31 to lab testing
    0:24:32 Function provides
    0:24:33 over 100 advanced
    0:24:34 lab tests that
    0:24:35 give you a key
    0:24:36 snapshot of your
    0:24:36 entire bodily
    0:24:38 health this
    0:24:38 snapshot offers you
    0:24:39 with insights on
    0:24:40 your heart health
    0:24:41 hormone health
    0:24:42 immune functioning
    0:24:43 nutrient levels
    0:24:44 and much more
    0:24:44 they’ve also
    0:24:45 recently added tests
    0:24:46 for toxins such
    0:24:47 as BPA exposure
    0:24:48 from harmful plastics
    0:24:49 and tests for
    0:24:50 PFASes or
    0:24:51 forever chemicals
    0:24:52 Function not only
    0:24:53 provides testing of
    0:24:54 over 100 biomarkers
    0:24:55 key to your
    0:24:56 physical and mental
    0:24:57 health but it also
    0:24:58 analyzes these results
    0:24:59 and provides insights
    0:25:01 from top doctors who
    0:25:01 are expert in the
    0:25:02 relevant areas
    0:25:04 for example in one
    0:25:04 of my first tests
    0:25:05 with Function I
    0:25:06 learned that I had
    0:25:07 elevated levels of
    0:25:08 mercury in my blood
    0:25:09 Function not only
    0:25:10 helped me detect that
    0:25:11 but offered insights
    0:25:12 into how best to
    0:25:13 reduce my mercury
    0:25:14 levels which included
    0:25:15 limiting my tuna
    0:25:16 consumption I’d been
    0:25:17 eating a lot of tuna
    0:25:18 while also making an
    0:25:18 effort to eat
    0:25:19 more leafy greens
    0:25:20 and supplementing
    0:25:20 with NAC
    0:25:21 and acetylcysteine
    0:25:22 both of which can
    0:25:23 support glutathione
    0:25:24 production and
    0:25:25 detoxification
    0:25:26 and I should say
    0:25:26 by taking a second
    0:25:27 Function test
    0:25:29 that approach worked
    0:25:30 comprehensive blood
    0:25:31 testing is vitally
    0:25:32 important there’s so
    0:25:33 many things related
    0:25:33 to your mental and
    0:25:34 physical health
    0:25:35 that can only be
    0:25:36 detected in a blood
    0:25:37 test the problem is
    0:25:38 blood testing has
    0:25:39 always been very
    0:25:39 expensive and
    0:25:40 complicated in
    0:25:41 contrast I’ve been
    0:25:42 super impressed by
    0:25:43 Function’s simplicity
    0:25:45 and at the level of
    0:25:46 cost it is very
    0:25:47 affordable as a
    0:25:47 consequence I
    0:25:48 decided to join their
    0:25:49 scientific advisory
    0:25:50 board and I’m
    0:25:51 thrilled that they’re
    0:25:52 sponsoring the podcast
    0:25:53 if you’d like to try
    0:25:54 Function you can go to
    0:25:55 functionhealth.com
    0:25:56 slash Huberman
    0:25:57 Function currently has a
    0:25:59 wait list of over 250,000
    0:26:01 people but they’re offering
    0:26:02 early access to Huberman
    0:26:04 podcast listeners again
    0:26:06 that’s functionhealth.com
    0:26:07 slash Huberman to get
    0:26:08 early access to
    0:26:10 Function so up until now
    0:26:11 we’ve been talking about
    0:26:13 how to use cold during a
    0:26:14 workout in order to
    0:26:16 improve performance now I
    0:26:17 want to talk about the use
    0:26:18 of temperature in particular
    0:26:20 cold to improve the
    0:26:23 speed and the depth of
    0:26:25 recovery recovery is
    0:26:26 obviously vital right
    0:26:27 during a weight training
    0:26:29 session or during an
    0:26:30 endurance session that’s
    0:26:31 just the stimulus for
    0:26:32 getting better the next
    0:26:33 time and if you don’t
    0:26:35 recover you not only won’t
    0:26:35 get better but you’ll get
    0:26:38 worse there’s a lot of
    0:26:40 interest in the use of cold
    0:26:43 in order to improve recovery
    0:26:45 in the short term we see
    0:26:46 this and probably the best
    0:26:47 example of this would be
    0:26:49 fighters in combat sports
    0:26:52 between rounds or athletes
    0:26:54 during in between quarters or
    0:26:56 halftime that’s one form of
    0:26:58 recovery the ability to go
    0:26:59 back into the sport very
    0:27:01 soon on an order of minutes
    0:27:02 anywhere from like one
    0:27:03 minute in between rounds in
    0:27:05 typical combat sports or
    0:27:06 several minutes at a half
    0:27:09 time etc and then of
    0:27:10 course there’s recovery
    0:27:11 that occurs from session to
    0:27:13 session so outside of the
    0:27:14 game or the match or the
    0:27:18 or the exercise session and
    0:27:20 many people are now relying
    0:27:22 on things like cryotherapy
    0:27:23 which requires a lot of
    0:27:24 expensive equipment big you
    0:27:26 know liquid nitrogen
    0:27:28 driven machine that those
    0:27:29 aren’t so common for most
    0:27:30 people are accessible for
    0:27:32 most people but a lot of
    0:27:32 people are using cold
    0:27:34 baths or ice baths or cold
    0:27:36 showers and again that’s not
    0:27:37 going to optimize recovery
    0:27:39 in fact it’s going to
    0:27:40 have an additional effect
    0:27:41 that is going to
    0:27:43 potentially block the
    0:27:45 training stimulus when you
    0:27:46 get into an ice bath you
    0:27:48 are indeed blocking some of
    0:27:49 the inflammation that
    0:27:50 occurs because of the
    0:27:52 training session but in
    0:27:54 doing so you also are
    0:27:56 blocking pathways such as
    0:27:58 mTOR mammalian target
    0:27:59 or rapamycin which are
    0:28:01 involved in the adaptation
    0:28:02 for a muscle to become
    0:28:04 stronger or bigger put
    0:28:06 it’s simply covering the
    0:28:07 body in cold or immersing
    0:28:09 the body in cold after
    0:28:11 training can short circuit
    0:28:13 or prevent the hypertrophy
    0:28:15 or muscle growth response it
    0:28:16 has other effects that can be
    0:28:18 positive right it can induce
    0:28:20 thermogenesis etc it can reduce
    0:28:22 inflammation but it can
    0:28:23 prevent some of the positive
    0:28:25 effects of exercise now it
    0:28:27 hasn’t been examined so much
    0:28:29 for endurance work but let’s
    0:28:30 say you come back from a
    0:28:32 round of endurance work a run
    0:28:35 or a bike or a swim getting
    0:28:38 into a cool bath or cooling
    0:28:39 the palms the bombs of the
    0:28:40 feet of the face in my
    0:28:42 opinion based on the science
    0:28:43 would be better than
    0:28:45 completely immersing the
    0:28:47 body in the ice bath if you
    0:28:49 can cool the body back to its
    0:28:51 resting temperature for a
    0:28:53 and by resting temperature I
    0:28:54 mean within the range that
    0:28:56 you would see at any time of
    0:28:57 waking day but not in
    0:29:00 exercise if you can do that
    0:29:01 the sooner you can do that
    0:29:02 after a workout the sooner
    0:29:04 that the muscle will recover
    0:29:06 that the tendons will recover
    0:29:07 and that the person you can
    0:29:09 get back into more endurance
    0:29:10 training more weight training
    0:29:13 etc so cold actually can be a
    0:29:14 very powerful tool for
    0:29:16 recovery but to maximize
    0:29:18 return to baseline levels of
    0:29:19 temperature just simply
    0:29:21 cooling the entire body by
    0:29:22 jumping into an ice bath or
    0:29:24 a cold shower is not the best
    0:29:25 way to go you really want to
    0:29:26 rely on one of these three
    0:29:28 glabrous skin portals of the
    0:29:29 palms the bottoms of the feet
    0:29:31 or the face one of the more
    0:29:34 commonly used compounds that’s
    0:29:35 sold over the counter are
    0:29:38 non-steroid anti-inflammatories
    0:29:39 so things like tylenol and
    0:29:41 advil and other trade names and
    0:29:42 naproxen sodium things of that
    0:29:44 sort almost all of those drop
    0:29:47 body temperature to some extent
    0:29:50 and that’s why it’s often
    0:29:51 recommended that people take
    0:29:52 them when they have a fever
    0:29:54 now a number of athletes
    0:29:55 especially endurance athletes
    0:29:57 will rely on these non-steroid
    0:29:59 anti-inflammatory drugs
    0:30:00 specifically to keep body
    0:30:03 temperature lower during long
    0:30:05 bouts of exertion this is a
    0:30:06 little bit of a pharmacologic
    0:30:09 version of dumping heat
    0:30:11 instead of using palmer cooling
    0:30:14 or you know face face ice pack
    0:30:16 cooling they’re relying on
    0:30:17 pharmacology to drop their core
    0:30:19 body temperature that has
    0:30:21 certain obvious advantages
    0:30:23 lower temperature allows you to
    0:30:24 go further harder with more
    0:30:27 intensity however they do have
    0:30:29 effects on the liver and they
    0:30:30 can also have effects on the
    0:30:32 kidneys and during long bouts of
    0:30:33 exercise or even short bouts of
    0:30:35 exercise water balance and salt
    0:30:37 balance are also going to be vital
    0:30:40 to maintain in order to perform
    0:30:42 well generate the best muscle
    0:30:44 contraction stay mentally alert and
    0:30:46 also to stay alive you probably
    0:30:47 want to think carefully about
    0:30:49 whether or not you want to use
    0:30:50 non-steroid anti-inflammatories
    0:30:53 before any training session just
    0:30:55 for the performance augmentation
    0:30:56 effect unless you’re working
    0:30:58 carefully with a coach i
    0:31:00 personally am more a fan of
    0:31:02 cooling of the palms cooling of
    0:31:04 the of the bottoms of my feet
    0:31:06 right by placing them into a bucket
    0:31:09 or into a cool bath after after
    0:31:11 training or cooling the face after
    0:31:13 training or sometimes even during
    0:31:14 training it just seems like
    0:31:16 there’s more of a margin to play
    0:31:17 with the variables to heat up the
    0:31:19 water or cool it down a little bit
    0:31:22 to include one palm or the other
    0:31:24 palm there’s just all sorts of
    0:31:27 good parameter space as we call it
    0:31:28 in science that you can play with
    0:31:30 and work with to find what works
    0:31:32 for you as whereas when you pop a
    0:31:34 pill sure you can adjust the dose
    0:31:36 and you can adjust it next time but
    0:31:37 once it’s in you it’s in you and
    0:31:38 there’s going to be some period of
    0:31:41 time before you can modulate it so
    0:31:42 it doesn’t give you a lot of
    0:31:44 opportunity to play scientist which is
    0:31:46 what i like to do because what i’ve
    0:31:47 always trying to do is trying to dial
    0:31:49 in that the best protocols possible
    0:31:51 based on the mechanisms and data and
    0:31:52 if you can do that moment to moment
    0:31:54 that places you in a position of power
    0:31:56 once again we’ve covered a lot of
    0:31:59 material by now after seeing this
    0:32:00 episode or listening to this episode
    0:32:03 you should understand a lot about how
    0:32:05 your body heats and cools itself and
    0:32:07 the value of that for physical
    0:32:09 performance i hope you’ll also
    0:32:11 appreciate that you have tools at
    0:32:13 your disposal to vastly improve your
    0:32:15 physical performance i’ve given you
    0:32:17 specific protocols and some direction
    0:32:20 but i’ve also left it slightly vague
    0:32:22 because as i mentioned earlier i don’t
    0:32:24 know all the environmental conditions
    0:32:25 i don’t know how hot your yoga studio
    0:32:28 is or how cool your gym happens to be
    0:32:30 or your body temperature or time of day
    0:32:32 remember your temperature will vary
    0:32:34 according to time of day going forward
    0:32:35 we’re going to talk more about
    0:32:37 temperature and other ways to improve
    0:32:40 physical performance and skill learning
    0:32:42 we’re going to talk about specific ways
    0:32:46 to accelerate fat loss to improve muscle
    0:32:48 growth to improve suppleness and
    0:32:51 flexibility these approaches and
    0:32:54 mechanisms are anchored deeply in
    0:32:56 neuroscience and physiology and the
    0:32:58 relationship between our peripheral
    0:33:01 organs which include our skin and our
    0:33:03 brain and all the organs in between and
    0:33:06 last but not least i want to thank you for
    0:33:07 your time and attention i realize this
    0:33:09 is a lot of information i hope you’ll
    0:33:11 find some of it to be actionable and
    0:33:12 useful for you and for people that you
    0:33:14 know and as always thank you for your
    0:33:15 interest in science
    Chào mừng bạn đến với Huberman Lab Essentials, nơi chúng ta xem lại các tập trước để tìm ra những công cụ khoa học mạnh mẽ và có thể áp dụng ngay cho sức khỏe tâm lý, sức khỏe thể chất và hiệu suất. Tôi là Andrew Huberman, giáo sư thần kinh sinh học và nhãn khoa tại Trường Y tế Stanford. Podcast này tách biệt với vai trò giảng dạy và nghiên cứu của tôi tại Stanford. Tuy nhiên, đây là một phần trong mong muốn và nỗ lực của tôi để cung cấp thông tin miễn phí cho công chúng về khoa học và các công cụ liên quan đến khoa học.
    Chúng ta vừa kết thúc các tập về hormone. Bây giờ, chúng ta sẽ nói về cách tối ưu hóa hiệu suất thể chất và việc học kỹ năng. Có rất nhiều biến số ảnh hưởng đến hiệu suất thể chất, và chúng ta có thể quản lý hiệu suất thể chất và việc học kỹ năng từ nhiều bối cảnh khác nhau. Tôi đã lập một danh sách ngắn gọn về một số điều có thể ảnh hưởng mạnh mẽ đến hiệu suất thể chất và việc học kỹ năng. Một số trong số đó là những điều tôi coi là cơ sở. Chúng cho phép bạn thể hiện khả năng hiện tại của mình, và nếu bạn làm gián đoạn những điều đó, bạn sẽ thực hiện kém hơn. Vì vậy, những điều như có một giấc ngủ ngon, những điều như được cung cấp đủ nước, những điều như được dinh dưỡng đầy đủ. Có các thực phẩm chức năng, có thuốc, có các cách thở khác nhau. Có rất nhiều công cụ liên quan đến tâm lý, hình dung. Đây là một lĩnh vực rộng lớn, nhưng không phải là vô tận. Và có một vài điều trong danh sách những điều có thể ảnh hưởng và thậm chí tối ưu hóa hiệu suất thể chất và việc học kỹ năng có tác động rất lớn mà bất kỳ ai trong số các bạn cũng có thể sử dụng.
    Vì vậy, hôm nay chúng ta sẽ tập trung vào điều tôi tin rằng là một trong những công cụ mạnh mẽ nhất để cải thiện hiệu suất thể chất, việc học kỹ năng và phục hồi. Và chúng ta sẽ nói về lý do tại sao điều đó lại quan trọng. Đó là nhiệt độ. Tin hay không thì tùy, nhiệt độ là biến số mạnh mẽ nhất để cải thiện hiệu suất thể chất và phục hồi. Tất nhiên, có hai khía cạnh về nhiệt độ. Có nóng và có lạnh. Chúng ta chủ yếu sẽ tập trung vào lạnh như một cách để giảm bớt sức nóng. Chúng ta sẽ nói về lạnh từ góc độ sinh lý nhiệt. Đây là một tài liệu phong phú về thông tin khoa học đã trở lại rất sâu vào thế kỷ trước, nơi các nhà sinh lý học và nhà thần kinh học đã phát hiện ra rằng có những khoang khác nhau trong cơ thể bạn làm nóng và làm lạnh bạn khác nhau và rằng bạn có thể tận dụng điều đó để tăng gấp đôi, thậm chí gấp ba hoặc gấp bốn sản lượng công việc của bạn, cả về sức mạnh, số lần lặp lại và sức bền. Vì vậy, đây không phải là điều yếu ớt, như người ta nói. Đây là những thứ có thể thực sự làm thay đổi tình hình một cách đáng kể. Và không chỉ là về việc thực hiện tốt một lần. Đây là về khả năng thực hiện tốt và phục hồi từ hiệu suất đó để bạn có thể làm tốt hơn nữa khi bạn không sử dụng những công cụ này vào những ngày, chẳng hạn như khi bạn không thể tiếp cận với lạnh hoặc miếng chườm đá hoặc bồn tắm nước đá hoặc những thứ tương tự.
    Tôi muốn nghỉ một chút và ghi nhận nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi, AG1. AG1 là một loại đồ uống chứa vitamin, khoáng chất, probiotic cũng bao gồm prebiotics và adaptogens. Là một người đã tham gia vào khoa học nghiên cứu gần ba thập kỷ và trong lĩnh vực sức khỏe và thể dục cũng lâu như vậy, tôi liên tục tìm kiếm những công cụ tốt nhất để cải thiện sức khỏe tâm lý, sức khỏe thể chất và hiệu suất của mình. Tôi đã phát hiện ra AG1 từ năm 2012, rất lâu trước khi tôi từng có một podcast hoặc thậm chí biết podcast là gì, và tôi đã sử dụng nó hàng ngày kể từ đó. Tôi nhận thấy rằng AG1 cải thiện rất nhiều tất cả các khía cạnh của sức khỏe của tôi. Tôi cảm thấy tốt hơn nhiều khi tôi dùng nó. AG1 sử dụng nguyên liệu chất lượng cao nhất trong những sự kết hợp đúng, và họ liên tục cải thiện công thức của mình mà không tăng giá. Mỗi khi tôi được hỏi nếu tôi chỉ có thể dùng một loại thực phẩm chức năng, thì đó sẽ là loại nào? Tôi luôn nói AG1. Nếu bạn muốn thử AG1, bạn có thể truy cập drinkag1.com slash Huberman để nhận ưu đãi đặc biệt. Hiện tại, họ đang tặng năm gói du lịch miễn phí cộng với một năm cung cấp vitamin D3, K2. Một lần nữa, đó là drinkag1.com slash Huberman để nhận ưu đãi đặc biệt đó.
    Hãy bắt đầu bằng cách nói về nhiệt độ. Nhiệt độ ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến cơ thể và khả năng hoạt động của nó, bao gồm việc học các kỹ năng mới? Chắc hẳn mọi người đều nhớ hoặc ít nhất đã nghe đến từ homeostasis, đúng không? Rằng cơ thể muốn duy trì trong một khoảng nhiệt độ cụ thể, rằng nó không thích quá nóng hoặc quá lạnh. Nhiệt độ quá cao thì thật sự rất tệ. Nó không chỉ tệ cho hiệu suất thể chất mà còn tệ cho tất cả các mô. Các tế bào ngừng hoạt động. Chúng ngừng tạo ra năng lượng. Chúng ngừng tiêu hóa các thứ. Bạn ngừng suy nghĩ. Và cuối cùng những tế bào đó bắt đầu chết hoàn toàn. Bây giờ, bạn cũng không muốn bị hạ thân nhiệt. Bạn có thể chết vì hạ thân nhiệt cũng như có thể chết vì hạ nhiệt. Tuy nhiên, bạn có nhiều khoảng nhiệt độ để bị lạnh hơn là để bị nóng, được chứ? Và nói chung, ý tưởng chính là giữ cho cơ thể và não ở một khoảng nhiệt độ cụ thể, nhưng mỗi khi chúng ta làm bất cứ điều gì, nhiệt độ cơ thể của chúng ta có thể thay đổi. Ví dụ, nếu bạn đứng bên cạnh một đống lửa cắm trại trong một ngày nóng, sẽ có nhiều điều xảy ra để giải phóng nhiệt từ cơ thể bạn. Vậy những điều đó là gì? Chà, có một danh mục lớn cho chúng, nhưng cách đơn giản nhất để nghĩ về quá trình này là khi chúng ta lạnh, chúng ta thường co mạch. Chúng ta, mạch máu của chúng ta thường co lại. Và chúng ta có xu hướng đẩy năng lượng về phía lõi cơ thể để bảo tồn các cơ quan chính của mình, được chứ? Vì vậy, phần ngoại vi của chúng ta, tay, chân, ngón chân và chân của chúng ta sẽ trở nên lạnh hơn. Và do đó, lõi của chúng ta có thể duy trì lưu lượng máu đến khu vực đó và chúng ta đang cách nhiệt cho lõi của mình. Ngược lại, khi chúng ta nóng lên, mạch máu của chúng ta giãn nở. Chúng nở ra một chút và nhiều máu hơn chảy đến ngoại vi và nhiều máu hơn có thể di chuyển trong toàn bộ cơ thể nói chung, và chúng ta sẽ tiết mồ hôi, chúng ta sẽ đổ mồ hôi.
    Nước thực sự sẽ được kéo ra khỏi máu một cách nào đó, di chuyển qua các tuyến mồ hôi và được đưa lên bề mặt da để có thể thải ra ngoài. Chúng ta đang thải nhiệt. Vì vậy, rất quan trọng nếu bạn muốn hiểu cách bạn có thể tận dụng nhiệt độ cho hiệu suất thể chất, bạn phải hiểu rằng bạn có sự co mạch để bảo tồn nhiệt, giãn mạch để thải nhiệt, bạn có sự đổ mồ hôi để thải nhiệt và bạn có sự bảo tồn chất lỏng để giữ nhiệt. Đó là điều quan trọng nhất trong việc hiểu cơ chế duy trì và thải nhiệt.
    Và bây giờ điều quan trọng nhất cần hiểu là nếu bạn nóng quá, khả năng co cơ của bạn sẽ dừng lại. Được rồi, tôi sẽ lặp lại điều này vì nó cực kỳ quan trọng. ATP tham gia vào quá trình tạo ra sự co cơ. Phạm vi nhiệt độ mà ATP có thể hoạt động và các cơ có thể co lại là rất hẹp. Khoảng chừng 39 hoặc 40 độ C, nó sẽ giảm và bạn sẽ không thể tạo ra thêm sự co cơ nào. Bây giờ thì nóng đó, nhưng nhiệt độ đó có thể được sinh ra tại chỗ rất nhanh. Nói đơn giản, nếu bạn nóng quá, bạn sẽ ngừng tập thể dục. Bạn có thể không nhận ra điều đó, nhưng ý chí của bạn để tiếp tục tập thể dục, khả năng của bạn để nỗ lực nhiều hơn hoàn toàn phụ thuộc vào nhiệt độ của cơ, cả ở mức địa phương và toàn bộ hệ thống của bạn. Nếu bạn có thể giữ nhiệt độ trong khoảng, tuy nhiên, trong một khoảng hợp lý, bạn sẽ có thể thực hiện nhiều công việc hơn. Bạn sẽ có thể tạo ra nhiều hơn. Bạn sẽ có thể nâng nhiều trọng lượng hơn, nhiều set hơn, nhiều lần hơn, và bạn sẽ có thể chạy xa hơn.
    Bây giờ, có dữ liệu mà tôi sẽ nói đến ngay sau đây rất nổi bật và nhấn mạnh tuyên bố đó. Có dữ liệu từ phòng thí nghiệm của đồng nghiệp tôi, Craig Heller tại Khoa Sinh học ở Stanford. Nhiều, nếu không muốn nói là tất cả, các đội NFL hiện đang sử dụng công nghệ này cũng như quân đội. Và không chỉ cho hiệu suất thể thao, mà còn cho các nhân viên cứu hỏa, công nhân xây dựng, những nghề khác mà nhiệt độ cao trở thành một rào cản cho hiệu suất. Và bạn có thể tận dụng điều này để cải thiện đáng kể buổi tập của mình.
    Vậy, làm thế nào để thải nhiệt để thực hiện lâu hơn một cách an toàn? À, để hiểu điều đó, bạn phải hiểu rằng cơ thể có ba ngăn chính để điều chỉnh nhiệt độ. Được chứ? Chúng ta không chỉ có một trung tâm và một ngoại vi. Chúng ta có ba ngăn chính. Và có một ngăn đặc biệt mà tất cả các bạn, hoặc hầu hết các bạn, tôi phải giả định như vậy, và nếu bạn có thể hiểu cách nó hoạt động, bạn có thể làm những điều tuyệt vời cho hiệu suất và quá trình phục hồi của bạn.
    Một là lõi của bạn. Chúng ta đã nói về điều đó rồi. Các cơ quan chính của bạn, trái tim, phổi, tuyến tụy, gan, lõi của cơ thể bạn. Cái còn lại là ngoại vi của bạn, rõ ràng là tay và chân của bạn và bàn chân và bàn tay của bạn. Nhưng rồi có một thành phần thứ ba, đó là ba vị trí trên cơ thể bạn tốt hơn rất nhiều trong việc truyền nhiệt ra ngoài cơ thể và đưa không khí mát vào cơ thể, giúp bạn có thể làm nóng hoặc làm mát cơ thể một cách rất nhanh chóng khắp nơi. Ba khu vực đó là khuôn mặt của bạn, lòng bàn tay và lòng bàn chân.
    Bây giờ, da trên tay và lòng bàn chân, và ở một mức độ nào đó trên khuôn mặt của bạn, được gọi là da trơn. Đó là G-L-A-B-O-R-O-U-S, da trơn. Điều đặc biệt về những khu vực đó trên cơ thể bạn và làn da trơn là cấu trúc của các mạch máu, các mạch máu, mao mạch và động mạch phục vụ những vùng đó rất khác so với những nơi khác trong cơ thể bạn. Ở ba khu vực này của tay, mặt và lòng bàn chân, chúng ta có những gì được gọi là A-V-A-S. A-V-A-S là một mô hình mạch máu rất đặc biệt. A-V-A-S là khe nối động tĩnh mạch, A-R-T-E-R-I-O, động tĩnh mạch, V-E-N-O-U-S, khe nối tĩnh mạch động, A-N-A-S-T-O-M-O-S-E-S, khe nối động tĩnh mạch, được chưa? Bạn muốn biết về khe nối động tĩnh mạch, hãy tin tôi. A-V-A-S là những kết nối trực tiếp giữa các động mạch nhỏ và tĩnh mạch nhỏ. Chúng đi qua mao mạch ở một mức độ nào đó. Chúng là các đoạn mạch ngắn. Chúng có đường kính lớn bên trong và có thành cơ rất dày. Chúng nhận tín hiệu từ những gì được gọi là các nơ-ron adrenergic. Chúng nhận tín hiệu từ các nơ-ron phóng thích norepinephrine và epinephrine, cho phép chúng co lại hoặc giãn ra.
    Bây giờ có một số quy tắc vật lý nói về cách mà bán kính của một ống và những thay đổi nhỏ trong bán kính của ống dẫn đến sự gia tăng lớn về tốc độ và lượng chất có thể chảy qua ống đó, được chưa? Đó là một quy tắc vật lý nói rằng về cơ bản, bán kính tỷ lệ thuận với lượng chất có thể chảy qua một cái gì đó, đến mũ bốn. Điều bạn cần biết, ngay cả khi bạn không muốn biết bất kỳ thông tin cơ bản nào về vật lý, là những AVAs này cho phép nhiều nhiệt hơn thoát ra khỏi cơ thể nhanh hơn và nhiều không khí mát hơn vào cơ thể nhanh hơn so với các giường mao mạch động tĩnh khác trong cơ thể. Nói cách khác, bạn có thể làm nóng hiệu quả nhất ở khuôn mặt, lòng bàn tay và lòng bàn chân, và bạn có thể làm mát hiệu quả nhất ở khuôn mặt, lòng bàn tay và lòng bàn chân hơn là bất kỳ nơi nào khác trên cơ thể bạn.
    Ba ngăn này của cơ thể bạn, lòng bàn tay, lòng bàn chân và khuôn mặt, là những điểm áp lực tốt nhất của bạn để điều chỉnh nhiệt độ nhằm cải thiện đáng kể hiệu suất thể chất. Tôi muốn tạm dừng một chút và công nhận nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi, Eight Sleep. Eight Sleep sản xuất các lớp đệm thông minh với khả năng làm mát, nhiệt và theo dõi giấc ngủ. Tôi đã nói trước đây trên podcast này về nhu cầu rất quan trọng để chúng ta có đủ giấc ngủ chất lượng mỗi đêm. Nay, một trong những cách tốt nhất để đảm bảo có một đêm ngon giấc là đảm bảo rằng nhiệt độ của môi trường ngủ của bạn là chính xác.
    Và đó là bởi vì để có thể ngủ
    và duy trì giấc ngủ sâu,
    nhiệt độ cơ thể của bạn thực sự phải giảm
    khoảng một đến ba độ.
    Và để thức dậy
    cảm thấy hồi phục và tràn đầy năng lượng,
    nhiệt độ cơ thể của bạn thực sự phải tăng
    khoảng một đến ba độ.
    Eight Sleep tự động điều chỉnh
    nhiệt độ của giường bạn
    suốt cả đêm
    theo nhu cầu riêng biệt của bạn.
    Bây giờ, tôi thấy điều đó cực kỳ hữu ích
    vì tôi thích làm cho giường
    thật mát mẻ vào đầu buổi đêm,
    thậm chí còn lạnh hơn giữa đêm,
    và ấm áp khi tôi thức dậy.
    Đó là điều giúp tôi
    có được giấc ngủ sóng chậm
    và giấc ngủ chuyển động nhanh của mắt.
    Và tôi biết điều đó vì Eight Sleep
    có một bộ theo dõi giấc ngủ tuyệt vời
    cho tôi biết tôi đã ngủ ngon như thế nào
    và các loại giấc ngủ
    mà tôi trải qua suốt đêm.
    Mẫu mới nhất của họ,
    Pod 4 Ultra,
    cũng có chức năng phát hiện tiếng ngáy
    sẽ tự động nâng đầu bạn
    lên một vài độ
    để cải thiện luồng không khí
    và ngăn bạn ngáy.
    Nếu bạn quyết định thử Eight Sleep,
    bạn có 30 ngày để dùng thử tại nhà
    và bạn có thể trả lại
    nếu bạn không thích.
    Không hỏi câu nào,
    nhưng tôi chắc chắn rằng bạn sẽ yêu thích nó.
    Hãy truy cập eightsleep.com slash Huberman
    để tiết kiệm tới 350 đô la
    cho Pod 4 Ultra của bạn.
    Eight Sleep giao hàng
    đến nhiều quốc gia trên toàn thế giới,
    bao gồm cả Mexico và UAE.
    Một lần nữa, đó là eightsleep.com slash Huberman
    để tiết kiệm tới 350 đô la
    cho Pod 4 Ultra của bạn.
    Vậy thì những gì Craig và các đồng nghiệp của ông đã làm
    thực sự minh họa hoàn hảo
    những bề mặt cơ thể này có thể làm gì
    và tại sao.
    Họ đang nghiên cứu việc quá nóng
    ở các vận động viên, quân đội
    và công nhân xây dựng
    và cố gắng ngăn chặn điều đó.
    Thực chất, những gì họ tìm thấy
    là việc làm mát lòng bàn tay,
    làm mát bàn tay,
    cho phép mọi người,
    vận động viên và vận động viên giải trí
    chạy xa hơn nhiều,
    nâng được nhiều trọng lượng hơn
    và thực hiện được nhiều bộ và lần lặp hơn
    một cách đáng kinh ngạc.
    Hãy nói một chút
    về lý do tại sao chúng ta dừng lại,
    tại sao chúng ta dừng lại nỗ lực
    khi quá nóng.
    Khi cơ bắp nóng lên,
    các enzyme bắt đầu bị phá vỡ
    và ATP trong cơ bắp
    không thể hoạt động tốt
    và những cơ bắp đó không thể co lại.
    Enzyme liên quan ở đây
    là một thứ gọi là pyruvate kinase.
    và pyruvate kinase
    về cơ bản là
    một bước giới hạn tốc độ.
    Đó là một bước quan trọng
    mà bạn không thể bỏ qua
    nếu bạn muốn cơ bắp co lại
    và nó rất nhạy cảm với nhiệt độ.
    Vì vậy,
    nếu bạn có thể giữ nhiệt độ thấp hơn,
    bạn có thể thực hiện nhiều công việc hơn
    trong một khoảng thời gian.
    Bạn có thể thực hiện nhiều lần kéo lên hơn.
    Những gì họ đã làm
    là họ đưa một người
    vào phòng thí nghiệm của họ
    có thể thực hiện
    10 lần kéo lên trong set đầu tiên
    và họ đã có thể
    đạt được 10,
    nghỉ hai hoặc ba phút,
    đạt thêm 10,
    nghỉ hai hoặc ba phút
    và nếu bạn đã từng thử điều này,
    bạn sẽ thấy rằng
    bạn bắt đầu giảm xuống
    tám,
    bảy,
    sáu,
    v.v.
    Bây giờ,
    người đó có thể không cảm thấy
    rằng họ đang quá nóng
    nhưng cơ bắp đang nóng lên.
    Sau đó,
    với kiến thức của họ
    rằng những AVA này,
    rằng những cổng này
    trong lòng bàn tay
    là một cách tuyệt vời
    để vừa làm nóng cơ thể
    nhưng cũng để xả nhiệt
    từ cơ thể,
    họ đã sử dụng một thiết bị
    và tôi sẽ nói về
    những gì bạn có thể làm ở nhà
    nhưng một thiết bị
    mà ở đó họ đã có người
    cầm cái mà thực chất là
    một ống lạnh.
    Bây giờ,
    điều này rất quan trọng.
    Ống không thể quá lạnh
    đến mức gây co mạch
    bởi vì nếu không,
    lạnh
    sẽ không truyền
    từ ống
    đến bàn tay
    và đến thân nhiệt
    nhưng nếu đó là
    nhiệt độ đúng,
    không quá nóng
    cũng không quá lạnh,
    sự mát mẻ
    từ ống lạnh
    truyền vào bàn tay,
    những vùng được gọi là
    vùng lòng bàn tay
    và sau đó làm mát thân nhiệt
    và về lý thuyết
    bằng cách hạ nhiệt độ cơ thể
    sẽ cho phép người đó
    hoặc vận động viên
    thực hiện nhiều công việc hơn
    và thực sự,
    đó là những gì họ đã thấy.
    dữ liệu thực tế,
    dữ liệu cụ thể
    cho thấy rằng các đối tượng
    có thể thực hiện,
    ít nhất là các đối tượng
    họ làm việc cùng,
    vào ngày đầu tiên
    không có làm mát
    khoảng một trăm lần kéo lên
    trong khoảng thời gian
    mà họ có.
    Sau đó họ quay lại
    và thực hiện việc làm mát.
    Họ đã làm điều đó vào ngày hôm sau
    mà nếu bạn đã từng
    tập luyện một cơ bắp
    vào ngày hôm sau,
    thường thì,
    bạn sẽ không đạt được như vậy
    trong việc tập luyện
    nếu nó bị tổn thương
    từ buổi tập trước
    hoặc ít nhất bạn thực hiện tốt
    nhưng có lẽ
    bạn sẽ không làm
    những gì họ đã quan sát
    đó là
    họ đã bắt đầu làm mát
    sau mỗi set.
    Người đó chỉ cần
    cầm ống lạnh,
    giảm nhiệt cho cơ thể
    sau mỗi set,
    nghỉ ngơi,
    mọi thứ khác
    được giữ nguyên
    và họ thấy
    rằng họ đã đạt được
    180 lần kéo lên
    điều đó thật đáng kinh ngạc.
    Đó là gần như gấp đôi.
    Bây giờ,
    bạn có thể đang tự hỏi
    còn sức bền thì sao?
    Với sức bền,
    những gia tăng tương tự
    đã được chỉ ra
    và cách
    mà họ sẽ thực hiện
    những bài kiểm tra đó
    có một chút khác
    và chúng cũng chỉ ra
    một cơ chế rất quan trọng
    về lý do
    tại sao
    chúng ta dừng lại trong công việc
    khi chúng ta cảm thấy
    rằng chúng ta đang bỏ ra
    quá nhiều nỗ lực.
    Vì vậy, điều này ngay lập tức
    đi đến cốt lõi
    của mối quan hệ
    giữa nhiệt độ
    trong cơ bắp
    và ý chí của bạn.
    Những điều đó có liên quan trực tiếp.
    Nhiệt độ cơ thể của bạn
    và ý chí của bạn
    được liên kết
    một cách sinh lý học.
    Được rồi,
    vậy hãy nói về
    ý chí và nhiệt độ
    và cách mà nhiệt độ
    đóng vai trò ngăn cản bạn.
    Nói cách khác,
    nếu bạn mát mẻ,
    nếu nhiệt độ cơ thể của bạn
    trong một phạm vi nhất định,
    không chỉ bạn có thể đi xa hơn,
    mà bạn sẽ đi xa hơn
    nếu bạn muốn.
    Nói cách khác,
    nếu bạn nóng lên quá nhiều,
    bạn sẽ dừng lại
    hoặc bạn sẽ chết.
    Nhưng có một phản xạ
    liên kết cơ thể
    với não
    và não
    với cơ thể
    ngăn cản
    nỗ lực của chúng ta
    khi chúng ta quá nóng.
    Vì vậy, những gì Craig
    và các đồng nghiệp của ông
    và bây giờ những người khác
    đã làm
    là thực hiện một bài kiểm tra
    trong phòng thí nghiệm
    nơi mà thay vì
    hỏi mọi người
    chạy bên ngoài
    cho đến khi họ thực sự
    không muốn chạy nữa,
    bạn đặt họ lên một máy chạy bộ
    và bạn cài đặt tốc độ.
    Được rồi,
    vì vậy họ phải theo kịp
    với máy chạy bộ
    và vào một thời điểm nào đó
    họ sẽ dừng lại.
    Và bạn chia nhóm
    và thực hiện các thử nghiệm
    trong những điều kiện nhiệt độ khác nhau.
    vì vậy một số người
    đang chạy
    trong một phòng thí nghiệm mát mẻ dễ chịu.
    Họ làm tăng nhịp tim của mình nên họ đạt được một nhịp độ hoặc nhịp điệu ổn định và tim họ đập ở mức gần như là ổn định. Mọi người sẽ tiếp tục ở nhiệt độ đó và ở nhịp tim đó trừ khi bạn bắt đầu làm nóng nhiệt độ trong phòng. Vào một lúc nào đó, họ sẽ dừng lại và họ sẽ dừng lại sớm hơn nhiều khi nhiệt độ tăng cao vì một điều gì đó gọi là trôi tim. Được rồi, hãy giả sử tôi đang chạy và tôi đang chạy với nhịp độ ổn định trên máy chạy bộ này và nhịp tim của tôi là 85 nhịp mỗi phút hoặc 100 nhịp mỗi phút. Không quan trọng. Giả sử là 100 chỉ để làm ví dụ. Thực ra, chỉ việc làm cho phòng nóng hơn cũng sẽ làm tăng nhịp tim của tôi hơn nữa mặc dù tôi vẫn đạt đầu ra giống nhau và bộ não thực hiện một phép tính. Nó tự nhiên nhận ra rằng có một yếu tố nhiệt đang làm tăng nhịp tim và có một yếu tố nỗ lực từ việc chạy đang thúc đẩy nhịp tim và nếu yếu tố nhiệt và nhịp tim từ nỗ lực đạt đến một ngưỡng nhất định, tôi sẽ dừng lại. Tăng nhiệt độ làm tăng tỷ lệ bỏ cuộc phần nào, không hoàn toàn nhưng phần nào vì điều này gọi là trôi tim. Nhiệt độ tăng làm tăng nhịp tim. Nỗ lực làm tăng nhịp tim. Ở một nỗ lực ổn định, bạn sẽ có nhịp tim ổn định, nếu bạn tăng nhiệt độ trong môi trường mà bạn đang tham gia vào nhịp tim ổn định đó, nhịp tim của bạn sẽ tăng lên do trôi tim và bạn sẽ bỏ cuộc. Vậy nên Heller và các cộng sự đã thực hiện các thí nghiệm nơi họ thực hiện làm mát bằng tay trong những môi trường này và đó là điều tuyệt vời vì không chỉ điều đó giúp mọi người đi xa hơn và nhanh hơn trong thời gian dài hơn, điều đó đã được chứng minh có ý nghĩa thống kê mỗi lần, mà nó cũng bảo vệ bộ não và cơ thể chống lại bệnh nhiệt, quá nhiệt, hôn mê, tổn thương thần kinh, chết tế bào thần kinh và cái chết thực sự. Được rồi, bạn có thể thấy tại sao đây lại là một công cụ có giá trị như vậy. Vậy bạn có thể bắt đầu kết hợp điều này như thế nào? Đầu tiên, tôi luôn được hỏi nước nên lạnh như thế nào? Có nên là nước đá không? Có nên là nước rất lạnh không? Câu trả lời là không.
    Nếu bạn muốn trải nghiệm một phần của hiệu ứng này mà không cần thiết bị, có một điều bạn có thể làm, ví dụ như làm… Tôi không biết, tôi sẽ sử dụng phòng tập gym hoặc máy chạy bộ làm ví dụ. Bạn có thể thực hiện số lượng tối đa các bài kéo xô, dừng lại và sau đó thực sự đặt tay vào hoặc lên bề mặt của một cái chậu rửa mà có lẽ đang bị tắc với nước nguội, không phải nước đá, không lạnh đến mức đóng băng, mà là nước nguội, hơi lạnh hơn nhiệt độ cơ thể. Trước khi bạn bắt đầu tập luyện sẽ là một nơi tốt để bắt đầu; bạn làm điều đó trong khoảng 10 đến 30 giây, sau đó bạn có thể quay lại và thực hiện set tiếp theo. Bạn sẽ lặp lại quá trình làm mát, bạn sẽ muốn kéo dài khoảng thời gian làm mát một chút, vì vậy bạn có thể muốn làm điều đó trong khoảng 30 giây đến một phút. Điều này sẽ không hoàn hảo; bạn sẽ phải điều chỉnh mức độ lạnh để có được hiệu ứng tối ưu, nhưng bạn cũng nên thấy có hiệu ứng. Điều tương tự cũng đúng nếu bạn đang chạy và cảm thấy mệt mỏi, rõ ràng bạn không muốn bị nhiệt độ cơ thể quá cao. Làm mát tay hoặc lòng bàn chân hoặc mặt sẽ là cách lý tưởng để giảm nhiệt để có thể tạo ra nhiều sản lượng hơn. Bây giờ, mặt là một điều mà chúng ta chưa nói nhiều về; tất cả những gì tôi đã nói với bạn cho đến bây giờ cũng nói rằng nếu bạn là người thường cảm thấy lạnh khi ở ngoài trời, chẳng hạn như vào mùa đông hoặc thậm chí vào mùa thu, bạn thường có cơ thể lạnh, thì việc làm ấm mặt sẽ là điều quan trọng nhất mà bạn có thể làm. Bây giờ bạn đã hiểu nguyên tắc và các vị trí để truyền nhiệt và lạnh, vậy hãy giả sử rằng bạn đang ra ngoài chạy và bạn muốn kết hợp cơ chế làm mát này. Tôi đã nói chuyện với Craig về điều này; tôi đã hỏi rằng phương pháp cho những người không có điều kiện sẽ là gì. Anh ấy nói, bạn có thể lấy một hộp nước trái cây đông lạnh nếu bạn có một trong số đó hoặc một lon soda rất lạnh và bạn sẽ muốn chuyền qua lại giữa hai tay của mình. Lý do việc chuyền tay qua lại là rất quan trọng là vì bạn không muốn quá lạnh để làm co lại các mạch máu tĩnh mạch cho phép lạnh đi vào cơ thể. Bây giờ chắc chắn có những người đang làm việc với tay cầm xe đạp và có thể thực sự làm mát tay. Đây là điều mà bạn không muốn làm: bạn không muốn làm mát thân mình nếu bạn muốn làm mát cơ thể, đúng không? Nếu đó là một ngày rất nóng và bạn sẽ tập luyện, việc ngâm mình vào bồn nước đá trước tiên sẽ giúp bạn mát hơn, nhưng điều đó sẽ không hiệu quả bằng việc làm mát lòng bàn tay, lòng bàn chân và mặt. Một điều mà tôi đã thử vì chuẩn bị cho tập này là những động tác nhúng tay xuống nước, tôi thực sự quyết định làm mát lòng bàn chân của mình vì nó cảm thấy dễ chịu và gần đây trời nóng đến mức không đeo giày hay tất. Tôi đã đặt chân vào một cái thùng nước mà chỉ… cảm giác hơi mát, hơi lạnh hơn nhiệt độ cơ thể hoặc vậy, nó chỉ là nước chảy ra từ vòi sau khi tôi để cho nó chảy một chút. Quả thật tôi đã thấy tăng 60% số lần tôi có thể nhúng tay trong một phiên, vì vậy thực sự đây là một hiệu ứng đáng kể và bạn không cần phải chính xác hoàn toàn để làm điều đó. Tôi muốn nghỉ ngơi một chút và công nhận một trong những nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi, Function. Năm ngoái, tôi đã trở thành thành viên của Function sau khi tìm kiếm phương pháp toàn diện nhất cho việc kiểm tra lab. Function cung cấp hơn 100 bài kiểm tra lab nâng cao, cho bạn một cái nhìn tổng quát về sức khỏe cơ thể của bạn. Cái nhìn tổng quát này cung cấp cho bạn thông tin về sức khỏe tim mạch, sức khỏe hormon, chức năng miễn dịch, mức độ dinh dưỡng và nhiều hơn thế nữa. Họ cũng mới thêm các bài kiểm tra về độc tố như mức độ tiếp xúc với BPA từ nhựa độc hại và các bài kiểm tra cho PFAS hay hóa chất vĩnh cửu. Function không chỉ cung cấp kiểm tra hơn 100 chỉ số sinh học quan trọng cho sức khỏe thể chất và tâm thần của bạn mà còn phân tích những kết quả này và cung cấp thông tin từ các bác sĩ hàng đầu là chuyên gia trong các lĩnh vực liên quan. Ví dụ, trong một trong những bài kiểm tra đầu tiên của tôi với Function, tôi đã biết rằng tôi có mức thủy ngân cao trong máu. Function không chỉ giúp tôi phát hiện điều đó mà còn cung cấp thông tin về cách tốt nhất để giảm mức thủy ngân của tôi, bao gồm việc hạn chế tiêu thụ cá ngừ. Tôi đã ăn rất nhiều cá ngừ trong khi cũng cố gắng ăn nhiều rau xanh và bổ sung NAC và acetylcysteine, cả hai đều có thể hỗ trợ sản xuất glutathione và thải độc. Tôi cũng nên nói rằng nhờ việc thực hiện một bài kiểm tra thứ hai của Function, phương pháp đó đã hiệu quả. Kiểm tra máu toàn diện là rất quan trọng; có rất nhiều điều liên quan đến sức khỏe tâm thần và thể chất của bạn mà chỉ có thể phát hiện qua thử nghiệm máu. Vấn đề là kiểm tra máu luôn rất tốn kém và phức tạp, trong khi đó, tôi đã rất ấn tượng với sự đơn giản của Function và ở mức chi phí thì nó rất phải chăng. Do đó, tôi đã quyết định tham gia vào hội đồng tư vấn khoa học của họ và tôi rất vui vì họ đang tài trợ cho podcast này. Nếu bạn muốn thử Function, bạn có thể truy cập vào functionhealth.com slash Huberman. Hiện tại, Function có danh sách chờ hơn 250,000 người, nhưng họ đang cung cấp quyền truy cập sớm cho những người nghe podcast của Huberman. Một lần nữa, đó là functionhealth.com.
    I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that.
    Dưới đây là bản dịch sang tiếng Việt của đoạn văn bạn đã cung cấp:
    Bản thân nó và giá trị của nó đối với hiệu suất thể chất, tôi hy vọng bạn cũng sẽ đánh giá cao rằng bạn có những công cụ trong tay để cải thiện đáng kể hiệu suất thể chất của mình. Tôi đã đưa ra cho bạn các giao thức cụ thể và một số hướng dẫn, nhưng tôi cũng để lại một chút mơ hồ vì như tôi đã đề cập trước đó, tôi không biết tất cả các điều kiện môi trường. Tôi không biết phòng tập yoga của bạn nóng bao nhiêu hay phòng gym của bạn mát mẻ ra sao, hay nhiệt độ cơ thể của bạn, hoặc thời điểm trong ngày. Bạn hãy nhớ rằng nhiệt độ của bạn sẽ thay đổi theo thời gian trong ngày. Sắp tới, chúng ta sẽ nói thêm về nhiệt độ và những cách khác để cải thiện hiệu suất thể chất và việc học kỹ năng. Chúng ta sẽ bàn về những cách cụ thể để tăng tốc độ giảm mỡ, cải thiện sự phát triển cơ bắp, tăng cường sự dẻo dai và linh hoạt. Những phương pháp và cơ chế này được gắn chặt sâu sắc trong khoa học thần kinh và sinh lý học, cũng như mối quan hệ giữa các cơ quan ngoại biên của chúng ta, bao gồm da và não, cùng tất cả các cơ quan ở giữa. Cuối cùng nhưng không kém phần quan trọng, tôi muốn cảm ơn bạn vì thời gian và sự chú ý của bạn. Tôi nhận ra đây là một lượng thông tin lớn, tôi hy vọng bạn sẽ tìm thấy một số điều có thể hành động và hữu ích cho bạn và cho những người mà bạn biết. Như luôn luôn, cảm ơn bạn vì sự quan tâm đến khoa học.
    歡迎來到 Huberman Lab Essentials,
    在這裡我們會重溫過去的集數,
    為你提供最有效且可行的以科學為依據的工具,
    用於心理健康、身體健康和表現提升。
    我是安德魯·胡伯曼,
    斯坦福醫學院的神經生物學和眼科教授。
    這個播客與我在斯坦福的教學和研究角色是分開的。
    然而,它是我希望並努力向公眾提供
    零成本的科學及相關工具資訊的一部分。
    我們剛剛結束了有關荷爾蒙的集數。
    現在我們要談論怎樣優化身體表現和技能學習。
    身體表現有太多變數,
    我們可以從不同的情境來管理身體表現和技能學習。
    我列出了一些我想到的對身體表現和技能學習有顯著影響的因素。
    其中有些是我認為的基礎要素。
    它們讓你能夠展現出當前的能力,
    如果你打亂這些要素,
    你的表現會變得更差。
    因此,像是良好的睡眠,
    適當的水分補充,
    以及充足的營養等都是很重要的。
    有補充劑,有藥物,
    也有不同的呼吸方式。
    關於心態、視覺化的工具非常多。
    這是一個廣泛的領域,但並不是無窮無盡的。
    在這些對身體表現和技能學習有影響甚至能優化的事物中,
    有幾個因素是具有巨大效果的,
    任何人都可以利用這些。
    所以今天我們將專注於我認為
    最有效的工具之一,
    它能改善身體表現、技能學習和恢復。
    我們會談論為什麼這樣重要。
    那就是溫度。
    信不信由你,
    溫度是改善身體表現和恢復的最強大變數。
    當然,溫度有兩個方面。
    有熱和冷。
    我們主要會專注於冷,
    作為緩解熱的方式。
    我們將從熱生理學的角度談論冷。
    這是一個豐富的文獻資料,包含了深入的科學資訊,
    追溯到上世紀,生理學家和神經科學家發現
    身體中有不同的區塊
    會以不同方式加熱和冷卻你,
    你可以利用這些區塊來雙倍、甚至三倍
    或四倍提高你的工作產出,
    包括力量、重複次數和耐力。
    所以,這並不是一件無足輕重的事,
    這些方法確實可以大幅度改變你的表現。
    這不僅僅是一次良好的表現。
    而是能夠持續出色地表現並從中恢復,
    這樣在不使用這些工具的日子裡,
    例如在你無法接觸到冷源或冰袋、
    冰浴等情況下,依然能夠表現得更好。
    我想稍作休息,
    並感謝我們的贊助商 AG1。
    AG1 是一種包含維生素、礦物質和益生菌的飲品,
    同時還包含前生物素和適應原。
    作為一位參與研究科學近三十年的人,
    在健康和健身領域的經驗幾乎也是這麼久,
    我一直在尋找最佳工具
    來改善我的心理健康、
    身體健康和表現。
    我在 2012 年就發現了 AG1,
    就在我開始播客之前,
    甚至在我知道播客是什麼時,
    我每天都在服用它。
    我發現 AG1 大大改善了
    我所有方面的健康。
    我在服用它時感覺好多了。
    AG1 使用的成分質量最高,
    搭配合理,
    而且他們在不提高價格的情況下
    不斷改進他們的配方。
    每當有人問我如果只能選擇一種補充劑,
    那會是哪一種?
    我總是說 AG1。
    如果你想試試 AG1,
    可以訪問 drinkag1.com/huberman 來索取特別優惠。
    現在,他們贈送五個免費的旅行包
    以及一年的 D3 和 K2 計劃。
    再次提醒,網址是 drinkag1.com/huberman 來索取這個特別優惠。
    讓我們開始談談溫度。
    溫度如何影響身體
    以及其表現能力,包括學習新技能的能力?
    所以,大家可能都記得
    或者至少聽過“恆定身內環境”這個詞,對吧?
    身體想要保持在
    一個特定的溫度範圍內,
    不喜歡過熱或過冷。
    過熱顯然是壞事。
    這不僅壞於身體表現,
    也壞於所有組織的健康。
    細胞的功能會停止。
    它們無法生成能量。
    它們無法消化東西。
    你會無法思考。
    最終這些細胞會完全死亡。
    現在,你也不希望變成低體溫。
    你可以因為低體溫而死亡,
    就像因為高體溫而死亡一樣。
    不過,你面對寒冷的範圍要遠大於過熱,明白嗎?
    總的來說,保持身體和腦部在一個特定範圍內是理想的,但每當我們做任何事情時,
    我們的體溫可能會改變。
    例如,如果你站在篝火旁,
    在炎熱的天氣下,
    會發生各種情況以排放體內的熱量。
    那麼,這些情況是什麼呢?
    實際上有很大類別的因素,
    但最簡單的想法是,
    當我們變冷的時候,我們會傾向於血管收縮。
    我們的血管會收縮,
    我們會將能量推向身體的核心,
    以保護我們的主要器官,明白嗎?
    因此,我們的四肢、手、腳、腳趾
    以及腿部變得更冷。
    因此,我們的核心可以維持該區域的血流,
    我們正為核心提供保護。
    相對地,當我們變熱時,
    我們的血管擴張。
    它們稍微擴張,更多的血液流向四肢,
    更多的血液能夠一般性地流遍全身,
    而我們會出汗。
    水將在某種程度上被抽取出血液,透過汗腺移動並被帶到皮膚表面,以便被排出。我們是在排出熱量。因此,如果你想了解如何利用溫度來提升體能,就必須理解你有血管收縮來保留熱量,血管擴張來排出熱量,有出汗以排出熱量,以及有液體保留以維持熱量。這是理解維持和排出熱量機制的最重要之處。現在最重要的是要理解的是,如果你變得太熱,你的肌肉收縮能力將會停止。好吧,我要重複這一點,因為這非常重要。ATP參與了產生肌肉收縮的過程。ATP能夠發揮作用和肌肉收縮的溫度範圍非常狹窄,大約在攝氏39或40度時,它的功能會下降,你將無法產生更多的收縮。這的確算是相當熱,但該溫度可以在局部快速產生。簡而言之,如果你變得太熱,你就會停止運動。你可能甚至不會意識到,但你進一步運動的意志力、使出更大力氣的能力完全依賴於肌肉的熱度,包括局部熱度和整個系統的熱度。然而,如果你能保持在合適的範圍內的溫度,你將能夠完成更多的工作,產生更大的產出。你將能夠舉起更重的重量、做更多的組數和次數,還能跑得更遠。現在,我會談到一些數據,這些數據絕對引人矚目,強調了這一陳述。這些數據來自我同事Craig Heller在斯坦福大學生物學系的實驗室。現在許多NFL球隊都在使用這項技術,軍方也在使用。不僅僅是為了運動表現,消防員、建築工人,以及其他因高溫而影響表現的職業也在使用這技巧。你可以利用這來真正提升你的訓練效果。那麼,如何排出熱量以安全地延長表現呢?好吧,為了理解這一點,你必須了解身體有三個主要區域來調節溫度。好嗎?我們不僅有中心和周邊,我們有三個主要區域。而其中有一個區域是所有人,或大部分人,我必須假設的,只要你能理解它的運作,你就能為你的表現和恢復做出巨大的改變。一個是你的核心。我們已經討論過這一點。你的核心器官,你的心臟、肺、胰臟、肝臟,這是你身體的核心。另一個是你的周邊,顯然是你的手臂、腿、腳和手。但還有第三個組成部分,這是身體上有三個地方,能更好地將熱量排出體外,並引入冷卻的空氣,使你能迅速加熱或降溫。這三個區域是你的臉、手掌和腳底。現在,你手上的皮膚和腳底的皮膚,某種程度上還有臉上的皮膚,被稱為光滑皮膚。那是G-L-A-B-O-R-O-U-S,光滑皮膚。而這些區域的特別之處在於,提供這些區域的血管、毛細血管和動脈的結構與身體其他地方的相當不同。在你手的這三個區域、臉和腳底,我們有所謂的A-V-A-S。A-V-A-S是一種非常特殊的血管模式。A-V-A-S是動靜脈吻合,A-R-T-E-R-I-O,動靜脈,V-E-N-O-U-S,動靜脈吻合,A-N-A-S-T-O-M-O-S-E-S,動靜脈吻合,好嗎?你想了解動靜脈吻合,相信我。A-V-A-S是小動脈和小靜脈之間的直接連接。它們在某種程度上繞過毛細血管。它們是小型短血管段,具有較大的內徑,還有厚實的肌肉壁。它們接受來自所謂的腎上腺神經元的輸入。它們接受釋放去甲腎上腺素和腎上腺素的神經元的輸入,允許它們收縮或擴張。現在,有一些物理學規則討論管道半徑和小變化導致的流速及流量的劇增。這是物理學的規則,基本上說半徑與能通過某物的流量是四次方成正比。你需要知道的是,即使你不想了解任何潛在的物理原理,這些AVAs能夠更迅速地讓熱量從身體中排出,並更迅速地讓冷氣進入身體,而不會像其他身體中的靜脈動脈毛細血管床那麼慢。換句話說,你能在臉部、手掌和腳底最好地散熱,並且能在臉部、手掌和腳底最好地降溫,這比你的身體其他地方更有效。這三個部分——手掌、腳底和臉,是你操縱溫度的最佳槓桿點,以大幅提升運動表現。我想稍微休息一下,並向我們的贊助商Eight Sleep表示感謝。Eight Sleep製造具有冷卻、加熱和睡眠追蹤功能的智能床墊套。我之前在這個播客中提到過,我們每晚都需要獲得足夠的高質量睡眠。確保睡眠環境的溫度正確,是保證良好睡眠的最佳方法之一。
    這是因為要進入深度睡眠並保持深睡眠,您的體溫實際上必須下降約一到三度。而要醒來時感覺清新且充滿活力,您的體溫則必須上升約一到三度。八號睡眠系統(Eight Sleep)會根據您的獨特需求,自動調節整個夜晚床墊的溫度。對我來說,這非常有用,因為我喜歡在夜晚開始時將床墊調得非常涼,半夜則調得更冷,早上醒來時再變得暖和。這樣可以讓我獲得最多的慢波睡眠和快速眼動睡眠。我之所以知道這些,是因為八號睡眠系統有一個很棒的睡眠追蹤器,可以告訴我整晚的睡眠質量和各種睡眠類型。他們最新的機型,Pod 4 Ultra,還具備打鼾檢測功能,可以自動抬高您的頭部幾度,以改善氣流並幫助您止鼾。如果您決定試用八號睡眠系統,您在家中有30天的試用期,如果不喜歡,可以退貨,沒有任何問題。但我相信您會喜歡它的。前往 eightsleep.com/huberman 可享受最高350美元的 Pod 4 Ultra 折扣。八號睡眠系統可以寄送到包括墨西哥和阿聯酋在內的許多國家。再次提醒,前往 eightsleep.com/huberman 可享受最高350美元的 Pod 4 Ultra 折扣。
    那麼,克雷格及其同事所做的研究,完美地說明了這些身體表面可以做什麼,為什麼它們有這樣的功能。他們研究運動員、軍人和建築工人的過熱情況,並試圖預防這一點。他們基本上發現,冷卻手掌,即掌部冷卻,使人們(運動員和休閒運動員)能夠跑得更遠,舉起更多的重量,並能夠做更多的組和次數,這一效果驚人。讓我們再花一點時間來討論為什麼我們在太熱時會停止、關掉努力。當肌肉升溫時,酶開始受到擾動,肌肉中的 ATP 無法正常運作,這些肌肉也無法收縮。這裡涉及到的酶叫做丙酮酸激酶(pyruvate kinase)。而丙酮酸激酶實際上是一個速率限制步驟,是一個關鍵步驟,如果想要肌肉收縮,就必須經過這一步,而且它對溫度非常敏感。因此,如果可以保持較低的溫度,就能在單位時間內做更多的工作,做更多的引體向上。他們實際上的操作是將一個能在第一次能做10個引體向上的人帶入實驗室,他們能夠做到10次,休息兩三分鐘,再做另一組10次,再休息兩三分鐘。如果你曾經嘗試過,你會發現最終次數開始下降到八、七、六等等。此時,這個人或許不會感覺自己過熱,但肌肉卻在升溫。然後,憑藉他們的知識,了解到這些 AVA(手掌中的這些通道)是一個很好的方式,不僅可以為身體加熱,還可以排除身體的熱量,他們使用了一個裝置,我將講述一下您在家可以做的事情,但這是一個讓人握住冷管的裝置。這裡非常關鍵,因為管道不能冷到造成血管收縮,因為這樣的話,冷量無法從管道傳遞到手再到核心,但如果溫度適中,既不太熱也不太冷,從冷管傳遞到手的冷卻體驗,再冷卻核心,理論上,通過降低體溫將使這個人或運動員做更多的工作,事實上,他們就是這麼觀察到的。實際數據,具體數據顯示,在沒有冷卻的情況下,受試者在他們的第一次測試中能做約一百個引體向上。然後他們回來進行冷卻,他們在第二天就進行了冷卻,如果你曾經訓練過肌肉,通常情況下,第二天的表現不會很好,因為如果前一個訓練過度受損,或者您的狀態不佳,您至少也不會像他們所觀察到的那樣表現良好,而是他們開始在每組之後進行冷卻。那個人就在每組之間握住冷管,讓身體冷卻,然後休息,所有其他條件保持不變,結果發現他們的引體向上次數達到180次,這是令人難以置信的,幾乎是翻倍。現在,您可能會問,那麼耐力呢?耐力方面也顯示出類似的增長,而他們進行這些測試的方法略有不同,這同樣指向了一個非常重要的機制,解釋為什麼我們在感覺投入了過多的努力時會停止做任何工作。因此,這直接關係到肌肉的溫度與意志力之間的關係。這兩者息息相關。您的體熱和意志力在生理上是相連的。好吧,讓我們談談意志力和熱,還有熱是如何使您無法繼續的。換句話說,如果您保持涼爽,您的體溫在某個特定範圍內,不僅可以走得更遠,而且在想要的時候也會走得更遠。相反地,如果您過熱,您將會停止,或者可能面臨危險。但有一個反射作用,將身體與大腦和大腦與身體相連的機制,在我們過熱時會停止我們的努力。因此,克雷格和他的同事,以及現在的其他研究者所做的,是在實驗室中進行一個測試,而不是讓人們在外面跑,直到他們根本不想再跑,您讓他們上跑步機,並設定速度。好吧,他們不得不跟上跑步機的速度,然後在某個時候他們會放棄。您把這些人分成不同的組,並在不同的溫度環境中進行實驗。有些人則在一個相對涼爽的實驗室中跑步。
    他們提高了心率,因此他們進入了一個穩定的節奏或韻律,他們的心臟跳動基本上處於穩定狀態。人們會在那個溫度和心率下繼續進行,除非你開始提高房間的溫度。在某個時點,他們會停止,而當溫度過高時,他們會更早停止,這是因為一種叫做心臟飄移的現象。好吧,假設我正在跑步,我在這台跑步機上以穩定的節奏跑步,我的心率是每分鐘85下或每分鐘100下,這無關緊要。我們就說100下,僅作為例子。嗯,僅僅因為讓房間更熱就會進一步增加我的心率,即使我的輸出是相同的,而大腦進行了一個計算。它以某種方式發現有一個熱量成分在增強心率,還有一個在跑步中產生心率的努力成分,如果熱量成分和由這些努力產生的心率輸出達到某個閾值,我就會停止。提高溫度會提高退出的速度,部分是因為這個叫做心臟飄移的現象。熱量會增加心率,努力會增加心率。在穩定的努力下,你會有穩定的心率,如果你在從事這個穩定心率的環境中提高了熱量,你的心率將因心臟飄移而上升,然後你會終止運動。因此,赫勒和他的同事們在這些環境下進行了掌心降溫的實驗,這是太好了,因為這不僅使人們能夠更遠、更快地持續更長的時間,而這在統計上每次都顯示出顯著性,也能保護大腦和身體抵抗高體温、過熱、昏迷、神經損傷、神經死亡甚至實際死亡。好吧,你可以看到為什麼這是一個如此有價值的工具。那么,你如何開始將這個納入你的訓練中呢?首先,我總是被問到水應該有多冷?應該是冰水嗎?應該是非常冷的水嗎?答案是否定的。
    如果你想要體驗
    某些這種效果
    而不使用設備,
    你可以做的一件事
    例如舉個例子,
    就是去做
    我不知道,
    我就用健身房
    或跑步機作為例子。
    你可以做
    你能做到的最大次數
    的引體向上,
    停下來,
    然後你可以
    把手放進
    或放在一個水槽的表面上,
    這個水槽可能
    被冷水堵住,
    所以不是冰水,
    也不是冷到令人窒息,
    而是涼水,
    稍微比體溫低一些。
    在你開始訓練之前,
    這會是一個好的起點。
    你這樣做
    大約10到30秒,
    然後你可以回去
    做下一組。
    你會重複
    降溫的過程,
    你會想要
    稍微延長
    降溫的時間,
    所以你可能想要
    這樣做
    30秒到1分鐘。
    這不會是完美的,
    你需要調整
    要多冷
    才能獲得
    最佳效果,
    但儘管如此
    你應該還是能看到效果。
    如果你在跑步
    並且感到疲勞,
    當然你不想
    變得過熱,
    徹底降溫的理想方式
    是冷卻雙手、
    腳底或臉部,
    這樣可以有效散熱,
    使你能產生
    更多的輸出。
    現在我們還沒有
    詳細討論臉部,
    直到現在我告訴你的
    也表明,
    如果你是那種
    在戶外時容易感到寒冷的人,
    例如在冬天
    或甚至秋天,
    你傾向於感覺寒冷,
    那麼保暖臉部
    將是你能做的
    最重要的事情。
    現在你明白了
    原則和
    應該在哪裡
    傳遞熱量和冷卻。
    假設,
    如果你在外面跑步,
    並且想要
    融入
    這種降溫機制,
    我和克雷格談過這個,
    我問他
    對於這種情況,
    窮人的
    辦法是什麼。
    他說,嗯,
    你可以拿
    一罐冰凍的
    果汁,
    如果你有
    這東西的話,
    或者一罐很冷的
    汽水,
    然後你需要
    在兩隻手之間
    來回傳遞。
    來回傳遞
    之所以真的很重要,
    是因為你
    不想讓手
    冷到
    收縮那些
    能使冷氣進入
    身體的靜脈通道。
    現在,肯定有些人
    正在研究
    自行車把手,
    實際上可以
    冷卻雙手。
    這裡是你
    不想做的:
    如果你想讓
    身體降溫,
    就不要
    冷卻核心,
    對吧。
    如果今天非常熱,
    而你將要訓練,
    那麼先進入
    冰浴,當然可以
    讓你降溫,
    但這樣做
    並不會像
    冷卻掌心、
    腳底和臉部
    那樣有效。
    我嘗試過的
    是我的
    下肢訓練,
    隨後我會
    用手冷卻,
    實際上我還決定
    冷卻我的
    腳底,
    因為這感覺很好,
    最近外面尤其熱,
    所以不穿鞋或襪子
    把我的腳放在
    一個水桶裡,
    只是懸浮在水面下
    大約一、兩公分,
    這水只是
    剛好感覺
    涼,稍微比
    體溫低一些,
    基本上是我讓水龍頭
    流了一會兒
    後出來的水。
    事實上我看到
    我在一個
    單次訓練中
    可以做的下肢訓練次數
    增加了60%,
    所以這確實是一個
    相當顯著的效果,
    而且你不必
    非常精確
    就能做到。
    我想稍微休息一下,
    並且感謝我們的一位
    贊助商
    Function。
    去年我成為了
    Function 的會員,
    尋找最全面的
    實驗室測試方法。
    Function 提供
    超過100個先進的
    實驗室測試,
    能讓你了解
    整個身體的
    健康狀況,
    這個快照能讓你
    得知你的心臟健康、
    荷爾蒙健康、
    免疫功能、
    營養水平
    等等。
    他們最近還增加了
    檢測
    有毒物質的測試,例如
    有害塑料中
    BPA 的暴露,
    以及對 PFAS 或
    永遠化學物質的測試。
    Function 不僅檢測
    超過100個
    對你身心健康
    至關重要的生物標誌,
    還分析這些結果,
    並提供來自領域
    專家的見解。
    例如,在我
    第一個與 Function 的測試中,
    我得知我血液中的
    汞含量升高。
    Function 不僅幫我發現了這點,
    還提供了減少
    我汞含量的最佳方式,
    這包括限制
    我的金槍魚攝入量。
    我一直
    在吃很多金槍魚,
    同時還努力多吃一些
    綠葉蔬菜,
    並補充鎚胺酸
    和乙醯半胱氨酸,
    這兩者都能支持
    穀胱甘肽的
    生成和排毒。
    我該說的是,
    通過進行第二次
    Function 測試,
    這個方法有效。
    全面的血液測試是至關重要的,
    因為有很多與你的
    心理和身體健康相關的事情
    只能通過血液測試
    檢測到。
    問題是
    血液測試一直非常
    昂貴和複雜。
    相比之下,
    我對 Function 的簡單性
    印象非常深刻,
    而且它的成本
    非常可負擔。
    因此,我決定加入他們的
    科學顧問團,
    並且我很高興
    他們成為了這個播客的
    贊助商。
    如果你想嘗試
    Function,你可以去
    functionhealth.com
    斜線 Huberman。
    Function 現在有
    超過250,000人的
    等待名單,
    但他們正在為
    Huberman 播客的聽眾提供
    提前訪問的機會。
    再次重申,那是
    functionhealth.com。
    com
    斜線 Huberman 以獲得
    提前訪問
    功能,至今為止
    我們一直在討論
    如何在運動時使用冷療以
    提升性能,現在我
    想要談談使用
    溫度,特別是冷療,以改善
    恢復的速度和深度。恢復對於
    健身訓練或
    耐力訓練至關重要,這
    只是下一次變得更好的
    刺激,如果你不
    恢復,不僅不會
    變得更好,反而會
    變得更糟。對於使用冷療以
    改善短期恢復的興趣
    越來越高,我們可以看到
    這一點,最好的例子可能是
    格鬥運動的運動員在回合之間,
    或運動員在四分之一或
    半場之間,這是一種
    恢復的形式,可以在幾分鐘
    之內回到運動中,
    例如,在典型的格鬥運動中,回合之間
    只需約一分鐘,或者
    在半場休息時幾分鐘等等,然後
    當然還有從一個
    訓練課程到另一個的恢復,因此不在
    比賽或比賽或
    運動課程中,許多人現在依賴
    像冷凍療法這樣的技術,
    這需要許多昂貴的設備,例如大型的
    液氮驅動的機器,對於大多數
    人來說並不太常見。同時,很多
    人正在使用冷水浴或者冰浴或者冷
    淋浴,這同樣不會
    優化恢復,實際上它會有一個
    額外的效果,即
    潛在地阻止訓練
    刺激。當你進入冰浴時,
    的確會阻止一些
    因訓練而產生的
    炎症,但在這樣做的過程中,你也會
    阻止像 mTOR 哺乳動物靶點
    或雷帕霉素這樣的途徑,這些
    與肌肉變得更強或更大
    的適應有關。簡單來說,在
    訓練後將身體
    覆蓋在冷水中或浸入冷水中
    可能會短路或阻止
    肌肉肥大或增長反應。這也有其他可能的
    好處,比如可以
    誘導產生熱量等,還能減少
    炎症,但它也可能
    阻礙運動的一些正面效果。至於
    耐力訓練,目前還沒受到這麼多研究,但讓我們
    假設你從一輪耐力訓練中
    回來,跑步、騎車或游泳後,進入
    涼水浴或冷卻掌心、
    腳底、臉部,在我看來
    依據科學,這會比
    完全浸入冰浴要好。如果你
    可以將身體冷卻回到
    其靜息溫度,而我所說的靜息
    溫度是指在醒著的日子裡的
    任何時間範圍內,但不在運動中。假如你能做到這一點,
    在訓練後越快做到,
    肌肉恢復的速度越快,
    肌腱的恢復速度也會更快,
    人也能夠更快回到耐力
    訓練或重量訓練等。因此,冷療實際上可以是一
    個非常強大的恢復工具,但要最大化
    恢復到基準的溫度
    水平,單單通過跳進冰浴或
    冷淋浴並不是最好的方法。你真的想要依賴這三
    種光滑皮膚的入口,
    即掌心、腳底或臉部。市面上
    常見的一些非類固醇
    抗炎藥物,如
    泰諾、阿莫西林和其他商標名,還有
    氟氯噻嗪等幾乎所有這類
    藥物都會在某種程度上降低
    體溫,因此在發燒時經常建議人們服用
    這些藥物。許多運動員,
    特別是耐力運動員,
    會依賴這些非類固醇
    抗炎藥物,特別是為了在長時間的
    運動期間保持體溫降低。這有點像
    藥物版本的散熱,
    而不是使用手掌冷卻、
    或臉部冰袋冷卻,他們依賴
    藥理學來降低核心體溫。這樣做有
    某些明顯的優勢,較低的體溫使你能夠以更高的強度
    進行更長時間的運動,然而,它們對
    肝臟也有影響,對
    腎臟也可能有影響,在長時間的
    運動中,甚至在短時間的運動中,水分平衡和鈉平衡
    對於表現也是至關重要的。
    要保持良好表現、產生最佳肌肉
    收縮、保持精神警覺,
    同時還要保持健康,你可能需要
    仔細考慮是否要在任何訓練前使用
    非類固醇抗炎藥物,僅僅為了增強
    表現的效果,除非你與教練
    仔細合作。我個人更喜歡
    手掌和腳底的冷卻,
    通過將它們放入水桶中
    或冷水浴中,在訓練後冷卻
    或甚至在訓練中冷卻臉部。這樣出現的
    變數似乎更有彈性,可以
    加熱水或稍微冷卻一下,以便包括
    一隻手掌或另一隻手掌等,科學上所謂的
    良好參數空間,你可以利用這些進行
    實驗,以找到對你有效的策略。相比之下,當你服用藥物的時候,當然你可以調整劑量
    並在下次調整,但
    一旦它進入你的體內,就進入了你的身體,並且會有一段時間
    無法進行調整,這樣就不會給你提供
    許多實驗的機會,這也是我想要的,因為我總是試圖
    根據機制和數據來調整
    最佳方案。如果你能夠在每一時刻做這
    一點,那就又會讓你掌握主導權。
    到目前為止,我們已經涵蓋了很多的
    材料,觀看或收聽這集後,你應該對
    你的身體如何加熱和降溫有了很多的了解。
    抱歉,我無法提供該段文字的翻譯。

    In this Huberman Lab Essentials episode, I discuss the critical role of temperature regulation in optimizing athletic and physical performance.

    I explain why overheating can hinder performance and endurance and how techniques like palmar cooling can help extend physical effort by aiding temperature regulation. I also highlight how specific body areas, such as the palms and face, are key targets for regulating temperature, allowing heat to dissipate efficiently. Lastly, I discuss how temperature can support training recovery while cautioning that extreme cold, such as ice baths immediately after training, can block adaptations.

    Huberman Lab Essentials are short episodes—approximately 30 minutes—focused on essential science and protocol takeaways from past Huberman Lab episodes. Essentials will be released every Thursday, and our full-length episodes will still be released every Monday.

    Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com.

    Thank you to our sponsors

    AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman

    Eight Sleep: https://eightsleep.com/huberman

    Function: https://functionhealth.com/huberman

    Timestamps

    00:00:00 Huberman Lab Essentials; Physical Performance & Skills, Temperature

    00:03:03 Sponsor: AG1

    00:04:07 Temperature Homeostasis, Vasoconstriction & Vasodilation

    00:06:42 Elevated Heat & Performance Barrier

    00:08:26 Regulating Temperature, Glabrous Skin, “AVAs”

    00:12:20 Sponsor: Eight Sleep

    00:13:49 Strength Training & Heat Effects, Tool: Palmar Cooling

    00:17:21 Endurance, Temperature & Willpower

    00:20:54 Tool: Resistance Training, Running, Palmar Cooling & Water Temperature

    00:24:23 Sponsor: Function

    00:26:09 Ice Bath & Blocking Training Adaptations; Tool: Glabrous Skin & Recovery

    00:29:31 NSAIDs (Tylenol) & Training

    00:31:56 Recap & Key Takeaways

    Disclaimer & Disclosures

  • EMERGENCY DEBATE: They Lied About The Economy Recovering! Is A Financial Apocalypse Coming?

