Hanauer and Priestley Clash over Systemic Policy and SME Ownership to Fix Inequality

The Diary Of A CEO

Nick Hanauer and Daniel Priestley debate whether expanding worker bargaining power through legislative policy or driving asset ownership and small-business scale offers the real solution to middle-class wage stagnation and AI job displacement.

AI-assisted summary of DEBATE: The Death Of The Middle Class! Only The Top 1% Will Survive! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-06-08

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on June 8, 2026, this debate features host Steven Bartlett with venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and entrepreneur Daniel Priestley. The episode addresses the collapse of the middle class, exploring root causes ranging from stagnant wages and tax structures to AI job displacement, and debates whether capitalism can repair itself.

## TL;DR Nick Hanauer and Daniel Priestley present contrasting perspectives on reversing economic inequality and middle-class decline. Hanauer advocates for middle-out economics, strong regulatory standards, higher wages, and coordinated international corporate taxation to counter neoliberal failure. Priestley stresses widespread asset ownership, small business incentives, and regulatory relief to build personal agency in a digital- and AI-driven landscape. Both agree on the dangers of extreme tech monopolies and the necessity of structural changes, such as anti-trust measures and digital licensing, to secure economic stability.

## Atmosphere & style The discussion carries an urgent, highly intellectual, and deeply analytical mood. While both guests express passionate ideological differences—Hanauer leaning on macroeconomic history and policy while Priestley emphasizes practical entrepreneurial agency—the dynamic remains respectful and collaborative. Hosted in a focused studio environment, the conversation creates an engaging narrative arc that balances stark warnings about economic stagnation with grounded, actionable policy and business solutions.

## Key takeaways - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=147s) Extreme mathematical inequality undermines capitalist democracy, eventually provoking social unrest or authoritarian control. - [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=387s) Technological change and private equity financialization have dismantled traditional middle-class asset ownership and created a permanent rental class. - [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=704s) Stagnant middle-class wages result primarily from neoliberal policy shifts and reduced worker bargaining power rather than changes in individual productivity. - [26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1617s) Regulatory standards and minimum wage policies must be calibrated to protect independent small businesses from being squeezed by multinational corporations. - [24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1493s) Higher nominal salaries and net disposable income give US workers a distinct advantage over UK workers, despite higher healthcare costs. - [35:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2159s) Sovereign wealth funds and targeted wealth distribution models offer a structural way to preserve public equity and fund social programs. - [58:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3539s) AI agent deployment threatens to automate entry-level cognitive jobs, destroying standard career entry points across corporate sectors. - [01:08:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4119s) Data extracted from public human activity functions as a common asset that tech developers should license via sovereign wealth mechanisms. - [01:51:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6696s) Socialism fails to create prosperity, whereas managed market capitalism creates high living standards when guided by middle-out economic policies. - [01:58:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7080s) Monopoly market structures non-ergodically compound early advantages, making regulatory antitrust breakups necessary to maintain competitive markets. - [02:17:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8231s) Eliminating income tax for lower-income earners would cost a small fraction of the national budget while directly expanding worker purchasing power. - [02:19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8381s) Coordinated international policy and digital broadcast licensing are required to prevent scalable tech monopolies from exploiting global tax loopholes. - [02:25:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8731s) Individual entrepreneurial agency cannot replace systemic structural reform, as most people seek job stability rather than high-risk business ownership. - [02:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=9002s) A thriving middle class drives broader economic growth, making human flourishing—rather than capital efficiency—the central purpose of market policy.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=0s) Intro: The Death of the Middle Class Debate

The episode kicks off with an immediate, high-stakes clash between venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and entrepreneur Daniel Priestley over the state of the modern economy and the role of government. Nick opens with a strong assertion: "There is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government." Daniel pushes back instantly, arguing that bloated government and high taxes are actively suffocating small businesses, pushing entrepreneurs to flee to places like Dubai to pay zero tax.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │ The Economic Dilemma │ └──────────────┬───────────────┘ │ ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Nick Hanauer │ │ Daniel Priestley │ │ - Systemic Wage Crisis │ │ - Small Business Drag │ │ - Extreme Inequality │ │ - Lack of Ownership │ │ - Policy Interventions │ │ - Entrepreneurial Lift │ └─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘ ```

The discussion shifts to what standard citizens actually need in order to survive and feel secure. Daniel argues that everyone in this economy needs to own assets—a house, a business, or shares—to build resilience. Nick counters that not everyone can or wants to be an entrepreneur; for most people, ownership starts with earning a livable wage that allows them to save. Host Steven Bartlett then pauses briefly to remind viewers to check their subscription status to help keep *The Diary Of A CEO* free and growing.

---

[02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=147s) Why Nick Hanauer's Economic Views Matter

Nick Hanauer lays out his background to explain why his perspective departs so radically from typical billionaire talking points. Raised in a civic-minded, middle-class family that manufactured bed pillows and down comforters, Nick got an early start in traditional manufacturing. In the early 1990s, he had a strong intuition about the rise of internet e-commerce and happened to share that vision with a close friend, Jeff Bezos, who was then working at a New York hedge fund. After Bezos moved his belongings to Nick's house in Seattle, the two launched Amazon.com together, making Nick the first non-family investor in the company.

Nick expanded into founding and funding tech firms, running manufacturing businesses, and co-owning a bank. This broad vantage point convinced him that conventional economics is "a pack of lies" designed to enrich the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. His wake-up call came in 2007–2008 when examining IRS tax data: in 1980, the top 1% took home about 8.5% of national income, but by 2007, that figure had tripled to nearly 22%. Meanwhile, the share going to the bottom 50% fell from 18% down to 12%. When he modeled those trends forward, the conclusion was inescapable: mathematical collapse and revolution.

> "You cannot sustain a capitalist democracy if the top 1% controls 45 or 50% of income and the bottom 50% shares five... This is not a deep political insight. This is just math."

Nick emphasizes that historically, extreme economic inequality inevitably produces a police state or a violent uprising—a phenomenon he refers to as "the pitchforks." He views the political polarization in America as a direct symptom of a society tearing itself apart under structural inequality.

* **Key Income Share Shift (US IRS Data 1980 vs. 2007):** * **Top 1% Share:** Rose from ~8.5% in 1980 to ~22% in 2007. * **Bottom 50% Share:** Fell from ~18% in 1980 to ~12% in 2007.

---

[06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=387s) Daniel Priestley's Take on Wealth and the Digital Economy

Daniel Priestley presents a contrasting entrepreneurial perspective forged in Australia. As a teenager, he discovered business through a mentor, worked in a startup, and launched his first marketing agency at age 21. That company grew rapidly from zero to $1 million in revenue in its first year, reaching $10 million by year three. For the last 15 years, Daniel has run an accelerator program working directly with over 5,500 small businesses globally.

``` Daniel's Accelerator Footprint [ 5,500+ Businesses Global Reach ] │ ▼ Hollowing out of the Middle Class (Transition to Digital Economy) ```

Through this work, Daniel reached a conclusion similar to Nick's regarding the middle class, but attributes it primarily to the rapid technological and digital transformation of the last 25 years. Having built his own companies by bootstrapping with personal credit cards rather than taking venture capital, Daniel fears that if everyday people cannot participate directly in capitalism, they will become disillusioned and vote for radical socialism, tearing the economic engine apart.

* **Daniel's Business Milestones:** * Launched first agency at age 21. * Revenue scaled from $0 to $1M in Year 1, reaching $10M by Year 3. * Coached 5,500+ businesses worldwide over 15 years through his accelerator.

---

[08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=512s) Is Taxing the Rich the Answer?

When asked whether taxing the ultra-wealthy is the best solution to restore balance, Daniel argues that focusing purely on "taxing rich individuals" creates political scapegoats while missing the actual drivers of economic drain. He draws a distinction between self-made entrepreneurs, inventors, or artists—such as James Dyson or Paul McCartney—and massive institutional forces.

Daniel points to two primary culprits hollowing out ordinary citizens: 1. **Mega-Funds and Financialization:** Large asset management firms like BlackRock purchasing huge stocks of residential housing, turning citizens into a permanent "rental class." 2. **Multinational Corporate Tax Avoidance:** Mega-corporations using international loopholes (e.g., routing sales through Ireland, Luxembourg, or offshore licensing hubs like Bermuda) to avoid paying local corporate taxes, putting local mom-and-pop shops at an unfair disadvantage.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Institutional Market Drivers │ ├────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┤ │ Private Equity / Mega-Funds │ Buy up housing stock, creating │ │ (e.g., BlackRock) │ a permanent rental class │ ├────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤ │ Multinational Mega-Corps │ Route profits via offshore hubs│ │ (e.g., Tech & Coffee Chains) │ to undercut local businesses │ └────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Daniel contends that simply raising income taxes on high earners is a headline-grabbing measure that won't fix the underlying structure. Instead, governments should focus on supporting the 5.7 million small businesses in the UK to create jobs and wage growth, while closing tax loopholes used by multinational giants.

---

[11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=704s) Do the Wealthy Pay Their Share, and What is the Root Cause?

Nick rejects the notion that the wealthy pay their fair share in the US, highlighting systemic tax code loopholes that often allow billionaires to pay effective tax rates far lower than ordinary workers. While he considers equal tax treatment a baseline requirement for a functioning democracy, he insists that taxes are not the primary cause of middle-class decline—**wages** are.

To illustrate this structural collapse, Nick points to a stark statistical shift in US earning power over the past half-century:

Nick explains that over 50 years of economic growth, virtually all productivity gains were channeled away from ordinary workers into the top 10%, with the vast majority concentrated in the top 1%. He attributes this shift directly to neoliberal economic policies that took root in the 1970s and 1980s under Reaganomics and Thatcherism—policies focused on tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and wage suppression.

---

[15:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=907s) Entrepreneurship vs. Policy: What Works Best?

Daniel argues that individual leverage and optionality do far more to raise worker pay than government intervention alone. When workers have multiple employment options across a dense landscape of competing small businesses, employers are forced to raise wages and improve conditions to attract talent. Conversely, when a region is dominated by a single massive employer, workers lose all bargaining power and are forced to accept whatever wages are offered.

[15:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=937s) Optionality, Marginal Productivity, and the Asymmetry of Economic Power

Daniel Priestley argues that the fundamental driver of a high quality of life is **optionality**. Rather than relying strictly on top-down regulations, he advocates for systemic choices—such as teaching entrepreneurship in schools so starting a family business is no longer a "mysterious black box." In a market with abundant employer options and a limited labor pool, employers naturally bid against one another, raising pay and improving working conditions without needing a government-mandated minimum wage.

Nick Hanauer agrees with the sentiment but contends that pure optionality is a theoretical fantasy. He points out that classical economic theories assume frictionless markets where labor holds bargaining power, which rarely exists in reality. To illustrate this, Hanauer critiques the central capitalist doctrine of the **Theory of Marginal Productivity**—the idea that workers are paid precisely the value they contribute to society (e.g., a $15,000-a-year worker creating $15,000 in value versus a $500-million-a-year financier).

Hanauer traces the origins of this economic doctrine back to 1879, following the massive success of Henry George's best-selling book *Progress and Poverty*, which accused the rich of stealing from the poor. Terrified by the threat of popular revolt, financial elites like J.P. Morgan backed economists like John Bates Clark at Columbia University to construct a counter-narrative. Clark authored *The Distribution of Wealth*, introducing marginal productivity to reassure working people that their compensation matched their exact economic worth—explicitly warning that if workers believed they were underpaid, "they will revolt and kill us all." Hanauer stresses that wages are dictated by negotiation power and replacement costs rather than objective market value. Priestley agrees, noting how an employer receiving 400 qualified applicants for a single job opening has zero incentive to raise wages.

- **Theory of Marginal Productivity**: Asserts that compensation directly reflects the economic value an individual creates in the market. - **Henry George's *Progress and Poverty* (1879)**: The historic best-seller exposing wealth inequality that alarmed 19th-century capitalists. - **John Bates Clark's *The Distribution of Wealth***: Commissioned to establish marginal productivity theory and neutralize labor unrest. - **Power Asymmetry**: Echoes Adam Smith's *The Wealth of Nations*, highlighting that capital owners almost always hold superior leverage over wage laborers.

---

[20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1205s) Regulatory Standards vs. Asset Ownership

When host Steven Bartlett asks for actionable solutions, Hanauer advocates for statutory wage standards and worker protections. He highlights the US overtime threshold as a critical mechanism: historically covering almost all American workers in the 1960s and 1970s, it now applies to under 10% of the workforce. Hanauer charges that corporations exploit this loophole by turning three 40-hour-a-week jobs into two 60-hour-a-week jobs—offering trivial perks like ping-pong tables and free snacks in the lunchroom while effectively eliminating tens of millions of jobs nationwide.

Priestley pushes back against relying solely on labor regulations, citing the United Kingdom's recent history. Despite having strong worker protections—a minimum wage pegged to two-thirds of the median wage, 28 days of paid holiday, paid sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, and strict legal barriers against firing employees after six months—the UK economy suffers from stagnant growth, high dissatisfaction, and over a million unemployed young people.

Priestley asserts that technology, automation, and AI have fundamentally eroded the utility and market value of pure human labor. Modern platforms have dismantled traditional middle-class supply chains (such as local video rental shops or independent music stores replacing staff with Netflix and Spotify). Thus, trying to solve economic stagnation purely by raising labor standards is like putting "nicer shoes" on someone trying to race a car. The true fix, according to Priestley, is expanding broader access to **capital ownership**—ensuring every citizen owns home equity, shares in growing companies, or a family business.

- **US Overtime Threshold**: Requires time-and-a-half pay over 40 hours per week; coverage dropped from a majority of workers in 1970 to under 10% today. - **UK Labor Regulations**: Includes 28 days of paid leave, robust statutory sick/parental pay, and strict dismissal protections. - **Supply Chain Decimation**: Transition from local retail labor to consolidated digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon. - **Ownership Thesis**: Competing against AI and automation requires transitioning workers from selling labor to owning yield-generating assets.

---

[24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1493s) US vs. UK Economic Reality: Salary Gaps and Cost of Living

Comparing the two economies, Priestley points out that despite the US maintaining a "terrible, horrific, and inhuman" federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (or $2.13 plus tips), the average American enjoys roughly double the disposable income of their UK counterpart. Hanauer notes that higher healthcare costs in the US narrow this gap, but direct financial comparisons still demonstrate a stark structural divide.

Even after deducting average annual health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, the higher baseline salaries and lower top-line tax rates in the US leave American workers with significantly higher net disposable income than UK workers. Both debate partners concur that post-Brexit economic realities have compounded the UK's relative stagnation.

---

[26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1617s) Small Business Squeeze and Progressive Minimum Wage

Priestley turns the debate toward the vulnerabilities of small businesses. While mega-corporations in big tech, finance, and global retail (such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Starbucks) easily absorb higher regulatory costs and minimum wage hikes, independent small businesses operate on razor-thin margins. Local pubs, mom-and-pop retailers, and community shops face severe strain under increased tax rates and mandated wage floors, forcing many to close.

To prevent small enterprise collapse, Hanauer proposes a **tiered progressive minimum wage**: 1. **Large Mega-Corporations**: Mandatory highest minimum wage standard. 2. **Medium-Sized Enterprises**: Moderate wage requirements. 3. **Small/Local Businesses**: Lower baseline wage mandates to allow adaptation.

Steven Bartlett challenges this progressive wage model, raising a market dynamic problem: if Starbucks pays $15 an hour and a local pub pays $8, workers will naturally migrate toward the corporate employer, stripping small businesses of talent. Priestley agrees that large corporations hold superior hiring leverage, though small business owners can offer non-monetary incentives and flexibility to retain staff.

Reflecting on his role in championing the landmark **$15 minimum wage in Seattle, Washington**, Hanauer addresses business owners' fears. While entrepreneurs instantly calculate the raw costs of higher payroll, they fail to account for the broader demand-side benefits: when millions of low-wage workers earn significantly more money, overall consumer spending surges, directly boosting local pubs, restaurants, and retail shops. As Hanauer puts it: *"A ham sandwich in Somalia costs 25 cents. It costs $25 in Switzerland. What kind of economy do you want to live in?"*

[30:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1853s) The Squeeze on Small Businesses and the Ownership Crisis

Daniel Priestley shares a concrete example of a friend who owns a pub in the UK. Despite being packed almost every night, the pub lost £180,000 last year while the owner took no salary, largely driven by heavy VAT burdens and rising operational costs. The owner feels stuck carrying the weight of providing initial job training for local youths in a small town while competing against tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and massive private equity funds that extract capital from the real economy. Priestley emphasizes that small UK businesses are trapped in a vice between rising costs and aggressive digital demands; to survive, small business owners feel compelled to post dozens of times daily on LinkedIn using AI or turn into full-time TikTok content creators. Furthermore, private equity firms actively threaten community assets, attempting to acquire local pubs and convert them into residential flats.

Both speakers find common ground on the fact that corporate financialization is draining local communities, but they debate the root cause of middle-class decline. Priestley warns against heavy-handed government policies that accidentally squeeze small family-owned businesses to the point of closure—noting that the UK is currently losing two pubs a day—leaving large corporations as the only entities capable of absorbing compliance costs. He argues that people are struggling not primarily because of working conditions, but because they own no assets.

* Small businesses create roughly 70% of all new jobs in the economy. * A local pub lost £180,000 in a single year despite being full most nights due to high taxes like VAT and inflation. * Private equity firms are increasingly financializing local community assets like pubs into residential developments. * The UK is losing an estimated two pubs per day due to small business failures.

[33:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1984s) Wage Standards, Equity, and Global Labor Competition

Nick Hanauer agrees that broad asset ownership would be ideal, but asserts that building wealth must begin with higher wages that allow workers to save money in the first place. Addressing common corporate ownership models, Hanauer points out that granting stock options to every employee often backfires because 90% of frontline workers have immediate financial needs; when given the choice between stock equity or cash, workers routinely choose cash. Hanauer maintains that historical middle-class prosperity was built on direct labor standards—such as strong unions, robust minimum wage laws, and overtime thresholds—that forced companies to fairly share created value with their employees while limiting market consolidation.

Priestley counters that today’s globalized economy makes historical labor models difficult to sustain. Employers now face constant incentives to outsource customer support roles to countries like the Philippines or replace human labor entirely with software and AI agents. Hanauer responds that the free-trade, neoliberal rules enabling aggressive offshoring and corporate consolidation were intentionally written to benefit the ultra-wealthy. While free trade lifted millions of people out of poverty in China, it failed to improve the standard of living for working-class citizens in Western nations like the US and the UK.

> "Ownership starts with earning enough money so that you can save money so that you can begin to own something... Trying to give stock options to everyone in a company often doesn't work. It's a catastrophe because for 90% of the workers in a company, their concerns are immediate."

[35:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2159s) Wealth Models: Sovereign Funds, Baby Bonds, and Housing Financialization

Priestley highlights concrete structural models designed to spread ownership across entire populations. First, he cites sovereign wealth funds like those in Norway or Singapore, which hold national assets on behalf of all citizens. In contrast, when the UK discovered North Sea oil in the 1980s, it licensed drilling rights to private companies like British Petroleum rather than creating a public state fund. As a result, foreign sovereign wealth funds—such as Qatar’s and Norway’s—now own vast amounts of commercial real estate in London.

The discussion moves to alternative equity-building ideas like "baby bonds," where newborns receive an initial government grant invested in the stock market (around $1,000) that compounds until adulthood. The debate then shifts to the housing market, where residential property value is split between utility value and speculative investment value. Steven Bartlett brings up facts regarding institutional buyers, clarifying that while BlackRock does not directly act as a UK residential landlord, major banks like Lloyds Bank are actively purchasing thousands of new-build properties through vehicles like Citra Living to generate long-term rental income. Both speakers condemn this trend, observing that converting homes into corporate rent-yielding assets traps ordinary citizens into a permanent rental class.

* Norway leveraged its North Sea oil reserves into a massive sovereign wealth fund, whereas the UK licensed rights to private entities like BP. * Foreign sovereign wealth funds currently hold significant real estate assets across London. * Baby bonds provide newborn children with approximately $1,000 in market equity to compound until age 18. * Lloyds Bank's Citra Living initiative targets the purchase of thousands of UK homes to create a permanent corporate rental portfolio.

[40:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2428s) Worker Rights, Economic Growth, and Social Cohesion

The host introduces a comparison between the economic trajectories of the US and the UK. While the UK offers substantially stronger legal protections for workers—such as up to 39 weeks of mandated statutory maternity pay compared to zero weeks mandated federally in the US—the US economy grew over 100% faster than the UK between 2019 and 2026. However, wealth inequality in the US is far higher, with the top 1% holding over 30% of the nation's total wealth compared to roughly 20% in the UK. Hanauer attributes much of the UK's recent economic drag to Brexit, noting that leaving the European Union stripped away significant growth, reduced productivity, and negatively impacted trade.

Despite European safety nets, Priestley emphasizes that public frustration and civil unrest are present across all Western democracies, including Australia, Canada, and Western Europe. Hanauer reflects on the deeper societal toll of extreme inequality, pointing to civil unrest like the George Floyd protests. He recalls an interview where a demonstrator was asked why she lacked respect for property rights, to which she replied, *"We have no property."* Hanauer concludes that extreme wealth disparities shred the fundamental social contract, fostering a culture of cynicism and lawlessness where citizens feel the game is entirely rigged against them.

* The US top 1% holds over 30% of national wealth, whereas the UK top 1% holds around 20%. * Between 2019 and 2026, economic growth in the US exceeded UK growth by over 100%. * UK law mandates up to 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay, whereas the US federal mandate is 0 weeks. * Analysts estimate Brexit reduced UK economic growth potential by roughly 8% to 10% while harming productivity and trade.

[45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2701s) Defining the K-Shaped Economy

Priestley introduces the concept of a "K-shaped economy" as a framework for understanding modern economic polarization. Unlike a traditional economic cycle where rising or falling conditions broadly affect everyone in tandem, a K-shaped economy bifurcates: the upper arm represents thriving asset owners and tech-driven sectors, while the lower arm represents stagnating real wages and struggling small businesses.

* A standard economic cycle moves uniformly up or down across social strata. * A K-shaped economy creates split outcomes, benefiting asset owners while squeezing wage earners.

[45:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2729s) Engels' Pause: Historical Precedents for Technological Disruption

The conversation opens with a historical parallel regarding widening economic inequality, where the top percentage prospers while the lower tiers fall behind. Daniel Priestley points out that contemporary headlines—highlighting record corporate profits alongside stagnant worker well-being—mirror the exact public grievances voiced during Britain's early 19th-century Industrial Revolution. During that era, one proposed solution was population export, leading to the mass transportation of citizens to Australia to mitigate domestic socio-economic strain.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ The Engels' Pause Mechanism │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ ┌────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ Technological Shock │ │ Social Strain │ │ Steam engine, spinning loom, │ │ ~50–75 years (two generations)│ │ tractors productivity surge │ │ of declining living standards │ └───────────────┬───────────────┘ └───────────────┬───────────────┘ │ │ └────────────────────────┬────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Political Realignment │ │ Unions, labor standards, and │ │ legal protections restore balance│ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Nick Hanauer expands on this phenomenon by referencing "Engels' pause"—the period between 1790 and 1840 when technological advancements like the steam engine, spinning loom, and mechanized tractors produced exponential gains for owners of capital, while real wages for the working class stagnated or declined. For approximately two to three generations (50 to 75 years), standard living conditions worsened for the majority before labor unions, employment standards, and broader political consensus emerged to distribute productivity gains across society.

- The timeline of Engels' pause spanned roughly 1790 to 1840, lasting two generations (50 to 75 years). - Mechanized innovations such as tractors allowed single-operator efficiency to displace legacy workforces of 100 agricultural laborers. - Equilibrium was only restored after working populations organized into unions and established formal labor standards to claw back economic value.

---

[47:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2848s) Tax Avoidance and Corporate Citizenship in a Globalized Economy

Steven Bartlett poses a core question regarding modern capital mobility: if governments impose strict regulations or higher taxes on capital owners, will modern technology companies and intellectual property holders simply relocate to more favorable jurisdictions? Hanauer characterizes the current international tax architecture as "idiotic," pointing out that individuals and corporations can leverage a country's public infrastructure, rule of law, and consumer markets, only to shift their recorded profits to zero-tax jurisdictions like Dubai or European tax havens.

``` TRADITIONAL WEALTH SHIFT TAXATION JURISDICTIONS ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 1. Domestic operations & sales │ │ • US Model: Global tax on citizens │ │ 2. Offshoring IP to tax havens │ │ • Corporate Model: Territorial or │ │ 3. Shell entities in Vanuatu/Ireland │ │ destination-based tax system │ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

The discussion highlights the divergence between individual and corporate taxation. While American citizens are subject to global taxation regardless of residence, European entrepreneurs frequently move jurisdictions to avoid domestic tax burdens. However, both Priestley and Hanauer contend that multi-national corporations act as the primary drain on national treasuries through tax optimization structures, using offshore entities in locations like Ireland, Luxembourg, or Vanuatu to strip profits from the local markets where their services are consumed.

- UK entrepreneurs can move residency to Dubai to avoid a 40% domestic tax rate while continuing to manage digital operations virtually. - Traditional media outlets in the UK were required to buy local broadcasting licenses, whereas modern platforms stream ad-supported digital content without equivalent local statutory burdens. - Wealth concentration in US markets is partially driven by global corporations funneling offshore revenue streams back into parent-company balance sheets.

---

[51:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3118s) Digital Service Taxation and Market Retaliation

Bartlett raises counterarguments regarding global tax enforcement, noting that when individual nations introduce localized digital services taxes, mega-corporations historically pass those compliance costs directly down to local consumers and small businesses, or pull their platforms entirely. Priestley and Hanauer discuss how platforms use their dominance over digital infrastructure to push back against single-country mandates, pointing to real-world policy standoffs.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Corporate Market Retaliation │ └────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ ┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐ │ │ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ Canada (Online News) │ │ US States (Sales Tax Sync) │ │ Meta blocked all Canadian news│ │ Amazon cut thousands of local │ │ links rather than pay local │ │ affiliate accounts to avoid │ │ publishing fees │ │ triggering nexus collection │ └───────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────┘ ```

When Canada enacted the Online News Act requiring digital platforms to compensate local publishers for linked news content, Meta responded by blocking news access for all Canadian users rather than establishing local payment frameworks. Similarly, when various US states attempted to enforce local sales tax collection via affiliate connections, Amazon terminated affiliate relationships within those states. Hanauer argues that coordinated international tax policies are necessary to eliminate these regulatory loopholes.

- Meta completely blocked news link distribution in Canada following the passage of the Online News Act. - Amazon unilaterally severed thousands of publisher affiliate accounts in states like California when local tax nexus enforcement was introduced. - Tech companies frequently absorb or pass along regulatory costs, using their scale to negotiate favorable terms against isolated state jurisdictions.

---

[54:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3298s) Policy Solutions for Economic Inequality and Small Business Support

Addressing economic inequality, Priestley outlines a policy framework focused on strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Rather than relying solely on labor rights mandates, he advocates for targeted tax relief, special economic trading zones, and regulatory incentives designed to lower operational burdens for local small businesses compared to dominant global firms.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Economic Balance Realignment │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────┐ │ │ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Local SMEs / Startups │ │ Multi-National Enterprises │ │ • Tax relief & special zones │ │ • Uniform global base taxes │ │ • Domestic capital retention │ │ • Destination-based consumption tax │ │ • Level playing field incentives│ │ • Level playing field rules │ └───────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Hanauer agrees with tilting the regulatory landscape toward smaller firms and highlights his involvement with Enterprise Britain—a initiative co-founded by Brent Hoberman (Founders Forum) and Stephen Fitzpatrick (Ovo Energy). The organization's objective is to build financial structures that enable UK startups to scale locally without transferring their capital or operations overseas.

- **Enterprise Britain** was established by Brent Hoberman and Stephen Fitzpatrick to improve capital access and growth conditions for domestic SMEs. - The framework advocates leveling the playing field so smaller local enterprises can scale effectively against large multi-national corporations.

---

[58:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3539s) Artificial Intelligence and Entry-Level Job Displacement

Moving to emerging technologies, Bartlett brings up the impact of artificial intelligence on employment, citing a commencement address by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and recent industry reporting on declining job listings. Reports from AI developers like Anthropic highlight a measurable drop in entry-level hiring, driven by automated systems and autonomous agents absorbing lower-level cognitive tasks.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ AI Impact on Enterprise Labor │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ ┌──────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┐ │ │ ▼ ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────┐ │ Entry-Level Contraction │ │ Policy Proposals (Sanders)│ │ Automated task execution │ │ Sovereign wealth funds capture│ │ reduces junior hiring needs │ │ public equity in AI developers│ └───────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────────┘ ```

To address the concentration of wealth created by AI platforms trained on public data, Hanauer points to proposals like those from Senator Bernie Sanders. These concepts suggest creating public sovereign wealth funds that hold equity stakes in major AI firms, channeling revenue generated from artificial intelligence back into wider social programs.

- Industry data shows a sustained drop in entry-level job postings as organizations integrate autonomous AI agents. - Anthropic research highlights the potential for self-improving AI models to accelerate automation timelines across knowledge-work sectors. - Policy discussions include establishing public wealth funds—modeled on Norway's energy-backed sovereign fund—holding up to 50% equity stakes in key AI platforms to redistribute technology gains.

[01:00:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3618s) Global Disruptions and Accelerating Small Business with AI

Nick Hanauer openingly contemplates how the windfall from AI productivity should be recycled, arguing that using a portion of that value to create a cushion for workers facing inevitable disruption isn't a crazy idea at all. However, he quickly points out a critical geographic imbalance: while taxing or redistributing AI profits might work for tech superpowers like China and the United States, it offers zero protection to places like Senegal or Southampton. Daniel Priestley expands on this, highlighting how developing nations that carved out an economic niche through outsourced back-office tasks—such as the Philippines—face severe fallout as software agents take over basic administrative and customer support roles.

``` Global AI Impact Spectrum ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ │ US & China (Tech Hubs) │ │ • Capture AI windfalls & capital │ │ • Potential to cushion workers │ └──────────────────┬────────────────────┘ │ Displaces outsourced labor ▼ ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Emerging / Outsourced Economies │ │ (e.g., Philippines, Senegal) │ │ • Back-office roles automated away │ │ • Net loss of entry-level jobs │ └───────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Shifting focus to Western domestic markets, Priestley offers a pragmatic counter-strategy. He points out that the UK has approximately 5.7 million small businesses alongside roughly one million unemployed people—meaning only one in five businesses needs to hire a single person to wipe out unemployment. AI gives small firms enterprise-grade tools in marketing, legal contract drafting, and operations. If governments provide targeted AI training and tax breaks for small businesses that actively recruit, AI can make millions of small companies just competent enough to grow their headcount rather than slash it.

- **Outsourced back-office displacement:** Developing economies relying on outsourced administrative labor face direct disruption as AI absorbs low-complexity tasks. - **UK business-to-unemployment ratio:** With 5.7 million businesses and 1 million unemployed individuals, activating a fraction of small businesses yields complete job absorption. - **AI as an SMB multiplier:** Practical deployment in legal, marketing, and operational workflows raises small business output to a threshold where expansion becomes viable.

---

[01:01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3698s) AI Agents and the Extinction of Entry-Level Work

The conversation shifts to the mechanics of modern AI agents—autonomous programs capable of directly controlling computers, performing data entry, scheduling, editing, and even executing automated sales calls. Steven Bartlett reflects on his own career starting out as a university dropout doing manual data entry and cold calls, noting that these exact tasks are the traditional doorway into the professional workforce. If AI agents swallow up entry-level responsibilities, the fundamental bridge from education to employment collapses, leaving younger workers stranded without an entry path into organizations.

In response, Priestley presents real-world data from his own group of dynamic small businesses, arguing that integrating AI has actually led them to hire *more* entry-level staff rather than fewer. By equipping junior team members with an AI infrastructure layer—complete with domain context, specialized models, and strict security rules—their baseline productivity is vastly elevated. In his operations, automated appointment setting and lead filtering didn't eliminate human roles; instead, it generated a surge of qualified leads that required hiring additional sales and client-facing staff to close the deals.

> "A lot of the entry-level roles we're often given are that kind of work... AI can now do the cold calls, too. So, if these businesses get more and more efficient... what role will entry-level team members have in these kind of companies?"

---

[01:05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3925s) Augmentation vs. Displacement: Lessons from History

Bartlett counters the optimistic view by citing large-scale corporate realities: Uber’s leadership openly acknowledges that its millions of drivers will eventually be replaced by autonomous systems, while major customer-support operations and call centers quietly let natural attrition trim their workforces by 25% annually without filling the open roles. Klarna’s CEO similarly confirmed that freeze-and-attrition strategies are actively reducing their headcount requirements.

Hanauer counters with a broader historical perspective on technological disruption, drawing parallels to the panic that accompanied the arrival of calculators and early desktop computers. When digital tools emerged, critics feared accountants would be rendered obsolete and children would lose the ability to do math. Instead of reducing total work, personal computers exponentially expanded market expectations and total output.

``` COMPETITION STRATEGY MATRIX

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Option A: Cost Reduction (Defensive) │ │ Automate tasks ──► Cut staff ──► Margin boost │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ VS ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Option B: Output Amplification (Offensive) │ │ Retain staff + AI ──► 5x Output ──► Outcompete │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Businesses constantly face a fundamental strategic choice between competing on cost or competing on quality: * **Cost Reduction:** A company can fire four employees and rely on one worker using AI to maintain identical baseline production. * **Output Amplification:** A firm can retain all five employees, equip them with AI, and generate $5\times$ the output to completely outcompete rivals on speed and capability.

The key structural difference today, Bartlett notes, is speed and scale. When personal computers debuted, rolling out a single machine like a Windows 95 setup involved heavy upfront hardware costs and slow physical distribution. Today, when frontier AI developers release a new model, it deploys globally overnight with zero hardware friction, causing immediate step-change disruptions across every market at once.

To illustrate how AI lowers barriers to entry, Priestley shares the story of a husband-and-wife video production team in the north of England:

* **Traditional model:** Small video production agency relying on a couple of contractors with limited geographic reach. * **AI innovation:** Developed a lightweight software tool to automate scriptwriting and client onboarding in just 4 months at minimal cost. * **Scale achieved:** Built a waiting list of 5,500 users, converted 1,500 paying clients immediately, and expanded their core team to 10 employees without taking on venture capital.

---

[01:08:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4119s) Jevons Paradox, Sovereign Wealth, and the "Data Common Asset"

Priestley compares the current technological shift to historical industrial shocks and the Jevons paradox—where dramatic surges in efficiency lead to massive structural realignments. When mechanized tractors displaced hundreds of agricultural workers from farmland, displaced laborers flooded urban centers all at once. This rapid urban shock birthed the stark social divides documented by Charles Dickens, and ultimately provided the backdrop for Karl Marx to write his economic treatises.

To manage the current transition, the debate turns to whether Universal Basic Income (UBI) or state equity stakes are necessary. Hanauer argues that because the multi-trillion-dollar market valuations of top AI companies are explicitly predicated on displacing human labor, society is entitled to capture and recycle a portion of that created value to cushion the societal fallout. This isn't socialism, Hanauer asserts, but simple common-sense market regulation—the core mechanism underlying every stable democracy that relies on progressive taxation, labor standards, and the rule of law.

``` DATA AS A COMMON ASSET FRAMEWORK

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Public Domain Data / Human Knowledge │ │ (Historical text, art, code, media) │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ Uncompensated extraction ▼ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Big Tech AI Models & Private Monopolies │ │ (OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic) │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ Regulatory adjustment required ▼ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sovereign Wealth Fund / Public Licensing │ │ (Recycles value back to displaced public) │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Priestley introduces a structural parallel regarding how public resources are treated, comparing data extraction to physical land or mineral rights: * **The Dubai Sovereign Model:** The Dubai government owns physical land and hotel infrastructure, leasing operational rights to private companies while reinvesting revenues into a sovereign wealth fund. * **Data as the New Oil:** Digital information—scraped from public human knowledge, regional creative works, and global communications—has been unilaterally sequestered by tech monopolies. * **Licensing Common Assets:** Rather than seizing private companies, governments could treat public data as a shared natural resource, charging AI developers a usage fee that feeds directly into sovereign wealth funds for citizens.

> "Data is a common asset that has been sequestered illegitimately by these companies... You're basically saying, 'I'm sorry, but you need to pay a license back to this sovereign wealth fund because you're using a common asset that you were able to essentially seize.'"

---

[01:11:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4261s) The Changing Nature of Production and Government Incompetence

Priestley frames the current era as a fundamental evolution in economic epochs, explaining that the primary engine of wealth generation has continually shifted across four core factors of production:

``` THE HISTORICAL SHIFT IN PRODUCTION FACTORS

Feudalism / Colonialism ──► Land (Real Estate, Agriculture) Capitalism / Socialism ──► Capital & Labor (Factories, Machines) Modern Post-AI Economy ──► Enterprise & Data (Algorithms, Speed) ```

1. **Land:** Governed by feudalism and colonial expansion 250 years ago. 2. **Capital & Labor:** Governed by classical industrial capitalism and state socialism over the past two centuries. 3. **Enterprise & Data:** The modern driver, where leverage stems from rapid execution, algorithmic models, and proprietary software layers.