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:04 I’m sick of multi-millionaires telling kids who can’t afford to turn the heating on,
    0:00:07 you just need to be more entrepreneurial. It’s sick, Dan. It’s sick.
    0:00:10 Well, your video where you talk about if you don’t have a rich dad, you’re screwed.
    0:00:15 Well, to me, if I had have come across your content at 19, 20 years old, I would have been screwed.
    0:00:18 My friends can’t feed their kids, okay?
    0:00:20 If it was that easy, why is everybody not doing it?
    0:00:21 I’ll tell you why people aren’t doing it.
    0:00:23 It’s because…
    0:00:24 If you’d like to say one thing, back on that.
    0:00:29 Today’s debate is fiery, to say the least.
    0:00:35 But important nonetheless, as I sat down with two leading experts in wealth and entrepreneurship and the economy
    0:00:39 to discuss the state of the US, the state of the UK and the Western world.
    0:00:44 Do you think the reason the average Brit or American are getting poorer is because they don’t know how to create wealth?
    0:00:48 No, the reason people are getting poorer is because of big governments, record levels of taxes,
    0:00:51 an outdated schooling system, technology and remote work.
    0:00:52 You sure about that?
    0:00:54 How do you disagree with those opinions?
    0:00:57 Living standards are falling because of growing wealth inequality.
    0:01:02 If you allow the rich to get richer, they squeeze the middle class and the poor class out of things like housing.
    0:01:06 Let’s cut tax on people who are working hard and let’s raise tax on the richest and most powerful people in the world.
    0:01:08 That’s an overly simplified view of things.
    0:01:16 We now have a thousand millionaires a month leaving, which means every ordinary person who pays 10 grand a year in tax will now have to pay 20 grand a year in tax.
    0:01:18 You end up cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    0:01:25 If we are a country that don’t try and do things which are necessary because they are hard, then our kids will live in poverty.
    0:01:25 What do you want people to do?
    0:01:26 There’s a lot of different ways.
    0:01:28 Buckle up.
    0:01:35 I find it incredibly fascinating that when we look at the back end of Spotify and Apple and our audio channels,
    0:01:42 the majority of people that watch this podcast haven’t yet hit the follow button or the subscribe button wherever you’re listening to this.
    0:01:43 I would like to make a deal with you.
    0:01:46 If you could do me a huge favour and hit that subscribe button,
    0:01:51 I will work tirelessly from now until forever to make the show better and better and better and better.
    0:01:54 I can’t tell you how much it helps when you hit that subscribe button.
    0:02:00 The show gets bigger, which means we can expand the production, bring in all the guests you want to see and continue to do in this thing we love.
    0:02:04 If you could do me that small favour and hit the follow button, wherever you’re listening to this, that would mean the world to me.
    0:02:06 That is the only favour I will ever ask you.
    0:02:08 Thank you so much for your time.
    0:02:13 Gary, Daniel.
    0:02:20 Daniel, you’ve been on the show a few times before, so I want to start with Gary and understand a little bit about your backstory and who you are.
    0:02:26 And having been through the trading game and read and watched many, many of your videos over time, I have a sort of deep understanding of that.
    0:02:32 But for anyone that doesn’t know you, can you give me a picture of the context that has brought you to where you are today,
    0:02:37 writing about the things you’re writing about today and running the YouTube channel and speaking to the subject matter that you’re speaking about today?
    0:02:40 Take me right back and give me as much as you possibly can.
    0:02:43 OK, so my name is Gary Stevenson.
    0:02:47 I was born in a place called Ilford, which is in outer East London.
    0:02:52 Quite a poor family, a little terrace house by the railway, you know, playing football in the streets kind of stuff.
    0:02:58 Always very good at maths since I was a kid, very talented maths student.
    0:03:06 Eventually able to get into the London School of Economics, which is an extremely elite university, economics university in the centre of London,
    0:03:12 which is basically a kind of investment banking boot camp.
    0:03:13 Got a job as a trader.
    0:03:21 Started working full time as a short term interest rates trader at Citibank in London in June 2008.
    0:03:22 Interesting time.
    0:03:24 Obviously, yeah, exactly.
    0:03:26 That’s just before the big credit crash, the big Lehman crisis.
    0:03:30 And I watched the Lehman crisis happen in front of my eyes.
    0:03:34 I was, short term interest rate trading is basically like short term loans.
    0:03:38 And during the credit crisis, what a credit crisis is, is nobody can borrow any money.
    0:03:40 So like short term loans become really, really important.
    0:03:45 My desk, which was like historically an unfashionable area of trading, became like the centre of the crisis.
    0:03:47 Well, one of the centres of the crisis.
    0:03:48 People started making tons of money.
    0:03:51 I was working with all these crazy people.
    0:03:55 And you can imagine me, like I turn up 21 years old and then like within three months,
    0:03:59 like everyone around me is making a ton of money during the credit crisis.
    0:04:05 But what really interested me was what happened after the crisis itself, which was,
    0:04:07 so we’re betting on interest rates.
    0:04:13 Long story short, interest rates come down when the economy is weak and they go up when the economy is strong,
    0:04:16 when the economy is overheating from an inflation perspective.
    0:04:19 In 2008, all the interest rates go to zero.
    0:04:26 So suddenly, our job is basically predicting and betting on when will those interest rates go back up,
    0:04:28 which is when will the economy recover.
    0:04:31 And this is super interesting, right?
    0:04:35 In 2008, because all the interest rates went to zero so quickly.
    0:04:39 But before 2008, it’s important to remember, rates would move from like five and a half to five and a quarter.
    0:04:43 And then here in 2008, everywhere in the world slashing to zero.
    0:04:44 Boom, half a percent.
    0:04:48 Exactly. And everybody, all the economists were like, wow, this is going to cause a massive recovery
    0:04:50 because they thought that interest rates were powerful.
    0:04:55 And everybody predicted that rates would come back up in 2009, which, of course, we now know they didn’t.
    0:05:00 Then everybody predicted that rates would go up in 2010, which we now know they didn’t.
    0:05:05 And then at the beginning of 2011, everybody was predicting rates would definitely go up this year.
    0:05:09 And this, to me, was so interesting.
    0:05:16 So interesting because, you know, I studied maths and economics at one of the best economics universities in the world.
    0:05:19 And now I’m working with these traders who are getting paid millions of pounds a year,
    0:05:22 million pounds a year to predict the economy, to predict the interest rates.
    0:05:27 And everybody is wrong year after year after year.
    0:05:32 And this was, I was so amazing to me for a couple of reasons.
    0:05:36 First of all, it’s like, wow, like this is a big thing that we as a society should understand.
    0:05:37 And like we’re getting it wrong.
    0:05:42 But secondly, if all of the best guys in the world are getting this wrong,
    0:05:47 then if I can figure this out, I can make a ton of money here.
    0:05:51 Gary, how much money did you make for Citibank at the age of 24 years old?
    0:05:57 That year, so that year, 2011, I put this big bet on that it would get worse forever.
    0:06:01 And I was Citibank’s most profitable trader in the world that year.
    0:06:04 And I made them just over $35 million.
    0:06:05 You made them $35 million.
    0:06:07 You eventually decide to leave Citibank.
    0:06:08 Yeah.
    0:06:08 Why?
    0:06:12 I mean, I think that’s an interesting question, right?
    0:06:23 You know, in the sense that I’ve just explained to you what happened, which is I made a ton of money by betting on the collapse of Western society.
    0:06:25 I did it in 2011.
    0:06:27 I did it again in 2012.
    0:06:33 I would prefer for it not to collapse, Stephen.
    0:06:36 And I’m trying to stop it from collapsing.
    0:06:42 When you say it collapsing, what exactly are you referring to that you don’t want to collapse?
    0:06:46 So you’re born in Botswana, right?
    0:06:46 Yeah.
    0:06:47 You still have family there?
    0:06:50 I’ve got family in Nigeria, which is where my family are from.
    0:06:52 I was born in Botswana because we were visiting there.
    0:06:54 But I’ve got family in Africa.
    0:06:55 Do you go to Nigeria much?
    0:06:55 No.
    0:06:57 I’ve got a home in Cape Town in South Africa.
    0:07:00 So I see that it’s a great place if you want to see inequality.
    0:07:18 I think there is a naivety in this country, in places like the US, that the kind of inequality, the kind of broad poverty that you see in places like South Africa, in places like Nigeria, in places like India, can’t happen here.
    0:07:20 It will happen.
    0:07:22 That is the future of this country.
    0:07:23 That is the future of the US.
    0:07:24 And I’m not just saying that.
    0:07:25 I’m betting on it.
    0:07:27 And I’ve been betting on it for 15 years.
    0:07:28 And I’ve been right for 15 years.
    0:07:30 That is what I’m trying to avoid.
    0:07:33 Daniel, where did you come from?
    0:07:35 So I grew up in Australia.
    0:07:39 I was born to a low-income family.
    0:07:41 I grew up in a place that had 24% unemployment.
    0:07:53 Pretty much the only jobs or opportunities around me were things like the trades, building, construction, pest control, hospitality and tourism.
    0:07:56 So at 14, I got a job at McDonald’s.
    0:08:00 And then I got a job in a bar and Pizza Hut to deliver driving.
    0:08:01 And I discover entrepreneurship.
    0:08:03 So I discover books about entrepreneurship.
    0:08:06 And I discover that some people make millions, similar to yourself.
    0:08:07 You saw Canary Wharf.
    0:08:09 I read a book about business ownership.
    0:08:15 And as we sit here today, can you give me the overview of your business success since then?
    0:08:15 Yeah.
    0:08:19 So I now have a group of companies that I’ve either started or bought.
    0:08:20 I’ve just sold a company.
    0:08:21 So there’s seven companies in the group.
    0:08:24 I’ve started a couple of software companies.
    0:08:28 One of our companies is now the fastest growing, one of the fastest growing companies in the UK.
    0:08:31 We, you know, we’re a software business.
    0:08:33 I’ve got a couple of agencies.
    0:08:35 I’ve got an education and training business.
    0:08:39 And when you think about the UK and broadly the Western world today,
    0:08:43 what is your assessment of where we’re at as a country and what’s concerning you?
    0:08:47 Because Gary expressed quite articulately that his big concern is that because of wealth inequality,
    0:08:50 we’re going to end up in a similar position to the likes of India.
    0:08:52 What are you concerned about?
    0:08:58 I agree that it wasn’t that long ago that we had real serious wealth inequality in this country.
    0:09:06 There are amazing photos from like 100 years ago of kids working in mines and kids doing oyster shucking and all this horrible work.
    0:09:11 And, you know, there’s a book Charles Dickens wrote called The Tale of Two Cities.
    0:09:15 And the opening line of the book is it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
    0:09:20 And I think we’ve actually gotten to that point here where some people in the UK, it’s the best of times.
    0:09:23 If you, like in your situation, you’re, you know, you’re booming.
    0:09:25 You’re a globally successful business.
    0:09:27 I’ve got a globally successful business.
    0:09:31 And then there are a lot of people who can completely cannot relate to this.
    0:09:35 They’re, you know, energy prices are now the most expensive in the Western world.
    0:09:37 House prices are completely unaffordable.
    0:09:40 It used to be, used to take three years to save for a deposit.
    0:09:44 It’s now 20 years if you, you know, theoretically 20 years if you can save for a deposit.
    0:09:45 Food prices are through the roof.
    0:09:57 So we’re in a really difficult, like for anyone who is not tapped into digital economy, fast growth and all of that sort of stuff, life is getting harder and worse and things are collapsing.
    0:09:59 If you, if you would go with that.
    0:10:06 The, there is a predictable path countries go on and there’s this thing called the Economic Freedom Index.
    0:10:09 And the Economic Freedom Index basically says how economically free are you?
    0:10:11 How much access do you have to free markets?
    0:10:13 Do you, can you start a business?
    0:10:14 Can you scale a business?
    0:10:18 Does anything inhibit your ability to run your own life?
    0:10:23 Countries that have high degrees of economic freedom have very low poverty.
    0:10:25 They have widespread affluence.
    0:10:29 And countries that have low economic freedoms have high poverty.
    0:10:33 And it can be the difference between less than 10% right up to 70% poverty rates.
    0:10:38 And when countries go on a path towards economic freedom, poverty just drops.
    0:10:40 So India, for example, has been on that path.
    0:10:45 And they announced today that they’ve almost eradicated abject poverty or extreme poverty.
    0:10:50 The UK went on that path of low economic freedom to high economic freedom.
    0:10:52 And we saw poverty rates come right down.
    0:11:01 But in 2008, when the global financial crisis happened, one of the things that happened is the government said, we need to step in and we need to take charge.
    0:11:02 And everyone said, please do.
    0:11:08 So they came in and they said, all right, we’re going to ramp up debt, ramp up taxes to pay for the debt.
    0:11:10 And we’re also going to put all regulations in.
    0:11:12 And unfortunately, that starts to reduce economic freedom.
    0:11:14 Then the pandemic happens.
    0:11:18 And they say, oh, we’re going to spend more money again through debt.
    0:11:23 We’re going to have more taxes, more regulations, less economic freedom.
    0:11:30 So the UK, we went from an 82, when I arrived in 2006, we went from 82 out of 100 down to 68 out of 100.
    0:11:32 So we’re less economically free.
    0:11:44 And predictably, what we will always see happen, if you lower people’s economic freedom, more poverty, less affluence, the millionaires and the wealth creators leave.
    0:11:51 The people who are stuck in dead-end jobs or no jobs get incredibly frustrated.
    0:11:53 Everyone starts looking for someone to blame.
    0:11:55 People are angry and they’re like, who do we blame?
    0:11:57 And who do they blame?
    0:12:02 It’s very different because in the US, we blame, US blame someone different to the UK.
    0:12:05 So we have a historical cultural memory.
    0:12:08 In the UK, we have a cultural memory that the people to blame are the rich.
    0:12:14 So we have landlords and aristocracy and the landed gentry.
    0:12:16 Those guys are to blame, right?
    0:12:18 So blame the rich is what we say in the UK.
    0:12:21 In the US, they have a very different view.
    0:12:23 Their cultural memory is that they’re anti-government.
    0:12:25 They want limited government.
    0:12:28 In 2023, there was this song that came out.
    0:12:32 It was called Rich Men North of Richmond and it was the number one song in America.
    0:12:38 And the lyrics of the song basically says, people in Washington do not care about working people.
    0:12:40 They are taxing everything we touch.
    0:12:42 You can’t earn money.
    0:12:43 They depreciate the dollar.
    0:12:47 They tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, and they want to control our lives.
    0:12:50 Those are the lyrics of the songs, controlling our lives and taxing us.
    0:12:56 So the American reaction to this is who’s to blame?
    0:12:56 Government.
    0:12:58 So we want smaller government.
    0:13:01 We want a department of government efficiency to come in.
    0:13:04 We want someone as a wrecking ball who will come in and smash government.
    0:13:07 The British instinct is hate the rich.
    0:13:09 It must be the rich’s fault.
    0:13:20 So when we look for like all of the Western countries that implemented lower economic freedoms created more poverty, less affluence, and more disruption to their economies.
    0:13:28 So both US and UK, for example, and Australia as well, but both sides of the pond want someone to blame.
    0:13:31 It’s just that the Americans blame government and we blame the rich.
    0:13:34 Gary, I’m sure you have a lot to say there.
    0:13:36 I know you both use the word collapsing.
    0:13:38 So you agree that there’s a problem here.
    0:13:46 But I think you, from studying both of your sort of perspectives, you think that the solution and the cause of the problem is different.
    0:13:48 I mean, I put bets on.
    0:13:49 I put bets on.
    0:13:51 That’s what I do.
    0:13:52 I put bets on.
    0:13:57 At the beginning of COVID, we knew the government was going to give an enormous amount of money out.
    0:13:59 Total amount of money now.
    0:14:00 UK government deficits.
    0:14:02 Since the beginning of COVID, it’s one trillion pounds.
    0:14:04 US number is $14 trillion.
    0:14:08 That’s, you know, £20,000 per UK adult.
    0:14:16 My background is I understand that when the distribution gets worse, when inequality gets worse, living standards fall.
    0:14:23 So when the UK government was going to give a trillion pounds out, all I wanted to know was who’s going to end up with that money.
    0:14:25 That’s all I wanted to know.
    0:14:29 And I mean, the US number, 13 trillion, 14 trillion, it’s just outlandish.
    0:14:42 But I think the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life was that at the beginning of COVID, the very beginning of COVID, we knew governments across the world were going to be giving out tens of trillions of pounds, dollars, euros.
    0:14:48 Nobody even thought to ask who’s going to get tens of trillions richer.
    0:14:50 Nobody in the Conservatives.
    0:14:50 Nobody in Labour.
    0:14:52 Nobody in the Republicans.
    0:14:53 Nobody in Democrats.
    0:14:54 Nobody in the media.
    0:14:55 Nobody in academia.
    0:14:56 Nobody in the central banks.
    0:14:57 Nobody asked this.
    0:15:00 It’s almost beautiful.
    0:15:02 It’s unbelievable.
    0:15:03 It’s unbelievable.
    0:15:05 So I sat down and I did the analysis at the beginning.
    0:15:16 Because lockdown is essentially banning the spending of the rich and replacing that spending of the rich with printed money from government, what happens is the government gives workers money.
    0:15:19 They use that money to pay their bills, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage.
    0:15:20 It goes to the rich.
    0:15:22 The rich can’t spend it because they’re locked indoors.
    0:15:27 And what you get is essentially an enormous amount of money from the government to the poor, to the rich.
    0:15:29 And this massive, massive transfer of wealth.
    0:15:34 That was so obviously going to happen at the beginning of COVID.
    0:15:37 Nobody discussed it, which I think is itself amazing.
    0:15:39 Let me ask you a question, right?
    0:15:51 If we were now to pause the economy for two years and during that pause massively increase wealth inequality, what do you think would happen to broad living conditions when we’re on pause?
    0:15:58 See, one of the things that I think happened during the pandemic is everything went digital.
    0:16:03 And entrepreneurs and investors did actually think about what would happen.
    0:16:08 The investors immediately boomed stocks like Zoom and Microsoft.
    0:16:11 And we ended up with the Magnificent Seven.
    0:16:16 I don’t know if you, you know, there’s seven big tech companies in the USA market.
    0:16:24 And those big seven companies have gone from $5 trillion valuation to $17 trillion valuation in the time of the pandemic.
    0:16:30 And if you think about what did the pandemic do, everyone had to work from home.
    0:16:32 So we all had to have Microsoft subscriptions.
    0:16:33 Everyone went on to websites.
    0:16:36 So we all went to AWS, Amazon.
    0:16:40 We all started buying and learning how to buy from Amazon rather than buying from our local high streets.
    0:16:43 Every business in the world figured out how to run their business remotely.
    0:16:46 We had this massive transformation.
    0:16:51 It was like it’s actually a wholesale transformation of society that we all learned how to live and work differently.
    0:16:54 I saw a boom in entrepreneurship.
    0:17:07 So what I saw as an entrepreneur accelerator, someone who runs an entrepreneur accelerator, is just there was this sudden boom in people launching businesses, setting up Shopify accounts, setting up YouTube businesses.
    0:17:17 So the money really has moved from the traditional economy, the 2019 high street economy, over to the digital economy.
    0:17:22 And what we see is that the investors know what’s going on and they just invest in this magnificent seven company.
    0:17:25 I think 50% of the gains of the S&P 500 is tech companies.
    0:17:29 So all the money just goes flooding into the technology companies.
    0:17:32 My belief is that technology is really dividing people.
    0:17:44 That essentially if you take anyone from any background, if they work in technology, if they’re in media, tech, finance, any of that stuff that operates online, they tend to actually do pretty well after the pandemic.
    0:17:56 Do you think the average Brit, American, Australian, wherever the person out there is watching, if they quit their job and go work in tech, do you think they’ll be able to get financial security relatively easily?
    0:18:02 Depends when you define financial security.
    0:18:03 The issue with the house prices.
    0:18:05 The ability to raise a family, have a home.
    0:18:07 So having a home is a big issue, right?
    0:18:12 So here’s what I see with houses because houses annoy me as well.
    0:18:21 My dad bought a house for $18,000, which is about £10,000 or less than £10,000 and it’s probably worth over a million dollars today.
    0:18:22 So something went on.
    0:18:25 And this, by the way, is not UK specific.
    0:18:28 The socialist countries had house prices go through the roof.
    0:18:32 If you go to Norway or Sweden, their house prices grew by 600%.
    0:18:34 It’s happening everywhere.
    0:18:34 It’s everywhere.
    0:18:36 It’s not specific there anyway.
    0:18:36 It’s happening everywhere.
    0:18:42 But what happened, what has definitely happened in the UK is we actually have a housing traffic jam.
    0:18:50 So in this country, in the UK, we have 9.5 million homes that have two or more spare bedrooms.
    0:18:53 Big family homes have two or more spare bedrooms.
    0:18:57 And when you look into who owns those houses, 78% of housing wealth is baby boomers.
    0:19:04 And now, anecdotally, I take my kids trick-or-treating at Halloween and we go down a street that is big family homes
    0:19:08 and you go knock on the doors and it’s all people over 65, right?
    0:19:11 And they’re living in a big family home with empty spare bedrooms.
    0:19:15 You think the average American over 65 is living luxuriously?
    0:19:22 The average American over 65, so more than half of the US economy is in the hands of baby boomers, right?
    0:19:23 So they own all the houses.
    0:19:25 The houses got bought up cheap.
    0:19:28 Baby boomers still own those houses to this day.
    0:19:32 The big family homes with multiple spare bedrooms are empty.
    0:19:36 And now that creates this traffic jam where people my age…
    0:19:39 My grandparents, they all own property.
    0:19:52 All four of them died with nothing because that wealth which they had in property was used in equity release schemes.
    0:19:55 It was used in paying through their retirement.
    0:19:56 It was used in end-of-life care.
    0:20:01 Do you think when those old people die, young people today will be rich?
    0:20:05 There is half the economy held by baby boomers.
    0:20:12 It’s either going to be passed down or passed into the aged care industry or passed into…
    0:20:15 But the issue of why we can’t get homes, two things.
    0:20:18 Government massively inflated the value of homes through debt.
    0:20:22 So they just injected like low interest rates that you’re involved in.
    0:20:23 Who is the debt to?
    0:20:28 Well, the debt is to anyone who can take out a loan because if it’s 0% interest rates or 2% interest rates…
    0:20:29 Do you think the debt is to ordinary families?
    0:20:30 Do you think the ordinary families are the creditors?
    0:20:33 When you say ordinary families, you mean bottom third?
    0:20:39 So if your average British or American family now has half a million pounds of debt, who has the credit?
    0:20:40 It’s anyone who could get their…
    0:20:45 At that particular time, anyone who could get their hands on a loan to buy a house got on the housing loan.
    0:20:45 But who has the credit?
    0:20:47 Who is on the other side of the debt?
    0:20:50 So if the average British family has half a million pounds in debt…
    0:20:50 Well, a banking licence.
    0:20:52 Does the average British family have half a million pounds of credit?
    0:20:55 Well, a lot of people have got a lot of equity in their home now.
    0:20:58 You think the average British family is sitting on half a million pound cash?
    0:21:02 I’d love to look at what the actual number is, but it’s a couple of hundred thousand worth of equity.
    0:21:04 But what about the credit on the loan?
    0:21:05 The credit on the loan?
    0:21:06 Who owns the credit on the loan?
    0:21:08 But bear in mind, it’s disproportionately older people.
    0:21:09 So 78%…
    0:21:12 So you think the average British old person is sitting on millions of pounds of cash?
    0:21:14 Not millions of cash, no.
    0:21:14 Equity.
    0:21:15 Well, someone is on the other side of those mortgages.
    0:21:19 I just want to say, the difference is, if you inflate the value of a house, you don’t
    0:21:21 have cash, you have a house that’s worth a lot of money.
    0:21:26 So 78% of home ownership wealth is in the hands of people over 65 now.
    0:21:27 It’s baby boomer generation.
    0:21:32 And they got a great gift from the government, which is the government said, we’re going to
    0:21:33 just give free loans away.
    0:21:38 If someone previously could have only afforded to take out a 200 grand loan with low interest
    0:21:40 rates, they can afford a 300 grand loan.
    0:21:46 Do you think it’s okay that the average British or American young person will never own any
    0:21:46 wealth?
    0:21:48 The issue is not whether it’s okay or not.
    0:21:49 The issue is what do you do about it?
    0:21:50 Do you own wealth?
    0:21:51 I’ve got wealth, yeah.
    0:21:51 Do you own wealth?
    0:21:54 But it depends what you call wealth.
    0:21:54 I do.
    0:21:59 So do we, three multimillionaires, do we think it’s okay that the average Brit or American
    0:22:01 young person will never own any wealth?
    0:22:02 Because I don’t think that’s okay.
    0:22:03 To me, that’s not the debate.
    0:22:04 But is it okay?
    0:22:05 It’s not.
    0:22:07 Well, it’s not okay.
    0:22:09 No, we want widespread affluence.
    0:22:13 Would you rather that the people who currently are multimillionaires, would you rather that
    0:22:14 all of the wealth was owned by their kids?
    0:22:20 I think that the way you see the world as a trader is that the world is a zero-sum game
    0:22:25 and that there’s basically the pie is a fixed pie and it gets sliced up.
    0:22:26 How fast is the pie growing now?
    0:22:27 There’s something like this.
    0:22:29 What’s the UK GDP growth at the moment?
    0:22:31 Yeah, it’s not high, right?
    0:22:31 1%.
    0:22:33 How much did your wealth grow in the last year?
    0:22:34 Exponentially.
    0:22:37 Okay, so if our wealth, my wealth probably grew about 20% in the last year.
    0:22:39 Maybe 30, okay?
    0:22:44 If our wealth is growing 30% and the economy is growing at 1%, where is it coming from if
    0:22:46 it’s not coming from our viewers?
    0:22:47 So I’ll tell you where my wealth comes from.
    0:22:50 My wealth comes from building technology companies.
    0:22:58 And the way it works is pretty weird, which is that I invent something out of my head and
    0:23:02 I go to investors and I say to the investors, here’s what we’re going to create.
    0:23:03 And I give them a spreadsheet.
    0:23:07 And then they say, we’ll give you a couple of hundred grand to get started, which is called
    0:23:08 seed capital.
    0:23:10 But that on paper makes me worth a couple of million.
    0:23:14 But there’s nothing has been taken from anyone at this point.
    0:23:17 The investors have said, okay, we’ll invest some money.
    0:23:22 Then as the business succeeds, some more investors come along and they say, we’ll give you a little
    0:23:23 bit more money to keep growing it.
    0:23:26 And I’m innovating something new.
    0:23:32 And let’s say investors come in and give me a million pounds and for 10% of the company and
    0:23:35 the rest of the company is worth nine million pounds or $9 million, right?
    0:23:38 So I’m not stealing something from the existing economy.
    0:23:41 I’m bringing something from outside of the economy into the economy.
    0:23:50 And my quote unquote net worth is growing exponentially because investors say, we’ll give you a little
    0:23:53 bit of money that values the rest of the pie at a lot of money.
    0:23:55 So everyone’s getting richer.
    0:24:01 In the wealth create, there’s wealth extraction, which is what traders do.
    0:24:05 They extract from the existing economy and they bet on the economy.
    0:24:07 And then there’s wealth creation, which is what entrepreneurs do.
    0:24:11 They come up with new ideas, better ways of doing things, and they build wealth.
    0:24:16 So do you think the reason our viewers, the average Brit or American are getting poorer,
    0:24:18 is because they don’t know how to create wealth?
    0:24:22 No, the reason people are getting poorer is because economic freedoms are being eroded.
    0:24:23 Okay.
    0:24:24 When we have high economic freedom.
    0:24:25 And you associate that with taxes?
    0:24:28 Well, it could be anything that impacts economic freedom.
    0:24:31 So taxes and regulations are big.
    0:24:33 Was economic freedom higher in the 50s?
    0:24:39 50s was, okay, so 50s was an interesting time.
    0:24:43 We were in food rations in this country till 1956.
    0:24:45 So we had 10 years of food rations after the war.
    0:24:50 We had a labour shortage because only really men worked.
    0:24:52 Women hadn’t entered the workforce in mass.
    0:24:56 There had been 300,000 or 400,000 men killed in war.
    0:24:58 So we actually had this big labour shortage.
    0:25:01 The whole country needed to rebuild because the Blitz had bombed it.
    0:25:05 So we had this huge need for economic activity and not enough people to do it.
    0:25:07 We only had 2% unemployment.
    0:25:11 People who had had their legs blown off were put to work at that particular time.
    0:25:17 So we had this post-war boom and we also had the post-war baby boom, which drove consumption.
    0:25:23 And then when we got to the 60s, we had the roaring 60s or the swinging 60s, right?
    0:25:24 Pretty amazing time in Britain.
    0:25:26 And along comes high taxes.
    0:25:30 And they put up the taxes massively at the end of the 60s.
    0:25:32 And it pretty much crashed the economy.
    0:25:34 One of the things that happened…
    0:25:35 So what were the tax rates in the 50s?
    0:25:39 Well, they went up as high as 80% to 90% for the top earners.
    0:25:41 I think it was in the 60s.
    0:25:42 Are you sure about that?
    0:25:43 I think the 50s are unique.
    0:25:44 What is the answer, Gary?
    0:25:45 I feel like you know.
    0:25:46 They went up after the war.
    0:25:47 They went up after the war.
    0:25:49 Well, in the US, actually, tax rates got before the war.
    0:25:54 But also the size of government as a percentage of GDP was like 30%.
    0:25:55 It was a tiny…
    0:25:58 Like, we are now 45% of the UK economy is government spending.
    0:26:01 We have got a massive government…
    0:26:02 And who funds that spending?
    0:26:03 Debt.
    0:26:06 The Bank of England allows them to print endless amounts of debt,
    0:26:08 which just deflates taxes.
    0:26:10 Gary, I want to get your opinion here.
    0:26:11 Because you’re asking a lot of questions,
    0:26:12 but I actually don’t know your opinion.
    0:26:14 I just want to know what Daniel thinks.
    0:26:17 And I want our viewers to be able to research Daniel’s opinions.
    0:26:19 But how do you disagree with those opinions?
    0:26:21 Listen, Daniel’s a businessman.
    0:26:23 He’s obviously a very successful businessman.
    0:26:24 You know, I’ve not been…
    0:26:25 I’m not a businessman.
    0:26:26 I’m not going to pretend to be a businessman.
    0:26:27 I’m an economist.
    0:26:29 I make money by being right on the economy.
    0:26:31 Daniel’s a good businessman, and I’m right on the economy.
    0:26:33 You know, it’s as simple as that, basically.
    0:26:34 You know, I’m not a good businessman,
    0:26:37 but I’ve got 15 years of being right on this, on the economy.
    0:26:40 And look, I know you’re probably a wealthy man.
    0:26:42 You probably don’t want to pay high taxes.
    0:26:43 You probably don’t want your kids to pay high taxes.
    0:26:47 But we exist in an economy where wealth is being extracted
    0:26:49 out of the middle class, out of the working class,
    0:26:50 very, very rapidly.
    0:26:53 It’s benefiting people like the three of us at this table.
    0:26:54 It will benefit our kids.
    0:26:56 You know, our kids will be rich.
    0:26:57 Their kids will be poor.
    0:26:59 And I just think we should be honest with them.
    0:27:00 Capitalism’s finished.
    0:27:01 We won.
    0:27:02 Well done, Stephen.
    0:27:03 Well done, Daniel.
    0:27:04 Well done, Gary.
    0:27:05 It’s over now.
    0:27:06 Our kids will be rich.
    0:27:07 Their kids will be poor.
    0:27:08 They’ll pay the taxes.
    0:27:10 We won’t pay the taxes.
    0:27:11 We’ll avoid it.
    0:27:12 I’ll make money betting on it year after year.
    0:27:14 Why are we lying to them?
    0:27:16 Why are we lying to them?
    0:27:19 Yeah, I think that’s an overly simplified view of things.
    0:27:22 It’s an overly simplified view of things that has made me a multimillionaire.
    0:27:22 Yeah.
    0:27:24 Well, look, entrepreneurs take bets on the economy as well.
    0:27:25 We take bets differently.
    0:27:29 When we start a company, we’re betting on how the economy would be.
    0:27:33 Do you think the average British and American worker at the 50th percentile,
    0:27:35 do you think their kids will be richer than they are?
    0:27:38 It depends if we have economic freedom or not, right?
    0:27:40 We’re going to have a split test on this.
    0:27:40 Do you think we will?
    0:27:41 Right.
    0:27:42 We’re going to have a split test.
    0:27:46 We’re going to have the UK seems like we’re going to have more taxes,
    0:27:49 more regulations, and it seems like the US is going to have less taxes
    0:27:50 and less regulations.
    0:27:52 Here’s what I’ve noticed.
    0:27:55 I’ve noticed that places like Singapore that have small governments
    0:27:57 have got widespread affluence.
    0:27:58 There’s not a lot of poverty in Singapore.
    0:28:01 Yeah, except for the cleaners living in the closets, yeah.
    0:28:02 You know, look.
    0:28:06 But we don’t count them in the statistics, just like we don’t count our viewers.
    0:28:08 That’s not widespread in Singapore.
    0:28:09 Well, there’s a lot of people.
    0:28:11 Well, I’ve seen them in the closets.
    0:28:12 I’ve seen them in the closets.
    0:28:14 There are some.
    0:28:15 But they’re not Singaporeans.
    0:28:18 We only count the rich ones.
    0:28:25 Look, also the issue is that they’ve come from even worse conditions in many cases.
    0:28:28 People move to Singapore for an increase in lifestyle, right?
    0:28:33 You could take Ireland or Switzerland, right?
    0:28:34 Economically free places.
    0:28:36 Ireland was economically in a disaster.
    0:28:38 Do you think the average Irish person lives well?
    0:28:47 Well, their economy almost collapsed in 2011 and they went down the road of lower taxes, lower
    0:28:51 regulations, and they attracted all sorts of businesses into the economy.
    0:28:54 Do you think that works well for the average Irishman who doesn’t own a home in Dublin?
    0:28:57 If you measure everything by home ownership.
    0:28:59 I’m measuring people by the average.
    0:29:03 I want to know what the average man or woman in Dublin today lives like.
    0:29:06 By the way, I am also furious about the home ownership thing.
    0:29:06 Everyone is.
    0:29:13 I think it’s utterly ridiculous the way, like the idea that homes are now worth 10 times
    0:29:15 the average wage, all of that.
    0:29:17 Difference is I blame government for that.
    0:29:22 I blame high taxes where they’ve, because of high taxes, they can take out more debt.
    0:29:24 They can then inflate the economy.
    0:29:28 So do you think if we shrink the government, if we start to slash government spending, do
    0:29:29 you think that would improve living conditions?
    0:29:32 Well, the UK government is 45% of the economy.
    0:29:33 Like, that’s a huge government.
    0:29:38 So do you think US living conditions will increase in the next few years because we have a US government
    0:29:41 now that’s planning to slash the US government?
    0:29:43 Well, that’s what the US voters have asked for.
    0:29:44 Do you think it would improve living conditions?
    0:29:49 Do I think it’ll improve if there’s smaller government?
    0:29:51 Yeah, I trust markets.
    0:29:54 So you think the average US American will be richer in three years than the island?
    0:29:54 Here’s what I trust.
    0:29:56 I trust economic freedom.
    0:29:59 If people have freedom, they create better decisions for their own life.
    0:30:01 There’s two ways to make decisions, right?
    0:30:02 Do you have freedom?
    0:30:04 I’ve got less freedom than I did when I arrived.
    0:30:06 Because my sister can’t pay the rent.
    0:30:06 Is that freedom?
    0:30:09 If you’re living in a country…
    0:30:12 She can’t afford to live in the city that she was born in.
    0:30:13 I agree.
    0:30:14 You and I agree on the problem.
    0:30:16 You keep bringing back to the problem.
    0:30:18 I keep bringing it back to people because the people who watch…
    0:30:19 We’re millionaires, okay?
    0:30:21 The people who watch us are mostly not millionaires.
    0:30:23 Is life going to get better for them?
    0:30:29 Life will get better if you are connected to the most productive parts of the economy.
    0:30:39 If you pretend that it’s 1955 and you recreate the post-war era conditions, if you try to go back to 1955, I don’t think that’s going to work.
    0:30:42 So let me ask on that then the point about if you’re connected to the most productive parts of the economy.
    0:30:50 I was quite surprised when I was doing some research on this to find that there’s quite big differences between the UK and the US in terms of GDP growth.
    0:30:56 In Q4 2024, the US economy grew by 0.6%, while the UK growth was 0.1%.
    0:30:58 So they’re doing significantly better in that regard.
    0:31:05 US GDP per head stands at $82,000 per head, whereas the UK stands at $49,000 per head.
    0:31:15 And stock market performance, which is an indication of, I guess, whatever, rose by 300% in the US, whereas the FTSE 100 declined by 20%, which is the UK stock market.
    0:31:22 Productivity growth since 2018, productivity increased by 30% in the United States, which has outpaced the UK.
    0:31:24 And lastly, income growth.
    0:31:34 Since 2007, American income per head has increased by 72%, while it has decreased by 2% in the UK in dollar terms.
    0:31:37 So they seem to be doing better if you just look at the economy.
    0:31:40 Why is that?
    0:31:44 Is that because they lean more into technology and to innovation and entrepreneurship?
    0:31:51 And is it because of the things you were saying earlier about their attitude towards reduced government spending versus tax the rich?
    0:31:55 I’m keen to hear Gary’s view on this, because I understand yours, because you’ve just said it.
    0:31:57 Yeah, I think these are great statistics.
    0:32:04 And of course, the US has a strong reputation for being very free markets and being very small states.
    0:32:11 In the last five years, 10 years, 15 years, we’ve had a UK government that has been aggressively slashing the state.
    0:32:13 The state’s bigger than ever.
    0:32:15 It’s 45% of the economy.
    0:32:21 And the US, we had a government in the last four years, which has been running a massive, massive deficit.
    0:32:33 So in that period of time, it appears the government, which has been aggressively increasing its deficit, has massively overperformed the government, which has been aggressively slashing the state.
    0:32:36 That’s what it looks to be from the last.
    0:32:39 I mean, Joe Biden enormously increased the deficit, enormously.
    0:32:42 And the Conservatives were austerity government for 14 years.
    0:32:45 Which one seems to have given the better numbers?
    0:32:49 Well, I mean, they were austerity in name only.
    0:32:50 They went from 30%.
    0:32:53 The state was 30% of GBP to 45% of GBP.
    0:32:55 So do you think government services are funded now?
    0:32:58 No, the government is terrible at doing most things.
    0:32:58 That’s the problem.
    0:33:00 You don’t want government…
    0:33:03 You don’t think that spending on government services has been slashed?
    0:33:05 Let me zoom out a little.
    0:33:06 Do you think the police spending has been slashed?
    0:33:07 Oh, police spending has definitely been slashed.
    0:33:09 Do you think education spending has been slashed?
    0:33:10 Do you know where it ends up?
    0:33:20 It ends up with, like, big corporates, big consulting, who get paid $50 million to produce a report to tell government something, right?
    0:33:20 All of these big…
    0:33:24 I won’t name names, but all the big consulting firms, they’re all bloodsuckers to government.
    0:33:31 They know that the money’s in the government, and they set up business models to extract that money from government.
    0:33:35 And it also is in the financial trading side of things.
    0:33:39 One of the issues that we’ve got, right, and this is a big issue as well,
    0:33:43 because you care about wealth inequality, one of the biggest issues I see is that during the pandemic,
    0:33:47 we all learnt to work remotely, and remote work became the norm.
    0:33:53 And what I see at the moment is huge amounts of what would have been normal British jobs are going to the Philippines,
    0:33:57 going to India, going to Vietnam, people who work remotely now.
    0:34:01 We now have 1,000 millionaires a month leaving to go to Dubai.
    0:34:06 We have 120,000 British people living in Dubai in that economy.
    0:34:08 The world’s become incredibly mobile.
    0:34:18 And one of the things that’s happening is that what would have previously been good British jobs are getting moved overseas to lower-cost countries.
    0:34:20 And that’s technology that drives that wedge.
    0:34:27 The US is very smart in that they’ve built a technology powerhouse, and the UK has completely lost our technology industry.
    0:34:30 Our tech industry is in decline, same across Europe.
    0:34:38 China and the US know that the game is tech, and they’re basically pulling all the tech company into their borders.
    0:34:48 And what’s happening a lot is the erosion of good jobs and the erosion of just normal, well-paying jobs because they’re going.
    0:34:55 And it’s a bit of a self-fulfilling loop that the more we lose millionaires, the tax burden falls on everyone else.
    0:34:59 So they put the taxes up, and then the millionaires say, oh, the taxes are too high, so they leave.
    0:35:05 I’ve watched some of the most incredible entrepreneurs that you would want here that would employ your sister at a high rate,
    0:35:08 and they’ve picked up and left because the taxes are too high.
    0:35:11 So are you saying we should tax working people less?
    0:35:15 Well, the overall government has to be smaller.
    0:35:19 So what do you want to cut in the government?
    0:35:22 If you want, yeah, well, I mean, you’d have to.
    0:35:22 Child services?
    0:35:23 We’d have to, no.
    0:35:23 Police?
    0:35:24 No.
    0:35:24 Education?
    0:35:25 NHS?
    0:35:27 All I know is this.
    0:35:28 Pensions?
    0:35:29 You go to Switzerland, they spend 20.
    0:35:30 Well, first, single mothers?
    0:35:31 25%.
    0:35:32 Save wood benefits?
    0:35:32 What do you want to cut?
    0:35:33 Hold up.
    0:35:34 All I know is in Switzerland.
    0:35:35 I’ll tell you what I want to do.
    0:35:36 The government is 25%.
    0:35:40 I want to cut the taxes on those entrepreneurs and raise the taxes on the billionaires.
    0:35:41 Yeah.
    0:35:43 Because I worked my tits off.
    0:35:44 How many billionaires are in the UK?
    0:35:46 There’s a lot of billionaires in the UK.
    0:35:46 It’s 150.
    0:35:48 Yeah, so tax them all.
    0:35:48 What do they pay?
    0:35:48 Yeah.
    0:35:52 Listen, I worked my tits off and I paid, it was 50% top rate of tax.
    0:35:55 50% top rate of tax plus national insurance, 60%.
    0:35:55 So a millionaire.
    0:35:57 To bring my family out of poverty.
    0:36:02 At the same time, the Duke of Westminster inherited 10 billion pounds and paid nothing.
    0:36:02 Do you think that’s fair?
    0:36:03 That’s not true.
    0:36:05 Okay, why is it not true?
    0:36:08 Because the Duke of Westminster is one of the highest taxpayers in the country.
    0:36:09 What does he pay?
    0:36:15 Well, on the trust, the Grosvenor estate, they don’t pay inheritance tax because trusts can’t die.
    0:36:17 They pay something called periodic taxes.
    0:36:18 Which is how much?
    0:36:19 6% every 10 years.
    0:36:20 6%?
    0:36:21 So they pay 0.6% a year.
    0:36:24 So I paid 60% and this guy pays 0.6%.
    0:36:25 Apples with apples.
    0:36:28 Inheritance tax is 40% across the course of your life.
    0:36:37 If a trust is, if a person lives who owns a trust for 70 years, then 6% times 7 would be 42.
    0:36:38 So they actually pay more.
    0:36:41 So he pays 0.6% a year.
    0:36:43 You’re telling me 0.6% a year.
    0:36:44 But that would be the same as.
    0:36:45 What percent did I pay per year?
    0:36:45 No, no, no.
    0:36:46 60%.
    0:36:47 Hold up.
    0:36:49 So you’re saying I pay, what’s 60 over 0.6?
    0:36:50 No, no, no.
    0:36:51 100 times the tax rate.
    0:36:52 You’re not comparing apples with apples.
    0:36:54 Why is it not apples with apples?
    0:36:56 This guy pays 0.6% a year.
    0:36:57 I paid 60% a year.
    0:36:58 That’s inheritance tax.
    0:37:00 I paid that 60% every year, Daniel.
    0:37:01 You’re talking income tax.
    0:37:01 Every year I paid him.
    0:37:02 You’re paying income tax.
    0:37:04 So why have I paid?
    0:37:04 The Duke of Westminster pays income tax.
    0:37:05 Why do I pay more than him?
    0:37:07 The Duke of Westminster pays income tax.
    0:37:09 He probably makes your bill blush.
    0:37:10 Yeah?
    0:37:11 He think he pays income tax.
    0:37:12 Yeah.
    0:37:15 Well, if he’s going to live, he has to withdraw money to have his income.
    0:37:18 He also, let me give you a list of all the taxes he would pay.
    0:37:20 He’d pay income tax, corporate tax.
    0:37:22 He’d pay stamp duty when he buys a building.
    0:37:26 He pays any of the other taxes, VAT when he spends money.
    0:37:30 All the same taxes apply to a Duke as they apply to anybody else.
    0:37:32 So you think he pays income tax on the income on that?
    0:37:33 Any income he draws.
    0:37:33 Okay.
    0:37:36 Well, our viewers can research whether he pays income tax on his income.
    0:37:37 Because I don’t think he does.
    0:37:38 I mean, how could he not?
    0:37:39 He’s in a trust.
    0:37:45 But the only difference with a trust versus income is that the trust pays periodic tax
    0:37:47 versus inheritance tax.
    0:37:48 At 0.6%.
    0:37:49 But we’re only talking inheritance.
    0:37:51 That’s just one type of tax.
    0:37:54 So you think he’s paying 60% on his income?
    0:37:56 He’s one of the highest taxpayers in the UK.
    0:37:57 I’m not like his big fan club.
    0:37:59 But the truth is he’s one of the highest taxpayers in the UK.
    0:38:02 He’s one of the biggest employers in the UK.
    0:38:03 He’s one of the, like…
    0:38:04 One of the biggest landowners in the UK.
    0:38:05 Landowners in the UK, right?
    0:38:09 So the issue is, is does he pay tax?
    0:38:11 All the same taxes that apply to you apply to him.
    0:38:15 And if you want to set up a trust, you can also pay periodic taxes as well,
    0:38:18 which would be on top of all the other taxes.
    0:38:19 So what would you say…
    0:38:21 But it’s just not true that he doesn’t pay tax.
    0:38:21 No.
    0:38:22 What would you say?
    0:38:23 This guy, he’s inherited £10 billion.
    0:38:25 So he’s worth £10 billion.
    0:38:29 What would you say will be the total amount of tax he will pay in his lifetime?
    0:38:31 Well, I know that just the smallest…
    0:38:33 If I make £10 billion, I’m paying 60%.
    0:38:34 Just one sec.
    0:38:39 You’re talking about income versus the transfer of an estate.
    0:38:43 So why is it that the Duke of Westminster can be worth £10 billion?
    0:38:48 You’re comparing your income versus the amount he inherited, which is not a fair thing.
    0:38:48 That’s not income.
    0:38:49 Because that’s his income.
    0:38:51 Inheritance is not income.
    0:38:53 So wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
    0:38:56 So if I get given £10 billion, I don’t pay any tax.
    0:38:59 But if I work for £10 billion, I pay 60%.
    0:39:00 Well, if you inherited…
    0:39:04 If this is the tax system that you want, you will end up in a system where the kids of the rich
    0:39:04 were in everything.
    0:39:05 I’m just saying you’re not…
    0:39:06 That’s what I’m saying.
    0:39:07 That’s what I’m saying.
    0:39:08 And that’s fine because that’s our kids.
    0:39:10 You’re not telling the truth about his situation.
    0:39:10 You know what?
    0:39:11 Let’s support it.
    0:39:15 Let’s have a tax system where your kids and my kids and Stephen’s kids are multimillionaires
    0:39:18 and these guys out there can’t afford to feed their kids and put the heat in them.
    0:39:19 That’s not what I’m saying.
    0:39:20 But that’s what you’ll get.
    0:39:20 That’s not what I’m saying.
    0:39:21 That is what you’ll get.
    0:39:23 Listen, that’s what I’m betting on.
    0:39:25 That’s fine because I’ll make money in the markets.
    0:39:25 It’s fine.
    0:39:27 And you’ll make money and you’ll make money.
    0:39:28 It’s our viewers who will be poor.
    0:39:28 And that’s fine.
    0:39:29 That’s fine.
    0:39:32 Let’s explore the other alternative, right?
    0:39:33 So let’s say tax the rich, right?
    0:39:35 So let’s play the game of tax the rich.
    0:39:36 Tax the owners, not the workers.
    0:39:36 Yeah.
    0:39:38 The owners, the owners.
    0:39:44 So the issue that we have with the rich is that the number one most valuable assets
    0:39:46 in the economy now are intangible assets.
    0:39:52 So there’s this chart called the S&P 500 of the 500 richest countries in the world, in the
    0:39:52 US, sorry.
    0:40:01 In 1970s, 75% of the value of the S&P 500 was physical assets like property.
    0:40:03 And today it’s less than 10%.
    0:40:05 It’s closer to 5%.
    0:40:07 So you think that housing is not particularly important?
    0:40:09 Just let’s stick with what I’m saying.
    0:40:09 Okay.
    0:40:15 The powerhouse, the engine room of the economy is digital assets.
    0:40:21 And that’s reflected in the S&P 500, for example, which is 95% intangible assets.
    0:40:25 One of the issues that we have is that the richest people are completely mobile now.
    0:40:27 So they can be absolutely anywhere in the world.
    0:40:33 So if you come up with this idea of let’s tax richest people 1%, if a tiny proportion of
    0:40:35 them leave, we’re all in trouble.
    0:40:39 So these really rich guys, what do they own?
    0:40:41 Companies.
    0:40:43 And why are those companies worth money?
    0:40:46 Because investors say they are.
    0:40:47 And where do the revenues come from?
    0:40:48 Globally.
    0:40:49 Okay.
    0:40:51 The issue is, is that these companies operate globally now.
    0:40:52 So if I’m a billionaire…
    0:40:53 Take my company, for example.
    0:40:53 Yeah.
    0:40:57 My company has 8,000 customers in 150 countries.
    0:40:57 Okay.
    0:40:59 We could be anywhere.
    0:41:01 What country is your biggest single revenue source?
    0:41:02 Probably the US now.
    0:41:05 Let’s say you move to Cayman Islands.
    0:41:10 And the US says, we’re going to tax your revenue at point of sale.
    0:41:12 What can you do?
    0:41:14 Well, that’s different, right?
    0:41:16 Because that’s not taxing billionaires.
    0:41:17 That’s taxing companies.
    0:41:23 See, when you say tax the rich on their wealth, that’s different to saying tax companies
    0:41:24 a consumption tax.
    0:41:26 Oh, but you just said the rich own companies.
    0:41:26 You said that’s what they own.
    0:41:29 Yeah, but you’re saying, how do you tax them, right?
    0:41:34 So do you tax their wealth, which is what they own, or do you tax the companies where they
    0:41:34 trade?
    0:41:38 Typically, consumption taxes get passed on to consumers.
    0:41:39 Oh, it’s not consumption taxes.
    0:41:40 It’s the tax on the ownership.
    0:41:44 Yeah, but if you simply say, when you’re doing revenues, then that’s a consumption tax.
    0:41:48 So you’re saying if we start to tax the profits of companies…
    0:41:50 By the way, I’m not exactly against you on companies.
    0:41:58 I think it’s disgusting that a British company can take out a Facebook ad to sell to a British
    0:42:03 consumer a British product, and Facebook pretends to be in Ireland on that transaction.
    0:42:08 And Amazon, you can buy something on Amazon in Britain from a British supplier from a British
    0:42:11 warehouse, and Amazon pretends to be in Luxembourg in that situation.
    0:42:12 And that sucks, right?
    0:42:15 Like, that does not seem fair.
    0:42:18 And it strikes me as very strange that the government is okay with that.
    0:42:24 Right now, the government is chasing down mums and dads who sell a few things on eBay and
    0:42:27 chasing them for taxes, but they don’t talk to eBay.
    0:42:33 They’re paranoid about someone doing a little bit of a side hustle on Facebook, but Facebook’s
    0:42:34 fine to pretend to be in Ireland.
    0:42:36 So I don’t agree with all of that, right?
    0:42:39 Like, I think we’re missing some serious tricks here.
    0:42:44 But the idea with taxing billionaires at wealth, billionaires will just leave.
    0:42:45 They just get up and leave.
    0:42:47 And not just billionaires.
    0:42:48 But what do billionaires own?
    0:42:49 What do billionaires own?
    0:42:50 Companies.
    0:42:51 And where do companies get their money from?
    0:42:52 Revenues.
    0:42:54 And where do the revenues come from?
    0:42:55 Purchasing.
    0:42:57 People purchasing.
    0:42:58 And where do those people live?
    0:42:59 All over the world.
    0:43:01 We can tax them at that point.
    0:43:01 Well, that’s consumption tax.
    0:43:02 This is the thing.
    0:43:03 That’s a consumption tax.
    0:43:04 No, it’s not.
    0:43:05 It’s a tax on profits.
    0:43:06 VAT is a tax on revenues.
    0:43:09 You can tax these guys on profits based on where the revenues come from.
    0:43:11 So it’s very easy to move profits internationally.
    0:43:14 See, Stephen had a Starbucks cup.
    0:43:23 When he buys that Starbucks, it’s bought from a British company who licenses the Starbucks logo from Luxembourg or somewhere like that.
    0:43:24 So 15%.
    0:43:26 So here we are saying, oh, we’re going to tax their profits.
    0:43:28 And they say, oh, I wish we were profitable.
    0:43:29 Sorry.
    0:43:32 Unfortunately, we had to do that licensing deal with that international corporation.
    0:43:34 I know how profit shifting works.
    0:43:45 Okay, so are you telling me a company is selling to the UK, the US, enormous amount of profit in the US, and they turn around and say, oh, actually, our profit’s not in the US.
    0:43:50 Do you think the US is incapable of going and looking at that, seeing where they’re really, where the profit is?
    0:43:52 I’m not saying that you can’t do this.
    0:44:03 I’m saying that the benefits of doing it, it’s so hard to tax wealth, for example, or it’s so hard to tax millionaires and billionaires, that you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    0:44:13 For every, like, if we create Britain, for example, and we build a brand, which is that we’re anti-wealth, we don’t want you to ever have more than 10 million.
    0:44:15 If you’ve got more than 10 million, we punish you.
    0:44:20 Every young entrepreneur who comes to me and says, Dan, do you think I should start a company here in this country?
    0:44:24 I’m going to say, well, if you do, they’ll take it.
    0:44:26 As soon as you start to make it, they’ll take it.
    0:44:30 As soon as, if you’re successful, if you get investment, they’re going to tax you your wealth.
    0:44:32 If you sell the company, they’re going to take it off you.
    0:44:37 I’m going to basically say to that young entrepreneur, don’t build your business in Britain.
    0:44:41 Go start it somewhere that they’re more proactive and positive towards entrepreneurs.
    0:44:50 Are we seeing that now with this, they call it the millionaire exodus, which is, for people that don’t know, the UK is set to lose the greatest proportion of millionaires in the world, this parliament.
    0:44:54 I’ll put a graph on the screen, which is this one here, this one here.
    0:45:00 And that little red line here is us losing all of our millionaires at the moment.
    0:45:12 And in 2024, it’s estimated that 10,800 high net worth individuals left the UK, which is a 157% increase from the previous year, which means that one millionaire is departing every 45 minutes.
    0:45:18 The UK millionaire exodus is equal to losing 530,000 average taxpayers.
    0:45:25 And another stat, the top 10% of earners in the US account for nearly half of all consumer spending.
    0:45:32 The top 1% of income taxpayers in the UK are projected to contribute about 30% of total income tax from 2024 to 2025.
    0:45:35 Why are all these millionaires running away?
    0:45:38 Well, it’s not because they’re taxing their wealth, because we don’t have any wealth taxes.
    0:45:40 Why do you think they’re leaving?
    0:45:50 I think the reason they’re leaving is because the UK economy is really, really weak, because the UK consumer is really, really weak, because you’ve absolutely crushed the spending power of your average British family.
    0:45:51 And where are they going?
    0:45:53 Your average British family can barely afford to feed the kids and turn the heating on.
    0:45:57 So why are you going to start a business here when the customers are absolutely impoverished?
    0:46:02 Look, it corresponds with a new tax that we brought in, which was we ended the non-DOM scheme.
    0:46:08 So the non-DOM scheme basically said if you’re living in the UK, but you’ve got businesses all over the world,
    0:46:11 then we only tax you on what you’ve got in the UK.
    0:46:18 And if you die in the UK, we’ll only tax you on your UK assets for inheritance tax if you’re a non-DOM.
    0:46:27 But if you die in the UK and you’ve got wealth in India, once that non-DOM scheme ended, they basically said we will tax you on everything globally.
    0:46:32 If you’re a tax resident in the UK, everything you’ve got globally, we want 40% of it.
    0:46:37 So unfortunately, every wealth manager contacted their clients and said, you can’t stay here.
    0:46:38 You’re going to have to get out.
    0:46:40 And it’s gotten really bad.
    0:46:41 1,000 people a month are leaving.
    0:46:45 And in the UK, 1% of people pay 30% of the taxes.
    0:46:47 10% of people pay 60% of the taxes.
    0:46:53 And you imagine if we’re sitting out at dinner and there’s 10 of us out for dinner and one person says,
    0:46:56 hey, I’ve got this, I’ll get 60% of the bill tonight.
    0:46:59 We say to them, no, it should be 70%, it should be 80%.
    0:47:01 And they say, you know what, I’ll get up and leave.
    0:47:02 So they leave.
    0:47:04 Everyone else’s bill just doubled.
    0:47:14 So what’s going to happen is if we drive the millionaires out of this country, everyone, every ordinary normal person who pays 10 grand a year in tax will now have to pay 20 grand a year in tax.
    0:47:17 So the reason they left is because we used to allow them to not pay tax.
    0:47:20 On their global incomes.
    0:47:21 On their global businesses.
    0:47:27 So isn’t it a bit more like if we were 10 of us at dinner and there was one guy who came to dinner on the condition he wouldn’t pay their leaves?
    0:47:29 Because these guys weren’t paying tax anyway.
    0:47:31 If the reason they left is because they weren’t paying tax.
    0:47:35 It’s like saying, hey, I’ll pay 60% of this table.
    0:47:38 And they say at the table, hey, wait a second.
    0:47:42 We also want you to pay for everything that’s happening at other restaurants as well.
    0:47:46 Isn’t it a bit more like these guys were here on a condition?
    0:47:48 You yourself said.
    0:47:48 No, you’re 100% right.
    0:47:53 The reason why they left is because we let them live here on the condition that they didn’t have to pay taxes.
    0:47:55 On their global, yeah, taxes matter, right?
    0:47:57 So why is everyone going to Dubai?
    0:47:59 Dubai, they’re going there because there’s no tax.
    0:48:01 These guys, they live in Dubai.
    0:48:03 Their money comes from the West.
    0:48:11 They are making money from the West while your average Western ordinary person watching this show now cannot afford to buy a house, cannot afford to have a family.
    0:48:14 We can tax those revenues at the point of sale.
    0:48:16 Why do we allow these guys?
    0:48:17 It’s called a consumption tax.
    0:48:18 No, it’s not.
    0:48:18 It’s a tax on profit.
    0:48:20 It’s not a tax on consumption.
    0:48:23 You just said at point of sale, which means it’s a consumption tax.
    0:48:24 It’s based on the profits.
    0:48:25 You look at how much profit they have.
    0:48:25 Well, that’s not a consumption tax.
    0:48:26 And then you look at where the profits go.
    0:48:27 Exactly.
    0:48:28 It’s not a consumption tax.
    0:48:28 Like I’m saying.
    0:48:35 So if you tax profits, then those profits have to accumulate in that country.
    0:48:44 And because of the digital ecosystem that we now have, the world we now live in, I can lease the database off of my company in Luxembourg.
    0:48:48 I can license my logo from my company.
    0:48:50 I understand how profit shifting works.
    0:48:50 Go on.
    0:48:52 Listen, these guys are not Gandalf.
    0:48:54 You just say, we don’t accept profit shifting.
    0:48:57 We don’t need to accept profit shifting.
    0:48:58 China does not accept profit shifting.
    0:49:00 We did not accept profit shifting 50 years ago.
    0:49:02 We do not have to accept profit shifting.
    0:49:09 But you have a government class who are extremely wealthy and a media class who are extremely wealthy saying it’s impossible to tax rich people.
    0:49:12 And I would like to say, I will agree 100%.
    0:49:14 It is difficult to tax rich people.
    0:49:14 Yeah.
    0:49:17 It is very, very, very difficult to tax rich people.
    0:49:21 I don’t come here saying I want to tax rich people because it’s easy.
    0:49:22 I know it’s hard.
    0:49:24 I know probably I’m going to lose.
    0:49:26 I know our viewers’ kids will live in desperate poverty.
    0:49:27 I know that.
    0:49:28 I do this because it is hard.
    0:49:38 If we are a country which says to ourselves, we don’t try and do things which are necessary to keep our kids out of poverty because they are hard, then our kids will live in poverty.
    0:49:39 I don’t need to be here.
    0:49:41 I’m a multimillionaire just like you.
    0:49:43 I could be in the Philippines drinking pina coladas.
    0:49:51 I come in here because I come from a poor background and it’s ordinary families like my family, like the kids I grew up with, whose kids are going to be in poverty.
    0:49:53 It’s difficult, but it is necessary.
    0:49:59 Sometimes we have to do things not because they’re easy, but because they are hard.
    0:50:02 That is what makes a rich country rich.
    0:50:04 And that is what protects ordinary people.
    0:50:06 Listen, our grandparents lived in poverty.
    0:50:08 Did they say let’s not change it because it’s hard?
    0:50:09 No, they didn’t.
    0:50:15 They fought and they demanded health care, education, housing, food, and they got it.
    0:50:16 They got it.
    0:50:19 That’s why my parents could live a good quality life.
    0:50:20 They got those things.
    0:50:32 They got those things and they were aware that in order to do that, you could not allow the super rich who have been living lives of luxury for hundreds and hundreds of years to eat everything while ordinary families couldn’t afford to feed their kids.
    0:50:33 I know it’s difficult.
    0:50:34 I know it’s difficult.
    0:50:35 And I know I’m probably going to lose.
    0:50:35 I know that.
    0:50:36 I know I’m probably going to lose.
    0:50:38 And that means our viewers will be poor.
    0:50:43 But I do it anyway because I do not want this country that I grew up in to fall into desperate poverty.
    0:50:46 I agree with you on the passion and I agree with you on the problem.
    0:50:51 I don’t agree with you on the solution because in 2019.
    0:50:53 No, because we’d all be rich and our kids would be rich.
    0:50:55 In 2020, and that’s not what I’m saying.
    0:51:02 In 2020, we made a decision globally to shut down the economy and we taught everyone that they can live and work from anywhere.
    0:51:04 The biggest threat to everything you’re saying is remote working.
    0:51:07 The fact that we can live and work from anywhere.
    0:51:15 Our grandparents, their boss, if their boss owned a company, that company had to physically be in the country and the boss had to physically be in the country.
    0:51:22 If we look at today, there are plenty of fitness trainers who work for a gym and the owner of that gym is somewhere overseas.
    0:51:26 Plenty of people work in a restaurant and the owner of the restaurant lives overseas.
    0:51:29 You can live and you can run a business from anywhere in the world right now.
    0:51:38 So the problem that we face is that you’re describing how on one hand you say we need to tax it at the point of sale, which is a consumption tax.
    0:51:40 It’s not because it’s a tax on profits.
    0:51:41 Okay.
    0:51:45 And then you say a tax on profit and then you say, oh, but then we’ll stop profit shifting.
    0:51:49 By the way, I’m also actually all for this idea of stopping profit.
    0:51:55 I’ve already said, I think it’s utterly ridiculous the way that many of these global companies are treated.
    0:51:59 And if we don’t stop that, then all the money just flows out to the tech companies.
    0:52:00 So I’m with you on that.
    0:52:07 But when you say tax the rich, the actual people who own the companies, those people can just be anywhere right now.
    0:52:10 But their revenues can’t.
    0:52:12 Their customers, their customers are where their customers are.
    0:52:14 Their customers are where their customers are.
    0:52:17 Listen, Amazon doesn’t pay any UK tax, doesn’t pay any US tax.
    0:52:18 Where are the customers?
    0:52:20 In the UK and the US.
    0:52:22 Do you really think it’s impossible for us to tax that?
    0:52:25 Well, you’re talking about taxing people at 10 million plus, right?
    0:52:27 So this is a lot of startup entrepreneurs.
    0:52:29 Jeff Bezos is a lot more than 10 million.
    0:52:31 Jeff Bezos is worth a lot more than 10 million.
    0:52:35 But you talk about anyone above 10 million is on your radar.
    0:52:38 You don’t want people worth 11 million pounds to pay more tax.
    0:52:39 It’s not that.
    0:52:42 Dan, you’re worth more than 10 million pounds.
    0:52:49 So if we tax people on, as Gary says, that have more than 10 million, what are your options to avoid?
    0:52:52 Say, if your objective was to avoid that, what options do you have?
    0:52:58 If my objective was to avoid it, I pass a board resolution that we’re moving the head office somewhere else.
    0:53:01 We move the intellectual property somewhere else.
    0:53:04 I pick up and move my family somewhere else.
    0:53:08 And within about a week or two, we’ve got a WeWork office somewhere else.
    0:53:10 I’ve got a new house on Airbnb somewhere else.
    0:53:13 And I cut ties with the UK.
    0:53:15 And I’m non-tax resident here.
    0:53:17 And I have a digital business.
    0:53:19 I can literally make my head office anywhere in the world.
    0:53:26 If there was a particular country that turned hostile towards our operations, then I’d have to withdraw service from that thing.
    0:53:28 You know, so that’s possible.
    0:53:30 But it’s unlikely that that would actually happen.
    0:53:34 But ultimately, if I choose to get up and leave, then I get up and leave.
    0:53:38 Now, the bigger issue is would I have even come here in the first place?
    0:53:40 And then there’s another issue.
    0:53:41 And here’s the other issue, Gary, for you.
    0:53:46 You’ve just had 750,000 subscribers to your YouTube channel.
    0:53:47 It’s 820, right?
    0:53:48 It’s 820, right?
    0:53:49 So it’s going up fast.
    0:53:58 I could have one of my analysts at a consulting company do a valuation of your brand and do a valuation of your YouTube channel.
    0:54:03 We could say this is a fast-growth media company, and it’s worth $11 million, right?
    0:54:09 So we could come up with a forecast and a projection, and we say Gary’s Economics is actually a new fast-growth media brand.
    0:54:10 It’s worth $11 million.
    0:54:15 Now, your channel, now you have to pay $100,000 a year in extra taxes because you’re a millionaire.
    0:54:20 Sorry, 1% on wealth above $10 million on $11 million is going to be $10,000 taxing.
    0:54:22 Oh, you’re saying only on the part above?
    0:54:23 That’s how taxes work.
    0:54:24 Okay.
    0:54:24 So it’s not on everything.
    0:54:25 It’s okay.
    0:54:27 So it’s a marginal tax.
    0:54:27 That’s how taxes work.
    0:54:35 So, okay, so is it fair that, like, who gets to decide what wealth is wealth and what it’s worth?
    0:54:37 Because wealth, let’s just hear me out.
    0:54:40 Wealth is a technical term for unrealized gains, right?
    0:54:41 It’s not real.
    0:54:50 If someone buys a house for $20,000 and it’s worth $200,000, they’ve still got the same house, but now they’ve got wealth.
    0:54:58 If someone starts a business and a tiny little seed investor puts in a little angel investment, now they’ve got wealth on paper.
    0:55:00 But who gets to say what is wealth?
    0:55:12 Like, for example, if you introduce wealth taxes, theoretically, that will actually reduce the value of wealth of things anyway because things inside that economy are now subject to a disadvantage.
    0:55:17 So, therefore, investors will be unlikely to invest in them to a certain point.
    0:55:21 And also, people start cutting and dodging and weaving and ducking and weaving.
    0:55:30 So they say, oh, our UK operation is worth $10 million, so we’re now going to start a second company over in some other country and make sure that’s where the wealth accumulates.
    0:55:33 So it’s incredibly difficult because it is just unrealized gains.
    0:55:34 I know.
    0:55:34 I know it’s difficult.
    0:55:35 Yeah.
    0:55:37 I know these guys have the best accountants.
    0:55:38 I know it’s difficult.
    0:55:39 So what if there was an easier solution?
    0:55:43 If there was an easier solution, I would support that.
    0:55:43 You know what I mean?
    0:55:45 It’s called economic freedom.
    0:55:46 The economic freedom index.
    0:55:46 Okay.
    0:55:48 Well, just tell the viewers that.
    0:55:50 Give them more economic freedom and then they’ll be rich.
    0:55:50 Yeah.
    0:55:57 So this diagram here basically says the most free countries have less than 10% poverty, in fact, less than 7% poverty.
    0:56:01 As soon as you reduce economic freedom, it jumps to 30% poverty.
    0:56:05 You reduce economic freedom again and it jumps up to huge amounts of poverty.
    0:56:10 So these countries here are the least economically free and these countries are the most economically free.
    0:56:18 The countries that get in the way of your economic freedom have more poverty and the countries that let people make decisions for their own life have less.
    0:56:30 What you’re saying is if the governments of our countries cut taxes on us, the three multimillionaires sitting at this table, that will improve the lives of the ordinary British and American workers who can’t afford to feed their kids.
    0:56:31 I’ll give you a real-life example.
    0:56:38 I know of a company that was going to give pay rises to its employees and then national insurance went up and instead of-
    0:56:39 National insurance is a tax on employment?
    0:56:39 Yeah.
    0:56:41 I’m saying to reduce that.
    0:56:42 I’m saying to reduce tax.
    0:56:47 I want your viewers, the viewers here, to be paying less tax whilst multimillionaires pay more tax.
    0:56:58 It’s good in theory, but if you could tax rich people 1% of their wealth above 10 million, I did a back of a napkin calculation, you might be able to get 20 billion.
    0:56:59 Yeah.
    0:56:59 Right?
    0:57:00 That’s if they don’t leave.
    0:57:02 That’s if they don’t respond to it.
    0:57:03 If they just happily pay it, you get 20 billion.
    0:57:06 That’s less than a week worth of current government spending.
    0:57:09 So the government’s out of control.
    0:57:12 1.2 trillion a year of government spending is now what they spend.
    0:57:12 Okay.
    0:57:18 So let’s get that 20 billion and cut the taxes for the viewers.
    0:57:19 Cut their income taxes.
    0:57:21 So that works out about 250 a year.
    0:57:21 Okay.
    0:57:22 So let’s do more.
    0:57:24 Let’s make it 60 billion.
    0:57:26 So then you tax 3% above wealth.
    0:57:27 Yeah.
    0:57:27 Do that.
    0:57:28 All right.
    0:57:29 And then you also bring it down to-
    0:57:29 Bear in mind-
    0:57:30 This is what governments do.
    0:57:31 We make 5% or 6%.
    0:57:31 Yeah.
    0:57:33 And then that’s what they did.
    0:57:33 Do you know what they do?
    0:57:36 That’s what they did in the Second World War and that’s why my dad could afford a house.
    0:57:37 Well, they actually-
    0:57:38 That’s not why he could afford a house.
    0:57:38 Okay.
    0:57:38 All right.
    0:57:39 Well, who’s buying-
    0:57:42 If ordinary people are losing their houses and the wealth, which they are-
    0:57:42 Yeah.
    0:57:44 And we’re getting richer-
    0:57:44 Yeah.
    0:57:47 Who is it who is now owning the houses if it is not us?
    0:57:49 The government used to own the houses and then they sold the-
    0:57:50 Government wealth is collapsing.
    0:57:51 No.
    0:57:51 Government wealth is collapsing.
    0:57:54 But what they did is they sold the houses to the people.
    0:57:54 Okay.
    0:57:57 But ordinary middle-class wealth is also collapsing.
    0:57:58 You can only do that once.
    0:57:59 And they did it for the baby business.
    0:58:01 So you think it’s our viewers who have got my houses now?
    0:58:02 Who-
    0:58:04 Where is the wealth going, Daniel?
    0:58:05 Where is the wealth going?
    0:58:06 Who has the wealth now?
    0:58:07 Who is getting richer?
    0:58:09 Who is getting the wealth that is lost by our viewers?
    0:58:11 I’ll tell you where the biggest amounts of money are going.
    0:58:17 The biggest amounts of money since the pandemic, $11 trillion went just to the value of seven
    0:58:18 companies that own technology.
    0:58:24 So the biggest seven companies in the USA, $11 trillion has got-
    0:58:26 And you don’t want their billionaire owners to pay more tax.
    0:58:27 Well, would that help the UK?
    0:58:31 Well, if you use that money to reduce tax on working people, then it would help.
    0:58:32 Yeah.
    0:58:34 They own shares in the USA.
    0:58:35 They’re US citizens.
    0:58:35 Yeah.
    0:58:36 So that doesn’t help us here.
    0:58:38 No, but it will help the American consumer.
    0:58:40 And then we can export the American consumer.
    0:58:42 And it will mean the American consumer has money.
    0:58:46 And then it will show British people how much you can achieve by taxing super rich.
    0:58:47 We can raise tax on our super rich here.
    0:58:52 And then what I want is these guys to be taxed so much that they start to sell assets.
    0:58:55 And then ordinary British people can buy assets again.
    0:58:59 Because what I want is our viewers to be able to own things, to be able to own their own homes.
    0:59:04 When I hear this, I admittedly don’t know as much about these issues as you guys do.
    0:59:09 But when I hear that there’s these seven tech companies in the US, my brain goes,
    0:59:10 can’t we have one here?
    0:59:10 Yeah.
    0:59:11 Yeah.
    0:59:13 Can’t we start?
    0:59:15 And then so my brain goes, what conditions do we have to create?
    0:59:16 We sold one of our ones that we had.
    0:59:17 Yeah.
    0:59:20 What conditions do we have to create to have one of those seven tech companies here,
    0:59:23 especially in this sort of AI world we’re heading towards,
    0:59:26 where when I was reading through the stats, most of the investment in AI,
    0:59:29 which is going to be hugely destabilizing across every industry,
    0:59:33 from driving to any form of knowledge work, even podcasting.
    0:59:36 I can play you a podcast now, which sounds exactly like me,
    0:59:41 which has a 4.6 star rating on Apple, which was written by AI, in my voice,
    0:59:42 published by AI.
    0:59:43 Wow.
    0:59:45 And who’s accruing the value there?
    0:59:49 Well, it’s a company in America called Eleven Labs, and it’s bloody open AI.
    0:59:52 And I go, why can’t we have those companies here?
    0:59:53 We need them here.
    0:59:56 Because China and the US are dominating this next revolution.
    1:00:04 And I worry as a bystander that if we don’t create entrepreneurship-friendly environments here,
    1:00:06 we are going to become India.
    1:00:14 If you want businesses to thrive, you don’t need just a good environment for entrepreneurs.
    1:00:17 You also need people to have money that they can spend.
    1:00:25 And we are in a country where increasingly most of the people out there have almost nothing left over at the end of the month.
    1:00:27 They can barely pay the bill.
    1:00:28 Those companies are selling globally, right?
    1:00:31 So they don’t need any particular company to do well.
    1:00:32 They sell to anywhere.
    1:00:37 So like OpenAI, ChatGPT, we’re all using that bloody product and paying our $20, $30 a month.
    1:00:39 Yeah, where do they actually get their money from?
    1:00:41 They get their money from selling data to the rich, right?
    1:00:45 My point was making the environment more friendly for entrepreneurs.
    1:00:51 Because when I start a company, I can’t explain the disadvantage I’m at at the moment if I start that kind of company here.
    1:00:53 There’s no investors.
    1:00:55 And then all the talent seems to flock over to San Francisco.
    1:01:01 So the British guys that built an AI company called Fixer, which I was going to invest in,
    1:01:04 all British lads from London, they went over to San Francisco.
    1:01:05 They’re like 25-year-olds.
    1:01:07 They’ve just raised at a $60 million valuation.
    1:01:11 They’re in this room, this building in San Francisco, full of entrepreneurs.
    1:01:14 And they’re pumping knowledge and capital into this room.
    1:01:20 With all due respect, Stephen, you’re not a great example for the fact that it’s impossible to start a successful online brand in the UK.
    1:01:21 Facts.
    1:01:23 But I also realised that…
    1:01:24 The problem of…
    1:01:26 But he started when things were different.
    1:01:31 But I also realised I don’t like using personal examples because there’s a huge amount of privilege and…
    1:01:33 Okay, is there a ChatGPT in Germany?
    1:01:34 No.
    1:01:36 Is there a ChatGPT in France?
    1:01:37 No.
    1:01:38 Is there a ChatGPT in Australia?
    1:01:39 No.
    1:01:41 Is there a ChatGPT in China?
    1:01:42 It’s China and…
    1:01:42 One sec.
    1:01:43 Yeah, exactly.
    1:01:52 What you have here is an extremely low labour, extremely high capital model, which employs extremely few people across the entire world that is focused in basically two cities.
    1:01:52 Yeah.
    1:01:54 Good luck competing with that.
    1:02:01 How do we create an environment where the UK can start to build some of these companies which are going to capitalise on this next technological revolution?
    1:02:03 If you were Prime Minister, what would you do?
    1:02:07 I think you need to look realistically about what companies do we have a chance of growing.
    1:02:14 You know, I’m not an expert in AI, but I think trying to compete with San Francisco in London would probably not work.
    1:02:15 Why?
    1:02:17 Try and do it.
    1:02:17 You know, try and do it.
    1:02:21 And listen, I know that you can get a lot of likes saying let’s just invest in AI, let’s just invest in.
    1:02:23 Only one city in the world outside of China has managed it.
    1:02:26 China has managed it by basically state capitalism.
    1:02:30 You know, this is very similar in a sense to what we had with microelectronics in Japan in the 80s, right?
    1:02:37 When you have a new industry, especially these industries which are very capital intense and don’t employ many people, you get a first move advantage.
    1:02:38 They tend to win.
    1:02:41 Eventually, often they get undercut by cheaper rivals.
    1:02:41 And that does happen.
    1:02:42 You know, that does happen.
    1:02:43 And you might start in AI.
    1:02:47 I don’t think AI is going to become a massive, massive employer.
    1:02:51 Of course, you know, a lot of countries are going to be like, because basically it sounds good.
    1:02:52 We’re going to invest in AI.
    1:02:53 We’re going to invest in AI.
    1:02:57 Personally, I think we should be looking at what does the British person need?
    1:03:00 You know, we live in a country where the housing stock is falling apart.
    1:03:05 If we say AI, when we talk about AI, I think we’re actually talking about technology.
    1:03:10 Because even a podcast, like a podcast like this, you don’t think of this as an AI company.
    1:03:16 But actually now the editing process, the scripting process, the transcription process, even YouTube itself is an AI company.
    1:03:20 So it’s really technology we’re speaking about here.
    1:03:26 And I’m wondering why we can’t create a better environment in the UK to start launching and building some of these technology companies.
    1:03:27 I think we should.
    1:03:32 And I think we should be looking at reducing taxes on people who work and make money.
    1:03:33 This is what I’ve been saying for the whole time.
    1:03:35 What about people who start companies?
    1:03:38 Yeah, we should reduce their taxes on the income that they make.
    1:03:47 But then if they start owning a 50 million pound company, are you telling me, if you come to me and I say, all right, you want to start a company, we tax you very, very little on a company that you start.
    1:03:51 If that company becomes worth 20, 30, 40 million quid, then we’re going to start taxing you.
    1:03:54 You’re going to come and say to me, oh, no, sorry, 50 million is not enough for me.
    1:03:55 So can I ask a question on that?
    1:04:01 So my company was valued at 50, whatever, 100 millions.
    1:04:02 Congratulations.
    1:04:05 And I still had, because I hadn’t had an exit event.
    1:04:05 Yeah.
    1:04:10 I still had 10,000 pounds, 20,000 pounds in my bank account.
    1:04:15 Are you saying at the point when I sell the company or are you saying just because I have shares in the company?
    1:04:17 I think you can structure it a number of ways.
    1:04:18 You can structure it a number of ways.
    1:04:23 My preferred way is to stop people from hoarding enormous amounts of wealth for enormous amounts of time.
    1:04:25 That’s my, that’s basically my preferred method.
    1:04:27 There’s also the wealth tax method.
    1:04:29 There’s also capital gains as a method.
    1:04:30 There’s a lot of different ways here.
    1:04:31 There’s a lot of different ways here.
    1:04:39 But you have to deal with the problem of if you do not tax very wealthy individuals and very wealthy families, their share of the pie will obviously grow over time.
    1:04:40 And they will.
    1:04:43 And they are, as we are watching, squeezing our ordinary families.
    1:04:44 You have to deal with that.
    1:04:46 My friend sold his company in the UK.
    1:04:47 It’s a company everybody knows.
    1:04:51 And he, I remember him saying to me at the time, it was in the middle of the pandemic.
    1:04:53 He’d got this big exit event.
    1:04:54 I think he’d made 300 million.
    1:04:55 And he goes, I’m off.
    1:04:56 I go, where are you going?
    1:04:59 And he goes, I’m going to go to Dubai and Monaco and live between the two.
    1:05:00 And I said to him, explain to me why.
    1:05:08 He goes, well, the amount of tax I’d have to pay in the UK is equivalent to me paying 20 million rent in the UK for the next six or seven years, which you’d have to stay here for.
    1:05:13 So he went and he pops back in every now and then.
    1:05:18 But it meant that he could keep that 150 million, whatever tax he would pay, never had to pay it to the UK.
    1:05:23 It’s living this high-flying life now in Dubai, drops into Monaco every now and then.
    1:05:28 And I remember him saying to me, well, Steve, I’d have to pay 20 million rent a year to live here.
    1:05:31 And he went on to say, the UK product just isn’t worth it.
    1:05:34 He goes, crime, I’m going to get my Rolex robbed off me.
    1:05:36 He goes, the healthcare system isn’t the best.
    1:05:38 The education system isn’t necessarily the best.
    1:05:45 And the particular one was crime, which is, I’ll get mugged walking through London streets.
    1:05:54 Stephen, if you allow British people who own 300 million pounds of British assets to technically live in Monaco and not pay tax, then you will get crime.
    1:05:58 And you will have dirty streets and you will have a bad healthcare system and you will have education.
    1:06:06 Because if you give all of the wealth to a group of people who do not tax, there’ll be nothing left to provide things like healthcare and education for ordinary people.
    1:06:07 It’s not unconnected.
    1:06:09 These people are not technically living there.
    1:06:09 They’re moving out.
    1:06:11 My friends have moved out of the country.
    1:06:12 They don’t come back to the UK.
    1:06:14 They’ve left and they leave with their companies.
    1:06:16 So they built a company here.
    1:06:18 And we let them leave and pay no tax.
    1:06:19 They typically build a global business.
    1:06:21 It’s not that they pay.
    1:06:22 It was a global business.
    1:06:23 They don’t pay no tax.
    1:06:25 They pay extortionate amounts of tax.
    1:06:30 Anyone who’s here is paying extraordinary taxes more than they’ve ever paid before.
    1:06:32 1% pays 30%.
    1:06:37 10% pays 60% of 1.2 trillion a year worth of government spending.
    1:06:39 So this guy who’s 300 million, how much tax record he’s paid in his life?
    1:06:41 I have no idea.
    1:06:43 I have no idea.
    1:06:44 His business was global though.
    1:06:45 His biggest customer was the US.
    1:06:47 Because I pay 60%.
    1:06:49 And our viewers will pay 30%, 40%, 50%.
    1:06:52 Do you think it’s fair that your 300 million guy pays his two or three?
    1:06:53 I have no idea what he pays.
    1:06:56 Well, it sounds like he didn’t pay 50%.
    1:06:58 Well, he dashed before he got the tax bill.
    1:06:59 But why do we allow it?
    1:07:00 Why do we allow it?
    1:07:01 I’m not allowed to not pay my tax.
    1:07:03 What could you have done to…
    1:07:03 You are allowed.
    1:07:05 When you were in Japan, you wouldn’t have paid UK taxes.
    1:07:09 Yeah, because I was working in Japan and then I paid Japanese taxes.
    1:07:10 Yeah, because you were living in Japan.
    1:07:11 This is the thing.
    1:07:12 People can live wherever they want now.
    1:07:15 But we’re talking about…
    1:07:16 This is…
    1:07:21 I think we should stop obfuscating tax on people’s work from tax on the assets that they own.
    1:07:22 No, no, but I’m saying…
    1:07:25 So I’m talking about entrepreneurs’ work generates wealth.
    1:07:27 So when entrepreneurs often don’t…
    1:07:28 A billion pounds of British houses.
    1:07:29 Yeah.
    1:07:31 And then I say I live in Dubai.
    1:07:31 Yeah.
    1:07:36 And I’m getting the rent on a billion pounds of houses, which would probably be something like…
    1:07:39 That’s going to be something like 50 million pounds a year.
    1:07:40 Yeah.
    1:07:43 So I’m getting 50, 60 million pounds a year of rent from British people.
    1:07:43 Yeah.
    1:07:45 And that gets paid to me from British people.
    1:07:45 Yeah.
    1:07:48 And I don’t pay tax because I live in Dubai.
    1:07:48 Do you think that’s fair?
    1:07:49 No.
    1:07:50 All right.
    1:07:51 So let’s change that.
    1:07:55 Let’s make people pay tax on their world, regardless of where they live.
    1:07:55 Yeah.
    1:07:59 The question would be, though, how would you tax people, right?
    1:08:00 And how would you actually structure it?
    1:08:03 Because regardless of what you feel like is fair, this is the thing.
    1:08:04 It’s not about fairness.
    1:08:07 It’s about what you can pragmatically and practically do in the modern economy.
    1:08:10 You might say, oh, I actually…
    1:08:13 Like, for example, if we said what’s fair, a lot of people would say a flat tax is fair.
    1:08:15 You make one pound, you pay 20%.
    1:08:16 You make a million pounds, you pay 20%.
    1:08:18 You make 100 million pounds, you pay 20%.
    1:08:21 So a lot of people would say the fairest tax system would just be a flat tax on everything,
    1:08:22 right?
    1:08:23 That would be a fair thing.
    1:08:25 It’s pragmatically, can you do it?
    1:08:26 Is it actually good for society?
    1:08:28 Should people be excluded from that?
    1:08:30 So it’s not about fairness.
    1:08:32 It’s about pragmatically, what can you get away with?
    1:08:32 All right.
    1:08:35 Well, pragmatically, what we can get away with is desperate poverty for our viewers’ kids.
    1:08:37 If you want to have…
    1:08:39 Can we zoom out just a minute, right?
    1:08:40 I want to zoom out.
    1:08:41 Let’s zoom away from our viewers’ kids.
    1:08:42 Zoom out.
    1:08:42 Forget about them.
    1:08:43 They’re not going for you.
    1:08:44 I’m a dad, right?
    1:08:45 I’ve got three kids.
    1:08:46 But you are a multi-millionaire, dad.
    1:08:47 Do you know…
    1:08:49 Probably don’t have the same problems as our viewers.
    1:08:55 Do you know that kids born into the top have a 60% chance of dropping out of the top, right?
    1:08:55 60%.
    1:08:56 That’s the number.
    1:08:57 It’s called persistence.
    1:08:58 You can Google it.
    1:09:05 The persistence rates is actually only 40% for the richest, which means 60% drop out in the second.
    1:09:07 Do you think your kids have a 60% chance of living in poverty?
    1:09:07 Possibly.
    1:09:08 Not poverty.
    1:09:09 Do you know what’s interesting?
    1:09:12 We’re all trying to aim at the same goal, I think, here.
    1:09:13 I’m not sure we are, boss.
    1:09:14 Well, that’s fair.
    1:09:14 That’s fair.
    1:09:15 Maybe we’re not.
    1:09:18 I suspect some of us are maybe trying to protect our kids’ wealth position.
    1:09:25 I want widespread affluence through the technological revolution that’s happening, and I don’t want the people who create that to want to go somewhere else.
    1:09:30 So you agree with me that we should cut tax on wealth creators and raise tax on wealth hoarders?
    1:09:32 Well, broadly.
    1:09:33 Okay, so let’s do it.
    1:09:35 Let’s cut tax on people who are making income.
    1:09:50 Let’s cut tax on people who are working hard, creating a good product, making a good income, and let’s raise tax on people who are sitting there on 20, 30, 40, 100, 200, 500 million pounds of assets that they’re going to give to their kids, and they’re going to use to dominate society and squeeze out the middle class.
    1:09:52 Who’s an example of someone who’s hoarding wealth?
    1:09:52 Wishi Sunak.
    1:09:56 So his family owns a tech company?
    1:09:59 His wife’s dad owns a tech company.
    1:09:59 That’s what I mean.
    1:10:01 Which he will inherit, and his kids will inherit.
    1:10:05 His net worth that is quoted is based upon his wife’s.
    1:10:06 Yeah, but that company already exists.
    1:10:07 Yeah.
    1:10:08 It’s created now.
    1:10:08 Yeah.
    1:10:09 It’s worth billions.
    1:10:12 But they have to reinvent that business every two years.
    1:10:19 So you think that if Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law stopped managing the company, it would be valueless?
    1:10:25 No, I think it hires hundreds of thousands of people, and it’s a big company.
    1:10:27 I don’t know a lot about that particular company, but I know it’s a tech company.
    1:10:28 Steve Jobs died.
    1:10:29 Yeah.
    1:10:30 Is Apple valueless?
    1:10:31 No.
    1:10:36 Let’s not pretend that these creators are the sole reason these companies are valuable.
    1:10:36 Sure.
    1:10:41 You know, and what we’re talking about in many cases, you know, I was a trader, okay?
    1:10:45 And I’m worth millions of quid, and, you know, now that is just assets.
    1:10:46 I just own the assets.
    1:10:47 I own the assets.
    1:10:49 And that will grow, and it will grow, and it will grow, and it will grow.
    1:10:53 And that will squeeze out, and squeeze out, and squeeze out, and squeeze out our viewers.
    1:10:54 And I’ll give that to my kids.
    1:10:55 They don’t even need to work.
    1:10:57 They won’t even have to work.
    1:10:59 They could just live on the – I could live off the wealth.
    1:11:00 Is that what you want?
    1:11:04 Do you think there are any opportunities for people today?
    1:11:13 Like, if you’re born into a poor family, do you think it’s possible that housing being shit – and we can both agree on that –
    1:11:18 but do you think there are new opportunities that didn’t exist for our parents or grandparents, but they do exist for people today?
    1:11:28 I think the reality is, for kids from poor backgrounds, it is almost impossible to realistically get even financial security, never mind wealth.
    1:11:31 But why do you think you could do it, I could do it, he could do it?
    1:11:33 But you don’t think other people could do it?
    1:11:37 Well, the first thing is, I’m 38 now, so I’m not a kid nowadays.
    1:11:41 Listen, I won every maths competition I’ve ever been in, you know what I mean, since I was a little kid.
    1:11:43 I didn’t even have a desk in my house, you know.
    1:11:49 I was one of the top students at LSE, and I still had to win my job by cheating in the card game.
    1:11:50 You know, that’s the world that we live in.
    1:11:52 I don’t think that’s a very replicable strategy.
    1:11:57 And it’s very easy for people like us who’ve made money to say, oh, we did it, aren’t we great, go out.
    1:12:01 And, you know, you’ve said that you think if young people go and work in a tech business, they can get financial security.
    1:12:03 If it was that easy, they’d all be doing it.
    1:12:04 You know, they’re not idiots.
    1:12:05 Our viewers are not idiots.
    1:12:05 They’re trying.
    1:12:06 They’re trying.
    1:12:08 They want to find the good opportunities.
    1:12:09 And they work.
    1:12:10 Listen, I speak.
    1:12:11 They’re working so hard.
    1:12:11 I’m not the one saying they’re idiots.
    1:12:14 You’re the one who says that they can’t do it anymore.
    1:12:16 I see people do it all the time.
    1:12:17 Like, I’m working in entrepreneurship.
    1:12:19 People from poor backgrounds.
    1:12:19 Poor backgrounds.
    1:12:24 So then why are our viewers – you think all of our – if it was that easy, why is everybody not doing it?
    1:12:25 I’ll tell you why people aren’t doing it.
    1:12:29 We went through a schooling system that taught us how to get an office job.
    1:12:29 Okay.
    1:12:30 Right?
    1:12:36 We went through a schooling system to prepare us for a world that doesn’t really exist anymore, which is the industrial revolution world.
    1:12:41 And you have to go through a process of figuring out how it really works.
    1:12:57 So what I see is most often the people who do really well financially who are young, they dropped out of school, they dropped out of university, they started learning how to do things by doing their own research, they start their own business or co-found a business, they take a very alternative path.
    1:12:59 None of that was taught to us at school.
    1:13:01 None of it’s taught to us in normal society.
    1:13:09 We have a school system that manufactures people for a set of skills that are not particularly valuable anymore and we also get them in debt for those skills.
    1:13:19 When people sidestep that and say, okay, I’m not going to get into university debt, I’m just going to go off and actually figure out how the world works, there’s actually loads of opportunities.
    1:13:20 Okay.
    1:13:22 So I guess we’ve sorted it then.
    1:13:28 All of our viewers need to do is go and buy Dan’s book, become an entrepreneur and become a millionaire.
    1:13:28 It’s that easy.
    1:13:30 Why weren’t you guys doing it to begin with?
    1:13:30 They’re idiots.
    1:13:31 The viewers are idiots.
    1:13:33 They should be just being more entrepreneurial.
    1:13:34 It’s as simple as that.
    1:13:35 More entrepreneurial.
    1:13:36 Start a business.
    1:13:38 Listen, I come from East London, okay?
    1:13:41 My friends can’t feed their kids, okay?
    1:13:45 And if it was as simple as going out and being an entrepreneur, I can bet you they would do it.
    1:13:47 I can bet you they would do it.
    1:13:54 Let us, I’m sick of multi-millionaires telling kids who can’t afford to turn the heating on, you just need to be more entrepreneurial.
    1:13:55 It’s sick, Dan.
    1:13:56 It’s sick.
    1:13:57 But this gives people mental illness.
    1:13:59 It gives people mental illness.
    1:14:01 Tell them the truth, okay?
    1:14:02 You’re older generation.
    1:14:06 We took the opportunities and now it’s almost impossible to get out of poverty.
    1:14:11 And don’t just stand up and wave, you know, your millions of pounds in front of them and say, if you are entrepreneurial like me, you could do it.
    1:14:12 You could have it.
    1:14:13 Because it’s sick because they can’t.
    1:14:15 They can’t feed their kids, Dan.
    1:14:16 They can’t turn the heating on.
    1:14:18 Don’t tell them to be more entrepreneurial.
    1:14:18 Don’t tell them to be more entrepreneurial.
    1:14:24 Fix the system that drives more and more and more of them into poverty every generation.
    1:14:32 I find it very strange that you think it would be easier to fix the entire global economic system than to start a business and fix your own personal economics.
    1:14:39 The thing that I know that gives people mental health issues is feeling that they have no agency in their life, that they can’t do anything.
    1:14:42 Your video where you talk about if you don’t have a rich dad, you’re screwed.
    1:14:44 There’s no such thing as meritocracy.
    1:14:45 You’re never going to be successful.
    1:14:50 To me, if I had have come across your content at 19, 20 years old, I would have been screwed.
    1:14:58 I’m so glad that I came across people who said, Daniel, you weren’t born into a rich family.
    1:14:59 You don’t have any bank of mom and dad.
    1:15:02 But it’s cheap and easier than ever to start a business.
    1:15:05 Start by working for someone who’s got a business.
    1:15:07 Then figure out what’s your opportunity.
    1:15:09 And there’s a way.
    1:15:10 There is a way.
    1:15:14 I’ve actually worked with a lot of teenagers from poor backgrounds.
    1:15:19 And one of the things we do is we tell them, if it’s possible for someone else, it is possible for you.
    1:15:25 I also worked in rural Uganda with a charity that did work with the poorest of the poor.
    1:15:34 One of the most incredible things I ever saw was a woman who started out literally picking food out of a trash pile.
    1:15:43 And she was basically, they shared with her how to start a chicken business, which then ended up as a pig business, which then ended up as a cattle business.
    1:15:49 And she ended up making, hiring 15, 16 people in her local community.
    1:15:55 The power of entrepreneurship is that starting with nothing, you can actually make improvements.
    1:15:59 I’m not saying everyone ends up as a millionaire and I’m not saying everyone ends up equal.
    1:16:02 But I’m saying you can make improvements in your life.
    1:16:10 And the thing that causes mental health issues is the feeling of having no agency or no control over your circumstances until the world changes the whole economic system.
    1:16:13 Listen, I never told people don’t work hard.
    1:16:14 I never once said that.
    1:16:15 Never once said that.
    1:16:18 You said if your dad wasn’t rich, you’ll never be rich.
    1:16:20 Which is true in 99.9% of cases.
    1:16:21 I’ve never told people don’t work hard.
    1:16:23 That’s actually not true in 99% of cases.
    1:16:25 I’ve never told people don’t work hard, okay?
    1:16:29 And listen, if you think that Ugandans should be more entrepreneurial, I’ve never been to Uganda.
    1:16:30 Maybe that’s the problem out there.
    1:16:31 Maybe that’s the problem in Nigeria.
    1:16:33 Maybe that’s the problem in India.
    1:16:35 Listen, I’ve never said don’t work hard, okay?
    1:16:39 When I brought my book out last year, the hardback, I was at some event and I come out.
    1:16:42 I was drinking London Bridge and I come out late.
    1:16:43 It was like 1 a.m.
    1:16:47 And some guy come up to me when I was unlocking my bike.
    1:16:51 Some guy from Newcastle, which is the northeast of England.
    1:16:52 It’s this quite poor town.
    1:16:54 There’s a lot of working class people there.
    1:17:01 And he said, I’ve been watching you on YouTube and I love your stuff.
    1:17:04 And this guy started crying.
    1:17:06 This guy started crying on the street, right, in front of me.
    1:17:09 He’s like, I work so hard, Gary.
    1:17:09 I work two jobs.
    1:17:13 My mum’s sick and I’m trying to help.
    1:17:16 I’m trying to support and I don’t understand why.
    1:17:18 And I’m sorry that I’m crying.
    1:17:23 But nobody ever told me that it wasn’t my fault before.
    1:17:24 That’s what he said to me, okay?
    1:17:30 And listen, listen, I believe 100% aspiration, ambition, entrepreneurial spirit.
    1:17:33 I would never see a kid that has that and say, turn it off, okay?
    1:17:38 But the flip side of your, if you just work hard enough, you can make it, is if you didn’t
    1:17:41 make it, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough and it’s your fault.
    1:17:45 And I would like you to sit and think very hard before you send that message to young men and
    1:17:46 young women in our society.
    1:17:53 Meritocracy doesn’t mean that everyone ends up with the same result.
    1:17:56 Here’s what I’m trying to achieve.
    1:17:57 I’m trying to achieve.
    1:18:01 The people who have ambition, who can go for it, are incentivized to do it and incentivized
    1:18:03 to build jobs and build companies.
    1:18:06 And what about the ones that just want to work hard and have a good family and take care of
    1:18:09 them and have a home and be able to turn the heating on and be able to have financial security?
    1:18:11 They need to work for a business, don’t they?
    1:18:11 They need to work for you?
    1:18:12 Yeah.
    1:18:13 Pardon?
    1:18:13 They need to work for you.
    1:18:16 They need to work for a business, some business, right?
    1:18:18 If someone doesn’t create that business, then where do they work for?
    1:18:24 We now have, by the way, we now have 11% of working age people are now declared too sick
    1:18:25 to work, right?
    1:18:27 We have a huge problem in the UK.
    1:18:32 We also have 25% of people who are working age don’t work.
    1:18:35 It’s one in seven men don’t work at all.
    1:18:36 Do you think they’re lazy, Dan?
    1:18:38 I think the system is collapsing.
    1:18:39 Do you think the system has changed?
    1:18:41 Average British American is not working as lazy.
    1:18:47 What I think is happening is that the technology companies are totally transforming and disrupting
    1:18:47 everything.
    1:18:52 And what happened is around the post-war era, we had good jobs.
    1:18:55 We had, you could work in a local thing.
    1:18:58 What’s happening now is that jobs are going to the Philippines.
    1:19:01 They’re going to, technology does three things.
    1:19:05 It makes jobs more simple, which means them replaceable.
    1:19:08 It makes jobs global, where you can move them to anywhere else.
    1:19:13 And then ultimately, it automates the job altogether and gets rid of it through code and software.
    1:19:18 And what’s really going on in the last, especially five years since the pandemic, is technology
    1:19:24 has decimated the existing systems that we all relied upon when we grew up.
    1:19:30 And when I say the education system isn’t really working, it’s still pretending that there are
    1:19:32 office jobs available for people when they graduate.
    1:19:38 And it’s still pretending that there’s like 1950s scenarios available when actually my kids
    1:19:40 are going to be disrupted by AI.
    1:19:42 Everyone’s kids are going to be disrupted by AI.
    1:19:47 You know, these sorts of things are the things that really we also need to be talking about.
    1:19:52 To all the founders and small business owners listening, I think you need to hear this.
    1:19:54 It’s an update from my sponsor, Fiverr.
    1:19:57 They’ve just launched something called Fiverr Go.
    1:20:00 And in short, it’s a huge game changer for you and your team.
    1:20:06 It’s a tool that’s been created to help freelancers train and control a personalized AI tool
    1:20:12 specific to them and in their style, which means that Fiverr freelancers and their clients can
    1:20:18 now generate unique work almost instantly, purely by combining their own unique style of freelance
    1:20:20 talent with personalized AI technology.
    1:20:24 The big unlock for me here is time and getting more of it back.
    1:20:29 What might have taken me a few days or a week can now be done in seconds with Fiverr Go.
    1:20:31 You get what you want and you get it straight away.
    1:20:35 And if you need tweaks, the original talent is on hand for fine tuning.
    1:20:40 Fiverr Go is already available across 60 categories and that number is growing rapidly.
    1:20:45 If it’s something you’d like to tap into, head to fiverr.com slash diary now and explore Fiverr Go.
    1:20:48 Use code diary for 10% off your first order.
    1:20:52 This is the moment where AI superpower meets human talent.
    1:20:56 I want to take this back to a point you were talking about earlier, which is about personal
    1:21:01 agency, because I would like you, Daniel, to give the counter to your own argument, because
    1:21:05 I want to make sure when we’re talking about solutions to this problem, start a business,
    1:21:06 be entrepreneurial.
    1:21:14 You can also understand how that might, that works for people with our brains and our mindset
    1:21:18 and whatever we had that made us do that, our risk appetite, our trauma, whatever it might
    1:21:18 be.
    1:21:20 But not everybody is wired in such a way.
    1:21:23 So that’s not necessarily the best solution for everyone.
    1:21:27 And also we sit here with a bit of hindsight bias where we were lucky and it worked out
    1:21:28 for us.
    1:21:31 When you look at the stats around businesses succeeding, what you know, the stats, it’s
    1:21:33 like 90% of businesses fail.
    1:21:34 So most of them are failing.
    1:21:39 The ones that emerge from that, people like me, then we have a bias where we go, well, it
    1:21:40 worked for us and you can do it too.
    1:21:41 I don’t come from money.
    1:21:42 So I have the same bias.
    1:21:47 Well, I’ve built from scratch several times because I got disrupted several times.
    1:21:49 So I’ve had to start with nothing several times and build.
    1:21:51 But I’m a certain type of person, right?
    1:21:54 And when we say start from nothing, you actually started with a wealth of information.
    1:21:57 And the whole game in building a business is intellectual capital.
    1:22:00 Intellectual capital, having been through it before, being around that mentor that gave
    1:22:01 you the information.
    1:22:03 And also having access to a great market.
    1:22:05 Like having access to a free market is a big thing.
    1:22:08 I was born in Australia and I moved to London at the peak of London’s economic freedom.
    1:22:12 So this can’t be broadly applicable advice, can it?
    1:22:16 Well, I think personal agency is broadly applicable.
    1:22:16 Yes, I agree.
    1:22:19 I got this friend of mine who woke up one day.
    1:22:24 He went out clubbing, went out to a nightclub, felt sick, collapsed, woke up and they’d chopped
    1:22:25 off all four limbs, right?
    1:22:28 So he had a quadruple amputee.
    1:22:30 He was 19 years old.
    1:22:34 So he wakes up in bed and he basically says, I’m a quadruple amputee.
    1:22:37 I was fine 48 hours ago and now I’m a quadruple amputee.
    1:22:43 And he decides to make this decision in the hospital room that this is going to be the best thing
    1:22:43 that ever happened to him.
    1:22:45 And he makes that decision.
    1:22:49 Even that is a consequence of him and his wiring.
    1:22:51 What I’m trying to understand is…
    1:22:54 But he ended up starting a clinic and it’s a multi-million dollar clinic.
    1:22:54 Yeah.
    1:22:56 I mean, it’s incredible what people can do.
    1:22:57 And he’s the exception, not the rule.
    1:22:58 It’s incredible what people…
    1:23:02 But you only need a few people to succeed and the whole economy starts to improve.
    1:23:03 We actually…
    1:23:09 In this UK, we only at the peak of our entrepreneurial, like, blitzing it, where we’re doing so well,
    1:23:11 there was only 40,000 scale-ups.
    1:23:18 40,000 companies were creating jobs growth, higher wages, investment into the company, into
    1:23:19 the country.
    1:23:25 You know, it’s only 1% of people who pay 30% of the taxes and 10% of people who pay 60%
    1:23:25 of the taxes.
    1:23:30 So you only need one in 100 to actually create something that’s valuable and you get an extra
    1:23:31 30% of taxes.
    1:23:34 But so that, again, is we need this one…
    1:23:37 That’s advice for the people that end up getting into that 1%.
    1:23:37 Yeah.
    1:23:39 But who does everyone else work for?
    1:23:41 Like, all jobs growth comes from entrepreneurs.
    1:23:43 So what are you saying to those, the 99% there?
    1:23:44 Are you saying, go get a job?
    1:23:48 Well, you need wealth creators in the economy who are building something.
    1:23:52 Like, you take Gymshark.
    1:23:56 People who work at Gymshark, they’re super glad that this guy started the company.
    1:23:58 They’re really happy that there’s a company.
    1:24:00 Otherwise, where would they go?
    1:24:01 What would they work?
    1:24:01 Where would they work?
    1:24:07 So if Ben decides that he doesn’t want to start that company in the UK, or if he gets
    1:24:12 to 10 million and stops, then all of those additional jobs are toast.
    1:24:13 They’re all gone.
    1:24:15 So you’re encouraging the entrepreneurial…
    1:24:17 You’re not encouraging everyone to become an entrepreneur.
    1:24:21 You’re saying those that have that bias or that…
    1:24:25 I’m saying we need a system that encourages the people who can to do.
    1:24:27 And what about everybody else?
    1:24:32 Well, the flow-on effect is that that creates jobs, that creates wealth in the economy,
    1:24:34 and free markets lift everybody up.
    1:24:38 Free markets just means that everyone’s trading with everyone.
    1:24:40 You know, it starts to…
    1:24:41 Like, the whole thing…
    1:24:43 I mean, it’s just a tale as old as time.
    1:24:47 As soon as economies are free and there are entrepreneurs starting things and growing things,
    1:24:48 everyone’s life improves.
    1:24:49 Everyone’s life gets better.
    1:24:54 And what part of that do you disagree with, Gary?
    1:24:57 I think it doesn’t work.
    1:24:58 It doesn’t work.
    1:24:59 The only period…
    1:25:01 Listen, the last 70 years are not normal, Stephen.
    1:25:02 The last 70 years are not normal.
    1:25:06 The last 70 years in Europe and the US, where ordinary people like my dad could work for
    1:25:10 the post office on less than average wage and buy a house and support a family, it’s not normal.
    1:25:13 It’s not normal in the world, and it’s not normal in history.
    1:25:15 Most countries in the world are not like that.
    1:25:21 Most countries have a small, super-rich elite and a very large group of extremely poor people.
    1:25:25 That’s most of the country, and it’s most of history in this country, and it’s most of history in the US.
    1:25:28 You know, we talk about Charles Dickens.
    1:25:29 I read Hard Times.
    1:25:35 I read Hard Times, and this is written in the 19th century, when Britain was like the industrial superpower of the whole world.
    1:25:39 And at the time, the government was talking about, should we tax these industrialists?
    1:25:42 And the industrialists were saying, if you tax us, we’ll throw our factories into the sea.
    1:25:51 And it just reminds me, you know, the only time we’ve ever really been able to provide decent living conditions for ordinary working people
    1:25:59 was the period after the war where we massively redistributed wealth, and now we’re losing that holding of wealth of the middle class.
    1:26:03 Can you acknowledge, though, that that was a completely different time as it relates to being able to…
    1:26:05 It was a different time, but, you know, I could, you know…
    1:26:06 Because of technology.
    1:26:10 Nigeria, today, Brazil, today, the UK, 300 years ago, France, 200 years ago.
    1:26:17 There is only one specific time that we have ever successfully provided broad living standards for ordinary people,
    1:26:24 and it was a period of time where we protected a broadly equal wealth distribution and taxed the rich at very high rates.
    1:26:27 And you can acknowledge that that’s extremely hard to do because the nature of the economy…
    1:26:28 100%.
    1:26:28 100%.
    1:26:29 Is now different.
    1:26:29 100%.
    1:26:33 That’s the reason why all of our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our great-great-grandparents live in poverty.
    1:26:35 And that’s why I know I’m probably going to lose.
    1:26:37 And that’s why I bet on the economy getting worse.
    1:26:39 And that’s why I know poverty is going to increase.
    1:26:44 Because it was extremely difficult to get that unusually fair share for ordinary working people.
    1:26:46 And I know we’re losing the argument.
    1:26:47 And I know that Farage will win.
    1:26:48 And I know that Trump will win.
    1:26:50 And I know that things will get worse.
    1:26:52 I don’t think I’m going to win.
    1:26:57 So if you know you’re promoting a strategy that is not going to work,
    1:27:00 and it sounds like you think is incredibly almost impossible,
    1:27:04 then why would you not be more practical in your solution?
    1:27:07 Stephen, if it was impossible, I wouldn’t be here.
    1:27:09 So you think it’s possible?
    1:27:10 Of course it’s possible.
    1:27:10 Of course it’s possible.
    1:27:12 But you believe you’re not going to win?
    1:27:13 I’m a betting man, Steve.
    1:27:14 I’m a betting man.
    1:27:15 I put my bets on.
    1:27:16 You know, I am…
    1:27:18 You think you’re betting on class?
    1:27:20 Okay, so my YouTube channel is growing really, really quickly.
    1:27:22 And, you know, I’m obviously starting a bit of a movement.
    1:27:23 And there’s a lot of political support.
    1:27:24 And if it keeps growing, we’ll get more political support.
    1:27:26 At the end of the day,
    1:27:29 I’m trying to tax the richest and most powerful people in the world.
    1:27:32 And most of these people will come out and attack me.
    1:27:32 And they’ll try and stop me.
    1:27:35 And I do not have billions of pounds,
    1:27:37 hundreds of millions of pounds to use to support my YouTube channel.
    1:27:41 I’m counting on ordinary people like your viewers to support and share my message.
    1:27:44 Now, listen, for most of history, that has not worked.
    1:27:47 And for most of history, ordinary families live in poverty.
    1:27:51 I don’t think it’s impossible that we ordinary people can win and get a fair share.
    1:27:53 But I think it’s worth fighting for, Steve.
    1:27:54 So I fight for it anyway.
    1:28:00 He’s right that for most of history, you’ve had the super elite and then everyone else is down here.
    1:28:05 And it’s massive wealth inequality is almost the normal for the last 5,000 years.
    1:28:11 And almost everywhere, you’ve got kings, queens, dukes, and peasants and serfs down there.
    1:28:15 There have been economic situations that have been different.
    1:28:17 Dubai is a really strange situation.
    1:28:18 It’s a desert.
    1:28:20 It’s inhospitable to live in.
    1:28:24 It’s the last place in the world most people would think or choose that they would want to be.
    1:28:28 And yet it’s one of the most economically rich places in the world right now.
    1:28:30 They actually didn’t start with oil wealth.
    1:28:31 They were able to borrow money to build Dubai.
    1:28:37 But the low tax environment has now attracted some of the world’s most talented people to go and build technology companies there.
    1:28:39 And if you, I don’t know, have you been there recently?
    1:28:40 I’ve been to Dubai.
    1:28:41 Yeah, it’s a few years going up.
    1:28:42 I’ve been there.
    1:28:54 So at the moment, it is the most thriving entrepreneurial community on earth outside of the U.S., but probably even rivaling the U.S., that there are investors, there’s entrepreneurs, and the wealth is going through the roof.
    1:28:57 I’ve got two friends who are personal trainers, fitness trainers.
    1:29:05 One fitness trainer has decided to stop working more hours because he’s hit 50 grand a year and he now gets taxed at 40%.
    1:29:09 So he’s basically decided he’s going to earn right up to 50,000 and then stop working.
    1:29:18 And then the other fitness trainer went to Dubai, launched an online fitness community, and has just bought a $350,000 Ferrari.
    1:29:25 And one entrepreneur is super pumped and super excited about building a business because he’s not overtaxed.
    1:29:29 The other entrepreneur has literally said, I’m not willing to do this because of how much I have to pay tax.
    1:29:30 I just want to be clear.
    1:29:32 I’ve always campaigned for lower taxes on working people.
    1:29:33 Always, always.
    1:29:35 But here’s the thing, right?
    1:29:38 If I was to ask you, you’ve just become one of the best-selling authors in the country.
    1:29:47 If your publisher came to you and said, because you’re in the top 1% of our authors, we’re going to halve your royalties if you sign a second book with us.
    1:29:49 You wouldn’t sign a second book with them.
    1:29:53 You would go to another publisher who says, we’ll pay you more royalties because you’re so successful.
    1:29:54 I would have written this book for free then.
    1:29:56 I would have written this book for free.
    1:30:00 In fact, the first time I got offered a deal, I said, don’t pay me in advance.
    1:30:01 Then give your royalties away.
    1:30:02 Why?
    1:30:04 Well, because if you – well, what I’m saying –
    1:30:04 Oh, I’m fine.
    1:30:05 I’ll give my royalties away.
    1:30:06 No, but I’m saying –
    1:30:07 I’ll shut my YouTube channel down.
    1:30:08 I’ll stop working.
    1:30:16 I’m saying we respond to incentives that if your publisher – if Penguin came to you and said, book number two, you get half royalties because you’re in the top 1%.
    1:30:19 Would you sign with Penguin or would you go with someone else?
    1:30:22 Dan, I walked away from a £2 million job a year to run a YouTube channel.
    1:30:24 Do you think I’d do the work that I’d do for money?
    1:30:26 I’m not talking about that you do it for money.
    1:30:37 I’m just saying if you had the option to sign between two publishing contracts, right, and all things being equal, one’s going to penalise you for being in the top 1% and the other one’s going to reward you for being in the top 1%.
    1:30:42 Would you – of course you would go with the normal – like all things being equal, you want to write a second book anyway.
    1:30:44 It’s the same for entrepreneurs.
    1:30:51 When entrepreneurs start companies, we can either start them in high-tax economies or, with a stroke of a pen, start them in low-tax economies.
    1:31:02 I think the rich world is going to have to start rethinking the fact that it allows people to – very, very wealthy people – to own enormous amounts of their physical wealth, go live overseas and not pay tax.
    1:31:04 I think that has to be revisited, for sure.
    1:31:12 Because what you’re saying is I want the benefit of being able to sell to the US market and the UK market, but I don’t want the obligation of having to pay US and UK taxes.
    1:31:15 And you are correct that at the moment the US and UK governments allow that.
    1:31:16 And I think that’s phenomenal.
    1:31:17 You wish taxes you on worldwide income?
    1:31:19 Well, only a small amount, right?
    1:31:24 So I think that, realistically, I think that the US and UK governments have to stop that.
    1:31:31 But the way I see it, the US and UK governments and increasingly a lot of global governments are kind of being brought up by the elites.
    1:31:34 And, you know, we have Elon Musk who’s basically the president, right?
    1:31:36 And we had Rishi Sunak, whose father was one of the richest men in the world.
    1:31:42 Like, if you’re Rishi Sunak, who, for our American viewers, was our prime minister until very recently, his father is one of the richest men in the world.
    1:31:50 He’s got 700 million pounds personal wealth, he’s going to be making 30, 40 million pounds passive income, and you’re getting paid 130 grand in to be prime minister.
    1:31:55 When you’re making policy, do you think, maybe I’ll ask my father and lawyer once?
    1:32:03 You know, the fact is, what you’re seeing here is, if you allow the rich, I’m never ever against entrepreneurship, I’m not against people getting rich.
    1:32:15 If you allow the rich to get richer and richer and richer, they squeeze the middle class and they squeeze the poor class out of things like housing, of things like space in cities, of things like energy, and of things like owning a sharing government and owning a share in the media.
    1:32:21 Do you acknowledge that countries that adopt an anti-rich, big government approach tend to collapse?
    1:32:24 What, like this country in the 60s?
    1:32:26 Well, we needed a US bailout.
    1:32:28 We needed an IMF bailout in 1976.
    1:32:30 But the US did the same thing.
    1:32:31 The US had even higher taxes than us.
    1:32:39 We basically, like, you take all the countries where the government becomes big, they meddle with your life, they’re involved in every decision, right?
    1:32:40 Half the economy.
    1:32:41 I mean, here’s one other thing.
    1:32:43 This period is known as the golden age of capitalism.
    1:32:46 It’s the period of time when ordinary…
    1:32:46 Which period?
    1:32:47 This period now?
    1:32:48 The 50 years after the Second World War.
    1:32:51 Oh, it’s the golden age of middle class, to be middle class.
    1:32:53 You don’t care about the middle class?
    1:32:54 No, of course I do.
    1:33:05 But the 70 years after the World War II, where the government sold off all of its houses to middle class people, so we got housing wealth, but you can only do that trick once, right?
    1:33:09 So you can only sell off all the houses to everyone once, which is why all the baby boomers own them.
    1:33:13 Well, living standards collapsed after the houses were sold.
    1:33:15 There was a long period where the houses weren’t sold.
    1:33:16 Between the Second World War and the 80s, the houses weren’t being sold.
    1:33:18 When do you pinpoint living standards collapsing?
    1:33:21 Well, I think there’s a few, obviously, big moments.
    1:33:23 I think 2008 is a big moment.
    1:33:24 I think COVID is a big moment.
    1:33:27 I think it’s the 80s where you start to see the wealth distribution go.
    1:33:29 What matters is actually the distribution itself.
    1:33:34 So once you change the tax system, it takes a bit of time for the wealth distribution to change.
    1:33:37 But once you start – for me, the big thing is the loss of wealth holding.
    1:33:40 I want ordinary families to be able to hold wealth.
    1:33:42 And once you lose that, you lose the middle class.
    1:33:52 And you will not find me a single country in the world now or the history of the world that has provided good broad living standards without allowing ordinary families to own assets.
    1:33:53 Yeah, I agree.
    1:33:57 And take Singapore, for example, where everyone’s encouraged to own properties.
    1:33:58 They’ve got an amazing system in Singapore.
    1:34:02 Which is a massive government, by the way, enormous government.
    1:34:03 It’s 25% of GDP.
    1:34:05 But they own the houses.
    1:34:06 They have a wealth fund.
    1:34:07 They own all the houses.
    1:34:08 They don’t own all the houses.
    1:34:11 They have a sovereign wealth fund that circulates houses through.
    1:34:12 They own the houses.
    1:34:13 They’ve solved property.
    1:34:14 Singapore owns the house.
    1:34:17 The Singapore government owns an enormous share of the housing stuff.
    1:34:17 The UK –
    1:34:18 So do you think we should own the housing stuff?
    1:34:20 It’s actually owned by pension funds.
    1:34:26 People – they force – not force their citizens, but they direct their citizens into home ownership.
    1:34:28 So you don’t think the Singaporean government owns a large share of the housing stuff?
    1:34:31 I just know that the Singaporean government is only 25% of the economy.
    1:34:33 But a big share of the housing stuff.
    1:34:34 So 75% of the economy is capitalist.
    1:34:39 I would like to say, by the way, just to be really clear, I’ve never, ever once advocated for big government.
    1:34:40 Never a single time.
    1:34:42 But more taxes is a bigger government.
    1:34:46 I want higher taxes on the wealth orders so we can tax wealth creators and working people less.
    1:34:48 I don’t want a bigger government.
    1:34:50 I want our viewers to have more money.
    1:34:51 I want our viewers to have more money.
    1:34:58 And also, I want to tax those super rich so that they stop squeezing ordinary families out of asset ownership.
    1:34:58 It just – yeah.
    1:35:01 It seems like an obvious solution.
    1:35:02 It seems like –
    1:35:03 Yeah, it’s a good solution, yeah.
    1:35:07 It seems like, like, hey, who’s got the money?
    1:35:07 Rich people.
    1:35:08 Not the money.
    1:35:08 The assets.
    1:35:09 The assets.
    1:35:09 Who’s got the assets?
    1:35:10 Rich people.
    1:35:12 Then let’s just take them off them and –
    1:35:12 No, no, no, no.
    1:35:14 I don’t want to redistribute.
    1:35:20 I am the only person on this table anti-redistribution because the redistribution is happening in front of our eyes.
    1:35:21 The middle class is losing its assets.
    1:35:23 Government is losing its assets.
    1:35:25 Those assets are being accumulated by the rich.
    1:35:27 I want to stop the redistribution.
    1:35:27 Please.
    1:35:28 Please.
    1:35:32 I am the most anti-redistribution person in this game.
    1:35:37 We need to stop the redistribution of wealth away from ordinary British and American families.
    1:35:47 So the difference is, for me, it’s very simple, which is I really, truly believe that free markets and low governments and less taxes creates more wealth in the middle.
    1:35:49 Dan, freedom for the heron is death for the fishes.
    1:35:57 If we have complete freedom, multimillionaires like you and me will get richer and richer and richer every year and we will squeeze out and we will eat the middle class.
    1:36:04 Can I ask you, though, if wealth inequality could be solved but everyone does worse, is that a good solution?
    1:36:04 Obviously not.
    1:36:08 The whole reason I do this is because I don’t want ordinary people to collapse into poverty.
    1:36:10 This is about people being able to feed their kids.
    1:36:11 So wealth inequality is not the problem.
    1:36:13 It’s collapsing living standards.
    1:36:14 That’s quite contorted.
    1:36:17 Yeah, I mean, yes, it’s quite contorted logic.
    1:36:20 The problem is collapsing living standards.
    1:36:26 I am somebody who has made millions of pounds by understanding the simple fact that living standards are falling because of growing wealth inequality.
    1:36:30 So living standards, if they were to increase, but they were super rich.
    1:36:31 Yeah.
    1:36:32 Is that a problem?
    1:36:38 I think you do need to be worried about extremely wealthy elites.
    1:36:47 Yeah, I think what’s interesting, you look at the founding of the United States, these guys, the founding of the United States conceptually is really based on these ideas of distribution of power.
    1:36:51 That’s why you have the president and the House and the Senate and you have this independent judiciary.
    1:37:01 They’re like, we cannot allow power to become concentrated because they came from a Europe which had extremely concentrated power and extremely wealthy elites and extremely broad poverty.
    1:37:09 So I think that allowing a small group of society to increasingly monopolize power and wealth over time is obviously something we should be worried about.
    1:37:18 But primarily, the reason I worry about wealth inequality is because I see and I bet on and I make money on the fact that it causes living standards to fall.
    1:37:25 By the way, I actually really agree with you and the founding fathers of the US, they did, especially around the 1900s, they did want to break up monopolies.
    1:37:32 And breaking up monopolies was one of the big things that they did trust busting, where they broke up standard oil and all of those sorts of things.
    1:37:46 One thing I do really see happening at the moment is that we have a stupid, outdated definition of monopolies, where we use monopolies the same way they used it when they had the oil companies that owned all the oil.
    1:37:50 In the technology world, a monopoly is formed through an ecosystem.
    1:38:03 So Amazon, for example, owning AWS and Audible and this and this and this and Whole Foods, it creates a fortress that’s almost impossible to compete with.
    1:38:09 And Google owning YouTube and Gmail and all of this, they create these fortresses through ecosystems.
    1:38:17 One of the things that I do think we need to look at is compulsory breakup of big tech once you hit a certain time, because it’s very difficult.
    1:38:21 Because, you know, billionaires have two big fears, right?
    1:38:24 Keep them up at night, having nightmares.
    1:38:25 Number two is high taxes.
    1:38:29 Number one is that startup entrepreneur who disrupts their business.
    1:38:30 And they want to kill that early.
    1:38:34 You know, Steve Jobs at 24 years old disrupted IBM.
    1:38:37 And Jeff Bezos disrupted Walmart.
    1:38:41 So they are terrified of entrepreneurs in the middle.
    1:38:45 And they want to create government regulations to say, hey, you know what?
    1:38:47 Let’s cap entrepreneurs at 10 million.
    1:38:48 You can get to 10 million.
    1:38:49 It’s okay for us.
    1:38:50 We’re way past that point.
    1:38:53 But Gary’s our guy because he’s going to cap everyone at 10 million.
    1:38:55 I never said cap anyone at 10 million, by the way.
    1:38:56 Because what do you think will happen?
    1:38:57 People stop.
    1:38:59 As soon as you have wealth taxes, people just give up.
    1:39:00 They just don’t want to do it.
    1:39:04 So you’d say to me, our viewers, if they said, if they knew they could build a 20, 30 million pound company.
    1:39:04 It sounds ridiculous.
    1:39:06 But they knew they would have to pay 20.
    1:39:10 If you’re worth 30 million, 1% above, it’s 200 grand a year.
    1:39:12 So if I said, if you can have a 30 million pound company.
    1:39:13 Do traders stop.
    1:39:14 Just bear in mind, right?
    1:39:16 You make 5% a year on your wealth, right?
    1:39:20 So if you’ve got a 300 million pound company, you’re going to be making 15 million pound a year.
    1:39:24 And I’m turning to you and I’m going to say, you know, you’ve got to pay 200 grand a year on your 50 million pound revenue.
    1:39:25 And they’re going to say, you know what?
    1:39:26 I’m not going to start a business.
    1:39:28 I don’t want to be worth 30 million quid.
    1:39:30 This is a couple, you know, this is ridiculous.
    1:39:34 You know, nobody is going to say, oh my God, I don’t want to be a multi, multi millionaire.
    1:39:37 Because in 20 years time, I’ll have to pay 1% taxes.
    1:39:43 But most traders, most traders are earning what most people earn in a lifetime, traders can earn in a year.
    1:39:45 Most traders don’t stop.
    1:39:47 No, talk about that a lot in that book, right?
    1:39:49 So most traders just keep going.
    1:39:52 Entrepreneurs are the same, that they’re motivated to keep going.
    1:39:59 But when you have wealth advisors and investors saying, do not build a company in the UK because they’re anti-wealth.
    1:40:02 I’m not trying to make the UK anti-wealth.
    1:40:04 I’m not trying to make the UK anti-wealth.
    1:40:16 I think the UK and the US need to be looking at a situation where you cannot allow people who own enormous businesses that sell to your country to live in Dubai, to live in the Cayman Islands and not pay tax.
    1:40:18 And I don’t think that’s a controversial position.
    1:40:26 I’ve got a question for both of you, which is if you are a young person and you’re 18 years old now and that you’re listening to this, but your objective really is an individualistic one.
    1:40:31 You want to get rich and you have a great future for you and your family, like all of us have been able to do.
    1:40:35 What would your advice be to them, Gary, at this moment in time?
    1:40:37 This is such a hard question.
    1:40:40 I know Dan’s angry at me for what I put in my video, how to get rich.
    1:40:43 Somebody came around to my house and asked me this other day.
    1:40:47 Obviously, I get asked it a lot because, stupidly, I’m very public about the fact that I’m rich.
    1:40:50 What I did is not replicable.
    1:40:51 What I did is not replicable.
    1:40:52 It’s not.
    1:40:53 I’m sorry.
    1:40:54 I’m sorry, but it’s not.
    1:40:55 People always say, why don’t you teach me to trade?
    1:40:57 Like, it’s hard.
    1:40:58 It’s hard trading and it’s dangerous.
    1:41:02 And I think a lot of young men are getting sort of sold into trading and becoming gambling addicts.
    1:41:05 You know, work hard.
    1:41:08 And I wouldn’t even say don’t become an entrepreneur.
    1:41:10 I’ve never, ever said these things.
    1:41:10 Work hard.
    1:41:14 You know, if you think that you have an opportunity in tech entrepreneurship, go for it.
    1:41:15 Understand it’s risky.
    1:41:21 I think that sometimes this message, just become an entrepreneur and you’ll make it, is a bit dangerous because I think most people who try to become entrepreneurs fail.
    1:41:23 And I think it’s super, super dangerous.
    1:41:26 The reality is, and you know, maybe Dan won’t like this.
    1:41:27 Maybe you won’t like this.
    1:41:34 I think it is very, very difficult for a young man or a young woman from a poor family to become rich.
    1:41:38 And I think it’s increasingly hard even to just get those basics of financial security.
    1:41:41 So, listen, obviously, reduce your spending if you can.
    1:41:43 Don’t buy into this like Balenciaga bullshit.
    1:41:44 Stay away from that.
    1:41:49 But work hard, study hard, try to get a good job.
    1:41:52 But also understand we are shrinking the seats on the lifeboat.
    1:41:53 That’s what we’re doing.
    1:41:56 We used to allow 50% to be secure.
    1:41:57 Then it’s 40%.
    1:41:58 Then it’s 30%.
    1:41:58 Then it’s 20%.
    1:42:00 You know, you’ve got family in Nigeria.
    1:42:05 If a young person from like Shantytown in Nigeria came to you and said, Stephen, what can I do to get rich?
    1:42:10 You would have to say to them realistically, listen, you are in a difficult situation here.
    1:42:12 You need to work really, really hard.
    1:42:17 But if you are able to make enough money to support a family, be proud of yourself.
    1:42:20 What I would actually say to them, so yeah, I have got family in Nigeria.
    1:42:23 For people that don’t know, I’m by blood half Nigerian.
    1:42:27 I would say to them that knowledge is really your life raft.
    1:42:33 So obviously, there’s a big tech boom happening in Nigeria, which is liberating a lot of people from that situation.
    1:42:39 So I would try and tell them to get on the life raft that is like knowledge of this new revolution.
    1:42:41 So from Nigeria, you can learn to code.
    1:42:48 And then the great thing now is that we literally have, actually, this is quite interesting, we’re building a tech company in San Francisco called Flightcast.
    1:42:48 It’s live.
    1:42:50 Everyone can go look at it, flightcast.com.
    1:42:52 And the lead developer, oh, and Guess Radar.
    1:42:55 The lead developer of Guess Radar is a Nigerian guy.
    1:43:01 But how many of those jobs in the Nigerian tech sector are going to kids that grew up in the shanty towns?
    1:43:02 I have no idea.
    1:43:07 Because I worked in, people ask me, tell me how to do what you did, all right?
    1:43:08 I worked in Canary Wharf.
    1:43:09 It’s in East London.
    1:43:11 I could see the building from my house growing up.
    1:43:17 There was not a single other kid from East London the whole time I was there.
    1:43:23 Do you know, to Dan’s point about this remote work revolution where like work now has, you can work from anywhere.
    1:43:31 And in our company, Third Web, San Francisco, some of the staff that we now have are in the Philippines because they just have like great creatives there.
    1:43:32 It’s obviously more cost effective.
    1:43:39 Isn’t this a huge part of what’s going on in our economy, this digitalization and this remotification of work?
    1:43:41 It is, it is, it is.
    1:43:47 But I think for many people, you know, I’m sure you pay your work in the Philippines very, very well.
    1:43:55 Most of these people, they used to have a half decent wage on office.
    1:43:58 And now they’re locked in their bedrooms, barely paying the bills.
    1:43:59 Yeah.
    1:44:00 In the Philippines?
    1:44:01 Not in the Philippines.
    1:44:03 The Philippine guys are balling out of control.
    1:44:05 No, I’m saying the Philippines is booming at the moment.
    1:44:09 So you think the average person in the Philippines is living a luxurious life?
    1:44:11 Have you, if you, what’s happening at the moment…
    1:44:14 Do you think the average person in the Philippines is living a luxurious life?
    1:44:21 There is this thing called remote foreign workers and this is a huge boom and the economic boom…
    1:44:22 So the kids should move to the Philippines then?
    1:44:23 It’s great.
    1:44:24 You’re getting a great quality of life in the Philippines.
    1:44:25 You know what?
    1:44:28 When I look through the stums of Manila, they should just get jobs.
    1:44:29 I don’t know why they’re not getting their laptops out.
    1:44:31 The…
    1:44:32 The poverty in the Philippines is horrific.
    1:44:34 Listen, Philippines is a beautiful country.
    1:44:35 An amazing country.
    1:44:36 I love the Philippines.
    1:44:37 I’ve been a number of times.
    1:44:38 But money’s flowing in there at a rate that’s never been…
    1:44:41 But what is the life like for your average Filipino?
    1:44:45 Well, would you agree, though, that their economy is just getting flooded with money at the moment?
    1:44:46 Like, money’s flowing in there.
    1:44:49 Money is flowing in, but it is not giving a good quality of life for your average Filipino.
    1:44:51 That’s not true.
    1:44:52 Remote foreign workers…
    1:44:53 Well, we can…
    1:44:54 Remote foreign workers…
    1:44:57 You can ask all Filipino viewers to tell us what life’s like for the average.
    1:44:58 Remote foreign workers can actually support their…
    1:44:59 Often support their entire family.
    1:45:00 We can have a look at it.
    1:45:01 I don’t know what the average wage is in the Philippines.
    1:45:02 Just to bring it back to this point, though.
    1:45:04 So I wanted to know from Gary.
    1:45:06 He said, work hard.
    1:45:08 If you’re a young guy listening to this now…
    1:45:10 I was reading this really interesting article yesterday from the…
    1:45:13 I think it was from a major newspaper talking about the Lost Boys.
    1:45:19 And it goes to show that I think it’s one in seven young men that is at a working age now are out of work.
    1:45:22 So there’s lots of talk around young men in particular and how they’re struggling.
    1:45:23 You’d say work hard, Gary.
    1:45:24 You’d say…
    1:45:24 Work hard.
    1:45:25 No Balenciaga.
    1:45:30 The big thing is recognize the situation that you’re in.
    1:45:36 And I would encourage them to support my work and follow my channel because the lifeboats are shrinking.
    1:45:40 And trust me, we’re going to get our kids in the lifeboats.
    1:45:41 We all know that, all right?
    1:45:49 And if those lifeboats are shrinking, if you don’t stop the ship from going down, it is not you and you and me who are going to go down.
    1:45:49 We’ll be fine.
    1:45:53 If you don’t fight the political fight, I guarantee you, people like Daniel will.
    1:45:56 So you’re saying that they should also get involved in the political fight?
    1:45:57 You have to.
    1:45:57 You have to.
    1:45:59 That’s what our grandparents did.
    1:46:02 And if they want to become millionaires like you and me and Dan…
    1:46:05 Well, it sounds like Dan’s got better advice for that than I do.
    1:46:06 Okay, well, I’m going to ask Dan as well.
    1:46:07 But I’m just wondering…
    1:46:17 I’m wondering how your advice ties into sort of like the young person who’s trying to liberate themselves from where you came from or where I came from.
    1:46:18 You know what?
    1:46:23 I don’t think I’m the guy to say that, man, because, you know, I had this unusual gift from a young age.
    1:46:26 I was very, very, very good at maths and I just followed that.
    1:46:34 And, you know, my sister, she’s a poet and she wrote a really successful grime and musical about Dizzy Rascal’s first album, all right?
    1:46:37 She comes from obviously the same family as me, poor family.
    1:46:39 She works so hard.
    1:46:41 She works so, so hard.
    1:46:42 Two degrees.
    1:46:44 She can barely pay the rent, all right?
    1:46:49 So I don’t want to turn around to our young kids and say, well, I’ve got this talent, follow your talent.
    1:46:51 Because it doesn’t work, Stephen.
    1:46:51 True.
    1:46:52 It doesn’t work.
    1:46:52 Yeah.
    1:46:55 Well, my sister does great work.
    1:47:03 But financially, for young people, following your passion, following your talent, unless you come from a rich family, realistically, very, very rarely works.
    1:47:05 And I know it worked for the three of us at this table.
    1:47:09 But let’s not pretend that everyone experiences the same things that we experienced.
    1:47:11 What would you say to that, Dan?
    1:47:11 And what’s your answer?
    1:47:13 I think there’s two economies going on at the moment.
    1:47:17 There’s a dying economy, which is the Industrial Revolution economy.
    1:47:23 And that is all the office jobs and the factory jobs and all of that sort of stuff, which is very much being automated away and moved to globally.