When the conversation touches on radical proposals like Bernie Sanders’ suggestion that the public take a 50% equity stake in mega-corporations or high-growth tech platforms, Hanauer pushes back on labels. Sanders isn't calling for pure state-run socialism—where the government owns all means of production—but rather managing market forces so they serve the public interest rather than solely enriching capital owners. Companies like Amazon rely heavily on publicly funded roads, logistics infrastructure, and legal systems; yet, through complex corporate structuring, they pay far less effective tax than local high-street independent businesses.

However, Priestley identifies a massive bottleneck to any state-led solution: deep-seated institutional incompetence and misaligned incentives within government leadership. Drawing a sharp comparison between public sector accountability and private enterprise, he points out that public administration rarely penalizes poor performance or corrects course effectively.

- **Firing rate discrepancy:** UK civil service personnel are terminated for poor performance at approximately $1/600\text{th}$ the rate of private sector businesses. - **Mortality vs. Termination:** Statistically in UK government employment, an employee is 10 times more likely to die in office than to be fired for poor performance. - **The Meritocratic Alternative:** Priestley cites Singapore’s governance framework, where state officials are compensated, promoted, or dismissed strictly based on objective performance metrics and societal outcomes.

[01:14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4464s) The Miracle of Singapore and the Skill Demands of the AI Revolution

The debate transitions into a reflection on Singapore, which Nick Hanauer describes as an absolute "miracle of governance" and a rare historical example of a place that benefited from a well-meaning dictator, even if its small size limits its general application. Daniel Priestley pipes up to suggest Dubai as another example, noting that Singapore represents an astonishing story of capability, competence, and foresight.

Shifting back to the imminent artificial intelligence revolution, host Steven Bartlett questions what the actual solution is for the inevitable disruption of jobs. He points out that within his own recruitment processes, his team is strictly searching for individuals with very specific skill sets, noting that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find them. Hanauer emphasizes that this comes down to education and training, noting that the school system needs to produce people businesses actually want to hire. To vet candidates, Bartlett likes to ask them, "How deep are you in the AI rabbit hole?" If they answer that they are heavily immersed, he tells them, "Okay, join the team."

The conversation expands into the realm of hardware and physical automation. Bartlett mentions that Elon Musk's compensation package mandates him to deliver millions of humanoid robots, or else he will lose his payout. Furthermore, he brings up a recent video by Figure AI showing a humanoid robot sorting packages on a production line for eight consecutive days, easily outperforming human workers. Even in Los Angeles, Bartlett observes that his own car and local taxis drive themselves, highlighting the immense global race toward autonomous vehicles. While new jobs will inevitably be created, Priestley remains optimistic that the future belongs to small businesses—small teams of ten people running YouTube channels or building software, asserting that millions of these agile mini-enterprises make society happier.

[01:16:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4578s) Individual Trillion-Dollar Companies and Code-Writing AI Agents

Bartlett counters Priestley’s small-business optimism by citing a recent announcement from Anthropic. The AI lab claims that technology is reaching a point where a single individual, paired with a team of AI agents, could potentially build a trillion-dollar company without hiring a single human employee. Furthermore, Anthropic noted that AI agents are handling the software development itself, with the volume of code produced per individual multiplying eightfold. Bartlett shares a screenshot he took of an Anthropic engineer who expressed feeling completely useless at work, admitting they hadn't written a single line of code in months because they just sit and watch an AI agent do it for them.

Priestley responds that such a scenario would trigger a massive deflationary effect across the economy. If AI agents do all the work, the cost of goods and services will plummet to roughly the cost of the electricity required to run them. This raises a fundamental question: "What do we all do?" Priestley argues that humans will always invent unique ways to interact and serve one another. He jokes that if he told his grandfather that a "personal trainer" is a real job where someone takes you to a gym just to count your repetitions, his grandfather would think it was completely insane—yet there are now 50,000 personal trainers working across the country. He points out that trust-fund children who never have to worry about money or resources always manage to find weird, creative things to do. Bartlett notes, however, that transitioning from the jobs we currently have into this new reality will get incredibly ugly before it gets better.

[01:18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4690s) The Purpose of Markets and the Bernie Sanders AI Experiment

Hanauer strongly rejects the notion that society is heading toward a post-AI utopia, stating flatly that utopias do not exist. Instead, he defends markets as the greatest social technology ever invented for creating prosperity and ennobling the human spirit. However, he rejects the conventional view that markets are merely efficient allocators of scarce resources. Rather, he views them as evolutionary systems that allow groups of people to solve complex human problems, which is what true prosperity is—not just GDP or money. For Hanauer, the ideal world features a market economy governed by a robust democracy that actively includes all citizens. While he supports Priestley's small-business vision, he believes many people will inevitably work for medium and large companies, meaning society must enact strict standards to ensure workers are treated with dignity.

``` Conventional Economics: Inclusion is a luxury afforded only after achieving growth. New Economics: Including people robustly is the exact mechanism that causes growth. ```

When asked how policy should address an uncertain AI future, Hanauer argues that since no one knows the exact scale of future job losses, democracies must aggressively experiment with ways to include people. He points to a radical idea championed by Bernie Sanders as a perfect candidate for experimentation. When Priestley warns that giving the government more assets would just allow them to leverage more debt, Hanauer scoffs, pointing out that the United States already has 37 trillion dollars of debt, which was racked up and given away through foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy without needing any underlying assets. Hanauer argues that the absolute worst-case scenario of the Sanders experiment is that a few dozen billionaires end up being worth 100 billion dollars instead of 200 billion dollars.

[01:22:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4925s) Corporate Flight, Intangible Assets, and Voting Power

The debate sharpens as Priestley raises the practical risks of implementing a Sanders-style model in the United Kingdom. Because AI companies are entirely digital, they could easily restructure somewhere else if the government demanded a massive stake. Priestley notes this is already happening with data centers; OpenAI reportedly bypassed building a data center in the UK because energy costs are four times higher than in alternative locations. He warns that if the government uses its balance sheet to take on massive toxic debt on behalf of future generations to buy up intangible AI assets, the highly clever engineers at companies like Anthropic will simply relocate their operations to a tax haven like Vanuatu, leaving citizens holding the bag.

Bartlett poses an alternative scenario: if OpenAI makes a hundred dollars in profit and Bernie Sanders demands fifty dollars of it, a competitor like China would theoretically have an extra fifty dollars to out-invest the US in frontier models. Hanauer corrects him, noting that Sanders isn't proposing a 50% profit tax, but rather acquiring 50% of the company's equity stock. Bartlett points out that this would give the public equal voting power, which would likely paralyze corporate decision-making through government gridlock. Hanauer suggests that public directors could be placed on the board, pointing out that labor already has a seat at the table in many successful countries. Priestley counters that this mirrors the Chinese model, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sits on corporate boards. While Hanauer notes that Chinese companies move incredibly fast despite this, Priestley highlights the stark differences in governmental hierarchy and meritocracy.

[01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5076s) Hating Government vs. Corporate Incompetence

Priestley confesses his profound distrust of state intervention, stating that his entire life has been a sequence of things made worse by the state. "I've never had a good experience with government," he declares. Hanauer calls him out directly, noting that Priestley grew up in Australia and chose to live in the UK. He tells him bluntly:

> "If you hate government so much, move to the Congo. Seriously... there is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government."

Hanauer points out that out of roughly 220 countries in the world, about 150 of them effectively have no functioning government, yet libertarians never move their bases of operation there because they would instantly become "somebody's lunch." Priestley clarifies that he is not an anarchist, but he gets deeply frustrated when the state refuses to fire incompetent public officials. Hanauer concedes that while democracy is the worst economic and political system except for all the others, it is dishonest to claim that government doesn't drastically improve human lives. When Priestley holds up Singapore again for its low 22% GDP spend, Hanauer fires back that Singapore's government is famously massive and deeply intrusive in every element of its citizens' lives, though it successfully fires incompetent people and rewards merit.

To prove that inefficiency isn't exclusive to the state, Hanauer shares a personal story from his venture capital career. Microsoft bought his digital marketing company, aQuantive, for 6.4 billion dollars. At the time, the company was growing at 30% to 40% year-over-year, generating 750 million dollars in sales and roughly 200 million dollars in EBITDA, employing 3,000 to 4,000 of the best internet advertising professionals on earth. Within just one year of the Microsoft acquisition, the company's value was entirely decimated, and Microsoft wrote off the entire 6 billion dollars five years later. "Incompetence lives everywhere," Hanauer laughs. Ultimately, both debaters find common ground in wanting to tilt the economic balance of power away from exploitative mega-corporations and back toward the "little guy" and small family businesses—though Hanauer notes that historically, big government is the only force powerful enough to actually confront big business.

<ElicitationsGroup message="To explore the next phases of this economic debate:"> {/* Reason: The user requested a detailed walkthrough of this transcript part. Exploring the subsequent arguments about small businesses or corporate regulation represents a natural next step to deepen understanding. */} <Elicitation label="Read the next part of the economic debate walkthrough" query="Provide the next chronological part of the transcript walkthrough, maintaining the detailed subsection format with timestamps."/> <Elicitation label="Analyze Hanauer's arguments on mega-corporations vs. small business" query="Analyze the debate between Nick Hanauer and Daniel Priestley regarding whether big government or small business innovation is the best weapon against exploitative mega-corporations."/> </ElicitationsGroup>

[01:28:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5312s) The Flaws of Neoliberalism and the Necessity of Market Balance

Nick Hanauer passionately argues that the core economic problems society faces are not accidental glitches, but the intended results of a flawed economic paradigm. Neoliberalism explicitly championed the idea that "bigger is better," offering no protections to small businesses while actively advantaging massive global corporations under the guise that unrestricted free trade benefits everyone. In reality, Hanauer points out, this framework only enriched a few thousand people worldwide—including himself—while leaving everyone else behind. The fundamental mistake was misinterpreting economic cause and effect: policies designed to drive growth instead caused hyper-concentration of wealth and market power.

To maintain a functioning capitalist system, Hanauer stresses that working people must earn enough to purchase the products the economy generates. Historical evidence demonstrates that no economy can thrive in the long term without establishing basic labor standards or creating countervailing power that forces capital owners and workers to share prosperity. Daniel Priestley agrees with the core thesis but believes Hanauer's policy vision does not go far enough. Priestley emphasizes that people are more than passive consumers or "wallets"; true economic stability requires widespread ownership—of homes, small businesses, and equity in fast-growing companies.

``` NEOLIBERAL PARADIGM VS. BALANCED MARKET ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Neoliberal Framework │ │ Balanced Market Model │ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Corporate concentration │ │ • High base wage standards │ │ • Wage suppression │ │ • Strong small business ecosystem│ │ • Deregulation for mega-corps │ │ • Widespread asset ownership │ │ • Slower long-term GDP growth │ │ • Sustainable, shared growth │ └─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

- Hanauer notes that he benefited directly from the neoliberal rules, framing his perspective as an insider who recognizes the system's unfairness. - Priestley outlines three non-negotiables for economic health: broad access to homeownership, small business ownership, and equity participation in high-growth companies. - "You cannot sustain a capitalist system unless most people are paid enough to buy the stuff that the system produces." — Nick Hanauer

---

[01:31:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5496s) The "Born on Third Base" Reality and Path to Capitalism

The debate turns lively as Priestley points out how Hanauer built his own fortune: by leveraging a family business to make an early investment in Amazon. Hanauer candidly admits he was "born on third base," acknowledging his immense head start. Priestley argues that the goal of economic policy should be to allow more people to be born on third base by fostering family-owned enterprises. Hanauer clarifies that coming from a small-business-owning family is actually quite rare; most affluent middle-class households are made up of skilled professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and corporate managers.

Hanauer reiterates that societies hold both the right and the responsibility to structure their economic rules so that prosperity is broadly shared. When asked by host Steven Bartlett whether socialism is the answer, Hanauer firmly rejects it. Defining socialism strictly as the state ownership of the means of production, he calls it a "catastrophe." While socialism can temporarily redistribute existing wealth more evenly, it fails completely at creating new prosperity, leaving everyone poorer over time.

- Hanauer openly acknowledges his privileged starting point in business, contrasting it with the average worker's reality. - The vast majority of affluent individuals come from professional careers and management rather than small business ownership. - "Socialism is most definitely not the answer... All socialism can do is split up existing prosperity in a fairer way. It does not know how to create more prosperity." — Nick Hanauer

---

[01:33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5632s) Markets as Evolutionary Systems and the Growth Sweet Spot

Explaining why market economies succeed where socialism fails, Hanauer describes markets as powerful evolutionary systems. In a market setup, every business acts as an organism competing to fill an ecological niche by creating products that solve human problems. He points to Steven Bartlett's podcast network as a prime example: through market dynamics, Bartlett independently built a media ecosystem with a broader reach than major legacy television networks like MSNBC. However, Hanauer stresses that market forces must be actively harnessed through smart regulation so that their benefits spread across the entire population.

``` [Socialism] <─────────── [THE SWEET SPOT] ───────────> [Laissez-Faire] Redistribution Only Active Market Management Unchecked Concentration Stagnant Long-term High Growth & High High Inequality & Growth & Poverty Participation Instability ```

Addressing the trade-offs between growth and equality, Hanauer refutes the notion that high growth requires severe inequality. Historical data demonstrates that the economic "sweet spot" sits directly in the middle: a market economy actively managed to include everyone yields both maximum GDP growth and long-term political stability. Between the 1940s and 1970s, US GDP grew at 4% to 4.5% annually while wages rose alongside productivity. Once neoliberal policies took over in the mid-1970s—cutting taxes for the wealthy, deregulating corporate power, and suppressing wages—annual GDP growth slowed to 2%–3%.

- From the 1940s through the early 1970s, US GDP growth averaged 4% to 4.5% per year alongside rising middle-class wages. - Post-1975 neoliberal policy shifts coincided with a drop in US GDP growth rates to 2%–3%. - If the median US full-time worker's pay had kept pace with GDP growth since 1975, the average wage would be $120,000 today instead of roughly $60,000. - Hanauer references the book *The Narrow Corridor* by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson to illustrate the delicate balance between state power and market freedom.

---

[01:38:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5880s) Ergodic vs. Non-Ergodic Games: Why Policy Must Build the Middle Class

Hanauer breaks down a common economic misconception: the idea that a strong middle class is an automatic byproduct of general economic growth. Economists make this mistake by assuming the economy is "ergodic." To explain the concept, he contrasts two games: 1. **Rock, Paper, Scissors (Ergodic):** Every round is independent; past rounds do not dictate future outcomes. 2. **Monopoly (Non-Ergodic):** Driven by luck, path dependence, and compounding. Early advantages compound endlessly until one player holds all the wealth and everyone else is bankrupt.

Because market economies are non-ergodic, inequality naturally spirals out of control unless policy intervenes. A middle class does not happen by accident; it is always a deliberate political construction. Hanauer argues that societies must stop letting a small group of ultra-wealthy individuals dictate economic rules.

Priestley agrees with the critique of elite overreach, pointing out that in the early 1970s, unlinking the US dollar from gold created a fiat system that inflated and financialized assets, placing homes out of reach for average families. He views big finance and big tech as the two dominant complexes hollowing out the middle class. He warns that simply raising wage floors is like giving runners comfortable Nikes while big finance and tech race ahead in sports cars; true reform requires stopping the financialization of housing and protecting local business ecosystems.

- Hanauer uses the game of Monopoly to demonstrate how compounding advantages naturally concentrate all wealth into a single hand. - Priestley highlights the 1971 decoupling of the US dollar from the gold standard as a primary driver of asset inflation and financialization. - Vibrant, desirable towns across the UK rely on dense networks of small businesses—butchers, bakers, and local shops—rather than corporate monopolies. - "A thriving middle class is not a natural byproduct of economic growth... It is always a deliberate construction created by policy." — Nick Hanauer

---

[01:43:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6186s) Sponsor Break: Wispr Flow

The debate pauses briefly for a sponsor message from host Steven Bartlett regarding Wispr Flow, a voice-to-text dictation tool he invested in that integrates across applications to speed up workplace communication.

[01:43:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6211s) Mid-Show Partner Highlights: Voice AI Efficiency and Connection Cards

The episode transitions into a sponsor break where host Steven Bartlett demonstrates practical tools aimed at increasing workplace efficiency and fostering human connection. He showcases **Wispr Flow**, a voice-to-text dictation app designed to streamline daily tasks like emailing and calendar scheduling. Demonstrating the product directly on screen, Steven illustrates how natural speech commands can insert email addresses into Gmail or update recording schedules with team members in real time. He notes that the software operates four times faster than standard typing, emphasizing its user-friendly interface and practical workplace utility.

Steven then pivots to a personal reflection on human relationships, drawn from conducting nearly 700 podcast interviews. He observes that open vulnerability acts as a natural bridge to meaningful relationships. To replicate this dynamic off-camera, he introduces the **Diary of a CEO Conversation Cards**, a card deck compiled from questions written by previous podcast guests. He shares how he uses these cards personally with his fiancée, work colleagues, and family, explaining that structured prompts offer people a screen-free excuse to engage deeply in analog settings.

- **Wispr Flow Features:** Dictation engine engineered to operate $4\times$ faster than traditional typing for emails and calendar adjustments. - **Conversation Cards:** Analog prompt cards featuring questions submitted by past interview subjects, designed for couples, corporate teams, and families. - **Direct Web Portals:** Prompts listeners to access `whisperflow.ai/steven` for dictation tools and `thediary.com` for the conversation card decks.

---

[01:45:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6316s) Dubai, Economic Dynamism, and the Reality of Global Growth Models

Returning to the debate, Daniel Priestley highlights the delicate economic balance between maintaining market dynamism and ensuring public decency. He argues that this "sweet spot" is exceptionally narrow and points to Germany as an example of a nation failing despite well-intentioned inclusive policies, such as mandating worker representation on corporate boards. Daniel contends that Germany's current economic stagnation demonstrates the limits of heavy regulation. Nick Hanauer immediately pushes back, dismissing the idea that Germany is "collapsing" and attributing its current automotive challenges to rising Chinese manufacturing competition rather than worker board placement or progressive labor policies.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ECONOMIC GROWTH & POLICY PERSPECTIVES | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DANIEL PRIESTLEY | | • Stagnation stems from heavy regulation and punitive tax structures. | | • Dynamic hubs like Dubai foster optimism via wealth creation & lower barriers. | | | | NICK HANAUER | | • Resource windfalls (oil/gas) drive low-tax micro-economies, not pure capitalism.| | • High living standards require strong labor protections and public provisioning.| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

The conversation pivots to Dubai as an alternative economic model. Daniel describes Dubai as a thriving, near-laissez-faire economy backed by a sovereign wealth fund, claiming that residents—from tech founders to Uber drivers—express high satisfaction due to the city's forward momentum and tax-friendly environment. Nick sharply counters this narrative, asserting that Dubai's model relies heavily on imported low-wage labor and an extraordinary windfall of natural resource wealth rather than true entrepreneurial innovation. He contends that ambitious individuals flock there to capitalize on low taxes relative to workers, rather than building sustainable, inclusive prosperity.

- **German Board Model:** References *Mitbestimmung* (codetermination), where company boards must include employee representatives. - **Dubai's Capital Model:** Low tax rates supported by massive sovereign wealth and energy reserves, attracting international talent and ambitious entrepreneurs. - **Growth Dynamics:** Daniel stresses that visible economic expansion creates a "rising tide" feeling, whereas stagnation in nations like the UK breeds widespread public frustration.

---

[01:48:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6518s) Tax Brackets, Brain Drain, and the Political Rise of Left-Wing Movements

Daniel argues that punitive tax policies in the UK actively suppress ambition and force high-earning entrepreneurs to leave the country. He points out a glaring discrepancy between tax structures in the US and the UK: in the UK, top marginal tax rates strike at relatively modest income thresholds—creating effective tax rates as high as 60% or 62% around £100,000 due to the withdrawal of the personal allowance—before settling back to 45%. By contrast, the highest federal tax bracket in the US does not kick in until an individual earns over $700,000. Daniel warns that these punitive UK rates discourage talented builders who feel their efforts are immediately taxed away.

``` UK vs. US TAX THRESHOLD COMPARISON

UK Top Rate (~60% effective) [£100,000] ------------------------------------------------------------ US Top Rate (Federal) [$700,000+] ```

Nick responds that prioritizing tax breaks for top earners drives extreme wealth inequality, which inevitably triggers socio-political unrest. While Daniel asserts that ambitious entrepreneurs do not care about inequality because it represents an opportunity to get ahead, Nick warns that high inequality inevitably brings out the "pitchforks." They debate whether political shifts in major western cities reflect true socialism or a reaction against neoliberalism. Nick contends that public figures advocating for state-run grocery stores in food deserts, fixing potholes, or raising taxes on the wealthy are not engaging in classical socialism, but rather restoring basic public infrastructure that private markets fail to provide.

- **UK Effective Marginal Rate:** Income between £100,000 and £125,140 faces an effective 60% marginal tax rate due to the taper of the £12,570 personal allowance. - **US Federal Income Tax:** The top federal bracket (37%) applies only to individual incomes exceeding $600,000+ (or $700,000+ for married joint filers). - **Political Figures Mentioned:** The debate references UK Green Party politician Zack Polanski and New York political figures to illustrate the rising electoral appeal of wealth redistribution policies.

---

[01:51:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6706s) Entrepreneurial Privilege and Leveling the Field for Small Businesses

Steven reflects on his own background, questioning whether entrepreneurs suffer from a personal bias. He shares that while his three siblings pursued traditional university degrees and safer career paths, he dropped out at 18 to start a business—a choice that temporarily alienated his mother, a Nigerian immigrant who had missed out on formal schooling. Recognizing that only a small percentage of the population possesses the risk tolerance or inclination to start a company, Steven asks how economic policies can support the majority of people who are not naturally entrepreneurial. Daniel agrees, noting that while not everyone can or should be an entrepreneur, dynamic founders create vital "optionality" and job opportunities for the broader community.

``` ENTREPRENEURIAL RISK VS. TRADITIONAL PATHS

+-----------------------------------------+ | Traditional Path (Broader Majority) | | • University / Stable Employment | | • Predictable Career Progression | +-----------------------------------------+ ▲ │ Economic Optionality ▼ +-----------------------------------------+ | Entrepreneurial Path (Minority) | | • High Risk / Dropout / Startup | | • Value Creation & Job Generation | +-----------------------------------------+ ```

The discussion turns to why independent businesses struggle against corporate giants like Tesco, Safeway, or Walmart. Daniel claims that excessive regulatory burdens and complex tax systems disproportionately punish smaller operators who lack dedicated legal and compliance departments. Nick agrees that small businesses need support, proposing a progressive regulatory framework where smaller enterprises enjoy simplified rules, low-friction compliance, and accessible capital. However, Nick emphasizes that the primary obstacle facing independent local stores is not state regulation, but predatory corporate supply chains and market consolidation that allow big-box retailers to underprice mom-and-pop shops.

- **Barriers to Entry:** Small independent grocers struggle against major retail chains (e.g., Safeway, Tesco, 7-Eleven, Spar) due to extreme volume discounts on supply chains. - **Capital Assistance Programs:** Mention of state-backed financing options, such as the **British Business Bank** (underwriting startup loans up to £25,000) and the US **Small Business Administration (SBA)**. - **Progressive Policy Model:** Nick advocates for scaling labor and regulatory burdens according to workforce size, offering maximum flexibility to firms with under 200 employees.

---

[01:56:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6976s) Anti-Monopoly History and the Decline of Competition Safeguards

Nick explains how antitrust enforcement and competitive protections historically shielded small businesses from being squeezed out by corporate behemoths. He notes that under mid-20th-century anti-monopoly laws in the United States, large corporations were legally barred from using their size to extract discriminatory supply discounts that independent competitors could not access. Furthermore, corporate mergers faced rigorous scrutiny from regulatory boards. If a proposed acquisition threatened to consolidate too much market power within an industry, regulators routinely blocked the deal to preserve a balanced, competitive ecosystem.

Nick attributes the collapse of these protective structures to the rise of neoliberal economic ideology starting in the late 20th century. As antitrust enforcement was dismantled, mega-corporations gained the freedom to buy up competitors, dominate supply chains, and squeeze smaller operators out of existence. While Daniel notes that modern physical retail stores often rely on high-margin e-commerce operations to stay viable—citing examples like Gymshark or Represent—Nick clarifies that while certain digital-first retail categories operate under new dynamics, core physical services and local community businesses remain acutely vulnerable to unchecked corporate consolidation.

- **Historical Antitrust Safeguards:** US regulations once prohibited suppliers from offering preferential pricing exclusively to mega-corporations over small independent buyers. - **Merger Control Shift:** Prior to neoliberal policy shifts, corporate acquisitions were routinely denied by federal authorities if they resulted in market over-consolidation. - **E-Commerce Hybrid Model:** Physical storefronts for modern apparel brands (e.g., Gymshark, Represent) are frequently subsidized by high-margin direct-to-consumer e-commerce engines.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the debate:

[01:57:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7031s) Ending Income Taxes for Lower-Income Earners

Nick Hanauer observes that younger entrepreneurs have only ever experienced a neoliberal economy dominated by giant corporations, whereas older generations remember a vibrant landscape of regional manufacturing and independent retail. Daniel Priestley reflects on his youth, recalling a time when the "cool kids" worked at local CD stores, the "geeky kids" worked at bookstores, and everyone else worked at local grocery stores. Because all of those business models have been eradicated by corporate consolidation, Priestley argues that economic policy must pivot back toward protecting small business experimentation.

To immediately relieve working-class workers, Priestley proposes a radical tax reform in the UK. He points out that the bottom half of UK taxpayers currently contribute only 9.5% of all income tax revenue. Removing income tax entirely for this bottom 50% of earners would cost the government £33 billion annually, but it would instantly grant 15 million people a 10% to 15% net pay raise. When host Steven Bartlett questions where the £33 billion would come from—especially given the UK government's existing financial shortfall—Priestley notes that £33 billion represents less than half of 1% of the total £1.4 trillion national budget. Furthermore, eliminating tax collection for 15 million citizens would drastically cut the administrative burden and staffing overhead at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The increase in disposable income would also immediately circulate back into the real economy through local consumer spending.

- **Bottom 50% Tax Contribution:** Pays only 9.5% of total UK income tax revenue. - **Cost of Proposal:** £33 billion per year out of a total £1.4 trillion UK budget. - **Direct Impact:** Instantly gives 15 million workers a 10% to 15% effective pay rise while drastically slashing administrative costs at HMRC.

[01:59:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7181s) Taxing Tech Giants via Digital Broadcast Licenses

To fund tax cuts for lower-income workers, Priestley advocates imposing fixed consumption taxes on mega-corporations that profit from user attention. Instead of letting multinational tech platforms avoid taxes through accounting tricks, he suggests charging them an unevasable "broadcast license fee" to access national markets. Under this model, platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Google, or OpenAI would pay a fixed annual fee—such as £500 million—based on the sheer volume of attention they extract from the population through daily consumption and endless scrolling.

Bartlett pushes back, questioning whether companies like OpenAI or Apple would simply pass these higher taxes onto consumers by inflating local subscription fees or retail prices. He recalls traveling to the United States to purchase Apple laptops because they cost hundreds of dollars less than in the UK market. Priestley acknowledges that corporations often pass on costs—similar to how Big Mac prices fluctuate between states like Oregon ($8) and Illinois ($9) due to state taxes, or how physical books ($20) cost more than online versions ($10). To prevent this, Priestley suggests potential price-parity legislation. Regardless of pass-through risks, Priestley and Hanauer contend that the current system is morally broken: local nurses and teachers are left carrying the financial tax burden of society while global giants like Amazon, Starbucks, and Google pay negligible taxes.

- **Broadcast License Concept:** A fixed annual fee (e.g., £500 million) levied on digital platforms based on user attention, views, and market access. - **Price Disparity Examples:** A Big Mac costs $8 in Oregon versus nearly $9 in Chicago due to localized tax structures; physical bookstore titles ($20) cost twice as much as online retailers ($10). - **Tax Burden Inequality:** Essential workers like nurses and teachers subsidize public services while tech and retail giants minimize their tax liabilities.

[02:01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7300s) The Global Coordination Dilemma and Regulatory Trade-offs

Hanauer highlights that modern economic management is fundamentally a global collective action problem. Without coordinated international governance, individual nations struggle to regulate corporate power. He cites the Biden administration's effort to establish a global minimum corporate profit tax, which ultimately collapsed under international pressure. Hanauer quips that advocating for these systemic shifts among his wealthy peers is "a lonely business." Bartlett notes that when mega-corporations drain value out of domestic economies without reinvesting, they eventually hollow out the very customer base that sustains them.

The discussion pivots to the unintended consequences of well-meaning regulations. Bartlett shares a private conversation with a CTO of a major hardware manufacturer who warned that stringent EU and UK laws—such as mandatory removable batteries in electronic devices—force companies to manufacture and stockpile more lithium batteries, paradoxically increasing landfill waste while compromising device waterproofing. Furthermore, stringent regulations like GDPR often cause technology companies to delay rolling out new AI features or monetization tools in European markets by 12 to 18 months compared to the US. Hanauer accepts these critiques, defining economics as the art of making trade-offs: while over-regulation in Europe hampers dynamism (joking that the EU regulates even how bottle caps are detached), under-regulation in the US harms public health, giving consumers a high chance of foodborne illness like *E. coli* or salmonella from store-bought chicken and lowering overall life expectancy.

- **Global Minimum Tax:** A Biden administration proposal designed to halt corporate tax evasion worldwide that failed due to lack of global coordination. - **Unintended Regulatory Outcomes:** Mandatory removable battery laws lead to increased lithium-battery landfill waste and reduced device durability; European tech feature rollouts lag 12 to 18 months behind the US. - **US vs. EU Trade-offs:** Over-regulation in Europe suppresses economic dynamism, while under-regulation in the US leads to lower life expectancy and high risks of food contamination (e.g., *E. coli* or salmonella).

[02:06:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7573s) Combinatorial Innovation, Diversity, and Trust

Bartlett asks if the ultimate resolution of economic trade-offs rests on human morals, ethics, and a commitment to human flourishing. Priestley agrees, asserting that the primary purpose of an economy is to improve human lives. He contends that the most ethical system is one that maximizes small business power, because business owners working shoulder-to-shoulder with their employees naturally treat them well, whereas corporate executives managing distant, faceless factory workers feel no personal accountability. Hanauer agrees with the focus on small business, but calls Priestley's view "massively insufficient," noting that modern economic research proves corporate consolidation systematically increases prices, lowers wages, reduces consumer choice, and stifles innovation.

Hanauer dismantles the conventional "great man theory" of innovation, explaining that breakthroughs are never the result of a single genius working in isolation. Instead, innovation is strictly *combinatorial*—technology creates itself out of existing elements. Using an evolutionary analogy, he notes that early humans started with rocks and sticks; by combining them, they created hammers, spears, arrows, axes, and shovels. Because innovation relies on combining diverse ideas, mathematical models prove that a diverse group of problem-solvers consistently outperforms a homogeneous group of high performers. However, when these innovative networks achieve financial success, the system naturally concentrates wealth, requiring active state intervention to recycle capital and maintain market competition.

> "Innovation is always combinatorial. Technology makes itself out of itself... You tie a rock to a stick, you have a hammer, a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel—it goes on and on and on."

- **Consolidation Impacts:** Market monopolization suppresses real wages, elevates consumer prices, limits product choice, and slows technological progress. - **Combinatorial Innovation:** Mathematical proofs demonstrate that diverse teams combining varied perspectives routinely outperform uniform teams of high performers.

[02:09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7780s) Radical Solutions: Antitrust and Corporate Breakups

When Bartlett asks whether radical solutions are needed to solve global inequality—such as billionaires uniting to draft a new system—Priestley argues that the single most effective radical tool is aggressive antitrust enforcement: breaking up corporate monopolies. Hanauer agrees, noting that while Jeff Bezos (who was a guest at Hanauer's wedding) would accept higher taxes, the prospect of breaking up Amazon would keep him awake at night. The greatest fear of modern billionaires is being forced back into true market competition.

Priestley emphasizes that splitting up corporate conglomerates—separating Google from YouTube, or decoupling Amazon's retail platform, Prime, and Amazon Web Services (AWS)—restores market dynamism by forcing companies to compete on merit rather than monopolistic leverage. Hanauer chuckles that while antitrust action is often viewed as a drastic measure, it remains "the best worst solution available" to revitalize the economy and prevent wealth from stagnating at the top.

- **Monopoly Vulnerability:** Tech billionaires fear structural antitrust breakups far more than increased tax rates. - **Targeted Corporate Separations:** Splitting Google from YouTube, or detaching AWS and Prime from Amazon's core e-commerce platform.

[02:10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7836s) Strategic Monopolies and Amazon’s Cash Cycle

The conversation turns to tech monopolies and how mega-corporations maintain their dominant market positions. Nick Hanauer explains the mechanics of how Amazon grew so rapidly, emphasizing that its true secret weapon was a negative cash conversion cycle. By collecting money upfront from customers online and sending orders directly to third-party warehouses, Amazon hit credit cards instantly while taking up to 90 days to pay suppliers. This structure meant that as Amazon grew bigger, its cash flow improved exponentially, allowing it to operate without needing immediate profitability in individual divisions.

``` [Customer Places Order & Pays Instantly] │ ▼ [Amazon Receives Immediate Cash Flow] │ ▼ [Fulfills Order via Third-Party Supplier] │ ▼ [Waits ~90 Days to Pay Supplier] ──► Continuous Pool of Interest-Free Working Capital ```

Daniel Priestley and Nick contend that strategic monopolies like Amazon use high-margin divisions like Amazon Web Services (AWS) or their massive cash reserves to cross-subsidize non-profitable or low-margin arms, suppressing fair competition. Daniel argues that to restore true market dynamics, governments must break up these strategic monopolies into separate entities—such as splitting AWS, Amazon Prime, and Amazon Retail—to prevent them from hedging against internal losses and choking off new market entrants.

- **Amazon's Growth Mechanism:** Operating with a negative cash conversion cycle provided continuous working capital. - **Strategic Monopolies:** Giant corporations leverage profitable divisions (e.g., AWS) to subsidize consumer-facing services or retail, preventing smaller competitors from breaking into the market. - **Proposed Antitrust Fixes:** Enforcing strict limits on fund sizes, banning cross-subsidization of competing divisions, and breaking tech giants up into distinct companies (Retail, Cloud, Media). - **Core Principle of Capitalism:** True market efficiency relies on active competition; as Adam Smith noted, two competing bakeries yield better quality and pricing than a single bakery, provided collusion is prevented.

---

[02:13:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8028s) Breaking Up Tech Concentration vs. Oligarchical Power

Nick Hanauer admits with a laugh that he no longer owns his early Amazon shares, remarking, *"I wouldn't be here talking to you guys if I still did—Jeff wouldn't come!"* Returning to principles, Nick agrees with Daniel that the concentration of power in tech giants harms the broader economy. He stresses that while no perfect "silver bullet" policy exists, societies must make deliberate choices to limit concentrated wealth and power rather than accepting an oligarchical structure controlled by billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg.

``` [Concentrated Monopoly Power] [Distributed Economic System] • Wealth controlled by top 1% • Active limits on corporate size • Maximizes shareholder extraction • Strong worker rights & wages • Drives political imbalance • Broad engagement & robust competition │ │ ▼ ▼ Systemic Instability & Unrest Widespread Middle-Class Prosperity ```

The discussion highlights the friction between two visions for society: one where economic power is tightly held by corporate elites, and another where policy actively limits corporate dominance to ensure middle-class engagement and protect democratic stability.

- **Foundational Economic Principles:** Society must actively limit concentrated power in all forms to preserve democratic buy-in. - **Clash of Visions:** Tech leaders often push for oligarchical control centered on capital efficiency, whereas broad-based democratic stability requires inclusive participation for workers and small businesses. - **Policy Pragmatism:** Economic interventions should aim for the "least worst" practical solutions to encourage widespread market access rather than total deregulation.

---

[02:15:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8131s) How to Restore Hope: Entrepreneurial Agency vs. Systemic Policy

Answering the tradition of closing questions left by previous guests—*"In a world with so many challenges, what can we do to restore hope and trigger engagement?"*—Daniel Priestley argues that hope stems from teaching people the clear "rules of the game." He explains that people feel hopeless when stuck operating under outdated industrial-era rules instead of modern digital-era realities. For Daniel, educating young people in entrepreneurship, product creation, and marketing grants individuals direct personal agency to navigate changing markets.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ How Do We Restore Economic Hope & Engagement? │ └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ │ ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [Daniel Priestley's View] [Nick Hanauer's View] • Teach entrepreneurial rules & skills • Shift policies from capital efficiency to human flourishing • Build personal agency & adaptability • Regulate corporate power & raise wages • Encourage continuous lifelong learning • Ensure systemic inclusion across all demographics ```

Host Steven Bartlett and Nick push back on the idea that entrepreneurship alone is a universal fix. Steven points out that teaching a million kids the rules simply creates a new baseline where the most advantaged or connected still find a competitive "edge." Moreover, millions of workers do not want to run businesses; they simply want fair pay and balance. Nick emphasizes that restoring systemic hope requires structural change—shifting government priorities away from pure shareholder value toward human flourishing.

- **The Entrepreneurial Toolset:** Learning how to pitch, build offerings, and navigate digital markets provides personal agency and a direct pathway out of financial stagnation. - **The Limits of Individual Agency:** Not everyone desires or possesses the temperament to be an entrepreneur; reliance solely on self-reliance leaves non-business-minded individuals behind. - **Redefining Economic Goals:** Transitioning national priorities from 1970s-era "shareholder value maximization" to broader measures of human well-being creates higher baseline wages, lower costs, and systemic stability.

---

[02:22:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8523s) Personal Agency, Systemic Luck, and the Reality of Privilege

The debate culminates in a reflection on personal responsibility versus structural luck. Daniel reinforces his focus on immediate accountability, advising individuals to focus on what they can control today rather than passively waiting for government reforms to take effect. He notes that taking concrete next steps—whether through lifelong learning, upskilling, or leveraging modern media platforms—is what actually restores a feeling of hope.

``` ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │ Factors Behind Individual │ │ Economic Success │ └──────────────┬───────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [Internal Determinants] [External Determinants] • Personal Agency & Effort • Family Stability & Safety Nets • Upskilling & Lifelong Learning • Early Environmental Advantage • Entrepreneurial Drive • Broad Structural Regulations ```

Steven reflects deeply on his own path to success, acknowledging the massive, unearned role played by baseline privileges and family luck. He shares a personal example, speculating on how drastically different his life trajectory would have been had his family environment or parental stability been disrupted early on. This acknowledgment underscores that while personal agency is essential, individual success is heavily shaped by background advantages that are out of a person's control.

- **Personal Accountability:** Taking immediate action within current market conditions provides tangible psychological and financial agency. - **The Impact of Structural Advantage:** Early life stability, family support networks, and unearned privileges set foundational trajectories that individual effort alone cannot fully explain. - **Balancing Systems and Action:** Long-term economic health requires combining systemic policy reforms (to broaden opportunity) with personal initiative (to capitalize on available tools).

[02:24:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8659s) Privilege, Personal Agency, and Economic Ecosystems

Steven Bartlett reflects deeply on his own background and inherent privileges, questioning whether the advice he gives to the world would still be applicable if he hadn't had supportive parents or a specific genetic makeup. He recalls an old friend from his hometown who grew up without a father; Steven once offered to pay his rent for *years* if he could just keep a job at Subway for three months, but the friend couldn't manage it. While Steven helped him anyway, the experience highlighted how deeply embedded privilege, innate trauma, and genetic luck are. He stresses that any broad economic advice must pass through this lens of empathy to be truly effective for everyone.

Daniel Priestley responds warmly, praising Steven's self-exploration while outlining his vision of healthy local economies. He draws an analogy to a town's vitality: a community with 10 to 20 thriving small businesses offers choice and optionality to its residents, whereas a town dominated by a single giant store like Costco leaves everyone feeling downtrodden. Daniel points to Japan’s concept of the "Shogun family"—a prominent local family or enterprise around which an entire ecosystem of satellite businesses and jobs flourishes. When mega-monopolies control everything from home delivery to streaming media, ordinary citizens are stripped of agency and reduced strictly to consumers.

Nick Hanauer agrees with the core sentiment but pushes back on relying solely on entrepreneurship as a universal macro-fix. He points out that true entrepreneurs make up a tiny fraction of the global population—likely under 5%—and argues that economic policy must build a paradigm that works for the remaining 95%. Daniel counters that in the UK alone, 6 million out of 30 million workers are self-employed, showing that entrepreneurship is a massive, accessible driver of opportunity.

- Steven's offer to his childhood friend: keep a Subway job for **3 months** in exchange for having rent paid for **years**. - UK labor stats cited by Daniel: **6 million** self-employed individuals out of a **30-million** workforce. - Daniel contrasts vibrant multi-business towns against "one big Costco" monopolizing local employment.

---

[02:27:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8856s) The Quiet Miracle vs. Individual Action

The discussion turns to what actually provides ordinary people with hope in difficult economic times. Daniel argues that personal agency through the "entrepreneurial method" gives people immediate power to change their circumstances. However, Nick emphasizes that most everyday citizens do not aspire to be high-risk entrepreneurs; they simply want the "quiet miracle of a normal life"—a stable job, fair pay, and a secure home. Daniel agrees that this quiet miracle has tragically disappeared due to sky-rocketing costs, noting that a standard family home now costs **£1.2 million** in many areas, rendering traditional living unachievable under current conditions.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | TWO PATHS TO ECONOMIC HOPE | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DANIEL PRIESTLEY (Bottom-Up Agency) | NICK HANAUER (Top-Down Policy) | | • Focuses on individual action | • Focuses on systemic policy reform | | • Build a small/lifestyle business | • Shift from trickledown to middle-out | | • Immediate personal empowerment | • Remake the macro economic "OS" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Nick holds up a white policy booklet titled *21st Century Economics*, explaining that systemic policy reform is the only real way to bring back affordability. He urges a complete overhaul of the current economic "operating system," replacing outdated notions of pure capital efficiency with a model centered on human flourishing. He directs viewers to **marketsbuiltforhumans.org** to download the blueprint for free, emphasizing that changing how policy makers understand economic cause and effect is the prerequisite for global transformation.

- Family home cost cited by Daniel: **£1.2 million**. - Policy blueprint resource: **marketsbuiltforhumans.org** (free download). - Paradigm shifts outlined by Nick: - Capital efficiency $\rightarrow$ Human flourishing - *Homo economicus* $\rightarrow$ *Homo sapiens* - Pareto optimal equilibrium $\rightarrow$ Complex economic ecology

---

[02:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=9002s) Rewriting the Economic Operating System

As the debate wraps up, Steven highlights the actionable takeaways and recommended reading from both guests. Daniel introduces his latest book, *Lifestyle Business Playbook*, which guides people through starting small businesses that offer "fun, freedom, and fulfillment." Daniel warns listeners against becoming passive and miserable while "waiting for the system to change," urging them to take tangible steps in their own lives today.

Nick reinforces his closing argument: economics is the invisible operating system of society. When leaders operate on flawed theories, they enact destructive policies. If policy makers believe prosperity trickles down from the top, they enrich the wealthy; if they realize that a thriving middle class is the actual *cause* of economic growth (middle-out economics), they build an entirely different world. Steven thanks both guests for an incredible debate, concluding the episode before directing viewers to YouTube's algorithmic next recommendation.

- Daniel Priestley's recommended book: *Lifestyle Business Playbook*. - Nick Hanauer's core doctrine: The thriving middle class is the **cause** of economic growth, not merely a consequence of it.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=0s) There is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government. — Nick Hanauer

> [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=147s) You cannot sustain a capitalist democracy if the top 1% controls 45 or 50% of income and the bottom 50% shares five... This is not a deep political insight. This is just math. — Nick Hanauer

> [15:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=937s) they will revolt and kill us all. — John Bates Clark

> [26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1617s) A ham sandwich in Somalia costs 25 cents. It costs $25 in Switzerland. What kind of economy do you want to live in? — Nick Hanauer

> [33:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1984s) Ownership starts with earning enough money so that you can save money so that you can begin to own something... Trying to give stock options to everyone in a company often doesn't work. It's a catastrophe because for 90% of the workers in a company, their concerns are immediate. — Nick Hanauer

> [40:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2428s) We have no property. — Demonstrator

> [01:01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3698s) A lot of the entry-level roles we're often given are that kind of work... AI can now do the cold calls, too. So, if these businesses get more and more efficient... what role will entry-level team members have in these kind of companies? — Steven Bartlett

> [01:08:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4119s) Data is a common asset that has been sequestered illegitimately by these companies... You're basically saying, 'I'm sorry, but you need to pay a license back to this sovereign wealth fund because you're using a common asset that you were able to essentially seize.' — Daniel Priestley

> [01:22:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4925s) If you hate government so much, move to the Congo. Seriously... there is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government. — Nick Hanauer

> [01:51:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6696s) Socialism is most definitely not the answer... All socialism can do is split up existing prosperity in a fairer way. It does not know how to create more prosperity. — Nick Hanauer

> [01:58:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7080s) A thriving middle class is not a natural byproduct of economic growth... It is always a deliberate construction created by policy. — Nick Hanauer

> [02:26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8773s) Innovation is always combinatorial. Technology makes itself out of itself... You tie a rock to a stick, you have a hammer, a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel—it goes on and on and on. — Nick Hanauer

> [02:13:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8028s) I wouldn't be here talking to you guys if I still did—Jeff wouldn't come! — Nick Hanauer

> You cannot sustain a capitalist system unless most people are paid enough to buy the stuff that the system produces. — Nick Hanauer

## Mentioned Nick Hanauer, Daniel Priestley, Steven Bartlett, Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com, Pitchfork Economics, Lifestyle Business Playbook, BlackRock, James Dyson, Paul McCartney, Henry George, Progress and Poverty, John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth, J.P. Morgan, Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Netflix, Spotify, Starbucks, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Lloyds Bank, Citra Living, British Petroleum (BP), IRS, Enterprise Britain, Brent Hoberman, Stephen Fitzpatrick, Eric Schmidt, Anthropic, Bernie Sanders, Uber, Klarna, OpenAI, Figure AI, Elon Musk, aQuantive, MSNBC, Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, Wispr Flow, Diary of a CEO Conversation Cards, Zack Polanski, British Business Bank, Small Business Administration (SBA), Tesco, Safeway, 7-Eleven, Spar, Walmart, Gymshark, Represent, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Amazon Prime, Mark Zuckerberg, Subway, Costco, 21st Century Economics, marketsbuiltforhumans.org

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU)

中文简报

Hanauer与Priestley就解决不平等方案产生分歧：系统性政策还是中小企业所有权 Nick Hanauer与Daniel Priestley就中产阶级薪资停滞及AI导致的岗位替代问题展开辩论，探讨究竟是通过立法政策增强劳动者议价能力，还是通过推动资产所有权和中小企业规模化才是真正的解决之道。 Nick Hanauer与Daniel Priestley就如何扭转经济不平等和中产阶级衰退提出了截然不同的观点。Hanauer主张推行“自中向外”的经济学、制定强有力的监管标准、提高工资水平并推行协调一致的国际企业税收政策，以应对新自由主义带来的失败。Priestley则强调普及资产所有权、出台小企业激励措施以及放宽监管，以在数字化和AI驱动的格局中建立个人能动性。双方均认同极端科技垄断的危险性，并认为有必要推行反垄断措施和数字许可等结构性变革，以确保经济稳定。极端的贫富差距从数学逻辑上正在动摇资本主义民主的根基。Nick Hanauer 指出，美国前 1% 人群占有的国民收入份额从 1980 年的 8.5% 激增至近 22%，若收入分配持续恶化，历史规律表明这终将引发剧烈的社会动荡或走向威权管控。 (2:27) 中产阶级工资长期停滞的主因是新自由主义政策削弱了劳工议价权，而非个人生产力未达标。若维持 1975 年的 GDP 分配比例，目前美国中位数劳动者的年收入应从约 6 万美元翻倍至 12 万美元。 (11:44) 针对跨国企业容易承受合规支出而独立小企业利润微薄的现状，建立按企业规模划分的分阶梯最低工资制，既能保护本土小微实体生存，又能通过提高底层收入拉动实体经济的消费总需求。 (26:57) 科技转型与私募股权金融化正将普通大众推向“永久租客阶层”。挪威模式的主权财富基金或“婴儿债券”等分配机制，有助于让全民共享资产与资本增长红利，重建中产阶级资产壁垒。 (35:59)

Reading summary

In a debate on middle-class erosion, venture capitalist Nick Hanauer argues that systemic wage suppression and dismantled labor protections require aggressive state policy and corporate breakups, while entrepreneur Daniel Priestley contends that excessive regulation suffocates small businesses and that resilience depends on asset ownership and individual agency. Structural Wage Suppression Versus Financialized Assets (11:44) Hanauer traces the collapse of the middle class to neoliberal policies since the late 1970s that shifted productivity gains away from workers toward the top 1%. According to IRS data cited by Hanauer, the top 1% share of US national income climbed from roughly 8.5% in 1980 to nearly 22% by 2007, while the share going to the bottom 50% dropped from 18% to 12%. He notes that if workers had maintained their 1975 share of national GDP, median US worker compensation would stand at approximately $120,000 annually rather than around $60,000. For Hanauer, restoring economic health requires repairing systemic wage suppression rather than simply altering income tax brackets. Priestley counters that focusing strictly on wealthy individuals creates political scapegoats while obscuring the true structural culprits: large institutional asset managers and multinational tax avoidance. He points out that private equity and mega-funds purchase broad swaths of residential housing, transforming citizens into a permanent rental class. Furthermore, multinational corporations exploit offshore tax havens like Bermuda and Ireland, avoiding domestic obligations and placing local, tax-paying small businesses at an unsustainable competitive disadvantage. Regulatory Wage Mandates and Small-Business Strain (26:57) To counteract corporate leverage, Hanauer advocates statutory wage standards, including restoring historical overtime protections—which previously covered most US workers but now apply to under 10%—and implementing a tiered progressive minimum wage where multinational corporations pay the highest wage floors and small enterprises face lower baselines. He argues that well-paid workers provide the consumer demand essential for business vitality. Priestley cautions that heavy labor regulations and tax burdens inadvertently crush independent enterprises that operate on thin margins. He highlights the United Kingdom, where despite strong worker protections, paid family leave, and a minimum wage pegged to two-thirds of median income, the economy faces stagnation, youth unemployment, and the loss of two local pubs per day. Priestley notes that despite the low US federal minimum wage, higher baseline earnings leave average American workers with significantly higher net disposable income than their heavily taxed UK counterparts. Monopoly Dominance and Structural Antitrust Enforcement (129:40) Both speakers align in condemning the erosion of competitive safeguards. Hanauer outlines how mid-20th-century anti-monopoly frameworks historically barred large corporations from extracting predatory volume discounts and routinely blocked mergers that threatened market competition. The subsequent abandonment of antitrust enforcement allowed mega-corporations to dominate supply chains and squeeze independent operators out of physical and digital markets. When exploring remedies, both conclude that aggressive antitrust breakups are far more impactful than tax adjustments. Priestley argues that breaking up massive conglomerates—such as separating Google from YouTube or detaching Amazon Web Services from Amazon's e-commerce marketplace—would restore genuine market competition and prevent monopolistic value extraction. Hanauer agrees, noting that modern tech billionaires fear structural breakups far more than increased tax rates. Technological Disruption and the Limits of Agency (61:38) The rise of autonomous AI agents exposes differing outlooks on the future of labor. Steven Bartlett notes that automation threatens traditional entry-level pathways—such as administrative tasks, basic coding, and cold outreach—potentially stranding new graduates. While Priestley demonstrates from his own companies that AI can amplify junior worker productivity and unlock demand for relationship-focused roles, he concedes that technology continues to diminish the raw market value of routine human labor. Hanauer rejects the expectation that individual upskilling alone can secure widespread prosperity, emphasizing that market economies are non-ergodic systems where compounding early advantages naturally spiral into extreme inequality without intervention. Because the vast majority of citizens seek a stable livelihood rather than the high-stakes risks of entrepreneurship, Hanauer argues that democratic governments must deliberately establish policy floors to guarantee dignity and broad-based inclusion. The discussion leaves an unresolved tension between top-down regulatory intervention and bottom-up individual empowerment: while both guests agree that unchecked monopoly power and institutional financialization drain the real economy, they remain divided on whether long-term middle-class stability requires state-mandated wage floors and antitrust interventions or decentralized asset ownership and entrepreneurial agility.