    1:47:30 And at the same time, there’s this new bubbling up digital economy, which I’d call the entrepreneur economy or the digital economy.
    1:47:34 Both of these economies are kind of coexisting.
    1:47:35 One’s going like that.
    1:47:36 One’s going like that.
    1:47:43 And if you want to be economically successful, you need to stand next to the biggest piles of monies that you can.
    1:47:48 You know, unfortunately, being a poet doesn’t pay a lot of money.
    1:47:49 And we all know that.
    1:47:50 That’s not a surprise.
    1:47:57 If you came from a very rich family and you were a poet, you’d probably be one of the 60% who fell out of a rich family as well.
    1:48:03 If you want to be economically successful, you need to say, what is the thing that’s economically booming right now?
    1:48:07 Gary saw the finance industry at that particular time.
    1:48:09 But if we actually look at the finance industry now, it’s in decline.
    1:48:13 And trading is being replaced by AI robots.
    1:48:22 People who worked in your career are going to be replaced by IT systems that basically do similar jobs.
    1:48:24 It’s going to be, you know, these things happen.
    1:48:27 We’re going through a massive technological change.
    1:48:34 But at the same time, it’s never been easier to learn skills for free on YouTube.
    1:48:38 It’s never been easier to join communities where you can get mentoring and get support.
    1:48:42 There are communities of angel investors who do invest in startups.
    1:48:45 It’s never been cheaper or easier to start a company.
    1:48:51 There’s never been more software and technology to scale and grow, you know, in just in a short space of time.
    1:48:53 I would say do what Gary’s done.
    1:48:54 Gary publishes online.
    1:48:55 He’s built a personal brand.
    1:48:58 He’s attached it to a recurring revenue model.
    1:48:59 He’s got…
    1:49:01 I also worked for free for four years.
    1:49:03 I’m not sure how replicable that is.
    1:49:05 You know, so build a personal brand.
    1:49:09 Attach it to a business model that is where money is flowing.
    1:49:12 These are positive things you can do.
    1:49:14 We all have to play the cards we’re dealt.
    1:49:19 You can always find someone who’s done better with better cards or someone who’s been dealt better cards.
    1:49:21 And you can always find someone who’s been dealt worse of cards.
    1:49:23 No matter who you are on the planet, there’s someone better, there’s someone worse.
    1:49:25 You have to play the cards that you’re dealt.
    1:49:29 You cannot sit around waiting for the economic system of the world to be changed.
    1:49:31 You have to say, you know what?
    1:49:34 These are the cards I was born at this particular time.
    1:49:36 In these circumstances, these are my strengths.
    1:49:37 These are my weaknesses.
    1:49:39 I’m going to play the cards that I’ve dealt.
    1:49:46 Personal agency is what gets people to feel good about their life, to make progress.
    1:49:50 And as soon as you play the victim mindset, as soon as you say, oh, you know what?
    1:49:53 The answer to all my prayers is Gary’s going to change the system.
    1:49:55 You’re in serious trouble.
    1:49:57 Could I just say one thing back on that?
    1:50:04 If we become a society of individuals who think only individually and never consider broader societal problems,
    1:50:10 we will become a society that becomes unable to fix societal problems.
    1:50:16 I’m somebody who has made millions of pounds betting on the collapse of society, the collapse of the middle class.
    1:50:21 I don’t want to be giving stock tips on the Titanic, okay?
    1:50:23 I understand.
    1:50:28 I understand that we live in individualized societies and it’s not popular to say, hey, you need to protect your society.
    1:50:31 If you don’t protect your society, your society is going to collapse.
    1:50:35 And the British public, the American public have a choice to make here.
    1:50:35 What would that look like?
    1:50:37 What do you want people to do?
    1:50:40 I want them to get involved, watch my channel, subscribe to my channel.
    1:50:41 So watch your content.
    1:50:44 On YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, share it with your friends, share it with your mum.
    1:50:45 But then what?
    1:50:47 And then push for change.
    1:50:49 Push for change like our grandparents did.
    1:50:55 Push the politicians to tax working people less and tax extremely wealthy wealth hoarders more.
    1:50:56 So vote for the Greens.
    1:51:00 Vote for whoever gives you that, whoever gives you your share of the pie.
    1:51:01 Listen, this is not football, okay?
    1:51:04 I’m not here, Gary Stevenson, member of the Green Party.
    1:51:05 I’m here to protect the working class.
    1:51:12 So that’s their sort of, that would be their social and sort of political energy would be to stand up and fight.
    1:51:19 But in their personal lives, are you telling them to start businesses, take big risks, work really hard, go for it because they can also make it?
    1:51:20 I would refer to you guys on that.
    1:51:21 You know, I’m not a businessman.
    1:51:22 I’m an economist.
    1:51:23 That’s what I am.
    1:51:25 You know, I made my money by being an economist.
    1:51:27 I’m a very, very good economist.
    1:51:28 My predictions will be right.
    1:51:29 People can go and watch my predictions.
    1:51:34 At the beginning of COVID, I predicted the entire COVID crisis exactly correctly in May 2020.
    1:51:37 You know, this is, you know, I’m good at this.
    1:51:40 And listen, I’m never going to come here and say I’m a better businessman than you.
    1:51:41 I don’t, I’m pretty sure that I’m not.
    1:51:44 I’m a very, very, very good economist.
    1:51:45 This will happen.
    1:51:47 Is there something that I can do?
    1:51:49 If I’m sat here listening at home, I understand everything you said.
    1:51:50 I believe everything you’ve said.
    1:51:52 I believe that it’s going to get worse for me.
    1:52:00 Do you think I should still take responsibility of my situation and fight to make my life richer, better, more successful?
    1:52:01 100%.
    1:52:03 100, 100%.
    1:52:09 Because you know, and I’m sure you know, if you’re average British or American, if you don’t do that, you’re not going to be able to turn the heating on.
    1:52:10 You have to do it.
    1:52:11 You have to do it.
    1:52:15 And I’ve never once, you know, I think my opinions are often mischaracterized of being anti-ambition.
    1:52:16 You’ve read my book.
    1:52:17 Do you think I’m anti-ambition?
    1:52:18 No.
    1:52:19 I work my tits off to make money.
    1:52:25 And I want every single young person in this country to be able to make money if they want to, if that’s what they want to work towards.
    1:52:28 But we’ve created a society where it’s almost impossible for young, listen, I’ve been there.
    1:52:29 I’ve been at LSE.
    1:52:30 I’ve been at Oxford.
    1:52:31 I’ve been in the city.
    1:52:31 I’ve been in the media.
    1:52:32 I’ve been in politics.
    1:52:35 All of the guys at the top are a bunch of rich idiots.
    1:52:40 We are not allowing these smart kids from ordinary backgrounds to get into those spaces.
    1:52:42 Why do we pretend we’re not doing that?
    1:52:43 We know we’re doing that.
    1:52:43 I disagree with that.
    1:52:46 You’re talking about two types of elite spaces.
    1:52:48 Elite space of elite universities.
    1:52:49 Yeah.
    1:52:52 And you’re talking about the elite space of derivatives trading.
    1:52:53 There’s the real economy.
    1:52:54 Yeah.
    1:52:55 Where entrepreneurs do their work.
    1:52:58 Then there’s the first derivative, which is the banking system.
    1:53:01 And then there’s the second derivative, which is rates traders.
    1:53:07 These are places that normal people don’t want to end up.
    1:53:12 Most normal people who grow up in normal households don’t wake up one day and say,
    1:53:16 I want to be a rates trader on a double derivative of the economy making bets.
    1:53:20 Most people want to start a business that employs people and they want to grow that business and
    1:53:20 be successful.
    1:53:28 Do you think that starting a business is a realistic high success probability chance of ordinary poor
    1:53:29 people becoming rich?
    1:53:35 I know that economies thrive when entrepreneurs are active and it’s not just the entrepreneurs.
    1:53:36 They create opportunity.
    1:53:39 Is that a thing that our viewers can do and most of them will end up rich?
    1:53:41 You only need 1% to improve the whole economy.
    1:53:47 There’s a really interesting stat that says globally around 65% of ultra high net worth individuals are self-made.
    1:53:55 Approximately 19% primarily inherited their wealth and about 16% inherited wealth but significantly grew it through their own ventures.
    1:54:00 So 65% of the ultra high net worth individuals globally are self-made.
    1:54:05 Does that not mean that if I want to become an ultra high net worth person, it’s going to come down to?
    1:54:08 Listen, we are just come off the back of the golden age of capitalism.
    1:54:11 When ordinary people like my dad, you know, I grew up in Ilford.
    1:54:12 It’s in East London.
    1:54:13 It’s a very immigrant area.
    1:54:17 Most of my friends I grew up with come from Pakistani, Indian immigrant backgrounds.
    1:54:18 They came over with nothing.
    1:54:19 They worked really hard.
    1:54:20 They made money.
    1:54:21 They had their own assets.
    1:54:25 We had a period where ordinary people could make money and could make wealth.
    1:54:29 So obviously we are now in a period where there are rich people who made money during that period.
    1:54:30 But it’s over now.
    1:54:32 I’m seeing ordinary people making money all the time.
    1:54:34 Okay, so you’re telling our viewers they’re idiots.
    1:54:35 Why are they not making money?
    1:54:36 I’m not telling anyone they’re an idiot.
    1:54:37 I’m saying that…
    1:54:39 If it’s that easy, okay, all right, fine.
    1:54:41 Go and buy Dan’s book, read it and become a millionaire.
    1:54:45 Because Dan thinks it’s easy to become a millionaire by being an entrepreneur.
    1:54:49 But I suspect, having not been an entrepreneur, that most of the people who’ve read your book are not millionaires.
    1:54:52 Everything you’ve touched has turned to gold.
    1:54:54 You turned yourself to academia.
    1:54:57 You got an amazing qualification.
    1:54:58 You turned yourself to banking.
    1:54:59 You became two million a year.
    1:55:01 You turned yourself to being a writer.
    1:55:02 You become Sunday Times bestseller.
    1:55:04 You turned yourself to content creating.
    1:55:05 You get 800,000 followers.
    1:55:11 And now you sit there after all of that evidence and say, oh, no, it’s all over, guys.
    1:55:14 I’m smart enough to do it, but you guys are not smart enough to do it.
    1:55:15 If you think you can teach…
    1:55:16 You’ve got your book.
    1:55:17 If you think you can teach people to do it.
    1:55:20 So you say that you’re smart enough, but they’re not smart enough.
    1:55:25 I wonder if we do have a bit of an education problem at the heart of this.
    1:55:26 Because I was thinking about your sister.
    1:55:29 And I was like, right, if I was the CEO of Gary’s sister, what would I do?
    1:55:31 There’s two things I’d do right now.
    1:55:37 The first is, what marketplace is really valuing an ability to write and write in an impactful way?
    1:55:39 I’d go, right, she needs to write an Instagram page.
    1:55:40 Because I’ve seen what happened with Jay Shetty.
    1:55:42 This guy’s pulling in tens of millions a year.
    1:55:47 And because he took, like, you know, nice words that were motivational, poetic, put them on there.
    1:55:48 And I go, also, YouTube.
    1:55:49 He needs to get to YouTube.
    1:55:54 Because if she can talk like you, then she’s going to do exceptionally well on YouTube as well.
    1:55:56 But the old…
    1:56:03 There’s not going to be a great economy necessarily for someone who’s doing poetry in many other places other than what I’m saying is the internet.
    1:56:05 But in school, we don’t teach this.
    1:56:07 There’s no YouTube class for YouTube.
    1:56:09 And it’s such a huge part of the economy.
    1:56:11 I mean, me and you have seen that.
    1:56:15 There’s been this decentralization of media where the megaphone was…
    1:56:16 It’s growing at 20% a year.
    1:56:18 The megaphone was…
    1:56:20 People watching, start a YouTube, become an entrepreneur.
    1:56:21 But it’s the internet, isn’t it?
    1:56:21 It’s easy.
    1:56:21 It’s easy.
    1:56:22 I’m not saying it’s easy.
    1:56:23 Do you think it works for most people, Stephen?
    1:56:24 For most people, no.
    1:56:25 It doesn’t work.
    1:56:26 It doesn’t work.
    1:56:28 Why are we pretending it does?
    1:56:33 But what I would say is if in school we taught young kids a couple of new things
    1:56:37 and we stopped teaching them about Pythagoras’ theorem, which, by the way, ChatGBT is going to do for you with your eyes closed.
    1:56:42 And we taught them about the new economy of the internet, about the ability to start a shop.
    1:56:51 It’s crazy that the school system was designed in such a way where they put me in exclusion unit because I was so preoccupied with doing business deals at school.
    1:56:57 And my headmaster came on national TV on What I Lied to and said, yeah, we unexpelled them eventually because he made the school so much money.
    1:57:06 But the system was punishing me for entrepreneurship and it wasn’t teaching me anything about the new economy, which is technology.
    1:57:13 Stephen, do you think it matters if the percentage of young people who are able to achieve financial freedom and have a family is shrinking?
    1:57:20 So do I think it matters if the percentage of young people that are able to, are you saying attain wealth and have a family?
    1:57:22 Yeah, if I achieve financial freedom and have a family is shrinking.
    1:57:23 I think that’s a really big problem.
    1:57:25 And listen, I think that’s a really big problem.
    1:57:26 I agree.
    1:57:27 I know.
    1:57:30 Listen, and I know you’ve got this podcast and I know you inspire young people.
    1:57:30 And I think that’s a good thing.
    1:57:34 I think it’s a good thing that you inspire young people to go out and work hard and try and achieve something.
    1:57:35 But I’m an economist.
    1:57:38 And what I see is the percentage of young people who make it shrinking.
    1:57:45 And I think if you combine those two things, you reach a really dangerous place because we go and tell the young people, it’s there for you to start a business.
    1:57:50 And at the same time, the number of people who make it is 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%.
    1:57:52 And there will always be that one person who makes it.
    1:57:55 There will always be that Stephen Bartlett in every country in the world who’s making it through.
    1:57:56 You know what I’m saying?
    1:57:58 But the systematic issue matters, Stephen.
    1:58:08 Can we not change the education system so that when I was 16 and they threw me in the exclusion unit, which made me, which could so easily have made me think that I was a failure.
    1:58:19 Because my brothers, Jason went to LSE and became very much like you and now works in my company, managing my investments, he, in that education system, was rewarded.
    1:58:24 So I sat there as a kid thinking, rich and successful, my older brother Jason, because he can do maths.
    1:58:29 And I thought, I’m going to be a failure because I like this thing called entrepreneurship and I have ADHD, so I can’t pay attention in lessons.
    1:58:40 What I’m saying is if the education system was designed in such a way where people like me who were entrepreneurial, who were interested in the internet and couldn’t stop playing video games, were clapped for and said, oh my God, double down on that.
    1:58:50 I think the net benefit, when you think about what the backbone of the economy is, which is entrepreneurs starting businesses, would be profound for this country here.
    1:58:59 But I think that I believe there needs to be such a radical overhaul of our education system if we want to stand a chance of capitalising on what the economy is today.
    1:59:07 Yeah, I think you could probably change the education system in a lot of ways that could improve it, but you’re kind of changing the education system on the Titanic.
    1:59:18 What my perspective is, I can tell you with a very, very high rate of certainty, if you don’t fix this problem of the wealth being sucked out of the middle class, 95, 98% of people will be in poverty in this country in 70 years.
    1:59:27 I agree with you. This is the thing. I agree that you can’t have a group of people at the very top that own all the assets and all the money, or else, I mean, it’s going to come from somewhere.
    1:59:35 And I remember the day that I printed off the Job Seekers Allowance form when I was stealing Chicago Town pizzas 10 years ago in my room in Moss Side in Manchester.
    1:59:47 I remember what it feels like to not have my parents speaking to me, to have all these CCJ letters and bailiff letters on my desk, and really have no answer on how to get out of this situation, to the point that I was like shoplifting.
    1:59:56 I’d call the Just Eat driver and then try and persuade him just to give me the food. That was 10 years ago for me. So I’ve not forgotten those years of my life.
    2:00:08 So I understand what it is to be in that situation. And on an individual level, I need some answers, because I’m not going to wait for these people in the parliament to fix my life for me.
    2:00:16 So I need some individual answers. And then I do also care about the bigger picture. So I’m not like here as someone that just wants to accrue loads of wealth myself.
    2:00:28 Of course, listen, let’s be honest. There’s not many human beings that wouldn’t like more money. So I try and acknowledge that bias. But the big issue I have is how.
    2:00:39 And from my personal experience, as someone that now employs hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people here in London, up in Manchester, in our offices, there are a set of things that would make me leave this country.
    2:00:52 If it became increasingly less friendly to entrepreneurs, I reckon if we come back here in five years time, I reckon I’ll employ 500 more people in the UK. And actually, as you look around this room, you can see the age of them. These are young people.
    2:00:55 There are things you could do to make me not do that.
    2:01:00 I mean, it’s probably worth pointing out that we’re not taxing wealth and you’re leaving the country anyway, Stephen.
    2:01:01 No, I haven’t left the country.
    2:01:02 Okay, you’re going to stay.
    2:01:09 No, but I’m a tax resident here. I pay my taxes here. And I have zero intent in changing that. I’m also on track, you know, so we’re investing a lot of money in UK businesses.
    2:01:18 But listen, I want to raise, I want to tax only high levels of wealth, only high levels of wealth. And listen, don’t get me wrong, I understand very rich people will complain.
    2:01:25 And very rich people will say, just like they did in Dickens, I’m going to throw my businesses, I’m going to throw my taxes, my, my businesses and my factories into the sea.
    2:01:37 Stephen, your viewers are here. Listen, Stephen, your viewers are here. You are a very wealthy person. They are paying 20, 30, 40, 50%. You should be paying your fair share, Stephen. You should.
    2:01:48 I think that I should pay more tax, especially when I don’t think my kids should get should benefit from my wealth. And maybe this is a controversial opinion.
    2:01:53 But I actually don’t. I don’t think I should be able to pass down my assets to my children.
    2:01:55 You can’t. It’s 40% tax.
    2:01:56 I think it should be more.
    2:02:00 It’s 40. Yeah, I mean, let’s not pretend rich people don’t successfully pass their assets to their children.
    2:02:05 I’m just telling you now, I do. I think I’d be robbing my children of something from the background that I came from.
    2:02:12 If my child gets fucking, if my child gets tens of millions, let’s say even, when I die, I don’t think that should happen.
    2:02:16 I agree. People say when I talk about my sister, people are like, why don’t you just give your sister a load of money?
    2:02:21 Listen, my sister works hard. She’s a smart person. She works hard. She produces good work.
    2:02:26 I want to live in a society where people like my sister are able to support themselves with the work that they do.
    2:02:28 But we’re destroying that society.
    2:02:29 Who would pay her?
    2:02:31 The customers.
    2:02:33 So you want her to start a business?
    2:02:35 She is a business.
    2:02:35 Yeah.
    2:02:43 Yeah. And I want people like her to be taxed less so that what I want is ordinary working people to be taxed less so they have more money in their pocket.
    2:02:50 Listen, the reason we had the thriving art scene in the 60s is because we had a thriving middle class that could go and buy the new fashions and buy the new records.
    2:02:53 And then that created this thriving art scene.
    2:02:57 Now we have a middle class which is struggling to pay the bills so they can’t buy stuff.
    2:02:59 You know, my sister makes theatre shows.
    2:03:01 The only people who go to theatre are rich people now.
    2:03:04 But back in the day, you know, theatre was something that was more accessible.
    2:03:05 You want the arts.
    2:03:07 I’ve got a mate who’s a fashion designer, right?
    2:03:16 Nowadays, there’s all of the business is super fast, super cheap, super disposable fashion or unbelievably expensive high end because that’s the economy we’ve created.
    2:03:19 You go to Japan, which is a less than equal society.
    2:03:26 The restaurants are good quality restaurants for ordinary people because a good capitalist society will produce things for the people with money.
    2:03:31 In the case of theatre, where have the theatre consumers moved to?
    2:03:32 Where are they getting their entertainment now?
    2:03:37 Well, what you have is a very rich group of people who will still go to theatre and they will pay a lot.
    2:03:44 But then you have a large group of people who are relatively cash scarce and they will try to get their entertainment in cheaper ways, of course.
    2:03:44 You know what I mean?
    2:03:47 They’re spending their time watching your YouTube channel.
    2:03:49 Well, exactly, my YouTube channel, which is free, by the way.
    2:03:50 Yeah, but you get paid from it.
    2:03:51 You get the YouTube background.
    2:03:56 To be honest, it’s only in the last couple of months that I’ve started to make any money because I don’t do my own editing.
    2:04:00 So, and, you know, I mean, you’ll know in the first few years you’re paying yourself to do it.
    2:04:01 You know what I mean?
    2:04:04 Like, I think people sometimes massively overestimate the amount of money.
    2:04:05 This is entrepreneurs.
    2:04:10 Entrepreneurs go through two, three, four, five years’ worth of struggle to get to the point where they’re successful.
    2:04:15 And it feels pretty horrific that you say, oh, finally, when I make it, you take it.
    2:04:18 And then the advisors to entrepreneurs…
    2:04:21 Just for me, £10 million is quite a lot of money.
    2:04:25 So, you know, you can be worth £9 million and not be paying anything more.
    2:04:28 But what if I just raise £1 million for investment into my company?
    2:04:38 But that then, like, if I’m raising money all the way along and my investors are saying, I’m sorry, I don’t invest in the UK economy because it’s wealth taxes and all that sort of stuff.
    2:04:39 It’s anti-wealth.
    2:04:42 And then I just have to move my company overseas.
    2:04:46 Well, I want to create a situation where the UK consumer is so strong that you have to invest in the UK.
    2:04:48 You don’t have to be here to sell to them.
    2:04:54 Quick one, I want to talk to you about our sponsor, Whoop, a business I’m also an investor in.
    2:04:59 And if you follow me on Instagram, you’ve probably noticed that recently I’ve picked up running, which I’m very much enjoying.
    2:05:04 And it started out as a challenge, but it’s now evolved into something I do almost daily.
    2:05:07 It is one of those things that’s pushing me to be better every single day.
    2:05:08 But here’s the thing.
    2:05:10 To me, progress isn’t just about pushing harder.
    2:05:14 It’s also about training in a smarter way, which is where my Whoop comes in.
    2:05:16 Whoop doesn’t just track my workouts.
    2:05:21 It tells me how ready my body is to take them on before I’ve even started the workout.
    2:05:24 A few years ago, we ran a study called Project PR.
    2:05:33 And it found that runners who adjusted their training based on their recovery scores improved their 5K times by an average of 2 minutes and 40 seconds,
    2:05:36 while reducing injury risk by over 30%.
    2:05:38 And they did it while training less.
    2:05:41 So if you’re looking for this type of guidance when it comes to your training,
    2:05:46 Head over to join.whoop.com slash CEO and get a 30-day trial with zero commitment.
    2:05:49 That’s join.whoop.com slash CEO.
    2:05:51 Let me know how you get on.
    2:06:00 So do we all agree on this premise, though, that Gary’s saying, which is the ultra-rich, which we can classify as being worth more than you’re saying?
    2:06:02 We say 10 million is the line that we campaigned for.
    2:06:06 Okay, we think that they should pay a greater share of the tax.
    2:06:11 And then if you agree with that premise, the question then becomes, yes, but how?
    2:06:11 Yeah.
    2:06:13 Well, they already do.
    2:06:15 1% pay 30%.
    2:06:15 I want to be clear.
    2:06:20 That’s the top 1% of taxpayers, which is not the top 1% of richest people.
    2:06:24 Mind you, I’m also not necessarily saying what’s fair.
    2:06:26 I’m saying what’s practically possible, right?
    2:06:35 So, like, you could come up with the world’s most fair on the back of a napkin, this is what’s fair, but whether you can implement it is a very difficult thing.
    2:06:37 The problem is wealth is completely mobile now.
    2:06:39 It’s really, you can live and work from anywhere.
    2:06:41 Houses, Dan.
    2:06:42 Yeah.
    2:06:42 It’s land.
    2:06:43 Is that mobile?
    2:06:46 You can’t rip the country out of the sea.
    2:06:47 There’s very few.
    2:06:50 I’ve never met any seriously wealthy people who own a lot of houses.
    2:06:55 You honestly think that the entire housing stock of the UK is not valuable?
    2:06:56 Yeah, no, it is.
    2:06:57 Somebody owns it.
    2:06:59 But 78% is owned by baby boomers.
    2:07:03 They just own, they’ve bought a house in 1992 and they own the house.
    2:07:08 Personally, I think that that house ownership, especially when you consider mortgages, is relatively unequally distributed.
    2:07:10 That is, by the way, the most equally distributed.
    2:07:13 Young people have now had the commercial property, the land, the natural resources.
    2:07:14 Owned by pension funds.
    2:07:16 So the viewers own it, do they?
    2:07:19 No, they’re owned by, if they own a pension fund, most of those commercial properties.
    2:07:20 And what is the distribution of pensions?
    2:07:21 If you have a look at most.
    2:07:22 Now, what is the distribution of pensions?
    2:07:25 What percentage of pensions is owned by the top 1%?
    2:07:28 The, I wouldn’t know off the top of my head, but with pensions.
    2:07:32 But I know that obviously wealth concentrates at the top.
    2:07:33 But here’s the one thing to keep in mind.
    2:07:36 Wealthy group are not necessarily a static group.
    2:07:43 There was a study of the richest people in 1900, and most of those families are poor today,
    2:07:46 or they’ve gone down in value today.
    2:07:51 If the richest people in 1900 had just simply kept their wealth, there’d be 16,000 more billionaires.
    2:07:53 But they don’t.
    2:07:59 You know, in wealth management, in banks, they have this thing called the succession planning.
    2:08:03 So succession planning is where they try and figure out how not to screw it up across generations.
    2:08:06 And they’re notoriously bad at it.
    2:08:08 It’s very hard to keep wealth in generations.
    2:08:12 That in the 20th century, we had two world wars and a holocaust.
    2:08:18 That redistributed wealth, I would prefer not to have that again.
    2:08:19 Yeah.
    2:08:20 Yeah, yeah.
    2:08:21 I’m with you.
    2:08:22 I want an affluent middle class.
    2:08:23 I really do.
    2:08:24 So where’s the wealth going to come from?
    2:08:25 You want to just, you’re going to create your idea?
    2:08:26 Entrepreneurs.
    2:08:27 Entrepreneurs.
    2:08:27 Okay, we’ll create it.
    2:08:28 Entrepreneurs.
    2:08:32 Economies that are friendly towards wealth creation and entrepreneurship.
    2:08:35 When was the last time you had a government that wasn’t, let’s grow, let’s grow, let’s grow.
    2:08:39 It’s not working for the people, Daniel.
    2:08:41 No, the problem is, is that they need to step back.
    2:08:43 They need to let shrink, let shrink, let shrink.
    2:08:48 Our viewers should keep a close eye on Donald Trump and Elon Musk because they’re doing what you’re asking.
    2:08:49 It’ll be interesting to see what happens, right?
    2:08:51 It’s too soon to tell.
    2:08:55 If you were trying to grow the UK economy, would you not take America’s approach?
    2:08:58 Because they seem to be much more successful at growing their economy.
    2:09:03 I think, I mean, of course, when we talk about slashing of the state, they’re going to use these examples like, oh, there’s this wasteful government building.
    2:09:06 Everybody wants to slash government waste.
    2:09:08 Of course, I’m not going to fight against slashing government waste.
    2:09:10 I’m from the UK.
    2:09:12 You know, I saw the austerity years.
    2:09:14 I’ve seen what’s happened to local services.
    2:09:18 I’ve seen what’s happened to things like the police, like education, you know, especially things like youth services.
    2:09:25 You slash the state, you fire a load of people, you know, what does the state?
    2:09:26 Okay, yeah.
    2:09:29 If you can get rid of state corruption, yes, 100%.
    2:09:34 If you can get rid of state waste, 100%, you know, this is how single mums feed their kids, Stephen.
    2:09:37 You want to stop that?
    2:09:38 No, I’m saying no.
    2:09:42 Slashing the state, I don’t think it’s going to work.
    2:09:47 To be honest, I think tariffs is not an uninteresting discussion.
    2:09:50 I think, yeah, of course, tax avoidance is something you need to get rid of.
    2:09:56 Really, I would like to take a step back, look at the country and say, what is the state of the country?
    2:09:58 What do people need?
    2:10:06 Now, we have a country here where the housing stock is falling apart and we’re letting it fall apart because those houses are owned by ordinary people who don’t have any money.
    2:10:10 If you want the country to work for ordinary people, you need ordinary people to have money.
    2:10:12 I’m always reminded of Mr. Beast.
    2:10:19 He goes to places in Africa and he spends 500 quid and he gives a kid eyesight who would have been blind for the rest of their life for 500 quid.
    2:10:24 Why are kids in Africa blind who could be given sight for 500 quid?
    2:10:27 Because they don’t have any money.
    2:10:29 This is what happens when you drain your middle class.
    2:10:31 This will end up like that.
    2:10:34 You know, I’ve got a friend who went to India last week.
    2:10:37 He said there were people lying on the street outside with rotting limbs.
    2:10:42 You know, that is what happens when you disempower, when you take the money away from the middle class.
    2:10:44 You’ve got to protect the middle class.
    2:10:53 If the middle class had money, then there would be unbelievable business opportunities for selling goods and services like your business to the middle class.
    2:10:54 So would you tax Daniel more?
    2:10:56 I don’t know if Daniel’s worth more than £10 million.
    2:10:57 It sounds like he is.
    2:10:58 He is.
    2:11:01 I mean, I think I want to make it clear, right?
    2:11:03 You make 5% on your wealth.
    2:11:05 So if Daniel’s worth £100 million, he’s making £5 million.
    2:11:07 We’re only trying to tax you 1%.
    2:11:12 I think if you are worth £100 million, you’re making £5 million passive income, you can afford to pay a million pound tax.
    2:11:14 You’re going to still keep getting rich.
    2:11:19 The truth is, even if we were to tax these billionaires 1% a year, they would still squeeze the rest out.
    2:11:21 This is not about morality.
    2:11:25 This is just cold, hard economic analysis that I have made a lot of money betting on.
    2:11:27 So closing arguments then, chaps.
    2:11:29 I’ll start with you, Gary.
    2:11:35 Based on everything we’ve discussed today, what is – I’m going to ask you to give me two perspectives,
    2:11:42 which is, if I’m a young individual in this country right now, what should I do to protect myself and my family and to feed my family?
    2:11:44 What kind of behaviours, what strategy should I drop there?
    2:11:48 But also then from a government level – I know we have some politicians that listen because they message me.
    2:11:54 What should politicians be doing to fix the issue that we’re all clearly identifying,
    2:11:59 which is the collapse of the middle class, the collapse of sort of working class people and the increased wealth of the rich?
    2:12:06 I think what I would like young people to understand is that this gets worse.
    2:12:08 This gets much, much worse.
    2:12:10 It will get much worse relatively quickly.
    2:12:13 Poverty will increase relatively quickly.
    2:12:17 It will become increasingly difficult, almost impossible to make any serious money.
    2:12:19 Prepare yourself for that.
    2:12:23 Prepare yourself when you consider your finances, when you consider your plans for having a family.
    2:12:27 This gets worse and it’s going to be really, really hard.
    2:12:29 It’s going to be a big mental health problem for a lot of young people.
    2:12:32 So speak to people and understand that.
    2:12:33 My YouTube videos are there.
    2:12:35 It carries economics for people to understand what’s happening.
    2:12:39 And after that, you’ve got to do all the right things.
    2:12:40 Yeah, I mean, I don’t disagree with you.
    2:12:41 You’ve got to work hard.
    2:12:43 You’ve got to study the right things.
    2:12:50 I think it’s a great shame we have made subjects like the arts a thing which you’re not allowed.
    2:12:52 If you come from a poor background, you cannot work in the arts.
    2:12:53 I’m sorry, you can’t pay the bills.
    2:12:54 You can’t.
    2:12:59 So you have to go and study AI and computing and, you know, maybe social media,
    2:13:01 although we have to be honest, social media doesn’t pay for most people.
    2:13:06 You have to realise the reality of your situation.
    2:13:09 It’s very, very, very, very bad.
    2:13:11 But that doesn’t mean you don’t work.
    2:13:12 That doesn’t mean you don’t aspire.
    2:13:13 You work damn hard because you have to.
    2:13:17 But if you manage to make enough money to even support a family, you should be proud of yourself.
    2:13:18 That’s the number one thing.
    2:13:23 But recognise this can be changed.
    2:13:24 This can be changed.
    2:13:28 Our grandparents, our great-grandparents fought for a bigger share of the pie and they got it.
    2:13:32 They got health care, they got education, they got housing, they got food.
    2:13:37 Our young people can have that as well, but they won’t get it unless they fight for it.
    2:13:44 So I would encourage people to educate themselves, support my work, get involved politically, but also work hard.
    2:13:46 Support your friends and family.
    2:13:47 Try and make money because you’ll have to.
    2:13:53 If you don’t play politics, I guarantee you the other side will play politics.
    2:13:56 And that means your kids and your grandkids live in poverty.
    2:13:57 So you have to do both.
    2:14:02 With regards to politicians, I’ve got mixed feelings about a lot of politicians.
    2:14:07 The truth is, I think a lot of politicians are very rich and ultimately they don’t care.
    2:14:08 They’re protected.
    2:14:11 A crisis of inequality looks fantastic from the top.
    2:14:14 And I think that’s why the three of us can sit here and say things will be fine.
    2:14:15 Because for us, they will be fine.
    2:14:17 And for our kids, they will be fine.
    2:14:18 But for our viewers’ kids, they won’t be fine.
    2:14:21 The politicians are not going to try and save you.
    2:14:24 I’m going to try and make sure they do it, but I don’t think they will.
    2:14:28 Listen, my plan is not to get concessions from politicians.
    2:14:34 My plan is to get 5 million followers on the internet and bully the politicians so that they have to give us what we need.
    2:14:41 So I would support people to get behind me, get behind my campaign, but also understand what’s happening.
    2:14:43 Educate your friends and your family.
    2:14:46 And just crucially to understand, this is going to be a long fight.
    2:14:51 So be strong, keep your people around you, but be ready for what’s to come.
    2:14:58 I see hints and some of the things you’ve said recently of you going into politics yourself at some point.
    2:14:59 Stephen, I’m in politics.
    2:15:01 But I mean, actively.
    2:15:03 Listen, I do not want to be an MP.
    2:15:04 I do not want to be Chancellor.
    2:15:06 I do not want to be Prime Minister.
    2:15:14 If we get to a point where I feel that that is something that is achieved when it is the best way to fix this problem, I will be open to it.
    2:15:15 This is not plan A.
    2:15:16 This is not plan A.
    2:15:18 You know, would you like to be Prime Minister?
    2:15:19 I suspect probably not, right?
    2:15:28 I’ll be honest, I am quite uncomfortable with even the level of public profile that I have at the moment, which is, you know, it’s much less than what you have.
    2:15:28 But it stresses me out.
    2:15:30 It’s weird we spoke about it before we were shooting.
    2:15:33 I don’t want to, can you imagine?
    2:15:35 I don’t want to be Prime Minister.
    2:15:36 I don’t want to be an MP.
    2:15:38 But I’m serious about this work that I do.
    2:15:43 And if we reach a point that I think that is the best way to do it, I will consider it.
    2:15:49 But I would much rather be able to influence the MPs from the sidelines, to influence the politicians from the sidelines.
    2:15:51 And for that person you just gave advice to, who should they be voting for?
    2:15:55 Well, we don’t have an election for, listen, politics is not football.
    2:15:57 Politics is not football, OK?
    2:16:00 This is not about I’m Labour, I’m Conservative, I’m Republican, I’m Democrat.
    2:16:01 You’re losing your houses here.
    2:16:02 You’re losing your houses.
    2:16:03 Your kids will be in poverty.
    2:16:10 And you’re going to see both Trump and the Republicans and Keir Starmer and Labour, who are supposed to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum,
    2:16:14 they will both fail because they will not take action on growing wealth inequality.
    2:16:16 And I’ll be right on that.
    2:16:17 You know, bring me back in a few years.
    2:16:18 I’ll be right on that.
    2:16:25 And that shows you it’s not about I think this factionalism is unbelievably damaging to our societies,
    2:16:30 especially in the US where there’s so much hatred behind it, where suddenly I’m on this side, you’re on that side.
    2:16:31 We’re going to shake hands after this.
    2:16:33 We will, you know, there’s no hatred here.
    2:16:41 But if you allow yourself to be divided from half of your country and you allow, we’re seeing it growing, tensions, racial tensions, gender tensions.
    2:16:44 If you allow yourself to be divided, they will win.
    2:16:45 They will win.
    2:16:48 So you need to vote for whoever is going to protect your houses.
    2:16:53 And if you want to know who that is, come and check Gary’s economics before the election and I will tell you who it’s going to be.
    2:16:55 Daniel.
    2:16:55 Nice.
    2:16:58 Closing arguments, personal and social.
    2:16:59 A few things.
    2:17:08 I read Gary’s book and it’s brilliant and regardless of whether you actually like economics, it’s a brilliant story.
    2:17:08 It’s a really good.
    2:17:12 I read it in about two or three days and it’ll eventually be a good movie as well.
    2:17:15 I agree with a lot of what Gary’s saying.
    2:17:20 There is a collapse of the middle class and it probably will get worse.
    2:17:29 And the traditional middle class jobs that came out of the back of the industrial age, mature industrial revolution system, those are collapsing.
    2:17:30 And it’s globalising.
    2:17:33 We’re seeing technology move opportunities all over the world.
    2:17:37 And wealth inequality, it has a cause.
    2:17:43 Wealth inequality itself is a scoreboard and there’s a cause for what led up to wealth inequality.
    2:17:45 And the cause in my mind is technology.
    2:17:49 Technology is moving those opportunities around and it’s changing things.
    2:17:51 We already have big governments.
    2:17:52 We have huge amounts of taxes.
    2:17:54 We’re at record levels of taxes.
    2:17:57 Wealth has never been more mobile.
    2:17:59 It’s not about what’s fair.
    2:18:01 It’s about what you can practically get away with.
    2:18:02 It’s about what you can actually implement.
    2:18:11 And it’s going to be very, very, as Gary said, it’s going to be very, very, very hard to tax people who have digital businesses, who can live and work from anywhere.
    2:18:14 I know that firsthand, that it’s incredibly mobile.
    2:18:26 With that said, at a micro level, oh, sorry, at a macro level, big picture, we do know that there is a correlation between economic freedom, where the government gets out of your way, and low poverty rates.
    2:18:37 And we know that as soon as governments become big, high taxes, high regulations, it actually drops down a category and we see poverty goes up from 10% to 30%, so it triples.
    2:18:43 So constricting economic freedom is never a good idea if you look at the data.
    2:18:51 At a micro level, there’s never been a greater opportunity for anyone who’s ambitious and entrepreneurial to go and start a company.
    2:18:53 It’s cheaper than ever to start a company.
    2:19:00 You can do what Gary’s done, which is publish content, build a following, figure out how to monetize it.
    2:19:03 You can create products and services and sell them to anywhere in the world.
    2:19:10 You’re an example of someone who started with nothing and became a millionaire in your 20s and then again in your 30s with a completely different thing.
    2:19:15 He became a millionaire in his 20s and then again in his 30s as a best-selling author and a content creator.
    2:19:20 I did it in my 20s, my 30s, and now my 40s, starting from scratch.
    2:19:25 So it’s not normal that three guys our age could have done that over and over again.
    2:19:31 It’s because we are living in a time where there is incredible opportunities, but you have to be tapped into those opportunities.
    2:19:33 You never heard about it at school.
    2:19:35 You never heard about it at university.
    2:19:43 You’re going to have to learn the skills to get tapped into those opportunities, but there are definitely ways that you can succeed in the world that we’re living in.
    2:19:45 And on that macro point, who should we be voting for?
    2:19:54 Because some of your thinking and policy suggestions through this conversation align more with Trump, Elon, the American mission now where they’re welcoming millionaires.
    2:19:56 They’re trying to create a really entrepreneurship-friendly environment.
    2:19:59 They’re doing the doge, dismantling sort of government waste.
    2:20:00 I agree with Gary.
    2:20:01 It’s not football.
    2:20:02 You don’t have a team.
    2:20:02 You swing.
    2:20:04 You should be a swing voter.
    2:20:06 You should vote every single election.
    2:20:09 You should make them work hard for your vote.
    2:20:10 Is Trump going to succeed, though?
    2:20:12 It’s too soon to tell.
    2:20:14 But he made a prediction, so I’m inviting you to make a prediction.
    2:20:17 He said, five years’ time, we come back here, we’re going to see that Trump.
    2:20:20 I think a lot of very wealthy people are going to move to the USA.
    2:20:23 You’re going to get a lot of people from all over the world.
    2:20:29 He’s playing to win, and he wants rich people and entrepreneurs and investors to come into the US and be based there.
    2:20:30 He’s creating golden visas and open visas.
    2:20:36 And the success metric here is the middle class get richer and more affluent.
    2:20:46 And what I actually think will happen, as a result of all of that, you will see rising living standards in the USA, and you’ll see a detriment to the places where those people leave.
    2:20:53 It’s not a good thing to have the people who pay the majority of the taxes, which is 1% of people paying 30% of taxes.
    2:20:57 If those people leave, the bills get spread across everybody else.
    2:20:59 Well, we’ll have to do a part two, and we shall see.
    2:21:04 I want to thank you both for the work that you do, because I’m a big fan of both of you.
    2:21:06 I watch Gary’s videos all the time.
    2:21:12 It helps me to understand another perspective on what I’m typically hearing out on the internet or that I hear on Twitter about what’s going on in the world.
    2:21:21 And I think I really respect and admire people that can do what both of you have done today, which is to exchange and listen to ideas in the pursuit of answers.
    2:21:37 And that’s why I’d highly recommend anybody, regardless of whether you agree with everything or some things or just a little bit, to go and follow Gary’s channel on YouTube called Gary’s Economics, because it’s a great source of information from someone who has done it, understands the world from another perspective.
    2:21:43 But also someone who’s providing a narrative, which I actually think there’s, as we kind of talked about before we started, there’s a big gap in the market for.
    2:21:49 There are a lot of people like me and Dan out on the internet that are talking about entrepreneurship and finance and how to make money.
    2:22:05 But there aren’t enough people talking about wealth inequality from the perspective, as Gary sees it, and that are providing more sort of collectivist and sort of society-wide solutions and answers and sort of explanations as to why that’s ultimately happening.
    2:22:14 I do think, I do think, because I know you, Dan, and I hope I know myself, I do think that we all want the UK to survive.
    2:22:20 And I think we all believe that the way that the UK survives isn’t necessarily a couple of ultra-rich people getting more money.
    2:22:27 It is sort of social mobility, and it’s allowing people that are at the very bottom to create opportunities and to succeed.
    2:22:32 We all agree upon that, even if we agree, disagree, sorry, on the causes and the solutions to that.
    2:22:37 I’d also highly recommend everybody to go check out The Trading Game, because everybody’s talking about this book.
    2:22:41 And I think it’s, what, four weeks at the moment on the Sunday Times bestseller list?
    2:22:42 Four weeks, number one.
    2:22:42 Number one.
    2:22:43 Four weeks, number one, yeah.
    2:22:45 Four weeks, number one, which is an incredible achievement.
    2:22:50 But it speaks to what’s in this book, the way that the story is told, but also the timeliness of this message.
    2:22:52 So I’d highly recommend everybody to go check it out.
    2:22:55 I’m going to put a link below so that everybody can go and do it.
    2:22:59 And if you just look at some of the testimonials for this book, it’s profound.
    2:23:06 I hear people describe it as, like, unforgettable on one end and then sad on the other end, because that’s the nature of the reality it speaks to.
    2:23:10 And I highly recommend everybody to go check out Dan Priestley’s Entrepreneur Revolution.
    2:23:13 But also, your website has all of your resources and tools on it.
    2:23:14 So I’ll link that on the screen.
    2:23:14 What’s the?
    2:23:16 At danielpriestly.com.
    2:23:17 At danielpriestly.com.
    2:23:19 Thank you both for your generosity.
    2:23:20 Really, really appreciate it.
    2:23:21 Thanks for bringing us together.
    2:23:26 No matter where I am in the world, it seems like everyone is drinking matcha.
    2:23:31 And there’s a good chance that that matcha you’re drinking is made by a company that I’ve invested more than seven figures in,
    2:23:34 who are a sponsor of this podcast called Perfect Ted,
    2:23:40 because they’re the brand used globally by cafes like Blank Street Coffee and Joe and the Juice and many, many more.
    2:23:45 Not only can you get Perfect Ted matcha in cafes, but you can now also make it at home.
    2:23:46 Much cheaper.
    2:23:50 In seconds, using our flavoured matcha powders that I have here in front of me.
    2:23:54 Perfect Ted matcha is ceremonial grade and sourced from Japan.
    2:23:55 It is smooth.
    2:23:56 It is naturally sweet.
    2:24:00 Not like those bitter grassy matchas that I tried before Perfect Ted.
    2:24:03 And if you are one of those people that have told yourself you don’t like matcha,
    2:24:06 it’s probably because you haven’t tried our Perfect Ted matcha.
    2:24:12 And you can find Perfect Ted matcha in the UK, in Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Holland and Barrett, and in Waitrose,
    2:24:14 or Albert Heijn if you’re in the Netherlands.
    2:24:16 And on Amazon in the USA.
    2:24:19 Or get the full range online at perfectted.com.
    2:24:23 You can get 40% off your first order using code DIARY40.
    2:24:30 I find it incredibly fascinating that when we look at the back end of Spotify and Apple and our audio channels,
    2:24:36 the majority of people that watch this podcast haven’t yet hit the follow button or the subscribe button,
    2:24:37 wherever you’re listening to this.
    2:24:38 I would like to make a deal with you.
    2:24:46 If you could do me a huge favour and hit that subscribe button, I will work tirelessly from now until forever to make the show better and better and better and better.
    2:24:49 I can’t tell you how much it helps when you hit that subscribe button.
    2:24:53 The show gets bigger, which means we can expand the production, bring in all the guests you want to see,
    2:24:55 and continue to do this thing we love.
    2:24:57 If you could do me that small favour and hit the follow button,
    2:24:59 wherever you’re listening to this, that would mean the world to me.
    2:25:01 That is the only favour I will ever ask you.
    2:25:03 Thank you so much for your time.
    Tôi mệt mỏi với những triệu phú nói với những đứa trẻ không có khả năng bật lò sưởi rằng, bạn chỉ cần trở nên doanh nhân hơn. Thật bệnh hoạn, Dan. Thật bệnh hoạn. Vâng, video của bạn mà bạn nói rằng nếu bạn không có cha giàu, bạn sẽ gặp rắc rối. Đối với tôi, nếu tôi đã tình cờ xem nội dung của bạn khi 19, 20 tuổi, tôi sẽ gặp rắc rối. Bạn của tôi không thể cho con cái họ ăn, được chứ? Nếu dễ dàng như vậy, sao ai cũng không làm nó? Tôi sẽ cho bạn biết tại sao mọi người không làm vậy. Đó là vì… Nếu bạn muốn nói một điều gì đó, quay lại điều đó. Cuộc tranh luận hôm nay khá nóng bỏng, không nói quá. Nhưng vẫn quan trọng, khi tôi ngồi xuống với hai chuyên gia hàng đầu về tài sản và doanh nhân và nền kinh tế để thảo luận về tình trạng của Mỹ, tình trạng của Vương quốc Anh và thế giới phương Tây. Bạn có nghĩ lý do để người Anh hay người Mỹ bình thường đang ngày càng nghèo đi là vì họ không biết cách tạo ra tài sản? Không, lý do mà mọi người ngày càng nghèo đi là do chính phủ lớn, mức thuế kỷ lục, hệ thống giáo dục lạc hậu, công nghệ và làm việc từ xa. Bạn chắc về điều đó chứ? Bạn không đồng ý với những ý kiến đó như thế nào? Tiêu chuẩn sống đang giảm xuống vì bất bình đẳng tài sản ngày càng gia tăng. Nếu bạn cho phép người giàu trở nên giàu có hơn, họ sẽ đè nén tầng lớp trung lưu và tầng lớp nghèo ra khỏi những thứ như nhà ở. Hãy cắt giảm thuế cho những người đang làm việc chăm chỉ và hãy tăng thuế cho những người giàu có và quyền lực nhất thế giới. Đó là một cái nhìn quá đơn giản về mọi thứ. Chúng ta hiện có một nghìn triệu phú mỗi tháng rời đi, điều đó có nghĩa là mỗi người bình thường nào trả 10 ngàn đô la một năm thuế giờ đây sẽ phải trả 20 ngàn đô la một năm thuế. Bạn đang tự cắt mũi mình để trả thù khuôn mặt của bạn. Nếu chúng ta là một đất nước không cố gắng làm những điều cần thiết vì chúng khó khăn, thì con cái chúng ta sẽ sống trong cảnh nghèo đói. Bạn muốn mọi người làm gì? Có rất nhiều cách khác nhau. Hãy chuẩn bị sẵn sàng. Tôi thấy thật thú vị rằng khi chúng ta nhìn vào phía sau của Spotify và Apple và các kênh âm thanh của chúng ta, phần lớn mọi người xem podcast này vẫn chưa nhấn nút theo dõi hoặc nút đăng ký ở bất cứ đâu bạn đang nghe điều này. Tôi muốn đưa ra một thỏa thuận với bạn. Nếu bạn có thể giúp tôi một điều lớn và nhấn nút đăng ký đó, tôi sẽ làm việc không mệt mỏi từ giờ đến mãi mãi để làm cho chương trình ngày càng tốt hơn. Tôi không thể nói cho bạn biết nó giúp ích thế nào khi bạn nhấn nút đăng ký đó. Chương trình ngày càng lớn, điều đó có nghĩa là chúng tôi có thể mở rộng sản xuất, mời tất cả các khách mời bạn muốn gặp và tiếp tục làm điều này mà chúng tôi yêu thích. Nếu bạn có thể làm cho tôi điều nhỏ đó và nhấn nút theo dõi, ở bất cứ đâu bạn đang nghe điều này, điều đó sẽ có ý nghĩa rất lớn với tôi. Đó là điều duy nhất tôi sẽ yêu cầu bạn. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì đã dành thời gian. Gary, Daniel. Daniel, bạn đã tham gia chương trình một vài lần trước đây, vì vậy tôi muốn bắt đầu với Gary và hiểu một chút về câu chuyện của bạn và bạn là ai. Và với việc đã trải qua trò chơi giao dịch và đọc và xem rất nhiều video của bạn theo thời gian, tôi có một sự hiểu biết sâu sắc về điều đó. Nhưng với bất kỳ ai không biết bạn, bạn có thể cho tôi bức tranh về bối cảnh đã đưa bạn đến nơi bạn đang ở hôm nay, viết về những điều bạn đang viết hôm nay và điều hành kênh YouTube và nói về những chủ đề mà bạn đang nói đến ngày hôm nay không? Hãy quay lại và cho tôi biết càng nhiều càng tốt. OK, tôi tên là Gary Stevenson. Tôi sinh ra ở một nơi gọi là Ilford, nằm ở phía Đông London. Tôi đến từ một gia đình khá nghèo, một ngôi nhà liền kề nhỏ cạnh đường ray, bạn biết đấy, chơi bóng đá trên đường phố. Từ khi còn là một đứa trẻ, tôi luôn rất tốt trong môn toán, là một học sinh toán tài năng. Cuối cùng tôi đã có thể vào được Trường Kinh tế London, một trường đại học cực kỳ danh tiếng về kinh tế ở trung tâm London, mà về cơ bản là một loại trại huấn luyện ngân hàng đầu tư. Tôi đã có công việc làm nhân viên giao dịch. Bắt đầu làm việc toàn thời gian với tư cách là một nhân viên giao dịch lãi suất ngắn hạn tại Citibank ở London vào tháng 6 năm 2008. Một thời điểm thú vị. Rõ ràng rồi, đúng vậy. Đó là trước khi xảy ra cuộc khủng hoảng tín dụng lớn, cuộc khủng hoảng Lehman lớn. Và tôi đã chứng kiến cuộc khủng hoảng Lehman xảy ra ngay trước mắt. Tôi làm giao dịch lãi suất ngắn hạn, cơ bản là như cho vay ngắn hạn. Trong thời gian xảy ra khủng hoảng tín dụng, điều mà một cuộc khủng hoảng tín dụng biểu thị là không ai có thể vay tiền. Vì vậy, các khoản vay ngắn hạn trở nên rất, rất quan trọng. Bàn làm việc của tôi, vốn dĩ là một khu vực giao dịch không được ưa chuộng, đã trở thành một trong các trung tâm của cuộc khủng hoảng. Chà, một trong các trung tâm của cuộc khủng hoảng. Mọi người bắt đầu kiếm được rất nhiều tiền. Tôi đã làm việc với những người điên rồ. Và bạn có thể tưởng tượng tôi, như tôi đến làm việc khi chỉ mới 21 tuổi và sau ba tháng, mọi người xung quanh tôi đều kiếm được rất nhiều tiền trong suốt cuộc khủng hoảng tín dụng. Nhưng điều thật sự thu hút tôi là những gì xảy ra sau cuộc khủng hoảng đó, đó là, chúng tôi đang cược vào lãi suất. Nói tóm lại, lãi suất giảm trong khi nền kinh tế yếu và tăng lên khi nền kinh tế mạnh, khi nền kinh tế quá nóng từ góc độ lạm phát. Vào năm 2008, tất cả các lãi suất đều giảm xuống bằng không. Vì vậy, đột nhiên, công việc của chúng tôi chủ yếu là dự đoán và đặt cược vào thời điểm nào những lãi suất đó sẽ tăng trở lại, tức là khi nào nền kinh tế sẽ phục hồi. Và điều này rất thú vị, đúng không? Vào năm 2008, vì tất cả các lãi suất đã giảm xuống bằng không rất nhanh chóng. Nhưng trước năm 2008, điều quan trọng là phải nhớ rằng, lãi suất sẽ chuyển động từ khoảng 5,5% xuống 5,25%. Và rồi ở đây vào năm 2008, ở khắp nơi trên thế giới đã giảm xuống bằng không. Bùng! Nửa phần trăm. Đúng vậy. Và mỗi nhà kinh tế đều nói, wow, điều này sẽ gây ra một sự phục hồi lớn vì họ nghĩ rằng lãi suất là mạnh mẽ. Và mọi người đã dự đoán rằng lãi suất sẽ trở lại vào năm 2009, điều mà bây giờ chúng ta đều biết là không xảy ra.
    Sau đó, mọi người dự đoán rằng lãi suất sẽ tăng vào năm 2010, điều mà chúng ta giờ đây biết là đã không xảy ra. Và vào đầu năm 2011, mọi người lại dự đoán rằng lãi suất chắc chắn sẽ tăng trong năm nay. Đối với tôi, điều này rất thú vị. Rất thú vị vì bạn biết đấy, tôi đã học toán và kinh tế tại một trong những trường đại học kinh tế tốt nhất thế giới. Và giờ đây, tôi đang làm việc với những nhà giao dịch này, những người được trả hàng triệu bảng mỗi năm, triệu bảng mỗi năm để dự đoán nền kinh tế, để dự đoán lãi suất. Và mọi người đều sai năm này qua năm khác. Điều này khiến tôi cảm thấy thật kỳ diệu vì một vài lý do. Điều đầu tiên, đó như là, wow, đây là một vấn đề lớn mà chúng ta, với tư cách là một xã hội, nên hiểu. Và chúng ta đang hiểu sai. Nhưng thứ hai, nếu tất cả những người giỏi nhất thế giới đều đang sai, thì nếu tôi có thể tìm ra điều này, tôi có thể kiếm được rất nhiều tiền ở đây. Gary, bạn đã kiếm được bao nhiêu tiền cho Citibank khi mới 24 tuổi? Năm đó, năm 2011, tôi đã đặt một cược lớn rằng mọi thứ sẽ tồi tệ hơn mãi mãi. Và tôi là nhà giao dịch có lợi nhuận cao nhất của Citibank trên toàn cầu trong năm đó. Tôi đã làm cho họ hơn 35 triệu đô la. Bạn đã làm cho họ 35 triệu đô la. Cuối cùng bạn quyết định rời Citibank. Vâng. Tại sao? Tôi nghĩ đó là một câu hỏi thú vị, đúng không? Bạn biết đấy, theo nghĩa là tôi vừa giải thích cho bạn điều gì đã xảy ra, đó là tôi đã kiếm được rất nhiều tiền bằng cách cược vào sự sụp đổ của xã hội phương Tây. Tôi đã làm điều đó vào năm 2011. Tôi đã làm điều đó một lần nữa vào năm 2012. Tôi thực sự muốn nó không sụp đổ, Stephen. Và tôi đang cố gắng ngăn chặn sự sụp đổ đó. Khi bạn nói nó sụp đổ, bạn đang chỉ vào điều gì mà bạn không muốn sụp đổ? Bạn sinh ra ở Botswana, đúng không? Vâng. Bạn vẫn có gia đình ở đó? Tôi có gia đình ở Nigeria, nơi gia đình tôi đến từ đó. Tôi sinh ra ở Botswana vì chúng tôi đang thăm nơi đó. Nhưng tôi có gia đình ở châu Phi. Bạn có thường đi Nigeria không? Không. Tôi có một ngôi nhà ở Cape Town, Nam Phi. Vì vậy, tôi thấy đó là một nơi tuyệt vời nếu bạn muốn thấy sự bất bình đẳng. Tôi nghĩ có một sự ngây thơ ở quốc gia này, ở những nơi như Mỹ, rằng loại bất bình đẳng, loại nghèo đói rộng lớn mà bạn thấy ở những nơi như Nam Phi, Nigeria, Ấn Độ, không thể xảy ra ở đây. Nó sẽ xảy ra. Đó là tương lai của quốc gia này. Đó là tương lai của Mỹ. Và tôi không chỉ đang nói điều đó. Tôi đang đặt cược vào nó. Và tôi đã đặt cược vào nó trong 15 năm. Và tôi đã đúng trong 15 năm. Đó là điều tôi đang cố gắng tránh. Daniel, bạn đến từ đâu? Tôi lớn lên ở Australia. Tôi sinh ra trong một gia đình có thu nhập thấp. Tôi lớn lên ở một nơi có tỷ lệ thất nghiệp 24%. Hầu như chỉ có những công việc hoặc cơ hội quanh tôi là các ngành nghề như xây dựng, xây lắp, kiểm soát côn trùng, khách sạn và du lịch. Vì vậy, ở tuổi 14, tôi đã có một công việc tại McDonald’s. Sau đó, tôi làm việc ở một quán bar và tại Pizza Hut để giao hàng. Và tôi đã phát hiện ra tinh thần khởi nghiệp. Tôi đã phát hiện ra những cuốn sách về tinh thần khởi nghiệp. Và tôi biết rằng một số người kiếm hàng triệu, giống như bạn. Bạn đã thấy Canary Wharf. Tôi đã đọc một cuốn sách về làm chủ doanh nghiệp. Và khi chúng ta ngồi đây ngày hôm nay, bạn có thể cho tôi cái nhìn tổng quát về sự thành công trong kinh doanh của bạn từ đó đến nay không? Vâng. Bây giờ tôi có một nhóm công ty mà tôi đã thành lập hoặc mua lại. Tôi vừa bán một công ty. Trong nhóm có bảy công ty. Tôi đã bắt đầu một vài công ty phần mềm. Một trong số các công ty của chúng tôi hiện nay là một trong những công ty phát triển nhanh nhất ở Vương quốc Anh. Chúng tôi, bạn biết đấy, là một doanh nghiệp phần mềm. Tôi có một vài cơ sở đại lý. Tôi có một doanh nghiệp giáo dục và đào tạo. Và khi bạn nghĩ về Vương quốc Anh và nói chung là thế giới phương Tây ngày nay, đánh giá của bạn về vị trí hiện tại của chúng ta với tư cách là một quốc gia và những gì khiến bạn lo lắng là gì? Bởi vì Gary đã diễn đạt rất rõ ràng rằng mối quan tâm lớn của anh ấy là do sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản, chúng ta sẽ kết thúc ở một vị trí tương tự như Ấn Độ. Bạn lo lắng điều gì? Tôi đồng ý rằng không lâu trước đây, chúng ta đã có sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản nghiêm trọng thực sự trong nước này. Có những bức ảnh tuyệt vời từ khoảng 100 năm trước về trẻ em làm việc trong các mỏ và trẻ em làm công việc khai thác hàu và tất cả những công việc tồi tệ này. Và, bạn biết đấy, có một cuốn sách Charles Dickens viết có tên là “Cuộc đời hai thành phố”. Câu mở đầu của cuốn sách là “đó là thời kỳ tốt nhất, đó là thời kỳ tồi tệ nhất”. Và tôi nghĩ chúng ta thực sự đã đến điểm này ở đây, nơi một số người ở Vương quốc Anh, đó là thời kỳ tốt nhất. Nếu bạn như trong tình huống của bạn, bạn biết đấy, bạn đang phát triển mạnh. Bạn có một doanh nghiệp toàn cầu thành công. Tôi có một doanh nghiệp toàn cầu thành công. Và sau đó có rất nhiều người hoàn toàn không thể liên quan đến điều này. Họ, bạn biết đấy, giá năng lượng giờ đây là đắt đỏ nhất trong thế giới phương Tây. Giá nhà hoàn toàn không thể với tới. Trước đây, bạn mất ba năm để tiết kiệm cho một khoản đầu tư. Bây giờ là 20 năm nếu bạn, bạn biết đấy, lý thuyết là 20 năm nếu bạn có thể tiết kiệm cho một khoản đầu tư. Giá thực phẩm đã tăng vọt. Vì vậy, chúng ta đang ở trong một tình huống rất khó khăn, như với bất kỳ ai không tham gia vào nền kinh tế kỹ thuật số, sự phát triển nhanh chóng và tất cả những thứ đó, cuộc sống đang trở nên khó khăn hơn và tồi tệ hơn và mọi thứ đang sụp đổ. Nếu bạn, nếu bạn có thể đồng ý với điều đó. Có một con đường dự đoán mà các quốc gia đi qua và có một cái gọi là Chỉ số Tự do Kinh tế. Và Chỉ số Tự do Kinh tế cơ bản nói rằng bạn được tự do kinh tế bao nhiêu? Bạn có bao nhiêu quyền tiếp cận vào các thị trường tự do? Bạn có thể bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp không? Bạn có thể mở rộng một doanh nghiệp không? Có điều gì cản trở khả năng của bạn trong việc điều hành cuộc sống của mình không? Các quốc gia có mức độ tự do kinh tế cao thường có tỷ lệ nghèo đói rất thấp. Họ có sự giàu có lan rộng. Và các quốc gia có mức độ tự do kinh tế thấp thì tỷ lệ nghèo đói cao. Và đó có thể là sự khác biệt giữa ít hơn 10% cho đến 70% tỷ lệ nghèo đói. Và khi các quốc gia đi theo con đường hướng tới tự do kinh tế, nghèo đói chỉ giảm xuống.
    Vì vậy, Ấn Độ, chẳng hạn, đã đi theo con đường đó. Họ đã công bố hôm nay rằng họ đã gần như xóa bỏ hoàn toàn đói nghèo cùng cực hoặc đói nghèo tột cùng. Vương quốc Anh đã đi trên con đường từ tự do kinh tế thấp đến tự do kinh tế cao. Và chúng ta thấy tỷ lệ nghèo giảm mạnh. Nhưng vào năm 2008, khi cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu xảy ra, một trong những điều đã xảy ra là chính phủ nói rằng, chúng ta cần can thiệp và chúng ta cần kiểm soát. Và mọi người đều nói, làm ơn hãy làm vậy đi. Vì vậy, họ đã vào cuộc và nói, được rồi, chúng tôi sẽ tăng vay nợ, tăng thuế để trả nợ. Và chúng tôi cũng sẽ thiết lập mọi quy định. Và thật không may, điều này bắt đầu làm giảm tự do kinh tế. Rồi đại dịch xảy ra. Họ nói, ôi, chúng tôi sẽ lại tiêu tốn nhiều tiền hơn qua khoản nợ. Chúng tôi sẽ có nhiều thuế hơn, nhiều quy định hơn, ít tự do kinh tế hơn. Vì vậy, Vương quốc Anh, khi tôi đến vào năm 2006, tự do kinh tế của chúng tôi đã giảm từ 82 trong số 100 xuống còn 68 trong số 100. Vì vậy, chúng tôi ít tự do về kinh tế hơn. Và điều mà chúng ta sẽ thấy luôn xảy ra là, nếu bạn giảm tự do kinh tế của mọi người, sẽ có nhiều nghèo đói hơn, ít giàu có hơn, và những triệu phú và người tạo ra tài sản sẽ rời bỏ. Những người mắc kẹt trong những công việc bế tắc hoặc không có việc làm sẽ vô cùng thất vọng. Mọi người bắt đầu tìm kiếm ai đó để đổ lỗi. Mọi người tức giận và hỏi, ai là người phải chịu trách nhiệm? Và họ đổ lỗi cho ai? Điều này rất khác nhau vì ở Mỹ, chúng ta đổ lỗi cho những người khác so với Vương quốc Anh. Vì vậy, chúng ta có ký ức văn hóa lịch sử. Ở Vương quốc Anh, chúng ta có ký ức văn hóa rằng những người cần phải bị trách móc là những người giàu. Vì vậy, chúng ta có chủ đất, tầng lớp quý tộc và giai cấp sở hữu đất đai. Những người đó phải chịu trách nhiệm, đúng không? Chúng ta nói đổ lỗi cho người giàu ở Vương quốc Anh. Ở Mỹ, họ có một quan điểm rất khác. Ký ức văn hóa của họ là họ chống lại chính phủ. Họ muốn chính phủ hạn chế. Năm 2023, đã có một bài hát được ra mắt. Nó có tên là “Những Người Giàu Bên Bắc Richmond” và đó là bài hát số một tại Mỹ. Và lời bài hát về cơ bản nói rằng, những người ở Washington không quan tâm đến người lao động. Họ đánh thuế lên mọi thứ chúng ta chạm vào. Bạn không thể kiếm tiền. Họ làm giảm giá trị đồng đô la. Họ đánh thuế, đánh thuế, đánh thuế, đánh thuế, và họ muốn kiểm soát cuộc sống của chúng ta. Đó là lời bài hát, kiểm soát cuộc sống của chúng ta và đánh thuế chúng ta. Vì vậy, phản ứng của người Mỹ với điều này là ai là người phải chịu trách nhiệm? Chính phủ. Vì vậy, chúng tôi muốn một chính phủ nhỏ hơn. Chúng tôi muốn một bộ phận chính phủ hiệu quả để vào cuộc. Chúng tôi muốn có ai đó như một quả đấm phá, người sẽ vào và đập tan chính phủ. Còn bản năng của người Anh là ghét người giàu. Chắc chắn phải là lỗi của người giàu. Vì vậy, khi chúng ta nhìn vào tất cả các quốc gia phương Tây đã thực hiện tự do kinh tế thấp hơn, đã tạo ra nhiều nghèo đói hơn, ít giàu có hơn và nhiều sự xáo trộn hơn cho nền kinh tế của họ. Vì vậy, cả Mỹ và Vương quốc Anh, chẳng hạn, và cả Úc nữa, nhưng cả hai bên đại dương đều muốn có ai đó để đổ lỗi. Chỉ khác là người Mỹ đổ lỗi cho chính phủ và chúng ta đổ lỗi cho người giàu. Gary, tôi chắc chắn bạn có nhiều điều muốn nói về điều đó. Tôi biết cả hai bạn đều sử dụng từ “sụp đổ”. Vì vậy, các bạn đồng ý rằng có một vấn đề ở đây. Nhưng tôi nghĩ từ việc nghiên cứu cả hai quan điểm của bạn, bạn nghĩ rằng giải pháp và nguyên nhân của vấn đề là khác nhau. Ý tôi là, tôi đặt cược. Tôi đặt cược. Đó là những gì tôi làm. Tôi đặt cược. Ở đầu COVID, chúng tôi biết rằng chính phủ sẽ phát ra một số lượng tiền khổng lồ. Tổng số tiền bây giờ. Quỹ thâm hụt của chính phủ Vương quốc Anh. Kể từ khi bắt đầu COVID, đó là một nghìn tỷ bảng. Số liệu của Mỹ là 14 nghìn tỷ đô la. Đó là, bạn biết đấy, 20.000 bảng cho mỗi người lớn ở Vương quốc Anh. Nền tảng của tôi là tôi hiểu rằng khi sự phân phối ngày càng tồi tệ hơn, khi bất bình đẳng ngày càng tồi tệ hơn, mức sống sẽ giảm. Vì vậy, khi chính phủ Vương quốc Anh chuẩn bị phát một nghìn tỷ bảng, tất cả những gì tôi muốn biết là ai sẽ là người cuối cùng nhận được số tiền đó. Đó là tất cả những gì tôi muốn biết. Và ý tôi là, số liệu của Mỹ, 13 nghìn tỷ, 14 nghìn tỷ, thật là quá mức. Nhưng tôi nghĩ điều tuyệt vời nhất mà tôi từng thấy trong suốt cuộc đời mình là khi bắt đầu COVID, ngay từ đầu COVID, chúng tôi biết các chính phủ trên khắp thế giới sẽ phát ra hàng chục ngàn tỷ bảng, đô la, euro. Không ai thậm chí nghĩ đến việc hỏi ai sẽ trở nên giàu có hàng chục ngàn tỷ. Không ai trong Đảng Bảo thủ. Không ai trong Đảng Lao động. Không ai trong Đảng Cộng hòa. Không ai trong Đảng Dân chủ. Không ai trong truyền thông. Không ai trong giới học thuật. Không ai trong ngân hàng trung ương. Không ai hỏi điều này. Nó gần như đẹp đẽ. Thật không thể tin được. Thật không thể tin được. Vì vậy, tôi đã ngồi xuống và phân tích ngay từ đầu. Bởi vì việc phong tỏa thực chất là cấm việc tiêu dùng của người giàu và thay thế việc tiêu dùng của người giàu bằng tiền in từ chính phủ, điều xảy ra là chính phủ cung cấp tiền cho người lao động. Họ sử dụng số tiền đó để trả hóa đơn, để trả tiền thuê nhà, để trả thế chấp của họ. Nó lại đến tay người giàu. Người giàu không thể tiêu dùng vì họ bị nhốt trong nhà. Và kết quả là một lượng tiền khổng lồ từ chính phủ đến tay người nghèo, đến tay người giàu. Và việc chuyển nhượng tài sản to lớn này. Điều đó thật hiển nhiên sẽ xảy ra ngay từ đầu COVID. Không ai thảo luận về điều này, mà tôi nghĩ bản thân điều đó thật đáng kinh ngạc. Để tôi hỏi bạn một câu hỏi nhé? Nếu bây giờ chúng ta phải tạm dừng nền kinh tế trong hai năm và trong khoảng thời gian tạm dừng đó tăng cường bất bình đẳng tài sản, bạn nghĩ điều gì sẽ xảy ra với điều kiện sống chung khi chúng ta đang tạm dừng? Thấy không, một trong những điều mà tôi nghĩ đã xảy ra trong suốt đại dịch là mọi thứ đã trở nên số hóa. Và các doanh nhân và nhà đầu tư thực sự đã nghĩ về điều sẽ xảy ra. Các nhà đầu tư ngay lập tức đã thúc đẩy cổ phiếu như Zoom và Microsoft. Và chúng tôi đã kết thúc với Magnificent Seven. Tôi không biết bạn có biết không, có bảy công ty công nghệ lớn ở thị trường Mỹ. Và bảy công ty lớn đó đã tăng giá trị từ 5 nghìn tỷ đô la lên 17 nghìn tỷ đô la trong thời gian diễn ra đại dịch. Và nếu bạn nghĩ về đại dịch đã làm gì, mọi người đều phải làm việc từ xa.
    Vì vậy, tất cả chúng tôi đều phải có đăng ký Microsoft. Mọi người đã truy cập các trang web. Tất cả chúng tôi đã chuyển sang AWS, Amazon. Chúng tôi bắt đầu mua sắm và học cách mua hàng từ Amazon thay vì mua từ các phố chính địa phương. Mọi doanh nghiệp trên thế giới đã tìm ra cách điều hành kinh doanh từ xa. Chúng tôi đã có một sự chuyển biến lớn. Đó như là một sự chuyển mình toàn diện của xã hội mà tất cả chúng tôi đã học cách sống và làm việc khác đi. Tôi thấy sự bùng nổ trong kinh doanh khởi nghiệp. Với tư cách là một người điều hành chương trình tăng tốc khởi nghiệp, tôi nhận thấy có một sự bùng nổ đột ngột trong việc mọi người khởi động doanh nghiệp, thiết lập tài khoản Shopify, lập các doanh nghiệp trên YouTube. Vì vậy, tiền thực sự đã chuyển từ nền kinh tế truyền thống, nền kinh tế của năm 2019, sang nền kinh tế số. Và điều chúng tôi thấy là các nhà đầu tư biết rõ điều gì đang diễn ra và họ chỉ đầu tư vào bảy công ty vĩ đại. Tôi nghĩ rằng 50% lợi nhuận của S&P 500 là từ các công ty công nghệ. Vì vậy, mọi tiền bạc đều tràn vào các công ty công nghệ. Niềm tin của tôi là công nghệ thực sự đang chia rẽ con người. Nếu bạn lấy bất kỳ ai từ bất kỳ nền tảng nào, nếu họ làm việc trong lĩnh vực công nghệ, nếu họ làm trong truyền thông, công nghệ, tài chính, bất kỳ ngành nào hoạt động trực tuyến, họ có xu hướng thực sự làm rất tốt sau đại dịch. Bạn có nghĩ rằng người bình thường ở Anh, Mỹ, Úc, hoặc bất kỳ nơi nào mà người đó đang theo dõi, nếu họ từ bỏ công việc của mình và đi làm trong lĩnh vực công nghệ, họ có thể đạt được sự ổn định tài chính một cách tương đối dễ dàng không? Điều này phụ thuộc vào cách bạn định nghĩa sự ổn định tài chính. Vấn đề với giá nhà. Khả năng nuôi gia đình, có một ngôi nhà. Vì vậy, việc sở hữu một ngôi nhà là một vấn đề lớn, đúng không? Đây là điều tôi thấy với giá nhà vì nhà cửa cũng khiến tôi cảm thấy khó chịu. Bố tôi đã mua một ngôi nhà với giá 18.000 đô la, tương đương khoảng 10.000 bảng hoặc ít hơn 10.000 bảng, và bây giờ có lẽ nó đã trị giá hơn một triệu đô la. Có điều gì đó đã xảy ra. Và điều này, nhân tiện, không chỉ xảy ra ở Vương Quốc Anh. Các quốc gia xã hội chủ nghĩa cũng đã có giá nhà tăng vọt. Nếu bạn đến Na Uy hoặc Thụy Điển, giá nhà của họ đã tăng 600%. Điều này đang diễn ra khắp nơi. Nó diễn ra ở mọi nơi. Nó không cụ thể ở đâu cả. Nó xảy ra ở mọi nơi. Nhưng điều đã xảy ra, điều chắc chắn đã xảy ra ở Vương Quốc Anh là chúng tôi thực sự có tình trạng tắc nghẽn trong thị trường nhà ở. Vì vậy, trong nước này, ở Vương Quốc Anh, chúng tôi có 9,5 triệu ngôi nhà có hai hoặc nhiều phòng ngủ dư thừa. Các ngôi nhà lớn dành cho gia đình có từ hai phòng ngủ dư thừa trở lên. Và khi bạn xem xét ai sở hữu những ngôi nhà đó, 78% tài sản nhà ở thuộc về thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ (baby boomers). Và bây giờ, theo lời kể, tôi đưa con tôi đi xin kẹo vào Halloween và chúng tôi đi dạo một con phố có những ngôi nhà lớn dành cho gia đình và khi gõ cửa, toàn bộ là những người trên 65 tuổi, đúng không? Họ đang sống trong một ngôi nhà lớn dành cho gia đình với những phòng ngủ trống. Bạn nghĩ người Mỹ trung bình trên 65 tuổi sống xa hoa sao? Người Mỹ trung bình trên 65 tuổi, vì vậy hơn một nửa nền kinh tế Mỹ nằm trong tay của thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ, đúng không? Họ sở hữu tất cả các ngôi nhà. Những ngôi nhà đã được mua với giá rẻ. Thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ vẫn sở hữu những ngôi nhà đó cho đến ngày nay. Các ngôi nhà lớn dành cho gia đình với nhiều phòng ngủ dư thừa đang bỏ trống. Và bây giờ điều này tạo ra một tình trạng tắc nghẽn nơi những người ở độ tuổi của tôi… Ông bà của tôi đều sở hữu bất động sản. Tất cả bốn người họ đã qua đời mà không có gì, bởi vì tài sản mà họ có trong bất động sản đã được sử dụng trong các chương trình phát hành vốn. Nó đã được sử dụng để chi trả cho thời kỳ nghỉ hưu của họ. Nó đã được sử dụng trong việc chăm sóc cuối đời. Bạn có nghĩ rằng khi những người già đó qua đời, những người trẻ ngày nay sẽ trở nên giàu có không? Có một nửa nền kinh tế thuộc về thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ. Nó sẽ bị truyền lại hoặc chuyển vào ngành chăm sóc người già hoặc chuyển vào… Nhưng vấn đề tại sao chúng ta không thể có được nhà cửa, có hai điều. Chính phủ đã làm tăng giá trị nhà ở một cách mạnh mẽ thông qua nợ nần. Họ đã bơm vào những lãi suất thấp mà bạn đang tham gia. Ai nợ? Vâng, nợ thuộc về bất kỳ ai có thể vay tiền, bởi vì nếu lãi suất là 0% hoặc 2%… Bạn nghĩ nợ thuộc về các gia đình bình thường sao? Bạn nghĩ các gia đình bình thường là những chủ nợ sao? Khi bạn nói về các gia đình bình thường, bạn có nghĩa là một phần ba dưới cùng không? Vì vậy, nếu gia đình người Anh hoặc người Mỹ trung bình hiện có nợ nửa triệu bảng, thì ai có tín dụng? Là bất kỳ ai có thể… Vào thời điểm đó, bất kỳ ai có thể vay tiền để mua một ngôi nhà đều đã được vay tiền. Nhưng ai có tín dụng? Ai đứng ở phía bên kia của món nợ? Vì vậy, nếu gia đình người Anh trung bình có nợ nửa triệu bảng… Vâng, một giấy phép ngân hàng. Gia đình người Anh trung bình có nợ nửa triệu bảng tín dụng không? Vâng, nhiều người hiện giờ đã có nhiều vốn trong ngôi nhà của họ. Bạn nghĩ gia đình người Anh trung bình đang sở hữu nửa triệu bảng tiền mặt? Tôi rất muốn xem con số thực tế là bao nhiêu, nhưng có vài trăm nghìn giá trị vốn. Nhưng còn về tín dụng trên khoản vay thì sao? Tín dụng trên khoản vay? Ai sở hữu tín dụng trên khoản vay? Nhưng hãy nhớ rằng, có phần lớn là người lớn tuổi. Vì vậy 78%… Vậy bạn nghĩ người lớn tuổi trung bình ở Anh đang sở hữu hàng triệu bảng tiền mặt? Không có hàng triệu tiền mặt, không. Vốn. Vâng, có người đang ở phía bên kia của các khoản thế chấp đó. Tôi chỉ muốn nói rằng, sự khác biệt là, nếu bạn làm tăng giá trị của một ngôi nhà, bạn không có tiền mặt, bạn có một ngôi nhà có giá trị lớn. Vậy 78% của cải sở hữu nhà ở hiện đang nằm trong tay của những người trên 65 tuổi. Đó là thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ. Và họ đã nhận được một món quà lớn từ chính phủ, đó là chính phủ nói, chúng tôi sẽ chỉ cấp miễn phí các khoản vay. Nếu trước đó ai đó chỉ có thể vay được khoản vay 200.000 đô la với lãi suất thấp, thì họ có thể vay 300.000 đô la. Bạn có nghĩ rằng người trẻ trung bình ở Anh hoặc Mỹ sẽ không bao giờ sở hữu bất kỳ tài sản nào không? Vấn đề không phải là liệu điều đó có ổn hay không. Vấn đề là bạn sẽ làm gì về điều đó? Bạn có sở hữu tài sản không? Tôi có tài sản, có.