精炼阅读摘要

在《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）节目中，风险投资人Nick Hanauer与创业家Daniel Priestley就中产阶级衰退原因及解法展开辩论：Hanauer主张中产萎缩源于新自由主义工资压制和资本积累的非遍历性失衡，呼吁通过强化政府规制、提升工资底线与反垄断来实行“由中及外”（middle-out）的分配；Priestley则认为沉重税负与官僚规制正在扼杀中小企业，提倡抑制巨型机构的资产金融化垄断，通过赋能个体创业与建立资产所有权来抵御阶层滑落。财富分化根源：工资停滞与资产金融化 (11:44) Nick Hanauer指出，中产阶级萎缩的核心症结在于劳动报酬分配体制的瓦解。他引用的美国国税局数据显示，前1%人群占国民收入份额从1980年的约8.5%攀升至2007年的近22%，而底层50%人群的份额则从18%跌至12%；若保持1975年的GDP分配比例，当今美国中位数工人的年收入应从约6万美元提高至约12万美元。Hanauer将此归咎于里根与撒切尔时期的自由市场政策，并强调市场经济类似于“大富翁”（Monopoly）游戏属于非遍历性系统（non-ergodic），早期累积的资本优势会无限滚雪球，若无制度性纠偏必将导致经济数学层面的崩塌。 Daniel Priestley则认为单纯批评富人个体是树立政治替罪羊，真正掏空中产的是资产金融化与跨国避税。他分析指出，1970年代初美元与黄金脱钩后资产泡沫膨胀，大型私募股权与银行机构（如英国劳埃德银行旗下Citra Living等实体）大肆购入住宅，将普通公民固化为终身租房阶层；同时，跨国巨头利用离岸漏洞转移利润，给本土实体商户造成不公平竞争。Priestley认为抵御K型经济分化的根本在于促成广泛的资产所有权（房产、股份与小企业），单靠提高名义工资就像给长跑者换跑鞋，根本无法追赶开着跑车的金融资本。规制与税负争议：大政府与中小企业生存 (26:57) 在政府职能的界限上，双方对规制成本的承受机制分歧明显。Hanauer坚称现代高功能社会必须依赖强力政府与劳动标准，例如美国法定加班费门槛覆盖率已从1960与1970年代的绝大多数雇员滑坡至不足10%，导致大企业随意延长工时变相裁撤工作岗位。为此他提议推行“分级渐进式最低工资”，对跨国巨头设立最高标准，中小企业执行较低标准，并以西雅图15美元最低工资的落地效果证明，充实劳动者购买力才能正向循环推动消费。Hanauer同时明确反感国家所有制的传统社会主义，称其虽能强行均分财富却彻底丧失繁荣创造力。 Priestley反驳称，沉重的政府开支与繁琐法规往往让中小企业承担不对称伤害，客观上巩固了大公司的护城河。他以英国为例指出，英国虽有锚定工资中位数三分之二的最低工资（约每小时11.44英镑）与长达28天法定带薪休假等严格保障，但仍面临增长停滞与青年失业；且英国在约10万英镑收入段因个人免税额递减导致实际边际税率飙升至60%至62%，而美国联邦最高税率门槛在70万美元以上。严苛的增值税和经营负担导致英国平均每天倒闭两家社区酒馆，迫使许多创业者选择外移至迪拜等零税率地区。 AI与自动化：劳动力贬值还是生产力杠杆 (60:18) 面对以人工智能为代表的生产力跃迁，双方重新审视了生产要素变迁的历史脉络。Priestley指出，财富驱动要素已从封建时代的土地、工业时代的资本与劳动，演化为现代由算法与执行速度驱动的“企业与数据”。他警示AI代理正在接管传统数据录入与冷线电话等基础业务，主持人Steven Bartlett亦引用Anthropic关于单人借助AI构建万亿美元公司的预测，以及Klarna与Uber利用技术停止扩招或计划替代人力的事实，担忧初级岗位的消亡会彻底切断青年进入职场的跳板。不过在实践反馈上，Priestley以自身运营的小微企业数据为例，强调为初级员工配置AI基础设施后，自动化筛选反而促成高质量潜客激增，促使其企业雇用了更多一线销售与交付人员，并预言服务成本将暴跌至接近电力成本的水平。Hanauer则对技术演进保持审慎，指出AI生产力红利高度集中于美中等科技强国，而菲律宾等依赖离岸外包和后台服务的经济体正承受岗位被算法替代的毁灭性冲击。他坚称技术红利无法自发形成普惠乌托邦，民主社会必须通过政策试验确保繁荣成果回流至普通大众。破局路径分野：反垄断拆分与个体创业赋权 (129:40) 在政策行动的切入点上，二人罕见地就严厉执行反垄断达成了共识。双方均支持拆分科技寡头（如将Google与YouTube剥离，或将亚马逊拆分为零售平台、AWS和Prime），Hanauer指出超级富豪最恐惧的并非增税，而是被反垄断法律剥离不当壁垒、被迫重新回归市场竞争；Priestley则进一步主张对收割公众注意力的大型平台征收固定数额的“数字广播牌照费”（如每年5亿英镑），用以反哺工薪阶层的税费减免。然而在实现中产繁荣的终极机制上，两人走向哲学对立。Priestley在《生活方式企业指南》（Lifestyle Business Playbook）中主张个体必须具备现实掌控力，与其等待制度缓慢改良，不如把握数字杠杆、学习产品开发与创业营销以赢取财务自由。Hanauer与Bartlett则反驳认为，创业倾向属于极少数人的特权与幸存者偏差，绝大多数劳动者追求的是稳定的薪资、体面的工作与安居的“平静奇迹”。Hanauer在《21世纪经济学》纲领中总结，健康的资本主义必须扭转“涓滴经济学”的谬论，确立中产阶级繁荣是经济增长的“起因”而非结果，唯有依靠自上而下的政策制度重构，方能维系社会契约的存续。本场辩论展现了应对中产阶级危机的两大核心范式之争：一方主张通过大政府、强工会和渐进税制重建中下阶层的劳动所得，通过强力反垄断制衡资本恶性膨胀；另一方则指责官僚制度与税负枷锁挤压实体经济，主张以普及资产所有权和个体创业能动性突围困境。双方虽在限制平台资本暴利与保护中小企业生存空间上存在共识，但对于普通劳动者究竟应依赖国家规制护航还是自我商业化赋权，仍留下了深刻的未决命题。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由知名商业播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 6 月 8 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了亚马逊早期投资人、风险投资家 Nick Hanauer 与连续创业者兼畅销书作者 Daniel Priestley，深入辩论中产阶级消亡的深层原因、AI 对劳动力市场的冲击、薪资停滞与住房金融化，并探讨资本主义体系是否仍具备自我修复能力。 ## TL;DR 对谈围绕现代资本主义的制度危机与中产阶级缩水展开，Nick Hanauer 与 Daniel Priestley 从政策监管与创业所有权两条截然不同的路径切入交锋。Nick 强调必须通过大政府推行累进最低工资、加班保障与反垄断分拆（如限制亚马逊、谷歌等超级巨头），扭转自 1970 年代以来生产力与工资严重脱钩的掠夺性失衡；Daniel 则主张小微企业才是创造就业的核心动能，呼吁降低中小企业合规税负，并推行全民资产所有权（如婴儿债券与免除底层所得税）以对抗跨国资本和住房金融化。双方还深入探讨了 AI 替代初级白领岗位的紧迫现实，最终一致认为繁荣必须从内而外由中产阶级驱动，而非依赖新自由主义式的涓滴神话。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场氛围充满知性张力与思想碰撞的高密度火花，既有顶尖投资人与实战创业者之间的针锋相对，又保持着彼此惺惺相惜的深刻敬意。Nick Hanauer 言辞犀利、直击结构性特权与制度弊病，带有强烈的阶级自省与理想主义反思；Daniel Priestley 则务实敏锐，充满为街区小生意与普通人创富辩护的市井共情。两位嘉宾在 Steven Bartlett 有节奏的穿针引线下层层推进，从宏观经济学范式一路辩论到社区杂货铺与代码工具，现场弥漫着对普通人被剥离资本后命运的真实焦虑，以及寻找务实破局解法的激辩热望。 ## Bulletin - [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=704s) Nick Hanauer 指出，若美国全职员工薪酬维持 1975 年以前在 GDP 中的分配份额，如今中位数年薪应为 120,000 美元而非现有的约 60,000 美元，生产力与薪资脱钩导致数万亿美元持续转移至资本顶层。 - [01:37:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5847s) 自由市场是一个具有路径依赖和复利效应的非各态历经系统，其运行逻辑如同《大富翁》游戏，拉长时间线必然导致极少数人独占所有资产，中产阶级必须依靠制度与政策干预强制构建。 - [01:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7084s) 针对数字寡头跨国避税，Daniel Priestley 提议向 OpenAI、Meta 等征收刚性的“注意力广播执照税”，以此填补免除英国后 50% 底层纳税人个人所得税（约 330 亿英镑）的财政缺口，直接为千万人变相加薪。 - [02:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7615s) 科技垄断寡头最恐惧的惩戒并非加税，而是业务生态被强制拆解；通过拆分 AWS 与零售电商等交叉补贴业务，才能打破负现金转换周期的倾销壁垒，恢复市场竞争。 ## Key takeaways - [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=704s) 过去半个世纪生产力增长红利绝大部分流向前 1% 的资本所有者，边际生产力理论在历史上被用作证伪劳工剥削、阻止再分配诉求的理论工具。 - [20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1205s) 大企业通过软糖与乒乓球桌等福利将全职加班常态化，规避 1.5 倍加班费门槛，严重挤压了全社会的就业岗位总数。 - [21:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1316s) 单纯提升劳动者保护并不必然带来繁荣，若缺乏小微企业成长土壤与技术生产力，严苛监管可能伴生青年高失业与低增长。 - [09:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=547s) 万亿级私募资本与金融机构大举收购住房将其金融化，正将年轻一代与工薪家庭系统性剥夺为终身租客阶级。 - [26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1600s) 针对小微企业与超级垄断企业应推行累进式监管与最低工资标准，让超级巨头承担更严合规义务，同时为基层商业留出生存空间。 - [01:24:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5086s) 全球没有任何一个缺乏大政府与完善监管的成熟经济体能够维持长期繁荣，大政府是抗衡跨国垄断巨头不可或缺的力量。 - [01:24:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5086s) 大企业内部官僚主义与治理无能同样普遍存在，不能盲目将大企业的资源调配效率神化为优于公共治理的典范。 - [01:33:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5589s) 社会主义生产资料公有制扼杀创新与创富演化，资本主义的核心必须是在鼓励自由创新的同时，通过再分配确保普通工薪族共享财富红利。 - [01:35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5700s) 阿西莫格鲁的“狭窄通道”理论证明，良性监管与工薪阶层财富份额保障构成的平衡道路，才能实现最高经济增速与长期政治稳定。 - [01:09:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4190s) AI 大模型估值的核心逻辑在很大程度上建立在消灭人力成本之上，科技巨头无偿吞吐全人类公地数据，理应支付类似资源特许使用费的社会红利。 - [01:50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6628s) 社区贫困与食物荒漠的根源往往不在于小微企业缺乏创业意愿，而在于全国连锁巨头利用资本和供应链优势对区域单店形成的降维扼杀。 - [02:10:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7830s) 亚马逊等巨头早期依靠极长供应商结算账期与即时扣款形成的“负现金转换周期”实现免资本指数级扩张，构成了战略性垄断优势。 - [02:15:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8131s) 创业倾向与风险承担能力受原生运气与家庭背景高度制约，社会制度必须保障 95% 以上不创业的普通人也能过上有尊严、安宁的中产生活。 - [02:20:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8420s) 必须推翻 1970 年代以来的股东利益最大化教条，经济增长是由中产阶级自内而外（middle out）驱动的动因，而非资本效率增长后的附带副产品。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=0s) 经济辩论的前奏：大政府、小微企业与工薪困境辩论在一场激烈的观念碰撞中拉开帷幕。Nick Hanauer 直截了当地指出，地球上绝不存在任何一个缺乏“大政府”（big government）却能高效运转的成熟社会。然而，Daniel Priestley 随即驳斥这一观点，认为当前大政府的繁重税收与政策正在严重榨干小微企业的生命力。Daniel 分享道，他在英国接触了无数小企业主，听到的普遍心声是“你在英国根本不可能成功，一旦赚到一点钱，政府就会全部税走”；更有甚者索性迁往迪拜，通过远程虚拟运营企业来彻底免税。这种畸形的制度让 Daniel 直呼荒谬，并强调当务之急是降低针对小微企业的税赋与监管压力。他认为，在现代经济体系中，人人必须成为“资产所有者”——拥有房产、自己的企业以及股票。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资本所有权与工资基础的关系 accDescr: 流程图展示了Nick与Daniel关于所有权前提的不同观点分歧 subgraph DanielView["Daniel 的核心主张"] D1["降低小微企业税负与压力"] --> D2["鼓励创业与资产持有"] D2 --> D3["持有三大支柱：房产、企业、股权"] end subgraph NickView["Nick 的底层逻辑"] N1["提高底层基础工资 (Wages)"] --> N2["产生结余与储蓄能力"] N2 --> N3["进而实现资产所有权 (Ownership)"] end ``` 针对 Daniel 的观点，Nick 指出并非人人都能成为企业家。虽然“全民持产”是理想状态，但所有权的前提是普通劳动者必须先赚取足够的薪酬来积累储蓄，“核心痛点在于工资（wages）”。绝大多数普通人的愿望十分简单且朴素：拥有一份受人尊重的工作、赚取足以安身立命的收入、结婚生子并买得起房子。然而，当下的现实却是房价遥不可及、本地岗位大量消失、科技中介消灭了传统中层、雇主不愿提供体面薪水，整个社会陷入了空前的不满与焦虑之中。双方虽开出不同药方，但都一致承认：旧时代的生存规则已经失效，公众必须认清全新经济环境的残酷底层现实。 --- ### [01:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=93s) 频道互动与订阅承诺节目主持人 Steven Bartlett 打断讨论并插入了一则即兴呼吁。他透露，后台数据显示不少长期收看节目的老观众在无意中被系统取消了订阅，而团队目前正向一个极具里程碑意义的订阅数字发起冲刺。Steven 郑重向受众承诺，点击免费的订阅按钮是支持这档完全免费、高品质节目的最简单方式，作为回报，他与制作团队每周都会竭尽全力邀请顶尖嘉宾，深挖最具深度的议题，绝不辜负观众的期待。 --- ### [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=147s) 亿万富翁的自省：Nick Hanauer 与“暴民的干草叉” Steven Bartlett 将话题引回 Nick Hanauer 身上，指出 Nick 曾以近 70 亿美元的高价出售过一家公司（编者注：指 aQuantive），作为典型的亿万富豪，其经济主张却与绝大多数同阶层人士背道而驰。Nick 解释道，自己成长于一个极富公民责任感的普通中产家庭，父亲经营着一家生产羽绒枕头和被子的小型家族工坊，这也是他商业生涯的起点。此后，他凭借对互联网改变商业模式的敏锐直觉，在西雅图与老友杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）联合创立了早期亚马逊（Amazon.com），成为其首位非家族外部投资者。其后，他的商业足迹横跨制造业、电商平台乃至控股商业银行。正是这种兼具底层工坊与顶层资本的宏观视角，让 Nick 敏锐意识到：当代主流经济学教条完全是一套“由谎言编织的谎言”（a pack of lies），若盲目遵从，必然导致富者愈富、贫者愈贫。他在 2007 至 2008 年间查阅美国国税局（IRS）的历史税收分配表，惊讶地发现： - 1980 年，美国最富有的 1% 人口仅占国民总收入的大约 8.5%； - 到了 2007 年，这一数字已暴涨近三倍，达到惊人的 22%； - 与此同时，底层 50% 人口的收入份额则从 1980 年的约 18% 急剧下滑至 2007 年的 12%。 Nick 将这些数据输入电子表格进行外推推演：如果这一趋势再持续 30 年，等待社会的唯一结局就是“革命”（revolution）。当极少数 1% 人口攫取社会近一半财富、底层半数人口仅能分得 5% 时，资本主义民主体制在简单的算术逻辑上就注定崩溃。Nick 发出警告，历史早已证明，极端的贫富分化最终必然走向警察国家或暴力革命；特朗普政权的崛起正是社会走向撕裂和激化的典型征兆。手握资本与话语权的人必须在“干草叉”（pitchforks）杀到豪宅门前之前，主动承担责任纠正体制偏差。 --- ### [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=387s) 草根创业家的视角：Daniel Priestley 的资本普及论面对同样的问题，Daniel Priestley 讲述了截然不同的奋斗路径。他在澳大利亚长大，少年时期便在商业导师指引下涉足初创企业，并在 21 岁时独立创办了一家没有任何风险投资注入、纯靠刷爆多张信用卡凑资金冷启动的营销代理公司。这家公司在首年即破百万营收，第三年便突破千万大关，团队成员像大家庭一样生活在一栋大房子里共同奋斗。创业对他而言如同人生中无意解开的“作弊码”（cheat code）。在过去的 15 年里，Daniel 创办了创业加速器，深入辅导了全球超过 5500 家中小企业。在长期的微观观察中，他也得出了中产阶级正被科技革命彻底掏空的结论。但他笃信的救赎之道不是抛弃资本主义，而是让更多普通人享受到资本主义的红利： - 普通人如果不尽快学会数字经济时代的资产所有权新规则，就注定在浪潮中被颠覆与淘汰； - 若广大民众无法切实体会到资本主义的收益，社会各界便会因极端绝望而转投盲目的“社会主义”（socialism）； - 当绝望的民众举起干草叉，经济肌体将遭受不可逆的腐蚀。因此，Daniel 自称是一个“希望让所有人都能受益于资本主义的资本家”。当 Steven 提问最主流的解法是否应当向富豪大幅征税时，Daniel 反驳指出，大众往往倾向于把亿万富翁具象化为唯一的“幕后反派”，却忽视了更为隐蔽且更具破坏力的巨兽——垄断性超大型跨国企业与贝莱德（BlackRock）这类横扫英国房地产市场的私募股权基金（Mega Funds）。 ### [09:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=547s) 空心化中产阶级的是超级巨头，而非动态创业者 Daniel Priestley 指出，当前的经济困境在于像万亿级主权与私募巨型基金正在将整个人群推向“永久租客阶级（rental class forever）”。英国首相甚至曾被目睹在唐宁街与这类超级基金的首席执行官并肩同行，欢迎他们入驻买断资产并推动住房金融化（financialization of homes）。与此同时，类似微软、亚马逊等科技巨擘在各主权国家开展业务，却通过复杂的避税架构宣称自己在卢森堡或爱尔兰运营——货物明明从英国本地仓库发往英国本地消费者，却利用离岸注册规避纳税；又如星巴克在本土家庭经营的小咖啡馆旁开店，却将巨额星巴克商标授权费转移到百慕大。这些跨国超级企业（Megacorps）体量已经庞大到堪比独立国家，与万亿级资产管理基金一同掏空了中产阶级。 Daniel 强调，公众很容易将“动态创业者”甚至是 Nick 这样的亿万富翁当作敌人，但这完全找错了靶子。像詹姆斯·戴森（James Dyson）发明出色的吸尘器并赢得市场，或者保罗·麦卡特尼（Paul McCartney）通过创作大量经典音乐成为名利双收的披头士成员并赚得十亿美元，他们绝不是社会的敌人。真正的敌人是“住房的金融化”以及“极力逃避纳税义务的跨国巨头”。在政策制定上必须保持清醒和细致，认清到底是谁在榨干中产阶级。 - 住房金融化问题：大型基金将住房转变为纯粹的金融投机资产，剥夺了普通人的购房机会。 - 跨国巨头避税机制：亚马逊利用卢森堡、谷歌利用爱尔兰、星巴克通过百慕大转移知识产权授权费，让本地小企业承受不公平的竞争劣势。 - 创业家 vs. 榨取型资本：戴森（发明创新产品）与麦卡特尼（文化艺术创作）创造了实质社会价值，与纯粹玩弄金融手段的基金有着本质区别。 --- ### [10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=652s) “向富人征税”是口号还是良方？英国小企业的潜力当被问及“向富人征税（Tax the rich）”是否是解决问题的答案时，Daniel 直言这更像是一个政治标语，制造了虚构的阶级对立，却无法触及问题核心。如果他担任英国首相，单纯为政治目的对收入前 1% 的群体提高税率固然能让民众感到情感上的宣泄，但根本无法扭转宏观经济的基本面。 Daniel 提出，英国经济最大的底牌是国内存在的 570 万家小型企业，而政府却未能意识到它们才是国家最宝贵的资产。提振这些小企业、掀起一场创业浪潮，才能真正创造就业与更好的发展机会。针对现状，政策的真正着力点应当是严厉遏制万亿级跨国资本对实体民生的渗透，并彻底取缔大公司通过卢森堡、爱尔兰进行跨国利润转移与虚假离岸避税的把戏。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两种不同的经济解题思路对比 accDescr: 对比单纯向富人征税与激发本土小企业创业活力两种路线的路径差异。 subgraph SymbolTax["政治象征路径（治标）"] A["向Top 1%富人大幅增税"] --> B["民众获得短期心理满足"] B --> C["经济结构无实质改变/资本外逃"] end subgraph StructuralFix["结构改革路径（治本）"] D["堵塞跨国巨头避税漏洞 (卢森堡/爱尔兰/百慕大)"] --> F["公平税负与营商环境"] E["扶持570万本土中小企业"] --> G["创造就业与内生增长动能"] F & G --> H["中产阶级恢复经济活力"] end ``` --- ### [11:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=704s) 薪资压制而非税率，才是美国财富分流的病根转向 Nick Hanauer 时，他明确指出，所谓“美国富人承担了绝大部分税负”完全是谎言。美国税法充斥着为超级富豪量身定制的游说漏洞，导致最顶层群体的实际税率往往只有普通工薪阶层的一半。在一个运转良好的民主国家中，富人的实际纳税比例理应等于甚至高于普通公民，而现实中收入 5 亿美元的大亨仅按 15% 的资本利得纳税，年收入 20 万美元的中产阶层却要承受 40% 的税率。但 Nick 随即指出，税收只是维持民主体制运转的“入场底牌（table stakes）”，当前经济最大的核心症结是**薪资（Wages）**。Nick 抛出了一组震撼的经济数据： - 如今美国全职员工的中位数年薪约为 60,000 美元。 - 如果普通劳动者能够维持其在 1975 年占全国内生产总值（GDP）的同等分配比例，那么今天的全职中位数年薪本应接近 **120,000 美元**。 - 这种工资缩水效应一直向上蔓延到了收入的前 10%（第 90 百分位数）：在 2018 至 2020 年间收入 180,000 美元的人群，如果维持当年的 GDP 份额，其年薪理应达到约 **250,000 美元**。在过去 50 年间，生产力提升和经济增长的所有红利全被卷入了前 10% 的口袋，其中绝大部分更是流入了前 1% 的账户。这是每年数万亿美元规模的财富大转移——原本应当属于劳动者薪酬的资金，被源源不断地输送给了资本所有者。70 至 90 年代兴起的新自由主义（Neoliberalism）、里根经济学与撒切尔主义，以“下渗经济学（Trickle-down economics）”为名，对富人降税、对权力机构与垄断企业去监管，同时系统性打压劳动者薪资，最终导致经济天平从中小企业与中产劳工彻底倾斜倒向了极少数超级巨头。 --- ### [15:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=907s) 选择权假设与边际生产力理论的谎言针对提高工资的路径，Daniel 主张**选择权（Optionality）**比任何政府干预都要强大。当劳动者拥有充足的选择权时，便绝不会被迫妥协于恶劣的工作环境或微薄的薪资。如果一个城镇里有 10 家公司竞相招人，由于劳动力资源有限，雇主之间必须通过竞价提高薪酬和工作待遇；相反，如果全镇只有一家巨型雇主，劳动者就只能沦落为受其宰割的被动接受者。因此，Daniel 极力主张在中小学普及创业教育，使创办家族小企业成为每个人的兜底备选项；他认为一旦选择权充分，甚至连法定最低工资都没有存在的必要。 Nick 对此回应道，这种理论在“精神与愿景上很动听”，但脱离现实： - 传统经济学构建了一个不存在权力倾斜的乌托邦，但在现实世界中，普通劳动者根本不具备对等的议价权和选择权。 - 这一设想深深植根于资本主义的核心教条——**边际生产力理论（Theory of Marginal Productivity）**。该理论声称市场绝对高效，因此一个人的收入精准对应其为世界创造的价值：年入 15,000 美元意味着只贡献了对应价值，而年入 5 亿美元的金融空手套白狼也代表着等额的社会价值。 Nick 揭示了该理论鲜为人知的荒诞起源：1879 年，亨利·乔治（Henry George）出版了揭露富人掠夺穷人的巨著《进步与贫困》（*Progress and Poverty*），在全美引发狂潮并成为历史畅销书，震撼了既得利益集团。随后，J.P. 摩根等金融寡头资助哥伦比亚大学的约翰·贝茨·克拉克（John Bates Clark）出面反击。克拉克在其著作《财富的分配》（*The Distribution of Wealth*）中创立了边际生产力理论，甚至在书中公开写道其真实目的：必须向劳动阶级证明，无论他们挣多挣少，其收入都“完全精准地反映了其自身价值”；因为如果工人一旦意识到自己的劳动价值远高于所得报酬，他们就会奋起反抗甚至杀死统治阶层。这一迎合富人利益的学说被迅速吸纳进主流经济学殿堂，成为数十年来资本压制劳工合理报酬的思想防线。 ### [18:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1128s) 权力不对称与“你能赚多少”的谎言 Nick Hanauer 指出，新古典主义经济学理论声称市场能完美定价，但这只在市场完全高效且劳动者拥有无限选择权时才成立；现实中这种情况从未发生过。Daniel Priestley 补充道，个人的收入根本不是由所谓“市场决定的神秘数字”敲定的，而是取决于**可替代性**与**议价能力**：“如果你发一条招聘广告，有 400 个人来应聘，而且各个资质优秀，你根本不会考虑涨薪。”Steven Bartlett 对此深有体会，表示这种情况目前在英国和全球普遍发生。 Nick 引用亚当·斯密在《国富论》中对劳资权力不对称的经典论述强调：在几乎所有现实情况下，工人的权力都远远弱于资本所有者。如果整个社会成功向大众灌输了“你赚多少就代表你值多少”的叙事，结果只能是富人越来越富，其他所有人越来越穷。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 劳动力市场议价机制与新古典假说对比 accDescr: 对比传统经济学理论假设与现实中劳资权力严重不对称的实际机制。 subgraph Theory["理论假说（自由市场模型）"] T1["完全高效市场"] --> T2["工人拥有充分可选性"] T2 --> T3["薪酬等于边际产出与个人价值"] end subgraph Reality["现实残酷机制（劳资权力不对称）"] R1["岗位竞争激烈 （1 个职位 400 人竞聘）"] --> R2["劳动者极易被替代 议价权完全丧失"] R2 --> R3["薪资被压低至底线 财富向资本所有者集中"] end ``` --- ### [20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1205s) 政策解药：最低工资与加班门槛的沦陷当 Steven 问及解决方案是否在于提高法定最低工资时，Nick 强调政策虽重要，但最根本的前提是让大众认清真实的经济运作机制，而非坚守 1787 年以来的空想模型。在具体的政策工具上，Nick 提出了两个关键杠杆： 1. **兜底的生活工资（Living Wage）与法定最低工资**：强制企业保障基本体面生活； 2. **加班工资门槛（Overtime Threshold）**：这是美国过去半个世纪中被严重削弱的核心机制。 Nick 解释，英国的法定工作周上限是 48 小时，而美国标准工时是 40 小时，超出部分必须支付 1.5 倍加班费（Time and a Half）。在 1965 年至 1970 年间，这一加班保障几乎覆盖美国全体劳动者；然而到了今天，这一门槛缩水至仅覆盖不到 10% 的劳动者。Nick 犀利地揭穿了雇主层面的运作逻辑：资本家和高管在休息室里放点软糖（Gummy Bears）、摆一张乒乓球桌，打造轻松外表，实质上将三个原本每周 40 小时的岗位压缩成两个每周 60 小时的苦工岗位，直接装走省下的差价。如果在全美推行 3000 万次，就相当于凭空抹去了 1000 万个全职工作岗位。 --- ### [21:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1316s) Daniel 的反思：为什么“更好的跑鞋”救不了英国？ Daniel 对 Nick 的纯政策路径表示保留。他指出，Nick 提出的所有劳工保护建议，英国在过去 20 年几乎全盘推行了： - 最低工资直接锚定在国民收入中位数的 2/3 并持续动态上调； - 每年至少 28 天法定带薪年假； - 健全的带薪病假、产假与陪产假； - 极其严苛的解雇保护（员工入职满 6 个月后极难被辞退）。然而，现实结果却令人沮丧：英国人口的幸福感跌至低谷，经济几乎停滞不前，青年失业人口突破百万，当下各行各业几乎都在冻结招聘。Daniel 直言：“这没有创造出繁荣，反而表明底层正在发生更严重的问题。” 在 Daniel 看来，科技与全球化已经彻底摧毁了传统劳动力的价值： - **中间环节被全面剔除**：以前租影碟需要去录像带租赁店，一家店能养活 12 名员工，现在全部变成了 Netflix；以前去本地实体零售店买 CD，现在全被 Spotify 和 Amazon 取代。 - **劳动力价值被科技与外包稀释**：跨国离岸外包和自动化使得纯粹依靠出卖时间的劳动力价值贬值，AI 和机器人更将加速这一进程。 Daniel 打了个生动的比喻：“单纯依靠提升劳动标准，就像有人开着车在跑，而你试图靠跑步追上他，别人却建议‘换一双更好的跑鞋吧’。鞋子根本无法改变结局，英国早就试过了这双鞋，结果大家依旧苦不堪言。”他坚信真正的终极解法是**资产所有权（Ownership）**——让每个人都参与到资本主义中，拥有房产、家族企业或成长型公司的股票份额。 --- ### [24:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1492s) 美英对比：高可支配收入 vs. 全民医保 NHS 两人就美英两国公民的实际富裕程度展开了激烈交锋与即时数据核对： - **名义差异与最低工资**：美国联邦最低工资依然停留在极低的 7.25 美元/小时（小费工种仅 2.13 美元），远低于英国；但美国家庭的可支配收入与薪资中位数几乎是英国的 1.5 到 2 倍。 - **医疗成本扣除后的较量**：Nick 认为美国家庭每年需要自掏约 20,000 美元购买昂贵的医疗保险，实际生活水平与英国差距可能仅有 10% 左右。 - **团队核实的确切数据**：现场调取的数据推翻了 Nick 的直觉反驳—— - 美国全职员工平均年薪约 74,000 美元，扣除平均 6,000 至 8,000 美元的医保保费及自付医疗费用后，仍剩约 66,000 美元（适用相对较低的税率）。 - 英国全职员工平均年薪约 50,000 至 52,000 美元，即便享受英国国民医疗服务体系（NHS）的完全免费医疗，其税前起步基数过低且适用更高的税负。 - 结论非常明确：即使彻底抵消医疗支出，美国普通人的净可支配收入仍高出英国至少 30%。英国脱欧（Brexit）更成为经济层面的严重灾难。 --- ### [26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1600s) 小企业与科技巨头的“最低工资悖论” Daniel 提出了对粗暴提高最低工资政策的核心担忧：真正掏空中产阶级、赚取暴利的是大型科技公司和跨国金融巨头，这些巨头完全有能力承受大幅涨薪；然而真正被最低工资与监管法规逼到绝境的，却是那些为底层工人提供“入场跳板”的小微实体经济。 Daniel 以身边的开酒吧的朋友为例： - 酒吧利润薄如刀片（Razor-thin margins），目前持续亏损，店主自己分文不取； - 面对层出不穷的政府监管、加税以及连年上涨的法定最低工资，小店主濒临崩溃，只能关门大吉； - 反观微软、谷歌、亚马逊以及星巴克等超级寡头，既能轻而易举消化工资上涨成本，同时还能利用跨国避税手段少缴甚至不缴税。粗暴推高用工成本与监管负担，最终结果不仅没伤到垄断巨头，反而扼杀了社区零售、小餐馆与“夫妻老婆店”（Mom-and-dad businesses）。Nick 对此表示理解，并透露解决之道在于针对不同规模与类型的企业推行分级差异化监管标准。 ### [27:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1676s) 累进最低工资与酒吧用工难题 Nick Hanauer 提出了一种分级的累进最低工资构想：规模最大的超级企业必须支付最高的最低工资，中型企业略少，而小微企业则承担更低的工资标准。但他强调，即便在这种制度下，也必须确保全社会所有劳动者赚取的报酬足够维持日常消费并购买商品。Nick 调侃道，开酒吧的人说“我不想在店里发高薪”固然听起来合情合理，可若在酒吧打工的人连去酒吧买杯啤酒的钱都掏不起，整个经济体系就无法运转。这就像美国全国餐饮协会（National Restaurant Association）的著名悖论：他们期盼全美国的民众都能走进餐馆大吃大喝，唯独餐馆里的底层服务员自己吃不起。主持人 Steven Bartlett 随即提出一个尖锐的用工疑问：假设一方是星巴克（Starbucks）这样的大财阀，另一方是 Daniel Priestley 朋友开的独立小酒吧。如果星巴克必须依法支付每小时 8 英镑，而小酒吧只需支付 4 英镑，求职者肯定会立刻涌向星巴克，酒吧难道不会彻底流失优秀人才吗？对此，Daniel 指出小微企业除了薪酬还有其他维度的吸引力和保留人才的手段；而 Nick 则认为，虽然大企业的薪酬会促使整个经济体的用工标准水涨船高（迫使酒吧老板可能也必须主动跟进给到 8 英镑），但更深层的红利在于：随着星巴克等大厂成千上万的员工拿到更高薪水，他们终于有充裕的可支配收入下班后走进酒吧消费。 Nick 回忆起自己在西雅图参与推动全美首个“15 美元最低工资”法案的经历： - 当时他接触了无数陷入极度恐慌的小企业主，因为任何经营者都能在短短几秒钟内精准算清涨薪带来的即时成本与财务风险。 - 但经营者们在数学上无法预先测算的是，生活并经营在一个“人人皆有更高购买力”的繁荣生态中所获得的巨大回流收益。 - Nick 打了个生动的比方：“一个火腿三明治在索马里卖 25 美分，在瑞士卖 25 美元。你究竟想在哪种经济体里做生意？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 累进最低工资对整体经济的正向循环 accDescr: 展示提高大企业最低工资如何通过购买力回流使小微企业受益的流动机制 subgraph Leg["政策与薪酬分级"] A["累进最低工资法规"] --> B["超大型跨国巨头 (承担最高最低工资)"] A --> C["中小型独立企业 (承担相对较低下限)"] end subgraph Spend["购买力释放与流转"] B --> D["基层员工获得充裕可支配收入"] D --> E["消费回流实体经济 (餐饮、酒吧、社区零售)"] end subgraph Benefit["小企业收益"] E --> F["小微企业客流与营业额暴增"] F -.->|"利润增长促使匹配高薪"| C end ``` --- ### [30:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1854s) 英国小企业的真实困境与大资本掠夺 Daniel 对此提出了强烈的反对意见，并拿自己开酒吧的朋友现身说法。那家酒吧事实上大多数夜晚都高朋满座、客流不断，可真正的致命伤在于英国庞大的政府体系以及窒息般的税负与成本： - 他的朋友去年自己一分钱工资都没领，整座酒吧一年依然巨亏了 18 万英镑（£180,000）。 - 英国在过去 25 年里早已推行了 Nick 倡导的这类福利与监管政策，但结果不仅没有催生一个富裕的中产阶级，反而使英国中产彻底被侵蚀。 - 朋友开在乡村小镇上的酒吧是当地极少数还在提供就业岗位的实体，独自背负着给年轻人提供人生第一份工作并承担全部培训成本的重担，同时还要被沉重的增值税（VAT）压垮。 - 制造危机的根本不是本土实体店，而是亚马逊（Amazon）、微软（Microsoft）、谷歌（Google）、Meta（Facebook）以及各类大型投资基金，这些巨头正在无情地从实体经济中吸血。Nick 随即插话表示，在这个问题上两人是“极度一致”（violent agreement）的。 Daniel 进一步揭示了英国实体小企业面临的复合绝境： - **AI 与算法焦虑**：小企业主不仅要应付经营，还被逼着追赶 AI 潮流，被迫像网红一样每天在 LinkedIn 上用 AI 发帖 45 次、自学剪辑视频去当 TikToker，否则在流量上就会彻底被算法淹没。 - **金融资本的无情吞噬**：这家酒吧当前面临的最大威胁之一，是一家美国大型私募股权基金（Private Equity Fund）企图强行收购该物业并将其改建成公寓楼出租。资本正在将充满人情味的社区资产全面“金融化”（financialize），而小店主只能拼死抵抗。 - Daniel 发出警告：目前英国平均每天有两家酒吧关门倒闭，如果“大政府”再设计出一套繁琐严苛的监管新框架，只会加速勒死小家族企业，最后全英国的资产将被那些扛得住合规成本的垄断跨国集团和超级基金尽数瓜分。 --- ### [32:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1975s) 股权激励的幻象与全球外包的恶果针对 Daniel 提出的“现代人生活艰难是因为一无所有、缺乏资产所有权”，Nick 与 Daniel 展开了务实探讨。Nick 指出，拥有资产的前提必须是先通过劳动赚取足够的钱，才有可能产生储蓄去购置资产。他分享了一个商业教训：企业给全员发放股票期权（Stock Options）的尝试在现实中绝大多数是灾难。因为对于 90% 的基层员工而言，面临的生存压力是迫在眉睫的账单，如果让他们在现金与期权之间选择，他们会毫无犹豫地选择现金，期权对他们而言缺乏现实价值。 Nick 认为，美国在过去四五十年间被验证最为行之有效的模式，是确立一套清晰的劳工标准，强制企业将创造的价值与劳动者公平分享： - 依靠健全的劳动标准保障，例如合理的最低工资与加班费门槛（Overtime Threshold），辅以工会等制衡手段。 - 同时配合反垄断政策，打击行业兼并与资本剥削，从而维持经济的良性与动态运转。 Daniel 针锋相对地指出，Nick 描述的历史黄金期存在一个不可忽视的时代前提：当时的企业几乎不可能把客户支持团队一键外包给菲律宾，也根本不可能靠一套软件自动接管 80% 的工作。如今处于 AI、自动化与机器人时代，一旦给本土企业施加过高的成本压力，企业便会立刻选择离岸外包或彻底自动化。 Nick 对此冷峻地反驳称，允许企业肆意全球外包与逃避责任的这套游戏规则，恰恰就是当年推动产业兼并与资本垄断的同一批人制定的。所谓的新自由主义（Neoliberalism）曾向所有人承诺自由贸易会让全球共同富裕，但现实中它只是让市场充斥着来自中国廉价制造的商品，并没有让英国或美国底层民众的生活变得更好；如果美国可以重来一次，绝不应该再落入这种政策陷阱。 --- ### [36:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2160s) 主权财富基金与资产沉淀模式 Daniel 进而把话题转向了能够打破阶层固化的“全民所有制模型”，并重点推崇了挪威和新加坡的主权财富基金（Sovereign Wealth Fund）： - 挪威和新加坡将国家自然资源与核心资产纳入主权财富基金运作，使每一个国民名义上都切实持有并享受着国家资产的份额。 - 这种模式由于运转得极其成功，甚至在某种程度上“成功到了危险的境地”——如今半个伦敦的顶级商业地产都已经被卡塔尔主权财富基金（Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund）和挪威主权财富基金收入囊中，英国本土正在一点点丢失掉自己的不动产产权。 - 主权财富基金的核心逻辑在于国家代表全民持有优质资产的股权与收益权。 Daniel 痛心疾首地对比了英挪两国的历史教训：早在 1980 年代北海油田（North Sea oil）被发现时，英国与挪威各占半壁江山。英国做出了愚蠢的挥霍决策，将资源私有化并耗散在即时财政中；而挪威则极为清醒地将石油红利全部归入基金中长期投资，确保了全体公民世代享有资产收益。 ### [37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2220s) 主权财富基金、婴儿债券与被金融化的住房对话延续了全民资产所有权的话题。Daniel Priestley 举例说明，挪威建立了国家主权财富基金，将石油收益再投资于资产组合，让每位公民都从中受益；而英国却仅仅是将开采牌照卖给英国石油公司（British Petroleum），让富人更富。Daniel 吐槽自己的祖国澳大利亚拥有无与伦比的自然资源，却毫无主权财富基金的远见；反观大英帝国当年征服世界四分之一领土时，其运营模式本质上就是类似东印度公司的超大型主权基金。随后，Daniel 提出第二个方案——“婴儿债券（Baby Bond）”：婴儿出生时便以其名义配置价值约 1,000 美元的股市份额，在 18 年的复利滚存下，孩子成年时就能获得一笔可观的启动资产。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富积累模式对比 accDescr: 对比挪威公共财富积累模式与英国、澳大利亚私有化模式的差异 subgraph 公共积累模式["公共资产模式（如挪威）"] A1["自然资源收益"] --> A2["国家主权财富基金"] A2 --> A3["全球资产再投资"] A3 --> A4["全体公民共享红利"] end subgraph 私有化模式["私有化/金融化模式（如英美部分地区）"] B1["资源与土地"] --> B2["出售牌照给巨头/PE入场"] B2 --> B3["机构垄断房源与利润"] B3 --> B4["普通大众成为永久租客"] end ``` 谈及更深层的住房危机，Daniel 指出房屋价值的一半是居住的“实用价值”，另一半则是被推高的“金融投机价值”。针对网络传言贝莱德（BlackRock）在英国大肆收购住宅，主持人查证并澄清贝莱德在英国没有直接持有或管理单户住宅，它主要是为开发商提供贷款和债务工具的融资方。然而，Daniel 指出劳埃德银行（Lloyds Bank）正通过旗下的 Citra Living 购买数万套新房并永久出租。Nick Hanauer 对此深恶痛绝，指出西方在新自由主义共识的驱使下，私有股权机构试图买断所有房屋，将普通民众剥夺成“永久租房阶级”，逼迫大众接受所谓“你将一无所有且感到幸福”的荒谬设定，而这严重违背了人类渴望拥有自己财产的本性。 - 挪威模式通过主权财富基金将自然资源收益直接转化为全民长效资产。 - 澳大利亚和英国在资源收益分配上被指错失了建立全民基金的良机。 - 婴儿债券（Baby Bond）主张在孩子出生时注入约 1,000 美元股票资产，利用 18 年复利效应奠定成年后的经济基础。 - 劳埃德银行旗下 Citra Living 正在直接作为企业房东买入成千上万套新建住宅与公寓，将社会由“居者有其屋”向“终身租房”转变视为重大利润来源。 --- ### [40:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2428s) 劳工权利的悖论：为何健全的保障依然挡不住“草叉”？主持人切回核心争议：英美两国在解决不平等问题上的路径迥异。英国的劳工权益保护远优于美国，例如法定享有长达 39 周的产假津贴及带薪年假，而不平等程度也低于美国（美国前 1% 人口掌握全国 30% 以上的财富，英国则约为 20%）。然而，从 2019 年至 2026 年，缺乏法定产假等安全网的美国经济增速却比英国快了 100% 以上。Nick 补充指出，英国的低迷很大程度上是“自作自受的惊天错误”——2016 年的脱欧（Brexit）直接削减了英国约 8% 至 10% 的经济增长率，使失业率和生产力分别受到约 4% 的严重拖累。 Daniel 随即反驳称，问题并不能单纯归咎于脱欧，因为享有极高劳工保障的德国和澳大利亚同样陷入困局。在现代资本主义阵营中，几乎只有美国是缺乏基本社会安全网的“异类”，其余发达国家都有更慷慨的医疗、育儿与福利体系。但耐人寻味的是，即便在这些保障完备的国家，民众依然怒火中烧、充满抗议情绪（“草叉”并未消失）。因此 Daniel 强调，单靠劳工福利无法平息民愤，根本破局点必须在于让民众真正“拥有资产”——拥有一套房子、一家企业或股票。 - 财富集中度对比：美国前 1% 富豪掌握全美超 30% 财富，而英国前 1% 掌握约 20%；美国长期在 G7 集团中不平等程度居首。 - 经济增速与保障差异：2019 至 2026 年间，美国经济增速比英国快 100% 以上；但英国提供高达 39 周的法定产假工资，美国联邦层面要求为零。 - 脱欧对英国的冲击：据 Nick 引述，脱欧从英国增长率中抽走了 8% 至 10%，并对生产力和就业率造成约 4% 的负面打击。 --- ### [42:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2562s) 不平等的本质：社会互惠道德的瓦解与创业的力量 Nick 完全赞同民众必须拥有资产，但他强调前提是工人的工资必须高到足以让他们有结余去购置资产。他分享了美国乔治·弗洛伊德事件引发骚乱时的一桩真实轶事：一名记者指责一位抗议女性“你们为什么完全不尊重产权？”，该女性平静地反问：“我们根本没有财产，身边没有一个人拥有任何财产，那我为什么要尊重产权？”Nick 指出，极端不平等的杀伤力远超越经济上的拮据，它在深层“撕碎了维系社会凝聚力的互惠规范”，把社会推入“人人互害、各凭手段抢夺”的丛林法则之中，而政客的道德滑坡更给这种掠夺行径提供了心理合法性。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 不平等导致社会解体的恶性循环 accDescr: 展示从财富剥夺到互惠规范撕裂的恶性循环过程 A["工人工资停滞 无法积累资产"] --> B["普遍丧失财产所有权 成为纯租客/无产阶层"] B --> C["互惠规范破裂 '我们无产为何要守规则'"] C --> D["社会撕裂与愤怒爆发 民众抗争与草叉四起"] ``` 针对 Daniel 提出的“创业是最佳解药”，Nick 表达了现实层面的担忧：创业固然美妙、能让人掌握自主权，但并非每个人都具备创业的素质和抗风险能力。Daniel 回应道，虽然不是人人都能当老板，但社会上 70% 的新增岗位正是由小微企业创造的，既非政府也非跨国巨头。只要能培育出 10 万名各自雇佣 10 人的创业者，就能凭空提供 100 万个充满多元选择的就业岗位。因此，支持创业依然是破局不可分割的一环。随后，Daniel 将话题引向历史，指出当前社会面临的正是工业革命早期曾出现过的“恩格斯停滞（Engels' pause）”式的“K 型经济”——整体经济不再同涨同落，而是富者越富、劳工阶层生活水平停滞甚至下行的撕裂态势。 - “我们没有财产，为何要尊重产权？”——财产的彻底匮乏直接解构了底层民众对现行法律和所有权制度的认同。 - 约 70% 的新增就业岗位由小企业创造，大型跨国企业和政府部门并非新增就业的主要引擎。 - Daniel 提出“10 万创业者 × 每人雇 10 人 = 100 万高质量岗位”的放大效应，论证创业对修复劳动力市场的必要性。 - “K 型经济”标志着传统“水涨船高”式经济同向波动的终结，分化为少数资产持有者向上飞升、大众生活品质向下滑落的割裂状态。 ### [45:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2726s) 历史的回响：从恩格斯暂停（Engels' Pause）看技术撕裂与 K 型经济讨论从当前的经济两极分化切入：少数富裕阶层财富持续上升，而底层民众的实际境遇却在不断恶化。Daniel 指出，今天媒体上那些控诉工业寡头狂揽破纪录利润、底层劳工权益毫无改善的头条新闻，与 19 世纪初英国工业革命时期的报纸头条如出一辙。当时社会的许多激进提议甚至包括“人口输出”，例如将大批本土民众流放到澳大利亚。经济学界将 1790 年至 1840 年间这一段长达半个多世纪的时期称为“恩格斯暂停（Engels' Pause）”——新技术（蒸汽机、走锭精纺机、收割机械等）的引入让资本所有者获得了爆发式的阶层跃升，而无法掌握技术的绝大多数劳动者则被彻底甩开。 Nick 补充道，恩格斯暂停最残酷的地方在于，在大约两代人（50 至 75 年）的漫长时间里，除了资本家之外，全人类其余人口的生活水平几乎都在全面倒退，查尔斯·狄更斯笔下那种暗无天日的底层地狱正是当年的真实写照。直到后来，社会政治共识发生转移，工人阶级通过工会运动和劳动保护法案才逐步夺回了应得的价值分配。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 技术红利失衡与价值夺回模型 accDescr: 展示新技术出现后资本所有者获利、普通劳工陷入恩格斯暂停，随后通过政策手段夺回价值的历史循环。 subgraph TechDisruption["技术革命与冲击 (如 1790-1840)"] T["新技术爆发\n(蒸汽机 / 纺织机 / AI)"] C["资本所有者\n财富急剧扩张"] W["传统劳工阶层\n实际薪资停滞/倒退"] T --> C T --> W end subgraph EngelsPause["恩格斯暂停 (两代人的阵痛)"] W --> EP["社会极化 / 广泛贫困"] end subgraph PoliticalFix["政治与制度制衡"] EP --> U["工会力量 / 劳动法规 / 税制改革"] U --> R["价值重新回流劳动者"] end ``` --- ### [47:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2848s) 富豪离境还是跨国巨头避税？资本逃离的制度漏洞针对“一旦向富人或企业施压，他们就会带着 IP 搬离本土”的担忧，Nick 直斥当前全球规则荒谬至极：企业和创业者不仅深度享受着英国的庞大消费市场、法治保障和公共基础设施，还能轻而易举地把资产装进行李箱搬去迪拜，从而实现零税负。作为美国公民，Nick 说明美国实行的是属人征税（全球征税制），无论走到哪里都必须缴税，因此他认为英国和德国也应当向本国公民实行全球征税，堵死富人搬去避税天堂的捷径。然而 Daniel 对此持有不同看法，他强调问题的真正祸根不在于个人，而在于大型跨国企业。即便美国能管住个人，美国企业依然可以通过爱尔兰或卢森堡建立壳架构避税。Daniel 认为在全球化时代，普通个人若选择移民（如他自己 20 年前从澳大利亚移居英国生儿育女），理应有权在新国家展开新生活并建立归属，而不是终身背负母国税籍；真正像“吸血乌贼（vampire squids）”一样在全球疯狂吸血并抽干本地流动性的，是那些无国界、冷酷且善于操弄离岸游戏的大型跨国巨头。 - **离岸操作套路**：通过在避税地虚设分支机构，跨国公司将营业利润包装成知识产权特许使用费转移出境。 - **属人征税争议**：Nick 主张公民无论肉身在何处都应按国籍纳税；Daniel 则认为该机制妨碍个体迁徙自由，真正的矛头必须直指法人实体。 --- ### [49:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2982s) 规制跨国巨头：广播许可模式与地缘反制 Daniel 提出应按跨国企业的实际消费市场所在地课税。他以 YouTube 为例：YouTube 每天向英国全境推送海量视频和商业广告，却宣称利润产生于海外，甚至把许可费用结算转移到瓦努阿图等免税离岸地。他建议恢复类似传统英国广播牌照（Broadcast License）的规管逻辑——只要在英国产生播放量和商业变现，就必须缴纳对等的广播许可费，无论企业法律主体设在何处。主持人提问：若英法等国强行对跨国巨头开征数字税或要求本地合规，科技巨头往往会直接将成本转嫁给本地小企业与消费者，或者在利润不足以覆盖合规成本时，直接向该地区封锁服务（例如加拿大通过《在线新闻法》（Online News Act）后大型平台的反制措施），这是否会导致本土落入只能使用劣质替代品的窘境？ Nick 和 Daniel 一致认为，大型科技巨头的核心野心是全球垄断与全球扩张，绝不会轻言放弃主流西方市场。即便巨头偶有封锁动作，那也仅仅是针对政治博弈的短期恐吓手段；如果巨头真敢撤出，反而会为本土企业腾出宝贵的创新与生存空间。跨国科技巨头几十年不交税的黄金期已过，美国股市之所以能获得超高估值，正是因为聚集了这些在全球吸金后最终把资产负债表停留在美国的庞然大物。面对资本抽血，各国必须在规则上联手制衡，终结超级企业对国民经济的寄生式掠夺。 ### [54:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3250s) 巨型企业的规避策略与对小企业的倾斜政策跨国巨头在面对地方监管和税收时拥有极大的权力和自由度，往往通过激进的规避手段让地方政策碰壁。例如加拿大要求对分享或浏览新闻链接征税时，Meta 没有选择合规缴税，而是直接对所有加拿大用户封锁了全部新闻内容，因为仅为一个单一市场承担复杂的合规成本并不划算；同样，当加利福尼亚等美国各州试图强迫亚马逊代缴地方销售税（因为亚马逊在当地拥有博主等独立推广联盟客）时，亚马逊直接单方面解约注销了成千上万个联盟账户。这种跨国垄断巨头对单一行政管辖区的压制能力，凸显了现行体制下大企业与地方治理之间的权力失衡。面对这种不平等问题，丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）给出的解法是将政策重心彻底转向中小企业：政府应当减少对小型企业的税收和行政重压，通过设立特殊经济贸易区，为本地纳税的本土小企业提供不对称的竞争优势，打造一个让中小企业能尽情施展拳脚的商业环境。尼克·哈瑙尔（Nick Hanauer）对此表示“百分之百赞同”，但他主张无需直接“惩罚”大企业，而是要“将竞技场的天平向小微企业和初创公司倾斜”。尼克提到自己刚刚加入了由 Founders Forum 创始人布伦特·霍伯曼（Brent Hoberman）和 Ovo Energy 创始人史蒂夫·菲茨帕特里克（Steve Fitzpatrick）发起成立的“企业不列颠”（Enterprise Britain）董事会。该组织的明确目标正是让英国成为对中小企业更友好的创业沃土，解决小型企业成长为大企业时因缺乏资本结构而逃离本土的痛点。不过尼克随即尖锐地提醒：不能单纯追求经济活力，因为一个高度动态、快速增长的经济体同样可能出现所有红利全流向顶层 1%、底层大众被彻底抛弃的惨状，因此促进企业繁荣与保障利益分配必须双管齐下。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 巨头对抗监管与小企业政策倾斜机制 accDescr: 对比大型跨国企业对监管的规避对抗与面向中小企业的政策支持路径 subgraph Megacorp["跨国巨头的反监管特权"] A["地方政府推出税收监管政策"] --> B{"跨国巨头权衡合规成本"} B -->|"成本高/不妥协"| C["极端规避行为 (Meta屏蔽加拿大新闻 / 亚马逊注销加州推广联盟)"] C --> D["地方监管受挫，巨头利用跨国灵活性维持特权"] end subgraph SMEPolicy["提振本土经济的政策倾斜"] E["政府政策转向扶持中小微企业"] --> F["降低税负与监管负担 / 设立特别经济特区"] F --> G["优化本地资本结构，留住本土创业公司"] G --> H["推动商业繁荣，同时必须兼顾劳动报酬再分配"] end ``` - **Meta 在加拿大的封锁案例**：面对新闻链接分成/位置税法规，Meta 直接切断了加拿大境内全部用户的新闻内容服务。 - **亚马逊加州销售税风波**：加州曾试图以亚马逊在当地有博主推广伙伴为由要求其代征销售税，亚马逊的选择是瞬间封杀数千名加州本地推广联盟账号。 - **Enterprise Britain（企业不列颠）**：由布伦特·霍伯曼与史蒂夫·菲茨帕特里克发起，旨在为英国中小企业构建更好的融资结构和营商环境，避免本土优质企业流向海外。 --- ### [56:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3412s) 播客赞助：精准营销与精细化销售管理主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插播了赞助商内容，分享了他在过去十年创立与投资企业过程中的营销与运营洞察。他指出，许多企业营销预算常常付诸东流，症结并非创意或产品不好，而是广告受众定位严重失焦，触达的全是毫无决策权或购买意愿的无关人群；赞助商 LinkedIn Ads 能够让企业基于职位头衔、资历级别、公司规模、行业和技能精准定位目标决策者，带来主流广告网络中极高的 B2B 广告支出回报率（ROAS）。随后史蒂芬谈到了从“业务执行者”转型为“全面负责人”的痛点，强调唯一的解法是建立不依赖创始人亲自盯梢的自动化系统；其团队长期使用的智能销售 CRM 平台 Pipedrive，通过可视化看板呈现每一笔交易的推进阶段、瓶颈与实时待办项，已获得超过十万家企业采用。 --- ### [58:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3539s) 人工智能带来的就业冲击与主权财富基金设想随着前谷歌 CEO 埃里克·施密特（Eric Schmidt）在毕业演讲中频繁提及人工智能，以及领军 AI 实验室 Anthropic 发布关于未来模型具备自我迭代改进能力的最新研究，AI 对全行业初级岗位的蚕食已引发了强烈焦虑。领英（LinkedIn）等平台上的初级岗位招聘需求正在持续呈断崖式下跌，人类刚走出校门的职业晋升通道正面临前所未有的阻断。谈到如何应对 AI 造成的失业风暴，尼克提到美国参议员伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）提出的设想：AI 实际上是在免费将全人类积累的智慧财产商业化变现，其巨额收益却高度集中在极少数科技寡头手中。因此，国家可以效仿挪威利用石油财富建立主权财富基金的模式，由政府持有所有 AI 公司 50% 的价值，将这笔由全民智慧转化而来的财富回流为应对 AI 冲击的社会安全气囊。丹尼尔虽然认同该模式在中美两个拥有主导级 AI 巨头的超级大国行得通，但指出它对塞内加尔、英国南安普敦、甚至是依靠跨国后台外包业务支撑经济的菲律宾等地区毫无帮助，AI 反而会直接摧毁这些地方的离岸外包就业。丹尼尔更倾向于从中小微企业层面寻找解法：以英国为例，全国有 570 万家企业，失业人口约 100 万人；AI 在市场营销、法律合同审查等成百上千个环节都能增强企业战斗力，只要让两成的中小企业借助 AI 赚到钱并各增聘一人，配合吸纳就业的税收减免，就能完美填补这 100 万的失业缺口。 - **初级岗位招聘断崖**：AI 的爆发式演进直接重击了校招和入门级白领岗位，数据录入、基础编辑与行政类岗位正在缩减。 - **伯尼·桑德斯的 AI 主权财富基金构想**：主张将全人类智力资产变现后的 AI 商业价值提取 50% 纳入主权基金，用于缓冲自动化带来的社会阵痛。 - **英国就业匹配模型**：丹尼尔指出英国拥有 570 万家企业和 100 万失业人口，只要五分之一（约 20%）的小企业通过 AI 赋能并各自增加 1 名员工，即可彻底消除失业。 --- ### [01:01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3698s) AI Agent 崛起与中小企业的人力重构自主型 AI 智能体（AI Agent）已逐步能够接管人类在电脑前的一切常规操作，无论是手动录入数据、后台系统维护还是内容编辑，甚至能够代替人类拨打销售冷呼电话（Cold Call）。史蒂芬坦言自己大学辍学后的第一份入门级工作就是做数据处理和电话销售，而这些初级技能如今正被 AI Agent 迅速掌握；如果这类基础工作被全面自动化，未来的年轻人和初级员工将失去立足之地。然而，丹尼尔以自己旗下多家中小型动态企业的实际运营经验给出了反直觉的答案：他们不仅没有裁员，反而在全面接入 AI 之后雇佣了更多初级员工。AI 的介入不仅大幅提升了团队成员的人效与身价，更带来了业务量的井喷——AI 自动预约系统为公司带来了海量的意向客户与会面安排，促使他们不得不雇佣更多销售人员去进行最终的人对人深度沟通，AI 在前端放大了商机，反而创造了对终端真实人类沟通的强劲需求。 - **AI Agent 的替代范围**：不仅涵盖电脑点击、表格整理、数据录入等机械式任务，已开始向自主拨打电话销售、初级客户跟进等交互领域渗透。 - **AI 赋能下的反向招聘效应**：丹尼尔旗下企业全面部署 AI 后，初级员工获得 AI 增强能力；AI 带来的营销漏斗放大产生了更多最终转化需求，倒逼企业扩充销售团队完成“最后一公里”的真人闭环。 ### [01:02:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3775s) AI 的效率悖论：替代劳动力还是催生 5 倍生产力？ Daniel Priestley 深入剖析了企业内部的智能化重构：在自己公司的核心架构中，已经植入了一整套“AI 层”（AI layer），它整合了上下文信息、技能模型与安全机制，持续输出极高价值的数据分析与商业决策洞察，甚至能精确指导团队该去拜访谁、为何拜访以及交流的具体切入点。然而，主持人 Steven Bartlett 随即抛出一个冷酷的现实：这种效率飞跃无法掩盖岗位被抹杀的冲击。例如 Uber 首席执行官达拉·科斯罗萨西（Dara Khosrowshahi）曾公开表明，其平台上的 900 万名网约车司机在未来注定会被无人驾驶全面取代；不仅是蓝领驾驶员，诸如初级分析师等传统白领职业未来也将不复存在，或者经历剧烈重构。面对这种悲观论调，Nick Hanauer 换上了他“相对乐观的帽子”。他认为企业生存在激烈的市场竞争中，制胜无非两条路径：要么“做得更便宜”，要么“做得更出色”。AI 确实能够将许多机械任务自动化，但它的终极潜力是赋能个体——一名掌握前沿 AI 工具的员工，完全能爆发出相当于过去 5 个人加起来的生产力。企业当然可以选择裁撤 4 个人来削减开支，但更有远见的选择是留住核心员工，赋予他们强大的 AI 杠杆，实现 5 倍产出，在产品质量与创新维度上将对手彻底碾压。为了佐证这一点，Nick 搬出了人类技术史上的生动先例。作为现场年资最长的嘉宾，他回忆起当年计算器刚刚问世时引发的社会恐慌：当时人们陷入了近乎歇斯底里的焦虑，纷纷质问“会计师们以后该怎么活？”甚至担忧“孩子们从此再也学不会做算术了”，许多学校甚至明令禁止学生把计算器带入课堂。随后个人电脑的普及也是如此——计算机不仅没有减少人类的工作总量，反而大幅推高了整个社会的协作广度与产出要求。Nick 相信 AI 同样会遵循这一轨迹：医生不会失业，而是会蜕变为诊疗水平更强大的“超级医生”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI时代企业的两种竞争路径 accDescr: 展示企业面对AI生产力飞跃时采取的降低成本与提升效能两条不同竞争策略 A["AI 技术引入"] --> B{"企业竞争策略抉择"} subgraph PathCheap ["路径一：追求极低成本（做更便宜）"] B -->|"裁员驱动"| C1["自动化替代现有人工"] C1 --> C2["岗位消减 / 停止补缺"] C2 --> C3["缩减成本以低价竞争"] end subgraph PathBetter ["路径二：追求极限产出（做更优秀）"] B -->|"赋能驱动"| D1["为核心员工配备 AI 工具"] D1 --> D2["单人产出爆发至 5 倍"] D2 --> D3["全面提高质量碾压对手"] end ``` --- ### [01:05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=3925s) 瞬间规模化与“自然减员”替代招聘 Steven Bartlett 承认 AI 对顶尖个体的赋能效应，但他敏锐地指出了当下与计算器或 PC 时代的本质区别：**技术扩散的速度与规模**。当年 PC 革命到来时，Steven 记得父亲为家里订购了第一台搭载 Windows 95、内存极其匮乏的主机，全家翘首以盼数周，收到后围在昂贵的机器旁小心翼翼地开箱；那种硬件变革是渐进、昂贵且周期漫长的。而今天，当 Anthropic 这样的巨头发布一款新模型时，全球数以亿计的用户几乎在同一秒被同步推送，生产力颠覆以“光速”瞬时席卷每一个角落。这种瞬时规模化正在深刻改写劳动力市场的底层流动规则。虽然许多有担当的企业承诺不因引入 AI 主动裁员，并积极组织员工转型培训，但招聘端却迅速冻结。Steven 提到，许多企业正在心照不宣地采取“自然减员”（Natural Attrition）策略：比如某大型呼叫中心每年的自然离职率约为 25%，以往必须源源不断招募新人填补空缺，如今公司只需借助客服 AI 系统直接吃下业务，任由原岗位自然消亡而不予补录。瑞典先买后付巨头 Klarna 的首席执行官也曾公开证实，他们正是通过放任员工自然流失而非重新雇佣，来完成 AI 时代的团队缩减。但 Daniel Priestley 随即分享了一个截然相反的真实创业案例来对抗这种悲观预期：英格兰北部有一对经营小型视频制作机构的夫妻，平时只有一两名外包协助。他们敏锐地利用 AI 工具编写了一款剧本创作与自动化流程软件。在没有任何外部融资的前提下，仅耗费 4 个月便搭建完毕。软件开放候补名单（Waitlist）后迅速吸引了 5,500 人，上线初期直接转化了 1,500 名付费客户。如今，这对原本受困于小本生意的夫妻不仅没有被淘汰，反而在低成本 SaaS 赛道上逆袭，正逆势招募一支 10 人的全新团队。 - **Uber 司机的命运预警**：Uber 首席执行官 Dara Khosrowshahi 曾明确指出，平台现有的 900 万名司机未来极有可能被无人驾驶完全取代。 - **计算器的历史恐慌**：早期计算器进校园引发公众抗议，舆论普遍认为会计职业将覆灭、青少年数学思维会退化，但事实证明算力的普及放大了社会的工作总量。 - **Klarna 与呼叫中心的静默瘦身**：企业无需大规模公开裁员，只需利用 AI 消化业务，利用 25% 的年度员工自然流失率即可完成岗位出清。 - **微型 SaaS 暴发户**：英国普通夫妇借助 AI 编程，在 4 个月内零融资做出 SaaS 软件，斩获 5,500 候补与 1,500 客户，反向创造了 10 个就业岗位。 --- ### [01:08:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4093s) 历史阵痛重演：拖拉机、狄更斯小说与主权财富基金的救赎尽管微观层面不乏极具进取心的草根创业成功案例，但 Steven 强调，拉长视野从整个宏观经济审视，普通大众创造经济价值的方式正经历断崖式突变。Daniel 借用“杰文斯悖论”（Jevons paradox）前后的工业革命历史进行对照：当一台农用拖拉机被推入麦田，它会瞬间让田里劳作的 100 名农夫失去生计；成千上万流离失所的失地农民在同一时刻涌入城市贫民窟寻找微薄工钱，这种撕裂催生了查尔斯·狄更斯笔下的《双城记》与《雾都孤儿》中描绘的人间惨剧，也最终孕育出了卡尔·马克思关于阶级斗争的剧烈反弹。当旧岗位以远快于新岗位诞生的速度消亡，社会该如何消化这种剧震？当被问及“全民基本收入”（UBI）是否是出路时，Daniel 明确表示自己目前并非 UBI 的拥趸。Nick 则将话题引向了伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）所主张的“全民所有制机制”——通过提取企业股权建立主权财富基金。Nick 揭示了资本市场最残酷的商业逻辑：**整个人工智能行业所描绘的高达数万亿美元的估值神话，其底层逻辑完全是建立在“颠覆与消灭岗位”（Job Disruption）的基础之上的**。如果不假设 AI 能够大规模替代人力成本，巨头根本不可能支撑起如此天文数字的市值。顺着这一逻辑，Nick 坚定地提出，既然这些科技巨头的巨额财富直接脱胎于对社会劳动力大军的系统性剥离，那么国家就拥有绝对的法理正当性去从 AI 创造的增量价值中“截取”一部分，注入主权财富基金或通过转移支付重新循环至实体经济，以此缓冲剧烈转型带给普通民众的生存冲击。面对“这是否属于社会主义”的质疑，Nick 严正反驳：这不是意识形态教条，而是“纯粹的常识”（Just common sense）；世界上任何一个正常运转的高效民主政体，其根基无一不是建立在累进税制、劳工权益保障以及法治原则之上。 --- ### [01:09:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4190s) 数据即新石油：公共资产的“合法回收”与生产要素重构围绕政府是否有权染指私营企业股份，现场展开了针锋相对的辩论。Daniel 提出，必须区分纯粹的“没收私有财产”（完全的社会主义与共产主义手段）与“国家持有战略性资产”。他以迪拜为例：迪拜政府拥有境内所有豪华酒店的实体建筑产权，再将其租借给各大酒店管理集团运营，租金直接充实国家主权财富基金。但 Nick 随即打断指出两者的本质不同：迪拜政府持有资产是因为当初那座沙漠之城的所有基建都是国家真金白银投资开发的，而当今的科技巨头完全是私营资本在自由市场上跑出来的。然而，Nick 与 Daniel 随后在“数据主权”的问题上达成了更深层次的法理共识：**“数据就是新的石油”**。科技巨头之所以能训练出神级 AI，是因为它们无偿掠夺并占有了原本属于全人类的公地资产（Common Asset）——那些来自英国、非洲、澳大利亚、加拿大乃至全世界数代网民共同创造的知识、言论、艺术与数字足迹。从这个意义上讲，科技巨头利用垄断壁垒圈禁公共数据本身就是一种不当得利；政府向其征收重税或索要股份，本质上绝非没收私人劳动成果，而是代表公众收取合理的“特许资源使用费”（License fee），并将其注入主权财富基金回馈大众。 Daniel 在结尾将这场博弈升华到了文明演进的高度。他指出，人类经济的“物理底层”正在发生 250 年未有的根本性裂变： 1. **封建与殖民时代**：经济的最核心要素是**土地**，由此衍生出封建领主、地租与帝国殖民体系； 2. **工业革命时代**：经济的核心要素转向**资本与工业化机械**，世界随之演化出资本主义与社会主义两大意识形态大阵营； 3. **数字智能时代**：随着经济生产四大要素（土地、劳动、资本、企业家才能）的底层逻辑在 AI 冲击下彻底解构，过去所熟知的私有制边界与社会分配机制已无法适应新的时代，人类正站在全新经济范式的悬崖边缘。 ### [01:11:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4284s) 经济形态的转变与“社会主义”的真正定义 Daniel Priestley 指出，经济正在经历从土地、劳动再到资本的钟摆式演进，如今世界已经全面进入“企业经济”（enterprise economy）。面对这种财富创造机制的转变，整个经济制度必须跟上现实。主持人随即抛出一个尖锐的假设：这是否意味着政府应该直接介入，比如强行没收 OpenAI 这样头部企业 50% 的股权，然后将这半数利润分发给广大普通民众？ ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 经济形态的历史演进路径 accDescr: 展示经济驱动力从土地演进至资本、劳动力，最终走向现代企业经济的过程。 A["土地经济 Land"] --> B["资本与劳动力 Capital & Labor"] B --> C["企业经济 Enterprise Economy"] C --> D["公共利益管理 Public Benefit Regulation"] ``` Daniel Priestley 当即表达了强烈排斥，直言自己对任何带有社会主义色彩的主张都持怀疑态度，“如果一个想法来自伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders），我本能就会怀疑”。 Nick Hanauer 立即介入纠偏，强调桑德斯并不是严格意义上的社会主义者。真正的社会主义意味着政府掌控全部生产资料，但桑德斯从未主张抛弃市场经济： - **资本主义存在多元形态**：全球各国的市场运作方式截然不同，并不是非黑即白的二元对立。 - **市场的管理目标转向**：桑德斯的核心诉求并非消灭市场，而是主张**为了公共利益而非单纯为了资本所有者的利益来管理市场**。当主持人追问是否应该以同样的方式收缴亚马逊（Amazon）50% 的资产用于全民分红时，Nick 明确表示否定，但他强调社会实际上已经在通过税收参与分配。然而，亚马逊等巨头享受着国家修建的道路、公共基建与受过良好教育的劳动力，却没有回馈等额的社会价值，现行税负根本没有体现出巨头从公共系统中所攫取的庞大红利。两位嘉宾一致认同，必须立刻封堵税收漏洞，确保超级巨头无法逃税，让它们像街角的普通酒吧或实体零售店一样承担公平的纳税义务。 --- ### [01:13:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4409s) 政府的普遍性低效与治理能力的迷思 Daniel Priestley 话锋一转，指出试图依赖政府解决分配问题面临着一道致命障碍：政府体系内普遍存在的惊人低效与官僚失职。他引用了一组极具冲击力的数据来揭示英国公务员体系的问责真空： - **死亡率远高于解雇率**：在英国政府部门，一名公务员在任内“自然死亡的概率”是其“因表现不佳而被解雇概率”的整整 **10 倍**。 - **解雇率极端悬殊**：英国政府因员工能力不足而予以解雇的比例，仅为正常私营商业公司的 **1/600**。 Daniel 直言，不论在座嘉宾想出多么完美的制度蓝图，这套机制最终都要交给一群激励机制严重错位、根本不用承担平庸后果的人去执行。更糟糕的是，监管层与金融工业复合体、科技工业复合体之间存在严重的“旋转门”利益输送。当谈及治理典范时，Daniel 提到了新加坡凭借高标准的精英治理体制（Meritocracy）——依据清晰结果与能力来提拔或解雇官员。Nick Hanauer 对此表示赞同，称新加坡是“治理史上的奇迹”，但他同时强调： - 新加坡是一个体量极小的城邦国家； - 它几乎是人类历史上绝无仅有的受惠于“善意开明统治者”（well-meaning dictator）的特例，展现了不可思议的远见与执行力，这种模式很难被大型西方国家直接复制。 --- ### [01:14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4488s) AI 浪潮、人形机器人与劳动力替代的残酷现实谈及当前的人工智能革命，主持人指出就业岗位的颠覆已成定局。在当下的招聘市场中，招聘方渴求掌握 AI 工具的新型人才，但这需要长期的教育和培训重塑，而学校系统的反应往往远远滞后。Daniel 甚至提到自己面试员工的准则变得极度直截了当：“你钻进 AI 的兔子洞有多深？”只要对方回答沉迷其中，就会立刻录用。随后，对话聚焦于硬件与软件层面对传统岗位的双重夹击： - **物理世界的替代**：马斯克（Elon Musk）的巨额薪酬方案中明确包含了交付数百万台人形机器人的严苛硬指标；Figure AI 最新发布的视频展示了其人形机器人连续 8 天在产线执行分拣包裹任务，其效率与稳定性已彻底击败人类工人；在洛杉矶，自动驾驶车辆与无人出租车早已满街行驶。 - **数字世界的替代**：Anthropic 披露的数据显示，单人编写代码的产出效率因 AI 代理（Agents）提升了整整 **8 倍**。甚至出现了一人借助 AI 代理团队就能打造出估值万亿美元企业的前景，全程无需雇佣任何外部员工。主持人读了一则让他触动极深的 Anthropic 工程师内部自白：这位工程师表示自己已经数月没有亲手写过一行代码，每天打卡上班只是坐在工位上看着 Agent 自动写代码，自己“感觉毫无用处”。面对可能造成的结构性失业，Daniel Priestley 描绘了一种由超级生产力引发的**极端通缩**图景：如果一切边际成本都降至近乎只有运转所需的电费，社会的商品和服务价格将暴跌。至于人类届时该何去何从，他的判断是人类总会自发找到新的社交互动与“奇怪的事情”去做： - 就如同给祖父那一代人解释“私人健身教练”这种专门陪人去健身房数深蹲次数的职业，祖父一定会觉得不可理喻，但如今全国有 50,000 名全职健身教练。 - 人类的未来将类似于“信托基金阔少”（trust fund kids）的状态——当不必再为基本生存资源奔波时，他们总能折腾出奇特的情感价值与服务需求。 --- ### [01:17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4670s) 拒绝虚无乌托邦：通过市场与法规重构人类尊严主持人警示道，从现有工作向未来的过渡绝非风平浪静。历史经验反复证明，**每一次技术转轨的断层期都极其残酷血腥**（"It gets ugly"）。针对主持人提出的“这一切最终是否会通向某种美好乌托邦”的疑问，Nick Hanauer 与 Daniel Priestley 异口同声予以断然否认。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 繁荣的本质与制度框架 accDescr: 说明市场作为演化系统解决复杂问题，配合民主法治保障劳动者尊严。 subgraph MarketSystem["市场的核心价值"] M1["演化适应系统"] --> M2["人类协作机制"] M2 --> M3["解决复杂现实问题"] M3 --> M4["真正的社会繁荣 (非单纯 GDP)"] end subgraph RegulatoryPillar["制度与尊严底线"] R1["稳健的民主治理"] --> R2["高标准的用工劳动法"] R2 --> R3["劳动者体面参与分配"] end MarketSystem --- RegulatoryPillar ``` Nick 深刻阐释了他对市场经济本质的理解： - **市场不是静态的资源分配器**：传统新古典经济学将市场视作对稀缺资源的有效配置工具，这是完全错误的认知。 - **市场是一个演化探索系统**：市场最伟大的地方在于它作为一种社会协同技术，让成群结队的人能够联合起来解决复杂的人类问题。“**人类繁荣的本质就是解决具体问题的方案，而不是冷冰冰的 GDP 数字或货币累加。**” Nick 指出，地球上能够构建的最佳社会形态，必然是由**稳健的民主制度监管下的市场经济**，它必须让所有公民都能被深度吸纳进经济体系之中。尽管 Daniel 坚信未来的出路在于千千万万个 10 人小团队依靠 AI 工具做 YouTube 频道或软件产品的小微企业生态，但 Nick 提出了至关重要的补充：现实中很大比例的普通劳动者注定仍将在大中型企业中工作。因此，社会必须通过法规创新、制定严格底线标准，迫使企业像对待体面人一样善待雇员，确保他们享有尊严地参与社会与经济生活的权利。在构建一个文明正义的社会面前，法治与制度保障“绝无替代方案”。 ### [01:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4787s) 新经济学范式：包容性增长与激进试验 Nick Hanauer 阐述了自己研究经济学的核心理念：传统经济学范式本质上主张“市场是完全有效的”，认为只要放任市场自由运转，一切都会自然各得其所。而在这种传统视角下，让大众分享经济成果往往被视作一种“自由派的奢侈品（liberal luxury）”，只有在经济已经实现增长时才有余力去负担。然而，新经济学理论彻底颠覆了这一点——更广泛、更扎实地让更多人参与并融入经济体，才是推动经济持续增长以及维系民主机制正常运转的“核心技术机制”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 传统经济学与新经济学的范式对比 accDescr: 对比传统观念将全民参与视作增长后的奢侈品，与新经济学视其为驱动增长和民主的底层机制。 subgraph Conventional["传统经济学范式"] A["放任市场自由运转"] --> B["追求单纯的效率与GDP增长"] B --> C["包容大众成为事后的‘奢侈品’"] end subgraph NewEconomics["新经济学范式"] D["激进扩大经济包容度"] --> E["强化底层收入与全社会参与"] E --> F["直接驱动经济增长与民主运转"] end ``` 面对主持人的提问——在 AI 带来巨大不确定性、没人说得清会产生多少失业和结构巨变的当下，从政策层面究竟该怎么做？Nick 斩钉截铁地表示，绝不能在转型期坐以待毙，而必须“激进地尝试各种能让更多人融入经济的方法”。他为伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）提出的大胆构想辩护，反问大家：“最坏的结果能坏到哪里去？”在 Nick 看来，试验哪怕受挫，最坏的代价不过是让几十个身家两千亿美元的顶级富豪缩水到一千亿美元而已；但民主政体必须立即采取果断行动，确保 AI 这项划时代的技术红利普惠整个社会，而非仅仅流入极少数人的腰包。 - **37万亿美元国债的反驳**：针对 Daniel 质疑“给政府更多钱只会让其举借更多债务”，Nick 驳斥称美国政府举债根本不需要抵押资产，目前 37 万亿美元的国债几乎全是因对外战争以及给富人减税而堆积出来的，政府印钱发债与是否持有科技资产毫无直接联系。 --- ### [01:22:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4925s) 政府入股 AI 公司的现实困境：资本外逃、董事会僵局与体制对比主持人与 Daniel Priestley 随即指出政府强行介入甚至持有 AI 企业股权的巨大现实风险。以英国为例，高昂的能源成本已经在驱赶算力基础设施——有报告显示 OpenAI 放弃在英国建立数据中心的计划，关键原因就是英国的电能成本足足高出四倍，资本与算力自然会流向成本洼地。如果政策进一步规定由政府持有本土 AI 公司（例如 50% 股权），这类纯数字化公司极易通过法律重组，将总部直接迁至瓦努阿图等离岸低税岛国；更可怕的是，若政府举借子孙后代的巨额公共债务去接盘高风险的虚拟无形资产，一旦技术泡沫破裂或创始团队“金蝉脱壳”，留在公众手里的将是沉重的有毒债务。三人就此展开了高密度的辩论与交锋： | 辩论维度 | Daniel Priestley / 主持人立场 | Nick Hanauer 反驳与观点 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **国际竞争与利润分配** | 若 OpenAI 赚 100 美元被抽走 50 美元，中国企业将多出 50 美元用于迭代前沿模型。 | 强调桑德斯的提案不是抽取 50% 的经营利润，而是获取 **50% 的公司股权（股票）**。 | | **公司治理与决策效率** | 50% 的公共持股意味着政府拥有对等投票权，官僚进驻董事会将导致治理陷入僵局、拖垮创新。 | 很多国家在机制上让劳工代表进驻董事会；政府未必需要占据半数席位，委派公众代表即可。 | | **中国举国体制的参照** | 中国科技企业董事会里普遍有党政代表参与监管，其体制具有完全不同的执行力和层级。 | 承认其体制完全不同，但也反驳称中国科技企业在这种模式下“不仅运作良好，而且速度极快”。 | Daniel 明确表达了自己对这类扩权方案的深层担忧：“任何赋权给政府的解决方案我都感到不安，因为我根本不信任政府。我出生于 1981 年，在我的整个人生记忆中，每一件事只要政府一插手就会变得更糟。” --- ### [01:24:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5086s) 政府真的毫无价值吗？新加坡例证与大企业官僚病听到 Daniel 的抱怨，Nick 毫不客气地当场反唇相讥：“兄弟，你成长在澳大利亚，如今生活在英国。如果你真的那么痛恨政府，你大可以搬去刚果生活！”他直言世界上根本不存在某种“没有任何规则约束、没人交税、却人人过得像国王一样的自由意志主义天堂”。全球 220 个国家和地区中，有大约 150 个国家实际上处于政府治理瘫痪的状态，但资本家绝不会把业务迁去那里，因为“一过去就会立刻沦为别人的盘中美餐”。Nick 引用丘吉尔的名言强调，民主制度或许是除所有其他制度之外最糟糕的一种制度，虽然官僚机构时常迟钝甚至存在不称职现象，但“在整个地球上，绝对找不出任何一个离开大政府却能维持高度繁荣运作的文明社会”。当 Daniel 举出新加坡反驳称其政府支出仅占 GDP 的 22% 时，Nick 立即指出新加坡恰恰是“极度强势的大政府”，其规管深入到国民生活的方方面面；针对 Daniel 提出的“新加坡会解雇不称职的官员”，两人达成了高度共识——公民社会的真正出路不是摧毁政府，而是通过政治改革努力提升政府治理的专业能力与淘汰效率。为了证明低效与无能并非政府特有，Nick 讲起了一个令人啼笑皆非的亲身商业经历： > “微软当年以 64 亿美元收购了我的数字营销公司 aQuantive。这是一家年营收达 7.5 亿美元、EBITDA 约为 2 亿美元、每年增长 30% 到 40% 的优秀企业，汇集了全地球最顶尖的 3,000 到 4,000 名互联网广告精英。结果呢？仅仅过了一年，整个业务就被彻底搞垮，5 年后微软不得不把整整 60 亿美元的资产账面全部核销减记！无能普遍存在于所有庞大组织中，大企业官僚并不比政府高明。” 在这一争论的尾声，两人找到了弥足珍贵的共同理想：在 AI 时代，必须打破“大政府与大企业联手吸干底层民众和小企业”的畸形怪圈，将经济力量的天平重新、激进地倾斜向小微企业和普通劳动者。争议的焦点不在于这个目标，而在于如何真正达成它。 ### [01:28:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5306s) 大政府对抗大企业：新自由主义范式的破产在人类文明史上，唯一有力量与跨国大企业相抗衡的实体只有大政府。尼克·汉诺尔（Nick Hanauer）指出，当前社会面临的种种经济困局，并非意外事故，而是新自由主义（Neoliberalism）经济范式精心设计带来的必然恶果。该范式笃信“规模越大越好”，对小企业不予任何制度庇护，全力偏袒巨头寡头，并宣称全球自由贸易将惠及所有人。然而事实证明，这些假设全盘皆错，最终结果只是让包括尼克自己在内的全球几千名富豪大获其利，却剥夺了绝大多数普通人的利益。经济因果关系的底层逻辑遭到了灾难性的误判：政策制定者以为能刺激经济增长的手段，最终导致了财富的极端集中；而那些被指责会损害经济的做法，反而是健康增长的基石。资本主义若想良性运转，绝大多数人必须拥有足够的薪酬来购买系统生产出来的商品和服务。回顾历史，没有任何一个繁荣的现代经济体能够在没有设立底线标准、没有通过反制力量促成资本所有者与劳动者双赢格局的情况下维系下去。 ### [01:30:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5432s) 分歧所在：唯有“所有权”才是真正的资本主义丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）与尼克在宏观诊断上高度一致，但在解决方案的落脚点上存在“一英寸的微小却关键的分歧”。丹尼尔直言，尼克推崇的最低工资等再分配政策远远不够，因为“人绝不仅仅是消费者，也不仅仅是行走的钱包”。在丹尼尔看来，破局的核心拼图是**所有权（Ownership）**——当民众拥有自己的住房时，他们对社区有归属感；当他们拥有自己的小企业时，社会充满了生机；当他们持有高增长企业的一定股份时，他们才真正参与到国家经济的成长红利中。资本主义的本质就是所有权，没有所有权的人根本不算资本家。面对丹尼尔关于“如何致富”的质问——指出尼克本人正是依托家族企业起步并投资亚马逊（Amazon）才累积了巨额财富，尼克自嘲承认自己确实是“出生在三垒上的幸运儿”。但他尖锐地指出，社会的富裕群体中只有极少数是小企业主，绝大部分其实是跨国公司或大型机构中的医生、律师及中高层专业管理者。建立更多小企业固然是好事，但社会的核心权利与责任，在于通过系统性制度安排，让即便不创业的普通工薪阶层也能公平共享繁荣。 - **丹尼尔的核心诉求**：修复经济的不可谈判前提，是让普通人能够轻松“拥有一套住房、拥有一家企业、拥有高增长经济体的股权”。 - **尼克的社会共识**：社会不仅有权力，更有不可推卸的责任来组织经济结构，确保发展成果广泛惠及所有群体，而非仅依赖个体成为资本所有者。 ### [01:33:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5589s) 为什么社会主义不是答案：市场的进化力量当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）询问社会主义是否是解决之道时，尼克斩钉截铁地回答：“绝对不是。”如果按照字典的严格定义将社会主义界定为“生产资料的公有制”，那这种模式在历史上就是一场彻头彻尾的灾难。社会主义唯一的长处在于短时间内更公平地分摊现有的既得繁荣；但它完全丧失了创造新财富的机制，其结果是“第一分钟可能人人都改善了处境，十年之后所有人全部沦为赤贫”。相比之下，自由市场的真正价值在于它是一个**演化系统（Evolutionary System）**。在市场机制中，每一家企业都如同自然界中争相填补生态位的生命有机体，不断推陈出新去解决人类面临的现实痛点——从阿司匹林进化到抗生素，正是这种经济演化进步的具象化。尼克指着史蒂文创建的独立传媒帝国由衷赞叹：“在非资本主义世界里，你不可能独立打造出一个影响力超越 MSNBC 的现代化媒体网络，这就是市场的神奇伟力。”然而，这种强大的力量必须被置于合理的制度框架中加以驯服，以服务于整个社会。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济范式演化机制对比 accDescr: 对比绝对社会主义、放任资本主义与狭窄通道三种模式的运行逻辑与最终结果 subgraph Socialism["极端社会主义 (国家公有制)"] A1["强行平分存量财富"] --> A2["扼杀演化竞争与创新"] A2 --> A3["十年后全员陷入贫困"] end subgraph LaissezFaire["放任资本主义 (新自由主义)"] B1["减税、去监管、压制工资"] --> B2["财富极端向寡头集中"] B3["中产萎缩 / 经济增长降速至 2%"] B1 --> B3 end subgraph NarrowCorridor["黄金平衡点 (狭窄通道)"] C1["市场演化创新机制"] --> C2["制度保障工资与广泛参与"] C2 --> C3["4%~4.5% 高速经济增长 + 政治长期稳定"] end ``` ### [01:35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5700s) 黄金平衡点：“狭窄通道”与经济增长甜区在放任自流的资本主义（高增长但极端不平等）与国家垄断的社会主义（平分财富但扼杀增长）之间，存在一个兼得繁荣与公平的最佳甜区（Sweet Spot）。尼克引用了诺贝尔经济学奖得主达龙·阿西莫格鲁（Daron Acemoglu）与詹姆斯·罗宾逊（James Robinson）提出的“狭窄通道（The Narrow Corridor）”理论：当市场经济被主动、良好地监管，确保工人分得应有的财富份额并让全民深度参与时，经济不仅不会停滞，反而会释放出最大的爆发力与政治稳定性。历史数据清晰地印证了这一点：在二战后的20世纪40至60年代，美国经济保持着每年 4% 至 4.5% 的强劲 GDP 增速；而自1975年新自由主义掌权——实施针对富人的大规模减税、废除对权贵资本的监管、全面压制底层劳动者工资后，GDP 增长率断崖式下滑至 3%，如今更是跌至 2%。 - **美国全职劳动者薪资对比**：当前全职中位数年薪约为 60,000 美元；如果工薪阶层自1975年以来能维持其在国民生产总值（GDP）中所占的同等分配比例，今天的全职中位数年薪应为 120,000 美元，整整缩水了一半。 - **中间地带无须妥协**：处于“狭窄通道”的中间路线并非充满妥协的下策，而是能够实现最高经济增速、最广泛社会参与以及最持久政治稳定的最优解。 ### [01:37:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5847s) 生产力与薪资脱钩：市场经济是一场“大富翁”游戏 Nick Hanauer 指着书中的一张图表指出，几十年来，全社会的生产力增长曾让所有人共同受益，工人工资与经济产出齐头并进。然而到了 20 世纪 70 年代，这两者彻底“脱钩”（decoupled），伴随而来的便是 GDP 增速的整体下滑。Nick 强调，这一切都是经济政策一手造成的后果。传统新古典经济学给决策者灌输了一种荒谬的观念：只要一味追求经济增长，中产阶级就会自然而然地壮大并繁荣。经济学家做出这种假设的前提，是误以为市场经济是一个“各态历经”（ergodic）的系统。为了通俗地说明这一概念，Nick 对比了两种游戏机制： - **石头剪刀布（各态历经博弈）**：下一局输赢的结果与前一局毫无关联，每一次重新出拳都是独立、对等的。 - **大富翁/强手棋（非各态历经博弈）**：无论你去上多少次“大富翁培训班”，只要游戏时间拉得足够长，最终必然是一人独吞所有资产，其他人全部破产出局。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 各态历经与非各态历经经济系统对比 accDescr: 对比石头剪刀布所代表的各态历经系统与大富翁代表的复利积累系统 subgraph Ergodic ["各态历经系统（石头剪刀布）"] E1["每一轮均为独立事件"] --> E2["过往结果不影响未来"] E2 --> E3["无复利、无累积优势"] end subgraph NonErgodic ["非各态历经系统（真实市场 / 大富翁）"] NE1["起点与运气（如掷骰子占地）"] --> NE2["路径依赖与复利滚动"] NE2 --> NE3["优势与劣势极度放大"] NE3 --> NE4["一人通吃所有，余者彻底出局"] end ``` Nick 直言，真实的自由市场经济正是典型的“非各态历经系统”，其核心特征是**运气、路径依赖（path dependence）与复利效应（compounding）**。Nick 调侃主持人 Steven Bartlett 可能含着银汤匙出生在三垒，Steven 笑着纠正自己大概是出生在二垒——“至少有爱我的父母，家里也有电”，Nick 补充道“而且你能力出众又帅气”。但现实很残酷：在《大富翁》里，如果前几轮掷骰子运气爆棚买下了派克街（Park Place），只要连续四次掷出好点数，胜局就已经注定。更致命的是，不仅优势会指数级放大，劣势同样会利滚利地恶化，许多人仅仅因为接连遭遇几次坏运气，人生就直接滑向万劫不复的深渊。因此，一个健康的、拥有社会凝聚力的中产阶级，从来不是任由市场自由放任就能诞生的奇迹，而**必须是一场精心设计、由政策强制构建的产物**。 --- ### [01:40:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6039s) 科技与金融两大复合体：收割中产的元凶 Daniel Priestley 表示在原则上完全同意 Nick 的论点，尤其反感那一小撮在达沃斯论坛（Davos）聚会、企图主导全人类生活的超级富豪。但 Daniel 认为真相还有更深层的制度根源：20 世纪 70 年代初，美元与黄金脱钩（布雷顿森林体系瓦解），法币时代的到来使央行得以肆无忌惮地印钞。放水导致资产价格飞涨，甚至连普通家庭的住房也被金融化，彻底变成了投机资产，将大多数普通人永远挤出了买房的门槛。随后金融业急剧膨胀，单单这一个行业就占据了经济总量的 20%。 Daniel 指出，如今社会上崛起了两大巨型怪兽——**科技工业复合体**（technology-industrial complex）与**金融工业复合体**（finance-industrial complex），正是它们撕裂了社会。Daniel 与 Nick 之间有一个关键分歧： - Nick 主张“提升工人的底线”（如大幅提高法定最低薪资、保障基本权益），但 Daniel 认为这远远不够，因为“草民的干草叉已经亮出来了”，仅有最低保障根本无法阻挡愤怒。 - Daniel 打了个生动的比方：大型科技与大型金融巨头正坐在跑车里疾驰，而那些出卖时间与劳力的工人们却在靠双脚奔跑。如果政策只是对工人们说：“嘿，给你们换双舒服一点的耐克鞋（提高底线薪水），你们能满意了吗？”这根本不可能缩小日益拉大的贫富鸿沟。 Daniel 呼吁必须直面真正的体制性“恶人”：必须限制大金融和大科技将老百姓赖以生存的住房变成金融衍生品，不能任由巨头消灭本土小商业。英国每一个最宜居、最繁荣的小镇，其灵魂都在于由肉铺、面包房、蜡烛匠等个体户构成的活跃街区。Nick 随即打趣表示认同：“伦敦最好的商业街，正是我家门前那条街。” --- ### [01:43:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6186s) 中场支持：效率工具与人际对话卡牌在激烈的经济学论战间歇，主持人 Steven Bartlett 插入了一段赞助与产品分享： - **WhisperFlow**：Steven 现场演示了自己投资的语音转文字工具 WhisperFlow。他仅用几十秒就通过语音快速完成三项日常工作：在团队 Slack 频道中公布由 Ant、Liv、Dom 和 Cam 组成的项目组获得本周“最佳实验团队”奖项；在 Gmail 邮件群组中语音命令一键插入团队成员邮箱；给行程助理 Juan 留言调整周三的录制时间从下午两点推迟到三点。Steven 强调其输入速度是键盘打字的 4 倍。 - **《The Diary Of A CEO》对话卡牌**：回顾自己对近 700 位全球顶尖人物的采访，Steven 体会到“脆弱感是通往深度连接的大门”。他在节目收尾时总会让嘉宾在日记本中留下一个深刻问题，如今这些问题被印制成了一套实体对话卡牌。无论是在情侣相处、团队破冰还是家庭聚会中，这套卡牌都能帮助人们在数字化浪潮中回归有温度的面对面交流。 --- ### [01:45:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6316s) 动态活力与体面民生：德国模式之争广告归来，Steven 引出下一个话题：两位嘉宾此前都曾提及经济制度中存在一个“黄金平衡点”（sweet spot）——在这个区间内，社会既能保留资本主义的创新与动态活力（dynamism），又能保障普通劳动者的基本体面（decency）。 Daniel 对此持悲观态度，他认为这个平衡区间极度狭窄，在现实中极难企及。他以**德国**为例进行反驳： - 德国政府竭尽所能地追求包容性，甚至出台法律强制规定每家公司的董事会必须有普通员工代表（共同决策制）。 - 然而，当前的德国经济正深陷困境甚至濒临衰退，在 Daniel 看来，德国用尽了一切制度手段却依然搞垮了经济。面对 Daniel 的断言，Nick 忍不住笑场反驳，直言声称“德国经济正在崩溃”完全脱离了事实： - Nick 当场反问：“你真的去过德国吗？去过斯德哥尔摩吗？” - Nick 强调，不能把经济增长周期的短暂波动误判为整个社会的崩溃；这些兼顾社会公平的国家基础设施完善、人民生活井然有序，其底层运转机制和向前发展的社会动能依然坚韧健全。 ### [01:46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6368s) 迪拜神话与增长的幻觉：自由放任还是资源红利？在讨论德国因中国电动车冲击而导致汽车制造业被掏空、工人民怨上升时，尼克·汉瑙尔（Nick Hanauer）首先澄清，不能单纯把德国民众的不满归咎于工会代表进入公司董事会。丹尼尔·普里斯利（Daniel Priestley）则迅速抛出一个截然相反的样本——迪拜。他形容迪拜是拥有主权财富基金加持的“接近自由放任资本主义”的乐土，声称只要你跟生活在迪拜的人交谈，就会发现他们“疯狂热爱迪拜”，到处充满积极进取的创业者与雄心勃勃的氛围。尼克随即毫不留情地打断并反驳：“你说的只是那些富人，可不是那些在底层干活的有色人种。”丹尼尔辩解称，自己不仅与富人交流，连当地的 Uber 司机、咖啡馆店员也都对迪拜赞赏有加。尼克一针见血地指出，底层劳工之所以看似满意，仅仅是因为他们老家的生存条件极其严苛悲惨，迪拜的本质是极度刺眼的财富不平等。面对不平等的质疑，丹尼尔主张“经济增长能掩盖很多裂痕”，增长带来水涨船高的效应，而英国当前的低迷正是因为缺乏经济增长让所有人痛苦不堪。但尼克反唇相讥，提醒丹尼尔不要忽视最核心的现实：阿联酋的繁荣完全建立在地球有史以来最惊人的“免费石油现金喷泉”之上，那种不可复制的资源红利才是真正的助推器，根本不能算作纯粹资本主义模式的胜利。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 迪拜繁荣的两种归因视角 accDescr: 丹尼尔侧重创业氛围与经济增长，尼克侧重资源红利与阶层剥削 subgraph 丹尼尔视角["丹尼尔的增长假说"] D1["自由放任与主权基金结合"] --> D2["强烈创业氛围与低税吸引力"] D2 --> D3["全面经济增长水涨船高"] end subgraph 尼克视角["尼克的现实批判"] N1["天量石油天然气资源红利"] --> N2["跨国低薪劳工无权无势"] N2 --> N3["极度贫富悬殊与不可复制性"] end ``` ### [01:48:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6486s) 惩罚雄心还是加剧撕裂？英美税率与社会阶层的不满争论随之转向年轻人对未来的希望。丹尼尔痛心于英国大量聪明绝顶的年轻人正在流失，因为英国的税制极其严苛——赚到第一笔财富的起步阶段就会遭遇沉重打击。他指出，美国个人所得税的最高边际税率直到收入达到约 70 万美元时才会触发，而在英国，年薪一旦突破 10 万英镑，由于个人免税额度的逐步扣减，边际税率会瞬间飙升至畸形的 60% 甚至 62%，之后再回落到 45% 的附加税率。这种“20% → 40% → 60% → 45%”的惩罚性税率阶梯，直接浇灭了实干者的动力，促使大批英国人才远走美国。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插话发问：“但如果一个人本就没有那么大野心呢？”丹尼尔认为，哪怕每一百人或十个人中只有一个具备创业雄心，这批人所创造的企业和选择空间也能惠及所有人。然而尼克与史蒂文提醒他，美国的低税与放任带来了更加极端的不平等，社会的阶级怒火正在迅速累积，“干草叉迟早会举起来”。丹尼尔回应称有野心的人不在乎不平等，他们只在乎向上跃迁的通道；但史蒂文反驳，从整个社会稳定来看，美国的撕裂甚至比英国更危险。丹尼尔顺势列举了英国绿党副党魁扎克·波兰斯基（Zack Polanski）以及纽约民主社会主义者佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）在政坛的迅速崛起，认为带有“没收生产资料”、“收回房东房产”标签的激进社会主义正在英美卷土重来。 - **英国税率痛点**：收入突破 10 万英镑时面临个人免税额递减，形成高达 60% 至 62% 的有效边际税率“陷阱”。 - **美英门槛对比**：美国联邦最高税率门槛在 70 万美元左右，而英国过早地对中上产阶层开启重税惩罚。 - **政治两极化动向**：以英国绿党扎克·波兰斯基、纽约市佐兰·马姆达尼为代表的左翼激进力量正在获得广泛的年轻拥趸。 ### [01:50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6628s) “食物荒漠”背后的争论：何为真正的社会主义与市场失灵针对丹尼尔口中那些高喊“没收生产资料”的“持证社会主义者”，尼克·汉瑙尔给出了完全不同的定性。尼克认为，许多年轻政客自称社会主义者，仅仅是因为在当下的语境里找不到更好的词来对抗新自由主义。尼克以纽约等地解决“食物荒漠”（Food Desert，即贫困社区缺乏平价新鲜果蔬超市）的举措为例：在资本因为利润微薄而不愿涉足的穷困街区，由政府出面设立平价生鲜杂货店、修补道路坑洼、修建自行车道坡道，这绝不是什么剥夺私有制的极左社会主义，而纯粹是政府为公民提供必要的基础公共服务。“要求富人多交一点税、保障穷人能买到新鲜食物，并不是社会主义，”尼克强调，“这只是拒绝让富豪阶层继续对整个社会肆意践踏。” 丹尼尔对“食物荒漠”的成因给出了截然相反的商业诊断。他反驳称，贫困街区之所以没有杂货店，恰恰是因为政府的税负太重、合规监管太繁琐，导致小本经营在微薄的利润率下根本无利可图。丹尼尔坚信，只要政府为雇员少于 200 人的小型企业和初创公司彻底松绑、免除沉重的税费与监管枷锁，精明的小店主自然会算清账目，欣然前往贫民区开设杂货店，用商业手段根除食物荒漠。 ### [01:51:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6706s) 创业者的幸存者偏差：巨头垄断与渐进式监管听到两人从宏观政策一路争辩到微观小店，史蒂文·巴特利特陷入了对自身立场的深思。他坦言在座的三人全都是创业者，这让他们天然带着巨大的“幸存者偏差”与特权视角。史蒂文剖析了自己的成长轨迹：他的母亲是尼日利亚移民，幼年辍学，不识字也不会写字；家里四个兄弟姐妹中，其他三个都按部就班上大学走平稳路线，唯独他在 18 岁时选择退学创业，一度闹到跟父母断绝联系。他意识到，自己这种敢于承担极致风险的偏执取向可能源于未知的创伤或罕见的特质，但世界上绝大多数普通人根本不想、也无法成为创业者。丹尼尔回应道，自己从未主张“人人都要当创业者”，他批判的是政府官僚的盲区——监管制定者眼里永远只有乐购（Tesco）或沃尔玛（Walmart）这种巨无霸，根本看不见小微企业的生死，遇到问题只会傲慢地问“为什么大超市不去做”。作为白手起家的大投资人，尼克·汉瑙尔赞同小企业被挤压的现状，但他坚决否定了丹尼尔将责任推给“监管过度”的推论。尼克指出： > “在美国，阻止一个人在食物荒漠开杂货店的根本不是政府监管，而是西夫韦（Safeway）这样的超级巨头！是巨头掌控的垄断供应链让单店经营者毫无生路。” 尼克给出了具体的制度解决方案：国家不应取消监管，而是必须推行**渐进式监管与梯级法规（Progressive Regulation）**。大财阀必须受到最严格、甚至分毫不差的规则约束与最高标准的劳工法管辖；而对于小型初创企业，法律则应赋予巨大的弹性和缓冲期，从而以制度之手打破巨头的无序扩张，为底层小商业争取真正的生存空间。 ### [01:54:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6866s) 扶持小企业与新自由主义反思对话继续探讨如何改善小企业的生存环境。Nick Hanauer 提出，对于个体经营者来说，现实往往极为艰难，光是读懂监管政策手册并弄明白该做什么就足以让人望而却步。因此，规则应当具有“累进性”（progressive）：让创业门槛变低、资本更容易获取，使初创企业在相对较少繁琐规管的束缚下起步。面对“如何降低资金获取门槛”的追问，Nick 指出政府可以通过专项扶持计划来实现，正如美国的小企业管理局（SBA）所承担的职责。Daniel Priestley 补充道，英国也有类似机制，比如英国商业银行（British Business Bank）为 25,000 英镑的初创企业贷款提供高达 75% 的政府担保。Daniel 回忆自己创办所有公司时都是靠一张信用卡起步，但他特别强调必须区分两类实体：一类是打算快速扩张规模、追求退出的创业型公司（startups）；另一类则是单纯希望在社区内稳定生存的小本生意（small businesses）。他认为社区需要大量不想扩张、只想长久存在的老式小店，这是一种被现代资本叙事遗忘的宝贵生态。然而，这种传统的“夫妻店”正面临来自规模化巨头的残酷挤压。主持人 Steven Bartlett 提出质疑：如果一家街边夫妻便利店旁边开了一家 Spar 连锁超市或 7-Eleven，巨头能够利用规模经济以极其低廉的成本（比如仅为夫妻店 20% 的进价）采购黄瓜等日常商品，小店根本无法在同台竞争中生还。Nick Hanauer 随即指出，过去的法律曾严令禁止巨头享有这种不公平的价格特权，之所以这些保护性法案被彻底废除，全因“新自由主义”（Neoliberalism）经济思潮的盛行。Nick 回顾年轻时的商业环境：那时大企业想收购竞争对手，整个管理层都会紧张到冷汗直流（"sweating bullets"），因为反垄断审查机构一旦认定交易会导致行业过度集中，就会毫不留情地予以否决。而在今天的年轻人眼中，那些曾遍布各地的区域性制造厂和本土小型生态已不复存在，现代人甚至无法想象一个不受寡头完全统治的世界。 Daniel Priestley 对此深有感触，并带着几分怀旧描述起自己成长年代的街区生活——那时年轻人去音像店租录影带、去 CD 唱片店试听音乐并与店员闲聊。“在我的成长岁月里，最酷的孩子在 CD 唱片店上班，极客书呆子在书店打工，其余所有人都在杂货店兼职。”而今，这些充满人情味的小商业形态已被大型连锁和电商彻底颠覆。Daniel 强调，社会的制度必须重新倾斜，切实保护小企业的探索与生存空间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 小微企业与跨国巨头的竞争困境及政策应对 accDescr: 展示了传统小微企业面临巨头挤压的困境，以及通过信贷担保、反垄断监管和税收倾斜提供的政策出路。 subgraph S1["巨头规模挤压机制"] A["巨头企业 (如 7-Eleven / 连锁商超)"] -->|"利用规模效应以极低价格采购原材料"| B["不公平价格优势"] C["社区夫妻店 / 小微企业"] -->|"采购成本居高不下"| D["市场生存危机"] B -.->|"价格击溃"| D end subgraph S2["历史监管与政策反思"] E["历史反垄断框架"] -->|"严格审查并购 / 禁止巨头获得原料特惠"| F["保护本土多元商业生态"] G["新自由主义兴起"] -->|"解除兼并限制与原料采购管制"| A end subgraph S3["建议的政策倾斜"] H["政府提供启动资金支持 (如 SBA、75% 政府担保贷款)"] I["实行累进式监管 (大幅简化小微企业合规成本)"] end H --> C I --> C ``` --- ### [01:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7084s) 免除底层税负与征收“巨头广播执照税” 谈到如何让工薪阶层手里拥有更多可支配收入时，Daniel Priestley 抛出了一个极为激进的税收改革设想。他指出，在英国，收入处于后 50% 的纳税人所缴纳的所得税加起来仅占政府个人所得税总额的 9.5%。英国政府完全有能力大笔一挥，直接免除后 50% 工薪阶层的全部所得税。这一政策的资金缺口仅为大约 330 亿英镑，而英国政府的总预算高达 1.4 万亿英镑。这意味着只需挪动预算中微不足道的一部分，就能瞬间给英国后半段收入阶层带来相当于 10% 到 15% 的变相加薪。Nick 对此建议当场表示赞赏（"I love it"），认为相较于 1.4 万亿英镑的庞大国家盘子，这笔用于彻底改善 1,500 万底层劳工生活的支出绝对微不足道。面对 Steven 关于财政赤字缺口的现实追问——英国工党政府首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）此前宣称财政存在“200 亿英镑的黑洞”，甚至因此不得不缩减冬季采暖津贴等养老金福利，若再增加 300 多亿缺口资金从何而来？Daniel 进行了有力反驳： - **精简繁重的税务官僚机构**：英国税务海关总署（HMRC）为了向这 1,500 万低收入群体核查和征收这笔微薄的税金，投入了难以计数的行政资源和全职员工，这种极具内耗的监管成本本就荒谬至极。 - **刺激经济内需循环**：底层民众边际消费倾向极高，把钱留给他们，他们会立刻投入到现实经济消费中，从而带动经济流转并创造其他税源。 - **向跨国寡头征收刚性消费端准入税**：真正该纳税的是那些利用国际财税漏洞“占尽便宜”的大公司。Daniel 提议引入类似于“广播执照”（broadcast license）的固定额度经营税。 Daniel 进一步阐述了他所谓的“注意力广播执照”模式。针对 OpenAI、Meta（Facebook）、Google 或 YouTube 这类科技巨头，不能放任其通过会计花招跨境转移利润。由于它们源源不断地向英国国民推送音视频与信息流，实质上就是在英国境内开展无死角的大众广播，吞噬了数以亿计的国民注意力工时。因此，政府完全可以开出刚性准入条件：只要进入英国市场向国民广播，每年就必须缴纳一笔无法逃避的固定费用（例如年费 5 亿英镑甚至数十亿英镑）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 50% 底层免税与科技寡头固定执照税闭环 accDescr: 展示了通过免除后50%人群所得税，并向跨国科技巨头征收固定执照税来平衡预算并刺激经济的设想。 A["英国底层 50% 纳税人"] -->|"仅贡献全国 9.5% 个人所得税 (约 330 亿英镑)"| B["税收负担沉重但总额较少"] C["全面免除后 50% 所得税"] --> D["相当于变相加薪 10%-15%"] D --> E["消费直接回流本土实体经济"] F["跨国数字寡头 (OpenAI / Meta / Google)"] -->|"吞噬国民时间 / 跨境避税"| G["设立刚性'广播执照税' (固定年费)"] G -->|"填补 330 亿英镑减税缺口"| C H["裁减 HMRC 针对 1500 万人的冗余稽征成本"] --> C ``` --- ### [02:00:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7241s) 成本转嫁担忧与全球集体行动困境在辩论的最后阶段，Steven 提出了企业反制与成本转嫁的顾虑。他以亲身经历说明，以前从英国去美国购买苹果（Apple）笔记本电脑，同款硬件在英国的售价往往要贵上几百美元；如果政府针对 OpenAI 这类公司强行课征高额准入执照税，巨头大概率会立刻提高英国市场的订阅年费或将税收转嫁给普通消费者。Daniel 承认科技公司确实可能尝试转嫁成本，但政府完全可以通过立法强制要求区域价格平权（parity），限制其恶意抬价。他情绪激动地指出，如果政策继续坐视不理，现实就是最荒谬的道德破产：全社会的护士、教师和最普通的一半工薪阶层在拼尽全力维持国家运转并缴纳税款，而星巴克（Starbucks）、亚马逊（Amazon）和谷歌（Google）等跨国企业巨头却几乎在这个国家不纳分文税款。 Nick Hanauer 总结指出，Steven 所提出的所有质询和忧虑都切中要害，但它们最终都指向同一个根本性症结——经济问题本质上是一个“全球层面的集体行动困境”（global collective action problem）。在这个资本高度全球化、主权治理却割裂分立的时代，若要达成真正稳健有效的解决方案，就必须建立全球多国间的协同治理体系。Nick 举例提及，拜登政府时期曾极其努力地尝试推行全球最低企业所得税率（global minimum corporate tax rate），但最终在各方跨国资本游说和地缘博弈的重压之下趋于崩溃。这一系列政策落地失败的残酷现实，再次暴露了现代国家治理在应对全球化资本掠夺时的深层制度性软弱。 ### [02:02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7344s) 成本转嫁与监管悖论：企业与消费者的博弈讨论由对超级富豪责任的反思切入。主持人指出，Nick Hanauer 需要劝说那些身处顶层的亿万富翁朋友，如果跨国企业不开始对业务所在地的经济进行反哺，把整个底层生态抽干之后，未来将无以为继。Nick 苦笑着插话表示“这是一门非常孤独的差事（It's a lonely business）”。接着，讨论聚焦到税负与监管的“成本转嫁难题”（Pass-through problem）。以巨无霸汉堡（Big Mac）为例，不同地区的税率直接决定终端价格——在俄勒冈州一个巨无霸卖 8 美元，而在芝加哥则接近 9 美元；实体书店一本书卖 20 美元，网上只卖 10 美元。同样，如果英国政府对跨国科技巨头征收重税，企业为了维持 30% 的利润率目标，往往会毫不犹豫地把税负打包转嫁给当地消费者，甚至逼得消费者使用 VPN 伪装IP去低价区购买。这种监管反噬的现象在实体产品与技术领域同样屡见不鲜。主持人分享了自己与一位大型科技公司 CTO 的私密对话：该高管坦言，英国和欧盟正在推行的“强制设备使用可拆卸电池”法规导致了荒谬的意外后果——不仅逼迫厂商囤积更多锂电池导致填埋污染增加，还破坏了设备的防水性能，使其极易损坏；更残酷的现实是，欧洲在跨国巨头眼中的市场权重正在萎缩，随着南美等新兴市场的兴起，巨头甚至可以直接放弃在当地销售。在 AI 领域，ChatGPT 等最先进的模型新功能也总是最先在美国本土上线；在软件、GDPR（通用数据保护条例）等多重合规重压下，英国创作者往往要比美国同行苦等 12 到 18 个月才能用上最新的商业化变现工具。 - **巨无霸指数的税差体现**：俄勒冈州售价 8 美元，芝加哥因地方税负达近 9 美元。 - **环保法规的意外副作用**：可拆卸电池规定反而催生了更多废弃锂电池并剥夺了手机等终端的防水耐久度。 - **技术功能落地滞后**：由于 GDPR 等严格监管，欧洲及英国创作者在商业化变现工具的获取上常年滞后美国 12 至 18 个月。 --- ### [02:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7516s) 经济学的本质是权衡：从食品安全到瓶盖监管的伦理抉择 Nick Hanauer 强调，经济学的核心定义归根结底就是“在取舍权衡之间做选择”（Economics is a set of trade-offs）。监管对企业与消费者而言确实伴随着阵痛，当前欧盟的过度监管已经走入极端——甚至细致到连塑料瓶上的盖子该如何固定开启都要插手干预，这正在严重扼杀市场的活力与创新动能。然而反观大西洋彼岸，美国却长期处于监管不足（under-regulated）的失衡状态：在美国超市买一块生鸡肉回家，如果不彻底煮熟，有三分之一的概率会感染大肠杆菌或沙门氏菌，国民人均预期寿命也因此受到负面影响。许多在欧洲生活的人前往美国后都会抱怨吃不惯那里的食物。由此，全场达成了哲学层面的共识：经济政策的终极落脚点并非单纯的技术性指标，而是关于“人类福祉”（Human flourishing）的道德与伦理抉择。Daniel Priestley 提出，经济的根本目的是改善普通人的生命体验，而达成这一目标的最优路径是赋予小企业主群体更大的话语权与实力。小企业主每天必须与员工并肩作战、面对面共处，天然具备人性温度，会善待自己的员工；相比之下，跨国超级垄断集团的董事会高管永远不会在飞机上坐在流水线工人身旁，面对底层的无名螺丝钉，他们可以肆无忌惮地采取任何冷酷的剥削手段。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Regulatory trade offs between EU and US accDescr: Diagram illustrating the contrasting trade offs between the European and American regulatory models. subgraph EU["欧盟模式 (过度监管)"] direction TB EU1["微观规范与强合规 (如固定瓶盖、可拆卸电池)"] --> EU2["保障基础安全与生态"] EU2 --> EU3["抑制商业活力与创新 技术落地延后 12-18 个月"] end subgraph US["美国模式 (监管不足)"] direction TB US1["追求商业扩张与效率优先"] --> US2["快速技术迭代与超级资本"] US2 --> US3["食品卫生隐患与预期寿命缩短 (1/3 鸡肉感染沙门氏菌风险)"] end EU -.->|"伦理与价值权衡"| CORE["核心目标：人类福祉 (Human Flourishing)"] US -.->|"伦理与价值权衡"| CORE ``` --- ### [02:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7615s) 组合式创新与反垄断的“终极杀招” Nick 对 Daniel 的小企业观点表示“强烈认同，但这远远不够”。传统经济学总是兜售“伟人理论”（Great Man Theory），仿佛技术突破全靠某个富有的科技天才灵光一闪；但新经济学（New Economics）彻底击碎了这种迷思，证明**创新本质上是组合式的（Combinatorial）**。人类最早的工具是石块与木棍，但只要把石头绑在棍子上，就能衍生出锤子、长矛、箭矢、斧头和铁锹等无穷工具。网络中拥有不同背景、经历和思维模式的群体越多元，碰撞出的创新速率就越惊人——数学建模已多次证明，一支由多元化个体组成的问题攻坚团队，其表现往往能持续战胜同质化的高智商精英团队。相反，企业兼并与垄断带来的只有“推高物价、压低薪资、减少消费者选择并扼杀创新”。针对财富过度集中后的“回收循环”难题，主持人提出是否有激进破局的方案。Daniel 随即抛出连亿万富翁听了都会胆战心惊的终极手段：**强行分拆巨头公司（Breaking up companies）**。Nick 证实了这一判断——当 Daniel 询问身为杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）好友的 Nick，“贝佐斯究竟是更害怕被加税，还是更害怕公司被拆分”时，Nick 毫不犹豫地回答：“绝对是害怕被拆分（Oh, for sure broken up）”。因为无论是将 YouTube 从 Google 剥离，还是将 AWS、Prime 会员体系从亚马逊拆分，巨头最深层的噩梦就是被迫剥离掉安逸的垄断壁垒，重新回到残酷的市场竞争擂台之中。 - **新经济学关于垄断的四重危害**：抬高终端物价、压制劳动者工资、剥夺消费者选择权、大幅降低全社会创新速率。 - **技术进化的组合逻辑**：石块与木棍绑合催生锤、矛、箭、斧、锹，证明多元认知网络的协同价值远超精英闭门造车。 - **资本巨头的最大软肋**：比起缴纳更高比例的税款，拆分生态帝国（如分拆 Google 与 YouTube、分拆 AWS 与亚马逊电商）才是真正让顶级寡头夜不能寐的激进政策工具。 ### [02:10:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7830s) 亚马逊的增长机密与战略垄断的弊害在讨论大企业的垄断时，几位嘉宾探讨了类似西奥多·罗斯福（Teddy Roosevelt）当年的反托拉斯拆分措施。针对“大公司某些业务其实不赚钱、全靠母公司补贴”（例如 Amazon Prime 与 Netflix 竞争）的现象，Nick Hanauer 结合自身作为亚马逊早期投资者的亲身经历指出，这些万亿巨头想在何处盈利完全取决于税收筹划与战略目的。他透露，当年 amazon.com 刚创立时饱受“无法盈利”的指责，但其真正的成功秘诀在于“负现金转换周期”（Negative Cash Conversion Cycle）。对于地球上绝大多数普通商业而言，扩张必须依靠追加资本，而亚马逊的模式彻底打破了这一限制：用户在网站下单后，订单即刻同步给拥有全部库存的图书仓库，次日完成发货并划扣消费者的信用卡；然而，亚马逊向图书供货商结算货款的账期长达 90 天。这意味着企业规模越大、销量越高，沉淀的可用现金流就越充沛，即便账面不盈利也根本不缺钱。Nick 强调，他们当时如果想要账面利润，只需把售价调高 3% 到 4% 便能轻而易举实现。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 亚马逊负现金转换周期运转机制 accDescr: 展示亚马逊如何在未付款给供货商前即提前收取用户资金并形成充沛现金流 subgraph User["用户交易"] A["消费者在官网下单"] --> B["即时划扣信用卡并收取现金"] end subgraph Fulfillment["履约与账期"] A --> C["仓库迅速发货出库"] B --> D["坐拥无息流动现金池"] C --> E["90天后再向供应商/书商结款"] E --> D end D --> F["无需外部资本即可实现自我指数级扩张"] ``` Daniel Priestley 紧接着指出，这些科技巨头之所以估值万亿美元，绝不仅仅是赚钱能力强，关键在于它们构筑了“战略性垄断”（Strategic Monopolies）。如果政策想要真正让巨头的高管们彻夜难眠，就必须对垄断规模和基金体量划定硬性红线，强制拆解跨业务的相互对冲，恢复市场竞争。正如亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）所阐述的，资本主义有效运转的前提是竞争：如果一个镇上只有一家面包店，消费者只能被迫接受任何品质和价格的面包；唯有出现多家面包店，企业才会被迫提供最优质、最合理的价格。 - **负现金流周期的魔力**：亚马逊通过利用 90 天的供应商账期先行收取用户资金，在自身不产生净利润的情况下实现了近乎无限的自我造血与扩张。 - **拆分战略垄断的必要性**：让巨头分心应对反垄断和拆分监管，不仅能遏制跨业务交叉补贴的恶性倾销，也能为中小竞争者腾出宝贵的发展空间。 --- ### [02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7993s) 拆解“万物商店”与对抗科技寡头围绕如何具体拆分像亚马逊这样的巨头，现场展开了激烈的交锋。Steven Bartlett 询问如果将亚马逊拆解为 AWS 云计算、Amazon Prime 订阅和 Amazon Retail 零售等板块，它在电子商务领域是否依然处于垄断地位。Daniel Priestley 认为拆分至少能剥离 AWS 对零售业务源源不断的现金补贴，让独立竞争者能够与其抗衡；甚至在零售板块内部，也可以禁止其成为涵盖一切品类的“万物商店”（The Everything Store），强制拆解为专门的图书商店、电子产品专卖等形态。现场气氛随后迎来一段轻松的幽默互动。Steven 追问 Nick 是否还持有亚马逊的股票，Nick 自嘲地笑着坦承自己早就卖掉了所有股份，并打趣道：“要是我今天还拿着那些股票，我就不可能坐在这里跟你们聊天了——杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）可绝不会跑来上这个节目。” 笑声过后，Nick 回归严肃的政治经济学思考。他承认拆分企业不是包治百病的灵丹妙药，复杂问题绝不存在完美的算法级解法，所有方案本质上都是“最不坏的选择”（the least worst thing）。但在基本原则上，全社会必须积极限制任何形式的权力过度集中，无论通过创业还是优质的劳工就业，尽可能全面地将普通人纳入经济成果中，让他们自愿维护民主体制而不是想着推翻系统。他直言，这一愿景必然会与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）、杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）和马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）等试图建立寡头统治的技术富豪产生根本冲突，而“我们应当毫不退缩地发起这场斗争并取得胜利”。 --- ### [02:15:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8131s) 重拾希望的解法：理解新规则还是终身破局？按照节目的收尾传统，主持人念出了上一位嘉宾留下的匿名盲盒提问：“在一个充满如此多挑战的世界里，我们究竟该如何重塑希望并激发人们的参与度？” Daniel Priestley 率先作答，他认为重塑希望的核心在于“向大众讲明新游戏规则”。老一辈人是在工业化后期成长起来的，遵循着那套传统的生存逻辑；而当今世界已步入数字化革命的早期阶段。Daniel 分享道，自己之所以能够摆脱出生阶层的贫困并积累财富，正是因为有人清晰地向他揭示了现代经济的运转底层——如何启动业务、如何扩展规模、如何赚到人生第一个一百万、以及如何招募和凝聚团队。当前很多人之所以陷入习得性无助与绝望，是因为他们被困在了一场从未有人向其解释过规则的迷宫游戏中。因此，现代教育系统必须承担起责任，传授适应当前经济环境的真正技能。 Steven Bartlett 对此提出了犀利的推演质疑：如果将规则普及给一百万名年轻人，一两年后所有人都知道了规则，但其中必然会有一小撮人找到新的“破局优势”（edge）——比如率先掌握 AI 等前沿杠杆，从而再度拉开阶层差距，让剩下的人重归迷茫与被动。更残酷的是，外界环境瞬息万变，“每一天过去，昨天解释的规则就会过时一天”。面对这一挑战，Daniel 强调“唯一的恒常就是变化本身”，接受终身学习（Lifelong Learning）本身就是新游戏规则的核心组成部分。他感慨很多年轻人因为脱离现实规则而感到彻底无助，比如盲目向微软等顶尖巨头海投简历，却完全不知道这些跨国公司每天会收到高达 3,500 份求职申请，缺乏在这个快速迭代的时代中生存的基本认知。 ### [02:18:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8310s) 创业工具箱是普遍解药，还是特权阶层的游戏？讨论从史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享自己未婚妻的经历切入。史蒂文提到未婚妻创立了“Bali Breathwork”，她之所以能够将个人热情转化为可持续的商业项目，固然有其自身的努力，但根本原因在于她背后拥有极其强大的支持网络——她的父亲是一位成功的企业家，未婚妻与史蒂文之间彼此提供全方位的支持与安全感。丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）则从方法论角度反驳，认为无论是说服他人（pitching）、发布内容还是打造产品矩阵，创业技能本质上是一套任何人都能习得的体系；他亲眼见过无数普通人通过掌握这套创业方法，瞬间重获对生活的掌控感（agency）与希望。史蒂文随即指出，这种“创业带来希望”的论调忽略了个体起点的巨大鸿沟：家庭背景、运气与原生资源构成了不可忽视的壁垒，现实中大量普通人仅仅希望每周上一两天班、过好平淡生活，根本不想成为企业家。丹尼尔用健身教练打了个生动比方：普通人或许本能排斥俯卧撑和仰卧起坐，但健身专业人士开出的锻炼清单确实能让践行者重塑体魄并获得希望。然而，正如大富翁（Monopoly）游戏所揭示的残酷真相，世界从来不是公平的，许多人一出生就站在“三垒”上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业赋能与结构性优势的分歧 accDescr: 对比个人能动性路径与原生资本/背景支持路径在个体成功中的作用 subgraph S1["丹尼尔的赋能视角：个人能动性"] A["学习创业方法论 (提案/内容/产品)"] --> B["获取自主性与希望"] B --> C["实现商业可持续"] end subgraph S2["史蒂文的现实反思：原生优势"] D["家庭与人脉网络 (企业家父母/资本兜底)"] --> E["承担风险的容错空间"] E --> C end end ``` --- ### [02:20:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8420s) 股东利益最大化的历史谎言与人本经济构想在丹尼尔追问下，尼克·汉瑙尔（Nick Hanauer）给出了自己根本性的制度答案：人类必须建立生机勃勃的民主制度，让经济运行围绕“人类的全面发展与繁荣（human flourishing）”来统筹优化，而非单一追求“资本效率（capital efficiency）”与资本积累。尼克犀利地指出，整个当代社会被一种将资本效率等同于神圣道德的教条所规训。尼克追溯了这一观念的历史渊源： - **概念捏造**：20世纪70年代凭空构想出“企业唯一目的就是最大化股东利益”的所谓规范与法规。 - **精心粉饰的谎言**：新自由主义并未露骨地声称“剥削穷人”，而是宣称“只要追求股东利润最大化，所有人都会随之受益，经济增速和GDP都会水涨船高，带来水涨船高的繁荣（rising tide）”。 - **残酷的现实崩塌**：这套假说并未让潮水上涨，反而让绝大多数人的利益沉底，全部红利仅流向了极少数顶级富豪。尼克强调，现代经济学已经证明存在截然不同的社会构建方式：通过政策有意识地全面接纳并赋能劳动者与中小微企业。一旦摆脱资本至上的教条，经济增速反而会更快，薪酬会更高，物价会更低，创新也会更加蓬勃。“这完全在我们触手可及的范围之内，唯一的关键在于我们是否下定决心去推行。” --- ### [02:22:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8523s) 政治体系重塑与当下个体行动力的张力面对尼克关于宏观政策的呼吁，丹尼尔半开玩笑地说“你应该去从政”，而尼克直言自己早已置身于政治斗争之中。丹尼尔坦言，自己极度赞赏尼克利用自身的财富、权力与影响力在顶层推动制度变革，但他极为反感“等待世界改变”的被动姿态。对于普通人而言，把命运寄托在遥遥无期的宏观政策改革上只会让人感到无力和绝望。丹尼尔强调，在推动政治运动包容更多人的同时，个体必须拥有绝对的“个人责任感与行动力”——找准自己的下一步行动，观看深度对话节目，持续向外界学习。这种随时清楚自己下一步该做什么以改善境遇的能力，正是个体希望的真实源泉。在谈及这一观点时，两位嘉宾还就节目的订阅读者幽默互动，现场气氛短暂由严肃的制度辩论转为轻松调侃。 --- ### [02:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8589s) 史蒂文的反思：看不见的特权与 advice 的普遍性局限史蒂文分享了一段深刻的自我剖析。他坦言，随着年龄增长，自己越发清醒地看清了自身所拥有的深层特权——这种特权并非源自他成功创办了企业或赚到了财富，而是在生命的起点就早已注定： - **假设的人生分岔**：史蒂文回忆自己的母亲阅读与书写存在严重障碍，长年在圣卢克临终关怀医院（St. Luke's Hospice）做无偿义工。如果当年父亲离家出走，母亲一人抚养四个年幼孩子且无法识字就业，自己的人生轨迹将彻底改写。他绝无可能坐在这个演播厅里，也很可能会从一个充满野心与乐观的人变成内心充满怨恨的人。 - **无法跨越的现实鸿沟**：史蒂文提到自己家乡的一位儿时好友。他曾对朋友承诺：“只要你能在赛百味（Subway）踏实工作三个月，后面几年的房租我全包了。”然而，那位朋友连三个月的快餐店工作都无法维持。尽管史蒂文最终依然帮了他，但这件事让他极度震撼，意识到家庭结构、基因构架以及童年创伤造成的差距是何等深邃。史蒂文由此总结道，成功者向外界输出的人生建议必须经过严苛的特权审视，必须在剥离原生幸运的前提下依然能为普通人提供解法，否则这种建议便是不负责任且缺乏普适价值的。 --- ### [02:25:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8717s) 本地商业生态的活力 vs. 单一巨头的吞噬丹尼尔对史蒂文的同理心与反思表示赞赏，但进一步阐释了自己的核心主张：社会并不需要人人都是商业巨贾，但必须拥有一定规模的创业者来创造“选择权”。一个拥有10到20家活跃本土小企业的城镇，能够为居民提供多元的就业与生存空间；而在一个被单一巨型企业（如全镇唯一的开市客 Costco）全面垄断的地区，缺乏创业活力的城镇只能让人感到被压抑与沉沦。丹尼尔援引了日本传统中的“将监/将军家族（Shogun family）”隐喻，指出由核心创业家族带动的生态系统能够辐射并滋养整个社区。相反，如果全世界只剩下一家巨头送货上门、提供音乐或流媒体，所有人都会被彻底降级为被动而毫无话语权的纯粹消费者。尼克对此表示认同，但他犀利地指出，具备创业思维并能在此语境下获得赋能的人群，在现实世界中可能连全球人口的 **5%** 都不到，社会制度的根本设计绝不能只服务于这极少数人。 ### [02:26:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8819s) 个人能动性与系统性希望的碰撞讨论继续聚焦于普通人究竟该如何重获希望。Daniel Priestley 强调，在英国 3000 万劳动人口中，自雇人士就占了 600 万，这绝非微不足道的数字，而是一个绝大多数人都可以参与其中的庞大机遇。他指出，如果你去问健康专家如何获得希望，他们会告诉你去健身房、去跑步；而如果你去问一名创业者，答案必然是“通过个人能动性（personal agency）”。对他而言，创业方法论就是最行之有效的路径。然而，Nick Hanauer 提出了不同的看法。他认为，若去广泛倾听普通民众的心声，大多数人真正渴望的其实并不是成为企业家，而是拥有“过上正常生活的宁静奇迹”（the quiet miracle of a normal life）。Daniel 坦然赞同这一点，但他犀利地反驳道：那种生活已经彻底消失了。如今房价高得令人难以企及，养育一个家庭所需的普通住宅价格甚至高达 120 万英镑，本地优质工作匮乏，没有企业愿意支付体面的薪酬。Daniel 感慨道，坐在那里空想以前的生活毫无意义，那带来的不是希望，而是失去往日美好生活的深深失望。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 个人能动性与经济范式变革的对比 accDescr: 对比 Daniel Priestley 倡导的个人能动性路径与 Nick Hanauer 倡导的新经济范式路径。 subgraph DanielPath ["Daniel Priestley: 个人能动性"] A["600 万自雇群体"] --> B["践行创业方法论"] B --> C["本周即刻采取行动改善生活"] C --> D["摆脱对体制变革的消极等待"] end subgraph NickPath ["Nick Hanauer: 系统范式重构"] E["推翻新自由主义教条"] --> F["重塑决策者的因果认知框架"] F --> G["中产阶级是经济增长的动因"] G --> H["实现普通人宁静正常的生活"] end ``` ### [02:28:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8891s) 21世纪新经济学：重塑底层认知操作系统 Nick Hanauer 拿出一份政策手册，向大家展示他长期以来的核心研究成果。他直言，要让普通人重新过上理想的生活，唯有彻底拆除现存的新自由主义经济学分析框架，代之以一套适合 21 世纪的新经济范式，引导决策者做出正确的政策抉择。这份名为《21世纪经济学》（*21st Century Economics*）的手册专门面向政策制定者与专业学者，任何公众也可以在网站 marketsbuiltforhumans.org 免费下载阅读。 Nick 阐述了这一范式背后的核心转变： - **核心目标转变**：从单纯追求“资本效率（capital efficiency）”转向追求“人类福祉与繁荣（human flourishing）”。 - **人性假设转变**：从冷酷自利的“经济人（Homo economicus）”假说转向真实的“智人（Homo sapiens）”。 - **系统机制认知**：从将经济视为静态的“帕累托最优均衡（Pareto optimal equilibrium）”转变为理解为一个动态演化的“复杂生态系统（complex ecology）”。 Daniel 赞赏地打趣说，Nick 已经是亿万富翁了，有充裕的时间和资金坐着飞机周游世界去游说政客推行这套理念，这非常棒；但他依然坚持，对普通大众而言，真正的希望来自于本周就能动手改变自己人生的具体行动，而不是在无尽的等待中陷入绝望。Nick 则笑着打趣 Daniel：“下次见到你时，我可是要考考你这本手册的内容。” ### [02:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=9002s) 《生活方式商业指南》与自下而上的“由内而外”增长逻辑主持人 Steven Bartlett 询问两位嘉宾能为听众带来哪些切实可行的阅读指引。Daniel Priestley 推荐了他最新的著作《生活方式商业指南》（*Lifestyle Business Playbook*），该书详细介绍了如何启动一家能带来更多乐趣、自由和灵活性的轻量型小企业。Daniel 强调，支持任何想要改良经济体制的人固然重要，但他见过太多因为消极等待社会体制改变而变得极其痛苦压抑的人，“我绝不希望你成为那种人，我希望你在自己的现实生活中切实行动起来”。 Nick Hanauer 在最后总结道，经济学就是人类社会的底层“操作系统”，而且往往像水之于鱼一样，对普通人来说是隐形的。大众往往没有意识到，政策制定者每天做出的决策，其根源完全取决于他们相信什么样的经济因果假说： - 如果你坚信财富会从富人阶层“自上而下滴落”（trickle-down economics），你就会出台偏袒资本与垄断的政策； - 如果你相信繁荣必须“由内而外由中产阶级驱动”（growth is built from the middle out），并且深刻意识到“欣欣向荣的中产阶级是经济增长的原因，而非经济增长的附带结果”，那么决策逻辑就会截然不同。所有支持创业、赋能普通劳动者的具体构想，归根结底都必须建立在这一元问题（meta question）的认知基石之上。随着两位嘉宾思想交锋的收尾，Steven 盛赞两人的深刻洞察，并向观众推荐了平台基于 AI 算法定制的下一期推荐内容，圆满结束了整场长达两个半小时的高能辩论。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=0s) 你在英国根本不可能成功，一旦赚到一点钱，政府就会全部税走 — Daniel Priestley > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=0s) 核心痛点在于工资（wages） — Nick Hanauer > [27:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=1676s) 一个火腿三明治在索马里卖 25 美分，在瑞士卖 25 美元。你究竟想在哪种经济体里做生意？ — Nick Hanauer > [42:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=2562s) 我们根本没有财产，身边没有一个人拥有任何财产，那我为什么要尊重产权？ — 抗议者（Nick Hanauer 转述） > [01:17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4670s) 人类繁荣的本质就是解决具体问题的方案，而不是冷冰冰的 GDP 数字或货币累加。 — Nick Hanauer > [01:22:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=4925s) 任何赋权给政府的解决方案我都感到不安，因为我根本不信任政府。我出生于 1981 年，在我的整个人生记忆中，每一件事只要政府一插手就会变得更糟。 — Daniel Priestley > [01:24:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5086s) 在整个地球上，绝对找不出任何一个离开大政府却能维持高度繁荣运作的文明社会。 — Nick Hanauer > [01:30:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5432s) 人绝不仅仅是消费者，也不仅仅是行走的钱包。 — Daniel Priestley > [01:33:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=5589s) 第一分钟可能人人都改善了处境，十年之后所有人全部沦为赤贫。 — Nick Hanauer > [01:40:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6039s) 伦敦最好的商业街，正是我家门前那条街。 — Nick Hanauer > [01:51:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6706s) 在美国，阻止一个人在食物荒漠开杂货店的根本不是政府监管，而是西夫韦（Safeway）这样的超级巨头！是巨头掌控的垄断供应链让单店经营者毫无生路。 — Nick Hanauer > [01:54:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=6866s) 在我的成长岁月里，最酷的孩子在 CD 唱片店上班，极客书呆子在书店打工，其余所有人都在杂货店兼职。 — Daniel Priestley > [02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=7993s) 要是我今天还拿着那些股票，我就不可能坐在这里跟你们聊天了——杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）可绝不会跑来上这个节目。 — Nick Hanauer > [02:26:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU&t=8819s) 过上正常生活的宁静奇迹 — Nick Hanauer ## Mentioned Nick Hanauer, Daniel Priestley, Steven Bartlett, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, AWS, Amazon Prime, aQuantive, BlackRock, James Dyson, Paul McCartney, Henry George, John Bates Clark, Adam Smith, Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski, Zohran Mamdani, Teddy Roosevelt, Charles Dickens, Karl Marx, Bernie Sanders, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Dara Khosrowshahi, Brent Hoberman, Steve Fitzpatrick, NHS, Netflix, Spotify, Starbucks, Meta, Google, YouTube, Microsoft, Apple, Lloyds Bank, Citra Living, Anthropic, OpenAI, Figure AI, Uber, Klarna, Tesco, Walmart, Safeway, Costco, Spar, 7-Eleven, Subway, LinkedIn, Pipedrive, WhisperFlow, British Business Bank, Small Business Administration (SBA), HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Lifestyle Business Playbook, 21st Century Economics, Enterprise Britain ## Video description Why is the economy collapsing? Nick Hanauer and Daniel Priestley debate the wealth divide, why wages should be double what they are, what AI is doing to your job, and whether capitalism can still fix itself! Nick Hanauer is a venture capitalist and serial entrepreneur, the first non-family investor in Amazon, and host of the Pitchfork Economics podcast. Daniel Priestley is an award-winning entrepreneur, business coach and best-selling author of 7 books, including ‘Lifestyle Business Playbook’. They explain: ◼ Why taxing the rich feels like the answer but misses the real problem ◼ Why AI is hitting every job at the same time, and what that means for your career ◼ Why you can't fix the economy without owning a home, a business or shares ◼ Why the economy works like Monopoly, and what that means for your chances of winning ◼ Why the average worker should be earning double their wages 00:00 Intro 02:27 Why Nick Hanauer's Economic Views Matter 06:27 Daniel Priestley's Different Take On Wealth 08:32 Is Taxing The Rich The Answer? 11:44 Do The Wealthy Already Pay Enough Tax? 15:07 Entrepreneurship Vs Policy: What Works Best? 20:05 The Policy Fix For Inequality 24:53 US Vs UK: Which Economy Wins? 26:57 Do Higher Wages Hurt Small Business? 28:38 Why Small Businesses Can't Match MegaCorp Pay 33:02 What Workers Need Right Now 35:59 Ownership Models That Build Wealth 40:28 The Real Impact Of Worker Rights 41:30 What Brexit Really Changed 45:01 The Hidden Lessons Of K-Shaped Economies 47:28 Will Companies Leave If Taxes Rise? 51:58 Should Global Corporations Pay More Tax? 54:00 How MegaCorps Block Entire Markets 54:58 Solutions To Economic Inequality 56:51 Ads 58:59 How Many Jobs Will AI Replace? 01:01:38 AI Agents Are Replacing Entry-Level Work 01:05:25 Will AI Reduce Hiring? 01:08:39 Is Universal Basic Income The Answer? 01:13:29 Why Governments Struggle To Deliver 01:14:48 The Best Fix For AI Job Loss 01:17:50 Are We Heading Towards An AI Utopia? 01:22:05 Would Higher AI Taxes Drive Companies Away? 01:24:08 Does Government Improve Lives? 01:30:32 Where They Fundamentally Disagree 01:33:09 Is Socialism The Answer? 01:37:28 How Policy Builds A Strong Middle Class 01:43:05 Ads 01:45:16 Which Economies Are Thriving Today? 01:48:38 What If You're Not Entrepreneurial? 01:51:46 Why Not Everyone Should Be An Entrepreneur 01:53:46 How To Help Small Businesses Thrive 01:56:16 Can Regulation Help Small Business Win? 01:57:41 Ending Taxes For Lower-Income Earners 02:01:40 The Global Economy's Biggest Problem 02:09:40 Radical Solutions To Inequality 02:15:31 How Do We Restore Hope? Follow Daniel: Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/15J7ORb YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/3EqYLXT Website - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/AcymoLQ Scorecard - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/VrBLNa You can purchase Daniel’s book, ‘Lifestyle Business Playbook: How to Have Fun, Freedom and Fulfilment With Your Own Business’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/GpE0H2H Follow Nick: Podcast (YouTube) - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/6qcEGqe Podcast (Spotify) - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/fbUcGv Facebook - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/Fy2FPzc Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/Gem0yKI YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/G544Z2k You can download Nick’s book, ‘Corporate Bullsh*t: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/Eif7Ics The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: LinkedIn Marketing - https://www.linkedin.com/DIARY Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/CEO Wispr - Get 14 days of Wispr Flow for free at https://wisprflow.ai/steven [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLBsHXNEwAU)