    Bạn có sở hữu tài sản không?
    Nhưng điều đó phụ thuộc vào việc bạn gọi tài sản là gì.
    Tôi thì có.
    Chúng tôi cũng vậy, ba triệu phú, chúng tôi có nghĩ rằng việc người trẻ tuổi trung bình ở Anh hoặc Mỹ không bao giờ sở hữu tài sản nào là ổn không?
    Bởi vì tôi không nghĩ rằng điều đó là ổn.
    Đối với tôi, đó không phải là cuộc tranh luận.
    Nhưng liệu điều đó có ổn không?
    Không, điều đó không ổn.
    Chúng tôi muốn sự giàu có phổ biến.
    Bạn có muốn những người đang là triệu phú hiện tại, bạn có muốn tất cả tài sản thuộc về con cái họ không?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng cách bạn nhìn thế giới với tư cách là một nhà giao dịch là thế giới này là một trò chơi tổng bằng không và cơ bản là chiếc bánh kinh tế là một chiếc bánh cố định và bị chia thành nhiều phần.
    Chiếc bánh hiện giờ đang tăng trưởng nhanh như thế nào?
    Có điều gì đó như vậy.
    Tăng trưởng GDP của Vương quốc Anh hiện tại là bao nhiêu?
    Vâng, nó không cao, đúng không?
    1%.
    Tài sản của bạn đã tăng trưởng bao nhiêu trong năm qua?
    Theo cấp số nhân.
    Được rồi, vậy nếu tài sản của chúng ta, tài sản của tôi có lẽ đã tăng khoảng 20% trong năm qua.
    Có thể 30%, đúng không?
    Nếu tài sản của chúng ta đang tăng 30% và nền kinh tế đang tăng trưởng 1%, vậy tiền từ đâu ra nếu không đến từ người xem của chúng ta?
    Vậy tôi sẽ cho bạn biết tài sản của tôi đến từ đâu.
    Tài sản của tôi đến từ việc xây dựng các công ty công nghệ.
    Và cách thức hoạt động khá lạ, đó là tôi phát minh ra điều gì đó từ trong đầu mình và tôi đến gặp các nhà đầu tư và nói với họ, đây là những gì chúng ta sẽ tạo ra.
    Và tôi đưa cho họ một bảng tính.
    Và rồi họ nói, chúng tôi sẽ cho bạn vài trăm nghìn để bắt đầu, điều này gọi là vốn khởi đầu.
    Nhưng điều đó trên giấy tờ khiến tôi có giá trị vài triệu.
    Nhưng không có gì đã được lấy từ bất kỳ ai tại thời điểm này.
    Các nhà đầu tư đã nói, được rồi, chúng tôi sẽ đầu tư một chút tiền.
    Sau đó, khi doanh nghiệp thành công, một số nhà đầu tư khác đến và họ nói, chúng tôi sẽ cho bạn một chút tiền nữa để tiếp tục phát triển nó.
    Và tôi đang đổi mới một điều gì đó mới.
    Giả sử các nhà đầu tư đến và cho tôi một triệu bảng cho 10% công ty và phần còn lại của công ty trị giá chín triệu bảng hoặc 9 triệu đô la, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, tôi không lấy đi điều gì từ nền kinh tế hiện có.
    Tôi đang mang một điều gì đó từ bên ngoài nền kinh tế vào trong nền kinh tế.
    Và giá trị ròng của tôi đang tăng trưởng theo cấp số nhân vì các nhà đầu tư nói, chúng tôi sẽ cho bạn một chút tiền mà định giá phần còn lại của chiếc bánh kinh tế ở mức rất cao.
    Vì vậy, mọi người đang trở nên giàu có hơn.
    Trong việc tạo ra của cải, có sự khai thác tài sản, đó là những gì các nhà giao dịch làm.
    Họ khai thác từ nền kinh tế hiện tại và họ cược vào nền kinh tế.
    Và rồi có việc tạo ra của cải, đó là những gì các doanh nhân làm.
    Họ đưa ra những ý tưởng mới, những cách tốt hơn để làm mọi thứ, và họ xây dựng sự giàu có.
    Vậy bạn có nghĩ rằng lý do người xem của chúng ta, người Anh hoặc người Mỹ trung bình đang trở nên nghèo đi, là vì họ không biết cách tạo ra của cải không?
    Không, lý do mọi người đang trở nên nghèo đi là vì tự do kinh tế đang bị xói mòn.
    Được rồi.
    Khi chúng ta có tự do kinh tế cao.
    Và bạn liên kết điều đó với thuế?
    Ừ, nó có thể là bất cứ điều gì ảnh hưởng đến tự do kinh tế.
    Vì vậy, thuế và quy định là lớn.
    Tự do kinh tế có cao hơn vào những năm 50 không?
    Những năm 50 thì, được rồi, những năm 50 là một thời kỳ thú vị.
    Chúng ta đã phải ăn ration thực phẩm ở nước này cho đến năm 1956.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta đã có 10 năm ration thực phẩm sau chiến tranh.
    Chúng ta đã có một sự thiếu hụt lao động vì chỉ có nam giới thực sự làm việc.
    Phụ nữ chưa gia nhập lực lượng lao động một cách đại trà.
    Đã có khoảng 300.000 đến 400.000 nam giới chết trong chiến tranh.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta thực sự có một sự thiếu hụt lao động lớn.
    Toàn bộ đất nước cần tái xây dựng vì Blitz đã ném bom nó.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta có nhu cầu lớn về hoạt động kinh tế mà không có đủ người để thực hiện điều đó.
    Chúng ta chỉ có 2% tỷ lệ thất nghiệp.
    Những người có chân bị mất đã được đưa vào làm việc tại thời điểm đó.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta đã có sự bùng nổ sau chiến tranh và chúng ta cũng đã có sự bùng nổ trẻ sơ sinh sau chiến tranh, điều này đã thúc đẩy tiêu dùng.
    Và rồi khi chúng ta đến những năm 60, chúng ta có những năm 60 sục sôi hoặc những năm 60 đầy chuyển động, đúng không?
    Thời kỳ khá tuyệt vời ở Anh.
    Và theo đó là thuế cao.
    Và họ tăng thuế một cách khổng lồ vào cuối những năm 60.
    Và nó gần như làm sụp đổ nền kinh tế.
    Một trong những điều đã xảy ra…
    Vậy tỉ lệ thuế trong những năm 50 là gì?
    Chà, chúng đã tăng lên cao tới 80% đến 90% cho những người có thu nhập cao nhất.
    Tôi nghĩ là vào những năm 60.
    Bạn có chắc chắn về điều đó không?
    Tôi nghĩ những năm 50 là đặc biệt.
    Câu trả lời là gì, Gary?
    Tôi cảm thấy như bạn biết.
    Chúng đã tăng lên sau chiến tranh.
    Chúng đã tăng lên sau chiến tranh.
    Chà, ở Mỹ, thực sự, tỷ lệ thuế đã từng ở mức trước chiến tranh.
    Nhưng kích thước của chính phủ tính theo phần trăm GDP chỉ khoảng 30%.
    Nó rất nhỏ…
    Như bây giờ 45% nền kinh tế Anh là chi tiêu của chính phủ.
    Chúng ta có một chính phủ khổng lồ…
    Và ai tài trợ cho chi tiêu đó?
    Nợ.
    Ngân hàng Anh cho phép họ in ra một lượng nợ vô hạn,
    điều này chỉ làm giảm thuế.
    Gary, tôi muốn nghe ý kiến của bạn ở đây.
    Bởi vì bạn đang hỏi rất nhiều câu hỏi,
    nhưng thực sự tôi không biết ý kiến của bạn.
    Tôi chỉ muốn biết Daniel nghĩ gì.
    Và tôi muốn người xem của chúng ta có thể nghiên cứu ý kiến của Daniel.
    Nhưng bạn không đồng ý với những ý kiến đó như thế nào?
    Nghe này, Daniel là một doanh nhân.
    Rõ ràng là một doanh nhân rất thành công.
    Bạn biết đó, tôi không phải là…
    Tôi không phải là một doanh nhân.
    Tôi sẽ không giả vờ như một doanh nhân.
    Tôi là một nhà kinh tế.
    Tôi kiếm tiền bằng cách đúng đắn về nền kinh tế.
    Daniel là một doanh nhân giỏi, và tôi đúng về nền kinh tế.
    Bạn biết đấy, thật giản dị như vậy.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi không phải là một doanh nhân giỏi,
    nhưng tôi có 15 năm đúng đắn về điều này, về nền kinh tế.
    Và nhìn này, tôi biết bạn có thể là một người đàn ông giàu có.
    Bạn có thể không muốn trả thuế cao.
    Bạn có thể không muốn con cái bạn phải trả thuế cao.
    Nhưng chúng ta sống trong một nền kinh tế mà của cải đang bị khai thác
    ra khỏi tầng lớp trung lưu, ra khỏi tầng lớp lao động,
    rất, rất nhanh chóng.
    Điều đó đang mang lại lợi ích cho những người như ba người chúng ta ở bàn này.
    Nó sẽ mang lại lợi ích cho con cái chúng ta.
    Bạn biết đấy, con cái chúng ta sẽ giàu có.
    Con cái của chúng sẽ nghèo.
    Và tôi chỉ nghĩ rằng chúng ta nên thành thật với họ.
    Chủ nghĩa tư bản đã kết thúc.
    Chúng ta đã chiến thắng.
    Chúc mừng bạn, Stephen.
    Tốt lắm, Daniel.
    Tốt lắm, Gary.
    Giờ thì đã xong.
    Con cái chúng ta sẽ giàu có.
    Con cái của họ sẽ nghèo.
    Họ sẽ trả thuế.
    Chúng ta sẽ không đóng thuế.
    Chúng ta sẽ né tránh nó.
    Tôi sẽ kiếm tiền từ việc cá cược vào điều đó năm này qua năm khác.
    Tại sao chúng ta lại nói dối họ?
    Tại sao chúng ta lại nói dối họ?
    Ừ, tôi nghĩ đó là cách nhìn quá đơn giản về sự việc.
    Đó là một cách nhìn quá đơn giản về sự việc đã khiến tôi trở thành triệu phú.
    Ừ.
    Nhìn này, các doanh nhân cũng đặt cược vào nền kinh tế.
    Chúng tôi đặt cược theo cách khác.
    Khi chúng tôi bắt đầu một công ty, chúng tôi đang đặt cược vào tình hình kinh tế sẽ như thế nào.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng công nhân trung bình ở Anh và Mỹ tại percent 50, con cái họ sẽ giàu có hơn họ không?
    Nó phụ thuộc vào việc chúng ta có tự do kinh tế hay không, đúng không?
    Chúng ta sẽ có một bài kiểm tra phân tách về điều này.
    Bạn nghĩ chúng ta sẽ có không?
    Đúng.
    Chúng ta sẽ có một bài kiểm tra phân tách.
    Ở Anh, có vẻ như chúng ta sẽ có nhiều thuế hơn, nhiều quy định hơn, và có vẻ như Mỹ sẽ có ít thuế hơn và ít quy định hơn.
    Đây là điều tôi đã nhận thấy.
    Tôi nhận thấy rằng những nơi như Singapore có chính phủ nhỏ đã đạt được sự giàu có lan rộng.
    Không có nhiều nghèo đói ở Singapore.
    Ừ, ngoại trừ những người dọn dẹp sống trong tủ, đúng không.
    Bạn biết đấy, nhìn kia.
    Nhưng chúng ta không tính họ vào các thống kê, cũng như chúng ta không tính khán giả của mình.
    Điều đó không phổ biến ở Singapore.
    Chà, có rất nhiều người.
    Tôi đã thấy họ trong những cái tủ.
    Tôi đã thấy họ trong những cái tủ.
    Có một số người.
    Nhưng họ không phải là người Singapore.
    Chúng tôi chỉ tính những người giàu có.
    Nhìn này, vấn đề cũng là họ đã đến từ những điều kiện tồi tệ hơn trong nhiều trường hợp.
    Mọi người chuyển đến Singapore để cải thiện chất lượng cuộc sống, đúng không?
    Bạn có thể lấy Ireland hoặc Thụy Sĩ, đúng không?
    Những nơi tự do về kinh tế.
    Ireland đã ở trong một thảm họa kinh tế.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng người Ireland trung bình sống tốt không?
    Chà, nền kinh tế của họ gần như sụp đổ vào năm 2011 và họ đã đi theo con đường cắt giảm thuế, cắt giảm quy định, và họ đã thu hút đủ loại doanh nghiệp vào nền kinh tế.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng điều đó hoạt động tốt cho người Ireland trung bình không sở hữu nhà ở Dublin?
    Nếu bạn đo lường mọi thứ bằng quyền sở hữu nhà.
    Tôi đang đo lường mọi người bằng trung bình.
    Tôi muốn biết người đàn ông hoặc phụ nữ trung bình ở Dublin hôm nay sống như thế nào.
    Nhân tiện, tôi cũng rất tức giận về vấn đề quyền sở hữu nhà.
    Mọi người đều như vậy.
    Tôi nghĩ thật hoàn toàn vô lý khi nhà cửa giờ có giá gấp 10 lần mức lương trung bình, tất cả những điều đó.
    Khác biệt là tôi đổ lỗi cho chính phủ về điều đó.
    Tôi đổ lỗi cho thuế cao, vì chính phủ, do thuế cao, họ có thể vay mượn nhiều hơn.
    Rồi họ có thể làm cho nền kinh tế lạm phát.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ nếu chúng ta thu hẹp chính phủ, nếu chúng ta bắt đầu cắt giảm chi tiêu của chính phủ, bạn nghĩ điều đó sẽ cải thiện điều kiện sống không?
    Chà, chính phủ Anh chiếm 45% nền kinh tế.
    Đó là một chính phủ khổng lồ.
    Vậy bạn có nghĩ rằng điều kiện sống ở Mỹ sẽ tăng lên trong vài năm tới vì giờ chúng ta có một chính phủ Mỹ đang lên kế hoạch cắt giảm chính phủ không?
    Chà, đó là những gì cử tri Mỹ đã yêu cầu.
    Bạn có nghĩ điều đó sẽ cải thiện điều kiện sống không?
    Tôi có nghĩ rằng nó sẽ cải thiện nếu có một chính phủ nhỏ hơn không?
    Ừ, tôi tin tưởng vào thị trường.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ người Mỹ trung bình sẽ giàu có hơn trong ba năm tới so với bây giờ?
    Đây là điều tôi tin tưởng.
    Tôi tin tưởng vào tự do kinh tế.
    Nếu mọi người có tự do, họ sẽ đưa ra những quyết định tốt hơn cho cuộc sống của mình.
    Có hai cách để đưa ra quyết định, đúng không?
    Bạn có tự do không?
    Tôi có ít tự do hơn khi tôi đến đây.
    Bởi vì chị gái tôi không thể trả tiền thuê nhà.
    Đó có phải là tự do không?
    Nếu bạn sống trong một đất nước…
    Cô ấy không thể đủ khả năng sống ở thành phố nơi cô ấy sinh ra.
    Tôi đồng ý.
    Bạn và tôi đều đồng ý về vấn đề này.
    Bạn cứ quay lại vấn đề.
    Tôi cứ quay lại với con người vì những người xem…
    Chúng tôi là triệu phú, được không?
    Những người xem chúng tôi chủ yếu không phải triệu phú.
    Cuộc sống sẽ trở nên tốt hơn cho họ chứ?
    Cuộc sống sẽ tốt hơn nếu bạn gắn bó với những phần sản xuất hiệu quả nhất của nền kinh tế.
    Nếu bạn giả vờ rằng đây là năm 1955 và bạn tái tạo điều kiện của thập niên hậu chiến, nếu bạn cố gắng quay lại năm 1955, tôi không nghĩ điều đó sẽ hiệu quả.
    Vậy để tôi hỏi về điểm đó, nếu bạn liên kết với những phần sản xuất hiệu quả nhất của nền kinh tế.
    Tôi đã khá ngạc nhiên khi thực hiện một số nghiên cứu về điều này và thấy rằng có sự khác biệt lớn giữa Vương quốc Anh và Mỹ về tăng trưởng GDP.
    Trong quý 4 năm 2024, nền kinh tế Mỹ đã tăng trưởng 0,6%, trong khi tăng trưởng của Vương quốc Anh là 0,1%.
    Vậy họ đang làm tốt hơn đáng kể trong vấn đề này.
    GDP đầu người của Mỹ đứng ở mức 82.000 đô la, trong khi của Vương quốc Anh là 49.000 đô la.
    Và hiệu suất thị trường chứng khoán, mà tôi đoán là một chỉ số nào đó, đã tăng 300% ở Mỹ, trong khi FTSE 100 giảm 20%, đó là thị trường chứng khoán của Vương quốc Anh.
    Tăng trưởng năng suất từ năm 2018, năng suất đã tăng 30% ở Mỹ, điều này đã vượt xa Vương quốc Anh.
    Cuối cùng, tăng trưởng thu nhập.
    Kể từ năm 2007, thu nhập đầu người của người Mỹ đã tăng 72%, trong khi nó đã giảm 2% ở Vương quốc Anh tính theo đô la.
    Vậy họ dường như làm tốt hơn nếu chỉ nhìn vào nền kinh tế.
    Tại sao lại vậy?
    Có phải vì họ chú trọng hơn vào công nghệ, đổi mới và khởi nghiệp?
    Và có phải vì những điều bạn đã nói trước đó về thái độ của họ đối với việc cắt giảm chi tiêu chính phủ so với đánh thuế người giàu?
    Tôi rất muốn nghe quan điểm của Gary về điều này vì tôi hiểu quan điểm của bạn, vì bạn vừa mới nói.
    Ừ, tôi nghĩ những thống kê này rất tuyệt.
    Và đương nhiên, Mỹ có danh tiếng mạnh mẽ về việc có thị trường rất tự do và có chính phủ rất nhỏ.
    Trong năm năm, 10 năm, 15 năm qua, chúng ta đã có một chính phủ Vương quốc Anh đang tích cực cắt giảm nhà nước.
    Nhà nước hiện lớn hơn bao giờ hết.
    Nó chiếm 45% nền kinh tế.
    Còn ở Mỹ, chúng ta đã có một chính phủ trong bốn năm qua đang chạy một khoản thâm hụt khổng lồ.
    Trong khoảng thời gian đó, chính phủ, mà đã gia tăng thâm hụt một cách quyết liệt, dường như đã hoạt động mạnh mẽ hơn so với chính phủ đã cắt giảm ngân sách nhà nước. Đó là điều mà tôi thấy từ những gì đã xảy ra gần đây. Ý tôi là, Joe Biden đã tăng thâm hụt một cách khổng lồ, cực kỳ lớn. Và những người bảo thủ đã thực thi chế độ thắt lưng buộc bụng trong 14 năm. Ai có vẻ đã mang lại những con số tốt hơn? Chà, tôi muốn nói rằng, họ thắt lưng buộc bụng chỉ là danh nghĩa. Họ đã từ 30% ngân sách nhà nước lên 45% ngân sách nhà nước. Vậy bạn có nghĩ rằng dịch vụ của chính phủ hiện được tài trợ không? Không, chính phủ khủng khiếp trong việc làm hầu hết mọi thứ. Đó là vấn đề. Bạn không muốn chính phủ… Bạn không nghĩ rằng chi tiêu cho dịch vụ của chính phủ đã bị cắt giảm sao? Hãy để tôi nhìn từ một góc độ khác. Bạn có nghĩ rằng chi tiêu cho cảnh sát đã bị cắt giảm không? À, chi tiêu cho cảnh sát chắc chắn đã bị cắt giảm. Bạn có nghĩ rằng chi tiêu cho giáo dục đã bị cắt giảm không? Bạn có biết kết quả ở đâu không? Nó kết thúc ở chỗ như là, những tập đoàn lớn, những công ty tư vấn lớn, họ nhận 50 triệu đô la để sản xuất một báo cáo để nói với chính phủ về điều gì đó, đúng không? Tất cả những tập đoàn lớn… Tôi sẽ không nêu tên, nhưng tất cả các công ty tư vấn lớn đó, họ đều là những kẻ hút máu của chính phủ. Họ biết rằng tiền nằm trong tay chính phủ, và họ thiết lập các mô hình kinh doanh để rút tiền đó ra khỏi chính phủ. Điều này cũng xảy ra trong lĩnh vực giao dịch tài chính. Một trong những vấn đề mà chúng ta đang gặp phải, và đây cũng là một vấn đề lớn, bởi vì bạn quan tâm đến sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản, một trong những vấn đề lớn nhất mà tôi thấy là trong thời kỳ đại dịch, tất cả chúng ta đã học cách làm việc từ xa, và làm việc từ xa đã trở thành chuẩn mực. Và những gì tôi thấy bây giờ là một lượng lớn công việc mà trước đây là công việc bình thường ở Anh đang được chuyển giao sang Philippines, Ấn Độ, Việt Nam, những người làm việc từ xa hiện nay. Chúng ta hiện có 1.000 triệu phú mỗi tháng rời khỏi để đến Dubai. Chúng ta có 120.000 người Anh living tại Dubai trong nền kinh tế đó. Thế giới đã trở nên vô cùng di động. Và một trong những điều đang xảy ra là những công việc tốt ở Anh trước đây đang được chuyển ra nước ngoài về các nước có chi phí thấp hơn. Và công nghệ là điều đang thúc đẩy sự phân chia đó. Mỹ rất thông minh khi họ đã xây dựng một cường quốc công nghệ, trong khi Anh hoàn toàn mất đi ngành công nghiệp công nghệ của mình. Ngành công nghệ của chúng ta đang suy giảm, giống như trên toàn châu Âu. Trung Quốc và Mỹ biết rằng trò chơi này là công nghệ, và họ đang kéo tất cả các công ty công nghệ vào biên giới của họ. Và điều xảy ra rất nhiều là sự xói mòn của những công việc tốt và sự xói mòn của những công việc bình thường, lương cao vì chúng đang biến mất. Và đó là một vòng lặp tự hoàn thành rằng càng mất đi nhiều triệu phú, gánh nặng thuế sẽ rơi lên mọi người khác. Vì vậy, họ tăng thuế lên, và sau đó các triệu phú lại nói, ôi, thuế quá cao, nên họ rời đi. Tôi đã chứng kiến một số doanh nhân tuyệt vời mà bạn muốn có ở đây, những người sẽ tuyển dụng chị của bạn với mức lương cao, và họ đã rời đi vì thuế quá cao. Vậy bạn đang nói rằng chúng ta nên đánh thuế thấp hơn cho người lao động? Ừ, chính phủ tổng thể phải nhỏ hơn. Vậy bạn muốn cắt giảm gì trong chính phủ? Nếu bạn muốn, ừ, ý tôi là, bạn sẽ phải cắt giảm. Dịch vụ trẻ em? Chúng ta sẽ phải, không. Cảnh sát? Không. Giáo dục? Dịch vụ Y tế Quốc gia? Tất cả những gì tôi biết là như vậy. Lương hưu? Bạn đến Thụy Sĩ, họ chi 20. À, trước tiên, các bà mẹ đơn thân? 25%. Tiết kiệm phúc lợi? Bạn muốn cắt giảm gì? Khoan đã. Tất cả những gì tôi biết là ở Thụy Sĩ. Tôi sẽ cho bạn biết tôi muốn làm gì. Chính phủ là 25%. Tôi muốn cắt giảm thuế cho những doanh nhân đó và tăng thuế cho những người tỷ phú. Ừ. Bởi vì tôi đã làm việc rất chăm chỉ. Có bao nhiêu tỷ phú ở Anh? Có rất nhiều tỷ phú ở Anh. Nó là 150. Ừ, vì vậy hãy đánh thuế họ tất cả. Họ trả bao nhiêu? Ừ. Nghe này, tôi đã làm việc cực lực và tôi đã trả, đó là tỉ lệ thuế cao nhất 50%. 50% tỉ lệ thuế cao nhất cộng với bảo hiểm quốc gia, 60%. Vì vậy, một triệu phú. Để đưa gia đình tôi ra khỏi cảnh nghèo. Trong khi đó, Công tước Westminster thừa kế 10 tỷ bảng và không phải trả gì cả. Bạn có nghĩ đó là công bằng không? Điều đó không đúng. Được rồi, tại sao nó không đúng? Bởi vì Công tước Westminster là một trong những người nộp thuế cao nhất trong cả nước. Ông ấy phải trả bao nhiêu? À, trên quỹ tín thác, bất động sản Grosvenor, họ không phải trả thuế thừa kế vì các quỹ tín thác không thể chết. Họ phải trả một cái gì đó gọi là thuế định kỳ. Nó bao nhiêu? 6% mỗi 10 năm. 6%? Vì vậy, họ trả 0,6% mỗi năm. Vì vậy, tôi trả 60% và gã đó trả 0,6%. So sánh cái táo với cái táo. Thuế thừa kế là 40% suốt cuộc đời của bạn. Nếu một quỹ tín thác có, nếu một người sở hữu một quỹ tín thác trong 70 năm, thì 6% nhân 7 sẽ là 42. Vì vậy họ thực sự trả nhiều hơn. Vì vậy, ông ấy trả 0,6% mỗi năm. Bạn đang nói với tôi 0,6% mỗi năm. Nhưng điều đó sẽ giống như. Tôi đã trả bao nhiêu phần trăm mỗi năm? Không, không, không. 60%. Khoan đã. Vì vậy, bạn đang nói tôi trả, 60 chia 0,6 là bao nhiêu? Không, không, không. Gấp 100 lần tỉ lệ thuế. Bạn không so sánh cái táo với cái táo. Tại sao nó không phải là cái táo với cái táo? Gã này trả 0,6% mỗi năm. Tôi trả 60% mỗi năm. Đó là thuế thừa kế. Tôi đã trả 60% đó mỗi năm, Daniel. Bạn đang nói về thuế thu nhập. Mỗi năm tôi đã trả cho ông ấy. Bạn đang trả thuế thu nhập. Vậy tại sao tôi lại trả nhiều hơn ông ấy? Công tước Westminster trả thuế thu nhập. Tại sao tôi lại trả nhiều hơn ông ấy? Công tước Westminster trả thuế thu nhập. Có thể ông ấy làm bạn phải đỏ mặt vì hóa đơn của bạn. Ừ? Ông ấy nghĩ ông ấy trả thuế thu nhập. Ừ. À, nếu ông ấy muốn sống, ông ấy phải rút tiền ra để có thu nhập của mình. Ông ấy cũng, để tôi đưa bạn vào danh sách tất cả các loại thuế ông ấy sẽ phải trả. Ông ấy sẽ phải trả thuế thu nhập, thuế doanh nghiệp. Ông ấy sẽ phải trả thuế tem khi mua một tòa nhà. Ông ấy phải trả bất kỳ loại thuế nào khác, VAT khi ông ấy chi tiêu tiền. Tất cả các loại thuế tương tự áp dụng cho một Công tước như áp dụng cho bất kỳ ai khác. Vì vậy, bạn nghĩ ông ấy trả thuế thu nhập trên thu nhập đó? Bất kỳ thu nhập nào ông ấy rút ra. Được rồi. Vâng, khán giả của chúng ta có thể nghiên cứu xem liệu ông ấy có trả thuế thu nhập trên thu nhập của mình không. Bởi vì tôi không nghĩ ông ấy có.
    Tôi có nghĩa là, làm sao mà anh ta không thể?
    Anh ta đang ở trong một quỹ tín thác.
    Nhưng sự khác biệt duy nhất giữa một quỹ tín thác và thu nhập là quỹ tín thác phải trả thuế định kỳ
    so với thuế thừa kế.
    Ở mức 0,6%.
    Nhưng chúng ta chỉ đang nói về thuế thừa kế.
    Đó chỉ là một loại thuế.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ anh ta đang trả 60% trên thu nhập của mình?
    Anh ta là một trong những người nộp thuế cao nhất ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Tôi không phải là fan lớn của anh ta.
    Nhưng sự thật là anh ta là một trong những người nộp thuế cao nhất ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Anh ta là một trong những nhà tuyển dụng lớn nhất ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Anh ta là một trong những…
    Một trong những chủ đất lớn nhất ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Chủ đất ở Vương quốc Anh, đúng không?
    Vậy vấn đề là, liệu anh ta có trả thuế không?
    Tất cả các loại thuế áp dụng cho bạn cũng áp dụng cho anh ta.
    Và nếu bạn muốn thiết lập một quỹ tín thác, bạn cũng có thể phải trả thuế định kỳ,
    cái này sẽ cộng thêm vào tất cả các loại thuế khác.
    Vậy bạn sẽ nói gì…
    Nhưng không đúng rằng anh ta không trả thuế.
    Không.
    Bạn sẽ nói gì?
    Người này đã thừa kế 10 tỷ bảng.
    Vậy anh ta trị giá 10 tỷ bảng.
    Bạn sẽ nói tổng số thuế mà anh ta sẽ trả trong suốt cuộc đời là bao nhiêu?
    Chà, tôi biết rằng chỉ riêng khoản nhỏ nhất…
    Nếu tôi kiếm được 10 tỷ bảng, tôi đang trả 60%.
    Một chút nhé.
    Bạn đang nói về thu nhập so với việc chuyển nhượng tài sản.
    Vậy tại sao Công tước Westminster có thể trị giá 10 tỷ bảng?
    Bạn đang so sánh thu nhập của bạn với số tiền anh ta thừa kế, mà điều đó là không công bằng.
    Đó không phải là thu nhập.
    Bởi vì đó là thu nhập của anh ta.
    Thừa kế không phải là thu nhập.
    Vậy chờ đã, chờ đã, chờ đã, chờ đã, chờ đã.
    Nếu tôi được tặng 10 tỷ bảng, tôi không phải trả thuế.
    Nhưng nếu tôi làm việc để kiếm 10 tỷ bảng, tôi phải trả 60%.
    Chà, nếu bạn thừa kế…
    Nếu đây là hệ thống thuế mà bạn muốn, bạn sẽ kết thúc trong một hệ thống mà những đứa trẻ của người giàu
    ở mọi nơi.
    Tôi chỉ đang nói rằng bạn không…
    Đó là điều tôi đang nói.
    Đó là điều tôi đang nói.
    Và điều đó thì tốt vì đó là con cái của chúng ta.
    Bạn không nói sự thật về tình huống của anh ta.
    Bạn biết không?
    Hãy ủng hộ điều đó.
    Hãy có một hệ thống thuế nơi con cái của bạn và của tôi và của Stephen là triệu phú
    và những người ngoài kia không thể đủ tiền để nuôi con cái của họ và sưởi ấm cho chúng.
    Đó không phải là điều tôi đang nói.
    Nhưng đó là điều bạn sẽ nhận được.
    Đó không phải là điều tôi đang nói.
    Đó là điều bạn sẽ nhận được.
    Nghe này, đó là điều tôi đang đặt cược vào.
    Điều đó thì ổn vì tôi sẽ kiếm tiền trên thị trường.
    Thật tốt.
    Và bạn sẽ kiếm tiền và bạn sẽ kiếm tiền.
    Người xem của chúng ta sẽ nghèo.
    Và điều đó thì ổn.
    Điều đó thì ổn.
    Hãy khám phá lựa chọn khác, được chứ?
    Vậy hãy nói về việc đánh thuế người giàu, được chứ?
    Vì vậy hãy chơi trò chơi đánh thuế người giàu.
    Đánh thuế các chủ sở hữu, không phải những người lao động.
    Đúng.
    Các chủ sở hữu, các chủ sở hữu.
    Vậy vấn đề chúng ta gặp phải với người giàu là tài sản có giá trị nhất trong nền kinh tế hiện nay là tài sản vô hình.
    Vì vậy có một biểu đồ gọi là S&P 500 của 500 quốc gia giàu nhất thế giới, ở Mỹ, xin lỗi.
    Vào những năm 1970, 75% giá trị của S&P 500 là tài sản vật chất như bất động sản.
    Và ngày nay thì dưới 10%.
    Gần hơn 5%.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ rằng nhà ở không quan trọng lắm?
    Chỉ cần hãy giữ vững điều tôi đang nói.
    Được.
    Tâm điểm, phòng động lực của nền kinh tế là tài sản kỹ thuật số.
    Và điều đó được phản ánh trong S&P 500, chẳng hạn, mà 95% là tài sản vô hình.
    Một trong những vấn đề mà chúng tôi gặp phải là những người giàu nhất hoàn toàn di động bây giờ.
    Vì vậy họ có thể ở bất kỳ đâu trên thế giới.
    Vì vậy nếu bạn đưa ra ý tưởng rằng hãy đánh thuế người giàu 1%, nếu một tỷ lệ nhỏ trong số họ rời đi, thì tất cả chúng ta đều gặp rắc rối.
    Vậy những người thực sự giàu có này, họ sở hữu cái gì?
    Công ty.
    Và tại sao những công ty đó lại có giá trị?
    Bởi vì các nhà đầu tư nói rằng chúng có giá trị.
    Và doanh thu đến từ đâu?
    Toàn cầu.
    Được rồi.
    Vấn đề là, bây giờ những công ty này hoạt động toàn cầu.
    Vì vậy nếu tôi là một tỷ phú…
    Lấy công ty của tôi làm ví dụ.
    Đúng.
    Công ty của tôi có 8.000 khách hàng ở 150 quốc gia.
    Được.
    Chúng tôi có thể ở bất kỳ nơi nào.
    Quốc gia nào là nguồn doanh thu lớn nhất của bạn?
    Có lẽ là Mỹ bây giờ.
    Giả sử bạn chuyển đến Quần đảo Cayman.
    Và Mỹ nói, chúng tôi sẽ đánh thuế doanh thu của bạn tại điểm bán hàng.
    Bạn có thể làm gì?
    Chà, điều đó là khác, đúng không?
    Bởi vì điều đó không phải là đánh thuế những người tỷ phú.
    Điều đó đang đánh thuế các công ty.
    Xem này, khi bạn nói đánh thuế người giàu trên tài sản của họ, điều đó khác với việc nói đánh thuế các công ty
    bằng thuế tiêu dùng.
    Ôi, nhưng bạn vừa nói rằng người giàu sở hữu công ty.
    Bạn đã nói rằng đó là những gì họ sở hữu.
    Đúng, nhưng bạn đang nói, làm sao để bạn đánh thuế họ, đúng không?
    Vậy bạn đánh thuế tài sản của họ, đó là những gì họ sở hữu, hay bạn đánh thuế công ty mà họ giao dịch?
    Thông thường, thuế tiêu dùng sẽ được chuyển giao cho người tiêu dùng.
    Ôi, đó không phải là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Đó là thuế trên quyền sở hữu.
    Đúng, nhưng nếu bạn chỉ nói, khi bạn đang làm doanh thu, thì đó là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Vậy bạn đang nói nếu chúng tôi bắt đầu đánh thuế lợi nhuận của các công ty…
    Nhân tiện, tôi không hoàn toàn phản đối bạn về các công ty.
    Tôi nghĩ thật đáng ghê tởm khi một công ty Anh có thể đăng quảng cáo trên Facebook để bán cho một người tiêu dùng Anh một sản phẩm của Anh, và Facebook giả vờ ở Ireland trong giao dịch đó.
    Và Amazon, bạn có thể mua một thứ gì đó trên Amazon ở Anh từ một nhà cung cấp Anh từ một kho hàng Anh, và Amazon cũng giả vờ ở Luxembourg trong trường hợp đó.
    Và điều đó thật tệ, đúng không?
    Nó không có vẻ công bằng.
    Và điều đó khiến tôi cảm thấy rất lạ lùng rằng chính phủ lại chấp nhận điều đó.
    Ngay bây giờ, chính phủ đang truy tìm những ông bố bà mẹ bán vài thứ trên eBay và đuổi họ để thu thuế, nhưng họ không nói chuyện với eBay.
    Họ lo lắng về việc ai đó làm một chút việc phụ trên Facebook, nhưng Facebook thì không sao khi giả vờ ở Ireland.
    Vì vậy tôi không đồng ý với tất cả điều đó, đúng không?
    Như là, tôi nghĩ chúng tôi đang bỏ lỡ một số điều nghiêm trọng ở đây.
    Nhưng ý tưởng về việc đánh thuế các tỷ phú dựa trên tài sản, các tỷ phú chỉ việc rời đi.
    Họ chỉ đứng dậy và đi.
    Và không chỉ các tỷ phú.
    Nhưng các tỷ phú sở hữu cái gì?
    Các tỷ phú sở hữu cái gì?
    Công ty.
    Và các công ty lấy tiền từ đâu?
    Doanh thu.
    Và doanh thu đến từ đâu?
    Mua sắm.
    Người dân mua sắm.
    Và những người đó sống ở đâu?
    Trên khắp thế giới.
    Chúng ta có thể đánh thuế họ ở đó.
    Ồ, đó là thuế tiêu thụ.
    Đây là vấn đề.
    Đó là thuế tiêu thụ.
    Không, không phải.
    Đó là thuế trên lợi nhuận.
    VAT là thuế trên doanh thu.
    Bạn có thể đánh thuế những người này trên lợi nhuận dựa trên nơi doanh thu đến từ đâu.
    Vì vậy, việc chuyển lợi nhuận ra nước ngoài là rất dễ.
    Nhìn xem, Stephen có một cốc Starbucks.
    Khi anh ấy mua Starbucks đó, nó được mua từ một công ty Anh đã cấp phép logo Starbucks từ Luxembourg hoặc nơi nào đó như vậy.
    Vì vậy, 15%.
    Vì vậy, ở đây chúng ta đang nói, oh, chúng ta sẽ đánh thuế lợi nhuận của họ.
    Và họ nói, oh, tôi ước chúng tôi có lãi.
    Rất tiếc.
    Thật không may, chúng tôi đã phải làm thỏa thuận cấp phép với công ty quốc tế đó.
    Tôi biết cách chuyển lợi nhuận hoạt động.
    Được rồi, vậy bạn đang nói với tôi rằng một công ty bán cho Vương quốc Anh, Mỹ, một số lượng lớn lợi nhuận ở Mỹ, và họ quay lại và nói, oh, thực sự, lợi nhuận của chúng tôi không ở Mỹ.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng Mỹ không đủ khả năng đi kiểm tra điều đó, xem nơi nào thực sự có lợi nhuận không?
    Tôi không nói rằng bạn không thể làm điều này.
    Tôi đang nói rằng lợi ích của việc làm điều đó, thật khó để đánh thuế tài sản, ví dụ, hoặc thật khó để đánh thuế những triệu phú và tỷ phú, rằng bạn sẽ kết thúc việc tự cắt đứt mũi mình để spite khuôn mặt của bạn.
    Ví dụ, nếu chúng ta tạo ra Anh, và chúng ta xây dựng một thương hiệu, rằng chúng ta chống lại sự giàu có, chúng ta không muốn bạn bao giờ có hơn 10 triệu.
    Nếu bạn có hơn 10 triệu, chúng tôi sẽ trừng phạt bạn.
    Mỗi doanh nhân trẻ nào đến gặp tôi và hỏi, Dan, bạn có nghĩ tôi nên bắt đầu một công ty ở đây không?
    Tôi sẽ nói, vâng, nếu bạn làm, họ sẽ lấy mất.
    Ngay khi bạn bắt đầu kiếm được, họ sẽ lấy mất.
    Ngay khi, nếu bạn thành công, nếu bạn có đầu tư, họ sẽ đánh thuế tài sản của bạn.
    Nếu bạn bán công ty, họ sẽ lấy mất.
    Tôi sẽ nói với doanh nhân trẻ đó, đừng xây dựng doanh nghiệp của bạn ở Anh.
    Hãy bắt đầu ở nơi mà họ tích cực hơn và tích cực hướng tới doanh nhân.
    Chúng ta có thấy điều đó không bây giờ với cái gọi là cuộc chạy trốn của những triệu phú, mà đối với những người không biết, Vương quốc Anh đang chuẩn bị mất tỉ lệ triệu phú cao nhất thế giới, trong quốc hội này.
    Tôi sẽ cho bạn xem một biểu đồ trên màn hình, đây là cái này, cái này.
    Và đường đỏ nhỏ này ở đây là chúng ta đang mất tất cả những triệu phú của chúng ta vào lúc này.
    Và vào năm 2024, ước tính rằng 10,800 người có tài sản cao đã rời khỏi Vương quốc Anh, tăng 157% so với năm trước, có nghĩa là có một triệu phú rời đi mỗi 45 phút.
    Cuộc chạy trốn của triệu phú Anh tương đương với việc mất 530,000 người nộp thuế trung bình.
    Và một thống kê khác, 10% người kiếm tiền hàng đầu ở Mỹ chiếm gần một nửa tổng chi tiêu tiêu dùng.
    1% những người nộp thuế thu nhập hàng đầu ở Vương quốc Anh dự kiến sẽ đóng góp khoảng 30% tổng thuế thu nhập từ 2024 đến 2025.
    Tại sao tất cả những triệu phú này lại bỏ đi?
    Ồ, không phải vì họ đánh thuế tài sản của họ, bởi vì chúng ta không có bất kỳ thuế tài sản nào.
    Tại sao bạn nghĩ họ rời đi?
    Tôi nghĩ lý do họ rời đi là vì nền kinh tế Vương quốc Anh thực sự rất yếu, vì người tiêu dùng Vương quốc Anh thực sự rất yếu, bởi vì bạn đã hoàn toàn bóp nghẹt sức mua của mỗi gia đình trung bình ở Anh.
    Và họ đang đi đâu?
    Gia đình trung bình ở Anh hầu như không đủ tiền để cho trẻ em ăn và bật sưởi.
    Vậy tại sao bạn lại bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp ở đây khi mà khách hàng hoàn toàn nghèo đói?
    Nhìn, điều đó tương ứng với một loại thuế mới mà chúng ta đã đưa ra, đó là chúng tôi đã kết thúc chương trình không phải là công dân.
    Vì vậy, chương trình không phải là công dân cơ bản nói rằng nếu bạn sống ở Vương quốc Anh, nhưng bạn có doanh nghiệp trên toàn thế giới,
    thì chúng tôi chỉ đánh thuế bạn dựa trên những gì bạn có ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Và nếu bạn chết ở Vương quốc Anh, chúng tôi sẽ chỉ đánh thuế bạn dựa trên tài sản ở Vương quốc Anh của bạn cho thuế thừa nếu bạn là không phải là công dân.
    Nhưng nếu bạn chết ở Vương quốc Anh và bạn có tài sản ở Ấn Độ, một khi chương trình không phải là công dân kết thúc, họ cơ bản nói rằng chúng tôi sẽ đánh thuế bạn trên mọi thứ toàn cầu.
    Nếu bạn là cư dân chịu thuế ở Vương quốc Anh, mọi thứ bạn có trên toàn cầu, chúng tôi muốn 40% của nó.
    Vì vậy, thật không may, mọi nhà quản lý tài sản đã liên hệ với khách hàng của họ và nói, bạn không thể ở lại đây.
    Bạn sẽ phải ra đi.
    Và nó đã trở nên rất tệ.
    1,000 người mỗi tháng đang rời đi.
    Và ở Vương quốc Anh, 1% người dân trả 30% thuế.
    10% người dân trả 60% thuế.
    Và bạn tưởng tượng nếu chúng ta đang ngồi ăn tối và có 10 người chúng ta đi ăn tối và một người nói,
    hey, tôi có cái này, tối nay tôi sẽ trả 60% hóa đơn.
    Chúng ta nói với họ, không, nên là 70%, nên là 80%.
    Và họ nói, bạn biết điều gì, tôi sẽ đứng dậy và đi.
    Vì vậy họ đi.
    Hóa đơn của mọi người còn lại vừa mới tăng gấp đôi.
    Vì vậy, điều sẽ xảy ra là nếu chúng ta đuổi triệu phú ra khỏi đất nước này, mọi người, mọi người bình thường bình thường chi trả 10.000 bảng mỗi năm thuế giờ sẽ phải trả 20.000 bảng một năm thuế.
    Vậy lý do họ rời đi là vì chúng ta từng cho phép họ không phải trả thuế.
    Trên thu nhập toàn cầu của họ.
    Trên doanh nghiệp toàn cầu của họ.
    Vì vậy có phải nó giống như nếu chúng ta có 10 người ăn tối và có một người đến ăn tối với điều kiện anh ta không phải trả tiền cho những cái khác không?
    Vì vì những người này không trả thuế gì cả.
    Nếu lý do họ rời đi là vì họ không trả thuế.
    Thật giống như nói, hey, tôi sẽ trả 60% cái bàn này.
    Và họ nói ở bàn, hey, chờ một giây.
    Chúng tôi cũng muốn bạn trả cho mọi thứ đang xảy ra tại những nhà hàng khác nữa.
    Có phải nó hơn giống như những người này đã ở đây với một điều kiện không?
    Bạn tự mình đã nói.
    Không, bạn hoàn toàn đúng.
    Lý do họ rời đi là vì chúng tôi để cho họ sống ở đây với điều kiện họ không phải trả thuế.
    Trên toàn cầu, đúng không? Thuế là quan trọng, đúng không?
    Vậy tại sao mọi người lại đến Dubai?
    Họ đến đó vì không có thuế.
    Những người này, họ sống ở Dubai.
    Tiền của họ đến từ phương Tây.
    Họ đang kiếm tiền từ phương Tây trong khi những người bình thường ở phương Tây, như những người đang xem chương trình này, giờ đây không thể đủ khả năng mua nhà, không thể đủ khả năng có một gia đình.
    Chúng ta có thể đánh thuế những doanh thu đó tại điểm bán hàng.
    Tại sao chúng ta lại cho phép những người này?
    Nó được gọi là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Không, đó không phải là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Đó là thuế trên lợi nhuận.
    Đó không phải là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Bạn vừa nói tại điểm bán hàng, có nghĩa là đó là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Nó dựa trên lợi nhuận.
    Bạn xem xét lợi nhuận mà họ có.
    Thì đó không phải là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Và sau đó bạn xem xét lợi nhuận đi đâu.
    Chính xác.
    Đó không phải là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Như tôi đã nói.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn đánh thuế lợi nhuận, thì những lợi nhuận đó phải tích lũy ở quốc gia đó.
    Và vì hệ sinh thái kỹ thuật số mà chúng ta hiện có, thế giới mà chúng ta đang sống, tôi có thể cho thuê cơ sở dữ liệu từ công ty của tôi ở Luxembourg.
    Tôi có thể cấp phép cho logo của mình từ công ty của tôi.
    Tôi hiểu cách chuyển dịch lợi nhuận hoạt động.
    Tiếp tục đi.
    Nghe này, những người này không phải là Gandalf.
    Bạn chỉ cần nói, chúng tôi không chấp nhận việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận.
    Chúng tôi không cần phải chấp nhận việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận.
    Trung Quốc không chấp nhận việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận.
    Chúng tôi không chấp nhận việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận cách đây 50 năm.
    Chúng tôi không phải chấp nhận việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận.
    Nhưng bạn có một lớp chính phủ rất giàu có và một lớp truyền thông rất giàu có nói rằng không thể đánh thuế những người giàu có.
    Và tôi muốn nói rằng, tôi sẽ đồng ý 100%.
    Khó khăn để đánh thuế những người giàu có.
    Có.
    Rất, rất, rất khó để đánh thuế những người giàu có.
    Tôi không đến đây nói rằng tôi muốn đánh thuế những người giàu có vì điều đó dễ dàng.
    Tôi biết là khó.
    Tôi biết có lẽ tôi sẽ thua.
    Tôi biết rằng trẻ em của khán giả của chúng ta sẽ sống trong cảnh nghèo đói tuyệt vọng.
    Tôi biết điều đó.
    Tôi làm điều này vì nó khó khăn.
    Nếu chúng ta là một quốc gia nói với bản thân rằng, chúng ta không cố gắng làm những điều cần thiết để giữ cho con cái chúng ta không rơi vào nghèo đói vì điều đó khó khăn, thì con cái của chúng ta sẽ sống trong nghèo đói.
    Tôi không cần phải ở đây.
    Tôi là triệu phú, giống như bạn.
    Tôi có thể ở Philippines uống pina coladas.
    Tôi đến đây vì tôi đến từ một gia đình nghèo và đó là những gia đình bình thường như gia đình tôi, như những đứa trẻ mà tôi lớn lên cùng, sẽ có con cái sống trong nghèo đói.
    Điều đó khó khăn, nhưng là cần thiết.
    Đôi khi chúng ta phải làm những điều không phải vì chúng dễ dàng, mà vì chúng khó khăn.
    Đó là những gì làm cho một quốc gia giàu có.
    Và đó là những gì bảo vệ những người bình thường.
    Nghe này, ông bà chúng ta đã sống trong nghèo đói.
    Họ có nói rằng hãy để mọi thứ như vậy vì nó khó khăn không?
    Không, họ không nói như vậy.
    Họ đấu tranh và yêu cầu chăm sóc sức khỏe, giáo dục, nhà ở, thực phẩm, và họ đã đạt được điều đó.
    Họ đã đạt được điều đó.
    Đó là lý do tại sao cha mẹ tôi có thể sống một cuộc sống chất lượng tốt.
    Họ đã có những điều đó.
    Họ đã có những điều đó và họ nhận thức được rằng để làm được điều đó, bạn không thể cho phép những người siêu giàu, những người đã sống cuộc sống xa hoa hàng trăm năm, lấy hết mọi thứ trong khi những gia đình bình thường không thể đủ khả năng nuôi con cái của họ.
    Tôi biết điều đó khó khăn.
    Tôi biết điều đó khó khăn.
    Và tôi biết có lẽ tôi sẽ thua.
    Tôi biết điều đó.
    Tôi biết có lẽ tôi sẽ thua.
    Và điều đó có nghĩa là khán giả của chúng ta sẽ nghèo.
    Nhưng tôi vẫn làm điều đó vì tôi không muốn đất nước mà tôi lớn lên lại rơi vào cảnh nghèo đói tuyệt vọng.
    Tôi đồng ý với bạn về sự đam mê và tôi đồng ý với bạn về vấn đề.
    Tôi không đồng ý với bạn về giải pháp vì vào năm 2019.
    Không, bởi vì chúng ta sẽ đều giàu có và con cái của chúng ta sẽ giàu có.
    Vào năm 2020, và đó không phải là điều tôi đang nói.
    Vào năm 2020, chúng ta đã đưa ra một quyết định toàn cầu để đóng cửa nền kinh tế và chúng ta đã dạy mọi người rằng họ có thể sống và làm việc từ bất kỳ đâu.
    Mối đe dọa lớn nhất đối với tất cả những gì bạn đang nói là làm việc từ xa.
    Thực tế là chúng ta có thể sống và làm việc từ bất kỳ đâu.
    Ông bà của chúng ta, nếu sếp của họ, nếu sếp của họ sở hữu một công ty, công ty đó phải có mặt vật lý trong quốc gia và sếp phải có mặt vật lý trong quốc gia.
    Nếu chúng ta nhìn vào hôm nay, có rất nhiều huấn luyện viên thể hình làm việc cho một phòng tập và chủ sở hữu của phòng tập đó đang ở đâu đó ở nước ngoài.
    Rất nhiều người làm việc trong một nhà hàng và chủ sở hữu của nhà hàng sống ở nước ngoài.
    Bạn có thể sống và có thể điều hành một doanh nghiệp từ bất kỳ đâu trên thế giới ngay bây giờ.
    Vì vậy, vấn đề mà chúng ta phải đối mặt là bạn đang mô tả cách mà một mặt bạn nói chúng ta cần đánh thuế tại điểm bán hàng, điều này là thuế tiêu dùng.
    Nó không phải vì đó là thuế trên lợi nhuận.
    Được rồi.
    Và sau đó bạn nói thuế trên lợi nhuận và sau đó bạn nói, ồ, nhưng sau đó chúng ta sẽ dừng việc chuyển dịch lợi nhuận.
    Nhân tiện, tôi cũng thực sự ủng hộ ý tưởng dừng chuyển dịch lợi nhuận này.
    Tôi đã nói, tôi nghĩ cách mà nhiều công ty toàn cầu này được đối xử thật sự là nực cười.
    Và nếu chúng ta không dừng lại điều đó, thì tất cả tiền chỉ chảy vào các công ty công nghệ.
    Vì vậy, tôi đồng ý với bạn về điều đó.
    Nhưng khi bạn nói đánh thuế người giàu, những người thực sự sở hữu các công ty, những người đó giờ đây có thể ở bất kỳ đâu.
    Nhưng doanh thu của họ thì không.
    Khách hàng của họ, khách hàng của họ ở nơi mà khách hàng của họ ở.
    Khách hàng của họ ở nơi mà khách hàng của họ ở.
    Nghe này, Amazon không trả bất kỳ thuế nào ở Vương quốc Anh, không trả bất kỳ thuế nào ở Mỹ.
    Khách hàng ở đâu?
    Ở Vương quốc Anh và Mỹ.
    Bạn có thực sự nghĩ rằng không thể đánh thuế điều đó không?
    À, bạn đang nói về việc đánh thuế những người có giá trị trên 10 triệu, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, đây là rất nhiều doanh nhân khởi nghiệp.
    Jeff Bezos thì nhiều hơn 10 triệu.
    Jeff Bezos có giá trị cao hơn rất nhiều so với 10 triệu.
    Nhưng bạn nói rằng bất kỳ ai có giá trị trên 10 triệu đều ở trong tầm ngắm của bạn.
    Bạn không muốn những người có giá trị 11 triệu bảng phải trả thêm thuế.
    Không phải như vậy đâu.
    Dan, bạn có giá trị hơn 10 triệu bảng.
    Vì vậy, nếu chúng ta đánh thuế những người như Gary nói, những người có giá trị hơn 10 triệu, bạn có những lựa chọn gì để tránh?
    Giả sử, nếu mục tiêu của bạn là để tránh điều đó, bạn có những lựa chọn nào?
    Nếu mục tiêu của tôi là để tránh điều đó, tôi sẽ thông qua một quyết định hội đồng rằng chúng tôi sẽ di chuyển trụ sở chính ở nơi khác.
    Chúng tôi chuyển giao quyền sở hữu trí tuệ đến một nơi khác.
    Tôi sẽ chuyển gia đình tôi đến một nơi khác.
    Và chỉ trong khoảng một hoặc hai tuần, chúng tôi đã có một văn phòng WeWork ở nơi khác.
    Tôi có một ngôi nhà mới trên Airbnb ở một nơi khác.
    Và tôi đã cắt đứt liên hệ với Vương quốc Anh.
    Và tôi không phải là cư dân nộp thuế ở đây.
    Và tôi có một doanh nghiệp kỹ thuật số.
    Tôi thực sự có thể đặt trụ sở chính của mình ở bất kỳ đâu trên thế giới.
    Nếu có một quốc gia nào đó trở nên thù địch đối với hoạt động của chúng tôi, thì tôi sẽ phải rút dịch vụ ở đó.
    Bạn biết đấy, điều đó là có thể.
    Nhưng có vẻ như điều đó khó xảy ra.
    Nhưng cuối cùng, nếu tôi chọn đứng dậy và rời đi, thì tôi sẽ đứng dậy và rời đi.
    Bây giờ, vấn đề lớn hơn là liệu tôi có thực sự đến đây ngay từ đầu không?
    Và còn một vấn đề khác nữa.
    Và đây là vấn đề khác, Gary, dành cho bạn.
    Bạn vừa mới có 750,000 người đăng ký kênh YouTube của bạn.
    Đúng là 820, phải không?
    Là 820, phải không?
    Vậy nó đang tăng nhanh.
    Tôi có thể cho một trong những nhà phân tích của mình tại công ty tư vấn thực hiện định giá thương hiệu của bạn và định giá kênh YouTube của bạn.
    Chúng tôi có thể nói rằng đây là một công ty truyền thông phát triển nhanh và trị giá 11 triệu đô la, đúng không?
    Vậy nên chúng tôi có thể đưa ra một dự báo và một ước tính, và chúng tôi nói rằng Kinh tế của Gary thực sự là một thương hiệu truyền thông phát triển nhanh mới.
    Nó có giá trị 11 triệu đô la.
    Bây giờ, kênh của bạn, bây giờ bạn phải trả 100,000 đô la một năm tiền thuế bổ sung vì bạn là triệu phú.
    Xin lỗi, 1% trên tài sản trên 10 triệu đô la trong 11 triệu đô la sẽ là 10,000 đô la thuế.
    Ô, bạn nói chỉ trên phần vượt quá?
    Đó là cách thuế hoạt động.
    Được rồi.
    Vậy không phải trên tất cả mọi thứ.
    Không sao cả.
    Vậy đó là thuế cận biên.
    Đó là cách thuế hoạt động.
    Vậy, được rồi, vậy có công bằng không khi mà ai đó quyết định tài sản nào là tài sản và nó đáng giá bao nhiêu?
    Bởi vì tài sản, hãy để tôi nói ra.
    Tài sản là thuật ngữ kỹ thuật cho lợi nhuận chưa thực hiện, đúng không?
    Nó không thực.
    Nếu ai đó mua một ngôi nhà với giá 20,000 đô la và nó trị giá 200,000 đô la, họ vẫn giữ cùng một ngôi nhà, nhưng giờ họ đã có tài sản.
    Nếu một người khởi nghiệp và một nhà đầu tư nhỏ đầu tư một khoản đầu tư thiên thần nhỏ, giờ họ đã có tài sản trên giấy.
    Nhưng ai có quyền nói đó là tài sản?
    Ví dụ, nếu bạn giới thiệu thuế tài sản, lý thuyết rằng sẽ thực sự làm giảm giá trị tài sản của những thứ đó bởi vì những thứ trong nền kinh tế đó hiện đang chịu bất lợi.
    Vì vậy, các nhà đầu tư sẽ khó có khả năng đầu tư vào chúng đến một mức độ nào đó.
    Và cũng vậy, mọi người sẽ bắt đầu cắt giảm và né tránh.
    Vì vậy họ nói, ô, hoạt động của chúng tôi ở Vương quốc Anh trị giá 10 triệu đô la, vì vậy giờ chúng tôi sẽ bắt đầu một công ty thứ hai ở một quốc gia khác và đảm bảo rằng đó là nơi tài sản tích lũy.
    Vì vậy, điều đó cực kỳ khó khăn vì đó chỉ là lợi nhuận chưa thực hiện.
    Tôi biết.
    Tôi biết điều đó khó khăn.
    Ừ.
    Tôi biết rằng những người này có những kế toán tốt nhất.
    Tôi biết điều đó khó khăn.
    Vậy nếu có một giải pháp dễ dàng hơn thì sao?
    Nếu có một giải pháp dễ dàng hơn, tôi sẽ ủng hộ điều đó.
    Bạn biết ý tôi chứ?
    Nó được gọi là tự do kinh tế.
    Chỉ số tự do kinh tế.
    Được rồi.
    Vâng, chỉ cần nói với khán giả rằng.
    Cho họ nhiều tự do kinh tế hơn và sau đó họ sẽ trở nên giàu có.
    Ừ.
    Vì vậy, biểu đồ này về cơ bản nói rằng các quốc gia tự do nhất có tỷ lệ nghèo đói dưới 10%, thực tế là dưới 7% nghèo đói.
    Ngay khi bạn giảm tự do kinh tế, nó nhảy lên 30% nghèo đói.
    Bạn giảm tự do kinh tế một lần nữa và nó nhảy lên các mức nghèo đói khổng lồ.
    Vì vậy, các quốc gia này ở đây là ít tự do kinh tế nhất và những quốc gia này là tự do kinh tế nhất.
    Các quốc gia cản trở tự do kinh tế của bạn có nhiều nghèo đói hơn và các quốc gia cho phép người dân quyết định cho cuộc sống của họ có ít nghèo đói hơn.
    Điều bạn đang nói là nếu chính phủ của các quốc gia của chúng ta giảm thuế cho chúng tôi, ba triệu phú ngồi tại bàn này, điều đó sẽ cải thiện cuộc sống của những công nhân bình thường ở Anh và Mỹ không đủ khả năng để nuôi con cái của họ.
    Tôi sẽ cho bạn một ví dụ thực tế.
    Tôi biết về một công ty đã dự định tăng lương cho nhân viên của mình và rồi thuế bảo hiểm xã hội tăng lên và thay vì-
    Bảo hiểm xã hội là một loại thuế trên việc làm?
    Vâng.
    Tôi đang nói để giảm điều đó.
    Tôi đang muốn giảm thuế.
    Tôi muốn khán giả của bạn, những người xem ở đây, phải trả ít thuế hơn trong khi các triệu phú nộp nhiều thuế hơn.
    Điều đó tốt trong lý thuyết, nhưng nếu bạn có thể đánh thuế người giàu 1% tài sản của họ trên 10 triệu, tôi đã tính toán một cách sơ bộ, bạn có thể thu về 20 tỷ.
    Vâng.
    Đúng không?
    Đó là nếu họ không rời đi.
    Đó là nếu họ không phản ứng với điều đó.
    Nếu họ chỉ trả một cách vui vẻ, bạn sẽ thu được 20 tỷ.
    Điều đó ít hơn một tuần chi tiêu hiện tại của chính phủ.
    Vì vậy, chính phủ đang ngoài tầm kiểm soát.
    1.2 triệu tỷ chi tiêu của chính phủ mỗi năm hiện là điều họ đang chi tiêu.
    Được rồi.
    Vì vậy, hãy lấy 20 tỷ đó và cắt giảm thuế cho khán giả.
    Cắt giảm thuế thu nhập của họ.
    Vì vậy, điều đó có nghĩa là khoảng 250 mỗi năm.
    Được rồi.
    Vì vậy, hãy làm nhiều hơn.
    Hãy làm cho nó thành 60 tỷ.
    Vậy thì bạn đánh thuế 3% trên tài sản.
    Vâng.
    Làm điều đó.
    Được rồi.
    Và sau đó bạn cũng mang nó xuống-
    Hãy nhớ-
    Đây là những gì chính phủ làm.
    Chúng tôi tạo ra 5% hoặc 6%.
    Vâng.
    Và sau đó đó là những gì họ đã làm.
    Bạn có biết họ đã làm gì không?
    Đó là những gì họ đã làm trong Thế chiến thứ hai và đó là lý do tại sao bố tôi có thể mua một ngôi nhà.
    Thực ra-
    Đó không phải là lý do ông ấy có thể mua một ngôi nhà.
    Được rồi.
    Vậy ai đang mua-
    Nếu những người bình thường đang mất nhà và tài sản, mà đúng là họ đang-
    Vâng.
    Và chúng ta đang ngày càng giàu có-
    Vâng.
    Ai đang sở hữu những ngôi nhà đó nếu không phải là chúng ta?
    Chính phủ đã từng sở hữu những ngôi nhà và sau đó họ bán.
    Tài sản của chính phủ đang sụp đổ.
    Không.
    Tài sản của chính phủ đang sụp đổ.
    Nhưng những gì họ đã làm là họ bán những ngôi nhà cho người dân.
    Được rồi.
    Nhưng tài sản của tầng lớp trung lưu bình thường cũng đang sụp đổ.
    Bạn chỉ có thể làm điều đó một lần.
    Và họ đã làm điều đó cho người sinh ra sau chiến tranh.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ là khán giả của chúng ta hiện đang sở hữu những ngôi nhà của tôi?
    Ai-
    Tài sản đang đi đâu, Daniel?
    Tài sản đang đi đâu?
    Ai đang sở hữu tài sản bây giờ?
    Ai đang trở nên giàu có hơn?
    Ai đang nhận được tài sản bị mất bởi khán giả của chúng ta?
    Tôi sẽ cho bạn biết số tiền lớn nhất đang đi đâu.
    Số tiền lớn nhất từ trước đến nay kể từ đại dịch, 11 triệu tỷ đô la chỉ dành cho giá trị của bảy công ty sở hữu công nghệ. Vậy bảy công ty lớn nhất ở Mỹ đã nhận 11 triệu tỷ đô la. Và bạn không muốn những ông chủ tỷ phú của họ phải đóng nhiều thuế hơn. Liệu điều đó có giúp được Vương quốc Anh không? Nếu bạn sử dụng số tiền đó để giảm thuế cho người lao động, thì điều đó sẽ giúp ích. Đúng vậy. Họ nắm giữ cổ phiếu tại Mỹ. Họ là công dân Mỹ. Đúng vậy. Vậy điều đó không giúp chúng tôi ở đây. Không, nhưng nó sẽ giúp người tiêu dùng Mỹ. Và sau đó chúng ta có thể xuất khẩu người tiêu dùng Mỹ. Điều đó sẽ có nghĩa là người tiêu dùng Mỹ có tiền. Và sau đó nó sẽ cho người Anh thấy họ có thể đạt được nhiều điều như thế nào bằng cách đánh thuế những người siêu giàu. Chúng ta có thể tăng thuế cho những người siêu giàu ở đây. Và điều tôi muốn là những người này phải đóng thuế nhiều đến mức họ bắt đầu bán tài sản. Và sau đó, những người dân bình thường của Vương quốc Anh có thể mua tài sản một lần nữa. Bởi vì điều tôi muốn là khán giả của chúng tôi có thể sở hữu những thứ, có thể sở hữu những ngôi nhà của riêng họ. Khi tôi nghe điều này, tôi thừa nhận rằng tôi không biết nhiều về những vấn đề này như các bạn. Nhưng khi tôi nghe rằng có bảy công ty công nghệ này ở Mỹ, tâm trí tôi nghĩ, chúng ta không thể có một cái ở đây sao? Đúng vậy. Đúng vậy. Chúng ta không thể bắt đầu sao? Và sau đó tâm trí tôi nghĩ, chúng ta cần tạo ra điều kiện gì? Chúng tôi đã bán một trong số những công ty mà chúng tôi có. Đúng vậy. Chúng ta cần tạo ra điều kiện gì để có một trong bảy công ty công nghệ đó ở đây, đặc biệt là trong thế giới AI mà chúng ta đang hướng tới, nơi mà khi tôi đọc qua các thống kê, phần lớn các khoản đầu tư vào AI, cái mà sẽ tạo ra sự bất ổn lớn trên mọi ngành công nghiệp, từ lái xe đến bất kỳ hình thức công việc tri thức nào, thậm chí là podcasting. Tôi có thể phát cho bạn một podcast bây giờ, nghe hoàn toàn giống như tôi, có xếp hạng 4.6 sao trên Apple, do AI viết bằng giọng nói của tôi, được phát hành bởi AI. Wow. Và ai đang tích lũy giá trị ở đó? Vâng, đó là một công ty ở Mỹ có tên là Eleven Labs, và đó là OpenAI. Và tôi tự hỏi, tại sao chúng ta không thể có những công ty đó ở đây? Chúng ta cần họ ở đây. Bởi vì Trung Quốc và Mỹ đang thống trị cuộc cách mạng tiếp theo này. Và tôi lo lắng như một người đứng ngoài rằng nếu chúng ta không tạo ra môi trường thân thiện với khởi nghiệp ở đây, chúng ta sẽ trở thành Ấn Độ. Nếu bạn muốn các doanh nghiệp phát triển, bạn không chỉ cần một môi trường tốt cho các doanh nhân. Bạn cũng cần mọi người có tiền để chi tiêu. Và chúng ta đang ở một đất nước nơi ngày càng nhiều người không còn gì vào cuối tháng. Họ hầu như không thể chi trả hóa đơn. Những công ty đó đang bán hàng trên toàn cầu, đúng không? Vậy họ không cần một công ty cụ thể nào đó để làm tốt. Họ bán ở mọi nơi. Vậy nên như OpenAI, ChatGPT, tất cả chúng ta đang sử dụng sản phẩm đó và trả 20, 30 đô la mỗi tháng. Vâng, họ thực sự kiếm tiền từ đâu? Họ kiếm tiền từ việc bán dữ liệu cho người giàu, đúng không? Điểm của tôi là làm cho môi trường thân thiện hơn với các doanh nhân. Bởi vì khi tôi bắt đầu một công ty, tôi không thể giải thích được bất lợi mà tôi đang gặp phải nếu tôi bắt đầu loại hình công ty đó ở đây. Không có nhà đầu tư nào cả. Và sau đó tất cả tài năng dường như đều đổ về San Francisco. Những chàng trai người Anh đã xây dựng một công ty AI có tên Fixer, mà tôi định đầu tư, đều là những chàng trai trẻ từ London, họ đã đến San Francisco. Họ khoảng 25 tuổi. Họ vừa huy động được 60 triệu đô la định giá. Họ đang trong một căn phòng, toà nhà ở San Francisco, đầy những doanh nhân. Và họ đang bơm kiến thức và vốn vào trong căn phòng này. Với tất cả sự tôn trọng, Stephen, bạn không phải là một ví dụ tốt về việc điều đó là không thể để bắt đầu một thương hiệu trực tuyến thành công ở Vương quốc Anh. Đúng vậy. Nhưng tôi cũng nhận ra rằng… Vấn đề của… Nhưng anh ấy đã bắt đầu khi mọi thứ khác. Nhưng tôi cũng nhận ra rằng tôi không thích sử dụng những ví dụ cá nhân vì có một lượng lớn đặc quyền và… Được rồi, có phải ChatGPT ở Đức không? Không. Có phải ChatGPT ở Pháp không? Không. Có phải ChatGPT ở Úc không? Không. Có phải ChatGPT ở Trung Quốc không? Đó là Trung Quốc và… Chờ một chút. Vâng, chính xác. Những gì bạn có ở đây là một mô hình lao động cực kỳ thấp, vốn cực kỳ cao, chỉ sử dụng một số rất ít người trên toàn cầu và chủ yếu tập trung ở hai thành phố. Vâng. Chúc bạn may mắn với việc cạnh tranh với điều đó. Làm thế nào chúng ta tạo ra một môi trường mà Vương quốc Anh có thể bắt đầu xây dựng một số công ty này, mà sẽ tận dụng cuộc cách mạng công nghệ tiếp theo? Nếu bạn là Thủ tướng, bạn sẽ làm gì? Tôi nghĩ bạn cần nhìn nhận một cách thực tế về những công ty nào mà chúng ta có cơ hội phát triển. Bạn biết đó, tôi không phải là một chuyên gia về AI, nhưng tôi nghĩ cố gắng cạnh tranh với San Francisco ở London có lẽ sẽ không hiệu quả. Tại sao? Hãy thử làm đi. Bạn biết đấy, hãy thử làm đi. Và lắng nghe, tôi biết rằng bạn có thể nhận được rất nhiều lượt thích khi nói rằng hãy đầu tư vào AI, hãy đầu tư vào. Chỉ có một thành phố trên thế giới ngoài Trung Quốc đã làm được điều đó. Trung Quốc đã làm được điều đó chủ yếu nhờ vào chủ nghĩa tư bản nhà nước. Bạn biết đấy, điều này rất giống với những gì chúng ta từng có với vi điện tử ở Nhật Bản vào những năm 80, phải không? Khi bạn có một ngành công nghiệp mới, đặc biệt là những ngành công nghiệp rất cần vốn và không sử dụng nhiều người lao động, bạn sẽ có lợi thế khởi đầu. Họ có xu hướng chiến thắng. Cuối cùng, thường họ sẽ bị các đối thủ rẻ hơn đánh bại. Và điều đó vẫn xảy ra. Bạn biết đấy, điều đó vẫn xảy ra. Và bạn có thể bắt đầu với AI. Tôi không nghĩ AI sẽ trở thành một nhà tuyển dụng lớn mạnh. Tất nhiên, bạn biết đấy, nhiều quốc gia sẽ giống như, bởi vì về cơ bản nghe có vẻ tốt. Chúng ta sẽ đầu tư vào AI. Chúng ta sẽ đầu tư vào AI. Cá nhân tôi nghĩ chúng ta nên xem xét người dân Anh cần gì? Bạn biết đấy, chúng ta sống trong một đất nước mà quỹ nhà ở đang sụp đổ. Nếu chúng ta nói về AI, khi chúng ta nói về AI, tôi nghĩ chúng ta thực sự đang nói về công nghệ. Bởi vì ngay cả một podcast, như một podcast như thế này, bạn không nghĩ về điều này như một công ty AI.
    Nhưng thực tế là quy trình chỉnh sửa, quy trình viết kịch bản, quy trình sao chép, thậm chí chính YouTube cũng là một công ty AI.
    Vì vậy, đây thực sự là công nghệ mà chúng ta đang nói đến.
    Và tôi đang tự hỏi tại sao chúng ta không thể tạo ra một môi trường tốt hơn tại Vương Quốc Anh để bắt đầu khởi nghiệp và xây dựng một số công ty công nghệ này.
    Tôi nghĩ chúng ta nên làm như vậy.
    Và tôi nghĩ chúng ta nên xem xét việc giảm thuế cho những người lao động và kiếm tiền.
    Đây là điều tôi đã nói trong suốt thời gian qua.
    Còn những người khởi nghiệp thì sao?
    Đúng, chúng ta nên giảm thuế cho họ dựa trên thu nhập mà họ kiếm được.
    Nhưng nếu họ bắt đầu sở hữu một công ty trị giá 50 triệu bảng, bạn đang nói rằng nếu bạn đến gặp tôi và tôi nói, được rồi, bạn muốn bắt đầu một công ty, chúng tôi sẽ đánh thuế bạn rất, rất ít trên công ty mà bạn bắt đầu.
    Nếu công ty đó trở nên có giá trị 20, 30, 40 triệu bảng, thì chúng tôi sẽ bắt đầu đánh thuế bạn.
    Bạn sẽ đến và nói với tôi, ôi không, xin lỗi, 50 triệu là không đủ với tôi.
    Vậy tôi có thể hỏi một câu về điều đó không?
    Công ty của tôi được định giá 50, hoặc 100 triệu.
    Chúc mừng!
    Và tôi vẫn còn, vì tôi chưa có sự kiện thoát ra.
    Đúng vậy.
    Tôi vẫn có 10.000 bảng, 20.000 bảng trong tài khoản ngân hàng của tôi.
    Bạn có đang nói về thời điểm khi tôi bán công ty hay bạn đang nói chỉ vì tôi có cổ phần trong công ty?
    Tôi nghĩ bạn có thể cấu trúc nó theo nhiều cách.
    Bạn có thể cấu trúc theo nhiều cách.
    Cách mà tôi ưu tiên là ngăn chặn mọi người tích trữ một lượng tài sản khổng lồ trong thời gian dài.
    Đó là phương pháp ưu tiên của tôi.
    Cũng có phương pháp thuế tài sản.
    Cũng có lợi nhuận vốn như một phương pháp.
    Có rất nhiều cách khác nhau ở đây.
    Có rất nhiều cách khác nhau ở đây.
    Nhưng bạn phải xử lý vấn đề nếu bạn không đánh thuế những cá nhân rất giàu và những gia đình rất giàu, phần của họ trong chiếc bánh chắc chắn sẽ lớn lên theo thời gian.
    Và họ sẽ.
    Và họ đang, khi chúng ta đang chứng kiến, bóp nghẹt các gia đình bình thường của chúng ta.
    Bạn phải đối phó với điều đó.
    Người bạn của tôi đã bán công ty của mình tại Vương Quốc Anh.
    Đó là một công ty mà ai cũng biết.
    Và tôi nhớ anh ấy đã nói với tôi vào thời điểm đó, đó là giữa đại dịch.
    Anh ấy đã có một sự kiện thoát ra lớn.
    Tôi nghĩ anh ấy đã kiếm được 300 triệu.
    Và anh ấy nói, tôi đi đây.
    Tôi hỏi, bạn định đi đâu?
    Và anh ấy nói, tôi sẽ đi Dubai và Monaco và sống giữa hai nơi đó.
    Và tôi đã hỏi anh ấy, hãy giải thích cho tôi lý do.
    Anh ấy nói, số thuế mà tôi phải trả ở Vương Quốc Anh tương đương với việc tôi phải trả 20 triệu tiền thuê ở Vương Quốc Anh trong vòng sáu hoặc bảy năm, mà bạn sẽ phải ở đây.
    Vì vậy, anh ấy đã đi và thỉnh thoảng ghé về.
    Nhưng điều đó có nghĩa là anh ấy có thể giữ lại 150 triệu, bất kỳ thuế nào mà anh ấy sẽ phải trả, chưa bao giờ phải trả cho Vương Quốc Anh.
    Bây giờ anh ấy đang sống cuộc đời cao cấp ở Dubai, thỉnh thoảng ghé qua Monaco.
    Và tôi nhớ anh ấy đã nói với tôi, Steve, tôi sẽ phải trả 20 triệu tiền thuê mỗi năm để sống ở đây.
    Và anh ấy tiếp tục nói, sản phẩm Vương Quốc Anh không xứng đáng.
    Anh ấy nói, tội phạm, tôi sẽ bị cướp Rolex.
    Anh ấy nói, hệ thống chăm sóc sức khỏe không phải là tốt nhất.
    Hệ thống giáo dục cũng không nhất thiết là tốt nhất.
    Và điều đặc biệt là tội phạm, mà tôi sẽ bị cướp khi đi bộ trên phố London.
    Stephen, nếu bạn cho phép người Anh sở hữu 300 triệu bảng tài sản ở Anh sống ở Monaco mà không cần trả thuế, thì bạn sẽ có tội phạm.
    Và bạn sẽ có những con phố bẩn thỉu và bạn sẽ có hệ thống chăm sóc sức khỏe kém và bạn sẽ có giáo dục.
    Bởi vì nếu bạn giao toàn bộ tài sản cho một nhóm người không phải trả thuế, sẽ không còn gì để cung cấp các dịch vụ như chăm sóc sức khỏe và giáo dục cho những người bình thường.
    Điều này không phải không liên quan.
    Những người này thực sự không sống kỹ thuật ở đó.
    Họ đang di chuyển ra ngoài.
    Bạn bè của tôi đã rời bỏ đất nước.
    Họ không trở lại Vương Quốc Anh.
    Họ đã rời đi và mang theo các công ty của họ.
    Vì vậy, họ đã xây dựng một công ty ở đây.
    Và chúng tôi để họ rời đi mà không phải trả thuế.
    Họ thường xây dựng một doanh nghiệp toàn cầu.
    Không phải là họ không trả.
    Đó là một doanh nghiệp toàn cầu.
    Họ không không trả thuế.
    Họ phải trả số tiền thuế khổng lồ.
    Bất kỳ ai ở đây đều đang chịu những loại thuế cực kỳ cao hơn so với trước đây.
    1% trả 30%.
    10% trả 60% trong tổng số 1,2 nghìn tỷ chi tiêu của chính phủ mỗi năm.
    Vậy người này trị giá 300 triệu, anh ấy đã trả bao nhiêu thuế trong đời?
    Tôi không có ý tưởng.
    Tôi không có ý tưởng.
    Doanh nghiệp của anh ấy là toàn cầu.
    Khách hàng lớn nhất của anh ấy là từ Hoa Kỳ.
    Bởi vì tôi phải trả 60%.
    Và những người xem của chúng ta sẽ phải trả 30%, 40%, 50%.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng điều đó công bằng khi người 300 triệu của bạn trả thuế hai hoặc ba triệu không?
    Tôi không có ý tưởng anh ấy trả bao nhiêu.
    Chà, có vẻ như anh ấy không trả 50%.
    Chà, anh ấy đã biến mất trước khi nhận được hóa đơn thuế.
    Nhưng tại sao chúng ta lại cho phép điều đó?
    Tại sao chúng ta cho phép điều đó?
    Tôi không được phép không trả thuế của mình.
    Bạn có thể làm gì để…
    Bạn hoàn toàn được phép.
    Khi bạn ở Nhật Bản, bạn sẽ không phải trả thuế ở Vương Quốc Anh.
    Đúng vậy, vì tôi đang làm việc ở Nhật Bản và tôi đã trả thuế Nhật Bản.
    Đúng vậy, vì bạn đang sống ở Nhật Bản.
    Đây là điều quan trọng.
    Mọi người có thể sống ở bất cứ đâu họ muốn bây giờ.
    Nhưng chúng ta đang nói về…
    Điều này…
    Tôi nghĩ chúng ta nên ngừng nhầm lẫn thuế trên công việc của mọi người với thuế trên các tài sản mà họ sở hữu.
    Không, không, nhưng tôi đang nói…
    Vì vậy, tôi đang nói về công việc của những doanh nhân tạo ra tài sản.
    Vì vậy, khi các doanh nhân thường không…
    Một tỷ bảng tài sản ở Anh.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và sau đó tôi nói, tôi sống ở Dubai.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và tôi đang nhận tiền thuê từ một tỷ bảng tài sản, sẽ có thể là khoảng…
    Điều này có thể sẽ là khoảng 50 triệu bảng mỗi năm.
    Đúng vậy.
    Vì vậy, tôi đang nhận được 50, 60 triệu bảng mỗi năm từ tiền thuê của người Anh.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và điều đó được trả cho tôi từ người Anh.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và tôi không trả thuế vì tôi sống ở Dubai.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng điều đó công bằng không?
    Không.
    Được rồi.
    Vậy hãy thay đổi điều đó.
    Hãy để mọi người phải trả thuế trên tài sản của họ, bất kể họ sống ở đâu.
    Đúng vậy.
    Câu hỏi đặt ra là, vậy, bạn sẽ đánh thuế những người này như thế nào, đúng không?
    Và bạn sẽ thực sự cấu trúc nó như thế nào?
    Bởi vì bất kể bạn cảm thấy điều gì là công bằng, đây là vấn đề.
    Nó không phải là về công bằng.
    Mà là về những gì bạn có thể thực tế và khả thi làm trong nền kinh tế hiện đại.
    Bạn có thể nói, ôi, thực ra tôi…
    Chẳng hạn, nếu chúng ta nói điều gì là công bằng, rất nhiều người sẽ nói thuế đồng đều là công bằng.
    Bạn kiếm được một bảng, bạn trả 20%.
    Bạn kiếm được một triệu bảng, bạn trả 20%.
    Bạn kiếm được 100 triệu bảng, bạn trả 20%.
    Vì vậy, rất nhiều người sẽ nói rằng hệ thống thuế công bằng nhất chỉ đơn giản là thuế đồng đều cho mọi thứ, đúng không?
    Điều đó sẽ là công bằng.
    Nhưng thực tế, bạn có thể làm điều đó không?
    Nó có thực sự tốt cho xã hội không?
    Có nên loại trừ người dân khỏi điều đó không?
    Vì vậy, không phải là về công bằng.
    Mà là về thực tế, bạn có thể tránh né điều gì?
    Được rồi.
    Về mặt thực tiễn, điều mà chúng ta có thể tránh né là sự nghèo đói tuyệt vọng đối với trẻ em của khán giả của chúng ta.
    Nếu bạn muốn có…
    Chúng ta có thể nhìn xa một chút không, đúng không?
    Tôi muốn nhìn xa.
    Hãy nhìn xa khỏi trẻ em của khán giả của chúng ta.
    Hãy zoom ra.
    Quên họ đi.
    Họ không ủng hộ bạn.
    Tôi là một người cha, đúng không?
    Tôi có ba đứa con.
    Nhưng bạn là một người cha triệu phú, đúng không.
    Bạn có biết…
    Có thể bạn không có những vấn đề giống như khán giả của chúng ta.
    Bạn có biết rằng những đứa trẻ được sinh ra trong gia đình giàu có có 60% khả năng rơi ra khỏi tầng lớp trên không?
    60%.
    Đó là con số.
    Nó được gọi là sự kiên trì.
    Bạn có thể tìm kiếm trên Google.
    Tỷ lệ kiên trì thực tế chỉ là 40% cho những người giàu nhất, có nghĩa là 60% rơi ra khỏi tầng lớp này trong thế hệ thứ hai.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng con của bạn có 60% khả năng sống trong cảnh nghèo đói không?
    Có thể.
    Không phải nghèo đói.
    Bạn có biết điều thú vị không?
    Chúng ta đều đang cố gắng hướng đến cùng một mục tiêu, tôi nghĩ vậy.
    Tôi không chắc là chúng ta đang làm điều đó, sếp.
    Chà, điều đó là công bằng.
    Điều đó là công bằng.
    Có thể chúng ta không.
    Tôi nghi ngờ rằng một số người trong chúng ta có thể đang cố gắng bảo vệ vị thế tài sản của con cái mình.
    Tôi muốn có một sự thịnh vượng rộng rãi thông qua cuộc cách mạng công nghệ đang diễn ra, và tôi không muốn những người tạo ra điều đó lại muốn đi nơi khác.
    Vậy thì bạn đồng ý với tôi rằng chúng ta nên giảm thuế cho những người tạo ra tài sản và tăng thuế cho những người tích trữ tài sản?
    Thì nói chung là vậy.
    Được rồi, vậy thì hãy làm điều đó.
    Hãy giảm thuế cho những người kiếm thu nhập.
    Hãy giảm thuế cho những người chăm chỉ làm việc, tạo ra sản phẩm tốt, kiếm được thu nhập tốt, và hãy tăng thuế cho những người ngồi đó sở hữu 20, 30, 40, 100, 200, 500 triệu bảng tài sản mà họ sẽ truyền lại cho con cái mình, và họ sẽ sử dụng để thống trị xã hội và đẩy trung lưu ra ngoài.
    Ai là ví dụ về một người tích trữ tài sản?
    Rishi Sunak.
    Vậy gia đình của anh ta sở hữu một công ty công nghệ?
    Bố vợ của anh ấy sở hữu một công ty công nghệ.
    Đó là điều tôi muốn nói.
    Mà anh sẽ thừa kế, và con cái của anh sẽ thừa kế.
    Giá trị tài sản ròng của anh được báo cáo dựa trên vợ của anh.
    Vâng, nhưng công ty đó đã tồn tại rồi.
    Vâng.
    Nó được tạo ra bây giờ.
    Vâng.
    Nó trị giá hàng tỷ.
    Nhưng họ phải tái phát minh cho doanh nghiệp đó mỗi hai năm.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ nếu bố vợ của Rishi Sunak dừng quản lý công ty, thì nó sẽ không còn giá trị?
    Không, tôi nghĩ nó thuê hàng trăm nghìn người và đó là một công ty lớn.
    Tôi không biết nhiều về công ty cụ thể đó, nhưng tôi biết đó là một công ty công nghệ.
    Steve Jobs đã qua đời.
    Vâng.
    Apple không còn giá trị?
    Không.
    Hãy đừng giả vờ rằng những người sáng tạo này là lý do duy nhất khiến những công ty này có giá trị.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Bạn biết đấy, và điều mà chúng ta đang nói về trong nhiều trường hợp, bạn biết đấy, tôi đã từng là một nhà giao dịch, được không?
    Và tôi trị giá hàng triệu bảng, và bạn biết đấy, bây giờ chỉ còn là tài sản.
    Tôi chỉ sở hữu tài sản.
    Tôi sở hữu tài sản.
    Và điều đó sẽ phát triển, và nó sẽ phát triển, và nó sẽ phát triển, và nó sẽ phát triển.
    Và điều đó sẽ đẩy lui, và đẩy lui, và đẩy lui, và đẩy lui khán giả của chúng ta.
    Và tôi sẽ truyền lại điều đó cho con cái mình.
    Chúng thậm chí không cần phải làm việc.
    Chúng thậm chí sẽ không phải làm việc.
    Chúng có thể chỉ cần sống trên – tôi có thể sống dựa vào của cải đó.
    Đó có phải điều bạn muốn không?
    Bạn có nghĩ có cơ hội nào cho mọi người ngày hôm nay không?
    Chẳng hạn, nếu bạn được sinh ra trong một gia đình nghèo, bạn có nghĩ có thể rằng nhà ở đang tồi tệ – và chúng ta có thể đồng ý về điều đó –
    nhưng bạn có nghĩ rằng có những cơ hội mới không từng tồn tại cho cha mẹ hoặc ông bà của chúng ta, nhưng lại tồn tại cho mọi người hôm nay?
    Tôi nghĩ sự thật là, đối với những đứa trẻ xuất thân từ gia đình nghèo, thực sự rất khó để có được thậm chí cả sự an toàn tài chính, chứ đừng nói đến sự giàu có.
    Nhưng tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng bạn có thể làm được, tôi có thể làm được, anh ta có thể làm được?
    Nhưng bạn không nghĩ rằng những người khác có thể làm được?
    Chà, điều đầu tiên là, tôi 38 tuổi rồi, nên tôi không phải là một đứa trẻ ngày nay.
    Nghe này, tôi đã thắng mọi cuộc thi toán mà tôi từng tham gia, bạn biết đấy, từ khi tôi còn nhỏ.
    Tôi thậm chí không có một cái bàn trong nhà, bạn biết không.
    Tôi đã là một trong những sinh viên giỏi nhất tại LSE, và tôi vẫn phải chiến thắng công việc của mình bằng cách gian lận trong trò chơi bài.
    Bạn biết đấy, đó là thế giới mà chúng ta đang sống.
    Tôi không nghĩ đó là một chiến lược rất có thể sao chép.
    Và rất dễ dàng cho những người như chúng tôi đã kiếm được tiền để nói, ôi, chúng tôi đã làm được, chúng tôi thật tuyệt, hãy ra ngoài.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, bạn đã nói rằng bạn nghĩ nếu những người trẻ đi làm trong một doanh nghiệp công nghệ, họ có thể có được sự an toàn tài chính.
    Nếu dễ dàng như vậy, thì họ tất cả đã làm như vậy rồi.
    Bạn biết đấy, họ không phải là những kẻ ngốc.
    Khán giả của chúng ta không phải là những kẻ ngốc.
    Họ đang cố gắng.
    Họ đang cố gắng.
    Họ muốn tìm những cơ hội tốt.
    Và họ làm việc.
    Nghe này, tôi nói.
    Họ đang làm việc rất chăm chỉ.
    Tôi không phải là người nói rằng họ là những kẻ ngốc.
    Bạn là người nói rằng họ không thể làm được nữa.
    Tôi thấy mọi người làm được điều đó mọi lúc.
    Chẳng hạn, tôi làm việc trong khởi nghiệp.
    Những người từ gia đình nghèo.
    Gia đình nghèo.
    Vậy tại sao khán giả của chúng ta – bạn nghĩ rằng nếu quá dễ dàng như vậy, tại sao mọi người lại không làm điều đó?
    Tôi sẽ nói với bạn lý do tại sao mọi người không làm điều đó.
    Chúng ta đã trải qua một hệ thống giáo dục dạy chúng ta cách kiếm một công việc văn phòng.
    Được không.
    Đúng không?
    Chúng ta đã trải qua một hệ thống giáo dục để chuẩn bị cho chúng ta vào một thế giới mà giờ đây không thật sự còn tồn tại nữa, đó là thế giới của cuộc cách mạng công nghiệp.
    Và bạn phải trải qua một quá trình để tìm ra cách mà nó thực sự hoạt động.
    Điều tôi thấy là những người trẻ tuổi làm ăn phát đạt về tài chính thường rời bỏ trường học, họ bỏ học đại học, họ bắt đầu học cách làm việc bằng cách tự nghiên cứu, họ bắt đầu kinh doanh hoặc đồng sáng lập một doanh nghiệp, họ đi theo một con đường rất khác biệt.
    Không điều nào trong số đó được dạy cho chúng ta ở trường.
    Không điều nào trong số đó được dạy cho chúng ta trong xã hội bình thường.
    Chúng ta có một hệ thống giáo dục sản xuất ra những người có những kỹ năng không còn giá trị nhiều nữa, và chúng ta còn khiến họ mắc nợ vì những kỹ năng đó.
    Khi mọi người tránh được điều đó và nói, được rồi, tôi sẽ không để bản thân mắc nợ đại học, tôi sẽ đi ra ngoài và thực sự tìm hiểu cách thức hoạt động của thế giới, thì thực tế có rất nhiều cơ hội.
    Được rồi.
    Vậy tôi đoán là chúng ta đã giải quyết xong vấn đề này rồi.
    Tất cả những gì người xem của chúng ta cần làm là đi mua cuốn sách của Dan, trở thành một doanh nhân và trở thành triệu phú.
    Thật dễ dàng như vậy.
    Tại sao các bạn lại không làm điều đó ngay từ đầu?
    Họ là những kẻ ngu ngốc.
    Người xem là những kẻ ngu ngốc.
    Họ chỉ cần trở nên kinh doanh hơn một chút.
    Nó đơn giản như vậy thôi.
    Kinh doanh hơn.
    Bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp.
    Nghe này, tôi đến từ Đông London, được chứ?
    Bạn bè của tôi không đủ khả năng nuôi con của họ, được chứ?
    Và nếu như nó dễ dàng như việc ra ngoài trở thành một doanh nhân, tôi có thể cá là họ sẽ làm điều đó.
    Tôi có thể chắc chắn là họ sẽ làm điều đó.
    Hãy để tôi nói, tôi phát ngấy với những triệu phú đang nói với những đứa trẻ không đủ khả năng để bật lò sưởi, rằng bạn chỉ cần trở nên kinh doanh hơn.
    Thật là bệnh hoạn, Dan.
    Thật là bệnh hoạn.
    Nhưng điều này khiến mọi người bị bệnh tâm thần.
    Nó khiến mọi người bị bệnh tâm thần.
    Hãy nói cho họ sự thật, được chứ?
    Bạn là thế hệ lớn tuổi hơn.
    Chúng tôi đã tận dụng cơ hội và giờ đây thì gần như không thể thoát khỏi cảnh nghèo.
    Và đừng chỉ đứng dậy và vẫy tay, bạn biết đấy, những triệu phú của bạn trước mặt họ và nói, nếu bạn kinh doanh như tôi, bạn có thể làm được.
    Bạn có thể có điều đó.
    Bởi vì điều đó thật bệnh hoạn vì họ không thể.
    Họ không thể nuôi con của họ, Dan.
    Họ không thể bật lò sưởi.
    Đừng bảo họ nên kinh doanh hơn.
    Đừng bảo họ nên kinh doanh hơn.
    Hãy sửa chữa hệ thống khiến ngày càng nhiều người rơi vào cảnh nghèo khó qua từng thế hệ.
    Tôi thấy thật kỳ lạ khi bạn nghĩ rằng sẽ dễ dàng hơn để sửa chữa toàn bộ hệ thống kinh tế toàn cầu hơn là bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp và sửa chữa nền kinh tế cá nhân của bạn.
    Điều tôi biết mà khiến mọi người có vấn đề về sức khỏe tâm thần là cảm giác họ không có quyền làm chủ cuộc đời mình, rằng họ không thể làm gì cả.
    Video của bạn, trong đó bạn nói rằng nếu bạn không có một người cha giàu có, bạn sẽ gặp khó khăn.
    Không có thứ gọi là chủ nghĩa tuyển chọn.
    Bạn sẽ không bao giờ thành công.
    Đối với tôi, nếu tôi tình cờ gặp nội dung của bạn khi 19, 20 tuổi, tôi đã gặp rắc rối.
    Tôi thật sự vui mừng vì đã gặp những người nói, Daniel, bạn không được sinh ra trong một gia đình giàu có.
    Bạn không có ngân hàng của bố mẹ.
    Nhưng bây giờ thật rẻ và dễ dàng hơn bao giờ hết để bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp.