Source quotes

[0:00] Daniel Priestley: 你在英国根本不可能成功，一旦赚到一点钱，政府就会全部税走 [0:00] Nick Hanauer: 核心痛点在于工资（wages） [27:56] Nick Hanauer: 一个火腿三明治在索马里卖 25 美分，在瑞士卖 25 美元。你究竟想在哪种经济体里做生意？ [42:42] 抗议者（Nick Hanauer 转述）: 我们根本没有财产，身边没有一个人拥有任何财产，那我为什么要尊重产权？ [77:50] Nick Hanauer: 人类繁荣的本质就是解决具体问题的方案，而不是冷冰冰的 GDP 数字或货币累加。 [82:05] Daniel Priestley: 任何赋权给政府的解决方案我都感到不安，因为我根本不信任政府。我出生于 1981 年，在我的整个人生记忆中，每一件事只要政府一插手就会变得更糟。 [84:46] Nick Hanauer: 在整个地球上，绝对找不出任何一个离开大政府却能维持高度繁荣运作的文明社会。 [90:32] Daniel Priestley: 人绝不仅仅是消费者，也不仅仅是行走的钱包。 [93:09] Nick Hanauer: 第一分钟可能人人都改善了处境，十年之后所有人全部沦为赤贫。 [100:39] Nick Hanauer: 伦敦最好的商业街，正是我家门前那条街。 [111:46] Nick Hanauer: 在美国，阻止一个人在食物荒漠开杂货店的根本不是政府监管，而是西夫韦（Safeway）这样的超级巨头！是巨头掌控的垄断供应链让单店经营者毫无生路。 [114:26] Daniel Priestley: 在我的成长岁月里，最酷的孩子在 CD 唱片店上班，极客书呆子在书店打工，其余所有人都在杂货店兼职。 [133:13] Nick Hanauer: 要是我今天还拿着那些股票，我就不可能坐在这里跟你们聊天了——杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）可绝不会跑来上这个节目。 [146:59] Nick Hanauer: 过上正常生活的宁静奇迹

Source quotes

[0:00] Nick Hanauer: There is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government. [2:27] Nick Hanauer: You cannot sustain a capitalist democracy if the top 1% controls 45 or 50% of income and the bottom 50% shares five... This is not a deep political insight. This is just math. [15:37] John Bates Clark: they will revolt and kill us all. [26:57] Nick Hanauer: A ham sandwich in Somalia costs 25 cents. It costs $25 in Switzerland. What kind of economy do you want to live in? [33:04] Nick Hanauer: Ownership starts with earning enough money so that you can save money so that you can begin to own something... Trying to give stock options to everyone in a company often doesn't work. It's a catastrophe because for 90% of the workers in a company, their concerns are immediate. [40:28] Demonstrator: We have no property. [61:38] Steven Bartlett: A lot of the entry-level roles we're often given are that kind of work... AI can now do the cold calls, too. So, if these businesses get more and more efficient... what role will entry-level team members have in these kind of companies? [68:39] Daniel Priestley: Data is a common asset that has been sequestered illegitimately by these companies... You're basically saying, 'I'm sorry, but you need to pay a license back to this sovereign wealth fund because you're using a common asset that you were able to essentially seize.' [82:05] Nick Hanauer: If you hate government so much, move to the Congo. Seriously... there is literally no example on planet Earth of a high-functioning society without big government. [111:36] Nick Hanauer: Socialism is most definitely not the answer... All socialism can do is split up existing prosperity in a fairer way. It does not know how to create more prosperity. [118:00] Nick Hanauer: A thriving middle class is not a natural byproduct of economic growth... It is always a deliberate construction created by policy. [146:13] Nick Hanauer: Innovation is always combinatorial. Technology makes itself out of itself... You tie a rock to a stick, you have a hammer, a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel—it goes on and on and on. [133:48] Nick Hanauer: I wouldn't be here talking to you guys if I still did—Jeff wouldn't come! Nick Hanauer: You cannot sustain a capitalist system unless most people are paid enough to buy the stuff that the system produces.