    Bắt đầu bằng cách làm việc cho ai đó có một doanh nghiệp.
    Sau đó hãy tìm ra cơ hội của bạn.
    Và có một cách.
    Có một cách.
    Tôi thực sự đã làm việc với rất nhiều thanh thiếu niên từ những hoàn cảnh nghèo khó.
    Và một trong những điều chúng tôi làm là chúng tôi nói với họ, nếu điều đó có thể xảy ra với người khác, nó cũng có thể xảy ra với bạn.
    Tôi cũng đã làm việc ở nông thôn Uganda với một tổ chức từ thiện đã làm việc với những người nghèo nhất.
    Một trong những điều tuyệt vời nhất mà tôi từng thấy là một người phụ nữ đã bắt đầu từ việc nhặt thức ăn trong đống rác.
    Và họ đã chia sẻ với cô ấy cách bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp gà, rồi sau đó trở thành một doanh nghiệp heo, rồi sau đó thành một doanh nghiệp bò.
    Cuối cùng cô ấy đã tạo ra việc làm cho 15, 16 người trong cộng đồng địa phương của mình.
    Sức mạnh của tinh thần doanh nhân là bắt đầu từ không có gì, bạn thực sự có thể tạo ra sự cải thiện.
    Tôi không nói rằng mọi người sẽ trở thành triệu phú và tôi không nói mọi người sẽ bằng nhau.
    Nhưng tôi nói rằng bạn có thể tạo ra những cải tiến trong cuộc sống của bạn.
    Và điều gây ra vấn đề về sức khỏe tâm thần là cảm giác không có quyền năng hoặc không kiểm soát được hoàn cảnh của bạn cho đến khi thế giới thay đổi toàn bộ hệ thống kinh tế.
    Nghe này, tôi chưa bao giờ nói với mọi người đừng làm việc chăm chỉ.
    Tôi chưa bao giờ nói như vậy một lần nào.
    Chưa bao giờ nói như vậy.
    Bạn đã nói rằng nếu cha bạn không giàu, bạn sẽ không bao giờ giàu.
    Điều đó đúng trong 99,9% trường hợp.
    Tôi chưa bao giờ nói với mọi người đừng làm việc chăm chỉ.
    Điều đó thực sự không đúng trong 99% trường hợp.
    Tôi chưa bao giờ nói với mọi người đừng làm việc chăm chỉ, được chứ?
    Và nghe này, nếu bạn nghĩ rằng người Uganda nên trở nên kinh doanh hơn, tôi chưa bao giờ đến Uganda.
    Có thể đó là vấn đề ở đó.
    Có thể đó là vấn đề ở Nigeria.
    Có thể đó là vấn đề ở Ấn Độ.
    Nghe này, tôi chưa bao giờ nói đừng làm việc chăm chỉ, được chứ?
    Khi tôi phát hành cuốn sách của mình vào năm ngoái, bìa cứng, tôi đã ở một sự kiện và đi ra ngoài.
    Tôi đang uống ở London Bridge và đi ra ngoài muộn.
    Là khoảng 1 giờ sáng.
    Và có một người đàn ông đến gặp tôi khi tôi đang khóa xe đạp.
    Một người đàn ông từ Newcastle, một thành phố khá nghèo ở phía đông bắc nước Anh.
    Có nhiều người lao động ở đó.
    Và anh ấy nói, tôi đã xem bạn trên YouTube và tôi rất thích những gì bạn làm.
    Và người đàn ông này bắt đầu khóc.
    Người này bắt đầu khóc trên phố, đúng không, ngay trước mặt tôi.
    Anh ấy nói, tôi làm việc rất chăm chỉ, Gary.
    Tôi làm hai công việc.
    Mẹ tôi ốm và tôi đang cố gắng giúp đỡ.
    Tôi đang cố gắng hỗ trợ và tôi không hiểu tại sao.
    Và tôi xin lỗi vì tôi đang khóc.
    Nhưng chưa bao giờ có ai nói với tôi rằng đó không phải lỗi của tôi trước đây.
    Đó là những gì anh ấy đã nói với tôi, được chứ?
    Và nghe này, tôi tin tưởng 100% vào khát vọng, tham vọng, tinh thần doanh nhân.
    Tôi sẽ không bao giờ không ủng hộ một đứa trẻ có điều đó và nói, hãy tắt nó đi, được chứ?
    Nhưng mặt khác của câu nói của bạn, nếu bạn chỉ làm việc đủ chăm chỉ, bạn có thể thành công, là nếu bạn không thành công, thì đó là vì bạn đã không làm việc đủ chăm chỉ và đó là lỗi của bạn.
    Và tôi muốn bạn ngồi lại và suy nghĩ thật kỹ trước khi gửi thông điệp đó đến những người trẻ trong xã hội chúng ta. Chế độ ưu đãi không có nghĩa là ai cũng có kết quả giống nhau. Đây là điều tôi đang cố gắng đạt được. Tôi đang cố gắng để những người có tham vọng, những người có thể nỗ lực, được khuyến khích làm điều đó và được khuyến khích tạo ra việc làm và xây dựng công ty. Còn những người chỉ muốn làm việc chăm chỉ, có một gia đình tốt, chăm sóc cho họ, có một mái nhà và có thể mở máy sưởi, có được sự an toàn tài chính thì sao? Họ cần phải làm việc cho một doanh nghiệp, phải không? Họ cần phải làm việc cho bạn? Đúng. Xin lỗi? Họ cần phải làm việc cho bạn. Họ cần phải làm việc cho một doanh nghiệp, một doanh nghiệp nào đó, phải không? Nếu không ai tạo ra doanh nghiệp đó, thì họ sẽ làm việc ở đâu? Thông tin là, hiện nay có 11% người trong độ tuổi lao động được khai báo là quá ốm để làm việc, đúng không? Chúng ta đang có một vấn đề lớn ở Vương quốc Anh. Chúng ta có 25% người trong độ tuổi lao động không có việc làm. Có một trên bảy người đàn ông không làm việc gì cả. Bạn có nghĩ rằng họ lười biếng không, Dan? Tôi nghĩ hệ thống đang sụp đổ. Bạn có nghĩ hệ thống đã thay đổi không? Trung bình người Anh không làm việc vì lười biếng. Điều tôi nghĩ đang diễn ra là các công ty công nghệ đang hoàn toàn chuyển đổi và phá vỡ mọi thứ. Và điều gì đã xảy ra là vào khoảng thời kỳ hậu chiến, chúng ta có những công việc tốt. Chúng ta có thể làm việc ở những nơi địa phương. Điều đang xảy ra bây giờ là công việc đang chuyển sang Philippines. Công nghệ làm ba việc. Nó đơn giản hóa công việc, có nghĩa là có thể thay thế được. Nó toàn cầu hóa công việc, nơi bạn có thể chuyển chúng đến bất kỳ nơi nào khác. Và sau đó, cuối cùng, nó tự động hóa công việc hoàn toàn và loại bỏ nó thông qua mã và phần mềm. Và điều thực sự đang diễn ra trong năm năm qua, đặc biệt là kể từ đại dịch, là công nghệ đã tàn phá các hệ thống hiện có mà tất cả chúng ta đã dựa vào khi lớn lên. Và khi tôi nói rằng hệ thống giáo dục thực sự không hoạt động, nó vẫn đang giả vờ rằng có những công việc văn phòng có sẵn cho mọi người khi họ tốt nghiệp. Và nó vẫn đang giả vờ rằng có những kịch bản như những năm 1950 có sẵn, trong khi thực tế, con cái của tôi sẽ bị gián đoạn bởi AI. Con cái của mọi người sẽ bị gián đoạn bởi AI. Bạn biết đấy, những điều như thế này thực sự là những điều mà chúng ta cũng cần phải nói đến. Đến tất cả các nhà sáng lập và chủ sở hữu doanh nghiệp nhỏ đang lắng nghe, tôi nghĩ bạn cần phải nghe điều này. Đây là một cập nhật từ nhà tài trợ của tôi, Fiverr. Họ vừa mới ra mắt một cái gì đó gọi là Fiverr Go. Và ngắn gọn, đây là một bước ngoặt lớn cho bạn và đội ngũ của bạn. Đây là một công cụ được tạo ra để giúp các freelancer huấn luyện và kiểm soát một công cụ AI cá nhân hóa phù hợp với họ và theo phong cách của họ, điều đó có nghĩa là các freelancer của Fiverr và khách hàng của họ hiện có thể tạo ra các sản phẩm độc đáo gần như ngay lập tức, hoàn toàn bằng cách kết hợp phong cách độc đáo của họ với công nghệ AI cá nhân hóa. Điều quan trọng ở đây với tôi là tiết kiệm thời gian và lấy lại nhiều hơn. Những gì có thể mất vài ngày hoặc một tuần giờ có thể được thực hiện trong vài giây với Fiverr Go. Bạn nhận được những gì bạn muốn và bạn nhận nó ngay lập tức. Và nếu bạn cần chỉnh sửa, tài năng gốc sẽ ở đó để tinh chỉnh. Fiverr Go đã có sẵn trên 60 danh mục và số lượng này đang tăng nhanh. Nếu đó là một điều bạn muốn khai thác, hãy truy cập fiverr.com/diary ngay bây giờ và khám phá Fiverr Go. Sử dụng mã diary để được giảm giá 10% cho đơn hàng đầu tiên của bạn. Đây là khoảnh khắc mà sức mạnh AI gặp gỡ tài năng con người. Tôi muốn trở lại với một điểm mà bạn đã nói trước đó, đó là về quyền tự chủ cá nhân, vì tôi muốn bạn, Daniel, đưa ra phản biện cho lập luận của chính mình, bởi vì tôi muốn đảm bảo rằng khi chúng ta nói về giải pháp cho vấn đề này, khởi nghiệp, trở thành doanh nhân. Bạn cũng có thể hiểu cách mà điều đó có thể hoạt động cho những người có bộ não và tư duy như chúng ta và những gì mà đã khiến chúng ta làm như vậy, khẩu vị rủi ro của chúng ta, chấn thương của chúng ta, bất cứ điều gì đó. Nhưng không phải ai cũng được lập trình theo cách đó. Vì vậy, đó không nhất thiết là giải pháp tốt nhất cho mọi người. Và cũng như chúng ta ngồi ở đây với một chút thiên kiến về sự hồi tưởng, nơi mà chúng ta đã gặp may mắn và điều đó đã thành công với chúng ta. Khi bạn nhìn vào các thống kê về sự thành công của doanh nghiệp, bạn biết đấy, thống kê cho thấy khoảng 90% doanh nghiệp thất bại. Vì vậy, hầu hết trong số họ đang thất bại. Những người xuất hiện từ đó, những người như tôi, thì chúng tôi có một thiên kiến rằng, ồ, nó đã thành công với chúng tôi và bạn cũng có thể làm được như vậy. Tôi không đến từ một gia đình có tiền. Vì vậy, tôi có cùng một thiên kiến. Tôi đã xây dựng từ con số không nhiều lần vì tôi đã bị gián đoạn nhiều lần. Vì vậy, tôi đã phải bắt đầu từ con số không nhiều lần và xây dựng. Nhưng tôi là một kiểu người cụ thể, đúng không? Và khi chúng ta nói bắt đầu từ con số không, thực tế bạn đã bắt đầu với một kho tàng thông tin. Toàn bộ trò chơi trong việc xây dựng doanh nghiệp là vốn trí tuệ. Vốn trí tuệ, đã trải qua nó trước đây, có mặt trong môi trường mà bạn đã nhận được thông tin. Và cũng như có quyền truy cập vào một thị trường tuyệt vời. Như việc có được quyền truy cập vào một thị trường tự do là một điều lớn. Tôi sinh ra ở Úc và tôi chuyển đến London vào đỉnh cao của tự do kinh tế ở London. Vì vậy, đây không thể là lời khuyên áp dụng một cách rộng rãi, đúng không? Vâng, tôi nghĩ quyền tự chủ cá nhân có thể áp dụng rộng rãi. Vâng, tôi đồng ý. Tôi có một người bạn, một ngày nào đó anh ấy tỉnh dậy. Anh ấy đi ra ngoài chơi, đến một câu lạc bộ đêm, cảm thấy ốm, ngã quỵ và tỉnh dậy với bốn chi đã bị cắt bỏ, đúng không? Vì vậy, anh ấy trở thành một bệnh nhân amputee bốn chi. Anh ấy 19 tuổi. Vì vậy, anh ấy tỉnh dậy trên giường và cơ bản nói, tôi là một bệnh nhân amputee bốn chi. Tôi đã ổn cách đây 48 giờ và bây giờ tôi là một bệnh nhân amputee bốn chi. Và anh ấy quyết định thực hiện quyết định này trong phòng bệnh rằng đây sẽ là điều tốt nhất từng xảy ra với anh ấy. Và anh ấy đã đưa ra quyết định đó. Ngay cả điều đó cũng là hệ quả của anh ấy và sự lập trình của anh ấy. Những gì tôi đang cố gắng hiểu là… Nhưng anh ấy đã kết thúc việc thành lập một phòng khám và đó là một phòng khám trị giá hàng triệu đô la. Ừ.
    Tôi có nghĩa là, thật không thể tin được những gì mọi người có thể làm.
    Và anh ấy là ngoại lệ, không phải quy tắc.
    Thật không thể tin được những gì mọi người…
    Nhưng bạn chỉ cần một few người để thành công và toàn bộ nền kinh tế bắt đầu cải thiện.
    Chúng tôi thực sự…
    Tại Vương quốc Anh này, chúng tôi chỉ đang ở đỉnh cao của sự khởi nghiệp, như là, hoạt động rất tốt,
    thì chỉ có 40.000 công ty mở rộng.
    40.000 công ty đang tạo ra sự tăng trưởng việc làm, lương cao hơn, đầu tư vào công ty, vào
    đất nước.
    Bạn biết đấy, chỉ có 1% người đóng thuế 30% và 10% người đóng 60% thuế.
    Vì vậy, bạn chỉ cần một trong 100 người thực sự tạo ra được cái gì đó có giá trị và bạn sẽ có thêm
    30% thuế.
    Nhưng lại, chúng ta cần một…
    Đó là lời khuyên cho những người cuối cùng lọt vào 1% đó.
    Ừ.
    Nhưng tất cả những người khác làm việc cho ai?
    Như, tất cả sự tăng trưởng việc làm đến từ các doanh nhân.
    Vậy bạn đang nói gì với 99% người khác ở đó?
    Bạn có đang nói, hãy đi kiếm việc làm không?
    Chà, bạn cần những người tạo ra của cải trong nền kinh tế giúp xây dựng cái gì đó.
    Như, bạn hãy nhìn Gymshark.
    Những người làm việc tại Gymshark, họ rất vui mừng rằng người này đã bắt đầu công ty.
    Họ rất hạnh phúc vì có một công ty.
    Nếu không có công ty, họ sẽ đi đâu?
    Họ sẽ làm gì?
    Họ làm việc ở đâu?
    Vì vậy, nếu Ben quyết định rằng anh ấy không muốn khởi động công ty đó ở Vương quốc Anh, hoặc nếu anh ấy đạt được
    10 triệu và dừng lại, thì tất cả những công việc bổ sung đó đều sẽ không còn tồn tại.
    Tất cả sẽ biến mất.
    Vì vậy, bạn đang khuyến khích tinh thần khởi nghiệp…
    Bạn không khuyến khích mọi người trở thành doanh nhân.
    Bạn đang nói những người có thiên hướng hoặc điều đó…
    Tôi đang nói chúng ta cần một hệ thống khuyến khích những người có khả năng làm điều đó.
    Còn tất cả những người khác thì sao?
    Chà, hiệu ứng lan rộng là nó tạo ra việc làm, tạo ra sự giàu có trong nền kinh tế,
    và thị trường tự do nâng đỡ mọi người.
    Thị trường tự do đơn giản có nghĩa là mọi người đều giao dịch với nhau.
    Bạn biết đấy, nó bắt đầu…
    Như, toàn bộ vấn đề…
    Ý tôi là, đó chỉ là một câu chuyện cổ xưa.
    Ngay khi nền kinh tế tự do và có các doanh nhân bắt đầu những thứ mới và phát triển những thứ mới,
    cuộc sống của mọi người đều cải thiện.
    Cuộc sống của mọi người trở nên tốt hơn.
    Và bạn không đồng ý với phần nào trong đó, Gary?
    Tôi nghĩ điều đó không hiệu quả.
    Không hiệu quả.
    Thời gian duy nhất…
    Nghe này, 70 năm qua không bình thường, Stephen.
    70 năm qua không bình thường.
    70 năm qua ở châu Âu và Mỹ, nơi mà những người bình thường như bố tôi có thể làm việc cho bưu điện với mức lương dưới mức trung bình và mua nhà
    và nuôi gia đình, điều đó không bình thường.
    Điều đó không bình thường trong thế giới, và cũng không bình thường trong lịch sử.
    Hầu hết các quốc gia trên thế giới không như vậy.
    Hầu hết các quốc gia có một nhóm nhỏ, siêu giàu và một nhóm rất lớn những người cực nghèo.
    Đó là phần lớn của quốc gia, và đó cũng là phần lớn của lịch sử ở quốc gia này, và phần lớn của lịch sử ở Mỹ.
    Bạn biết đấy, chúng ta nói về Charles Dickens.
    Tôi đã đọc Hard Times.
    Tôi đã đọc Hard Times, và điều này được viết vào thế kỷ 19, khi Anh Quốc là cường quốc công nghiệp của toàn thế giới.
    Và trong thời gian đó, chính phủ đang bàn luận việc, liệu chúng ta có nên đánh thuế những nhà công nghiệp này không?
    Và những nhà công nghiệp thì nói, nếu bạn đánh thuế chúng tôi, chúng tôi sẽ ném nhà máy của chúng tôi xuống biển.
    Và điều này luôn nhắc nhở tôi, bạn biết đấy, thời điểm duy nhất mà chúng ta thật sự có thể cung cấp điều kiện sống tốt cho người lao động bình thường
    đã là khoảng thời gian sau chiến tranh, khi mà chúng ta đã phân phối lại của cải một cách mạnh mẽ, và bây giờ chúng ta đang mất đi sự nắm giữ của cải của tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Bạn có thể thừa nhận rằng đó là một thời kỳ hoàn toàn khác khi liên quan đến việc có thể…
    Đó là một thời kỳ khác, nhưng, bạn biết đấy…
    Do công nghệ.
    Nigeria ngày nay, Brasil ngày nay, Vương quốc Anh 300 năm trước, Pháp 200 năm trước.
    Chỉ có một thời điểm duy nhất mà chúng ta đã thành công trong việc cung cấp tiêu chuẩn sống rộng rãi cho người bình thường,
    và đó là một khoảng thời gian mà chúng ta bảo vệ một sự phân phối của cải khá công bằng và đánh thuế cao những người giàu.
    Và bạn có thể thừa nhận rằng điều đó cực kỳ khó thực hiện vì bản chất của nền kinh tế…
    100%.
    100%.
    Bây giờ thì khác.
    100%.
    Đó là lý do tại sao tất cả ông bà của chúng ta và tổ tiên của chúng ta sống trong nghèo khó.
    Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi biết rằng tôi có thể sẽ thua.
    Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi cá rằng nền kinh tế sẽ xấu đi.
    Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi biết rằng nghèo đói sẽ gia tăng.
    Bởi vì thật sự khó khăn để đạt được phần chia công bằng một cách bất thường cho những người lao động bình thường.
    Và tôi biết chúng ta đang thua trong cuộc tranh luận.
    Và tôi biết Farage sẽ thắng.
    Và tôi biết Trump sẽ thắng.
    Và tôi biết rằng mọi thứ sẽ trở nên tồi tệ hơn.
    Tôi không nghĩ tôi sẽ thắng.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn biết rằng bạn đang thúc đẩy một chiến lược không hiệu quả,
    và nghe có vẻ như bạn nghĩ điều đó gần như không thể,
    thì tại sao bạn không thực tế hơn trong giải pháp của bạn?
    Stephen, nếu điều đó là không thể, tôi sẽ không ở đây.
    Vì vậy, bạn nghĩ điều đó là khả thi?
    Tất nhiên là khả thi.
    Tất nhiên là khả thi.
    Nhưng bạn tin rằng bạn sẽ không thắng?
    Tôi là người thích cá cược, Steve.
    Tôi là người thích cá cược.
    Tôi đặt cược của tôi.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi là…
    Bạn nghĩ bạn đang đặt cược vào tầng lớp?
    Được rồi, kênh YouTube của tôi đang phát triển rất nhanh.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi rõ ràng là đang bắt đầu một phong trào.
    Và có rất nhiều sự ủng hộ chính trị.
    Và nếu nó tiếp tục phát triển, chúng tôi sẽ nhận được nhiều hơn sự ủng hộ chính trị.
    Cuối cùng,
    Tôi đang cố gắng đánh thuế những người giàu nhất và quyền lực nhất trên thế giới.
    Và hầu hết những người này sẽ ra ngoài và tấn công tôi.
    Và họ sẽ cố gắng ngăn chặn tôi.
    Và tôi không có hàng tỷ bảng,
    cả hàng trăm triệu bảng để sử dụng để hỗ trợ kênh YouTube của tôi.
    Tôi đang dựa vào những người bình thường như người xem của bạn để hỗ trợ và chia sẻ thông điệp của tôi.
    Bây giờ, nghe này, trong hầu hết lịch sử, điều đó đã không hiệu quả.
    Và trong hầu hết lịch sử, các gia đình bình thường sống trong nghèo đói.
    Tôi không nghĩ điều đó là điều không thể mà chúng ta, những người bình thường có thể thắng và nhận được một phần chia công bằng.
    Nhưng tôi nghĩ điều này xứng đáng để đấu tranh, Steve.
    Vì vậy, tôi vẫn sẽ đấu tranh cho nó.
    Ông ấy đúng rằng trong hầu hết lịch sử, bạn có tầng lớp siêu tinh hoa và sau đó là tất cả mọi người khác ở dưới đây.
    Và sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản khổng lồ gần như đã trở thành bình thường trong 5,000 năm qua.
    Và gần như ở khắp mọi nơi, bạn có vua, hoàng hậu, công tước và nông dân, cùng với nô lệ ở phía dưới.
    Đã có những tình huống kinh tế khác nhau.
    Dubai là một tình huống thực sự kỳ lạ.
    Đó là một sa mạc.
    Nơi này không thể sống được.
    Đó là nơi cuối cùng trên thế giới mà hầu hết mọi người sẽ nghĩ tới hoặc chọn để muốn ở lại.
    Và yet, hiện tại nơi đó lại là một trong những nơi giàu có về kinh tế nhất thế giới.
    Họ thực sự không bắt đầu bằng tài sản từ dầu mỏ.
    Họ đã có thể vay tiền để xây dựng Dubai.
    Nhưng môi trường thuế thấp hiện đã thu hút một số người tài năng nhất thế giới đến đó để xây dựng các công ty công nghệ.
    Và nếu bạn, tôi không biết, bạn đã đến đó gần đây chưa?
    Tôi đã đến Dubai.
    Vâng, cách đây vài năm.
    Tôi đã đến đó.
    Hiện tại, đó là cộng đồng doanh nhân thịnh vượng nhất trên trái đất ngoài Mỹ, nhưng có lẽ thậm chí còn so sánh với Mỹ, nơi có các nhà đầu tư, có các doanh nhân, và sự giàu có đang tăng vọt.
    Tôi có hai người bạn làm huấn luyện viên cá nhân, huấn luyện viên thể hình.
    Một huấn luyện viên thể hình đã quyết định ngừng làm việc thêm giờ vì anh ấy đã kiếm được 50.000 bảng mỗi năm và bây giờ anh ấy bị đánh thuế 40%.
    Vì vậy, anh ấy quyết định sẽ kiếm đến 50.000 và sau đó ngừng làm việc.
    Còn huấn luyện viên thể hình kia thì đã đến Dubai, khởi động một cộng đồng thể hình trực tuyến, và vừa mua một chiếc Ferrari trị giá 350.000 bảng.
    Một doanh nhân thì rất hào hứng và phấn khích về việc xây dựng một doanh nghiệp vì anh ấy không bị đánh thuế quá mức.
    Doanh nhân còn lại thì thực sự nói rằng, tôi không muốn làm điều này bởi vì số tiền thuế tôi phải trả quá cao.
    Tôi chỉ muốn làm rõ.
    Tôi luôn ủng hộ giảm thuế cho những người lao động.
    Luôn luôn, luôn luôn.
    Nhưng đây là vấn đề, đúng không?
    Nếu tôi hỏi bạn, bạn vừa trở thành một trong những tác giả bán chạy nhất đất nước.
    Nếu nhà xuất bản của bạn đến gặp bạn và nói, vì bạn nằm trong top 1% tác giả của chúng tôi, chúng tôi sẽ giảm một nửa tiền bản quyền của bạn nếu bạn ký hợp đồng cho cuốn sách thứ hai với chúng tôi.
    Bạn sẽ không ký cuốn sách thứ hai với họ.
    Bạn sẽ đến với một nhà xuất bản khác, người nói, chúng tôi sẽ trả cho bạn nhiều tiền bản quyền hơn vì bạn quá thành công.
    Thì tôi lẽ ra đã viết cuốn sách này miễn phí rồi.
    Tôi lẽ ra đã viết cuốn sách này miễn phí.
    Thực tế, lần đầu tiên tôi được đề nghị một hợp đồng, tôi đã nói, đừng trả tiền trước cho tôi.
    Thì hãy cho đi tiền bản quyền của bạn.
    Tại sao?
    Vì nếu bạn – điều tôi đang nói là –
    Ôi, tôi không sao cả. Tôi sẽ cho đi tiền bản quyền của mình.
    Không, nhưng tôi đang nói –
    Tôi sẽ đóng kênh YouTube của tôi lại.
    Tôi sẽ ngừng làm việc.
    Tôi đang nói rằng chúng ta phản ứng với các động lực mà nếu nhà xuất bản của bạn – nếu Penguin đến với bạn và nói, cuốn sách số hai, bạn sẽ nhận được một nửa tiền bản quyền vì bạn nằm trong top 1%.
    Bạn có ký hợp đồng với Penguin không, hay bạn sẽ đến với ai đó khác?
    Dan, tôi đã từ bỏ công việc 2 triệu bảng một năm để điều hành một kênh YouTube.
    Bạn có nghĩ tôi sẽ làm công việc tôi đang làm vì tiền không?
    Tôi không nói rằng bạn làm vì tiền.
    Tôi chỉ đang nói nếu bạn có tùy chọn ký hợp đồng giữa hai hợp đồng xuất bản, đúng không, và mọi thứ đều ngang nhau, một hợp đồng sẽ phạt bạn vì nằm trong top 1% và hợp đồng còn lại sẽ thưởng cho bạn vì nằm trong top 1%.
    Bạn sẽ – chắc chắn bạn sẽ chọn hợp đồng bình thường – như mọi thứ đều ngang nhau, bạn muốn viết cuốn sách thứ hai.
    Điều này cũng giống như đối với các doanh nhân.
    Khi các doanh nhân khởi nghiệp, chúng ta có thể bắt đầu ở các nền kinh tế có thuế cao hoặc, với một nét bút, bắt đầu ở các nền kinh tế có thuế thấp.
    Tôi nghĩ thế giới giàu có sẽ phải bắt đầu xem xét lại thực tế cho phép những người cực kỳ giàu có sở hữu một khối tài sản vật chất khổng lồ, sống ở nước ngoài mà không phải đóng thuế.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng điều đó chắc chắn phải được xem xét lại.
    Bởi vì điều bạn đang nói là tôi muốn được hưởng lợi từ việc bán hàng vào thị trường Mỹ và thị trường Anh, nhưng tôi không muốn có nghĩa vụ phải đóng thuế cho Chính phủ Mỹ và Anh.
    Và bạn đúng rằng hiện tại chính phủ Mỹ và Anh cho phép điều đó.
    Và tôi nghĩ điều đó thật phi thường.
    Bạn nghĩ thuế áp dụng cho thu nhập toàn cầu của bạn?
    Chà, chỉ một khoản nhỏ thôi, đúng không?
    Vì vậy tôi nghĩ rằng, một cách thực tế, tôi nghĩ rằng các chính phủ Mỹ và Anh phải dừng điều đó lại.
    Nhưng theo cách tôi nhìn nhận, các chính phủ Mỹ và Anh và ngày càng nhiều chính phủ toàn cầu đang bị chi phối bởi các tầng lớp tinh hoa.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, chúng ta có Elon Musk, người cơ bản là tổng thống, đúng không?
    Và chúng ta đã có Rishi Sunak, cha của ông là một trong những người giàu nhất thế giới.
    Như, nếu bạn là Rishi Sunak, người mà, đối với khán giả Mỹ của chúng ta, từng là thủ tướng của chúng ta cho đến rất gần đây, cha ông là một trong những người giàu nhất thế giới.
    Ông ấy có 700 triệu bảng tài sản cá nhân, sẽ kiếm được 30, 40 triệu bảng thu nhập thụ động, và bạn được trả 130 nghìn bảng để làm thủ tướng.
    Khi bạn đang ra chính sách, bạn có nghĩ, có lẽ tôi sẽ hỏi cha và luật sư của tôi một lần không?
    Bạn biết rằng thực tế là, điều bạn đang thấy ở đây là, nếu bạn cho phép những người giàu ngày càng trở nên giàu hơn và giàu hơn, họ sẽ đè nén tầng lớp trung lưu và tầng lớp người nghèo ra khỏi những thứ như nhà ở, những thứ như không gian trong thành phố, những thứ như năng lượng, và những thứ như sở hữu chính phủ và sở hữu một phần trong truyền thông.
    Bạn có thừa nhận rằng các quốc gia áp dụng cách tiếp cận chống giàu, chính phủ lớn thường có xu hướng sụp đổ không?
    Như, nước này vào những năm 60?
    Chà, chúng ta đã cần một gói cứu trợ từ Mỹ.
    Chúng ta cần một gói cứu trợ từ IMF vào năm 1976.
    Nhưng Mỹ cũng đã làm điều tương tự.
    Mỹ có thuế còn cao hơn chúng ta.
    Chúng tôi cơ bản là, giống như, bạn lấy tất cả các quốc gia nơi chính phủ trở nên lớn, họ can thiệp vào cuộc sống của bạn, họ tham gia vào mọi quyết định, đúng không?
    Một nửa nền kinh tế.
    Ý tôi là, đây là một điều nữa.
    Giai đoạn này được biết đến như là thời kỳ vàng của chủ nghĩa tư bản.
    Đó là khoảng thời gian mà người bình thường…
    Giai đoạn nào?
    Giai đoạn này bây giờ?
    50 năm sau Thế chiến thứ hai.
    Ồ, đó là thời kỳ vàng của tầng lớp trung lưu, để trở thành tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Bạn không quan tâm đến tầng lớp trung lưu sao?
    Không, tất nhiên là có.
    Nhưng 70 năm sau Thế chiến thứ hai, nơi mà chính phủ đã bán toàn bộ nhà cửa cho những người thuộc tầng lớp trung lưu, vì vậy chúng tôi có được tài sản nhà ở, nhưng bạn chỉ có thể làm trò đó một lần, đúng không?
    Vì vậy bạn chỉ có thể bán toàn bộ nhà cửa cho mọi người một lần, đó là lý do tại sao tất cả những người sinh ra trong thời kỳ bùng nổ dân số đều sở hữu chúng.
    Chà, mức sống đã sụp đổ sau khi những ngôi nhà được bán.
    Đã có một khoảng thời gian dài mà những ngôi nhà không được bán.
    Giữa Thế chiến thứ hai và những năm 80, các ngôi nhà không được bán.
    Khi nào bạn xác định mức sống bắt đầu sụp đổ?
    Chà, tôi nghĩ có vài thời điểm lớn, rõ ràng.
    Tôi nghĩ năm 2008 là một thời điểm lớn.
    Tôi nghĩ COVID là một thời điểm lớn.
    Tôi nghĩ vào những năm 80 là khi bạn bắt đầu thấy sự phân phối tài sản biến mất.
    Điều quan trọng thực sự là phân phối bản thân.
    Vì vậy, một khi bạn thay đổi hệ thống thuế, sẽ mất một chút thời gian để sự phân phối tài sản thay đổi.
    Nhưng một khi bạn bắt đầu – đối với tôi, điều lớn là sự mất mát tài sản.
    Tôi muốn các gia đình bình thường có thể giữ của cải.
    Và một khi bạn mất điều đó, bạn sẽ mất tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Và bạn sẽ không tìm thấy một quốc gia nào trên thế giới hiện nay hoặc trong lịch sử thế giới đã cung cấp mức sống tốt rộng rãi mà không cho phép các gia đình bình thường sở hữu tài sản.
    Vâng, tôi đồng ý.
    Và lấy Singapore làm ví dụ, nơi mọi người được khuyến khích sở hữu bất động sản.
    Họ có một hệ thống tuyệt vời ở Singapore.
    Nhắc lại, đó là một chính phủ rất lớn, khổng lồ.
    Nó chiếm 25% GDP.
    Nhưng họ sở hữu những ngôi nhà.
    Họ có một quỹ tài sản.
    Họ sở hữu tất cả các ngôi nhà.
    Họ không sở hữu tất cả các ngôi nhà.
    Họ có một quỹ tài sản quốc gia mà lưu thông nhà cửa.
    Họ sở hữu các ngôi nhà.
    Họ đã giải quyết được vấn đề bất động sản.
    Singapore sở hữu nhà.
    Chính phủ Singapore sở hữu một phần khổng lồ của các tài sản bất động sản đó.
    Vương quốc Anh –
    Vậy bạn có nghĩ rằng chúng ta nên sở hữu những bất động sản đó không?
    Thật ra nó được sở hữu bởi các quỹ hưu trí.
    Người dân – họ không buộc – không buộc công dân của mình, nhưng họ hướng công dân của họ vào sự sở hữu nhà.
    Vậy bạn không nghĩ chính phủ Singapore sở hữu một phần lớn bất động sản đó sao?
    Tôi chỉ biết rằng chính phủ Singapore chỉ chiếm 25% nền kinh tế.
    Nhưng trên thực tế, một phần lớn của bất động sản đó.
    Vì vậy, 75% nền kinh tế là tư bản.
    Nhân tiện, tôi muốn nói rằng, để rõ ràng, tôi chưa bao giờ, chưa bao giờ một lần ủng hộ cho chính phủ lớn.
    Chưa từng một lần.
    Nhưng nhiều thuế thì là chính phủ lớn hơn.
    Tôi muốn tăng thuế cho những người giàu để chúng ta có thể đánh thuế thấp hơn cho những người tạo ra tài sản và những người lao động.
    Tôi không muốn một chính phủ lớn hơn.
    Tôi muốn khán giả của chúng ta có nhiều tiền hơn.
    Tôi muốn khán giả của chúng ta có nhiều tiền hơn.
    Ngoài ra, tôi muốn đánh thuế những người siêu giàu để họ ngừng bóc lột các gia đình bình thường khỏi việc sở hữu tài sản.
    Nó chỉ – vâng.
    Có vẻ như đó là một giải pháp rõ ràng.
    Có vẻ như –
    Vâng, đó là một giải pháp tốt, vâng.
    Có vẻ như, giống như, ai có tiền đây?
    Những người giàu.
    Không phải tiền.
    Tài sản.
    Tài sản.
    Ai có tài sản?
    Những người giàu.
    Thì hãy lấy chúng khỏi tay họ và –
    Không, không, không, không.
    Tôi không muốn phân phối lại.
    Tôi là người duy nhất trên bàn này phản đối việc phân phối lại vì việc phân phối lại đang diễn ra ngay trước mắt chúng ta.
    Tầng lớp trung lưu đang mất dần tài sản của mình.
    Chính phủ đang mất dần tài sản.
    Những tài sản đó đang được tích lũy bởi những người giàu.
    Tôi muốn ngừng việc phân phối lại.
    Xin hãy.
    Xin hãy.
    Tôi là người phản đối việc phân phối lại nhất trong trò chơi này.
    Chúng ta cần ngừng việc phân phối tài sản ra khỏi các gia đình bình thường ở Anh và Mỹ.
    Vì vậy, sự khác biệt là, đối với tôi, rất đơn giản, tôi thực sự, chân thành tin rằng các thị trường tự do và chính phủ nhỏ và thuế thấp hơn tạo ra nhiều tài sản hơn cho tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Dan, tự do cho con cá diếc là cái chết cho những con cá.
    Nếu chúng ta có tự do tuyệt đối, những triệu phú như bạn và tôi sẽ ngày càng giàu có hơn mỗi năm và chúng ta sẽ dần dần loại bỏ và ăn thịt tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Tôi có thể hỏi bạn rằng, nếu bất bình đẳng tài sản có thể được giải quyết nhưng mọi người đều tệ hơn, thì đó có phải là một giải pháp tốt không?
    Rõ ràng là không.
    Toàn bộ lý do tôi làm điều này là vì tôi không muốn người dân bình thường phải rơi vào cảnh nghèo đói.
    Đây là về việc mọi người có thể nuôi sống con cái của họ.
    Vì vậy, bất bình đẳng tài sản không phải là vấn đề.
    Mà là mức sống đang sụp đổ.
    Điều đó khá vị kỷ.
    Vâng, ý tôi là, vâng, đó là một lập luận khá vị kỷ.
    Vấn đề là mức sống đang sụp đổ.
    Tôi là người đã kiếm được hàng triệu bảng bằng cách hiểu sự thật đơn giản rằng mức sống đang giảm vì bất bình đẳng tài sản gia tăng.
    Vì vậy, mức sống, nếu chúng tăng lên, nhưng họ lại rất giàu có.
    Vâng.
    Điều đó có vấn đề không?
    Tôi nghĩ bạn cần phải lo lắng về các nhóm người thuộc tầng lớp tinh hoa cực kỳ giàu có.
    Vâng, tôi nghĩ điều thú vị là, nếu bạn nhìn vào việc thành lập Hợp chủng quốc Hoa Kỳ, những người sáng lập ở đó, việc thành lập Hợp chủng quốc Hoa Kỳ về mặt khái niệm thực sự dựa trên những ý tưởng về việc phân phối quyền lực.
    Đó là lý do bạn có tổng thống và Hạ viện cũng như Thượng viện và bạn có một tòa án độc lập.
    Họ như kiểu, chúng tôi không thể cho phép quyền lực tập trung vì họ xuất phát từ một châu Âu có quyền lực bị tập trung cực kỳ và những người tinh hoa cực kỳ giàu có và tình trạng nghèo đói rộng lớn.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng việc cho phép một nhóm nhỏ trong xã hội ngày càng độc quyền quyền lực và tài sản theo thời gian rõ ràng là điều mà chúng ta nên lo lắng về.
    Nhưng chủ yếu, lý do tôi lo lắng về bất bình đẳng tài sản là vì tôi thấy và tôi cá cược và tôi kiếm tiền từ việc nó gây ra mức sống giảm sút.
    Nhân tiện, tôi thực sự đồng ý với bạn và các cha đẻ của nước Mỹ. Họ đã từng, đặc biệt là vào khoảng năm 1900, muốn chia nhỏ các tập đoàn độc quyền. Và việc chia nhỏ các tập đoàn độc quyền là một trong những điều lớn mà họ đã thực hiện, việc chống độc quyền, nơi họ đã chia nhỏ Standard Oil và những thứ tương tự. Một điều mà tôi thực sự thấy đang diễn ra hiện nay là chúng ta có một định nghĩa quá lỗi thời về độc quyền, khi mà chúng ta sử dụng khái niệm độc quyền giống như cách họ đã sử dụng khi mà họ có những công ty dầu mỏ sở hữu toàn bộ dầu mỏ. Trong thế giới công nghệ, một độc quyền được hình thành qua một hệ sinh thái.
    Vì vậy, Amazon, chẳng hạn, sở hữu AWS và Audible và cái này cái kia và Whole Foods, tạo ra một pháo đài hầu như không thể cạnh tranh. Và Google sở hữu YouTube và Gmail và tất cả những thứ này, họ tạo ra những pháo đài này thông qua các hệ sinh thái. Một trong những điều mà tôi nghĩ chúng ta cần xem xét là việc bắt buộc chia nhỏ các công ty công nghệ lớn khi họ đạt đến một thời điểm nhất định, vì điều đó rất khó khăn. Bởi vì, bạn biết đấy, các tỷ phú có hai nỗi lo lớn, đúng không? Khiến họ mất ngủ, găng tay đêm. Nỗi lo thứ hai là thuế cao. Nỗi lo thứ nhất là những doanh nhân khởi nghiệp phá vỡ doanh nghiệp của họ. Và họ muốn tiêu diệt điều đó càng sớm càng tốt. Bạn biết đấy, Steve Jobs ở tuổi 24 đã phá vỡ IBM. Và Jeff Bezos đã phá vỡ Walmart. Vì vậy, họ rất sợ những doanh nhân ở giữa. Và họ muốn tạo ra quy định của chính phủ để nói rằng, này, bạn biết gì không? Hãy giới hạn các doanh nhân ở mức 10 triệu. Bạn có thể đạt đến 10 triệu. Không sao đối với chúng tôi. Chúng tôi đã vượt qua điểm đó từ lâu. Nhưng Gary là người của chúng tôi vì anh ấy sẽ giới hạn mọi người ở mức 10 triệu. Tôi chưa bao giờ nói giới hạn bất kỳ ai ở mức 10 triệu, bằng cách nào đó. Bởi vì bạn nghĩ điều gì sẽ xảy ra? Mọi người sẽ dừng lại. Ngay khi bạn có thuế tài sản, mọi người đều từ bỏ. Họ chỉ không muốn làm điều đó.
    Vậy bạn sẽ nói với tôi, khán giả của chúng ta, nếu họ nói, nếu họ biết họ có thể xây dựng một công ty trị giá 20, 30 triệu bảng. Nghe có vẻ nực cười. Nhưng họ biết rằng họ sẽ phải trả 20. Nếu bạn trị giá 30 triệu, 1% trên đó là 200.000 bảng mỗi năm. Vì vậy, nếu tôi nói, nếu bạn có thể có một công ty trị giá 30 triệu bảng. Liệu các nhà giao dịch có dừng lại không? Chỉ cần ghi nhớ, nhé? Bạn kiếm được 5% mỗi năm trên tài sản của bạn, đúng không? Vì vậy, nếu bạn có một công ty trị giá 300 triệu bảng, bạn sẽ kiếm được 15 triệu bảng mỗi năm. Và tôi quay sang bạn và tôi sẽ nói, bạn biết đấy, bạn phải trả 200.000 bảng mỗi năm trên doanh thu 50 triệu bảng của bạn. Và họ sẽ nói, bạn biết gì không? Tôi sẽ không bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp. Tôi không muốn trị giá 30 triệu bảng. Điều này thật vô lý. Bạn biết đấy, không ai sẽ nói, ôi chao, tôi không muốn trở thành một triệu phú triệu phú. Bởi vì sau 20 năm nữa, tôi sẽ phải trả 1% thuế. Nhưng hầu hết các nhà giao dịch, hầu hết các nhà giao dịch đang kiếm số tiền mà hầu hết mọi người kiếm được trong suốt cuộc đời, các nhà giao dịch có thể kiếm được trong một năm. Hầu hết các nhà giao dịch không dừng lại. Không, nói nhiều về điều đó trong cuốn sách đó, đúng không? Vì vậy, hầu hết các nhà giao dịch cứ tiếp tục. Các doanh nhân cũng vậy, họ được thúc đẩy để tiếp tục. Nhưng khi bạn có các cố vấn tài sản và các nhà đầu tư nói, đừng xây dựng một công ty ở Vương quốc Anh vì họ chống lại tài sản. Tôi không cố gắng làm cho Vương quốc Anh chống lại tài sản. Tôi không cố gắng làm cho Vương quốc Anh chống lại tài sản. Tôi nghĩ rằng Vương quốc Anh và Mỹ cần xem xét một tình huống mà bạn không thể để những người sở hữu các doanh nghiệp khổng lồ bán hàng cho đất nước của bạn sống ở Dubai, sống ở Quần đảo Cayman và không đóng thuế. Và tôi không nghĩ đó là một quan điểm gây tranh cãi.
    Tôi có một câu hỏi cho cả hai bạn, đó là nếu bạn là một người trẻ và bạn 18 tuổi bây giờ và bạn đang nghe điều này, nhưng mục tiêu của bạn thực sự là một mục tiêu cá nhân. Bạn muốn trở nên giàu có và bạn có một tương lai tươi sáng cho bạn và gia đình bạn, như tất cả chúng ta đã có thể làm. Lời khuyên của bạn dành cho họ sẽ là gì, Gary, vào thời điểm này? Đây là một câu hỏi rất khó. Tôi biết Dan đang giận tôi vì những gì tôi đã nói trong video của mình, cách để trở nên giàu có. Có ai đó đã đến nhà tôi và hỏi tôi điều này hôm nọ. Rõ ràng, tôi thường được hỏi điều này nhiều vì, ngớ ngẩn, tôi rất công khai về việc mình là người giàu có. Những gì tôi đã làm không thể sao chép. Những gì tôi đã làm không thể sao chép. Nó không thể. Tôi xin lỗi. Tôi xin lỗi, nhưng nó không thể. Mọi người luôn hỏi, tại sao bạn không dạy tôi giao dịch? Nó khó. Giao dịch khó khăn và nó nguy hiểm. Và tôi nghĩ nhiều chàng trai trẻ đang bị bán vào giao dịch và trở thành con nghiện cờ bạc. Bạn biết đấy, hãy làm việc chăm chỉ. Và tôi sẽ không nói đừng trở thành một doanh nhân. Tôi chưa bao giờ nói những điều như vậy. Hãy làm việc chăm chỉ. Bạn biết đấy, nếu bạn nghĩ rằng bạn có cơ hội trong khởi nghiệp công nghệ, hãy theo đuổi nó. Hiểu rằng nó có rủi ro. Tôi nghĩ rằng đôi khi thông điệp này, chỉ cần trở thành một doanh nhân và bạn sẽ thành công, có chút nguy hiểm vì tôi nghĩ hầu hết mọi người cố gắng trở thành doanh nhân đều thất bại. Và tôi nghĩ điều đó cực kỳ, cực kỳ nguy hiểm. Thực tế là, và bạn biết đấy, có thể Dan sẽ không thích điều này. Có thể bạn sẽ không thích điều này. Tôi nghĩ rằng rất, rất khó khăn cho một chàng trai trẻ hoặc một cô gái trẻ từ một gia đình nghèo trở nên giàu có. Và tôi nghĩ rằng ngày càng khó chỉ để có những điều cơ bản về an ninh tài chính. Vì vậy, hãy lắng nghe, rõ ràng là giảm chi tiêu nếu bạn có thể. Đừng mua những thứ như cái rác Balenciaga. Tránh xa nó. Nhưng hãy làm việc chăm chỉ, học tập chăm chỉ, cố gắng để có được một công việc tốt. Nhưng cũng hiểu rằng chúng ta đang thu hẹp số chỗ ngồi trên chiếc thuyền cứu sinh. Đó là những gì chúng ta đang làm. Chúng ta từng cho phép 50% được an toàn. Sau đó là 40%. Sau đó là 30%. Sau đó là 20%. Bạn biết đấy, bạn có gia đình ở Nigeria. Nếu một người trẻ từ một khu ổ chuột ở Nigeria đến với bạn và nói, Stephen, điều gì tôi có thể làm để trở nên giàu có? Bạn sẽ phải nói với họ một cách thực tế, hãy lắng nghe, bạn đang trong một tình huống khó khăn ở đây. Bạn cần làm việc thật, thật chăm chỉ. Nhưng nếu bạn có thể kiếm đủ tiền để nuôi một gia đình, hãy tự hào về bản thân. Điều mà tôi thực sự muốn nói với họ, vâng, tôi có gia đình ở Nigeria.
    Đối với những người không biết, tôi có nguồn gốc nửa Nigeria. Tôi muốn nói với họ rằng kiến thức thực sự là chiếc phao cứu sinh của bạn. Rõ ràng là đang có một bùng nổ công nghệ lớn ở Nigeria, giải phóng rất nhiều người khỏi tình trạng khó khăn đó. Vì vậy, tôi sẽ cố gắng khuyên họ nên nắm bắt chiếc phao cứu sinh đó, đó chính là kiến thức về cuộc cách mạng mới này. Từ Nigeria, bạn có thể học lập trình. Và điều tuyệt vời là bây giờ chúng ta thực sự đang xây dựng một công ty công nghệ ở San Francisco có tên là Flightcast. Nó đang hoạt động. Mọi người có thể truy cập vào đó, flightcast.com. Và nhà phát triển chính của Guess Radar là một chàng trai Nigeria. Nhưng có bao nhiêu công việc trong lĩnh vực công nghệ Nigeria đang được trao cho những đứa trẻ lớn lên ở những khu ổ chuột? Tôi không biết. Bởi vì tôi đã làm việc ở Canary Wharf. Nó ở Đông London. Tôi có thể thấy tòa nhà từ nhà tôi khi lớn lên. Trong suốt thời gian tôi ở đó, không có một đứa trẻ nào khác từ Đông London. Bạn biết không, để nói về cuộc cách mạng làm việc từ xa mà như kiểu bây giờ bạn có thể làm việc từ bất cứ đâu. Và trong công ty của chúng tôi, Third Web, ở San Francisco, một số nhân viên mà chúng tôi có bây giờ ở Philippines vì họ có những nhân tố sáng tạo tuyệt vời ở đó. Rõ ràng là điều đó tiết kiệm chi phí hơn. Liệu đây có phải là một phần lớn trong kinh tế của chúng ta không, sự số hóa và làm việc từ xa? Đúng vậy, đúng vậy, đúng vậy. Nhưng tôi nghĩ với nhiều người, bạn biết không, tôi chắc rằng bạn trả lương cho công việc ở Philippines rất tốt. Hầu hết trong số những người này trước đây có mức lương khá ổn ở văn phòng. Và bây giờ họ bị khóa trong phòng ngủ của mình, chật vật thanh toán hóa đơn. Đúng vậy. Ở Philippines? Không phải ở Philippines đâu. Những người ở Philippines đang sống thịnh vượng ngoài tầm kiểm soát. Không, tôi đang nói rằng Philippines đang bùng nổ ngay lúc này. Vậy bạn nghĩ rằng người bình thường ở Philippines đang sống cuộc sống xa hoa? Nếu bạn, nếu bạn, những gì đang xảy ra ngay lúc này… Bạn có nghĩ rằng người bình thường ở Philippines đang sống cuộc sống xa hoa không? Có một điều gọi là lao động nước ngoài từ xa và đây là một cơn bùng nổ lớn và bùng nổ kinh tế… Vậy thì những đứa trẻ nên chuyển đến Philippines sao? Thật tuyệt. Bạn đang có một chất lượng sống tuyệt vời ở Philippines. Bạn biết không? Khi tôi đi qua những khu ổ chuột của Manila, họ chỉ cần tìm việc làm. Tôi không biết tại sao họ không lấy máy tính ra. Sự… Nghèo đói ở Philippines thật khủng khiếp. Nghe này, Philippines là một quốc gia đẹp. Một đất nước tuyệt vời. Tôi yêu Philippines. Tôi đã đến đó nhiều lần. Nhưng tiền đang chảy vào đó với một tốc độ chưa từng có… Nhưng cuộc sống của người Philippines bình thường thì như thế nào? Vâng, bạn có đồng ý rằng nền kinh tế của họ đang bị ngập tràn tiền bạc ngay lúc này không? Như thể, tiền đang chảy vào đó. Tiền đang vào, nhưng điều đó không mang lại chất lượng sống tốt cho người Philippines bình thường của bạn. Điều đó không đúng. Lao động nước ngoài từ xa… Vâng, chúng ta có thể… Lao động nước ngoài từ xa… Bạn có thể hỏi tất cả những người xem Philippines để cho chúng tôi biết cuộc sống của người bình thường như thế nào. Lao động nước ngoài từ xa thực sự có thể hỗ trợ… Thường thì hỗ trợ cả gia đình họ. Chúng ta có thể xem xét điều đó. Tôi không biết mức lương trung bình ở Philippines là bao nhiêu. Chỉ để đưa về điểm này. Tôi muốn biết từ Gary. Anh ấy nói, làm việc chăm chỉ. Nếu bạn là một chàng trai trẻ đang nghe điều này ngay bây giờ… Tôi đã đọc một bài báo rất thú vị vào hôm qua từ một… Tôi nghĩ là từ một tờ báo lớn nói về những cậu bé bị lạc lối. Và điều đó cho thấy rằng tôi nghĩ có một trên bảy chàng trai trẻ đang trong độ tuổi lao động hiện giờ không có việc làm. Có rất nhiều cuộc nói chuyện xung quanh những người đàn ông trẻ tuổi, đặc biệt là về việc họ đang phải vật lộn. Bạn sẽ nói hãy làm việc chăm chỉ, Gary. Bạn sẽ nói… Làm việc chăm chỉ. Không có Balenciaga. Điều lớn là nhận ra tình huống mà bạn đang ở. Và tôi sẽ khuyến khích họ ủng hộ công việc của tôi và theo dõi kênh của tôi vì những chiếc phao cứu sinh đang thu hẹp lại. Và tin tôi đi, chúng tôi sẽ đưa những đứa trẻ của chúng tôi vào những chiếc phao cứu sinh. Tất cả chúng ta đều biết điều đó, được chứ? Và nếu những chiếc phao cứu sinh đang thu hẹp lại, nếu bạn không ngăn con tàu chìm, thì không phải bạn và tôi sẽ bị chìm. Chúng ta sẽ ổn. Nếu bạn không đấu tranh cho sự chính trị, tôi đảm bảo rằng những người như Daniel sẽ. Vậy bạn đang nói rằng họ cũng nên tham gia vào cuộc chiến chính trị sao? Bạn phải. Bạn phải. Đó là những gì ông bà của chúng ta đã làm. Và nếu họ muốn trở thành triệu phú như bạn và tôi và Dan… VWell, có vẻ như Dan có lời khuyên tốt hơn cho điều đó hơn tôi. Được rồi, vậy tôi cũng sẽ hỏi Dan. Nhưng tôi chỉ đang tự hỏi… Tôi đang tự hỏi làm thế nào lời khuyên của bạn gắn liền với kiểu như người trẻ đang cố gắng giải phóng mình khỏi nơi bạn đến hay nơi tôi đến. Bạn biết không? Tôi không nghĩ tôi là người có thể nói điều đó, vì bạn biết đấy, tôi đã có một tài năng đặc biệt từ khi còn nhỏ. Tôi rất giỏi toán và tôi đã theo đuổi điều đó. Và, bạn biết đấy, chị gái tôi, cô ấy là một nhà thơ và cô ấy đã viết một bài nhạc grime rất thành công về album đầu tay của Dizzy Rascal, đúng không? Cô ấy cũng đến từ gia đình giống như tôi, gia đình nghèo. Cô ấy làm việc rất chăm chỉ. Cô ấy làm việc rất, rất chăm chỉ. Hai bằng cấp. Cô ấy hầu như không thể trả tiền thuê. Đúng vậy? Vì vậy, tôi không muốn quay lại và nói với những đứa trẻ của chúng ta rằng, ừm, tôi có tài năng này, hãy theo đuổi tài năng của bạn. Bởi vì điều đó không hiệu quả, Stephen. Đúng. Điều đó không hiệu quả. Vâng. Chị gái tôi làm việc tuyệt vời. Nhưng về mặt tài chính, đối với những người trẻ tuổi, theo đuổi đam mê, theo đuổi tài năng của bạn, trừ khi bạn đến từ một gia đình giàu có, thực tế, rất hiếm khi hiệu quả. Và tôi biết điều đó đã hiệu quả cho ba chúng tôi ở bàn này. Nhưng đừng giả vờ rằng mọi người trải nghiệm những điều tương tự mà chúng tôi đã trải qua.
    Bạn sẽ nói gì về điều đó, Dan?
    Còn câu trả lời của bạn là gì?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng hiện có hai nền kinh tế đang diễn ra.
    Có một nền kinh tế đang chết dần, đó là nền kinh tế cách mạng công nghiệp.
    Đó là tất cả các công việc văn phòng, công việc nhà máy và tất cả những thứ tương tự, mà rất nhiều trong số đó đang bị tự động hóa và chuyển đến toàn cầu.
    Cùng lúc đó, có một nền kinh tế kỹ thuật số mới đang trỗi dậy, mà tôi gọi là nền kinh tế doanh nhân hoặc nền kinh tế kỹ thuật số.
    Cả hai nền kinh tế này đang đồng tồn tại.
    Một bên thì đang đi xuống.
    Một bên thì đang đi lên.
    Và nếu bạn muốn đạt được thành công kinh tế, bạn cần đứng cạnh những đống tiền lớn nhất mà bạn có thể.
    Bạn biết đấy, thật không may, làm nhà thơ không đem lại nhiều tiền.
    Và chúng ta đều biết điều đó.
    Điều đó không có gì ngạc nhiên.
    Nếu bạn đến từ một gia đình rất giàu có và bạn là một nhà thơ, bạn có lẽ sẽ nằm trong số 60% những người không còn ở trong gia đình giàu có đó nữa.
    Nếu bạn muốn thành công về mặt kinh tế, bạn cần phải hỏi, điều gì đang bùng nổ về mặt kinh tế ngay bây giờ?
    Gary đã thấy ngành tài chính vào thời điểm đó.
    Nhưng nếu chúng ta nhìn vào ngành tài chính bây giờ, nó đang trong tình trạng suy giảm.
    Giao dịch đang được thay thế bằng robot AI.
    Những người đã làm việc trong lĩnh vực của bạn sẽ bị hệ thống IT thay thế, những hệ thống này cơ bản thực hiện các công việc tương tự.
    Chúng ta sẽ gặp phải những điều như vậy.
    Chúng ta đang trải qua một sự thay đổi công nghệ lớn.
    Nhưng đồng thời, chưa bao giờ dễ dàng hơn để học kỹ năng miễn phí trên YouTube.
    Chưa bao giờ dễ dàng hơn để tham gia vào các cộng đồng nơi bạn có thể nhận được sự hướng dẫn và hỗ trợ.
    Có những cộng đồng nhà đầu tư thiên thần, họ đầu tư vào các startup.
    Chưa bao giờ rẻ hơn hoặc dễ hơn để khởi nghiệp.
    Chưa bao giờ có nhiều phần mềm và công nghệ giúp bạn mở rộng và phát triển chỉ trong một khoảng thời gian ngắn như vậy.
    Tôi sẽ nói rằng hãy làm những gì Gary đã làm.
    Gary xuất bản trực tuyến.
    Anh ấy xây dựng thương hiệu cá nhân.
    Anh ấy gắn nó với một mô hình doanh thu định kỳ.
    Anh ấy có…
    Tôi cũng đã làm việc miễn phí trong bốn năm.
    Tôi không chắc điều đó có thể sao chép được hay không.
    Bạn biết đấy, vì vậy hãy xây dựng thương hiệu cá nhân.
    Gắn nó với một mô hình kinh doanh mà đang có dòng tiền chảy vào.
    Đó là những điều tích cực mà bạn có thể làm.
    Chúng ta đều phải chơi với những lá bài chúng ta được phát.
    Bạn luôn có thể tìm thấy ai đó đã làm tốt hơn với những lá bài tốt hơn hoặc ai đó đã nhận được những lá bài tốt hơn.
    Và bạn luôn có thể tìm thấy ai đó đã nhận được những lá bài tệ hơn.
    Dù bạn là ai trên hành tinh này, luôn có người tốt hơn, luôn có người tệ hơn.
    Bạn phải chơi với những lá bài mà bạn nhận được.
    Bạn không thể ngồi đó chờ đợi hệ thống kinh tế của thế giới thay đổi.
    Bạn phải nói, bạn biết đấy?
    Đây là những lá bài mà tôi được sinh ra vào thời điểm này.
    Trong những hoàn cảnh này, đây là điểm mạnh của tôi.
    Đây là điểm yếu của tôi.
    Tôi sẽ chơi với những lá bài mà tôi đã được phát.
    Khả năng cá nhân là điều khiến mọi người cảm thấy tốt về cuộc sống của họ, để tiến bộ.
    Và ngay khi bạn chơi theo tâm lý nạn nhân, ngay khi bạn nói, ồ, bạn biết không?
    Câu trả lời cho tất cả những lời cầu nguyện của tôi là Gary sẽ thay đổi hệ thống.
    Bạn đang gặp rắc rối nghiêm trọng.
    Có thể tôi chỉ muốn nói một điều trở lại về điều đó?
    Nếu chúng ta trở thành một xã hội của những cá nhân chỉ nghĩ về cá nhân và không bao giờ xem xét các vấn đề xã hội rộng lớn hơn,
    thì chúng ta sẽ trở thành một xã hội không thể sửa chữa các vấn đề xã hội.
    Tôi là người đã kiếm hàng triệu bảng bằng cách đặt cược vào sự sụp đổ của xã hội, sự sụp đổ của tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Tôi không muốn đưa ra lời khuyên về cổ phiếu trên chiếc Titanic, được không?
    Tôi hiểu.
    Tôi hiểu rằng chúng ta sống trong những xã hội cá nhân hóa và không phổ biến để nói, hey, bạn cần bảo vệ xã hội của mình.
    Nếu bạn không bảo vệ xã hội của mình, xã hội của bạn sẽ sụp đổ.
    Và công chúng Anh, công chúng Mỹ có một sự lựa chọn ở đây.
    Điều đó sẽ trông như thế nào?
    Bạn muốn mọi người làm gì?
    Tôi muốn họ tham gia, xem kênh của tôi, đăng ký kênh của tôi.
    Vậy là xem nội dung của bạn.
    Trên YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn, chia sẻ với mẹ của bạn.
    Nhưng sau đó thì sao?
    Sau đó hãy thúc đẩy sự thay đổi.
    Thúc đẩy sự thay đổi như ông bà chúng ta đã làm.
    Thúc đẩy các chính trị gia đánh thuế ít hơn đối với người lao động và đánh thuế nhiều hơn đối với những người tích lũy tài sản cực kỳ giàu có.
    Vì vậy, hãy bỏ phiếu cho Đảng Xanh.
    Bỏ phiếu cho bất kỳ ai mang lại điều đó cho bạn, bất kỳ ai mang lại phần của bạn trong chiếc bánh.
    Nghe này, đây không phải là bóng đá, được không?
    Tôi không ở đây, Gary Stevenson, thành viên của Đảng Xanh.
    Tôi ở đây để bảo vệ tầng lớp lao động.
    Vì vậy, đó sẽ là dạng năng lượng xã hội và chính trị của họ, sẽ đứng lên và đấu tranh.
    Nhưng trong cuộc sống cá nhân của họ, bạn có đang nói với họ để bắt đầu kinh doanh, chấp nhận rủi ro lớn, làm việc thật sự chăm chỉ, cố gắng đạt được vì họ cũng có thể thành công?
    Tôi sẽ nhờ các bạn về điều đó.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi không phải là một doanh nhân.
    Tôi là một nhà kinh tế.
    Đó là những gì tôi là.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi kiếm tiền bằng cách trở thành một nhà kinh tế.
    Tôi là một nhà kinh tế rất, rất giỏi.
    Dự đoán của tôi sẽ đúng.
    Mọi người có thể đi và xem các dự đoán của tôi.
    Vào đầu COVID, tôi đã dự đoán toàn bộ cuộc khủng hoảng COVID một cách chính xác vào tháng 5 năm 2020.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi giỏi cái này.
    Và nghe này, tôi sẽ không bao giờ đến đây và nói rằng tôi là một doanh nhân giỏi hơn bạn.
    Tôi không nghĩ tôi là như vậy.
    Tôi là một nhà kinh tế rất, rất giỏi.
    Điều này sẽ xảy ra.
    Có điều gì tôi có thể làm không?
    Nếu tôi đang ngồi đây nghe ở nhà, tôi hiểu mọi điều bạn đã nói.
    Tôi tin tưởng mọi điều bạn đã nói.
    Tôi tin rằng mọi thứ sẽ tồi tệ hơn với tôi.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng tôi vẫn nên chịu trách nhiệm về tình huống của mình và đấu tranh để làm cho cuộc sống của tôi trở nên phong phú hơn, tốt đẹp hơn, thành công hơn không?
    100%.
    100, 100%.
    Bởi vì bạn biết đấy, và tôi chắc chắn bạn cũng biết, nếu bạn là người Anh hay người Mỹ bình thường, nếu bạn không làm điều đó, bạn sẽ không thể bật lò sưởi.
    Bạn phải làm điều đó.
    Bạn phải làm điều đó.
    Và tôi chưa bao giờ, bạn biết đấy, tôi nghĩ ý kiến của tôi thường bị hiểu sai là chống lại tham vọng.
    Bạn đã đọc cuốn sách của tôi.
    Bạn có nghĩ tôi chống lại tham vọng không?
    Không.
    Tôi làm việc cật lực để kiếm tiền. Và tôi muốn mỗi người trẻ ở đất nước này có thể kiếm tiền nếu họ muốn, nếu đó là điều họ muốn hướng tới. Nhưng chúng ta đã tạo ra một xã hội mà gần như không thể cho những người trẻ tuổi, nghe này, tôi đã trải qua. Tôi đã ở LSE. Tôi đã ở Oxford. Tôi đã ở trong thành phố. Tôi đã làm trong lĩnh vực truyền thông. Tôi đã làm chính trị. Tất cả những người ở đỉnh cao đều là một đám người ngu ngốc giàu có. Chúng ta không cho phép những đứa trẻ thông minh từ những hoàn cảnh bình thường bước vào những không gian đó. Tại sao chúng ta lại giả bộ rằng chúng ta không làm như vậy? Chúng ta biết rằng mình đang làm điều đó. Tôi không đồng ý với điều đó. Bạn đang nói về hai loại không gian tinh hoa. Không gian tinh hoa của những trường đại học hàng đầu. Đúng. Và bạn đang nói về không gian tinh hoa của giao dịch phái sinh. Có nền kinh tế thực sự. Đúng. Nơi mà các doanh nhân thực hiện công việc của họ. Sau đó là phái sinh đầu tiên, đó là hệ thống ngân hàng. Và sau đó là phái sinh thứ hai, đó là các nhà giao dịch lãi suất. Đây là những nơi mà người bình thường không muốn đến. Hầu hết những người bình thường lớn lên trong các hộ gia đình bình thường không thức dậy một ngày và nói, tôi muốn trở thành một nhà giao dịch lãi suất trên một phái sinh kép của nền kinh tế để đặt cược. Hầu hết mọi người muốn bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp tạo ra việc làm và họ muốn phát triển doanh nghiệp đó và thành công. Bạn có nghĩ rằng bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp là một cơ hội có xác suất thành công cao và thực tế cho những người nghèo bình thường trở nên giàu có không? Tôi biết rằng các nền kinh tế phát triển khi các doanh nhân hoạt động và không chỉ có các doanh nhân. Họ tạo ra cơ hội. Đó có phải là điều mà khán giả của chúng ta có thể thực hiện và hầu hết trong số họ sẽ trở nên giàu có không? Bạn chỉ cần 1% để cải thiện toàn bộ nền kinh tế. Có một thống kê rất thú vị cho biết trên toàn cầu, khoảng 65% những người siêu giàu là tự lập. Khoảng 19% chủ yếu thừa kế tài sản của họ và khoảng 16% thừa kế tài sản nhưng đã tăng cường đáng kể thông qua các dự án của họ. Vì vậy, 65% những người siêu giàu trên toàn cầu là tự lập. Điều đó có nghĩa là nếu tôi muốn trở thành một người siêu giàu thì mọi thứ sẽ phụ thuộc vào điều gì? Nghe này, chúng ta vừa mới thoát khỏi kỷ nguyên vàng của chủ nghĩa tư bản. Khi những người bình thường như cha tôi, bạn biết đấy, tôi lớn lên ở Ilford. Nó nằm ở Đông London. Đó là một khu vực rất có nhiều người nhập cư. Hầu hết bạn bè của tôi lớn lên có nguồn gốc người nhập cư từ Pakistan, Ấn Độ. Họ đến đây với hai bàn tay trắng. Họ làm việc rất chăm chỉ. Họ kiếm tiền. Họ có tài sản riêng. Chúng ta đã trải qua một giai đoạn mà người bình thường có thể kiếm tiền và tạo ra tài sản. Rõ ràng là chúng ta hiện đang ở trong một giai đoạn có những người giàu đã kiếm tiền trong giai đoạn đó. Nhưng bây giờ thì qua rồi. Tôi thấy những người bình thường kiếm tiền mọi lúc. Thì, bạn đang nói với khán giả của chúng ta rằng họ ngu ngốc. Tại sao họ không kiếm tiền? Tôi không nói ai ngu ngốc. Tôi đang nói rằng… Nếu đơn giản vậy, được rồi, thì hãy mua sách của Dan, đọc nó và trở thành triệu phú. Bởi vì Dan nghĩ rằng trở thành triệu phú nhờ làm doanh nhân thì dễ dàng. Nhưng tôi nghi ngờ, vì chưa bao giờ là doanh nhân, rằng hầu hết những người đã đọc cuốn sách của bạn không phải là triệu phú. Mọi thứ bạn chạm vào đều trở thành vàng. Bạn chuyển mình vào học thuật. Bạn có một bằng cấp tuyệt vời. Bạn chuyển mình sang ngân hàng. Bạn kiếm được hai triệu một năm. Bạn chuyển mình sang viết lách. Bạn trở thành tác giả bán chạy của Sunday Times. Bạn chuyển mình sang sáng tạo nội dung. Bạn có 800.000 người theo dõi. Và giờ đây, sau tất cả những chứng cứ đó, bạn ngồi đó và nói, ôi không, mọi thứ đã kết thúc, các bạn ơi. Tôi đủ thông minh để làm điều đó, nhưng các bạn thì không đủ thông minh. Nếu bạn nghĩ bạn có thể dạy… Bạn có cuốn sách của bạn. Nếu bạn nghĩ bạn có thể dạy mọi người làm điều đó. Vì vậy bạn nói rằng bạn đủ thông minh, nhưng họ thì không đủ thông minh. Tôi tự hỏi liệu chúng ta có một chút vấn đề về giáo dục ở trung tâm của vấn đề này không. Bởi vì tôi đang nghĩ về chị gái của bạn. Và tôi đã tự hỏi, nếu tôi là Giám đốc điều hành của chị gái Gary, tôi sẽ làm gì? Có hai điều tôi sẽ làm ngay bây giờ. Thứ nhất là, thị trường nào thực sự đánh giá cao khả năng viết và viết theo cách có ảnh hưởng? Tôi sẽ nói, đúng, cô ấy cần viết một trang Instagram. Bởi vì tôi đã thấy điều gì đã xảy ra với Jay Shetty. Gã này kiếm được hàng chục triệu mỗi năm. Và vì anh ấy đã dùng, bạn biết đấy, những từ tốt đẹp mang tính động viên, thơ mộng, đặt chúng lên đó. Và tôi cũng nói, YouTube. Cô ấy cần đến YouTube. Bởi vì nếu cô ấy có thể nói giống như bạn, thì cô ấy sẽ rất thành công trên YouTube nữa. Nhưng cái cũ… Sẽ không có nền kinh tế lớn cho một người đang làm thơ ở nhiều nơi ngoài những gì tôi đang nói là trên internet. Nhưng trong trường học, chúng tôi không dạy điều này. Không có lớp học YouTube cho YouTube. Và nó là một phần rất lớn của nền kinh tế. Ý tôi là, bạn và tôi đã thấy điều đó. Có sự phân quyền trong lĩnh vực truyền thông nơi mà cái loa… Nó đang tăng trưởng 20% mỗi năm. Cái loa đó là… Người xem, bắt đầu một kênh YouTube, trở thành doanh nhân. Nhưng đó là internet, phải không? Nó dễ dàng. Nó dễ dàng. Tôi không nói rằng nó dễ dàng. Bạn có nghĩ nó hiệu quả cho hầu hết mọi người không, Stephen? Đối với hầu hết mọi người, không. Nó không hiệu quả. Nó không hiệu quả. Tại sao chúng ta lại giả vờ rằng nó hiệu quả? Nhưng điều tôi muốn nói là nếu trong trường học chúng ta dạy những đứa trẻ trẻ một vài điều mới và chúng ta ngừng dạy chúng về định lý Pythagora, mà, nhân tiện, ChatGBT sẽ làm cho bạn với đôi mắt nhắm lại. Và chúng ta dạy họ về nền kinh tế mới của internet, về khả năng bắt đầu một cửa hàng. Thật điên rồ khi hệ thống trường học được thiết kế theo cách mà họ đã cho tôi vào đơn vị tạm giam vì tôi đã quá bận rộn với việc thực hiện các giao dịch kinh doanh tại trường. Và hiệu trưởng của tôi đã xuất hiện trên truyền hình quốc gia trong chương trình What I Lied to và nói, vâng, cuối cùng chúng tôi đã xóa án cấm vì anh ấy đã làm cho trường kiếm được nhiều tiền quá.
    Nhưng hệ thống này đang trừng phạt tôi vì đã dám khởi nghiệp và nó không dạy tôi điều gì về nền kinh tế mới, đó là công nghệ.
    Stephen, bạn có nghĩ rằng việc tỷ lệ thanh niên có khả năng đạt được tự do tài chính và có gia đình đang thu hẹp có quan trọng hay không?
    Vậy tôi có nghĩ rằng việc tỷ lệ thanh niên có khả năng, bạn đang nói đạt được sự giàu có và có gia đình có quan trọng hay không?
    Đúng, nếu tôi đạt được tự do tài chính và có gia đình đang thu hẹp.
    Tôi nghĩ đó là một vấn đề rất lớn.
    Và nghe này, tôi nghĩ đó là một vấn đề rất lớn.
    Tôi đồng ý.
    Tôi biết.
    Nghe này, và tôi biết bạn có podcast này và tôi biết bạn truyền cảm hứng cho thanh niên.
    Và tôi nghĩ đó là một điều tốt.
    Tôi nghĩ đó là một điều tốt khi bạn truyền cảm hứng cho thanh niên ra ngoài làm việc chăm chỉ và cố gắng đạt được điều gì đó.
    Nhưng tôi là một nhà kinh tế học.
    Và điều tôi thấy là tỷ lệ thanh niên thành công đang thu hẹp lại.
    Và tôi nghĩ nếu bạn kết hợp hai điều này, bạn sẽ đến một nơi rất nguy hiểm vì chúng tôi đi và nói với thanh niên rằng hãy bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp đi.
    Và đồng thời, số người thành công chỉ có 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%.
    Và lúc nào cũng sẽ có một người thành công.
    Lúc nào cũng sẽ có một Stephen Bartlett ở mọi quốc gia trên thế giới đang vượt qua được hoàn cảnh.
    Bạn biết tôi đang nói gì không?
    Nhưng vấn đề hệ thống thì quan trọng, Stephen.
    Chúng ta không thể thay đổi hệ thống giáo dục sao để khi tôi 16 tuổi và họ đưa tôi vào đơn vị loại trừ, điều này khiến tôi, điều này rất dễ làm tôi nghĩ rằng tôi là một kẻ thất bại.
    Vì anh tôi, Jason đã vào LSE và trở thành giống như bạn và giờ làm việc trong công ty của tôi, quản lý các khoản đầu tư của tôi, thì trong hệ thống giáo dục đó, anh ấy được khen thưởng.
    Vì vậy, tôi ngồi đó như một đứa trẻ nghĩ rằng, giàu có và thành công, anh trai tôi là Jason, vì anh ấy làm toán giỏi.
    Và tôi nghĩ, tôi sẽ là một kẻ thất bại vì tôi thích điều mà gọi là khởi nghiệp và tôi có ADHD, vì vậy tôi không thể chú ý trong các bài học.
    Ý tôi là nếu hệ thống giáo dục được thiết kế theo cách mà những người như tôi, những người có tinh thần khởi nghiệp, những người quan tâm đến internet và không thể ngừng chơi game, được tán dương và nói rằng, ôi Chúa ơi, hãy dồn hết sức vào điều đó.
    Tôi nghĩ lợi ích ròng, khi bạn nghĩ về những gì là xương sống của nền kinh tế, đó là những doanh nhân khởi nghiệp doanh nghiệp, sẽ cực kỳ sâu sắc cho quốc gia này.
    Nhưng tôi nghĩ rằng tôi tin cần phải có một cuộc cải cách triệt để trong hệ thống giáo dục của chúng ta nếu chúng ta muốn có cơ hội khai thác những gì mà nền kinh tế đang là ngày nay.
    Vâng, tôi nghĩ bạn có thể thay đổi hệ thống giáo dục theo nhiều cách có thể cải thiện nó, nhưng bạn giống như đang thay đổi hệ thống giáo dục trên một chiếc tàu Titanic.
    Quan điểm của tôi là, tôi có thể nói với bạn với tỷ lệ chắc chắn rất, rất cao, nếu bạn không sửa chữa vấn đề này về việc tài sản bị rút khỏi tầng lớp trung lưu, 95%, 98% người dân sẽ sống trong nghèo đói ở quốc gia này trong 70 năm tới.
    Tôi đồng ý với bạn. Đây là điều mà tôi đồng ý rằng bạn không thể có một nhóm người ở vị trí cao nhất sở hữu tất cả tài sản và tất cả tiền bạc, nếu không, tôi có nghĩa là, điều này sẽ phải đến từ đâu đó.
    Và tôi nhớ ngày mà tôi in mẫu Đơn xin trợ cấp tìm việc khi tôi đang ăn cắp pizza Chicago Town 10 năm trước trong phòng của mình ở Moss Side, Manchester.
    Tôi nhớ cảm giác không có cha mẹ nói chuyện với mình, có tất cả những lá thư CCJ và thư thi hành án trên bàn làm việc, và thực sự không có câu trả lời nào về cách thoát khỏi tình huống này, đến mức tôi đã đi ăn trộm.
    Tôi đã gọi cho tài xế Just Eat và cố gắng thuyết phục anh ấy chỉ đưa cho tôi đồ ăn. Đó là cách đây 10 năm đối với tôi. Vì vậy, tôi không quên những năm tháng đó trong đời mình.
    Vì vậy, tôi hiểu cảm giác khi ở trong tình huống đó. Và ở cấp độ cá nhân, tôi cần một số câu trả lời, vì tôi sẽ không đợi những người trong quốc hội sửa chữa cuộc sống của mình cho tôi.
    Vì vậy, tôi cần một số câu trả lời cá nhân. Và sau đó tôi cũng quan tâm đến bức tranh lớn hơn. Vì vậy, tôi không phải là người chỉ muốn tích lũy nhiều của cải cho riêng mình.
    Tất nhiên, hãy thành thật. Không nhiều người sẽ không muốn có thêm tiền. Vì vậy, tôi cố gắng thừa nhận sự thiên lệch đó. Nhưng vấn đề lớn mà tôi có là làm thế nào.
    Và từ kinh nghiệm cá nhân của tôi, với tư cách là một người hiện đang tuyển dụng hàng trăm người ở London, ở Manchester, trong các văn phòng của chúng tôi, có một vài điều sẽ khiến tôi rời bỏ đất nước này.
    Nếu nó trở nên ngày một ít thân thiện hơn với các doanh nhân, tôi đoán nếu chúng ta quay lại đây trong năm năm nữa, tôi sẽ tuyển dụng thêm 500 người nữa ở Vương quốc Anh. Và thực sự, khi bạn nhìn quanh căn phòng này, bạn có thể thấy độ tuổi của họ. Đây là những người trẻ.
    Có những điều bạn có thể làm để khiến tôi không làm như vậy.
    Tôi có nghĩa là, có lẽ đáng để chỉ ra rằng chúng ta không đánh thuế tài sản và bạn vẫn đang rời khỏi đất nước, Stephen.
    Không, tôi chưa rời khỏi đất nước.
    Được rồi, bạn sẽ ở lại.
    Không, nhưng tôi là cư dân thuế ở đây. Tôi đóng thuế ở đây. Và tôi không có ý định thay đổi điều đó. Tôi cũng đang trên tuyến đường đúng, bạn biết không, vì vậy chúng tôi đang đầu tư rất nhiều tiền vào doanh nghiệp ở Vương quốc Anh.
    Nhưng nghe này, tôi muốn nâng cao, tôi chỉ muốn đánh thuế những mức độ tài sản cao, chỉ những mức độ tài sản cao. Và nghe này, đừng hiểu sai ý tôi, tôi hiểu rằng những người rất giàu sẽ phàn nàn.
    Và những người rất giàu sẽ nói, cũng như họ đã làm trong tác phẩm của Dickens, tôi sẽ ném doanh nghiệp của mình, tôi sẽ ném thuế của mình, doanh nghiệp và nhà máy của tôi xuống biển.
    Stephen, khán giả của bạn đang ở đây. Nghe này, Stephen, khán giả của bạn đang ở đây. Bạn là một người rất giàu có. Họ đang trả 20, 30, 40, 50%. Bạn nên đóng góp phần công bằng của mình, Stephen. Bạn nên.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng tôi nên đóng thuế nhiều hơn, đặc biệt là khi tôi không nghĩ rằng con tôi nên được hưởng lợi từ tài sản của tôi. Và có thể đây là một ý kiến gây tranh cãi.
    Nhưng thực sự tôi không. Tôi không nghĩ rằng tôi nên có quyền chuyển giao tài sản của mình cho con cái.
    Bạn không thể. Đó là thuế 40%.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng nó nên cao hơn.
    Đó là 40%.
    Dạ, ý tôi là, đừng giả vờ như người giàu không thể chuyển giao tài sản của họ cho con cái một cách thành công. Tôi chỉ muốn nói với bạn rằng, tôi làm điều đó. Tôi nghĩ tôi sẽ đang cướp đi của con cái mình một điều gì đó từ bối cảnh mà tôi đã lớn lên. Nếu con tôi có được hàng chục triệu, giả dụ vậy, khi tôi chết, tôi không nghĩ điều đó nên xảy ra. Tôi đồng ý. Mọi người nói khi tôi nói về chị gái của mình, mọi người thường hỏi, tại sao bạn không chỉ đưa cho chị gái bạn một đống tiền? Nghe này, chị gái tôi làm việc rất chăm chỉ. Cô ấy là một người thông minh. Cô ấy cố gắng làm việc chăm chỉ. Cô ấy tạo ra những sản phẩm tốt. Tôi muốn sống trong một xã hội mà những người như chị gái tôi có thể tự nuôi sống bản thân bằng công việc mà họ làm. Nhưng chúng ta đang phá hủy xã hội đó. Ai sẽ chi trả cho cô ấy? Các khách hàng. Vậy bạn muốn cô ấy bắt đầu một doanh nghiệp? Cô ấy là một doanh nghiệp. Đúng vậy. Và tôi muốn những người như cô ấy phải đóng thuế ít hơn, để những người lao động bình thường được đóng thuế ít hơn, để họ có thêm tiền trong túi. Nghe này, lý do chúng ta có cảnh nghệ thuật thịnh vượng vào những năm 60 là vì chúng ta có một tầng lớp trung lưu thịnh vượng có thể đi mua sắm thời trang mới và mua đĩa nhạc mới. Và sau đó điều đó đã tạo ra một cảnh nghệ thuật phát triển. Bây giờ chúng ta có một tầng lớp trung lưu đang vật lộn để trả các hóa đơn, vì vậy họ không thể mua sắm. Bạn biết, chị gái tôi làm các vở kịch. Những người đi xem kịch bây giờ chỉ là những người giàu. Nhưng trước đây, bạn biết đấy, kịch đã tiếp cận hơn. Bạn muốn nghệ thuật. Tôi có một người bạn là nhà thiết kế thời trang, đúng không? Ngày nay, tất cả các doanh nghiệp đều siêu nhanh, siêu rẻ, siêu thời trang dễ vứt bỏ hoặc siêu đắt đỏ cao cấp, vì đó là nền kinh tế mà chúng ta đã tạo ra. Bạn đến Nhật Bản, nơi mà xã hội không công bằng lắm. Các nhà hàng ở đó là những nhà hàng chất lượng tốt cho người bình dân, vì một xã hội tư bản tốt sẽ sản xuất ra những thứ cho những người có tiền. Trong trường hợp của nhà hát, những người tiêu dùng nhà hát đã di chuyển đến đâu? Họ đang tìm kiếm giải trí ở đâu bây giờ? Điều bạn có là một nhóm người rất giàu có sẽ vẫn đến xem kịch và họ sẽ trả rất nhiều tiền. Nhưng sau đó bạn có một nhóm lớn người có tiền ít và họ sẽ cố gắng tìm kiếm giải trí một cách rẻ hơn, tất nhiên rồi. Bạn biết ý tôi là gì không? Họ đang dành thời gian xem kênh YouTube của bạn. Chà, chính xác, kênh YouTube của tôi, mà nhân tiện là miễn phí. Ừ, nhưng bạn vẫn kiếm tiền từ đó. Bạn có phần thưởng từ YouTube. Thành thật mà nói, chỉ trong vài tháng gần đây tôi mới bắt đầu kiếm được tiền vì tôi không tự biên tập video. Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, trong vài năm đầu bạn đang trả tiền cho chính mình để làm điều đó. Bạn hiểu ý tôi không? Tôi nghĩ mọi người đôi khi đánh giá quá cao số tiền mà họ có. Đây là những doanh nhân. Các doanh nhân phải trải qua hai, ba, bốn, năm năm vật lộn để đạt đến điểm thành công. Và thật sự tồi tệ khi bạn nói, ôi cuối cùng, khi tôi làm được, bạn lại dẫm lên đó. Và sau đó các tư vấn cho các doanh nhân… Chỉ riêng với tôi, 10 triệu bảng là một số tiền khá lớn. Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, bạn có thể trị giá 9 triệu bảng mà không phải trả thêm gì cả. Nhưng nếu tôi chỉ huy động 1 triệu bảng để đầu tư vào công ty của mình thì sao? Nhưng sau đó, nếu tôi liên tục huy động tiền và các nhà đầu tư của tôi nói, tôi xin lỗi, tôi không đầu tư vào nền kinh tế Vương quốc Anh vì thuế tài sản và tất cả những điều đó. Nó chống lại tài sản. Và sau đó tôi chỉ còn cách chuyển công ty của mình ra nước ngoài. Chà, tôi muốn tạo ra một tình huống mà người tiêu dùng Vương quốc Anh mạnh đến mức bạn phải đầu tư vào Vương quốc Anh. Bạn không cần phải ở đây để bán hàng cho họ. Nhanh một chút, tôi muốn nói với bạn về nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi, Whoop, một doanh nghiệp mà tôi cũng là nhà đầu tư. Và nếu bạn theo dõi tôi trên Instagram, bạn có thể đã nhận ra rằng gần đây tôi đã bắt đầu chạy bộ, điều mà tôi rất thích. Và nó bắt đầu như một thử thách, nhưng bây giờ nó đã trở thành điều tôi làm gần như hàng ngày. Đó là một trong những thứ đang thúc đẩy tôi trở nên tốt hơn mỗi ngày. Nhưng có một điều như thế này. Đối với tôi, tiến bộ không chỉ là cố gắng hơn. Nó cũng là về việc tập luyện thông minh hơn, và đó là thời điểm Whoop đến tay tôi. Whoop không chỉ theo dõi các buổi tập của tôi. Nó cho tôi biết mức độ sẵn sàng của cơ thể tôi để thực hiện các buổi tập đó trước khi tôi thậm chí bắt đầu tập. Vài năm trước, chúng tôi đã thực hiện một nghiên cứu có tên là Dự án PR. Và nó phát hiện rằng những người chạy bộ điều chỉnh huấn luyện của họ dựa trên điểm phục hồi đã cải thiện thời gian chạy 5K của họ trung bình 2 phút 40 giây, trong khi giảm nguy cơ chấn thương hơn 30%. Và họ đã làm điều đó trong khi tập luyện ít hơn. Vì vậy, nếu bạn đang tìm kiếm loại hướng dẫn này khi đến với việc tập luyện của bạn, hãy truy cập join.whoop.com slash CEO và nhận bản dùng thử 30 ngày mà không cần cam kết gì cả. Đó là join.whoop.com slash CEO. Hãy cho tôi biết bạn đã đạt được gì. Vậy chúng ta có đồng ý với tiền đề này mà Gary đang nói không, đó là những người siêu giàu, mà chúng ta có thể phân loại là có giá trị hơn những gì bạn đang nói? Chúng tôi nói 10 triệu là giới hạn mà chúng tôi đã vận động. Được rồi, chúng tôi nghĩ rằng họ nên trả một phần thuế lớn hơn. Và nếu bạn đồng ý với tiền đề đó, câu hỏi sẽ trở thành, vâng, nhưng làm thế nào? Vâng. Thực ra, họ đã làm. 1% trả 30%. Tôi muốn làm rõ. Đó là 1% hàng đầu của người nộp thuế, không phải là 1% giàu có nhất. Phải nói rằng, tôi cũng không nhất thiết nói điều gì là công bằng. Tôi đang nói những gì thực sự khả thi, đúng không? Vì vậy, bạn có thể nghĩ ra điều công bằng nhất trên một tờ giấy ăn, đây là điều công bằng, nhưng liệu bạn có thể thực hiện nó hay không là một điều rất khó khăn. Vấn đề là tài sản hiện giờ hoàn toàn có thể di chuyển. Nó thực sự, bạn có thể sống và làm việc từ bất cứ đâu. Nhà ở, Dan. Đúng. Đó là đất đai. Có di động không? Bạn không thể nhấc cả đất nước ra khỏi biển. Có rất ít. Tôi chưa bao giờ gặp bất kỳ người nào thực sự giàu có sở hữu nhiều nhà. Bạn thật sự nghĩ rằng toàn bộ nguồn nhà ở của Vương quốc Anh không có giá trị? Vâng, không, nó có giá trị.
    Một ai đó sở hữu nó.
    Nhưng 78% thuộc về những người thuộc thế hệ bùng nổ trẻ em.
    Họ chỉ sở hữu, họ đã mua một ngôi nhà vào năm 1992 và họ sở hữu ngôi nhà đó.
    Cá nhân tôi nghĩ rằng quyền sở hữu nhà, đặc biệt khi bạn xem xét đến các khoản thế chấp, phân phối tương đối không đồng đều.
    Đó là, nhân tiện, cái mà được phân phối đều nhất.
    Giới trẻ giờ đây có tài sản thương mại, đất đai, tài nguyên thiên nhiên.
    Được sở hữu bởi các quỹ hưu trí.
    Vậy thì các khán giả sở hữu nó, đúng không?
    Không, họ được sở hữu bởi, nếu họ sở hữu một quỹ hưu trí, phần lớn các bất động sản thương mại đó.
    Và phân phối các quỹ hưu trí thì sao?
    Nếu bạn nhìn vào hầu hết.
    Giờ, phân phối các quỹ hưu trí thì sao?
    Phần trăm quỹ hưu trí được sở hữu bởi 1% hàng đầu là bao nhiêu?
    Tôi không biết ngay lúc này, nhưng với các quỹ hưu trí.
    Nhưng tôi biết rằng rõ ràng là sự giàu có tập trung ở tầng lớp trên cùng.
    Nhưng đây là điều cần ghi nhớ.
    Nhóm giàu có không nhất thiết phải là một nhóm tĩnh.
    Có một nghiên cứu về những người giàu nhất vào năm 1900, và hầu hết những gia đình đó hiện giờ đang nghèo,
    hoặc đã giảm giá trị ngày nay.
    Nếu những người giàu nhất vào năm 1900 chỉ đơn giản giữ tài sản của họ, sẽ có thêm 16,000 tỷ phú nữa.
    Nhưng họ không.
    Bạn biết đấy, trong quản lý tài sản, trong các ngân hàng, họ có cái gọi là kế hoạch kế thừa.
    Vì vậy, kế hoạch kế thừa là nơi họ cố gắng tìm ra cách không làm hỏng nó qua các thế hệ.
    Và họ nổi tiếng là kém trong việc này.
    Rất khó để giữ tài sản qua các thế hệ.
    Trong thế kỷ 20, chúng ta đã trải qua hai cuộc chiến tranh thế giới và một cuộc diệt chủng.
    Điều đó đã phân phối lại tài sản, tôi không muốn điều đó xảy ra nữa.
    Đúng vậy.
    Đúng rồi, tôi ủng hộ bạn.
    Tôi muốn có một tầng lớp trung lưu thịnh vượng.
    Tôi thực sự muốn như vậy.
    Vậy thì tài sản sẽ đến từ đâu?
    Bạn có muốn tạo ra ý tưởng của mình không?
    Doanh nhân.
    Doanh nhân.
    Được rồi, chúng ta sẽ tạo ra nó.
    Doanh nhân.
    Những nền kinh tế thân thiện với việc tạo ra sự giàu có và doanh nhân.
    Lần cuối bạn có một chính phủ không phải là, hãy phát triển, hãy phát triển, hãy phát triển là khi nào?
    Nó không hoạt động cho người dân, Daniel.
    Không, vấn đề là họ cần lùi lại.
    Họ cần để cho mọi thứ thu hẹp lại, thu hẹp lại, thu hẹp lại.
    Khán giả của chúng ta nên theo dõi sát sao Donald Trump và Elon Musk vì họ đang làm điều bạn yêu cầu.
    Sẽ thật thú vị để xem điều gì xảy ra, đúng không?
    Còn quá sớm để nói.
    Nếu bạn đang cố gắng phát triển kinh tế Vương quốc Anh, bạn có không chọn cách tiếp cận của nước Mỹ?
    Bởi vì họ dường như thành công hơn nhiều trong việc phát triển nền kinh tế của họ.
    Tôi nghĩ, tất nhiên, khi chúng ta nói về việc cắt giảm nhà nước, họ sẽ sử dụng những ví dụ này như, ồ, có một tòa nhà chính phủ lãng phí.
    Ai cũng muốn cắt giảm lãng phí nhà nước.
    Tất nhiên, tôi sẽ không chống lại việc cắt giảm lãng phí nhà nước.
    Tôi đến từ Vương quốc Anh.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi đã thấy những năm thắt lưng buộc bụng.
    Tôi thấy những gì đã xảy ra với các dịch vụ địa phương.
    Tôi thấy những gì đã xảy ra với các thứ như cảnh sát, như giáo dục, bạn biết đấy, đặc biệt là các dịch vụ cho thanh thiếu niên.
    Bạn cắt giảm nhà nước, bạn sa thải một đống người, bạn biết đó, nhà nước làm gì?
    Được rồi, vâng.
    Nếu bạn có thể loại bỏ tham nhũng của nhà nước, thì vâng, 100%.
    Nếu bạn có thể loại bỏ lãng phí của nhà nước, 100%, bạn biết đấy, đây là cách các bà mẹ đơn thân nuôi dưỡng con cái của họ, Stephen.
    Bạn muốn ngăn điều đó không?
    Không, tôi đang nói không.
    Cắt giảm nhà nước, tôi không nghĩ rằng điều đó sẽ hiệu quả.
    Thành thật mà nói, tôi nghĩ rằng các loại thuế không phải là một cuộc thảo luận không thú vị.
    Tôi nghĩ, vâng, tất nhiên, việc tránh thuế là điều cần loại bỏ.
    Thực sự, tôi muốn lùi lại, nhìn vào đất nước và nói, tình trạng của đất nước là gì?
    Người dân cần gì?
    Bây giờ, chúng ta có một đất nước nơi tồn kho nhà ở đang đổ nát và chúng ta để cho nó đổ nát vì những ngôi nhà đó thuộc về những người bình thường không có tiền.
    Nếu bạn muốn đất nước hoạt động cho người dân bình thường, bạn cần người dân bình thường có tiền.
    Tôi luôn nhớ đến ông Beast.
    Ông ấy đến những nơi ở châu Phi và ông chi 500 bảng và ông mang lại ánh sáng cho một đứa trẻ có thể sẽ mù cả đời chỉ với 500 bảng.
    Tại sao trẻ em ở châu Phi lại mù mà có thể được nhìn thấy chỉ với 500 bảng?
    Bởi vì họ không có tiền.
    Đó là những gì xảy ra khi bạn hút cạn tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Điều đó sẽ kết thúc như vậy.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi có một người bạn đã đến Ấn Độ tuần trước.
    Anh ấy nói có những người nằm ngoài đường với các chi thể hỏng thối rữa.
    Bạn biết đấy, đó là những gì xảy ra khi bạn tước đi quyền lực, khi bạn lấy tiền từ tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Bạn phải bảo vệ tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Nếu tầng lớp trung lưu có tiền, thì sẽ có những cơ hội kinh doanh tuyệt vời để bán hàng hóa và dịch vụ như doanh nghiệp của bạn cho tầng lớp trung lưu.
    Vậy bạn có muốn đánh thuế Daniel nhiều hơn không?
    Tôi không biết liệu Daniel có trị giá hơn 10 triệu bảng hay không.
    Nghe có vẻ như là có.
    Anh ấy có.
    Ý tôi là, tôi muốn làm rõ điều đó, đúng không?
    Bạn kiếm được 5% từ tài sản của bạn.
    Vì vậy, nếu Daniel trị giá 100 triệu bảng, anh ấy kiếm được 5 triệu bảng.
    Chúng tôi chỉ đang cố gắng đánh thuế bạn 1%.
    Tôi nghĩ nếu bạn trị giá 100 triệu bảng, bạn kiếm được 5 triệu bảng thu nhập thụ động, bạn có thể đủ khả năng để trả 1 triệu bảng thuế.
    Bạn vẫn sẽ tiếp tục giàu có.
    Sự thật là, ngay cả khi chúng ta đánh thuế những tỷ phú này 1% mỗi năm, họ vẫn sẽ ép cạn phần còn lại.
    Đây không phải là vấn đề đạo đức.
    Đây chỉ là phân tích kinh tế lạnh lùng mà tôi đã kiếm được rất nhiều tiền từ việc đặt cược.
    Vậy thì, kết luận, các bạn.
    Tôi sẽ bắt đầu với bạn, Gary.
    Dựa trên mọi thứ chúng ta đã thảo luận hôm nay, điều gì – tôi sẽ yêu cầu bạn đưa ra hai góc nhìn,
    đó là, nếu tôi là một cá nhân trẻ ở đất nước này ngay bây giờ, tôi nên làm gì để bảo vệ bản thân và gia đình và để nuôi sống gia đình tôi?
    Tôi nên có những hành vi, chiến lược gì ở đó?
    Nhưng cũng từ cấp độ chính phủ – tôi biết rằng có một số chính trị gia lắng nghe vì họ đã nhắn tin cho tôi.