Original transcript

[0:00] There is literally no example on planet [0:02] Earth of a high-functioning society [0:05] without big government. [0:06] >> not true. Big government is sucking the [0:08] life out of small businesses. And I [0:10] spent countless hours with businesses, [0:13] and they're like, "You can't succeed in [0:14] the UK. As soon as you earn anything, [0:16] they'll just tax it off you." [0:17] >> So, pop off to Dubai, run the business [0:20] virtually, and pay no tax. It's idiotic. [0:23] I don't know how you can look at that [0:24] and think this is a good system. [0:26] >> No, no, I'm saying what needs to happen [0:27] is reduce the taxes and the pressure on [0:29] the small businesses. Cuz everyone in [0:31] this economy needs to own stuff. We need [0:33] to own a house, own a business, and own [0:35] shares. [0:35] >> But not everybody can be an [0:36] entrepreneur. [0:37] >> Correct. Look, it would be wonderful if [0:39] everybody owned something. But ownership [0:41] starts with earning enough money so that [0:43] you can save money so that you can begin [0:45] to own something. So, the problem is [0:46] wages. Because most people want to be [0:48] able to go to work and be treated [0:50] decently, own or earn enough money so [0:53] that I can feel secure. I just want to [0:55] be married, have kids, own a house. [0:57] >> that. That's what most people want. And [0:59] I want that for everyone. That's gone [1:01] away. Houses are unaffordable, local [1:03] jobs don't exist, technology has cut out [1:05] all the middle men, no one's paying [1:07] healthy wages. We have the most unhappy [1:09] population. [1:10] >> And if you want to fix that, you have to [1:12] enact this. [1:13] >> Well, I've seen Nick's policies [1:14] implemented, and I don't feel it's [1:16] enough. [1:16] >> You haven't seen all of them policies, [1:18] so. [1:18] >> But we need people to know that the [1:19] rules that we grew up with have changed, [1:21] and people have to learn the rules of [1:23] this new economy. [1:24] >> Yes, yes, yes, I totally agree. And if [1:26] you want to get the economy back on [1:28] track, the starting point is [1:33] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [1:34] gave me this report to show me how many [1:36] of you that watch this show subscribe, [1:37] and some of you have told us, according [1:39] to this, that you are unsubscribed from [1:41] the channel randomly. So, favor to ask [1:43] all of you, please could you check right [1:44] now if you've hit the subscribe button. [1:46] If you are regular viewer of the show [1:47] and you like what we do here. We're [1:48] approaching quite a significant landmark [1:50] on this show in terms of a subscriber [1:52] number. So, if there was one simple, [1:54] free thing that you could do to help us, [1:56] my team, everyone here, to keep this [1:58] show free, to keep it improving year [2:00] over year and week over week, it is just [2:02] to hit that subscribe button and to [2:03] double check if you've hit it. Only [2:04] thing I'll ever ask of you. [2:06] Do we have a deal? [2:07] If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll [2:08] do. I'll make sure [2:10] every single week, every single month, [2:11] we fight harder and harder and harder [2:12] and harder to bring you the guests and [2:14] conversations that you want to hear. I [2:15] stayed true to that promise since the [2:17] very beginning of The Diary of a CEO, [2:18] and I will not let you down. Please help [2:21] us. Really appreciate it. Let's get on [2:22] with the show. [2:24] >> [music] [2:27] >> Nick, I want to start with your [2:29] background and your contacts so I can [2:30] understand your perspective and who you [2:32] are. You sold a a company for almost $7 [2:35] billion. [2:35] >> Correct. [2:36] >> And what's so fascinating about you is [2:38] you [2:39] typically billionaires have a certain [2:41] narrative and perspective on the world. [2:43] You seem to have a very different one. [2:45] >> I do. [2:46] >> Who are you, where have you come from, [2:47] and what is your perspective on the [2:48] world as it relates to the subjects that [2:50] you know we're going to discuss today? [2:51] >> I was raised in a civic family, I should [2:54] say. [2:54] >> What does that mean? [2:55] >> that means a family that takes uh civic [2:58] responsibility seriously. Uh but we were [3:00] middle-class people, and my father [3:03] started to work for this tiny uh family [3:06] business that uh his [3:08] his father had started manufacturing bed [3:11] pillows and down comforters, which is [3:13] how I got my start in business. And to [3:15] make an incredibly long story short, I [3:17] had a very early intuition uh about the [3:21] internet. Uh and uh the role that it [3:24] would play in commerce. And as luck [3:26] would have it, I had a friend who agreed [3:28] with that proposition, and his name was [3:30] Jeff Bezos. [3:32] And so he wanted to start an e-retailer. [3:36] He was working in New York uh [3:38] uh for a hedge fund uh dating one of my [3:41] closest friends, and for a variety of [3:43] reasons, he ended up sending his stuff [3:44] from New York to Seattle to my house, [3:46] and we started amazon.com together. But [3:49] from that, started starting other tech [3:51] companies. You know, I've [3:53] helped run, [3:55] you know, manufacturing businesses, [3:58] e-commerce businesses. My friends and I [4:00] own a bank. You know, like that you [4:03] know, and I think that that very broad [4:04] perspective on markets began to inform [4:07] an intuition that everything that people [4:11] are taught about economics today, that's [4:13] sort of the conventional view, [4:16] is a pack of lies. And that if you take [4:19] it seriously and enact policy on the [4:21] basis of it, the only thing that can [4:23] happen is that the rich will get richer [4:24] and everyone else will get poorer. [4:26] And [4:27] you know, a signal piece of that [4:29] evidence for me, you sort of a thing [4:31] that really sort of galvanized my [4:33] interest was that I got to look at the [4:35] IRS tax tables in 2007, 2008, which [4:39] showed American income shares and the [4:41] history of that. And in 1980, [4:45] the top 1% of Americans shared about 8 [4:48] and 1/2% of national income. [4:50] Uh by 2007, that 8% had grown to 22% as [4:55] I recall. So, triple largely as a share [4:59] of national income, while the bottom 50% [5:02] of Americans, their share fell from [5:05] about 18% in 1980 to 12% in about 2007. [5:11] And what I did is I took those numbers [5:13] and I stuck them in a spreadsheet and [5:14] said, "What happens if this trend [5:16] continues for another 30 years?" [5:18] And the answer is [5:21] revolution. [5:22] You know, it's just it's just arithmetic [5:24] because you cannot sustain a capitalist [5:27] democracy if the top 1% controls 45 or [5:30] 50% of income and the bottom 50% shares [5:32] five. [5:34] This is not a deep political insight. [5:37] This is just math. And I and I freaked [5:41] out and decided that I needed to devote [5:44] myself to trying to figure out why this [5:46] happened and how you could how you could [5:49] fix it. And so, I have been writing [5:51] about this and working on it since then. [5:53] >> Why did this feel so important to you? [5:56] I've heard you talk about pitchforks. [5:57] >> Even a cursory reading of history will [5:59] tell you that when societies get as [6:02] unequal as the societies we now live in, [6:05] uh terrible things start to happen. This [6:07] leads to either a police state or a [6:10] revolution. And I believe that the [6:12] pitchforks are here. I think the Trump [6:14] administration is the is the, you know, [6:16] one of the canonical examples of a [6:19] society beginning beginning to tear [6:21] itself apart. And I just think it's the [6:23] responsibility of people with power and [6:25] resources to do the right thing. [6:28] >> Dan, same question for you. [6:30] >> Yeah, I grew up in Australia, and um as [6:32] a teenager I discovered [6:33] entrepreneurship. I got an [6:34] entrepreneurial mentor uh very early on, [6:37] and I did 2 years in a startup, and it [6:38] was really exciting, and I loved it. Um [6:41] and I felt like I'd discovered a cheat [6:42] code in life, which was entrepreneurship [6:44] and starting businesses and small [6:45] businesses. And then at 21 I went off [6:47] and started my own company, which was my [6:49] first agency, and it grew really [6:51] rapidly. Uh went from zero to a million [6:53] in its first year, and then 10 million [6:54] in year three, and it was like this [6:56] exciting young company with all these [6:58] cool young people uh working there and [7:00] living there. We actually kind [7:01] [laughter] of did, yeah. We actually [7:03] were in a big house, and we kind of [7:05] spent a lot of time together. [7:06] Yeah, I just fell in love with [7:07] entrepreneurship and small business and [7:09] family business and all of those kind of [7:10] things. And I also 15 years ago started [7:13] an entrepreneur accelerator where people [7:15] who get together and talk about [7:17] entrepreneurship and figure out how to [7:18] run their businesses can get together [7:19] and and figure out how to do that. Um [7:21] so, for the last 15 years I've spent [7:24] uh countless hours with uh 5 and 1/2 [7:26] thousand businesses all over the world [7:28] who are getting together talking about [7:30] how entrepreneurship works, and over the [7:32] years I've also come to similar [7:34] conclusion that the technological [7:36] revolution that we've seen in the last [7:37] 25 years has hollowed out the middle [7:39] class. And I basically said, "I can't [7:41] play by the rules that I grew up in. I [7:43] have to learn the rules of this new [7:44] economy, this digital economy pretty [7:46] quickly, or else I'm going to be [7:47] displaced and disrupted. And I don't [7:49] have a fallback position. I didn't come [7:51] from any form of wealth or money. I also [7:54] didn't take on any venture capital. I [7:56] self-funded, bootstrapped my own [7:58] businesses by cobbling together credit [8:00] cards and things like that." And yeah, I [8:02] I think one of the things that I really [8:05] truly believe is that we are in a very [8:08] big danger at the moment that if more [8:09] people can't participate of capitalism, [8:12] they're going to do crazy things and [8:13] vote in socialism. [8:14] >> Correct. [8:14] >> And the pitchforks will come, and [8:16] inequality is going to be a toxic [8:18] corrosive force [8:20] in the economy. So, like I'm a [8:22] capitalist who wants lots of people to [8:24] benefit from capitalism. That's been my [8:25] whole stick forever. [8:28] And I just want to include more people [8:29] in the benefits of capitalism before we [8:31] do do dumb things. [8:32] >> And I guess the question therefore is [8:34] how? How do we do that? The prevailing [8:37] narrative, and I think one of the most [8:38] dominant narratives, is we need to tax [8:39] people like us a lot more. What's your [8:42] view of that, Daniel? [8:43] >> So, it's very easy to have a bad guy of [8:46] a rich person. [8:47] So, you could imagine this billionaire [8:49] rich person, right, Nick? Maybe could be [8:51] a bad guy. [8:52] And you could so do that. When I look at [8:54] the economy and what's draining it out, [8:57] it's it's harder to conceptualize, but [8:59] we have these mega corporations and we [9:01] have these mega funds. So, here in the [9:03] UK, all the houses are being bought up [9:05] by BlackRock, a massive private equity [9:07] fund that wants the entire population to [9:09] be a rental class forever. [9:11] And you know, our Prime Minister has [9:14] walked down Downing Street hand-in-hand [9:16] with the CEO of this big fund saying, [9:18] "Yeah, come in and and buy up stuff." [9:21] And financialized houses. And that is [9:24] causing a lot of trouble. And then [9:26] you've got big companies like Microsoft, [9:28] like Amazon, and they say, "Hey, we want [9:30] to do business in your country, but we [9:32] don't want to pay tax there. We want to [9:33] pretend that we're in Luxembourg, or we [9:35] want to pretend that we're in Ireland. [9:37] And we're going to send something from [9:39] our British warehouse to our British [9:40] consumer, but we're not really in [9:41] Britain at that time, so we don't pay [9:43] tax. And then you got Starbucks that [9:45] says, you know, we we want to do [9:46] business and sell coffee next to a [9:47] mom-and-dad family business coffee shop, [9:50] but we have to pay this license fee for [9:51] the Starbucks logo and that has to go to [9:53] Bermuda and, you know, so so when I look [9:56] at who's hollowing out the middle class, [9:59] you've got massive mega corp businesses [10:02] uh that are the absolutely bigger than [10:04] we could have ever conceived them to be. [10:06] They're as big as nations now. Um and [10:08] you've got mega corp funds, which are [10:10] also trillion-dollar funds. And one [10:13] thing I'm worried about is that a lot of [10:15] people think that a guy like me who's a [10:17] basically a dynamic entrepreneurial [10:20] person uh or even a billionaire like [10:22] Nick is the enemy. And you know, when [10:25] you get a a James Dyson who invents a [10:27] cool vacuum cleaner and sells a lot of [10:28] them, that's not the enemy. When you get [10:30] uh Paul McCartney who writes a bunch of [10:32] songs and becomes a famous Beatle and [10:34] makes a billion dollars, that's not the [10:36] enemy. The enemy is the financialization [10:38] of our homes. The enemy is big mega [10:41] corps that don't want to pay tax. And [10:43] that's where we need to we need to be a [10:44] little bit more nuanced and clear who's [10:47] hollowing out the middle class and how [10:49] do we make policy choices to make sure [10:51] that doesn't happen. [10:52] >> So you're saying taxing the rich isn't [10:53] the answer? [10:54] >> Taxing the rich is like a headline that [10:57] creates enemies who aren't actually the [10:59] enemies. [11:00] >> But so let's just say in the UK then, if [11:02] you were Prime Minister, would you [11:03] increase the tax rate on the top 1%? [11:06] >> You could do that for political reasons [11:08] cuz it would make people feel good, but [11:09] it won't change the economy. What needs [11:11] to happen is we need a thriving [11:13] entrepreneurial class where uh small [11:15] businesses are the answer. The biggest [11:17] mistake the the UK government is making [11:19] is they don't see that the 5.7 million [11:22] small businesses are their biggest [11:23] asset. That we could get those going, [11:25] that we could create an entrepreneurial [11:27] uplift that would create jobs and it [11:30] would create better opportunities. I [11:32] would definitely curb the issue that [11:34] we're having with these mega funds and I [11:36] would definitely stop pretending that [11:39] Amazon is in Luxembourg and Google's in [11:41] Ireland, right? So, those sorts of [11:43] things I would definitely do. [11:44] >> What about yourself, Nick? Would you [11:45] Would Do you want the top 1% to pay more [11:47] taxes? Is that important? [11:48] >> So, it is not true that the richest [11:50] people in the United States pay a lot of [11:52] tax because the the American tax system [11:55] is riddled with loopholes that allow the [11:58] richest citizens to pay taxes at a rate [12:00] of 1/2 of what ordinary people pay. [12:03] I absolutely believe that in a [12:07] high-functioning democracy, the [12:09] wealthiest citizens will pay taxes equal [12:13] to or greater than the typical citizen [12:17] and that is just objectively not the [12:19] case in the United States. [12:21] >> As a percentage? [12:22] >> As a percentage. And I think that that [12:24] is [12:25] you know, sort of table stakes in making [12:28] an economy function and a democracy go, [12:31] but it is not the biggest problem. The [12:33] problem is wages. [12:35] So, here's the most important [12:37] socioeconomic fact in the United States [12:39] that the median full-time worker today [12:42] earns in the range of $60,000 a year. [12:46] If that person had maintained their same [12:49] share of the economy since 1975, [12:52] instead of earning $60,000 a year, [12:54] they'd earn close to $120,000 a year. [12:57] That effect, by the way, goes up to the [13:00] 90th percentile. [13:02] If you earned $180,000 [13:04] in 2018, 2020, [13:07] if you had maintained your same share of [13:09] GDP, instead of earning 180, you'd earn [13:11] like a $250,000 a year. So, in the [13:14] United States, over 50 years, the only [13:17] people who benefited directly from [13:19] economic growth and productivity gains [13:21] were the people in the top 10% and the [13:23] majority of benefit went to the top 1% [13:26] and that is the problem. And that is [13:29] trillions of dollars a year that used to [13:31] be wages for ordinary Americans and now [13:34] ends up in the pockets of the richest [13:37] people. By the way, utilizing precisely [13:39] the mechanisms that Dan just outlined. [13:42] And what we have done is we have [13:43] massively tilted the economic playing [13:45] field [13:46] uh uh which once favored small and [13:49] medium-sized businesses and local [13:51] companies towards these giant [13:53] corporations. We used to have an economy [13:56] that actively encouraged small [13:59] businesses and entrepreneurship. I mean, [14:01] basically, what we call neoliberalism, [14:03] this set of ideas around economic cause [14:06] and effect that came into force in the [14:09] '70s and '80s, Reaganomics, Thatcherism, [14:13] all this stuff, cut taxes for rich [14:15] people, deregulate powerful people and [14:17] uh suppress the wages for working [14:19] people, basically trickle-down [14:20] economics. Those policies went in went [14:24] into effect in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. [14:27] And what happened is a huge shift in [14:30] concentration from smaller businesses to [14:33] bigger businesses and a huge uh shift in [14:35] income from ordinary Americans to the [14:38] very rich. And that's the core of the [14:40] problem. And of course, I think rich [14:43] people should pay their fair share. We [14:45] should it is ridiculous for somebody who [14:47] make uh half a billion dollars a year [14:49] and to pay 15% tax rate uh somebody [14:52] makes $200,000 a year pays 40. I just [14:55] think that's stupid and wrong, which is [14:58] which is the case in the United States. [14:59] May not be the case here in the UK. But [15:02] the bigger problem is wages. And if you [15:04] want to get the economy back on track, [15:05] you have to address that problem. [15:07] >> Dan, you say that optionality and [15:08] entrepreneurship will do more to raise [15:10] wages than any government policy. [15:12] >> Yeah, so I believe that optionality is [15:14] the is the most important thing. Uh when [15:16] someone has lots of options, then they [15:17] don't accept terrible conditions. [15:19] >> So, give me give me some color on that. [15:21] >> Well, if I have 10 companies that are [15:23] wanting to hire me, [15:24] >> Mhm. [15:25] >> I'm going to choose the best option, [15:26] right? But, if I live in a town where [15:28] there's only one employer, like let's [15:29] say there's one massive company that [15:31] employs people, and you either work for [15:33] that company or you're unemployed, then [15:36] I have to accept whatever they're [15:37] dishing out. So, the most important [15:39] thing in creating better quality of life [15:42] is optionality. We need lots of [15:44] optionality. One of the options that I [15:45] want people to have is I want us to [15:47] teach entrepreneurship in schools so [15:49] that people have the option to start a [15:51] family business as one of their options. [15:53] They may not take that option, but at [15:54] least it's not a mysterious black box [15:56] that they just don't understand, that [15:59] that would actually be one of their one [16:01] of their options. Also, let's say you [16:03] had no minimum wage, but if you had 10 [16:05] employers and a limited pool of people [16:07] who are available to work at those [16:08] companies, they're going to have to bid [16:10] against each other to create better and [16:12] better working conditions and better and [16:13] better pay. [16:15] So, you kind of only need to have [16:17] minimum wages when there's not enough [16:19] optionality. If there's enough [16:20] optionality, it pushes everything up. [16:23] >> Is that your view as well? [16:24] >> I agree with the spirit of that. It just [16:26] turns out that is never the case. [16:28] So, there's a lot of economic theory [16:32] that sounds a lot like that, but it but [16:34] exists in a in a in an imaginary world [16:38] where people have um power [16:42] and optionality. And and in the real [16:45] world, that actually doesn't ever exist. [16:48] So, can by way of example, there's a [16:50] there's a principle of economics, the [16:52] theory of marginal productivity. [16:55] >> Have you heard of that? [16:56] >> No. [16:57] >> So, that's a theory that is embedded in [16:59] the the center of of economics, which [17:01] says that because markets are efficient, [17:05] the amount of money you earn reflects [17:08] precisely the contribution that you make [17:11] to it. [17:12] >> Okay. [17:12] >> So, if I earn $15,000 a year, that's [17:14] because I'm giving $15,000 of value [17:16] >> A value in the world. [17:17] >> Okay. [17:18] >> Correct. And if I earn $500 million a [17:20] year rubbing money together to make more [17:23] money, that is a that is an accurate [17:25] reflection of the value I'm creating in [17:27] the world. [17:28] >> Which is really central to capitalism, [17:29] isn't it? [17:29] >> It is absolutely central to capitalism [17:31] and is central to economic policy [17:33] making. But here's the thing, [17:35] if you understand where that came from, [17:37] it gives you pause. So in 1879, a guy [17:41] named Henry George writes a book called [17:42] Progress and Poverty in the United [17:44] States. And basically, it's the first [17:48] book about [17:50] the rich stealing from the poor. [17:52] And [17:53] this book isn't just a best seller, it [17:55] is the best seller in the history of the [17:57] United States. [17:59] And the powers that be freak out. [18:01] And J.P. Morgan brings this guy John [18:03] Bates Clark to Columbia University, [18:05] which is sort of the home of like Wall [18:07] Street and stuff like that in New York, [18:09] and says, "Fix this." And so Henry [18:10] George writes a book called The [18:12] Distribution of Wealth, in which he [18:13] invents this idea called Theory of [18:16] Marginal Productivity, which asserts [18:18] this idea. But he says the quiet part [18:21] out loud in the book. He says, "Look, we [18:23] have to prove to working people that no [18:25] matter how much they make, whether it's [18:27] a little or a lot, it reflects their [18:29] value. Because if they conclude that [18:32] their work is worth more than they are [18:34] paid, they will revolt and kill us all, [18:36] and that would be bad." [18:38] >> [snorts] [18:38] >> And that idea, will not surprise you to [18:40] learn, was very attractive to a bunch of [18:42] rich people and got swept up into [18:45] economics, and today is a core idea in [18:48] economic theory. And it would be true, [18:51] potentially, if markets were perfectly [18:54] efficient and all this optionality [18:55] existed. But there has never been a case [18:58] where that has been true. It has [19:01] materially harmed the welfare of most [19:04] people, because as Dan says, your [19:06] ability to earn is related to your power [19:10] to negotiate, not some magical number [19:12] that the market decides. And [19:14] >> It's how easy you are to replace because [19:16] if I run an ad for a job and 400 people [19:19] apply for the job, right? Which which [19:20] really does happen. I know this happens [19:23] for you, Stephen. [19:24] >> Right. [19:24] >> Uh that that essentially you run an ad [19:26] and 400 people So you don't think about [19:28] raising the wage because 400 people [19:30] applied and they're all good. Like [19:32] they're all really like super qualified [19:33] people and this happens all the time in [19:35] the UK right now. [19:36] >> Right. That happens everywhere. [19:37] >> Yeah. [19:38] >> I mean in there almost zero [19:40] circumstances where where [19:43] workers have more power than owners. [19:47] And you know, even even Adam Smith in [19:49] the in in the Wealth of Nations outlined [19:51] this asymmetry of power. And and the [19:54] thing is is that if you persuade people [19:58] that what they earn is all their worth, [20:01] then you've created this narrative that [20:03] makes rich people richer and everybody [20:04] else poorer. [20:05] >> So what's the solution here? Is it to [20:06] put a a higher minimum wage on society? [20:10] >> Well, that's a policy solution. But if [20:12] you if you really want to solve the [20:14] problem, the starting point is getting [20:17] people to understand economics in a way [20:21] that actually reflects [20:24] how how the economy actually works, not [20:26] this stylized invention [20:30] dating back to 1787 [20:33] that if you take seriously and enact [20:35] policy on the basis of it, the only [20:37] thing that can happen is that the rich [20:38] will get richer and the poor will get [20:40] poorer, which is the story of the last [20:41] 50 years. [20:42] >> So what is the policy solution? [20:43] >> A policy solution is most definitely to [20:46] apply a standard which requires [20:48] companies to pay people, you know, a [20:51] living wage. So the minimum wage is a [20:52] perfect example of a great policy. Uh [20:55] another policy in the United States [20:57] which is really really important is the [20:59] overtime threshold, [21:00] >> Mhm. [21:01] >> which I don't know [clears throat] [21:01] whether you have here in the UK, [21:03] >> We do. [21:03] >> but it's the salary threshold below [21:05] which you automatically get paid [21:07] overtime, which is time and a half here, [21:09] too? [21:10] >> Yeah, 48 hours, yeah. [21:11] >> 48? [21:11] >> 48 hours is the upper limit of a week, a [21:13] working week. [21:14] >> Okay, so in the United States, it's 40 [21:15] hours. So, if you work more than that, [21:16] you get paid overtime. And so, one of [21:19] the things So, that that standard used [21:21] to apply to virtually every worker in [21:23] America in 1970, 1965. Today, that [21:27] standard applies to less than 10% of [21:29] workers. Now, why does that matter? [21:31] Because people like me, at the scale of [21:32] tens of millions, have turned three [21:35] 40-hour a week jobs into two 60-hour a [21:37] week jobs and pocketed the difference. [21:40] You may be doing that here, [21:42] right? You put gummy bears in the lunch [21:44] room and a and a ping-pong table and you [21:45] force people to work 60 hours a week and [21:47] then you can have two employees instead [21:49] of three. [21:50] If you do that 30 million times, you've [21:52] taken 10 million jobs out of the [21:54] workforce. [21:55] >> So, do you agree with this, Daniel, this [21:56] approach? [21:56] >> Not as much. Well, here's here's the [21:58] issue. I agree with it at one level, but [22:00] um almost every solution that Nick has [22:03] recommended the UK had the last 20 [22:05] years. So, we have a minimum wage that [22:07] is pegged 2/3 of the median and it [22:09] ratchets up. We've got 28 days worth of [22:12] paid [22:12] holiday every year. We've got sick [22:14] leave. We've got maternity and paternity [22:16] leave. [22:17] We've got the ability very very [22:20] difficult to [22:21] fire someone if they've been with you [22:23] for more than 6 months. So, we have this [22:25] unbelievable set of workers' rights and [22:28] all of these recommendations from [22:30] minimum wage right through to [22:32] how how to handle employment. We have [22:34] the most unhappy population. Our economy [22:36] is not growing. We have a million young [22:38] people out of work. [22:40] We have no one's hiring at the moment. [22:43] So, it hasn't created those conditions [22:45] have not created runaway prosperity. And [22:48] that gives me pause to think something [22:51] deeper is going on. And the reason that [22:53] I think this is that I think we need to [22:56] make more participation in capitalism. [22:58] Capitalism is about ownership. You have [22:59] to own an asset. If you don't own [23:02] anything, if you're just selling labor [23:04] in the current economy with digital and [23:05] AI and robots and all this sort of [23:07] stuff, the real reason that the wages [23:11] cuz what Nick's saying is that the [23:13] amount of money people would should be [23:14] earning right now is like in the [23:15] hundreds of thousands. And what I think [23:17] is happening as another major part of [23:19] this is that the the rules of the [23:21] economy have shifted. Technology has cut [23:24] out all the middle men. Technology has [23:26] hollowed out the middle class. Uh we [23:28] used to go to the video store and the [23:31] video rental store used to have 12 [23:32] people working there and now we just go [23:34] to Netflix. Uh and we used to go to a [23:36] little local retailer and buy a CD and [23:39] now we just go to Spotify and we just go [23:41] to Amazon. So it's hollowed out all of [23:43] those supply chains that used to create [23:45] amazing jobs. [23:46] The value of the labor has been eroded [23:49] because it's very easy to outsource [23:51] labor to another country. It's very easy [23:54] to simplify a job down to automated [23:56] parts uh using technology. So the [23:58] fundamental value of actual labor has [24:01] diminished because of technology. [24:03] Technology has reduced the actual [24:05] utility of this thing that we call labor [24:07] uh for for 90% of people. [24:09] >> And it's only going to get worse with [24:10] AI. [24:10] >> And with AI and with robots, it's going [24:12] to go down. So the if you just simply [24:15] say, "Oh, this is about lifting work [24:17] standards," you're going to miss the [24:18] point that we can't compete with [24:21] technology. Technology's better at this [24:23] stuff than we are. And the answer, the [24:25] solution, is ownership. We have to [24:27] everyone in this economy needs to own [24:29] stuff. We need to own a house. We need [24:31] to own a family business. We need to own [24:33] shares in the companies that are [24:34] growing. So it's you cannot outrun this. [24:37] This is like trying to run against [24:39] someone who's in a car and they say, [24:40] "Oh, you just need nicer shoes." No, you [24:42] the shoes won't change things. We've [24:44] already tried nicer shoes in the UK [24:46] economy and it's made no difference. [24:48] Everyone's miserable. So that's one of [24:50] the things that I That's where you and I [24:51] would disagree. [24:52] >> things can be true. The minimum wage in [24:54] the United States is $7.25 an hour or [24:57] $2.13 plus tips. It's half It's a third [25:01] of what it is here in the UK. [25:03] >> Okay. [25:03] >> But, you have twice the disposable [25:05] income that we have. Your median wage is [25:08] 1 and 1/2 to 2 times what our median [25:09] wage is. We're now a poor country [25:11] relative to the US. And even though your [25:13] minimum wage is terrible, and horrific, [25:16] and inhuman, [25:17] >> Yeah. [25:18] >> however it's magically done it, your [25:22] your country and your citizens are so [25:23] much richer than ours. [25:25] >> Yeah, except if you consider that [25:28] out of that median wage, you have to [25:30] take $20,000 a year to pay for health [25:31] care. [25:32] >> Mhm. [25:32] >> Right? Like [25:33] >> I think adjusted, it's still you're 30% [25:35] better. Even Even adjusted. [25:37] >> I I think if you look at the AICOCD, [25:39] uh [25:40] it would be interesting, we might be [25:41] able to look it up. I can't remember, [25:43] but I I bet you it's about 10% [25:44] different. [25:45] >> Mhm. [25:45] >> Even when [25:46] >> you subtract out-of-pocket health care [25:47] costs and insurance premiums, the [25:48] average American worker still takes home [25:50] significantly more money than the [25:52] average UK worker. [25:53] >> Yeah. [25:53] >> The average US salary is around $74,000. [25:56] The average UK salary is around roughly [25:58] $50,000. [25:59] Americans pay heavily for health care. [26:01] The average employee in America pays [26:02] about 6 to $8,000 a year in premiums and [26:05] out-of-pocket costs. Brits do not pay [26:08] for health care because of the NHS. If a [26:09] US worker makes $74,000 and spends [26:11] $8,000 on health care, they are they are [26:13] at $66,000 [26:15] before relatively low taxes. The UK [26:18] worker starts at 52,000 [26:20] before relatively high taxes. The bottom [26:23] line is the gap in base salaries and tax [26:25] rates is simply too large for UK free [26:28] health care to close. The US wins on [26:30] pure disposable income per person. [26:33] >> Yeah. [26:33] >> [clears throat] [26:33] >> There's no doubt the US has had a much [26:35] more successful economy than the UK. [26:38] Brexit being, you know, a catastrophe. [26:40] >> Can I push back on one thing though, [26:42] with the minimum wage or or this Yeah. [26:45] The companies that hollowed out the [26:46] middle class [26:48] are big tech companies, big finance [26:50] companies, those mega corporations. And [26:52] I agree with you, they can afford to pay [26:54] their workers more money. [26:55] >> Yeah, yeah. [26:56] >> One of the issues that I feel, and this [26:58] is what I'm concerned about, [26:59] >> Mhm. [26:59] >> is that [27:00] in the UK, [clears throat] the majority [27:02] of businesses that do pay minimum wage, [27:04] like a friend of mine owns a pub, and [27:06] that pub has razor-thin margins. It's [27:08] losing money. He's not taking any money [27:10] out of it. He's massively impacted by [27:12] taxes and minimum wage. [27:13] >> Yeah. [27:13] >> So, the companies that I see that uh the [27:16] ones who have to pay minimum wage [27:17] workers and give people the on-ramp into [27:19] the economy, pubs, little retailers, [27:22] >> Yes. [27:22] >> mom and dad businesses, these are the [27:24] ones that really do get squeezed out of [27:27] the economy. They have razor-thin [27:28] margins, and you put more pressure on [27:30] them. You say, "You've got more [27:32] government regulations. You've got more [27:33] taxes. And now you've got more minimum [27:35] wages." And they just go, "I've had [27:37] enough. I can't do it." And the [27:39] companies that hollowed out the middle [27:40] class, the Microsofts, the Googles, the, [27:42] you know, Amazons, they go, [27:44] >> Starbucks. [27:45] >> Yeah, Starbucks. They go, "Yeah, we can [27:47] we can absorb it. Um and also we're not [27:49] paying taxes anyway, so we'll just kind [27:51] of like do that." [27:51] >> So, one of the things that you could do, [27:53] one of the things that we recommend is [27:54] that you impose these standards [27:56] progressively. That the biggest [27:58] companies have to pay the highest [27:59] minimum wage. Medium-sized companies pay [28:01] slightly less, and small businesses pay [28:03] less. [28:04] >> Yeah. [28:04] >> But even within that context, ensuring [28:07] that everyone pays enough for people to [28:10] have enough money to continue to buy [28:12] stuff. I mean, it's [clears throat] fine [28:13] and good to say, "Look, I don't want to [28:14] pay high wages in my pub." Uh but surely [28:19] the people working in the pub should [28:20] make enough money so that they can go to [28:22] the pub themselves and buy a beer, [28:24] right? You have to I mean, it you know, [28:26] the National Restaurant Association in [28:28] America is the, you know, famous for [28:30] this. Like, they want everybody in [28:31] America to be able to go to a restaurant [28:34] and eat. Except for the people who work [28:36] in the restaurants. [28:37] >> Right? [28:37] >> Can I just say something with your [28:38] friend that owns the pub as well? [28:39] >> Yeah. [28:40] >> So, say you own Starbucks. [28:42] >> Yeah. [28:42] >> You own a pub. [28:43] >> Yeah. [28:44] >> I'm a [28:45] worker. [28:46] >> Yeah. [28:47] >> If you're going to pay me more [28:49] because you have this progressive [28:50] minimum wage and you're going to pay [28:51] less, I'm sorry, Daniel. [28:54] I'm not going to apply for the job. [28:56] I'm going to want to go work at [28:57] Starbucks. So, is there not an issue [28:58] where you're not going to be able to [28:59] attract talent because you're not going [29:01] to be able to pay them as much? [29:03] >> There are many There are many reasons [29:04] why you would work for a small business [29:07] as opposed to a mega corp. [29:08] >> But I'm saying you're paying me £4 [29:09] minimum wage, he's paying me eight. [29:11] >> So, [29:12] >> Do I not [29:13] Does he not end up getting all the the [29:14] best talent? [29:15] >> He might get the best talent and also [29:17] for my pub, [29:18] I might be able to have to I might match [29:21] eight, right? So, maybe it works that I [29:22] just pay eight pay eight. But I'm not [29:24] necessarily [clears throat] legislated [29:25] to pay eight. So, here's the thing. [29:27] >> Look, as a small business owner, you can [29:29] treat There's all sorts of techniques [29:31] that you can use to retain people. [29:33] >> Cuz you're going to have more [29:34] optionality [29:35] >> as a big company? [29:36] >> Yeah, because you can you are going to [29:38] be definitely pay me more. [29:39] >> Well, being bigger is always better. It [29:41] is absolutely true that that high [29:42] standard will put pressure on through [29:45] throughout the economy. But, the small [29:48] pub owner is also going to benefit from [29:50] the fact that all I mean, are we using [29:52] Starbucks? Whatever whatever [laughter] [29:53] whatever example we're using, all these [29:56] people now own now earn so much more [29:58] that they can afford to go to the pub [30:01] and buy stuff. So, one of the [30:02] interventions that [30:04] I was part of in the United States was [30:06] the $15 minimum wage. [30:08] But, we cooked that up in Seattle, [30:10] Washington. And so, I spoke to many many [30:13] many many many small business owners who [30:15] were absolutely terrified by this [30:17] because [30:18] you know, look, we are all business [30:20] owners, right? And so, you can do a [30:23] calculation in seconds [30:25] about the risks and the expenses of [30:28] higher wages. Correct? [30:30] >> Mhm. [30:30] >> But, [clears throat] what you cannot [30:31] calculate [30:32] is the benefit of living in of operating [30:36] your company in a regime where everyone [30:38] earns more, right? And the benefits that [30:41] accrue to you from that. Look, a ham [30:43] sandwich in, I don't know, Somalia costs [30:45] 25 cents. It costs $25 in Switzerland. [30:48] What kind of economy do you want to live [30:50] in? Right? You know, [30:53] >> Yeah. Sure, what were you going to say [30:54] about your friend? [30:54] >> Well, the friend who has the pub, his [30:56] pub is actually full most nights of the [30:57] week and they have lots of people going [30:59] there. The issue is taxes and costs. [31:01] He's got a big government. In the UK, we [31:04] have all of these things. Like [31:05] everything that you've mentioned, we [31:06] have it and we've had it for 25 years. [31:08] We don't have an affluent middle class [31:10] that's been created. We have an eroded [31:12] middle class. So, the actual numbers [31:14] here is that my friend's he took no [31:17] money for himself and the pub lost [31:19] 180,000 pounds last year. And it's [31:21] because of VAT and he feels like he's [31:23] carrying the weight of training people [31:25] in their first job. He's creating jobs [31:27] as one of the only employers in his [31:29] little town. Um and and also, he didn't [31:33] create this mess. Amazon and Microsoft [31:35] and Google and Facebook and big funds, [31:38] they are sucking money out of the [31:39] economy. [31:40] >> We're in violent agreement about this. [31:42] >> Yeah. So, I just feel like the the issue [31:45] is like I really want to make sure that [31:48] we're super super clear that small [31:51] businesses are currently squeezed here [31:53] in the UK. I don't know what it's like [31:54] in the US. [31:55] >> in the US. [31:55] >> Like they are so squeezed and they are [31:57] squeezed by big tech and now AI has come [31:59] along. They feel like they have to learn [32:01] this new thing and they have to start [32:03] posting on LinkedIn 45 times a day using [32:05] AI posts or else they'll get drowned out [32:07] and they have to, you know, edit videos [32:10] and become a TikToker as well, right? [32:12] >> Right. [32:12] >> So, it's all of this constant pressure [32:14] caused by this tech sector and these big [32:17] funds. Like one of the biggest threats [32:19] to my friend's pub is that a big [32:21] American private equity fund wants to [32:23] buy the pub uh and turn it into a block [32:25] of flats. Right? So, like they want to [32:28] financialize this this community asset [32:30] and he's trying to fight to keep his [32:32] pub. [32:32] >> Yeah. [32:33] >> Right? So, what I what I don't want want [32:36] is I don't want to have big government [32:37] create a new framework that that [32:40] basically squeezes small family [32:42] businesses even harder. They all start [32:44] going, "We're losing two pubs a day [32:45] here, right? They're closing down." Um [32:47] they they go out of business, and then [32:49] we end up with [32:50] big corps, big funds who can afford to [32:53] absorb it, and they own everything. And [32:55] I also want to be clear that the reason [32:57] people are struggling is they don't own [32:58] anything. It's not because of working [33:00] conditions. They don't own anything, and [33:02] if they don't own anything [33:04] >> No. It would be wonderful if everybody [33:06] owned something. Um but but ownership [33:09] starts with earning enough money so that [33:11] you can save money so that you can begin [33:13] to own something, right? Like one of the [33:15] lessons that we learned was [33:18] that trying to give stock options [33:21] to everyone in a company often doesn't [33:24] work. [33:24] >> Yeah, I agree. [33:25] >> It's a catastrophe because for 90% of [33:29] the workers in a company [33:31] that their concerns are immediate. [33:33] And they don't value their stock [33:35] options. [33:36] >> And if you give them the choice between [33:38] cash or stock options, they actually [33:39] choose cash. They don't [33:40] >> And so [33:41] again, I agree with the sentiment. It's [33:45] just that I have never seen, and I do [33:47] not believe there is an existence proof [33:49] for it working on planet Earth. What [33:52] certainly worked great in the United [33:54] States for 40 or 50 years was a set of [33:57] standards that required companies [34:00] to fairly split the value they create [34:03] with their employees [34:05] uh through a variety of mechanisms, [34:07] unions, which can be problematic, for [34:09] sure, but labor standards like the [34:11] minimum wage and the overtime threshold [34:13] and so on and so forth, [34:15] coupled with a set of policies to [34:19] discourage consolidation and discourage [34:22] the kind of exploitation that you have, [34:24] I think, very [34:26] smartly articulated, um so that we can [34:29] have a dynamic economy. [34:31] >> The only difference that happened back [34:32] in the in the time that you're [34:33] describing where workers had to be [34:36] included [34:37] is that it was nearly impossible for a [34:39] company to outsource their customer [34:42] success team to the Philippines. And it [34:44] was nearly impossible for a company to [34:45] come up with a piece of software that [34:47] would do 80% of the heavy lifting of a [34:49] job. And one of the issues that we have [34:51] right now is that when you put a lot of [34:53] pressure on on a [34:55] all sorts of companies, we're living in [34:57] the age of AI and robotics where you [34:59] essentially you know, one of the options [35:01] that companies have is just the option, [35:03] well, we'll just outsource the labor to [35:05] another country, we'll automate it, [35:08] we'll simplify it. [35:09] >> Okay, but those the rules that enabled [35:12] people to do that were written by the [35:15] same people who are consolidating [35:17] industries and [35:18] >> [laughter] [35:19] >> and taking advantage. I mean, you don't [35:21] have to live in a world like that. There [35:24] are other ways to organize the world. [35:26] The neoliberals promised that free trade [35:29] was going to make all of us richer and [35:31] what it did is it flooded our markets [35:33] with cheap stuff from China, but it is [35:36] absolutely not clear that it made [35:38] people's lives better. [35:39] >> Make Chinese people's lives. [35:41] >> It Chinese people's lives better, but it [35:43] certainly didn't make people in the UK's [35:45] life better and it certainly didn't make [35:47] people in the United States' life [35:49] better. And so you could have imagined [35:51] approaching that in a fundamentally [35:53] different way. I guarantee you that if [35:55] the United States could go back and do [35:56] it again, we would have [35:58] >> We sorted it. [35:59] >> We would have sorted [36:00] >> There's a few ownership models that I [36:01] think are important that could be looked [36:03] at. Number one is a sovereign wealth [36:04] fund. So the countries like Norway, uh [36:07] Singapore, these countries they own [36:11] natural assets uh in a sovereign wealth [36:13] fund. And essentially every citizen [36:16] therefore owns a piece of some asset. [36:18] There is an asset that is owned through [36:19] a sovereign wealth fund. It's a very [36:21] successful model. It seems to work so [36:23] incredibly well that it's dangerously [36:25] well. Um half of London is now owned by [36:27] the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, the [36:29] the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. [36:31] We're literally losing all of our [36:32] property to the sovereign wealth funds [36:33] of the world. So, the sovereign wealth [36:35] fund model is incredibly powerful. [36:37] >> Yes. [36:37] >> Um, [36:38] >> So, just for someone that doesn't know [36:39] what that is, you [36:41] you have natural assets within the [36:42] company owned owned in part by the [36:44] state. [36:45] >> So, the UK did a stupid thing. We [36:47] discovered the North Sea back in the [36:50] '80s, I think it was. And Norway had [36:52] half and we had half of this Norwegian [36:55] this North Sea oil. And the Norwegians [36:57] said, "Hey, we'll just own this in a [36:58] fund that all of our citizens will [37:00] benefit from and that will be a [37:01] state-owned fund and then we'll take the [37:04] profits of that, we'll reinvest it into [37:06] assets and every citizen will benefit [37:09] from those assets." And the UK said, [37:10] "We'll just sell a license to British [37:12] Petroleum." [37:12] >> Yes. [37:13] >> Right? [37:13] >> We'll make the rich people richer. [37:14] >> Yeah. And Australia is so stupid. We [37:17] have all this incredible natural [37:19] resource, no sovereign wealth fund. [37:21] Uh, Britain, when we took over the whole [37:22] world or 25% of the world, we operated [37:25] sovereign wealth funds called the East [37:26] India Trading Company and all this sort [37:28] of stuff. And basically, our business [37:29] model was sovereign wealth funds for [37:31] many, many years. [37:32] >> So, sovereign wealth funds never won. [37:34] >> So, that would be one. The other one is [37:35] to put shares into babies' names. So, [37:37] when a baby's born, uh, you have a piece [37:39] of the stock market, like a thousand [37:40] dollars worth of shares. [37:42] >> It's a baby bond [37:43] >> Yeah. Idea. And and and [37:44] >> Trump's doing both of these things, [37:45] isn't he? Sovereign wealth fund and the [37:47] baby bond. It's called the Trump Trump [37:48] fund [37:49] >> Yeah, well, they're they're [37:50] experimenting with some version of this [37:52] right now. Yeah. [37:53] >> Yeah, so if if an a baby, by the time [37:56] they hit 18, has had 18 years of [37:58] compounding of owning that asset, then [38:01] by the time they hit 18, they're [38:03] literally getting an asset that they can [38:04] then turn into another asset if they [38:06] want to. [38:07] Um, that's pretty powerful. And then the [38:10] the biggest issue is the [38:11] financialization of houses. So, if you [38:14] take a value of a house, [38:16] about half the value of the house is [38:18] what you might call the utility value of [38:19] the house, which is it's a house to live [38:21] in and I want to live in it. And then [38:22] the other half the value is the [38:24] financial speculation value of the [38:26] house, which is how much value does a [38:28] fund have if we can rent this out to [38:29] people for the rest of their lives. [38:31] >> I looked at the BlackRock thing and it [38:32] said, "The idea that BlackRock is buying [38:34] up UK homes is a is a myth. They are a [38:36] financier, not a landlord. They provide [38:39] loans and debt facilities to to property [38:41] developers, but they do not directly own [38:43] or manage residential housing stock." [38:45] >> Oh, Lloyd's Bank is buying 70,000 UK [38:47] homes to rent forever? [38:49] >> The number of single-family homes [38:51] BlackRock directly owns and manages in [38:52] the UK is zero. [38:53] >> Okay, but [38:54] >> He's right. [38:55] >> Yeah. [38:55] >> Um I I don't know what the details are, [38:58] but this is a private equity thing [38:59] that's going on in this country and in [39:01] the United States right now. [39:02] >> Yeah, in the United States I've heard a [39:03] lot about BlackRock buying up [39:05] >> I'm not sure what the entities are. It [39:07] may be true. I I Again, I don't know [39:09] what anything [39:10] >> up They come up with structures to do it [39:11] at arm's length. [39:12] >> Yeah. [39:12] >> But um like [39:14] >> I guess you kind of own it if you're [39:15] financing it. [39:16] >> Well, or you loaned it to a subsidiary [39:18] or somebody else, whatever it is. But [39:20] the But the meta point here is that [39:22] homes used to be owned by people. [39:24] >> Yeah. And they bought And bought them to [39:25] live in. [39:26] >> And they bought them to live in. [39:27] >> Yeah. [39:28] >> And one [clears throat] of the nefarious [39:30] things that's going on in the West, [39:32] driven by this [39:34] neoliberal consensus that the only [39:36] purpose of the of of the economy is to [39:38] make rich people richer, is this idea [39:41] that private equity should buy all these [39:43] homes and turn [39:45] turn ordinary people into this rental [39:47] class. [39:47] >> Just to be confirm, yeah, Lloyd's Bank [39:49] are doing that through something called [39:50] Citra Living. They're buying up [39:52] thousands of new-built homes and [39:53] apartments markets a direct private [39:54] corporate landlord. Um they view the [39:57] structural shift away from homeownership [39:58] towards long-term renting as a major [40:00] profit opportunity for them. [40:01] >> Yes. [40:01] >> That's it. [40:02] >> Right. [40:02] >> They want to have a permanent rental [40:04] class that people never You'll own [40:06] nothing and be happy is the idea. And [40:09] people are not like that. People love to [40:10] own stuff. [40:11] >> There should be a button just down below [40:13] here. And if it says subscribe, you're [40:15] already subscribed. If it says subscribe [40:17] bar, that means you're not yet. And if [40:19] you're not subscribed, please could you [40:20] do us a favor and hit that button. It [40:22] helps to show more than you know. And [40:23] according to the algorithm, you're [40:25] someone that watches our show, but you [40:26] haven't yet hit that button. Thank you [40:28] so much. [40:29] I want to go back to the central point [40:30] we were talking about, which is like how [40:31] do you how do you solve this? Cuz you've [40:32] got two different views on how you solve [40:34] this inequality. What I find interesting [40:36] is the UK has better worker rights. [40:40] >> Yeah. [40:40] >> But it is [40:41] >> But you also have much less inequality [40:42] here. I mean, just to be clear. [40:44] >> That is true. So, the US is [40:45] significantly more unequal. [40:47] >> Yeah. [40:48] >> The US top 1% holds over 30% of the [40:50] nation's wealth compared to roughly 20% [40:53] in the UK. [40:53] >> Yes. [40:54] >> Um and the US consistently ranks as the [40:56] most unequal of the G7 nations. [40:58] >> Correct. [40:58] >> However, the US is growing much, much [41:00] faster. If you look at 2019 to 2026, the [41:04] US has grown over 100% faster than the [41:06] UK. [41:07] >> Yes. [41:07] >> Um and the UK is vastly more protective [41:09] of workers. We have the things Daniel [41:11] said, like paid vacation, paid maternity [41:13] leave. The UK mandates up to 39 weeks of [41:15] statutory pay. The US mandates zero. [41:18] >> Correct. [41:19] >> Which is unbelievably [41:20] >> Correct. [41:20] >> horrific. [41:21] >> But I mean, one of the things that [41:22] happened in the UK, Steve, is is Brexit. [41:25] When did that happen? 2016? [41:27] >> Yeah, but it's the same [41:28] >> That's taken What has that taken? Eight [41:30] or 10% out of UK growth rates. It has [41:32] affected unemployment by 4%, [41:34] productivity gains by 4%. I mean, the [41:37] list goes on. So, that own I mean, part [41:39] of part of why people in the UK are [41:43] feeling down [41:45] >> Mhm. [41:45] >> is this [41:46] unbelievable mistake that the country [41:49] made. [41:49] >> But it's the same in Germany. It's the [41:51] same in Australia. Germany has [41:53] unbelievable workers rights. Australia, [41:55] unbelievable workers rights. In fact, [41:57] the USA is the outlier of all the modern [42:00] capitalist economies. [42:01] >> Absolutely, but we're confusing things. [42:03] People are pissed off everywhere in the [42:05] world. [42:06] >> Everywhere, yeah. [42:06] >> Everywhere in the [42:07] >> don't I want the pitchforks to go away [42:09] as well, but these workers rights are [42:12] not putting the pitchforks away. Like, [42:14] all of this stuff we've given this stuff [42:16] to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, [42:19] all of Western Europe, all the [42:21] English-speaking democracies other than [42:23] the USA. USA is the only one that has [42:26] virtually no safety nets and no [42:28] safeguards. Everywhere else has health [42:30] care systems that are much more generous [42:32] and welfare systems that are more [42:33] generous and like maternity leave. I [42:35] mean, it's just inhumane that USA [42:37] doesn't have maternity leave. [42:38] >> Yeah. [42:38] >> So, all of that stuff, but we've got all [42:40] of that, but we've got the pitchforks [42:41] here, too. [42:41] >> Yes. [42:42] >> Um and this is why I'm saying I'm really [42:44] zoning in on the idea that people need [42:46] to own a house, they need to own a [42:47] business, and they need to own shares. [42:49] And it's like if they own stuff [42:50] >> not agree more, and I don't know how to [42:53] get them there unless they are paid well [42:55] enough to to to make to do that. Let me [42:57] tell you an anecdote. Yeah, during the [42:59] George Floyd riot riots, people were [43:01] burning stuff down in the United States, [43:03] and there was this fantastic interview [43:05] with this woman, and the reporter said, [43:07] "You know, I just I cannot believe that [43:10] you don't have respect for property [43:12] rights." And the woman said, [43:14] >> They've got no property. [43:15] >> "We have no property." [43:16] >> Yeah. [43:17] >> You know, what why should I respect [43:18] property rights? No one I know owns [43:21] anything. You know, like so, I am 100% [43:24] with you, but I think at the core of it, [43:26] the core of it, is that inequality is a [43:30] way more than an economic inconvenience [43:33] for the people that it affects. What it [43:35] does is it shreds the reciprocity norms [43:39] that make social cohesion [43:40] >> Kindness [43:41] >> possible. Yeah. It's this dog-eat-dog, [43:45] you're all on your own, grab what you [43:47] can. I mean, you know, obviously the [43:49] Trump people [43:50] >> the place down. [43:50] >> That's right. And burn the place down. [43:52] Obviously, Donald Trump has created a [43:53] permission structure for the worst kind [43:56] of behavior, right? The worst kind of [43:58] corruption, [44:00] basically stealing has come back into [44:02] style, right? And you know, there's all [44:05] all of reasons that are generating this [44:07] malaise, this [44:09] this sense of unfairness and lack of [44:12] control, right? And and and the thing is [44:16] I I just I agree 100% with your [44:18] sentiments. I really do about [44:20] entrepreneurship and ownership and you [44:23] know, at the end of the day, the cool [44:24] thing about entrepreneurship is you're [44:25] in charge. [44:26] >> Yeah. [44:27] >> Like you're in charge here. [44:28] >> But not everybody can be an [44:29] entrepreneur. [44:29] >> Correct. Correct. And so I do think that [44:32] that's a little bit unrealistic. [44:33] >> The The issue is is that like 70% of all [44:36] jobs that get created are created by [44:37] small businesses and not governments, [44:40] not big companies. They're you know, [44:41] they they don't create jobs. Small [44:43] businesses create jobs. And if we just [44:45] Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but [44:47] if we had 100,000 entrepreneurs who are [44:49] all hiring 10 people, we'd we'd have a [44:51] million jobs and we'd have 100,000 [44:53] options for people with jobs. So like I [44:57] I don't think that we discount the whole [44:58] idea that entrepreneurship is a big part [45:00] of the solution. Can I take us briefly [45:03] back in time? This is not the first time [45:05] this has happened. The K-shaped economy [45:07] has happened in the angles pause. [45:09] >> Yeah. [45:09] >> So the the [45:10] >> you mean by K-shaped economy? [45:12] >> So the K-shaped economy is where so a [45:14] normal economy is one where everyone [45:15] agrees it's going up or down or [45:17] sideways. Everyone can sort of say, "Oh [45:18] yeah, roughly speaking, it's a good [45:20] economy, it's a bad economy, it's it's [45:21] rising and falling like a tide." A [45:23] K-shaped economy is where it's really [45:26] good for some and really bad for others. [45:27] It's a disrupted economy. Yeah, right? [45:29] So the top percentage are going up and [45:31] the bottom percentage are going down. [45:32] Now, the headlines that we run today are [45:35] the exact same headlines that were run [45:37] in the early 1800s in Britain. And it [45:39] was essentially record profits for [45:42] industrialists and workers haven't had [45:44] any improvements. They all like you [45:47] could almost take every grievance that [45:49] we have today and you could just overlay [45:51] it in the early 1800s and you get the [45:53] exact same words. [45:55] Um the solutions uh one of the big [45:57] solutions in the early 1800s was we need [45:59] to export people. We need to get rid of [46:01] people. And what they did is they sent [46:02] everyone to Australia. So they sent they [46:04] sent they sent they picked up people and [46:06] they put them in in Australia, right? So [46:08] they same sort of thing mass mass [46:10] immigration or whatever you call it [46:12] remigration. So they got rid of people [46:14] out of the country. So it was very [46:15] similar and we call this the Angles [46:17] pause, but we understand what caused [46:19] this [46:19] >> 1790 to 1840. [46:20] >> Yeah. So what caused it was technology [46:23] and it was this new [46:24] >> the Industrial Revolution. [46:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. So it was the new technology [46:27] where we introduced a steam engine, we [46:30] introduced a spinning loom, we [46:32] introduced uh tractors, we introduced [46:34] all of this sort of new technology and [46:36] the owners of that new technology and [46:38] the people associated with that new [46:40] technology went like that. They leveled [46:41] up because of tech and the people who [46:43] were not part of that technology went [46:45] down. Very simple picture you might want [46:47] to have in your mind is a farm that had [46:49] 100 workers farming versus one farm that [46:52] had a tractor, [46:53] the tractor farm went like that and they [46:55] all the workers went like that. It's [46:57] because of technology. [46:58] >> The interesting thing about the Angles [46:59] pause is that for approximately two [47:02] generations, 50 75 years, [47:06] with the exception of the owners of [47:08] capital, [47:09] basically everybody else on planet Earth [47:11] went backwards. [47:12] >> hell. [47:12] >> It was hell. [47:13] >> Charles Dickens [47:14] >> and what happened is that over time [47:18] the political consensus changed and [47:22] working people clawed back some of that [47:24] value through unions, through labor [47:26] standards, so on and so forth. [47:29] >> So one of I I guess the essence of what [47:30] I want to get to is I mean something [47:32] you've always talked about Dan as well [47:33] is that if you start applying pressures [47:35] on these companies or entrepreneurs, [47:36] they can just now get up and leave. And [47:38] that was quite different from that era [47:40] where we weren't dealing with [47:42] technological businesses, we weren't [47:43] dealing with IP and those things. So if [47:44] you start imposing some of these [47:45] measures, will these companies get up [47:47] and leave and go somewhere else where [47:49] market conditions are preferable? A lot [47:51] of UK entrepreneurs are as we've seen [47:53] from some of the numbers recently [47:55] choosing to go work elsewhere. [47:56] >> Okay, yeah I think one of things that [47:58] just needs to be acknowledged and put on [47:59] the table is one of the challenges you [48:01] have here is you have the you're you're [48:04] or the world has built this incredibly [48:05] stupid system where you can operate a [48:08] business here, [48:10] take advantage of the UK's market, take [48:13] it advantage of the UK's rule of law, [48:15] take advantage of the UK's uh [48:17] infrastructure, put your stuff in a box, [48:21] move to Dubai, and pay no tax, right? [48:25] It's idiotic. It's just it it's just [48:28] idiotic and sub-optimizing. As an [48:30] American, I pay tax wherever I go, [48:32] right? So, I cannot come to a place and [48:34] take advantage of it and then skirt the [48:37] laws. So, this is such a profound [48:42] disincentive to do the right thing. [48:44] >> Well, yeah yes, but the real culprit is [48:47] what companies can do because US [48:49] companies can do it. You you can't do it [48:51] as an individual, but you can set up an [48:53] office in Ireland and Luxembourg. [48:55] >> Which is even worse. [48:56] >> And and it's the corporations that are [48:57] the bad guys. [48:58] >> Which is but you have both problems [49:00] because you have you have UK-based [49:02] entrepreneurs who are like, "Well, I can [49:04] stay here and pay 40% tax or whatever it [49:07] is, right? Just pop off to Dubai, run [49:09] the business virtually, and pay [49:10] nothing." [49:11] >> are you saying should be done with those [49:12] people that do that? [49:13] >> I think that [49:15] UK citizens should pay UK UK tax [49:17] wherever they go and German citizens [49:19] should pay German tax wherever they go. [49:21] >> I don't think that will solve it because [49:23] it's not citizens, it's corporations [49:25] that are the bad guys. [49:26] >> Well, it will solve one problem. Well, [49:28] that's this other problem needs to be [49:29] handled too. [49:30] >> Yeah, the the the giant vampire squids [49:32] of the world are companies that are [49:34] pumping money out of the economies and [49:36] they're faceless corporations that have [49:38] figured out how to play this game. So, [49:40] for example, [49:42] let's take YouTube for example. YouTube [49:43] is serving up a ton of videos to people [49:46] all over this country and they're [49:48] running ads, but that is pretending to [49:50] be in some distant place. It's not [49:52] pretending It's not being in the UK. And [49:55] what we used to do in the UK is we used [49:57] to have a broadcast license. If you want [49:58] to broadcast in the country, you pay a [50:00] flat fee and you can broadcast. Why is [50:02] YouTube not playing a paying a broadcast [50:04] license? If they are a broadcaster [50:07] effectively [50:08] and running ads, [50:10] they sit there and say, "Oh, but there's [50:11] this and we shift our profit through [50:12] here and oh, we have to I'm so sorry, [50:14] but we have to buy our licensing, you [50:16] know, from this company over in this [50:17] other Vanuatu or whatever." It's like, [50:19] "No, no, no. We don't care about that." [50:21] It's like, "Look at how many [50:23] in the UK should pay tax in the UK." [50:24] It's just as simple as you're you're [50:26] you've got this many views and the [50:27] broadcast