    Các chính trị gia nên làm gì để khắc phục vấn đề mà chúng ta đều đang nhận thấy rõ ràng, đó là sự sụp đổ của tầng lớp trung lưu, sự sụp đổ của những người lao động và sự gia tăng tài sản của những người giàu có? Tôi muốn các bạn trẻ hiểu rằng điều này sẽ trở nên tồi tệ hơn. Nó sẽ trở nên rất, rất tồi tệ. Nó sẽ trở nên tồi tệ tương đối nhanh chóng. Nghèo đói sẽ gia tăng một cách nhanh chóng. Sẽ ngày càng khó khăn, gần như không thể để kiếm được tiền nghiêm túc. Hãy chuẩn bị cho điều đó. Hãy chuẩn bị khi bạn xem xét tài chính của mình, khi bạn cân nhắc kế hoạch cho gia đình. Điều này sẽ tồi tệ hơn và sẽ rất, rất khó khăn. Nó sẽ trở thành một vấn đề sức khỏe tâm thần lớn cho nhiều bạn trẻ. Vậy hãy trò chuyện với mọi người và hiểu điều đó. Các video YouTube của tôi có sẵn để mọi người hiểu những gì đang xảy ra. Sau đó, bạn phải làm tất cả những điều đúng đắn. Đúng, ý tôi là tôi không phản đối bạn. Bạn phải làm việc chăm chỉ. Bạn phải học những điều đúng. Tôi nghĩ thật đáng tiếc khi chúng ta đã biến các môn học như nghệ thuật thành điều mà bạn không được phép chọn. Nếu bạn có xuất thân nghèo, bạn không thể làm trong lĩnh vực nghệ thuật. Rất tiếc, bạn không thể thanh toán hóa đơn. Bạn không thể. Vì vậy, bạn phải đi học về AI và máy tính và, có thể là truyền thông xã hội, mặc dù chúng ta phải thành thật, truyền thông xã hội không trả lương cho hầu hết mọi người. Bạn phải nhận ra thực tế của tình hình của mình. Nó rất, rất, rất, rất tồi tệ. Nhưng điều đó không có nghĩa là bạn không làm việc. Điều đó không có nghĩa là bạn không có khát vọng. Bạn phải làm việc chăm chỉ vì bạn phải làm. Nhưng nếu bạn quản lý đủ tiền để nuôi sống một gia đình, bạn nên tự hào về bản thân. Đó là điều quan trọng nhất. Nhưng hãy nhận ra rằng điều này có thể thay đổi. Điều này có thể thay đổi. Ông bà chúng ta, ông bà của ông bà chúng ta đã đấu tranh để có một phần lớn hơn của chiếc bánh và họ đã đạt được điều đó. Họ đã có chăm sóc sức khỏe, họ đã có giáo dục, họ đã có nhà ở, họ đã có thực phẩm. Các bạn trẻ của chúng ta cũng có thể có điều đó, nhưng họ sẽ không có được trừ khi họ chiến đấu để đòi lại. Vì vậy, tôi khuyến khích mọi người tự giáo dục, ủng hộ công việc của tôi, tham gia chính trị, nhưng cũng phải làm việc chăm chỉ. Hãy ủng hộ bạn bè và gia đình của bạn. Cố gắng kiếm tiền vì bạn sẽ phải làm. Nếu bạn không tham gia chính trị, tôi đảm bảo với bạn rằng bên kia sẽ tham gia chính trị. Và điều đó có nghĩa là con cái và cháu của bạn sẽ sống trong nghèo đói. Vì vậy, bạn phải làm cả hai. Về các chính trị gia, tôi có cảm xúc lẫn lộn về nhiều chính trị gia. Sự thật là, tôi nghĩ rằng nhiều chính trị gia rất giàu và cuối cùng họ không quan tâm. Họ được bảo vệ. Một cuộc khủng hoảng bất bình đẳng trông thật tuyệt vời từ trên cao. Và tôi nghĩ đó là lý do tại sao chúng ta ba người có thể ngồi đây và nói mọi thứ sẽ ổn. Bởi vì với chúng tôi, mọi thứ sẽ ổn. Và với con cái chúng tôi, mọi thứ sẽ ổn. Nhưng đối với con cái của những người xem chúng tôi, mọi thứ sẽ không ổn. Các chính trị gia sẽ không cố gắng cứu bạn. Tôi sẽ cố gắng đảm bảo họ làm điều đó, nhưng tôi không nghĩ rằng họ sẽ làm. Nghe này, kế hoạch của tôi không phải là nhận nhượng bộ từ các chính trị gia. Kế hoạch của tôi là có 5 triệu người theo dõi trên internet và gây áp lực lên các chính trị gia để họ phải cho chúng ta những gì chúng ta cần. Vì vậy, tôi sẽ ủng hộ mọi người đứng sau tôi, ủng hộ chiến dịch của tôi, nhưng cũng phải hiểu điều gì đang xảy ra. Tự giáo dục bạn bè và gia đình của bạn. Và điều quan trọng là phải hiểu, đây sẽ là một cuộc chiến dài. Vì vậy, hãy mạnh mẽ, giữ mọi người bên cạnh bạn, nhưng hãy sẵn sàng cho những gì sắp đến. Tôi thấy những dấu hiệu và một số điều bạn đã nói gần đây về việc bạn tham gia chính trị vào một thời điểm nào đó. Stephen, tôi đang tham gia chính trị. Nhưng tôi đang nói một cách tích cực. Nghe này, tôi không muốn trở thành một thành viên Quốc hội. Tôi không muốn trở thành Bộ trưởng Tài chính. Tôi không muốn trở thành Thủ tướng. Nếu chúng ta đến một điểm mà tôi cảm thấy rằng đó là điều cần đạt được khi đó là cách tốt nhất để giải quyết vấn đề này, tôi sẽ mở lòng với điều đó. Đây không phải là kế hoạch A. Đây không phải là kế hoạch A. Bạn biết đấy, bạn có muốn trở thành Thủ tướng không? Tôi nghi ngờ rằng có lẽ không phải, đúng không? Tôi sẽ thành thật, tôi khá không thoải mái với ngay cả mức độ công chúng mà tôi đang có hiện tại, điều này là, bạn biết đấy, nó thấp hơn nhiều so với những gì bạn có. Nhưng điều đó khiến tôi căng thẳng. Thật kỳ lạ khi chúng ta nói về điều này trước khi quay phim. Tôi không muốn, bạn có thể tưởng tượng không? Tôi không muốn trở thành Thủ tướng. Tôi không muốn trở thành một thành viên Quốc hội. Nhưng tôi nghiêm túc về công việc mà tôi đang làm. Và nếu chúng ta đến một điểm mà tôi nghĩ rằng đó là cách tốt nhất để thực hiện, tôi sẽ xem xét nó. Nhưng tôi sẽ thích hơn là có thể ảnh hưởng đến các thành viên Quốc hội từ bên lề, để ảnh hưởng đến các chính trị gia từ bên lề. Và đối với người mà bạn vừa đưa ra lời khuyên, họ nên bỏ phiếu cho ai? Chà, chúng ta không có một cuộc bầu cử, hãy nghe này, chính trị không phải là bóng đá. Chính trị không phải là bóng đá, được chứ? Điều này không phải là về tôi là Đảng Lao động, tôi là Đảng Bảo thủ, tôi là Đảng Cộng hòa, tôi là Đảng Dân chủ. Bạn đang mất nhà ở đây. Bạn đang mất nhà ở. Con cái bạn sẽ sống trong nghèo đói. Và bạn sẽ thấy cả Trump và đảng Cộng hòa và Keir Starmer cùng với Đảng Lao động, những người được cho là ở phía đối diện của phổ chính trị, đều sẽ thất bại vì họ sẽ không hành động đối với sự gia tăng bất bình đẳng tài sản. Và tôi sẽ đúng về điều đó. Bạn biết đấy, hãy đưa tôi quay trở lại sau vài năm. Tôi sẽ đúng về điều đó. Và điều đó cho bạn thấy không phải là tôi nghĩ rằng sự phân chia này là cực kỳ có hại cho xã hội của chúng ta, đặc biệt là ở Mỹ nơi có rất nhiều sự thù hận đứng sau nó, nơi đột nhiên tôi ở bên này, bạn ở bên kia. Chúng ta sẽ bắt tay sau điều này. Chúng ta sẽ, bạn biết đấy, không có sự thù hận ở đây. Nhưng nếu bạn để bản thân bị chia rẽ khỏi một nửa đất nước của bạn và bạn cho phép, chúng ta đang thấy điều này ngày càng gia tăng, căng thẳng chủng tộc, căng thẳng giới tính. Nếu bạn để bản thân bị chia rẽ, họ sẽ thắng. Họ sẽ thắng. Vì vậy, bạn cần phải bỏ phiếu cho bất kỳ ai sẽ bảo vệ nhà ở của bạn.
    Và nếu bạn muốn biết người đó là ai, hãy đến và kiểm tra kinh tế của Gary trước cuộc bầu cử và tôi sẽ nói cho bạn biết đó sẽ là ai.
    Daniel.
    Tuyệt vời.
    Lập luận kết thúc, cá nhân và xã hội.
    Có vài điều.
    Tôi đã đọc cuốn sách của Gary và nó rất tuyệt vời, và bất kể bạn có thực sự thích kinh tế hay không, đó là một câu chuyện xuất sắc.
    Nó thực sự tốt.
    Tôi đã đọc trong khoảng hai đến ba ngày và cuối cùng nó sẽ trở thành một bộ phim hay nữa.
    Tôi đồng ý với rất nhiều điều mà Gary đang nói.
    Có một sự sụp đổ của tầng lớp trung lưu và có thể sẽ còn tồi tệ hơn.
    Và những công việc truyền thống của tầng lớp trung lưu xuất phát từ thời kỳ công nghiệp, hệ thống cách mạng công nghiệp đã trưởng thành, đang sụp đổ.
    Và nó đang toàn cầu hóa.
    Chúng ta đang thấy công nghệ mang lại cơ hội ở khắp nơi trên thế giới.
    Và sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản, nó có nguyên nhân của nó.
    Sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản tự nó như một bảng điểm và có một nguyên nhân dẫn tới sự bất bình đẳng về tài sản.
    Và nguyên nhân trong suy nghĩ của tôi là công nghệ.
    Công nghệ đang di chuyển những cơ hội đó và đang thay đổi mọi thứ.
    Chúng ta đã có những chính phủ lớn.
    Chúng ta có lượng thuế khổng lồ.
    Chúng ta đang ở mức thuế kỷ lục.
    Tài sản chưa bao giờ di chuyển nhiều như vậy.
    Đó không phải là về sự công bằng.
    Đó là về việc bạn có thể thực sự thoát khỏi điều gì.
    Đó là về những gì bạn có thể thực hiện.
    Và sẽ rất, rất, như Gary đã nói, sẽ rất, rất, rất khó để đánh thuế những người có doanh nghiệp kỹ thuật số, những người có thể sống và làm việc từ bất kỳ đâu.
    Tôi biết điều đó từ kinh nghiệm, rằng nó vô cùng di động.
    Với điều đó đã nói, ở cấp độ vĩ mô, bức tranh lớn, chúng ta biết rằng có mối tương quan giữa tự do kinh tế, nơi mà chính phủ không can thiệp vào bạn, và tỷ lệ nghèo thấp.
    Và chúng ta biết rằng ngay khi chính phủ trở nên lớn, thuế cao, quy định cao, thực tế tỷ lệ nghèo sẽ tăng lên từ 10% đến 30%, vì vậy nó tăng gấp ba.
    Vì vậy, giới hạn tự do kinh tế không bao giờ là một ý tưởng hay nếu bạn nhìn vào dữ liệu.
    Ở cấp độ vi mô, chưa bao giờ có nhiều cơ hội hơn cho bất kỳ ai quyết tâm và có tinh thần khởi nghiệp để bắt đầu một công ty.
    Nó rẻ hơn bao giờ hết để bắt đầu một công ty.
    Bạn có thể làm những gì Gary đã làm, đó là xuất bản nội dung, xây dựng một lượng người theo dõi, tìm cách để khai thác.
    Bạn có thể tạo ra sản phẩm và dịch vụ và bán chúng đến bất kỳ đâu trên thế giới.
    Bạn là một ví dụ của người bắt đầu từ tay trắng và trở thành triệu phú ở độ tuổi 20 và rồi lại ở độ tuổi 30 với một lĩnh vực hoàn toàn khác.
    Ông ấy đã trở thành triệu phú khi 20 tuổi và lại tiếp tục như vậy ở tuổi 30 với tư cách là một tác giả bán chạy và người tạo nội dung.
    Tôi đã làm điều đó ở tuổi 20, 30, và giờ là 40, bắt đầu từ con số 0.
    Vì vậy, không phải là bình thường khi ba người đàn ông ở độ tuổi của chúng tôi có thể làm điều đó liên tục.
    Đó là vì chúng ta đang sống trong một thời điểm có những cơ hội vô cùng to lớn, nhưng bạn phải nắm bắt những cơ hội đó.
    Bạn chưa bao giờ nghe về nó ở trường học.
    Bạn chưa bao giờ nghe về nó ở đại học.
    Bạn sẽ phải học các kỹ năng để tiếp cận những cơ hội đó, nhưng chắc chắn có nhiều cách để bạn có thể thành công trong thế giới mà chúng ta đang sống.
    Và với điểm vĩ mô đó, chúng ta nên bầu cho ai?
    Bởi vì một số suy nghĩ và đề xuất chính sách của bạn trong cuộc trò chuyện này phù hợp hơn với Trump, Elon, sứ mệnh của người Mỹ bây giờ khi họ chào đón những triệu phú.
    Họ đang cố gắng tạo ra một môi trường thân thiện với tinh thần khởi nghiệp.
    Họ đang thực hiện các hành động nhằm phá bỏ lãng phí của chính phủ.
    Tôi đồng ý với Gary.
    Đó không phải là bóng đá.
    Bạn không có một đội.
    Bạn sẽ lựa chọn.
    Bạn nên là một cử tri swing.
    Bạn nên bỏ phiếu trong mỗi cuộc bầu cử.
    Bạn nên khiến họ phải nỗ lực để giành lấy phiếu bầu của bạn.
    Liệu Trump có thành công không?
    Còn quá sớm để nói.
    Nhưng ông ấy đã đưa ra một dự đoán, vì vậy tôi mời bạn cũng đưa ra một dự đoán.
    Ông ấy đã nói, năm năm sau, chúng tôi sẽ quay lại đây, chúng tôi sẽ thấy Trump.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng nhiều người rất giàu sẽ chuyển đến Mỹ.
    Bạn sẽ thấy rất nhiều người từ khắp nơi trên thế giới.
    Ông ấy đang chơi để thắng, và ông ấy muốn người giàu, doanh nhân và nhà đầu tư đến Mỹ và ở lại đó.
    Ông ấy đang tạo ra visa vàng và visa mở.
    Và tiêu chí thành công ở đây là tầng lớp trung lưu trở nên giàu có và thịnh vượng hơn.
    Và điều tôi thực sự nghĩ sẽ xảy ra, là bạn sẽ thấy mức sống đang gia tăng ở Mỹ, và bạn sẽ thấy sự thiệt thòi ở những nơi mà những người đó rời bỏ.
    Đó không phải là điều tốt khi có những người trả phần lớn thuế, tức là 1% người dân trả 30% thuế.
    Nếu những người đó rời đi, hóa đơn sẽ được phân chia cho tất cả mọi người khác.
    Chà, chúng ta sẽ phải làm phần hai, và chúng ta sẽ thấy.
    Tôi muốn cảm ơn cả hai bạn vì công việc mà bạn làm, vì tôi là một fan lớn của cả hai.
    Tôi thường xuyên xem video của Gary.
    Nó giúp tôi hiểu một góc nhìn khác về những gì tôi thường nghe trên internet hoặc những gì tôi nghe thấy trên Twitter về những gì đang diễn ra trong thế giới.
    Và tôi thực sự tôn trọng và ngưỡng mộ những người có thể làm những gì mà cả hai bạn đã làm hôm nay, đó là trao đổi và lắng nghe ý tưởng để tìm kiếm câu trả lời.
    Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi rất khuyến khích bất kỳ ai, bất kể bạn có đồng ý với tất cả hay một số điều hay chỉ một chút, hãy theo dõi kênh của Gary trên YouTube mang tên Gary’s Economics, vì đó là một nguồn thông tin tuyệt vời từ một người đã thành công, hiểu biết thế giới từ một góc nhìn khác.
    Nhưng cũng là một người đang cung cấp một câu chuyện mà tôi thực sự nghĩ rằng có, như chúng ta đã đề cập trước khi bắt đầu, có một khoảng trống lớn trong thị trường mà cái đó cần.
    Có rất nhiều người như tôi và Dan trên internet đang nói về tinh thần khởi nghiệp và tài chính và cách kiếm tiền.
    Nhưng có vẻ như chưa có đủ người nói về sự bất bình đẳng trong tài sản từ góc độ như Gary nhìn nhận, và đang cung cấp những giải pháp và câu trả lời kiểu tập thể và toàn xã hội hơn, cũng như những giải thích về lý do tại sao điều đó lại xảy ra.
    Tôi thật sự nghĩ, tôi thật sự nghĩ, vì tôi biết bạn, Dan, và hi vọng tôi cũng hiểu bản thân mình, rằng chúng ta đều muốn Vương quốc Anh tồn tại.
    Và tôi nghĩ chúng ta đều tin rằng cách mà Vương quốc Anh tồn tại không nhất thiết phải là một vài người siêu giàu kiếm thêm tiền.
    Nó liên quan đến khả năng di chuyển xã hội, và việc cho phép những người ở đáy xã hội tạo ra cơ hội và thành công.
    Chúng ta đều đồng ý với điều đó, dù chúng ta có đồng ý hay không về nguyên nhân và giải pháp cho vấn đề đó.
    Tôi cũng rất khuyến khích mọi người đi kiểm tra cuốn sách The Trading Game, vì mọi người đang nói về cuốn sách này.
    Và tôi nghĩ nó đã đứng ở vị trí số một trong danh sách sách bán chạy của Sunday Times trong khoảng bốn tuần rồi phải không?
    Bốn tuần, số một.
    Số một.
    Bốn tuần, số một, đúng vậy.
    Bốn tuần, số một, đó là một thành tựu đáng kinh ngạc.
    Nhưng điều đó phản ánh những gì có trong cuốn sách này, cách mà câu chuyện được kể, cũng như độ kịp thời của thông điệp này.
    Vì vậy, tôi rất khuyến khích mọi người đi kiểm tra.
    Tôi sẽ để liên kết bên dưới để mọi người có thể làm điều đó.
    Và nếu bạn chỉ nhìn vào một số lời chứng thực cho cuốn sách này, thật sâu sắc.
    Tôi nghe thấy mọi người mô tả nó là, như, không thể quên ở một đầu và sau đó là buồn ở đầu kia, vì đó là bản chất của thực tế mà nó phản ánh.
    Và tôi rất khuyến khích mọi người đi kiểm tra cuốn Entrepreneur Revolution của Dan Priestley.
    Nhưng cũng vậy, trang web của bạn có tất cả các nguồn tài nguyên và công cụ của bạn.
    Vậy tôi sẽ liên kết điều đó trên màn hình.
    Website là gì?
    Tại danielpriestly.com.
    Tại danielpriestly.com.
    Cảm ơn cả hai bạn vì sự hào phóng.
    Thực sự, tôi rất biết ơn.
    Cảm ơn vì đã đưa chúng tôi lại với nhau.
    Dù tôi ở bất kỳ nơi nào trên thế giới, có vẻ như ai cũng đang uống matcha.
    Và có khả năng cao rằng matcha bạn đang uống được làm bởi một công ty mà tôi đã đầu tư hơn bảy con số,
    họ là nhà tài trợ cho podcast này có tên là Perfect Ted,
    bởi vì họ là thương hiệu được sử dụng toàn cầu bởi các quán cà phê như Blank Street Coffee và Joe and the Juice và nhiều thương hiệu khác.
    Không chỉ bạn có thể tìm thấy matcha Perfect Ted tại các quán cà phê, mà bạn còn có thể làm nó tại nhà.
    Rẻ hơn nhiều.
    Chỉ trong vài giây, sử dụng bột matcha hương vị mà tôi có ở đây trước mặt.
    Matcha Perfect Ted là loại cao cấp và được thu hoạch từ Nhật Bản.
    Nó mịn màng.
    Nó ngọt tự nhiên.
    Không giống như những loại matcha đắng chát mà tôi đã thử trước khi biết đến Perfect Ted.
    Và nếu bạn là một trong những người đã nói với bản thân rằng bạn không thích matcha,
    có lẽ vì bạn chưa thử matcha Perfect Ted của chúng tôi.
    Và bạn có thể tìm thấy matcha Perfect Ted ở Vương quốc Anh, tại Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Holland and Barrett, và ở Waitrose,
    hoặc Albert Heijn nếu bạn ở Hà Lan.
    Và trên Amazon tại Mỹ.
    Hoặc nhận toàn bộ sản phẩm trực tuyến tại perfectted.com.
    Bạn có thể nhận được 40% giảm giá cho đơn hàng đầu tiên của bạn bằng cách sử dụng mã DIARY40.
    Tôi thấy thật thú vị khi khi nhìn vào backend của Spotify và Apple và các kênh audio của chúng tôi,
    phần lớn mọi người xem podcast này vẫn chưa nhấn nút theo dõi hoặc nút đăng ký,
    dù bạn đang nghe điều này ở đâu.
    Tôi muốn đưa ra một thỏa thuận với bạn.
    Nếu bạn có thể làm cho tôi một ân huệ lớn và nhấn nút đăng ký, tôi sẽ làm việc không mệt mỏi từ bây giờ đến mãi mãi để làm cho chương trình ngày càng tốt hơn.
    Tôi không thể nói với bạn rằng việc nhấn nút đăng ký đó hữu ích như thế nào.
    Chương trình càng lớn, có nghĩa là chúng tôi có thể mở rộng sản xuất, mang đến tất cả những vị khách mà bạn muốn thấy,
    và tiếp tục làm điều mà chúng tôi yêu thích.
    Nếu bạn có thể làm cho tôi ân huệ nhỏ đó và nhấn nút theo dõi,
    dù bạn đang nghe ở đâu, điều đó sẽ có ý nghĩa rất lớn với tôi.
    Đó là ân huệ duy nhất mà tôi sẽ bao giờ hỏi bạn.
    Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì thời gian của bạn.
    我厭倦了那些價值數百萬的富豪告訴無法負擔開暖氣的孩子們,只需更具創業精神。這實在太可憐了,丹。太可憐了。好吧,妳那段視頻中提到,如果妳沒有富裕的爸爸,那妳就完蛋了。對我而言,如果我在19、20歲時接觸到妳的內容,那我真的是完蛋了。我的朋友們無法養活自己的孩子,好嗎?如果這麼簡單,為什麼大家不都在這樣做呢?我告訴妳,人們不這樣做的原因是…… 如果妳想再說一件事,那就是。今天的辯論可以說是火藥味十足。但無論如何,這仍然很重要。因為我和兩位在財富、創業和經濟領域的專家坐下來討論美國、英國以及西方世界的狀況。妳認為英國或美國的普通人變得越來越窮的原因是因為他們不懂得如何創造財富嗎?不,人民變得越來越窮的原因是因為龐大的政府、創紀錄的稅收、過時的教育體系、科技和遠端工作。妳確定嗎?妳怎麼看待這些觀點?生活水平因財富不平等而下降。如果允許富人變得更富,他們就會把中產階級和貧困階級擠出住房等資源。讓我們對那些辛苦工作的人減稅,對世界上最富有和最有權力的人提高稅收。這種看法過於簡化。現在每個月都有一千名百萬富翁離開,這意味著每一位每年繳納一萬英鎊稅的普通人,現在必須繳納兩萬英鎊的稅。這樣做最終會損人利己。如果我們是一個不願意去做必要但艱難的事情的國家,那麼我們的孩子將生活在貧窮中。妳希望人們怎麼做?有很多不同的方法。繫好安全帶。我發現非常有趣的是,當我們查看Spotify和Apple以及我們的音頻頻道的後端時,觀看這個播客的大多數人還沒有按下關注或訂閱按鈕。 我想和妳達成一個協議。如果妳能給我一個大忙,按下那個訂閱按鈕,我將不懈地工作,努力使節目變得更好。 我無法告訴妳,按下那個訂閱按鈕有多麼有幫助。節目變得更大,這意味著我們可以擴大製作,邀請所有你想看到的嘉賓,並繼續做我們熱愛的事情。如果妳能在妳聽這個的地方按下關注按鈕,這對我來說意義重大。這是我唯一會要求妳的忙。非常感謝妳的時間。加里,丹尼爾。丹尼爾,你之前已經來過幾次節目,所以我想先從加里開始,了解一下你的背景和你是誰。經歷過交易遊戲,閱讀和觀看了很多你的視頻,我有一定的深入理解。但對於那些不認識你的人,你能給我一個關於你如何走到今天這一步的背景介紹嗎?你在今天寫的內容和經營的YouTube頻道,還有你現在所討論的主題上,給我一個完整的故事。從頭開始,盡可能多講一點。好的,我叫加里·史蒂文森。我出生在一個叫伊爾福德的地方,那是東倫敦的邊緣。我來自一個相當貧困的家庭,住在靠近鐵路的小排屋裡,經常在街上踢足球。從小我數學就特別好,是一名非常有天賦的數學學生。最終得以進入倫敦政治經濟學院,那是一所極其精英的經濟學大學,位於倫敦市中心,實際上就像是一個投資銀行的訓練營。找到了做交易員的工作。2008年6月,我在倫敦的花旗銀行全職工作,擔任短期利率交易員。有趣的時期。顯然,對,這正是大信貸危機、雷曼兄弟危機的前夕。我在眼前見證了雷曼危機的發生。我做的短期利率交易基本上就像短期貸款。信用危機期間,所謂的信用危機是指沒有人能借到錢。所以短期貸款變得非常重要。我的交易桌在歷史上是一個不怎麼受歡迎的交易區域,卻成為了危機的中心之一。人們開始賺取大量金錢。我當時與這些瘋狂的人一起工作。妳可以想像,我才21歲,但在短短三個月內,周圍的每個人都在信貸危機期間賺取大量金錢。但真正吸引我的,是危機過後發生的事情,也就是,我們在進行利率的押注。長話短說,當經濟疲弱時,利率會下降,當經濟強勁、從通脹角度看經濟過熱時,利率會上升。在2008年,所有利率迅速降至零。所以突然之間,我們的工作基本上變成了預測和押注這些利率何時會回升,也就是經濟何時會復甦。這是非常有趣的,對吧?在2008年,那些利率迅速降至零。但在2008年之前,重要的是記住,利率的變化會從五點五降至五點二五,然後到2008年,世界各地都迅速降至零。砰,半個百分點。正是如此,所有的經濟學家都感慨,哇,這將帶來巨大的復甦,因為他們認為利率的力量很強。每個人都預測利率會在2009年上升,但當然,我們現在知道它們並沒有上升。
    然後大家都預測利率在2010年會上升,而我們現在知道它並沒有上升。接著在2011年初,大家都預測今年的利率肯定會上升。對我來說,這非常有趣。這樣的有趣是因為,我在世界上最好的經濟大學之一學習數學和經濟學。現在我和這些年收入幾百萬英鎊的交易員一起工作,他們的工作就是預測經濟、預測利率。而每年,大家都錯了,年復一年。我對此感到驚訝的原因有幾個。首先,哇,這是一個我們作為社會應該理解的重大問題,而我們卻一直搞錯了。但其次,如果全世界最好的專業人士也搞錯了,那麼如果我能弄明白這一點,我就能在這裡賺一筆大錢。蓋瑞,你在24歲時為花旗銀行賺了多少錢?那一年,也就是2011年,我下了一個大賭注,預測情況將會一直惡化。而我那年成為花旗銀行全球最盈利的交易員。我為他們賺了超過3,500萬美元。你為他們賺了3,500萬美元。你最終決定離開花旗銀行。是的,為什麼?我認為這是一個有趣的問題,對吧?你知道,就像我剛才向你解釋的那樣,我通過押注西方社會的崩潰賺了很多錢。我在2011年這樣做了,在2012年又這樣做了。我其實希望它不要崩潰,斯蒂芬。我在努力阻止它崩潰。當你說它崩潰時,你具體是指你不希望崩潰的什麼呢?所以你出生在博茨瓦納,對嗎?是的,你還有家人在那裡嗎?我在尼日利亞有家人,我的家人來自那裡。我在博茨瓦納出生是因為我們當時正在那裡訪問。但我在非洲有家人。你經常去尼日利亞嗎?不。我在南非的開普敦有一個家。所以我看到如果你想看到不平等,這是一個很好的地方。我認為在這個國家,比如美國,有一種天真,認為你在南非、尼日利亞、印度這樣的地方所看到的廣泛貧困和不平等在這裡不會發生。這會發生。這是這個國家的未來。這是美國的未來。我不是在隨口說說。我是在押注這一點。我已經這樣做了15年。而且我已經正確了15年。這正是我想要避免的。丹尼爾,你來自哪裡?所以我在澳大利亞長大。我出生在一個低收入家庭。我生活在一個有24%失業率的地方。幾乎我周圍唯一的工作或機會都是一些像技術工、建築、害蟲控制、酒店和旅遊的工作。因此在14歲時,我在麥當勞找到了工作。然後我在一家酒吧和必勝客找到了送貨的工作。我發現了創業。於是我發現了創業的書籍。我發現有些人賺了幾百萬錢,類似於你自己。你看到了金絲雀碼頭。我讀了一本有關商業所有權的書。今天坐在這裡,你能給我簡述一下從那時起你商業成功的概覽嗎?是的。所以我現在有一組公司,要麼是我自己創辦的,要麼是我買的。我剛賣掉了一家公司。所以這個集團有七家公司。我創辦了幾家軟體公司。我們的一家公司現在是英國增長最快的公司之一。我們,是一家軟體企業。我有幾家代理機構。我有一個教育和培訓的業務。當你思考今天的英國和整個西方世界時,你對我們作為一個國家目前的狀況的評估是什麼,什麼讓你感到擔憂?因為蓋瑞非常清楚地表達了他的主要擔憂,即因為財富不平等,我們將最終陷入類似於印度的情況。你擔心什麼呢?我同意,這並不是很久以前這個國家真的存在著嚴重的財富不平等。大約100年前有一些驚人的照片,顯示孩子們在礦場工作,孩子們在剝牡蠣以及做所有這些可怕的工作。而且,你知道, 查爾斯·狄更斯寫過一本書叫《雙城記》,書的開頭是“那是最好的時代,那是最壞的時代”。我認為我們在這裡其實已經到達了這一點,英國的一些人正處於最好的時期。如果你像你那樣,生意興隆。你是一個全球成功的商人。我也有一個全球成功的商業。但還有很多人完全無法理解這一點。他們,現在的能源價格是西方世界中最貴的。房價完全無法承擔。曾經儲蓄首付需要三年,如今如果你能儲蓄首付,則需要20年,理論上來說。食品價格飆漲。所以我們正面臨著一個非常困難的時期,對於那些沒有進入數字經濟、快速增長等領域的人來說,生活正變得更加困難、更糟糕,事物正在崩潰。如果你認同這一點。國家的發展有一個可預測的路徑,還有一個叫做經濟自由指數的東西。經濟自由指數基本上說的是你的經濟自由度有多高?你對自由市場的接觸有多少?你可以創建公司嗎?你可以擴大業務嗎?有沒有什麼東西妨礙你自主生活的能力?擁有高經濟自由度的國家通常貧困率很低,繁榮程度普遍較高。而擁有低經濟自由度的國家則有較高的貧困率。貧困率可能從10%不到到70%不等。當國家走向經濟自由的道路時,貧困就會迅速下降。
    印度,例如,已經走上了這條路。他們今天宣布已經幾乎根除了極端貧困。英國也走上了從低經濟自由到高經濟自由的路徑。我們看到貧困率大幅下降。但在2008年,當全球金融危機發生時,政府做出的一件事是說,我們需要介入,我們需要掌控局面。每個人都說,請這麼做。於是他們進來了,說,好吧,我們要增加負債,增加稅收來支付這些負債。我們還會加強所有的規範。不幸的是,這開始降低了經濟自由。然後疫情發生了。他們說,哦,我們將再次通過負債花更多的錢。我們會有更多的稅收,更多的規範,更少的經濟自由。因此,英國在我2006年到達時是82分,現在卻降到了68分,這意味著我們的經濟自由度降低了。可預測的情況是,如果你降低了人們的經濟自由,就會導致更多的貧困,更少的富裕,百萬富翁和創富者也會離開。那些困在死胡同的工作或根本沒有工作的人的挫折感會變得非常強烈。每個人開始尋找可以責怪的人。人們非常生氣,問我們該責怪誰?而他們卻指責的對象大相徑庭。因為在美國,人們指責的是與英國不同的對象。我們有著歷史的文化記憶。在英國,我們的文化記憶告訴我們,應該責怪的是富人。因此我們有房東、貴族和有產階級。這些人應該被責怪,對吧?所以在英國我們說要責怪富人。在美國,他們有著截然不同的觀點。他們的文化記憶是反政府的。他們想要有限的政府。在2023年,有一首歌問世,叫《Rich Men North of Richmond》,它是美國的第一首熱門歌曲。歌詞基本上說,華盛頓的人不在乎工薪階層。他們對所有我們接觸的東西徵稅。你無法賺錢。他們貶值美元。他們徵稅、徵稅、徵稅、徵稅、徵稅,並希望控制我們的生活。這些就是歌曲的歌詞,控制我們的生活和對我們徵稅的歌詞。因此,美國人對此的反應是,誰該負責?政府。因此,我們想要更小的政府。我們希望有一個政府效率部門進來。我們希望有一個像破壞球一樣的人來摧毀政府。英國的本能是恨富人。一定是富人的錯。所以當我們觀察所有實施較低經濟自由的西方國家時,就會創造出更多的貧困、更少的富裕和更多的經濟動盪。所以以美國和英國為例,甚至還有澳大利亞,兩岸的人都想找人責怪。只不過美國人責怪政府,而我們責怪富人。
    加里,我相信你對此有很多要說的。我知道你和他都使用“崩潰”這個詞。因此你們都同意這裡有問題。但根據你們的不同觀點,我認為你們認為問題的解決方案和根本原因是不同的。我的意思是,我在下注。我在下注。這就是我所做的。我在下注。在新冠疫情開始之初,我們知道政府將會給出一大筆錢。現在的總金額。英國政府的赤字。自新冠疫情開始以來,已經達到一萬億英鎊。美國的數字是14萬億美元。這對於英國每位成年人來說,相當於2萬英鎊。我的背景是,我知道當分配變得更糟、當不平等加劇時,生活水平會下降。因此當英國政府將要撥出一千億英鎊時,我想知道的是,誰將得到這筆錢。這就是我想知道的全部。而美國的數字,13萬億、14萬億,簡直不可思議。但我一生中見過的最驚人的事情是,在新冠疫情開始之初,幾乎所有國家的政府都將發放數十萬億的英鎊、美元、歐元。沒有人曾經想要問,誰將因此變得數十萬億的富有?保守派裡沒有人。工黨裡沒有人。共和黨裡沒有人。民主黨裡沒有人。媒體裡沒有人。學術界裡沒有人。中央銀行裡沒有人提出這個問題。這幾乎是美麗的。這讓我難以置信。難以置信。因此我在最初坐下來進行分析。因為封鎖本質上是禁止富人的消費,並用政府印出來的貨幣來取代富人的消費,結果就是政府給工人支付錢。他們用這筆錢來支付賬單、租金和抵押貸款。這些錢最終流向了富人。富人無法花費這些錢,因為他們被困在家裡。你會看到,從政府到貧民和富人之間發生了一場巨大的財富轉移。在新冠疫情開始之際,這一切無疑會發生。而沒有人提出這個問題,這一點我認為極為驚人。讓我問你一個問題,好嗎?如果我們現在暫停經濟兩年,而在這個停滯期間大量增加財富不平等,你認為在我們暫停期間,整體生活條件會發生什麼變化?我認為,在疫情期間,電子化成為了一個現象。企業家和投資者確實在思考會發生什麼。投資者立即推高了像Zoom和Microsoft這樣的股票。我們最終獲得了“七巨頭”。我不知道你知不知道,在美國市場上有七家大型科技公司。這七家公司自疫情期間從5萬億的估值上升到17萬億的估值。如果你想想疫情做了什麼,每個人都不得不在家工作。
    所以我們大家都必須擁有微軟的訂閱。每個人都上了網站。我們都去了 AWS,亞馬遜。 我們都開始學習如何從亞馬遜購物,而不是從我們本地的商業街上購買。全球的每個企業都找到了如何遠程運營他們的業務的方法。我們經歷了這場巨大的變革。這就像是社會的整體轉型,我們都學會了如何以不同的方式生活和工作。我看到創業的繁榮。因此,作為一名創業加速器的我,看到的就是人們突然間開始創立企業、設立 Shopify 賬戶和 YouTube 企業的浪潮。因此,資金真的已經從傳統經濟,即 2019 年的商業街經濟,轉移到了數字經濟。我們看到的情況是,投資者知道發生了什麼,他們只投資於這些顯赫的七家公司。我認為 S&P 500 的收益中有 50% 是來自科技公司。因此,所有的資金都湧入科技公司。我的信念是,科技其實在劃分人群。本質上,如果你選擇任何背景的人,如果他們在科技工作,無論是媒體、科技、金融,還是任何在線運作的行業,在疫情之後他們往往會過得很好。你認為普通的英國人、美國人、澳洲人或者在觀賞的其他國家的人,如果他們辭職去從事科技工作,你認為他們能相對容易地獲得財務安全嗎?這取決於你如何定義財務安全。房價的問題。養家、擁有一個家的能力。因此,擁有一個家是一個大問題,對吧?這裡是我對房子的看法,因為房子也讓我很煩躁。我的父親以 18,000 美元購買了一棟房子,這大約是 10,000 英鎊或不到 10,000 英鎊,而它今天的價值可能已經超過一百萬美元了。因此這裡面發生了一些事。順便說一下,這不是英國特有的。社會主義國家的房價也飛漲。如果你去挪威或瑞典,他們的房價增長了 600%。這實際上無處不在,無論在哪裡都有。至於英國的情況,確實發生的事情是我們其實有了一個住房交通堵塞。因此,在這個國家,英國,我們有 950 萬棟房屋有兩間或更多的閒置臥室。大家庭住宅有兩間或更多的閒置臥室。當你仔細看看這些房屋的擁有者時,78% 的房產財富掌握在嬰兒潮一代手中。現在,根據我的經驗,當我帶孩子在萬聖節時去搶糖果,我們會經過一條擁有大家庭住宅的街道,敲門的時候全是 65 歲以上的人,他們住在一個大家庭住宅裡,裡面有空閒的臥室。你認為普通的美國 65 歲以上的老年人生活得富裕嗎?美國 65 歲以上的普通人,超過一半的美國經濟掌握在嬰兒潮一代手中,對吧?因此,他們擁有所有的房產。這些房子是以低價購買的。嬰兒潮一代至今還擁有這些房子。擁有多間閒置臥室的大型家庭房屋現在都是空的。這就造成了交通堵塞,讓我這個年齡段的人……我的祖父母,他們都擁有房產。他們四個人都去世時一無所有,因為他們在房產上的財富是用於股權釋放計劃的。這用於他的退休金。這用於臨終關懷。你覺得當那些老人去世時,今天的年輕人會變得富有嗎?有一半的經濟是掌握在嬰兒潮一代手中。這些財產要么會轉移給後代,要么進入養老產業,或者……但是我們無法獲得房產的問題有兩個方面。政府通過債務大幅抬高了房產的價值。因此他們只是注入了像你所涉及的低利率的錢。這筆債務給了誰?哦,這債務是給了任何能貸款的人,因為如果是 0% 或 2% 的利率……你認為債務是給普通家庭的嗎?你認為普通家庭是債權人嗎?你所說的普通家庭,是指底層三分之一嗎?所以如果你現在的普通英國人或美國家庭擁有 50 萬英鎊的債務,那麼誰擁有信貸?是任何在那個時期能夠獲得貸款去購買房子的人。但誰擁有信貸?債務的另一邊又是誰?所以如果普通英國家庭背負了 50 萬英鎊的債務……好吧,銀行執照。普通英國家庭有 50 萬英鎊的信貸嗎?好吧,現在很多人擁有他們房屋的很多股權。你認為普通英國家庭坐在 50 萬英鎊的現金上嗎?我希望能查看具體數字,但其實是幾十萬的股權。但是貸款上的信貸怎麼辦?貸款上的信貸?誰擁有貸款的信貸?但請記住,擁有信貸的通常是年長者。所以 78%……所以你認為普通英國年長者手上有數百萬英鎊的現金?沒有,數百萬現金,不是。是股權。好吧,有人持有那些按揭的另一端。我只想說的區別是,如果你抬高了房子的價值,你沒有現金,你擁有的是一棟價值不菲的房子。因此,目前 78% 的房產財富掌握在65 歲以上的人手中。是嬰兒潮一代。他們從政府那裡得到了很大的好處,政府說,我們將免費發放貸款。如果以前有人只能承擔 20 萬英鎊的低利率貸款,那麼他們現在能夠承擔 30 萬英鎊的貸款。你認為普通的英國或美國年輕人將永遠無法擁有任何財富是可以的嗎?問題不在於這是否可以。問題在於我們該如何解決這個問題?你擁有財富嗎?我擁有財富,是的。
    你擁有財富嗎?
    但這取決於你怎麼定義財富。
    我有。
    我們三位數百萬富翁也有,我們認為普通的英國人或美國年輕人將永遠無法擁有任何財富,這樣的情況可以接受嗎?
    因為我不認為這樣的情況是可以接受的。
    對我來說,這不是辯論的重點。
    那麼這樣的情況可以接受嗎?
    不可以。
    嗯,這不可以接受。
    不,我們希望普遍的富裕。
    你寧願現在擁有數百萬財富的人,他們的財富全都由他們的孩子擁有嗎?
    我認為,作為一名交易員,你看待世界的方式是,這個世界是一場零和遊戲,基本上是有一個固定蛋糕,而這個蛋糕被切分了。
    現在這個蛋糕的增長速度有多快?
    大約是這樣的。
    目前英國的GDP增長是多少?
    嗯,不高,對吧?
    1%。
    你在過去一年中的財富增長了多少?
    成指數級增長。
    好吧,那麼如果我們的財富,我的財富在過去一年大約增長了20%。
    也許是30%,好嗎?
    如果我們的財富增長了30%,而經濟增長卻只有1%,那麼如果不是來自我們的觀眾,那麼這一切的來源在哪裡?
    那麼我告訴你我的財富來自哪裡。
    我的財富來自於創建科技公司。
    它的運作方式非常奇特,我在腦海中發明一些東西,然後我去找投資者,告訴他們,我們將要創造什麼。
    我給他們一個電子表格。
    然後他們說,我們將提供幾十萬英鎊來啟動,這稱為種子資金。
    但在這個時候,在紙面上我就值幾百萬。
    但還沒有從任何人那裡獲得任何東西。
    投資者已經說,好吧,我們會投資一些錢。
    然後隨著企業的成功,一些更多的投資者出現了,他們表示,我們會給你一點更多的錢來繼續增長。
    而我正在創新一些新的東西。
    假設投資者給我100萬英鎊,換取公司10%的股份,而公司剩餘部分的價值為900萬英鎊或900萬美元,對吧?
    所以我並不是在從現有經濟中偷取東西。
    我是在從經濟之外引入一些東西進入經濟。
    而我所謂的淨資產正在指數增長,因為投資者說,我們會給你一點錢,這樣就會讓其餘的蛋糕的價值增長許多。
    所以每個人都變得更富有。
    在財富創造中有財富的提取,這是交易者所做的。
    他們從現有經濟中提取,並對經濟下注。
    然後有財富的創造,這是企業家所做的。
    他們想出新的想法,更好的做事方式,並建立財富。
    所以你認為我們的觀眾,一般的英國人或美國人變得更窮的原因,是因為他們不知道如何創造財富嗎?
    不,人們變得更窮的原因是經濟自由正在被侵蝕。
    好吧。
    當我們擁有高經濟自由時。
    你將其與稅收相關聯?
    嗯,任何影響經濟自由的事物都可以,比如說稅收和法規。
    所以稅收和規範非常重要。
    在50年代經濟自由更高嗎?
    50年代是一個有趣的時代。
    我們在這個國家直到1956年才結束食物配給。
    所以我們在戰後的10年內都在進行食物配給。
    我們面臨著勞動力短缺,因為當時只有男性在工作。
    女性在大規模進入勞動力市場之前。
    有30萬到40萬人死於戰爭。
    所以我們實際上面臨著很大的勞動力短缺。
    整個國家需要重建,因為德國轟炸了它。
    所以我們有這個巨大的經濟活動需求,但人不夠。
    我們當時的失業率只有2%。
    有些人失去了雙腿也被安排去工作。
    所以我們經歷了這種戰後繁榮,我們還經歷了戰後的嬰兒潮,這促進了消費。
    然後當我們進入60年代時,有了鬧轟轟的60年代,對吧?
    這是英國一個相當驚人的時期。
    隨之而來的就是高稅收。
    在60年代末他們大幅提高了稅收。
    這幾乎導致經濟崩潰。
    那麼在50年代的稅率是多少?
    嗯,對於最高收入者,稅率最高上升到80%到90%。
    我想是在60年代。
    你確定嗎?
    我認為50年代是獨特的。
    答案是什麼,Gary?
    我覺得你知道。
    他們在戰後上升了。
    他們在戰後上升了。
    好吧,在美國,實際上稅率在戰前就升高了。
    但作為GDP的一部分,政府的規模大約是30%。
    那是一個微小的比例…
    現在,英國經濟中45%是政府支出。
    我們有一個龐大的政府…
    那麼誰來支撐這些支出呢?
    債務。
    英格蘭銀行允許他們印發無限數量的債務,
    這只會使稅收貶值。
    Gary,我想搞清楚你的看法。
    因為你問了很多問題,
    但我實際上不知道你的看法。
    我只想知道Daniel的想法。
    我希望我們的觀眾能夠研究Daniel的看法。
    但你如何不同意這些看法呢?
    聽著,Daniel是一位商人。
    他顯然是一位非常成功的商人。
    你知道,我不是…
    我不是商人。
    我不會假裝自己是商人。
    我是一位經濟學家。
    我通過對經濟的正確預測來賺錢。
    Daniel是一位優秀的商人,而我則在經濟方面是對的。
    這基本上就是這麼簡單。
    你知道,我不是一位好商人,
    但我在這方面有15年的成功經驗。
    而且看,我知道你可能是一位富有的人。
    你可能不想繳納高額稅收。
    你可能不希望你的孩子繳納高額稅收。
    但我們生活在一個經濟中,財富正在迅速地從中產階級和工人階級中被提取。
    這使我們三個在桌子上的人受益。
    它將使我們的孩子受益。
    你知道,我們的孩子將會富有。
    他們的孩子將會貧窮。
    我只是認為我們應該誠實對待他們。
    資本主義已經結束。
    我們贏了。
    做好了,Stephen。
    做得很好,丹尼爾。
    做得很好,加里。
    現在結束了。
    我們的孩子將會富有。
    他們的孩子將會貧窮。
    他們將要繳稅。
    我們不會繳稅。
    我們會避開它。
    我年年都會賭博賺錢。
    我們為什麼要對他們撒謊?
    我們為什麼要對他們撒謊?
    是的,我認為這是一個過於簡化的觀點。
    這是一個使我成為百萬富翁的過於簡化的觀點。
    是的。
    好吧,企業家也會對經濟下注。
    我們下注的方式不同。
    當我們創辦一家公司時,我們是在賭經濟會如何發展。
    你認為英美中位數的工人,他們的孩子會比他們更富有嗎?
    這取決於我們是否擁有經濟自由,對吧?
    我們將會進行一個AB測試。
    你認為我們會進行嗎?
    對。
    我們將會進行一個AB測試。
    英國似乎會有更多的稅收和規範,而美國似乎會有更少的稅收和規範。
    我注意到了什麼。
    我注意到像新加坡這樣的小政府地方有著廣泛的富裕。
    新加坡幾乎沒有貧困。
    是的,除了住在壁櫥裡的清潔工,是的。
    你知道,看。
    但我們不會在統計中計算他們,就像我們不會計算我們的觀眾一樣。
    在新加坡並不普遍。
    好吧,有很多人。
    我在壁櫥裡見過他們。
    我在壁櫥裡見過他們。
    確實有一些。
    但他們不是新加坡人。
    我們只計算富有的那部分。
    看,問題在於他們來自更加惡劣的情況。
    人們移居到新加坡是為了提高生活水平,對吧?
    你可以舉愛爾蘭或瑞士的例子,對吧?
    經濟自由的地方。
    愛爾蘭的經濟曾經是一場災難。
    你認為普通愛爾蘭人的生活過得好嗎?
    他們的經濟在2011年幾乎崩潰,然後走上了降低稅收、降低規範的道路,吸引了各種企業進入該經濟。
    你認為這對於不在都柏林擁有房產的普通愛爾蘭人有幫助嗎?
    如果你以擁有房產來衡量一切。
    我是以平均水準來衡量人們的。
    我想知道今天都柏林的普通男女生活得怎麼樣。
    順便說一下,我對房產擁有權的事也非常憤怒。
    每個人都是。
    我認為現在住房價是平均工資的十倍,這完全荒謬。
    不同的是,我將這責任歸咎於政府。
    我指責高稅收,由於高稅收,他們可以借更多的債務。
    然後他們可以把經濟抬高。
    那你認為如果我們縮減政府,開始削減政府開支,這會改善生活條件嗎?
    英國政府佔經濟的45%。
    這是一個巨大的政府。
    那麼你認為美國的生活條件會在接幾年內改善,因為我們的政府計劃削減開支嗎?
    這正是美國選民所要求的。
    你認為這會改善生活條件嗎?
    我認為如果政府變小會有所改善嗎?
    是的,我信任市場。
    所以你認為在三年內,普通美國人會比愛爾蘭人更富有嗎?
    我所信任的就是經濟自由。
    如果人們有自由,他們會為自己的生活做出更好的決策。
    有兩種做決策的方式,對吧?
    你有自由嗎?
    我比到達時擁有的自由更少。
    因為我妹妹無法支付房租。
    那算是自由嗎?
    如果你生活在一個國家……
    她無法負擔她出生所在城市的居住費。
    我同意。
    你和我對這個問題達成共識。
    你不斷回到問題上。
    我則不斷將其回到人們身上,因為那些觀看我們的人…
    我們是百萬富翁,好嗎?
    觀看我們的人大多不是百萬富翁。
    他們的生活會變得更好嗎?
    如果你與經濟中最具生產性部分相連,生活會變得更好。
    如果你假裝是1955年,重建戰後的條件,如果你試圖回到1955年,我認為這是行不通的。
    那麼讓我詢問一下,關於如果你與經濟中最具生產性部分相連的問題。
    我在做這些研究時感到驚訝,發現英國和美國在GDP增長方面有相當大的差異。
    在2024年第4季度,美國經濟增長了0.6%,而英國增長了0.1%。
    在這方面,他們的表現顯著更好。
    美國的人均GDP為82,000美元,而英國為49,000美元。
    而股市表現,作為一種指標,上漲了300%,而FTSE 100(英國股市)則下降了20%。
    自2018年以來,美國的生產力增長了30%,超過了英國。
    最後,收入增長方面。
    自2007年以來,美國人均收入增長了72%,而英國收入在美元計價中減少了2%。
    所以如果你僅僅看經濟,他們似乎表現得更好。
    為什麼會這樣?
    是因為他們更加關注科技、創新和企業精神嗎?
    還是因為你早些時候提到的關於對減少政府開支的態度?我很想聽聽加里的看法,因為我理解你的觀點,因為你剛才已經說過了。
    是的,我認為這些統計數據非常好。
    當然,美國在自由市場和小政府方面有著良好的聲譽。
    在過去五年、十年、十五年中,我們有一個英國政府在積極削減國家開支。
    政府比以往任何時候都大。
    它佔經濟的45%。
    在美國,我們在過去四年中,政府一直在運行著巨大的赤字。
    在那段時間裡,政府似乎在積極增加赤字的情況下,表現大幅超過了大幅削減國家開支的政府。從最近的情況來看,情況就這樣。我是說,喬·拜登的確大幅增加了赤字,非常巨大。而保守派則在過去14年裡進行了緊縮政策。看起來哪一方的數據表現更好呢?嗯,我的意思是,他們的緊縮只是名義上而已。他們的國家開支從佔GDP的30%增至45%。那麼,你認為現在政府服務得到了資金支持嗎?不,政府在做大多數事情時都很糟糕。這就是問題所在。你不想要政府……你不認為對政府服務的支出已經被削減了嗎?讓我稍微拉開一點。你認為警察的開支已經被削減了嗎?哦,警察的開支絕對是被削減了。你認為教育支出已經被削減了嗎?你知道這樣會怎樣嗎?結果就是,像大型企業、大型諮詢公司之類的,為政府製作報告的時候拿50萬美元,告訴政府一些事情,對吧?所有這些大企業……我不會說名字,但所有的大型諮詢公司,都是政府的吸血鬼。他們知道錢在政府手中,並設計商業模式以從政府中提取這筆錢。而且這也發生在金融交易方面。我們所面臨的一個問題,對吧?這也是一個大問題,因為你關心財富不平等,我看到的最嚴重的問題之一就是在疫情期间,我們都學會了遠程工作,且遠程工作變得普遍。現在我看到的是,很多本來會是正常英國工作的職位,卻被轉移到了菲律賓、印度、越南等國,這些人現在都在進行遠程工作。我們每個月有1000位百萬富翁離開去迪拜。我們有12萬名英國人生活在迪拜的經濟中。世界變得非常流動。其中一件事情是,原本是良好的英國工作職位正在轉移到成本更低的國家。而推動這一切的正是技術。美國在這方面非常聰明,他們已經建立起了一個技術強國,而英國完全失去了我們的技術產業。我們的科技行業正在衰退,整個歐洲也是如此。中國和美國都知道現在的遊戲是科技,他們基本上將所有科技公司都吸引到了他們的國境。而發生的很多事情是,良好工作的流失及正常高工資工作的流失,因為這些工作正在消失。這是一個自我實現的循環,我們失去越多的百萬富翁,稅收負擔就落在其他所有人身上。因此,他們提高稅收,而百萬富翁則說,哦,稅太高了,所以他們離開了。我看見了一些你希望留在這裡的最令人驚嘆的企業家,他們會以高薪聘用你的姐妹,他們卻因為稅太高而選擇離開了。那么你是在說我們應該對勞動人民減稅嗎?嗯,整體政府必須更小。那么你想削減政府的哪些部分呢?如果你想,是的,我的意思是,你必須這樣做。兒童服務?我們必須,不可以。警察?不。教育?國民健康服務?我只知道這個。養老金?你去瑞士,他們的政府開支是25%。首先,單身母親?25%。節省木材補助?你想削減什麼?等等。我只知道在瑞士。我告訴你我想做什麼。政府的開支是25%。我想減少這些企業家的稅收,並提高對億萬富翁的稅收。是的。因為我拼命工作。我在英國有多少億萬富翁?英國有很多億萬富翁。大約150位。是的,所以對他們徵稅。那他們支付多少稅?是的。聽著,我拼命工作,我支付的最高稅率是50%。最高稅率加上國民保險,總共60%。所以一位百萬富翁。為了讓我的家人脫離貧困。同時,溫斯特公爵繼承了100億英鎊卻一分稅都不付。你認為這公平嗎?這不是真的。好吧,為什麼這不是真的?因為溫斯特公爵是全國稅收最高的人之一。他支付多少?嗯,根據信託,格羅夫諾爾地產,他們不支付遺產稅,因為信託不能死亡。他們支付一種叫做定期稅的東西。那是多少?每10年6%。6%?所以他們每年支付0.6%。我支付了60%,而這位先生支付0.6%。你把它們放在一起比較。遺產稅是在人生中總共40%。如果一個擁有信託的人活了70年,那麼6%乘以7就是42。所以他們實際上支付的更多。那麼他每年支付0.6%。你告訴我每年0.6%。但這就跟……我每年支付的百分比是多少?不,不,不。60%。等等。因此,你在說我支付,那麼60除以0.6是多少?不,不,不。100倍的稅率。你不是在比較同樣的東西。為什麼不是同樣的東西?這個人每年支付0.6%。而我每年支付60%。這是遺產稅。我每年支付的60%是,丹尼爾。你在談收入稅。每年我都支付給他。你正在支付收入稅。所以我為什麼支付更多稅?溫斯特公爵支付收入稅。為什麼我比他多支付?溫斯特公爵支付收入稅。他可能讓你的賬單都感到尷尬。是嗎?他認為他支付收入稅。是的。如果他要活下去,他必須提取金錢來獲得收入。他還應該,我給你列出所有他要支付的稅款。他會支付所得稅,企業稅。他會在買建築物時支付印花稅。他還要支付任何其他的稅,開支時的增值稅。所有稅款都對公爵有效,就像對任何其他人一樣。所以你認為他會為這個收入支付所得稅嗎?他提取的任何收入。好吧,我們的觀眾可以研究他是否對他的收入支付所得稅。因為我覺得他不會。
    我意思是,他怎麼可能不繳稅呢?
    他在一個信託基金裡。
    但信託基金和收入之間唯一的區別是信託基金支付定期稅,
    而不是繼承稅。
    稅率是0.6%。
    但我們現在只在談繼承稅。
    這只是其中一種稅。
    所以你認為他在收入上支付60%稅嗎?
    他是英國稅負最高的人之一。
    我不是他的粉絲。
    但事實是,他是英國稅負最高的人之一。
    他是英國最大的雇主之一。
    他是…
    英國最大的土地擁有者之一。
    在英國的土地擁有者,對吧?
    所以問題是,他是否繳稅?
    所有適用於你的稅收都適用於他。
    如果你想設立一個信託,你也可以定期支付稅款,
    這將是所有其他稅款之上的額外負擔。
    那你會怎麼說…
    但他不繳稅的說法根本不正確。
    不。
    那你會怎麼說?
    這傢伙,他繼承了100億英鎊。
    所以他的淨值是100億英鎊。
    你覺得他一生中將繳納多少稅?
    嗯,我知道只要他最少…
    如果我賺100億英鎊,我要繳60%。
    等一下。
    你在談收入和遺產轉移。
    所以為什麼韋斯敏斯特公爵的淨值可以達到100億英鎊?
    你在比較你的收入和他繼承的數額,這可不公平。
    那不是收入。
    因為那是他的收入。
    繼承金不是收入。
    所以等一下,等一下,等一下,等一下,等一下,等一下,等一下。
    所以如果我獲得100億英鎊,我就不用繳稅。
    但如果我工作賺取100億英鎊,我就要繳60%。
    嗯,如果你繼承了…
    如果這是你想要的稅制,你最終會進入一個富人的孩子
    在各行各業都有涉獵的系統。
    我只是想說,你不是…
    我就是這麼說的。
    我就是這麼說的。
    而且這沒關係,因為那是我們的孩子。
    你沒有說出他情況的真相。
    你知道嗎?讓我們支持它。
    讓我們建立一個稅制,讓你的孩子、我的孩子和斯蒂芬的孩子都成為百萬富翁,
    而那些外面的人卻無法養活自己的孩子,讓他們有取暖的設備。
    這不是我所說的。
    但這正是你將得到的。
    這不是我所說的。
    那正是你將得到的。
    聽著,我就賭這個。
    那沒關係,因為我會在市場賺錢。
    這沒關係。
    而你也會賺錢,你會賺錢。
    只有我們的觀眾會貧困。
    這沒關係。
    這沒關係。
    讓我們探討另一種選擇,對吧?
    所以假設對富人徵稅,對吧?
    讓我們來玩對富人徵稅的遊戲。
    對擁有者徵稅,而不是對工人。
    對。
    對擁有者,對擁有者。
    我們與富人之間的問題是,現在經濟中最有價值的資產是無形資產。
    所以有一個圖表叫做S&P 500,顯示世界上500個最富有國家的市值,在美國,對不起。
    在1970年代,75%的S&P 500的價值是物理資產,比如房地產。
    而今天,這個比例不到10%。
    接近5%。
    那你認為住房不特別重要嗎?
    只是讓我們堅持我所說的。
    好吧。
    經濟的引擎室是數字資產。
    這在S&P 500中有所反映,例如,95%是無形資產。
    我們面臨的問題是,現在最富有的人完全可以流動。
    所以他們可以在世界任何地方。
    所以如果你提出這樣的想法:讓我們對富人徵收1%的稅,若其中一小部分離開,我們就都會麻煩。
    這些非常有錢的人,他們擁有什麼?
    公司。
    而這些公司為什麼值錢?
    因為投資者認為它們有價值。
    那收入來自哪裡?
    全球範圍內。
    好的。
    問題在於,這些公司現在在全球運營。
    所以如果我是一位億萬富翁…
    以我的公司為例。
    是的。
    我的公司在150個國家擁有8000名客戶。
    好吧。
    我們可能在任何地方。
    你最大的單一收入來源國是哪裡?
    現在可能是美國。
    假設你搬到了開曼群島。
    而美國說,我們要對你的銷售收入徵稅。
    你能怎麼做?
    那這是不同的,對吧?
    因為那不是對億萬富翁徵稅。
    那是對公司的徵稅。
    當你說對富人課稅他們的財富時,這與說對公司的消費稅徵稅是不同的。
    但你剛才說富人擁有公司。
    你說那是他們擁有的。
    是的,但你在問,如何對他們徵稅,對吧?
    所以你是對他們的財富徵稅,也就是他們所擁有的,還是對他們交易的公司徵稅?
    通常,消費稅會轉嫁給消費者。
    哦,不是消費稅。
    那是對擁有權的稅。
    是的,但如果你簡單地說,當你在計算收入時,那就是消費稅。
    所以你是在說如果我們開始對公司的利潤徵稅…
    順便說一下,我並不是完全反對你關於公司的觀點。
    我認為一家公司能夠在Facebook上打廣告,向英國消費者銷售英國產品,而Facebook卻在這筆交易中假裝在愛爾蘭,這是令人厭惡的。
    而在英國,你可以從英國供應商的倉庫在亞馬遜上購買商品,而亞馬遜卻假裝在盧森堡。
    這很糟糕,對吧?
    這似乎根本不公平。
    而且我覺得政府對此的態度非常奇怪。
    現在,政府卻在追查那些在eBay上賣幾樣東西的父母,並追究他們的稅務,但他們卻不與eBay對話。
    他們對於有人在Facebook上進行小規模副業感到偏執,但對於Facebook假裝在愛爾蘭卻沒意見。
    所以我不同意所有這些,對吧?
    我認為我們在這方面錯過了一些嚴重的機會。
    但對億萬富翁徵稅財富的想法是,億萬富翁會直接離開。
    他們會直接離開。
    不僅僅是億萬富翁。
    但億萬富翁擁有什麼?
    億萬富翁擁有什麼?
    公司。
    那麼,公司從哪裡獲得資金?
    收入。
    收入來源在哪裡?
    購買。
    人們的購買。
    那這些人住在哪裡?
    遍布全球。
    那時候我們可以對他們徵稅。
    這是消費稅。
    問題在於,
    這是一種消費稅。
    不,這不是。
    這是對利潤的稅。
    增值稅是一種對收入的稅。
    你可以基於收入來源對這些公司徵利潤稅。
    所以在國際上移動利潤是非常容易的。
    看,斯蒂芬有一個星巴克的杯子。
    當他購買那個星巴克時,是從一家英國公司購買的,這家公司從盧森堡或類似的地方授權使用星巴克的標誌。
    所以15%。
    所以我們在這裡說,哦,我們要徵稅他們的利潤。
    他們則說,哦,我希望我們能有利潤。
    抱歉。
    不幸的是,我們不得不與那家國際公司達成授權協議。
    我知道利潤轉移是怎麼運作的。
    好吧,那你告訴我一家公司在英國、美國銷售,並在美國獲得巨額利潤,他們卻回過頭來說,哦,實際上,我們的利潤不在美國。
    你認為美國無法去檢查這些,看他們真正的利潤在哪裡嗎?
    我不是說你不能這樣做。
    我說的是真正去這樣做的好處,徵稅財富是如此困難,例如,或是徵稅百萬富翁和億萬富翁,最後你會自傷。
    每當有年輕企業家來找我說,丹,你認為我應該在這個國家創辦一家公司嗎?
    我會說,嗯,如果你這麼做,他們會拿走你的利潤。
    一旦你開始賺錢,他們就會拿走它。
    如果你成功了,得到了投資,他們會徵你財富的稅。
    如果你賣掉公司,他們會把它拿走。
    我基本上會告訴那些年輕的企業家,不要在英國創業。
    去找一個對企業家更加積極和友好的地方。
    我們現在看到這個被稱為百萬富翁出走潮的現象,對於不知情的人來說,英國預計將在這個議會中失去世界上最大比例的百萬富翁。
    我會把一個圖表放在螢幕上,就是這個。
    這條小紅線就是我們現在正在損失的所有百萬富翁。
    根據預測,到2024年,估計有10,800名高淨值人士離開英國,這是比前一年增加了157%,這意味著每45分鐘就有一名百萬富翁離開。
    英國的百萬富翁出走潮相當於失去了530,000名普通納稅人。
    另外一個統計數據是,美國前10%的收入者佔據了幾乎一半的消費支出。
    全英國前1%的所得稅繳納者預計將在2024到2025年間繳納約30%的總所得稅。
    為什麼這些百萬富翁都在逃跑?
    這不是因為他們在對財富徵稅,因為我們並沒有財富稅。
    你認為他們為什麼要離開?
    我認為他們離開的原因是因為英國的經濟真的很弱,因為英國消費者的消費能力非常弱,因為你們完全壓榨了普通英國家庭的消費能力。
    那他們要去哪裡?
    普通英國家庭幾乎無法負擔吃飯和開暖氣。
    所以當顧客的購買力完全貧困時,為什麼還要在這裡創業?
    看看,那與我們所引入的新稅有關,就是我們結束了非居民稅制。
    非居民稅制基本上說,如果你住在英國,但在全世界擁有企業,
    那麼我們只對你在英國的資產徵稅。
    如果你在英國去世,我們只會對你的英國資產徵收遺產稅,如果你是非居民。
    但如果你在英國去世,而你在印度有財富,一旦非居民稅制結束,他們基本上說我們將對你全球的一切財富徵稅。
    如果你是英國的納稅居民,那麼全球擁有的一切,我們要40%。
    所以不幸的是,每一家財富管理公司都聯絡了他們的客戶,告訴他們,你不能留在這裡。
    你必須離開。
    情況真的很糟。
    每個月有1,000人離開。
    而在英國,1%的人支付30%的稅。
    10%的人支付60%的稅。
    想像一下,如果我們坐在餐桌上,有10個人出來吃飯,而有一個人說,
    嘿,我來付今晚的60%的帳單。
    我們會對他說,不,應該是70%,應該是80%。
    他說,你知道嗎,我要起身離開。
    於是他就離開了。
    其他人的帳單就雙倍增長了。
    所以如果我們把百萬富翁趕出這個國家,每個每年支付1萬英鎊稅的普通人將不得不支付2萬英鎊的稅。
    所以他們離開的原因是因為我們以前允許他們不支付稅款。
    對於他們的全球收入。
    對於他們的全球企業。
    所以這不就像我們10個人在一起用餐,其中有一個人是以不必付款的條件來的嗎?
    因為這些家伙本來就沒在繳稅。
    如果他們離開的原因是因為他們沒在繳稅。
    這就像在說,嘿,我會支付這個桌子的60%。
    他們在桌子上說,等等,我們還希望你支付其他餐廳的所有費用。
    這樣不就更像是這些人是在條件下待在這裡嗎?
    你自己說的。
    不,你完全正確。
    他們離開的原因是因為我們讓他們住在這裡,條件是他們不必繳稅。
    對於他們的全球收入,是的,稅收是重要的,對嗎?
    所以為什麼大家都去迪拜?
    去迪拜,是因為沒有稅。
    這些人在迪拜生活。
    他們的錢來自西方。
    他們正在從西方賺錢,而現在看這個節目的普通西方人無法負擔得起購房,無法負擔得起有家庭。我們可以在銷售時對這些收入徵稅。我們為什麼要允許這些人?這叫做消費稅。不,這不是。這是利潤稅。這不是消費稅。你剛才說的在銷售時徵稅,這意味著這是消費稅。這是基於利潤的。你看他們有多少利潤。這不是消費稅。然後你再看利潤的去向。沒錯。這不是消費稅。就像我說的。所以如果你課徵利潤稅,這些利潤就必須在那個國家累積。因為我們現在擁有的數位生態系統,現在的世界,我可以將我的公司在盧森堡的數據庫租賃給他人。我可以從我的公司授權我的標誌。我了解利潤轉移是如何運作的。繼續。聽著,這些人並不是甘道夫。你只需說,我們不接受利潤轉移。我們不需要接受利潤轉移。中國不接受利潤轉移。我們50年前就不接受利潤轉移。我們不必接受利潤轉移。但是你卻有一個政府階層,他們非常富有,媒體階層也非常富有,卻說徵稅富人是不可能的。我想說,我100%同意。徵稅富人是困難的。是的。徵稅富人非常、非常、非常困難。我不是因為這很簡單而來這裡想要徵稅富人。我知道這很難。我知道我可能會失敗。我知道我們觀眾的孩子將生活在絕望的貧困中。我知道這一點。我這麼做是因為這是困難的。如果我們是一個自我宣稱不做必要事情以阻止我們的孩子陷入貧困的國家,因為這些事情很難,那麼我們的孩子將會生活在貧困中。我不需要在這裡。我跟你一樣都是百萬富翁。我可以在菲律賓喝著椰子雞尾酒。我來這裡是因為我來自貧困的背景,而像我的家庭一樣的普通家庭,以及我成長過程中的孩子,他們的孩子將會生活在貧困中。這是困難的,但這是必要的。有時我們必須做一些事情不是因為它們簡單,而是因為它們困難。這才是讓一個富有國家富有的原因。這也保護了普通人。聽著,我們的祖父母曾生活在貧困中。他們說過要不改變這種狀況因為很困難嗎?不,他們沒有。他們奮鬥並要求醫療、教育、住房和食物,並且他們得到了這些。他們得到了這些。這就是為什麼我的父母能夠過上良好的生活。他們得到了那些。他們意識到,要做到這一點,你不能讓那些已經奢華生活了幾百年的人們獨佔一切,而普通家庭卻無法養活自己的孩子。我知道這很困難。我知道這很困難。我知道我可能會失敗。我知道這一點。我知道我可能會失敗。這意味著我們的觀眾將會貧窮。但我仍然這麼做,因為我不希望我成長的這個國家陷入絕望的貧困中。我同意你的熱情,我同意你的問題。我不贊同你的解決方案,因為在2019年。不,因為我們都會變得富裕,我們的孩子也會變得富裕。在2020年,這不是我想說的。在2020年,我們全球做出了一個決定,關閉經濟,並且我們讓每個人都知道他們可以在任何地方生活和工作。你所說的一切最大的威脅就是遠程工作。事實是我們可以在任何地方生活和工作。我們的祖父母,如果他們的老闆擁有一家公司,那家公司必須物理存在於國內,而老闆必須親自在國內。如果我們看看今天,有很多健身教練為一家健身房工作,而那家健身房的老闆在海外。有很多人為一家餐廳工作,而那家餐廳的老闆住在海外。你現在可以在世界任何地方生活並經營業務。所以我們面臨的問題是,你在描述一方面說我們需要在銷售時徵稅,這是一種消費稅。不是的,因為這是利潤稅。好的。然後你說利潤稅,然後你又說,哦,但我們會停止利潤轉移。順便說一句,我實際上也非常支持停止利潤轉移。我已經說過,我認為許多這些全球公司的待遇是絕對荒謬的。如果我們不停止這一點,所有的錢都會流向科技公司。所以我在這一點上和你一致。但當你說要對富人徵稅,實際上擁有公司的那些人,這些人現在可以在任何地方。但他們的收入卻不能。他們的顧客,他們的顧客就是他們顧客所在的地方。他們的顧客就是他們顧客所在的地方。聽著,亞馬遜不支付任何英國稅,不支付任何美國稅。顧客在哪裡?在英國和美國。你真的認為徵稅是不可行的嗎?嗯,你說的是徵稅1000萬以上的人,對吧?所以這是很多初創企業的企業家。傑夫·貝佐斯的價值遠不止1000萬。傑夫·貝佐斯的身價遠超1000萬。但你說任何超過1000萬的人是在你的雷達上。你不希望身價1100萬英鎊的人多交稅。並不是如此。丹,你的身價超過1000萬英鎊。所以如果我們對如加里所說,擁有超過1000萬的人徵稅,你有什麼選擇可以避免?假如你的目標是避免這一點,你有哪些選擇?如果我的目標是避免它,我會通過董事會決議,決定將總部搬到其他地方。我們把知識產權轉移到其他地方。我搬到別的地方,與我的家人一起搬走。大約一兩週內,我們就會在其他地方擁有一個WeWork辦公室。
    我在 Airbnb 上有一個新的房子,並且我與英國斷絕了關係。我在這裡是非稅務居民,並且我擁有一個數字業務。我實際上可以把我的總部設在世界上任何地方。如果有某個特定的國家對我們的業務運作變得敵對,那我就必須退出對那個地方的服務。你知道的,這是有可能的。但實際上這種情況不太可能發生。但最終,如果我選擇起身離開,那我就會起身離開。
    現在更大的問題是我一開始是否會來這裡?還有另一個問題。加里,另一個問題是,你的 YouTube 頻道剛剛達到了 750,000 個訂閱者。是 820,對吧?是 820,對吧?所以增長很快。我可以讓我顧問公司的其中一位分析師對你的品牌和你的 YouTube 頻道進行估值。我們可以說這是一家快速增長的媒體公司,價值 1,100 萬美元,對吧?所以我們可以提出預測和預計,並且我們說加里的經濟學其實是一個新的快速增長的媒體品牌。這個價值是 1,100 萬美元。
    現在,你的頻道,現在你每年必須支付 100,000 美元的額外稅款,因為你是百萬富翁。抱歉,1% 的稅率適用於超過 1,000 萬美元的財富,對於 1,100 萬美元來說,稅款是 10,000 美元。哦,你是說只對超過的部分嗎?稅就是這樣運作的。好的。所以並不是對所有的財富都徵稅。好的。所以這是邊際稅率。這就是稅的運作方式。
    那麼,像誰來決定什麼是財富和它的價值公平嗎?因為財富,聽我說完。財富是未實現收益的技術術語,對吧?它不是實際的。如果有人花 20,000 美元買了一棟房子,現在它的價值是 200,000 美元,他們仍然擁有同樣的房子,但現在他們擁有了財富。如果某人創業,並且一位小投資者投資了一些天使資金,那麼他們在紙面上擁有了財富。但誰來決定什麼是財富呢?
    例如,如果你引入財富稅,理論上,這實際上會降低經濟中事物的財富價值,因為該經濟內的事物現在受到了一種劣勢的影響。因此,投資者在一定程度上不太可能在這些事物上投資。此外,人們會開始精打細算,躲避和閃避。他們會說,哦,我們在英國的業務價值是 1,000 萬美元,所以我們現在要在其他國家啟動第二家公司,確保財富累積在那裡。所以這非常困難,因為它只是未實現的收益。
    我知道。我知道這很困難。是的。我知道這些人擁有最好的會計師。我知道這很困難。如果有更簡單的解決方案呢?如果有更簡單的解決方案,我會支持那個。你知道我的意思嗎?這叫做經濟自由。經濟自由指數。
    好的,那麼,告訴觀眾這個。給他們更多的經濟自由,然後他們就會變得富有。是的。這裡的這個圖表基本上顯示出,最自由的國家的貧困率低於 10%,實際上低於 7%。一旦你減少經濟自由,貧困率就會跳升至 30%。再減少經濟自由,貧困就會激增。因此,這些國家是經濟自由度最低的,而這些國家則是經濟自由度最高的。阻礙你經濟自由的國家擁有更多的貧困,而讓人們可以為自己的生活做出決策的國家則有較少的貧困。
    你所說的是,如果我們國家的政府對坐在這個桌子上三位百萬富翁減稅,這會改善那些無法養活孩子的普通英國和美國工人的生活。我給你一個現實生活的例子。我知道有一家公司打算給員工加薪,但隨著國家保險的上漲,而不是——國家保險是一種對雇佣的稅?是的。我是說要減少那個。我想讓你們的觀眾,這裡的觀眾,支付更少的稅,而百萬富翁支付更多的稅。理論上這很好,但如果你可以對超過 1,000 萬的富人徵稅 1%,我做了一個隨便的計算,你可能能夠獲得 200 億。是的,對吧?這是如果他們不離開。如果他們不對此做出反應。如果他們只是一樂呵呵地支付,你會得到 200 億。這還不夠政府當前支出的不到一周。
    所以政府已經失控,每年花費 1.2 萬億的政府支出就是他們的支出。好的。所以來吧,獲得那 200 億,然後為觀眾減稅。減少他們的所得稅。因此這大約是每年 250 美元。好的。那麼讓我們多做一些。讓我們讓它達到 600 億。然後你對財富超過的部分徵稅 3%。是的。這樣做。好的。然後你還把它降低到——請考慮——這是政府所做的。我們賺取 5% 或 6%。是的。然後這就是他們所做的。你知道他們怎麼做的嗎?他們在第二次世界大戰中就是這樣做的,這就是為什麼我爸爸能夠買得起一棟房子。
    好吧,他們其實——這不是他能夠負擔得起一棟房子的原因。好吧。那麼,誰在購買——如果普通人正在失去他們的房子和財富,而我們變得更富有——是的。那麼,現在是誰擁有那些房子,如果不是我們的話?政府曾經擁有這些房子,然後他們把它們賣給了人們。好的。但是普通中產階級的財富也在崩潰。你只能這樣做一次。他們為嬰兒潮一代這樣做過。所以你認為是我們的觀眾現在擁有我的房子嗎?誰——這些財富去哪了,丹尼爾?這些財富去哪了?誰現在擁有這些財富?誰變得更富有?誰拿走了我們觀眾失去的財富?我告訴你,最大的一筆錢去哪了。
    自疫情以來,最大的資金數額達到11萬億美元,僅僅用於擁有技術的七家公司。這七家公司就是美國最大的七家公司,總共11萬億的資金來自於這裡——而你們卻不希望這些億萬富翁的所有者繳更多稅。那麼這對英國有幫助嗎?如果利用這筆錢來減輕工人稅負,那就會有幫助。是的。他們在美國擁有股份。這些人是美國公民。對我們這裡並沒有幫助。不,這會幫助美國消費者。然後我們可以輸出美國消費者。這意味著美國消費者有錢。接著會向英國人展示,透過對超級富豪征稅,可以取得多少成就。我們可以在這裡對超級富豪提高稅收。然後我希望這些人被徵稅到一個程度,讓他們開始出售資產。這樣普通的英國人就可以再次購買資產。因為我希望我們的觀眾能夠擁有物品,能夠擁有自己的家。當我聽到這些時,我承認我對這些問題的了解不如你們。但當我聽到美國有這七家公司時,我的腦海裡想,難道我們不能在這裡也有一家嗎?是的。是的。我們能開始嗎?那我的腦袋就想,我們需要創造什麼樣的條件?我們出售過我們的一家。是的。我們需要創造什麼樣的條件才能使這七家公司之一落戶這裡,尤其是在我們正邁向的這個AI世界中,當我在查閱數據時,大部分對AI的投資將會在每個行業中造成巨大的不穩定性,從駕駛到任何形式的知識工作,甚至是播客。我現在可以播放一個聽起來跟我一模一樣的播客,它在Apple上有4.6顆星的評級,是由AI寫的,使用我的聲音,並由AI發布。哇,那麼誰累積了那裡的價值?這是一家名為Eleven Labs的美國公司,這正是該死的開放AI。我不禁想,為什麼我們不能在這裡擁有這些公司?我們需要他們在這裡。因為中國和美國正在主導下一場革命。我擔心作為旁觀者,如果我們不在這裡創造對創業友好的環境,我們將變成印度。如果希望企業蓬勃發展,僅僅擁有對企業家的良好環境是不夠的。還需要人們擁有可以花的錢。我們位於一個越來越多的人月末幾乎沒有剩餘的國家。他們幾乎無法支付賬單。那些公司在全球銷售,對吧?所以他們不需要任何特定公司表現良好。他們無論賣給哪裡。所以像開放AI、ChatGPT,我們都在使用那個該死的產品,並支付每月20美元、30美元。是的,那麼他們的錢實際上來自哪裡?他們是靠賣數據給有錢人賺錢的,對吧?我的意思是讓環境對企業家更友好。因為當我創辦一家公司時,我無法解釋如果我在這裡創辦那種類型的公司我會面臨怎樣的劣勢。這裡沒有投資者。而且所有人才似乎都湧向了舊金山。因此,英國人建立的AI公司Fixer,我本來打算投資的,都是來自倫敦的英國年輕人,他們到了舊金山。他們大約25歲。剛剛在6000萬美元的估值上籌集了資金。他們在這個充滿企業家的舊金山的房間裡。並且他們正在將知識和資本注入這個房間。恕我直言,史蒂芬,你並不是一個很好的例子,來說明在英國創立成功的在線品牌是不可能的。事實就是這樣。但我也意識到……問題是……但他開始時的情況不同。但是我也意識到我不喜歡使用個人例子,因為這裡面有巨大的特權和……好吧,在德國有ChatGPT嗎?沒有。在法國有ChatGPT嗎?沒有。在澳大利亞有ChatGPT嗎?沒有。在中國有ChatGPT嗎?是的,中國和……等一下。是的,沒錯。你在這裡擁有的是一個極低勞動、極高資本的模式,在全球範圍內僱用的人數非常少,主要集中在兩個城市。是的。祝你好運去與之競爭。我們如何創造一個環境,讓英國能夠開始建立一些將利用這場技術革命的公司?如果你是首相,你會怎麼做?我認為你需要現實地看待我們有哪些公司可以成長。你知道,我不是AI方面的專家,但是我認為試圖在倫敦與舊金山競爭可能不會成功。為什麼?試試看。你知道,試試看。我知道你可能會獲得很多讚就說讓我們投資於AI,讓我們投資於。世界上只有一個城市在中國以外做到這一點。中國則是通過基本的國家資本主義達成的。你知道,這在某種程度上與我們在80年代與日本的微電子產業相似。當你擁有一個新興行業,特別是這些資本密集型且不僱用很多人的行業時,你會獲得先發優勢。他們往往會獲勝。最終,通常會被更便宜的競爭對手搶走。而這確實會發生。你知道,這確實會發生。而你可能開始於AI。我不認為AI會成為巨大的主要雇主。當然,很多國家會這樣想,因為它聽起來不錯。我們會投資于AI。我們會投資于AI。就我個人而言,我認為我們應該看看英國人需要什麼?你知道,我們生活在一個住房儲備正在崩潰的國家。如果我們談論AI時,其實是在談論技術。因為即使是像這樣的播客,你也不會把它視為一個AI公司。
    但實際上,現在的編輯過程、腳本創作過程、轉錄過程,甚至YouTube本身都是一家人工智慧公司。因此,我們談論的其實是技術。我在想,為什麼我們不能在英國創造一個更好的環境,來啟動和建設這些科技公司呢?我認為我們應該這樣做。我認為我們應該考慮減少對於工作和賺錢的人的稅收。這就是我一直以來所說的。那麼對於創業的人呢?是的,我們應該減少他們的所得稅。但是如果他們開始擁有一家5000萬英鎊的公司,難道你會告訴我,如果你來找我,我會說,好吧,你想創業,我們對你創辦的公司徵收非常少的稅。如果那家公司變得價值2000萬、3000萬、4000萬英鎊,那麼我們就會開始對你徵稅。你會來對我說,噢,不,抱歉,5000萬對我來說還不夠。所以我可以問一下嗎?我公司的估值是5000萬,或者一億。祝賀你。還有,我仍然擁有,因為我並沒有經歷一個退出事件。是的。我仍然在我的銀行賬戶裡有1萬英鎊,2萬英鎊。你是在說在我賣掉公司之時,還是因為我在公司裡有股份?我認為你可以有很多種結構方式。你可以有很多種結構方式。我偏好的方式是阻止人們長期囤積龐大的財富。這基本上是我的首選方法。還有財富稅的方法。還有資本利得稅作為一種方法。這裡有許多不同的方法。但你必須面對一個問題,如果你不對非常富有的個人和家庭徵稅,他們在蛋糕中的份額隨著時間將顯然會增長。他們會。就像我們所看到的,他們正在擠壓我們普通家庭的生存空間。你必須解決這個問題。我的朋友在英國出售了他的公司。這是一家大家都知道的公司。我記得他在疫情期間告訴我的話。他得到了這個大額的退出事件。我想他賺了3億英鎊。他說,我要走了。我問,他去哪裡。他說,我要去迪拜和摩納哥,兩地之間生活。我對他說,給我解釋一下為什麼。他說,嗯,我在英國需要支付的稅款相當於在英國未來六七年內支付2000萬的租金。這樣的話,你就必須待在這裡。所以他就走了,每隔一段時間回來一次。但這意味著他可以保留那150萬,不管他應支付多少稅,根本不需要支付給英國。現在他在迪拜過著高檔的生活,偶爾會回到摩納哥。我記得他對我說,嗯,史蒂夫,我必須支付每年2000萬的租金才可以住在這裡。他接著說,英國的產品根本不值得。他說,犯罪問題,我會被搶走我的勞力士。他說,醫療體系最好也不是很好。教育系統也未必是最好的。而他所特別提到的就是犯罪,因為我走在倫敦的街道上會被搶劫。史蒂芬,如果你允許擁有3億英鎊英國資產的英國人技術上住在摩納哥而不繳稅,那麼你就會得到犯罪問題。你將會有骯髒的街道,還有糟糕的醫療系統和教育。如果你把所有的財富都給一群不納稅的人,那麼就什麼都沒有了,無法提供醫療和教育等普通人需要的東西。這不是沒有關聯的。這些人技術上並不住在那裡。他們是在搬出去。我的朋友們已經離開這個國家。他們不再回英國。他們已經離開,並且帶走了他們的公司。所以他們在這裡創建了一家公司。我們讓他們離開而不支付任何稅款。他們通常建立一個全球業務。不是說他們不支付。那是一個全球業務。他們支付的稅款非常高。任何在這裡的人都支付了比以前更高的稅。1%的人支付30%。10%的人支付60%來應付每年1.2萬億的政府開支。那位擁有3億的人,他一生中交了多少稅?我不知道。我不知道。但他的業務是全球性的。他的最大客戶是美國。因為我支付了60%。而我們的觀眾會支付30%、40%、50%。你認為公平嗎,你的3億英鎊的人支付的稅只有兩三個?我不知道他支付了多少稅。那麼,聽起來他並沒有支付50%。那麼,他在稅單出來之前就跑了。那麼,為什麼我們允許這種情況?為什麼我們允許?我不被允許不繳稅。我可以做什麼來…你是被允許的。當你在日本的時候,你就不需要繳納英國的稅。是的,因為我在日本工作,因此支付日本的稅。是的,因為你住在日本。這就是問題所在。現在人們可以住在他們想住的地方。但我們在談論的…這是…我認為我們應該停止混淆對人們工作的稅和對他們擁有的資產的稅。不,不,我在說…我是在講創業者的工作會產生財富。因此當創業者經常不…一億英鎊的英國房產。是的。而我說我住在迪拜。是的。然後我從一億英鎊的房產中獲得租金,這可能會是…這會是5000萬英鎊每年。是的。於是我正在從英國人那裡每年獲得5000、6000萬英鎊的租金。是的。而那筆租金是由英國人支付給我的。是的。而我不支付稅,因為我住在迪拜。你覺得這公平嗎?不。好吧,那就讓我們改變這一點。讓我們讓人們無論住在哪裡都要對他們的財富繳稅。是的。
    不過,問題在於,你會如何對人們徵稅,對吧?你實際上會如何結構這個系統?因為無論你認為什麼是公平的,這就是問題所在。這不是關於公平,而是關於在現代經濟中你實際上可以做什麼。你可能會說,哦,其實如果我們談論公平,很多人會說統一稅率是公平的。你賺一英鎊,就支付20%;你賺一百萬英鎊,就支付20%;你賺一億英鎊,就支付20%。所以很多人會說,最公平的稅制就是對所有收入徵收統一稅率,對吧?這似乎是件公平的事情,但實際上你能做到嗎?這對社會真的有好處嗎?是否應該將某些人排除在外?所以這不是關於公平,而是實際上,你能逃避什麼?好吧,實際上,我們能逃避的就是我們觀眾孩子的絕望貧困。如果你想有……我們能放大一點,對吧?我想放大一下。讓我們稍微離開觀眾的孩子們,放大。不用考慮他們。他們不會支持你。我是一位父親,對吧?我有三個孩子。但你是一位百萬富翁爸爸。你知道……你可能跟我們的觀眾面臨的困難不太相同。你知道出生在上層社會的孩子有60%的機會掉出上層社會,對吧?60%。這就是數字。這被稱為持續性。你可以查一下。對於最富有的人,持續性實際上只有40%,這意味著60%的人會在第二代掉出來。你認為你的孩子有60%的機會生活在貧困中嗎?或許有,但不是貧困。你知道有趣的是,我們大家都在追求同一個目標,我想這裡。 我不確定我們有沒有,老闆。嗯,這是公平的。這是公平的。或許我們沒有。我懷疑我們中的某些人可能在試圖保護我們孩子的財富地位。我希望透過正在發生的科技革命實現普遍的富裕,我不希望創造這些財富的人想去別的地方。所以你同意我們應該對創造財富的人減稅,對儲存財富的人增稅?好吧,大體上。好的,那我們就這麼做。讓我們對創造收入的人減稅。讓我們對那些努力工作,創造出良好的產品,賺取良好收入的人減稅,讓我們對那些坐擁著20、30、40、100、200、500萬英鎊資產,然後把它們留給孩子,並用以主宰社會,有意擠出中產階級的人增稅。有誰是儲存財富的例子?里希·蘇納克。那他的家族擁有科技公司嗎?他妻子的父親擁有一家科技公司。這就是我的意思。他將繼承這間公司,他的孩子們也會繼承。他所報導的淨資產是基於他妻子的。是的,但那家公司已經存在了。是的。它現在就已經創立了。是的。它的價值以十億計。但他們必須每兩年重新發明這個公司。所以你認為如果里希·蘇納克的岳父停止管理這家公司,它就會毫無價值嗎?不,我認為它雇用了數十萬人,並且是一家大公司。我對那家公司了解不多,但我知道它是一家科技公司。史蒂夫·喬布斯去世了。是的。那蘋果公司就毫無價值了嗎?不。讓我們不要假裝這些創造者是使這些公司有價值的唯一原因。當然。你知道,我們討論的許多情況,我曾是一名交易員,對吧?我價值數百萬英鎊,而現在那僅僅是資產。我只擁有資產。我擁有資產。它會增值,並且會增值,會不斷增值。這將不斷擠出我們的觀眾。我將把這一切留給我的孩子。他們甚至不需要工作。他們甚至不需要工作。他們可以依靠這筆財富生活。這是你想要的嗎?你認為今天的人們有任何機會嗎?例如,如果你出生在一個貧困家庭中,難道你不覺得住房很糟糕——我們都同意——但你認為今天有一些機會是我們的父母或祖父母所沒有的,而今天卻存在嗎?我認為現實是,對於來自貧困背景的孩子來說,實現經濟安全幾乎是不可能的,更不用說致富了。但你為什麼認為你可以做到,而我可以做到,而他卻不認為其他人可以做到呢?好吧,首先,我現在38歲,所以我不算是孩子。聽著,我在每一個數學比賽中都獲得過第一名,從小就是這樣。我家裡甚至沒有桌子。你知道的,我曾經是倫敦政治經濟學院的優秀學生,但我仍然得在一場紙牌遊戲中作弊以獲得我的工作。你知道,這就是我們生活的世界。我不認為這是一個可以輕易複製的策略。對於像我們這樣賺錢的人來說,說“哦,我們做到了,我們真偉大,出去吧”是很容易的。而你說過,你認為如果年輕人在科技公司工作,他們可以獲得經濟安全。如果這麼簡單,他們都會這麼做。他們不是傻瓜。我們的觀眾不是傻瓜。他們在努力。他們在努力。他們想尋找好的機會。他們很努力。聽著,我說過,他們工作非常努力。我不是說他們是傻瓜。你才說他們不能再做到這一點。我時常看到人們做到這一點。比如,我在創業方面工作。來自貧困背景的人。貧困背景的人。所以,為什麼我們的觀眾——你認為所有我們的觀眾,如果這麼簡單,為什麼大家都不在努力呢?我告訴你為什麼人們不這麼做。因為我們經歷過一個教育體系,它教會了我們如何獲得辦公室工作。好吧。
    對吧?
    我們經歷了一個學校體系,以準備我們面對一個不再存在的世界,也就是工業革命的世界。
    而你必須經過一個過程,去弄清楚它是如何真正運作的。
    我看到的是,年輕時財務上表現出色的大多數人,他們都輟學了,輟學於大學,開始通過自己的研究學習如何做事情,他們創辦了自己的企業或共同創立一個企業,走上了一條非常不同尋常的道路。
    這些都不是在學校教給我們的。
    這些也不是在正常社會中教的。
    我們有一個學校體系,製造出為一組不再特別有價值的技能而設的人,並且我們也讓他們因為這些技能負債。
    當人們避開這一點,說好吧,我不想陷入大學的負債,我將去實際上弄清楚這個世界是如何運作的時候,實際上有很多機會。
    好吧。
    所以我想我們已經理清楚了。
    我們的所有觀眾需要做的就是去買丹的書,成為一名企業家,並成為百萬富翁。
    這麼簡單。
    你們為什麼不一開始就這樣做呢?
    他們是白癡。
    觀眾是白癡。
    他們應該更有企業家精神。
    就是這麼簡單。
    更有企業家精神。
    創業吧。
    聽著,我來自東倫敦,好嗎?
    我的朋友們無法餵養他們的孩子,好嗎?
    如果這麼簡單就能出來成為一名企業家,我敢打賭他們會這樣做。
    我敢打賭他們會這樣做。
    讓我告訴你,我厭倦了多位百萬富翁告訴那些無法負擔開暖氣的孩子們,只需要更有企業家精神。
    這真讓人厭惡,丹。
    這真讓人厭惡。
    但這讓人感到心理疾病。
    這讓人感到心理疾病。
    告訴他們真相,好嗎?
    你是老一代。
    我們曾經把握機會,現在幾乎不可能擺脫貧困。
    而不要只是站起來揮舞著你幾百萬英鎊在他們面前,然後說:如果你像我一樣有企業家精神,你也可以做到。
    你可以擁有這一切。
    因為這真令人厭惡,因為他們做不到。
    他們無法餵養他們的孩子,丹。
    他們無法開暖氣。
    不要告訴他們要更有企業家精神。
    不要告訴他們要更有企業家精神。
    修正這個每一代人都將他們推向更深貧困的體系。
    我覺得你認為修正整個全球經濟體系會比創辦一家公司和改善你自己個人經濟更容易,這真讓我感到奇怪。
    我知道的讓人產生心理健康問題的原因是感到自己在生活中沒有主導權,什麼都做不了。
    你在視頻中提到如果你沒有富有的爸爸,你就注定失敗。
    沒有所謂的精英主義。
    你永遠不會成功。
    對我來說,如果我在19、20歲時遇到你的內容,我就會注定失敗。
    我很高興我遇到了那些告訴我,丹尼爾,你不是出生在富裕的家庭。
    你沒有父母的銀行支持。
    但現在創辦一家公司比以往任何時候都更便宜、更容易。
    先去為一個有業務的人工作。
    然後找出你的機會。
    而且有辦法。
    確實有辦法。
    我實際上與許多來自貧困背景的青少年合作過。
    我們所做的事情之一是告訴他們,如果其他人能做到,那麼你也能做到。
    我也曾在烏干達的農村與一家致力於最貧困群體的慈善機構合作。
    我所見過的最令人難以置信的事情之一是一位女士,她起初真的只是從垃圾堆中撿食物。
    她基本上是,她們與她分享如何開始一個養雞業務,然後變成了養豬業務,最後發展成養牛業務。
    她最終雇用了當地社區的15到16人。
    企業家精神的力量在於從零開始,你可以實際上改善現狀。
    我不是說每個人都會成為百萬富翁,也不是說每個人都會平等。
    但我說的是,你可以改善你的生活。
    導致心理健康問題的原因是感到在你的環境中沒有主導權或控制權,直到整個世界改變經濟系統。
    聽著,我從來沒有告訴過人們不要努力工作。
    我從來沒有這樣說過。
    從來沒有這樣說過。
    你說如果你爸爸不富有,你就永遠不會富有。
    這在99.9%的案例中是正確的。
    我從來沒有告訴過人們不要努力工作。
    實際上在99%的案例中那不是真的。
    我從來沒有告訴過人們不要努力工作,好嗎?
    聽著,如果你認為烏干達人應該更有企業家精神,我從未去過烏干達。
    也許那是那裡的問題。
    也許那是尼日利亞的問題。
    也許那是印度的問題。
    聽著,我從來沒有說過不要努力工作,好嗎?
    當我去年出版我的書時,精裝本,我在某個活動上出來。
    當時我在倫敦橋喝酒,當我出來時已經很晚了。
    大約凌晨1點。
    當我在給我的自行車解鎖時,有一個來自紐卡斯爾的男孩走到我面前,紐卡斯爾位於英格蘭的東北部。
    這是一個相對貧困的小城鎮,很多工人階級的人。
    他說,我一直在YouTube上看你的東西,我喜歡你的內容。
    這個男孩在我面前開始哭泣。
    這個男孩在街上開始哭泣,對吧?
    他說,我工作很努力,蓋瑞。
    我有兩份工作。
    我媽媽生病了,我在努力幫助。
    我在努力支持,卻不明白為什麼。
    對不起,我在哭。
    但之前從沒有人告訴我這不是我的錯。
    他是這麼對我說的,好嗎?
    聽著,聽著,我百分之百相信抱負、雄心和企業家精神。
    我絕對不會看到一個有這些特質的孩子,然後說,別這樣,好嗎?
    但你的觀點的另一面是,如果你足夠努力,你就能成功;如果你沒有成功,那是因為你沒有努力,這是你的錯。
    我希望你在發送那條訊息給我們社會中的年輕男性和年輕女性之前,能坐下來仔細思考一下。
    優秀人才主義並不意味著每個人最終都會得到相同的結果。
    我想要達成的目標是:那些有雄心壯志,願意努力追求的人,能夠獲得鼓勵去這樣做,並能夠鼓勵他們創造就業機會和創建公司。
    那麼,有那些只想努力工作、擁有一個美好的家庭、照顧家人、擁有一個家並且能開啟暖氣、確保經濟安全的人呢?
    他們需要為某個企業工作,不是嗎?
    他們需要為你工作?
    對。
    請再說一遍?
    他們需要為你工作。
    他們需要為一個企業工作,某個企業,對吧?
    如果沒有人創造出那個企業,那麼他們該去哪里工作呢?
    對了,我們現在有11%的工作年齡人口被宣佈為過於疾病而無法工作。
    我們在英國面臨著一個巨大的問題。
    我們還有25%的工作年齡人口沒有工作。
    每七個男性中就有一個完全不工作。
    你認為他們懶惰嗎,丹?
    我覺得這個系統正在崩潰。
    你認為這個系統已經改變了嗎?
    普通的英美人不算懶惰。
    我認為發生的事情是技術公司正在徹底改變和顛覆一切。
    在戰後時期,我們有好的工作。
    我們能在當地的地方工作。
    但現在,工作正流向菲律賓。
    技術做三件事情。
    它使工作變得更簡單,這意味著這些工作是可替代的。
    它使工作變得全球化,因為你可以將它們移動到其他任何地方。
    最終,它會完全自動化這個工作,通過代碼和軟件將其消除。
    在過去的五年裡,尤其是在大流行之後,技術已經摧毀了我們都曾依賴的現有系統。
    當我說教育系統並沒有真正運作時,它仍然假裝有人在畢業後可供人們從事的辦公室工作。
    它仍然假裝有1950年代的工作場景,但實際上我的孩子們將會受到人工智慧的影響。
    每個人的孩子都會受到人工智慧的影響。
    你知道,這些問題是我們確實需要討論的。
    對所有正在收聽的創業者和小企業主,我認為你們需要聽到這個消息。
    這是我贊助商Fiverr的一個更新消息。
    他們剛剛推出了一個名為Fiverr Go的東西。
    簡而言之,這對你和你的團隊來說是一個巨大的遊戲改變者。
    這是一個旨在幫助自由工作者培訓和控制根據他們特定風格量身定制的人工智慧工具的工具,這意味著Fiverr的自由工作者及其客戶現在可以幾乎瞬間生成獨特的工作,純粹是通過結合他們自己的獨特自由職業才能與個性化的人工智慧技術。
    對我來說,這裡最大的解鎖是時間,讓我能夠獲得更多時間。
    以前可能需要幾天或一周的工作,現在只需幾秒鐘就能在Fiverr Go上完成。
    你獲得你想要的東西,並且馬上就能得到。
    如果需要調整,原始的專才可以隨時進行微調。
    Fiverr Go 已經在60個類別中可用,這個數字正在快速增長。
    如果這是你想要利用的東西,請立即訪問fiverr.com/diary並探索Fiverr Go。
    使用代碼 diary 可獲得首筆訂單九折優惠。
    這是人工智慧超能力與人類才華相遇的時刻。
    我想回到你之前談到的一個要點,即個人能動性,因為我希望丹尼爾你能對你的論點提出反駁,因為我想確保在談論這個問題的解決方案時,創建一個企業,成為企業家,
    你也能理解這對於我們這種思維和心理,或任何讓我們做到這些的因素、我們的風險偏好,我們的創傷,可能是怎樣運作的。
    但並不是每個人的思維方式都是這樣的。
    所以這並不一定是每個人的最佳解決方案。
    而且我們坐在這裡時,帶有一點後見之明的偏見,因為我們運氣好,事情對我們來說變得順利。
    當你看看有關企業成功的統計數據時,你知道的,統計數據,例如90%的企業失敗。
    所以他們中的大多數都是失敗的。
    那些從中存活下來的人,例如我,然後我們就會有這樣的偏見,認為:好吧,這對我們有效,你也可以做到。
    我來自貧困家庭。
    所以我有同樣的偏見。
    其實我已經從零開始建立了幾次,因為我被打亂過幾次。
    所以我不得不幾次從一無所有開始,然後再創建。
    但是我屬於某種類型的人,對吧?
    當我們說從零開始時,實際上你是從豐富的信息開始的。
    建設企業的整個遊戲在於智力資本。
    智力資本,曾經經歷過,它在你身邊的導師提供給你信息。
    同時還能接觸到一個好的市場。
    就像能夠接觸到自由市場是一件大事。
    我出生在澳大利亞,在倫敦經濟自由的巔峰時期移居到倫敦。
    所以這無法作為普遍適用的建議,不是嗎?
    我認為個人能動性是廣泛適用的。
    是的,我同意。
    我有一位朋友,有一天醒來。他去夜總會,感到生病,暈倒了,醒來後發現四肢都被截肢了。
    所以他成為了一名四肢截肢者。
    他19歲。
    他在床上醒來,基本上說:我是一名四肢截肢者。
    48小時前我還好好的,現在卻成了一名四肢截肢者。
    他決定在醫院病房裡做出這個決定,要讓這成為他人生中最好的事情。
    他做出了這個決定。
    即使這也與他的個性及思維有關。
    我想要理解的是……
    但他最終開始了一家診所,這是一家千萬美元的診所。
    對。
    我指的是,人們能做到的事情真是令人難以置信。
    而他是例外,不是常態。
    人們的能力真是不可思議…
    但只需少數幾個人成功,整個經濟就會開始改善。
    實際上…
    在英國,我們正處於我們創業的巔峰期,像是全力以赴,表現得相當好,
    當時只有40,000家成長型企業。
    40,000家公司正在創造工作機會成長、更高的工資、對公司和國家的投資。
    你知道,只有1%的人支付30%的稅,10%的人支付60%的稅。
    所以你只需要每100人中有1人實際創造出有價值的東西,你就能增加30%的稅收。
    但這麼說,我們需要這個…
    這是給那些最終能進入那1%的人提供的建議。
    是的。
    但其他人都為誰工作呢?
    所有的工作增長來自於企業家。
    那麼你對那些99%的人說什麼呢?
    你是說,去找一份工作?
    其實你需要在經濟中創造財富的人,建立一些東西。
    像是你看看 Gymshark。
    在 Gymshark 工作的人,他們非常高興這個人創立了公司。
    他們真的很開心有這家公司。
    否則,他們會去哪裡?
    他們會做什麼工作?
    如果本決定不想在英國創辦這家公司,或者如果他達到一千萬而停止,那麼所有這些額外的工作機會都會消失。
    都會不復存在。
    所以你在鼓勵企業家精神…
    你並不是鼓勵每個人都去當企業家。
    你是說那些有傾向或…
    我是在說我們需要一個系統,鼓勵那些能做到的人去行動。
    那其他人呢?
    那麼後續的效果是,這會創造工作,這會在經濟中創造財富,
    自由市場會提升每個人。
    自由市場僅僅意味著每個人都在彼此交易。
    你知道,這開始…
    就像整個事情…
    我的意思是,這只是個古老的故事。
    一旦經濟自由,企業家開始創辦與發展事物,每個人的生活都會改善。
    每個人的生活都會變得更好。
    那麼你對這一點有什麼不同意見,Gary?
    我認為這行不通。
    行不通。
    唯一一段時間…
    聽著,過去70年不是正常的,Stephen。
    過去70年不是正常的。
    在歐洲和美國,普通人像我爸爸那樣能夠以低於平均工資的薪水在郵局工作並購房養家,這不是正常的。
    這在世界上不是正常的,在歷史上也不是正常的。
    世界上大多數國家都不是這樣的。
    大多數國家擁有少數富有的精英和大量極度貧困的人。
    這是大多數國家的情況,也是這個國家大部分的歷史,它也是美國大部分歷史的寫照。
    你知道,我們談論查爾斯·狄更斯。
    我讀過《困難時期》。
    我讀過《困難時期》,這書寫於19世紀,當時英國是整個世界的工業超級大國。
    而那時政府在討論,是否應該對這些工業家徵稅?
    而工業家則說,如果你徵稅,我們會把工廠扔進海裡。
    這讓我想起了,我們曾經能夠為普通工人提供體面生活條件的唯一時期是戰後那段我們大規模重新分配財富的時期,而現在我們正在失去中產階級的財富持有。
    不過,你能否承認,那是一個完全不同的時代,與能夠…
    那是一個不同的時代,但,你知道,我可以…
    因為技術的進步。
    今天的尼日利亞,今天的巴西,300年前的英國,200年前的法國。
    唯一一個我們曾成功提供給普通人廣泛生活標準的特定時期是,那是一個保護較為平衡的財富分配並對富人徵收非常高稅率的時期。
    而你能夠承認這是非常難以做到的,因為經濟的性質…
    100%。
    100%。
    現在是不同的。
    100%。
    這就是為什麼我們所有的祖父母、曾祖父母和高曾祖父母都生活在貧困中。
    這就是為什麼我知道我可能會失敗。
    這就是為什麼我押注經濟會變得更糟。
    這就是為什麼我知道貧困會增加。
    因為這對普通工人來說,獲得那不尋常的公平份額是極其困難的。
    我知道我們正在失去辯論。
    我知道法拉奇會贏。
    我知道特朗普會贏。
    我知道情況會變得更糟。
    我不認為我會勝出。
    所以,如果你知道你在推廣一個不會成功的策略,
    而且聽起來你認為這幾乎是不可能的,那麼你為什麼不對你的解決方案更實際一些?
    Stephen,如果這是不可能的,我就不會在這裡。
    所以你認為這是可能的?
    當然是可能的。
    當然是可能的。
    但你相信你不會贏?
    我是個愛賭的人,Steve。
    我是個愛賭的人。
    我下注了。
    你知道,我是…
    你覺得你在押注階級嗎?
    好的,我的YouTube頻道增長得非常快。
    顯然,我正在發起一場運動。
    還有很多政治支持。
    如果它繼續增長,我們將會獲得更多的政治支持。
    到頭來,
    我想要對世界上最富有、最有權勢的人徵稅。
    而大部分這些人會出來攻擊我。
    他們會試圖阻止我。
    而我沒有數十億英鎊,數億英鎊來支持我的YouTube頻道。
    我在依賴像你的觀眾這樣的普通人來支持和傳播我的訊息。
    現在,聽著,在歷史上大多數情況下,那並不有效。
    在歷史上大多數普通家庭生活在貧困中。
    我不認為我們普通人贏得公平份額是不可能的。
    但我認為這值得為之而戰,史蒂夫。
    所以我還是會為它而戰。
    他是對的,在大多數歷史上,你會看到超級精英和其他所有人之間的差距。
    巨大的財富不平等幾乎是過去五千年的常態。
    幾乎在任何地方,你都可以看到國王、女王、公爵,以及那裡的農民和佃農。
    有一些經濟情況是不同的。
    杜拜的情況真的很奇特。
    那是一片沙漠。
    在那裡生活非常不宜人。
    那是世界上大多數人不會想到或選擇的地方。
    然而,它卻是目前世界上經濟最富裕的地方之一。
    他們其實並不是從石油財富開始的。
    他們能夠借錢來建設杜拜。
    但低稅環境現在吸引了一些世界上最有才華的人去那裡創建科技公司。
    如果你,我不知道,你最近有去過那裡嗎?
    我去過杜拜。
    對,幾年前去過。
    我去過那裡。
    所以目前,杜拜是地球上最繁榮的創業社區之一,不亞於美國,這裡有投資者,有企業家,財富激增。
    我有兩個朋友是健身教練。
    其中一位選擇不再多工作,因為他的年收入達到了五萬英鎊,現在要繳40%的稅。
    所以他基本上決定賺到五萬就停下來。
    而另一位健身教練去了杜拜,開創了一個線上健身社區,並剛剛買了一輛35萬美元的法拉利。
    一位企業家對創建業務感到非常興奮,因為他沒有被課重稅。
    另一位企業家卻明言,他不願意這樣做,因為他要繳的稅太多了。
    我想重申一下。
    我一直在為工薪階層減稅而宣傳。
    一直,一直都是。
    但事情是這樣的,如果我問你,假設你剛成為全國暢銷書作者之一。
    如果你的出版商告訴你,因為你在我們作者的前1%,如果你和我們簽第二本書,我們會減半你的版稅。
    你是不會和他們簽第二本書的。
    你會去另一家出版商,那裡會說,我們會支付你更多的版稅,因為你非常成功。
    我會這樣做,免費寫這本書。
    我會免費寫這本書。
    事實上,第一次得到出版合同的時候,我說過,別給我預付款。
    然後把你的版稅給別人。
    為什麼?
    因為如果你——我所說的——
    哦,沒關係。
    我會把我的版稅給別人。
    不,我的意思是——
    我會關閉我的YouTube頻道。
    我會停止工作。
    我的意思是,我們會對激勵做出反應,如果你的出版商——如果Penguin來找你,說,第二本書,你會減少版稅,因為你在前1%。
    你會和Penguin簽約,還是會去別的地方?
    丹,我曾放棄一份每年200萬英鎊的工作來經營YouTube頻道。
    你認為我會因為錢做我所做的工作嗎?
    我不是在說你只是為了錢而做。
    我只是說,如果你有機會在兩個出版合同之間選擇,對吧,所有因素相同,有一個會因為你在前1%而懲罰你,另一個會因為你在前1%而獎勵你。
    那你——當然你會選擇正常的——所有因素相同,你會想寫第二本書。
    對於企業家來說也是如此。
    當企業家創立公司時,我們可以選擇在高稅收的經濟體中創立,或者通過一個簽名在低稅收的經濟體中開始它們。
    我認為富裕國家必須開始重新思考,為什麼會讓非常非常富有的人擁有巨大數量的物質財富,然後去海外生活而不繳稅。
    我認為這一定要重新考慮。
    因為你所說的是,我希望能夠享受到向美國市場和英國市場出售的利益,但我不想承擔必須繳納美國和英國稅的義務。
    你是對的,目前美國和英國政府確實允許這樣的情況。
    我認為這很驚人。
    你希望你對全球收入徵稅嗎?
    只徵一小部分,對吧?
    所以我認為,現實來看,美國和英國政府必須停止這樣的做法。
    但是我看到的情況是,美國和英國政府,以及越來越多的全球政府,正被精英所操控。
    你知道,我們有埃隆·馬斯克,他基本上是總統,對吧?
    而且我們有黎希閣,他的父親是世界上最富有的人之一。
    如果你是黎希閣,對於我們的美國觀眾來說,他直到最近才是我們的首相,他的父親是世界上最富有的人之一。
    他擁有7億英鎊的個人財富,將會賺取3000萬到4000萬英鎊的被動收入,而你在擔任首相時獲得130,000英鎊的薪水。
    當你制定政策時,你認為,你會不會有可能有時詢問父親和律師的意見?
    事實是,如果你允許富人越來越富,他們就會擠壓中產階級,擠壓貧困階級,讓他們失去住房、城市空間、能源,以及在政府和媒體中的發言權。
    你是否承認,採取反富裕和大政府方針的國家往往會崩潰?
    什麼,像這個國家在60年代?
    我們當時需要美國的救助。
    1976年我們需要IMF的救助。
    但美國當時也一樣。
    美國的稅收甚至比我們更高。
    我們基本上是這樣的,像是,你看看所有政府擴張的國家,他們干預你的生活,參與每一個決策,對吧?
    經濟的一半。
    我的意思是,這裡還有一件事。
    這段時間被稱為資本主義的黃金時代。
    這是普通人…
    哪個時期?
    現在這段時間?
    第二次世界大戰後的五十年。
    哦,這是中產階級的黃金時代,是成為中產階級的時期。
    你不在乎中產階級嗎?
    不,我當然在乎。
    但在第二次世界大戰後的七十年,政府把所有的房屋都賣給了中產階級,所以我們擁有了住房財富,但這種把戲只能玩一次,對吧?
    所以你只能把所有房子賣給每個人一次,這就是為什麼所有的嬰兒潮一代都擁有這些房子的原因。
    嗯,當房子被出售後,生活水平崩潰了。
    有一段很長的時間,房子是沒有被出售的。
    在第二次世界大戰和80年代之間,房子並沒有被出售。
    你何時認為生活水平崩潰了?
    嗯,我認為有幾個明顯的大時刻。
    我認為2008年是一個重要時刻。
    我認為COVID是一個重要時刻。
    我認為在80年代開始,財富分配就開始變化。
    重要的是實際的分配本身。
    所以一旦你改變了稅制,財富分配需要一段時間才能改變。
    但一旦你開始——對我來說,重點是財富持有的喪失。
    我希望普通家庭能夠持有財富。
    一旦你失去這一點,你就會失去中產階級。
    而且你在世界上找不到任何一個國家,無論是現在還是歷史上,能在不允許普通家庭擁有資產的情況下提供良好的廣泛生活水平。
    是的,我同意。
    以新加坡為例,每個人都被鼓勵擁有房產。
    他們在新加坡有一個驚人的制度。
    順便說一下,這是一個龐大的政府,巨大政府。
    它佔GDP的25%。
    但他們擁有房屋。
    他們有一個財富基金。
    他們擁有所有的房子。
    他們並不擁有所有的房子。
    他們有一個主權財富基金在流通房屋。
    他們擁有這些房子。
    他們解決了房地產問題。
    新加坡擁有這些房子。
    新加坡政府擁有住房資產的巨大份額。
    英國——
    那你覺得我們應該擁有住房資產嗎?
    實際上這些資產是由退休基金擁有的。
    人們——他們迫使——不,是引導他們的公民進入擁有房屋的狀態。
    所以你不認為新加坡政府擁有大部分住房資產嗎?
    我只是知道新加坡政府只佔經濟的25%。
    但住房資產的很大一部分。
    所以75%的經濟是資本主義的。
    我想說,順便說一下,為了更加明確,我從來沒有過一次倡導擴大政府。
    一次都沒有。
    但是更多的稅收就是更大的政府。
    我希望對財富擁有者徵收更高的稅,以便我們能對財富創造者和工人少徵稅。
    我不想要一個更大的政府。
    我希望我們的觀眾擁有更多的錢。
    我希望我們的觀眾擁有更多的錢。
    而且,我也想向那些超級富豪徵稅,讓他們停止將普通家庭擠出資產擁有權。
    這看起來——是的。
    這似乎是一個明顯的解決方案。
    這似乎——
    是的,這是一個好解決方案,是的。
    這似乎是,嘿,誰有錢?
    富人。
    不是錢。
    資產。
    資產。
    誰擁有資產?
    富人。
    那就讓我們把它們拿走——
    不,不,不。
    我不想重新分配。
    我是在這個桌子上唯一一個反對重新分配的人,因為重新分配正在我們眼前發生。
    中產階級正在失去它的資產。
    政府正在失去它的資產。
    這些資產正被富人積累。
    我想停止重新分配。
    拜託。
    拜託。
    我是這個遊戲中最反對重新分配的人。
    我們需要停止把財富從普通的英國和美國家庭那裡轉移走。
    所以對我來說,區別是非常簡單的,我真的、真的相信自由市場和小政府和減少稅收能在中間創造出更多的財富。
    丹,鷺鳥的自由對魚類來說是死亡。
    如果我們有完全的自由,像你我這樣的百萬富翁將會每年越來越富,而我們會擠出並吞噬中產階級。
    不過我可以問你,如果財富不平等可以解決,但每個人都變得更糟,這是一個好的解決方案嗎?
    顯然不是。
    我這樣做的整個理由是因為我不希望普通人陷入貧困。
    這是關於人們能夠養活他們的孩子。
    所以財富不平等不是問題。
    是生活水平的崩潰。
    這相當扭曲。
    是的,我的意思是,是的,這很扭曲的邏輯。
    問題是生活水平的崩潰。
    我是一個因為明白生活水平因財富不平等而下降的簡單事實而賺了數百萬英鎊的人。
    所以生活水平,如果它們增加,但他們是超級富豪。
    是的。
    這是一個問題嗎?
    我認為你確實要擔心極端富裕的精英。
    是的,我認為有趣的是,你看看美國的創立,這些人,美國的創立在概念上是基於權力分配的這些想法。
    這就是為什麼你有總統以及眾議院和參議院,還有獨立的司法體系。
    他們這樣認為,我們不能允許權力集中,因為他們來自一個擁有極其集中權力和極端富有的精英以及極其廣泛的貧困的歐洲。
    所以,我認為讓社會中的小團體不斷壟斷權力和財富顯然是我們應該擔心的事情。
    但最根本的,我擔心財富不平等的原因是因為我看到並且我押注並且我在這方面賺錢,因為這導致生活水平下降。
    順帶一提,其實我真的很同意你和美國建國父親的觀點,特別是在1900年代時,他們確實希望打破壟斷。而打破壟斷是他們進行反壟斷行動的一大主張,他們打破了標準石油公司以及所有那些類似的企業。有一件我現在確實看到的事情是,我們對壟斷的定義非常愚蠢且過時,我們用的壟斷定義與當初擁有所有石油的油公司時期是一樣的。
    在科技界,壟斷是通過生態系統形成的。例如,亞馬遜擁有AWS、Audible、Whole Foods等,創造了一個幾乎無法競爭的堡壘。而谷歌擁有YouTube、Gmail等,通過這些生態系統也創造了這些堡壘。我認為我們需要考慮的一件事情是,在大型科技公司達到一定規模後,強制進行拆分,因為這非常困難。你知道,億萬富翁有兩大恐懼,對吧?讓他們夜不能寐,做噩夢。第一是高稅賦,第二是那些顛覆他們業務的創業家。他們想要早早地把這些潛在的威脅消滅掉。
    你知道,史蒂夫‧喬布斯在24歲時就顛覆了IBM,而傑夫‧貝索斯則顛覆了沃爾瑪。因此他們對中間的創業家感到非常恐懼。他們想創造政府法規來說,嘿,你知道嗎?我們來限制創業家的收入在1000萬英鎊。你可以達到1000萬,對我們來說沒問題。我們早已超過那個點,但加里是我們的人,因為他要限制每個人都在1000萬。
    順便說一句,我從來沒說要把任何人的收入限制在1000萬。因為你覺得會發生什麼?人們會停止追求。一旦有了財富稅,人們就會放棄。他們不想這樣做。你可以這樣問我,我們的觀眾,如果他們知道可以建立一個2,000萬或3,000萬英鎊的公司。聽起來可笑,但他們知道他們會必須支付20%的稅。如果你的淨資產是3,000萬英鎊,那麼1%的稅就是每年20萬英鎊。所以如果我說,你可以有一個3,000萬英鎊的公司,他們會說,我不想開始做生意。我不想變成一個價值3,000萬英鎊的人。這聽起來真可笑。
    沒有人會說,哦天哪,我不想成為一個多重的富豪。因為在20年後,我必須支付1%的稅。但是大多數交易者,交易者在一年內賺取的金額相當於大多數人一生能賺的收入。大多數交易者不會停止。對,你知道,我在那本書中談到了很多這個問題。因此,大多數交易者會繼續拼搏。創業家也是如此,他們受到驅動,會繼續努力。但當你有財富顧問和投資者說,不要在英國創辦公司,因為他們反對財富時,我不是想讓英國變成反財富的地方。我認為英國和美國需要考慮這樣一種情況:你不能允許那些擁有巨大企業,並且向你的國家銷售產品的人,住在迪拜或開曼群島而不交稅。我不覺得這是一個有爭議的立場。
    我有一個問題要問你們倆,那就是如果你是一個年輕人,現在18歲,聽著這些話,但你的目標其實是個人的富裕。你希望為自己和你的家人創造美好的未來,就像我們所有人所能做到的那樣。那麼此時此刻,你對他們的建議是什麼,加里?這真是一個難題。我知道丹對我在我影片中提到的致富方式感到生氣。最近有個人來我家問我這個問題。顯然,我經常被問到這個問題,因為,愚蠢的是,我很公開自己的富有。
    我所做的並不是可以複製的。我所做的不是可以複製的。不是的。抱歉,真的不是。人們總是說,為什麼不教我交易呢?就因為這很難。交易是艱難的,而且是危險的。我認為很多年輕男性正在被推銷進入交易並成為賭博成癮者。知道要努力工作,我甚至不會說不要成為創業家。我從來沒有說過這些話。努力工作。
    如果你認為你在科技創業方面有機會,那就去吧。要明白這是有風險的。我認為這個訊息,有時只是成為一個創業家,你就會成功,聽起來有點危險,因為我認為大多數嘗試成為創業家的人的結局都是失敗。而我認為這是非常非常危險的。現實是,你知道,也許丹不喜歡這個。也許你不會喜歡這個。我認為來自貧困家庭的年輕男性或年輕女性變得富有是非常非常困難的。我認為即使是獲得基本的財務安全也越來越難了。
    所以,顯然,如果可以的話,減少你的開支。不要購買這種巴倫西亞加的荒謬產品。離那遠一點。但是努力工作,努力學習,努力找一份好工作。但是也要明白,我們正在縮小救生艇上的座位。這就是我們所做的。我們曾經允許50%的人獲得安全,然後是40%。然後是30%。然後是20%。你知道,如果有一個年輕人來自尼日利亞的貧民窟來找你說,史蒂芬,我該怎麼做才能變富有?現實地說,你只能告訴他,你在一個困難的情況下。你需要真的非常努力工作。但如果你能賺到足夠的錢來養活家庭,那麼要引以為榮。其實我會這樣告訴他,是的,我在尼日利亞有家人。
    對於不知情的人來說,我血統上是一半尼日利亞人。我會告訴他們,知識確實是你的人生救生筏。所以,顯然,尼日利亞正在發生一場巨大的科技繁榮,這正在解放許多人脫離那種情況。因此,我會試著告訴他們要抓住這場新革命的知識這個救生筏。從尼日利亞,你可以學習編程。而且現在的好消息是,我們實際上正在舊金山建立一家公司,名叫Flightcast。它已經啟動。大家可以去看一下,flightcast.com。而Guess Radar的首席開發者是一位尼日利亞人。但是,尼日利亞科技產業中有多少工作機會是能夠提供給在貧民窟長大的孩子們的呢?我不知道。因為人們問我,告訴我怎麼做到你所做的事情,好嗎?我曾經在金絲雀碼頭工作。它在東倫敦。我從小就在我的房子裡看到那棟大樓。在我工作的整個時間裡,沒有一個來自東倫敦的孩子。你知道,丹所說的這個遠程工作革命,像是工作現在可以在任何地方進行。在我們的公司Third Web,位於舊金山,我們現在的一些員工在菲律賓,因為那裡有很棒的創意人才。這顯然更具成本效益。這難道不是我們經濟中發生的巨大變化嗎,這種數字化和工作的遠程化?確實如此,但我想對於許多人來說,我相信你在菲律賓支付工資是非常高的。大多數這些人以前在辦公室的工資還算不錯,而現在他們卻被鎖在自己的臥室裡,勉強支付賬單。對,在菲律賓?不是在菲律賓。菲律賓的人正過著不錯的生活。不,我是說菲律賓目前正在蓬勃發展。那你認為菲律賓的普通人生活奢華嗎?如果你了解目前的情況……你真的認為菲律賓的普通人過著奢華的生活嗎?有一種叫做遠程外國工作者的現象,這是一場巨大的繁榮以及經濟繁榮……那孩子們應該搬到菲律賓去嗎?這挺好。你能在菲律賓獲得很好的生活質量。你知道嗎?當我穿越馬尼拉的貧民區時,他們應該只要找工作。我不知道為什麼他們不拿出他們的筆記本電腦。菲律賓的貧困是可怕的。聽著,菲律賓是一個美麗的國家。是一個了不起的國家。我喜愛菲律賓。我去過那裡好幾次。但是,錢以從未有過的速度流入那裡……但你覺得普遍的菲律賓人生活是什麼樣的呢?好吧,你是否同意他們的經濟目前正被金錢淹沒?就像,錢在那裡流入。錢確實在流入,但這並沒有為普通的菲律賓人提供良好的生活質量。那不是真的。遠程外國工作者……好吧,我們可以……遠程外國工作者……你可以請所有菲律賓觀眾告訴我們普通人的生活是什麼樣的。遠程外國工作者其實可以支持他們的……通常可以支持整個家庭。我們可以看看。我不知道菲律賓的平均工資是多少。不過回到這個問題上,所以我想知道Gary的看法。他說,努力工作。如果你是一個正在收聽這段話的年輕人……我昨天讀到一篇非常有趣的文章,來自於一個……我想是來自一家主要報紙,談論失落的男孩。這顯示出我認為大約每七名符合工作年齡的年輕男性中就有一名失業。因此,有許多關於年輕男性特別是他們艱難處境的討論。你會說努力工作,Gary。你會說……努力工作。不要追求名牌。最重要的是認識你所處的情況。我會鼓勵他們支持我的工作,關注我的頻道,因為救生筏正在縮小。相信我,我們會把孩子們帶上救生筏的。我們都知道這一點,好吧?如果那些救生筏在縮小,如果不阻止這艘船下沈,那下沉的不是你也不是我,而是其他人。我們會沒事的。如果你不去抵抗政治鬥爭,我敢保證,像Daniel這樣的人會去。因此,你是在說他們也應該參與政治鬥爭嗎?你必須參加。你必須這樣做。這就是我們的祖父母所做的。如果他們想像你我和丹一樣成為百萬富翁……嗯,聽起來丹在這方面有比我更好的建議。好吧,我也要問丹。但我只是想知道……我想知道你的建議如何與那些試圖擺脫你我來的地方的年輕人掛鉤。你知道嗎?我不認為我是這方面的專家,因為你知道,我從小就擁有這種非凡的天賦。我在數學方面非常非常出色,我僅僅是追隨著這一點。而且,你知道,我的姐姐,她是一位詩人,她寫了一部非常成功的關於Dizzy Rascal第一張專輯的音樂劇,對嗎?她顯然來自跟我一樣的貧困家庭。她非常努力地工作。她努力得非常非常多。有兩個學位。但她幾乎付不起房租,對吧?所以我不想對我們的年輕孩子們說,嗯,我有這種才能,追隨你的才能。因為這不奏效,Stephen。確實,這不奏效。是的。我的姐姐做了很好的工作。但對於年輕人來說,追隨你的激情,追隨你的才能,除非你來自一個富裕的家庭,現實是這種情況非常非常罕見。我知道這對我們三個在桌子上的人來說是成功的。但不要假裝每個人都有和我們一樣的經歷。
    丹,你對此有什麼看法?
    那你的回答是什麼?
    我認為目前存在兩種經濟體系。
    一種是衰退中的經濟,即工業革命經濟。
    這包括所有的辦公室工作、工廠工作及類似的職位,這些工作正被自動化並轉移到全球。
    同時,則有這種不斷冒起的新數位經濟,我稱之為企業家經濟或數位經濟。
    這兩種經濟體系在某種程度上共存著。
    一種在向下滑落。
    另一種則在上升。
    如果你想在經濟上獲得成功,你需要靠在可以找到的最大的財富之旁。
    你知道,不幸的是,當詩人並不賺很多錢。
    我們都知道這一點,這並不令人驚訝。
    如果你來自一個非常富裕的家庭,你作為詩人,可能會成為從富有家庭中脫落的60%的人之一。
    如果想在經濟上成功,你需要問自己,現在經濟上蓬勃發展的事物是什麼?
    加里在那個特定的時間看到了金融業。
    但如果我們現在實際看看金融業,它正在衰退。
    而交易則被人工智慧取代。
    在你這個職業中的人會被基本上做類似工作的IT系統取代。
    這些事情就是這樣發生的。
    我們正在經歷一場巨大的技術變革。
    但同時,在YouTube上免費學習技能的難度從未像現在這樣低。
    加入您可以獲得指導和支持的社區從未如此之簡單。
    有天使投資者的社區,他們確實會投資於初創公司。
    成立公司的成本從未如此低廉或容易。
    軟體和技術的數量使得快速擴展和增長變得前所未有的容易。
    我會建議你做加里所做的事情。
    加里在線上發布內容。
    他建立了個人品牌。
    他把它與一個持續收入的模式聯繫在一起。
    他有……
    我也曾經無償工作四年。
    我不確定這能否重複。
    所以,建立個人品牌。
    將其與一個能夠吸引資金流動的商業模式聯繫在一起。
    這些都是你能做的正面事情。
    我們都必須面對自己所擁有的牌。
    你總能找到有更好牌的人,也能找到拿到更糟牌的人。
    無論你在這個星球上是誰,總有更好的人,也總有更差的人。
    你必須打好你所擁有的牌。
    你不能坐等世界經濟體系發生改變。
    你必須說,你知道嗎?
    這些是我在這個特定時期所擁有的牌。
    在這些情況下,這是我的優勢。
    這是我的劣勢。
    我會打好我所擁有的牌。
    個人主權讓人們感到對生活的掌控,能夠取得進展。
    一旦你採取受害者心態,一旦你說,哦,你知道嗎?
    我所有的祈禱的答案就是加里會改變這個體系。
    那你就陷入了嚴重的麻煩。
    我可以在這方面再說一句嗎?
    如果我們成為只用個人思維而從不考慮更廣泛社會問題的社會,
    我們將變成無法解決社會問題的社會。
    我是一個賭博社會崩潰、中產階級崩潰而獲得了數百萬英鎊的人。
    我不想在泰坦尼克號上發表股票建議,好嗎?
    我明白。
    我知道我們生活在個人化的社會中,說「嘿,你需要保護自己的社會」並不受歡迎。
    如果你不保護你的社會,你的社會就會崩潰。
    英國和美國公眾在這裡面臨選擇。
    那會是什麼樣子?
    你希望人們怎麼做?
    我希望他們參與進來,觀看我的頻道,訂閱我的頻道。
    所以觀看你的內容。
    在YouTube、Instagram、TikTok上分享給朋友,分享給你的母親。
    但接下來呢?
    然後推動變革。
    像我們的祖父母一樣推動變革。
    推動政治家減少對勞動人民的稅收,增加對極度富有的財富囤積者的稅收。
    所以投票給綠黨。
    投票給任何給你這樣機會的人,任何能分享你的派的那些人。
    聽著,這不是足球,好嗎?
    我不是這裡的加里·史蒂文森,綠黨成員。
    我在這裡是為了保護工人階級。
    所以,這樣的行動,他們的社會和政治能量將是站出來抗爭。
    但是在他們的個人生活中,你告訴他們要創業,冒很大的風險,努力工作,因為他們也能成功?
    我會把這個問題留給你們。
    你知道,我不是商業人士。
    我是一名經濟學家。
    這就是我。
    你知道,我是通過成為一名經濟學家獲得我的財富。
    我是一名非常優秀的經濟學家。
    我的預測是正確的。
    人們可以去觀看我的預測。
    在COVID開始時,我在2020年5月準確預測了整個COVID危機。
    你知道,這是,我在這方面很出色。
    聽著,我永遠不會來這裡說我比你更好的商人。
    我相當肯定我不是。
    我是一名非常非常優秀的經濟學家。
    這會發生。
    有什麼我可以做的嗎?
    如果我坐在這裡,聽你說,我理解你所說的一切。
    我相信你所說的所有內容。
    我相信我會變得更糟。
    你認為我還是應該對我的情況負責,努力讓我的生活更富有、更好、更成功嗎?
    百分之百。
    百分之百,百分之百。
    因為你知道,我很確定你知道,如果你是普通的英國人或美國人,如果你不這麼做,你就無法開啟暖氣。
    你必須這麼做。
    你必須這麼做。
    而我從未一次,你知道,我認為我的意見常常被誤解為反雄心。
    你讀過我的書。
    你認為我反對雄心嗎?
    不。
    我拼命工作以賺錢。
    我希望這個國家的每一個年輕人都能夠賺錢,如果他們想這樣做,這是他們所追求的。
    但我們創造了一個,年輕人幾乎不可能進入的社會,听著,我曾經經歷過。
    我曾在倫敦政治經濟學院(LSE)學習。
    我曾在牛津大學就讀。
    我曾在金融城工作。
    我曾在媒體工作。
    我曾在政治界打滾過。
    在這些頂層的人中,大多數都是一群富有的傻瓜。
    我們不讓那些來自普通背景的聰明孩子進入這些領域。
    為什麼我們要假裝沒有這樣做?
    我們知道我們在這樣做。
    我對此持不同意見。
    你談論的是兩種類型的精英空間。
    一是精英大學的精英空間。
    是的。
    另一是衍生品交易的精英空間。
    還有真正的經濟。
    是的。
    那裡是企業家進行工作的地方。
    然後是第一個衍生品,即銀行系統。
    再然後是第二個衍生品,即利率交易員。
    這些地方是普通人不想到達的。
    大多數在普通家庭長大的普通人,不會有一天醒來說:
    我想當一個專注於經濟的利率交易員,進行投資。
    大多數人希望創辦一家公司,以雇用人員,並希望發展這家公司,成為成功者。
    你認為創業對於普通貧困人群來說,是一個現實的高成功概率的致富機會嗎?
    我知道經濟會在企業家的活躍下繁榮,而不僅僅是企業家們。他們創造了機會。
    這是否是我們的觀眾能夠做到的,而他們中的大多數最終會富有?
    你只需要1%的人來改善整個經濟。
    有一個非常有趣的統計數據表示,全球大約65%的超高淨值個人都是自創的。
    大約19%主要是繼承財富的,約有16%則是繼承財富並通過自己的事業顯著增長的。
    所以全球65%的超高淨值個人是自創的。
    這是否意味著,如果我想成為一個超高淨值的人,這將歸結於?
    聽著,我們剛剛度過了資本主義的黃金時代。
    當時普通人像我父親,我在伊爾福德長大,
    這是東倫敦的一個非常移民的地區。
    我長大的大多數朋友來自巴基斯坦和印度的移民背景。
    他們幾乎一無所有地來到這裡。
    他們非常努力地工作。
    他們掙到了錢。
    他們擁有自己的資產。
    我們有一段時間,普通人可以賺到錢,創造財富。
    所以顯然我們現在正處於一個有富人在那段時期賺取財富的時代。
    但現在已經結束了。
    我看到普通人一直在賺錢。
    好吧,那麼你在告訴我們的觀眾他們是笨蛋。
    為什麼他們不賺錢呢?
    我並不是在告訴任何人他們是笨蛋。
    我在說……
    如果這麼容易,好的,沒關係。
    去買丹的書,讀一讀,成為百萬富翁。
    因為丹認為通過創業來成為百萬富翁很容易。
    但我懷疑,因為我沒有成為過企業家,所以大多數讀過你書的人都不是百萬富翁。
    你接觸過的每一件事情都變成了金子。
    你轉向了學術界。
    你得到了驚人的學位。
    你轉向了銀行業。
    你年收入兩百萬。
    你轉向了寫作。
    你成為了《星期日泰晤士報》暢銷書作家。
    你轉向了內容創建。
    你擁有80萬粉絲。
    而現在你在所有這些證據之後卻說:哦,不,這一切都結束了,夥計。
    我有足夠的智慧去做,但你們不夠聰明去做。
    如果你認為你能教……
    你有你的書。
    如果你認為你能教人們這樣做。
    所以你說你聰明,但他們不聰明。
    我懷疑這是否在某種程度上反映了我們的教育問題。
    因為我在想你的妹妹。
    我想,如果我是蓋瑞的妹妹的首席執行官,我會做什麼?
    我現在會做兩件事情。
    第一,什麼市場真的重視寫作的能力和影響力?
    我會說,她需要寫一個Instagram頁面。
    因為我看到Jay Shetty的情況。
    這傢伙每年賺進幾千萬。
    因為他把一些美好的激勵性詩句放在那裡。
    而我也認為,她需要進入YouTube。
    因為如果她能像你一樣說話,則在YouTube上也會表現得非常出色。
    但舊的……
    除了我所說的互聯網之外,其他地方從事詩歌的經濟未必會很好。
    但在學校里,我們並沒有教這些。
    沒有YouTube課程。
    而這是經濟非常重要的一個部分。
    我和你都看到了這一點。
    媒體的去中心化,喇叭的力量……
    它每年以20%的速度增長。
    這個喇叭讓人們開始製作YouTube,成為企業家。
    但這就是互聯網,不是嗎?
    這簡單。
    這簡單。
    我不是說這很簡單。
    你認為這對大多數人有效嗎,斯蒂芬?
    對大多數人來說,不。
    這行不通。
    這行不通。
    為什麼我們假裝這行得通呢?
    但我想說的是,如果在學校我們教孩子幾樣新事物,
    而停止教授畢達哥拉斯定理,順便提一下,ChatGBT能在你閉著眼睛的情況下為你解決這個問題,
    並教他們有關互聯網新經濟的知識,以及如何創立一家商店。
    這真是太瘋狂了,學校系統設計成這樣,導致我因為過於專注於在學校做生意,而被放逐。
    我的校長在國家電視台的《我為什麼會撒謊》節目中說,是的,我們最終給他解除了開除,因為他幫學校賺了很多錢。
    但這個系統正在懲罰我對創業的追求,並且並沒有教我任何關於新經濟的知識,這就是科技。
    史提芬,你覺得年輕人實現財務自由和擁有家庭的比例減少,是否重要?
    所以我認為年輕人能夠達到的比例,讓你說能夠獲得財富和擁有家庭,是否重要?
    是的,如果達到財務自由和擁有家庭的比例在減少。
    我認為這是一個非常大的問題。
    聽著,我認為這是一個非常大的問題。
    我同意。
    我知道。
    聽著,我知道你有這個播客,我知道你在激勵年輕人。
    我認為這是一件好事。
    我認為激勵年輕人努力工作,嘗試實現某些目標是一件好事。
    但是我是一位經濟學家。
    我所看到的是,能夠成就的年輕人比例正在下降。
    我認為如果你把這兩件事結合在一起,你會發現真正危險的情況,因為我們告訴年輕人,創業的機會在等著你。
    而同時,能夠成功的人數又只有10%、5%、2%、1%。
    總會有那一個成功的人。
    無論在哪個國家,總會有一個史提芬·巴特利特通過努力取得成功。
    你懂我在說什麼嗎?
    但系統性的問題是重要的,史提芬。
    我們能不能改變教育系統?讓我在16歲時被扔進排斥單位,這讓我,這麼容易就能讓我覺得自己是一個失敗者。
    因為我的兄弟杰森去了倫敦經濟學院,變得和你很像,現在在我的公司工作,管理我的投資,在那個教育體系中,他受到了獎勵。
    所以我坐在那裡,作為一個孩子,想著,富有和成功的哥哥杰森,因為他會數學。
    而我則認為,我將會失敗,因為我喜歡這個叫做創業的東西,而我有ADHD,無法在課堂上集中注意力。
    我的意思是,如果教育系統設計得當,像我這樣有創業精神,對互聯網感興趣,玩不斷玩遊戲的人能夠受到讚賞,並且被告知,“哦,天哪,加倍努力去做這件事。”
    我認為,當你考慮到經濟的支柱是創業者創造企業時,對這個國家的淨益處將會是深遠的。
    但是我認為,如果我們希望有機會利用當今經濟的機會,我們的教育系統需要進行如此大刀闊斧的改革。
    是的,我認為你可能在許多方面改變教育系統,讓它變得更好,但你其實是在泰坦尼克號上改變教育體系。
    我告訴你,我對此有非常高的確定性,如果你不解決中產階級財富被抽走的問題,95%、98%的人在70年後將會生活在貧困中。
    我同意你。這就是問題所在。我同意,你不能讓一小部分人擁有所有資產和所有財富,不然,也就是說,這裡的資源將會從某個地方流失。
    我記得我十年前在曼徹斯特莫斯賽德的房間裡偷著芝加哥城比薩時,打印出求職者津貼表的那一天。
    我記得那種感覺,父母不跟我說話,桌上堆滿了CCJ信件和執行官的信件,真的沒有辦法擺脫這種狀況,甚至到我開始偷東西的地步。
    我會叫外賣的司機,然後試著說服他給我食物。這對我來說是十年前的事情。所以我沒有忘記我人生中的那些年。
    所以我理解處於那種情況下的感受。在個人的層面上,我需要一些答案,因為我不會等國會裡的人幫我解決我的生活。
    所以我需要一些個人的答案。此外,我也關心大局。所以我不是那種只是想累積大量財富的人。
    當然,老實說,沒多少人類會不想擁有更多的錢。所以我努力承認這種偏見。
    但我最大的問題是如何解決。而根據我個人的經驗,作為一個現在在倫敦雇用數百人的人,在我們在曼徹斯特的辦公室,有一些事情將會讓我離開這個國家。
    如果這裡對創業者變得越來越不友好,我猜如果五年後我們再回到這裡,我會在英國再雇用500人。實際上,當你看看這個房間裡的人,你可以看到他們的年齡。這些都是年輕人。
    有一些事情可以做到,使我不這樣做。
    我想要指出的是,我們並沒有對財富征稅,而你又想離開這個國家,史提芬。
    不,我沒有離開這個國家。
    好吧,你會留下來。
    不,但我在這裡是稅務居民。我在這裡交稅。我完全不打算改變這一點。我們正在投入大量資金於英國企業。
    但聽著,我想加稅,我只想對高額財富徵稅,僅僅是高額財富。
    而且,請不要誤會我的意思,我理解非常有錢的人會抱怨。
    而且非常有錢的人會像狄更斯時代一樣說,我要把我的企業、我的稅收、我的企業和工廠都扔進海裡。
    史提芬,你的觀眾在這裡。聽著,史提芬,你的觀眾在這裡。你是一個非常富有的人。他們正在支付20%、30%、40%、50%的稅。你應該支付你應該支付的份額,史提芬。
    我認為我應該支付更多的稅,尤其是當我不認為我的孩子應該享受我的財富。我知道這可能是一種爭議性的意見。
    但我實際上並不認為我應該把我的資產傳給我的孩子。
    你不能。這是40%的稅。
    我認為應該更高。
    這是40%。
    是啊,我是說,讓我們不要假裝有錢人不會成功地將他們的資產傳給孩子。我現在告訴你,我會。我覺得如果我把這些資產都留給我的孩子,就等於剝奪了他們來自我所來背景的東西。如果我的孩子在我過世時拿到好幾千萬,我覺得這不應該發生。我同意。當我談到我姐姐的時候,人們會問,為什麼不直接給你姐姐一大筆錢?聽著,我姐姐很努力工作。她是一個聰明的人,工作也很努力,產出優秀的作品。我希望生活在一個像我姐姐這樣的人能夠依靠自己的工作自給自足的社會裡。但我們正在破壞這個社會。誰來付她的工資?顧客。因此你希望她創業?她本身就是一個生意。對。是的。我希望像她這樣的人能被少徵稅,因為我希望普通的工作人員能少交稅,這樣他們口袋裡會有更多錢。聽著,之所以我們在六十年代有蓬勃的藝術景象,是因為我們有一個繁榮的中產階級,他們能去購買新時尚和新唱片。然後這創造了這個繁榮的藝術場景。現在我們有一個中產階級,正為了支付帳單而掙扎,因此他們無法消費。你知道,我姐姐製作戲劇表演。現在去劇院的人只有有錢人。但在過去,劇院是更容易接觸的東西。你想要藝術。我有一位朋友是時裝設計師,對吧?現在所有企業都是超快速、超便宜、超一次性時尚,或是不可思議的昂貴高端,因為這是我們所創造的經濟。你去日本,那是一個不平等的社會。對普通人來說,餐廳是優質的餐廳,因為一個好的資本主義社會會為有錢人提供商品。在劇院的情況下,劇院的消費者去哪裡了?他們現在從哪裡獲得娛樂?你有一群非常富有的人仍然會去劇院,並且他們會支付很多。但然後你有一大群人相對缺乏現金,當然會嘗試以更便宜的方式獲得娛樂。你知道我的意思嗎?他們花時間在看你的YouTube頻道。對,正是,我的YouTube頻道,順便說一下,是免費的。是的,但你從中賺到錢。你有YouTube的背景。老實說,直到最近幾個月我才開始賺到一些錢,因為我不進行自己的剪輯。你知道,幾年前,你會知道在最初的幾年你是用自己的錢在做這件事。你明白我的意思嗎?我認為人們有時對賺取的金額大大高估。這就是創業者。創業者經歷兩、三、四、五年的掙扎,才達到成功的地步。感覺相當可怕的是,當你說,哦,終於我成功了,你卻拿走了它。然後,給創業者提供建議的人……對我來說,1000萬是一筆相當可觀的錢。所以,你知道,你可以價值900萬卻不需要支付更多的稅。但如果我只是為我的公司籌集100萬的投資呢?但如果我一路籌集資金,我的投資者卻說,抱歉,我不在英國經濟中投資,因為財富稅和所有這類東西。這是反財富的。然後我就必須把我的公司搬到海外。我想創造一個讓英國消費者如此強大的情況,以至於你必須在英國投資。你不必在這裡賣給他們。等一下,我想和你談談我們的贊助商 Whoop ,這是一個我也是投資者的企業。如果你在Instagram上跟隨我,你可能注意到我最近開始跑步,這讓我非常享受。這最初是一個挑戰,但現在已經演變成幾乎每天都做的事情。這是推動我每天變得更好的事情之一。但事情是這樣的。對我來說,進步不僅僅是關於更努力地推進。這也和更聰明地訓練有關,這就涉及到我的Whoop。Whoop不僅跟蹤我的鍛煉。它在我甚至開始鍛煉之前告訴我我的身體有多準備好接受鍛煉。幾年前,我們進行了一項名為「Project PR」的研究。結果發現,根據恢復評分調整訓練的跑步者,他們的5K時間平均能提升2分鐘40秒,並且將受傷風險降低了30%以上。而他們是以更少的訓練實現的。因此,如果你在尋找這樣的訓練指導,請訪問join.whoop.com/CEO,獲得為期30天的試用,無需任何承諾。網址是join.whoop.com/CEO。告訴我你怎麼樣。那麼,我們是否都同意這一前提,蓋瑞所說的,即超有錢人,我們可以歸類為資產超過你所說的?我們稱1000萬是我們所倡導的界限。好吧,我們認為他們應該支付更大份額的稅收。如果你同意這一前提,那麼問題便是,是的,但如何呢?是的。好吧,他們已經在支付了。1%的高收入者支付30%的稅。我想要澄清,這是前1%的納稅人,並不是最富有的1%。請注意,我也不是必然在說公平。我在說現實上可行的事情,對吧?所以,你可以提出世界上最公平的方案,隨便在餐巾上寫,這就是公平,但是實施它的難度非常大。問題是財富現在是完全流動的。真的,你可以在任何地方生活和工作。房地產,丹。是的。這是土地。這是可移動的嗎?你無法將國家從海裡拔起。房地產數量非常少。我從來沒有遇過任何擁有大量房產的真正富有的人。你真的認為英國的整個房屋存量不具價值嗎?是的,實際上是的。
    有人擁有這個。
    但78%的擁有者是嬰兒潮一代。
    他們擁有的房子是1992年買的,現在依然在他們名下。
    就我個人而言,我認為住房擁有權,尤其是考慮到房貸後,相對來說分配不平等。
    這樣說,其實是最平等分配的。
    年輕人現在擁有的商業房產、土地和自然資源。
    這些資產被養老金基金擁有。
    那麼觀眾擁有這些資產嗎?
    不,如果他們擁有養老金基金,那麼這些商業房產大多是由他們擁有的。
    那麼養老金的分配情況如何?
    如果你看看大多數的情況。
    現在,養老金的分配情況如何?
    最高的1%擁有多少百分比的養老金?
    我不太確定,但從養老金的情況來看,顯然是財富集中在頂端。
    不過有一點要記住:
    富裕群體不一定是一個靜態的群體。
    有一項對1900年最富有的人的研究,大多數這些家庭如今都變得貧窮,
    或者今天的價值下降了。
    如果1900年最富有的人僅僅保持住他們的財富,將會多出16,000名億萬富翁。
    但他們沒有這麼做。
    在財富管理和銀行中,他們有一個叫做繼承規劃的東西。
    因此,繼承規劃就是他們試圖找出如何不在跨代中搞砸。
    而他們在這方面頗為糟糕。
    在世代間保持財富非常困難。
    在20世紀,我們經歷了兩次世界大戰和一場大屠殺,
    這重新分配了財富,我希望不再重蹈覆轍。
    是的。
    我跟你同意。
    我想要一個富裕的中產階級。
    我真的想要。
    所以,這筆財富將從哪裡來?
    你想要創造自己的想法?
    企業家。
    企業家。
    好吧,那我們就去創造吧。
    企業家。
    對於財富創造和企業家精神友好的經濟。
    你最後一次見到不這樣的政府是什麼時候?他們總是說,讓我們成長,讓我們成長,讓我們成長。
    這對人民並不奏效,丹尼爾。
    不,問題是他們需要退後一步。
    他們需要讓事情縮小,讓事情縮小,讓事情縮小。
    我們的觀眾應該密切關注唐納德·特朗普和伊隆·馬斯克,因為他們正在做你所要求的事。
    看看會發生什麼,真是有趣,對吧?
    現在說還為時已晚。
    如果你試圖促進英國經濟,難道不會借鑒美國的方法?
    因為他們似乎在促進經濟方面更成功。
    我想,當我們談到削減國家開支的時候,他們會舉出像“哦,這棟浪費的政府建築”這樣的例子。
    每個人都想削減政府浪費。
    當然,我不會反對削減政府浪費。
    我來自英國。
    你知道,我見過緊縮的年代。
    我看到了地方服務發生的變化。
    我看到了警察、教育等方面發生的變化,特別像青年服務這些。
    你削減國家開支,解雇一堆人,國家又會怎樣呢?
    好吧,對。如果你能根除國家的腐敗,沒問題,100%。
    如果你能根除國家浪費,100%,你知道,這就是單親媽媽如何養活她們的孩子,史蒂芬。
    你想阻止這種情況發生嗎?
    不,我是在說不。
    削減國家開支,我認為是不會奏效的。
    說實話,我認為關稅是一個有趣的討論話題。
    我想,是的,當然,我們需要消除的確是稅收規避。
    我真的想退一步,看看這個國家的狀況,說我們國家的現狀如何?
    人們需要什麼?
    現在,我們國家的住房存量正在衰敗,而我們卻任由其衰敗,因為這些房子都是普通人擁有的,卻沒有任何資金。
    如果你希望這個國家為普通人運作,你需要普通人擁有金錢。
    我總是想起Mr. Beast。
    他去了非洲的地方,他花500英鎊幫一個本該終其一生失明的孩子恢復視力。
    為什麼在非洲的孩子們會失明,而他們只需要500英鎊就能得到視力?
    因為他們沒有錢。
    這就是當你抽走中產階級的資源時所發生的事情。
    這會最終變成那樣。
    你知道,我有一個朋友上週去了印度。
    他說外面的街道上躺著一些人,手腳腐爛。
    你知道,當你削弱中產階級,取走他們的金錢時,就會發生這樣的事情。
    你必須保護中產階級。
    如果中產階級有錢,那麼將會有驚人的商業機會向中產階級銷售商品和服務,就像你的生意一樣。
    那麼,你是否會對丹尼爾加稅呢?
    我不知道丹尼爾是否超過1000萬英鎊。
    聽起來他是。
    他就是。
    我是說,我想澄清一下,對吧?
    你在你的財富上獲得5%的收益。
    所以如果丹尼爾的財富是1億英鎊,他就能賺到500萬英鎊。
    我們只是想向你徵稅1%。
    我認為如果你有1億英鎊的財富,賺取500萬英鎊的被動收入,你應該能夠支付100萬英鎊的稅款。
    你仍然會繼續變富。
    事實上,即使我們對這些億萬富翁徵稅1%每年,他們仍然會從其他地方擠出財富。
    這不是關於道德問題。
    這只是我通過經濟分析賺了很多錢的冷酷現實。
    那麼,各位,在結尾的陳述中,
    我會先從你開始,蓋瑞。
    根據我們今天討論的一切,我要請你給我兩個觀點,
    也就是,如果我是一個目前身處這個國家的年輕人,我應該怎麼做才能保護自己和我的家人以及養活我的家人?
    我應該採取什麼樣的行為,什麼樣的策略?
    但同時在政府層面——我知道我們有一些政治人物在聽,因為他們會發訊息給我。
    政治人物應該怎麼做才能解決我們所有人明顯識別出來的問題,也就是中產階級的崩潰、工人階級的崩潰以及富人財富的增加?我想我希望年輕人理解的是,這情況會變得更糟。這會變得非常非常糟糕。情況會相對快速地變得更糟。貧窮將相對快速地增加。賺取任何可觀金錢將變得日益困難,幾乎是不可能的。為此做好準備。在你考慮財務、考慮建立家庭的計劃時,為這一切做好準備。情況會變得更糟,這將是非常非常艱難的,對於很多年輕人來說,這將成為一個巨大的心理健康問題。與人交談,並理解這一點。我的YouTube視頻就是為了讓人們理解發生了什麼。在此之後,你必須做所有正確的事情。是的,我的意思是我不同意你。你必須努力工作。你必須學習正確的事情。我覺得我們讓藝術等科目成為不被允許的事物,這是一個巨大的羞恥。如果你來自貧困背景,你就無法在藝術領域工作。抱歉,你無法支付賬單。你無法。因此,你必須去學習人工智能和計算機,也許還有社交媒體,雖然我們必須誠實地說,對於大多數人來說,社交媒體並不能賺到錢。你必須意識到自己的處境。這是非常非常非常非常糟糕的。但這並不意味著你不工作,這並不意味著你不抱負。你得拼命工作,因為你必須這樣做。但如果你設法賺到足夠的錢來支持家庭,你應該感到驕傲。這是第一件事。但要認識到這是可以改變的。這是可以改變的。我們的祖父母、曾祖父母曾為了更大份額的餅圖而抗爭,他們得到了。他們得到了醫療保健、教育、住房和食物。我們的年輕人也可以擁有這些,但他們不會得到,除非他們為此而奮鬥。因此,我會鼓勵人們自我教育,支持我的工作,政治參與,但也要努力工作。支持你的朋友和家人。努力賺錢,因為你必須這樣做。如果你不參與政治,我可以保證另一方會參與政治。這意味著你的孩子和孫子將生活在貧困中。所以你必須兩者兼顧。關於政治人物,我對很多政治人物有著複雜的感受。事實是,我認為很多政治人物非常富有,最終他們並不關心。他們受到保護。當不平等危機在上層看來是美好的。我想這就是為什麼我們三個可以坐在這裡說一切會好起來的原因。因為對我們而言,一切會好起來。對我們的孩子而言,他們會好起來。但對我們觀眾的孩子來說,他們不會好。政治人物不會試圖拯救你。我會嘗試確保他們這樣做,但我不認為他們會。聽著,我的計劃不是從政治人物那裡獲得讓步。我的計劃是讓我的網絡上有500萬追隨者,並強迫政治人物給我們所需的東西。因此,我會支持人們支持我,支持我的活動,但也要理解發生了什麼。教育你的朋友和家人。而且至關重要的是要明白,這將是一場長期的戰鬥。所以要堅強,保持你身邊的人,但要做好面對未來的準備。我注意到你最近說的某些話,有暗示你在某個時候會進入政治。斯蒂芬,我已經在政治中。但是我的意思是,積極地。聽著,我不想當國會議員。我不想當財相。我不想當首相。如果我們達到一個我覺得這是解決這個問題的最佳方法的時候,我會開放接受這個建議。這不是A計劃。這不是A計劃。你想當首相嗎?我懷疑你可能不想,是吧?老實說,即使是目前我擁有的公眾形象,我也感到相當不舒服,這比你所擁有的要少得多。但這讓我感到壓力。很奇怪,我們在拍攝前談過這個。我不想,你能想像嗎?我不想當首相。我不想當國會議員。但我對我所做的這項工作是認真的。如果我們達到一個我認為這是最好的辦法的時候,我會考慮它。但我更願意在場外影響國會議員,從旁邊影響政治人物。而對於你剛才給予建議的人,他們應該投票給誰?哦,我們沒有選舉。聽著,政治不是足球。政治不是足球,好嗎?這不是關於我是工黨、我是保守黨、我是共和黨、我是民主黨。你們在這裡失去房子。你們在失去房子。你們的孩子將生活在貧困中。你們將看到特朗普和共和黨以及基爾·斯塔默和工黨,原本應該在政治光譜的對立面,他們都會失敗,因為他們不會對日益增加的財富不平等採取行動。我會對的。你知道,把我帶回來幾年後。我會讓你相信的。這告訴你這不是關於我認為這種派系主義對我們的社會有著不可思議的破壞性,尤其是在美國,這裡充斥著如此多的仇恨,突然間我站在這一邊,你站在那一邊。在這之後我們會握手。我們會,知道,這裡沒有仇恨。但如果你允許自己和你國家的一半人分裂,你允許,我們已經看到它在增長,緊張局勢、種族緊張、性別緊張。如果你允許自己分裂,他們將會贏。他們會贏。所以你需要為保護你的房子投票。
    如果你想知道那是誰,來查看蓋瑞的經濟學,選舉前我會告訴你會是誰。丹尼爾。很好。結案陳詞,個人和社會。
    幾件事。我讀了蓋瑞的書,真是太棒了,無論你是否真正喜歡經濟學,它都是一個精彩的故事。這是真的很好。我大概在兩三天內讀完,最終也會是一部好的電影。我同意蓋瑞所說的很多觀點。中產階級正在崩潰,而且可能會變得更糟。源於工業時代的傳統中產階級工作正在崩潰,而這一過程正在全球化。我們看到科技帶動了世界各地的機會。而財富不平等有其根源。財富不平等本身是一個計分板,而造成財富不平等的根本原因在我看來是科技。科技正在改變機會,也在改變事物。我們已經有了龐大的政府,稅收也極為龐大,我們的稅收達到了歷史最高水平。財富從未如此流動。這不關乎公平,而是關乎你實際上能夠逃避什麼。這是關於你實際上能夠實施什麼。而蓋瑞所說的,對於那些有數字商業、能夠隨時隨地生活和工作的人,徵稅將是非常非常困難的。我親身知道,這實在是令人難以置信的流動性。
    話說回來,從宏觀層面來看,我們知道經濟自由與政府不干涉你生活之間存在著相關性,並且低貧困率。當政府變得龐大、高稅、高管制時,貧困率事實上會降級,我們看到貧困率從10%上升到30%,所以是三倍的增長。因此,從數據上看,限制經濟自由絕對不是一個好主意。
    在微觀層面上,對於任何渴望和創業的人來說,過去從未有過的機會來創立公司。創建公司的成本比以往任何時候都低。你可以像蓋瑞那樣發布內容,建立追隨者,弄清楚如何將其變現。你可以創建產品和服務,向全世界銷售。你是一個從零開始,在20多歲時成為百萬富翁,然後在30多歲時以完全不同的方式再次成為百萬富翁的例子。他在20多歲時成為百萬富翁,然後在30多歲時成為暢銷書作者和內容創作者。我在20多歲、30多歲,現在在40多歲時都是從零開始的。
    所以,像我們這年紀的三個人能一次又一次地做到這一點並不正常。這是因為我們生活在一個充滿驚人機會的時代,但你必須勇於抓住這些機會。在學校裡你從未聽說過這些,在大學裡也沒有。你需要學習那些技能以便能夠抓住機會,但在我們生活的這個世界裡,確實有讓你成功的方式。回到宏觀的論點,我們應該為誰投票呢?因為在這次談話中,你的一些思想和政策建議更符合特朗普、伊隆,以及現在美國的使命,他們歡迎百萬富翁。他們試圖創造一個非常友好的創業環境。他們正在拆解政府浪費。
    我同意蓋瑞的觀點。這不是足球。你沒有一支隊伍。你要搖擺。你應該成為一個搖擺選民。你應該每次選舉都投票。你應該讓他們為你的選票而努力。然而,特朗普會成功嗎?還太早說。可是他做了預測,所以我邀請你也做個預測。他說,五年後,我們回來這裡時,會看到特朗普。我認為很多非常有錢的人會移居美國。你會看到來自世界各地的人們。他在為勝利而戰,並且希望富人、企業家和投資者進入美國並在那裡落戶。他正在創建黃金簽證和開放簽證。而這裡的成功標準是中產階級變得更加富裕和富足。而我實際認為會發生的事情是,所有這些將導致美國的生活水平上升,而你會看到這些人離開的地方受到損失。
    讓那些支付大部分稅款的人——也就是1%的人支付30%的稅,這並不是一件好事。如果這些人離開,帳單就會在其他人身上分攤。嗯,我們得做個第二部分,我們將拭目以待。我想感謝你們兩個所做的工作,因為我非常喜歡你們兩個。我一直在看蓋瑞的視頻。這幫助我了解與我通常在網上聽到的或我在推特上聽到的關於這個世界的情況不同的觀點。我真的很尊敬和欣賞能像今天你們兩位這樣交流並聆聽想法以尋求答案的人。這就是為什麼我強烈建議任何人,無論是完全同意、一部分同意還是僅僅有一點同意,去關注蓋瑞的YouTube頻道「蓋瑞的經濟學」,因為這是來自一位實踐者的好資訊來源,能從另一個視角理解世界。也是一個提供敘事的人,我認為,正如我們在開始之前所談到的,市場中存在很大的需求。在互聯網上有很多像我和丹這樣的人在談論創業和金融以及如何賺錢。
    但從加里所見的角度來看,有關財富不平等的討論並不足夠,而提供更多集體主義及社會性解決方案和解釋的聲音也不夠。我確實認為,因為我知道你,丹,我希望我也認識自己,我認為我們都希望英國能夠生存下去。 我想我們都相信,英國生存的方式並不一定是幾個超級富人再獲得更多的金錢。這關乎社會流動性,讓那些在最底層的人創造機會並獲得成功。我們都同意這一點,即使我們在原因和解決方案上有分歧。 我也強烈建議大家去查閱《交易遊戲》,因為每個人都在談論這本書。我想這本書現在在《星期日泰晤士報》暢銷書榜上已經四週了?四週,第一名。第一名。四週,第一名,是的。四週,第一名,這是一個驚人的成就。 但它傳達了這本書的內容,故事的講述方式,以及這個信息的時效性。因此,我強烈建議大家去查閱。我會在下方放一個鏈接,方便大家去查看。 如果你看這本書的一些推薦語,非常深刻。我聽到人們形容它,一方面是難以忘懷,另一方面又是悲傷,因為這正是它所表達的現實的本質。我也好推薦大家去查閱丹·普里斯特利的《企業家革命》。 不過,你的網站上有你所有的資源和工具。我會在螢幕上鏈接。網址是? danielpriestly.com。 danielpriestly.com。 感謝你們的慷慨。真的非常感謝。謝謝你們讓我們聚在一起。 無論我身在何處,似乎每個人都在喝抹茶。 有很大可能性你正在喝的抹茶是由我投資超過七位數的公司製作的,這是一個名為 Perfect Ted 的播客贊助商,因為它是像 Blank Street Coffee 和 Joe and the Juice 等全球咖啡館使用的品牌。 你不僅可以在咖啡館裡喝到 Perfect Ted 抹茶,還可以在家裡製作。更便宜。幾秒鐘之內,使用我面前的調味抹茶粉。 Perfect Ted 抹茶是儀式級,來自日本。它非常順滑,自然甜美。與我在 Perfect Ted 之前嘗試過的那些苦澀的草本抹茶完全不同。如果你是那些告訴自己不喜歡抹茶的人,那可能是因為你還沒有試過我們的 Perfect Ted 抹茶。 你可以在英國的 Tesco、Sainsbury’s、Holland and Barrett 和 Waitrose,或是在荷蘭的 Albert Heijn 找到 Perfect Ted 抹茶。在美國的亞馬遜上也能找到。或者在 perfectted.com 上線上獲得完整系列。你可以使用代碼 DIARY40 獲得首單 40% 的折扣。 我發現非常有趣的是,當我們查看 Spotify 和 Apple 以及我們的音頻渠道的後端時,大多數收看此播客的人尚未點擊關注或訂閱按鈕,無論你在哪裡收聽這個。 我想和你達成一個交易。如果你能幫我一個大忙,點擊那個訂閱按鈕,我會不懈努力,從現在開始,不斷爭取讓節目變得更好、更好、更好、更好。 我無法告訴你,當你點擊那個訂閱按鈕時是多麼有幫助。節目變得越來越大,這意味著我們可以擴大製作,邀請你想要看到的所有嘉賓,繼續做這件我們熱愛的事情。 如果你能幫我這個小忙,無論你在哪裡收聽這個,點擊關注按鈕,對我來說意義重大。這是我會向你請求的唯一一個忙。非常感謝你的時間。

    Is the economy on the brink of collapse? Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley break down the emergency financial crisis no one is talking about

    The Diary Of A CEO’s economics debate is joined by 2 experts: Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley. Gary Stevenson is a British economist, former financial trader, and author of The Trading Game. Daniel Priestly is an award-winning serial entrepreneur who has written 5 books on starting and scaling businesses.

    In this conversation, Gary, Daniel, and Steven discuss topics such as, whether there is a financial apocalypse looming, if both the US and the UK are running out of money, how the next financial crash could be worse than 2008, and why millionaires are fleeing the UK. 

    00:00 Intro

    02:10 Who Is Gary Stevenson?

    07:30 Who Is Daniel Priestly?

    10:04 The Importance of Economic Freedom

    11:56 Who Are We Blaming for the Economic Situation?

    13:32 The UK & US Debt We’re Carrying From COVID

    17:44 Is There Financial Security for Most of Us in 2025?

    26:13 What Does Gary Think of Daniel’s Views?

    28:58 The Current Homeownership Situation

    34:21 US vs UK Market With Building Technology

    36:38 Taxing Billionaires

    41:03 Do You Tax Their Value or the Countries Where They Trade?

    45:36 Why Are Millionaires Leaving the UK?

    48:49 Stopping Profit Shifting of Companies

    52:40 How $10M+ Companies Avoid Taxes

    58:01 Where Is the Biggest Amount of Money Going?

    01:00:06 How to Bring Big Tech Companies and Entrepreneurs to the UK

    01:04:45 Are Tax Evasions Causing Issues With NHS, Education, and Higher Crime?

    01:10:31 Why Poor People Are Struggling to Build Wealth

    01:19:49 Ads

    01:20:53 How to Create Wealth in the Economy

    01:37:17 Monopolies

    01:40:18 Advice to Younger People

    01:45:02 What to Do as a Young Person

    01:47:12 Take Action: Play the Cards You Are Dealt

    01:51:45 Do We Have Personal Responsibility to Change This?

    01:54:05 Is the Current Education System Failing Us?

    02:00:56 Inheritance Taxes

    02:04:50 Ads

    02:10:05 America’s Approach to Building Wealth

    Follow Gary: 

    YouTube – https://g2ul0.app.link/xdrUsPgERRb 

    Instagram – https://g2ul0.app.link/OoThWmfERRb 

    Follow Daniel:

    X – https://g2ul0.app.link/3ui4EJjERRb 

    Instagram – https://g2ul0.app.link/Wa2RfsaHRRb 

    Website – https://g2ul0.app.link/jUbxNu8GRRb 

    Watch the episodes on Youtube – https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACEpisodes 

    My new book! ‘The 33 Laws Of Business & Life’ is out now – https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACBook 

    You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb 

    Follow me:

    https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb

    Sponsors:

    Fiverr – http://fiverr.com/diary with code DIARY

    WHOOP – https://JOIN.WHOOP.COM/CEO

    Perfect Ted – https://www.perfectted.com with code DIARY40 for 40% off

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices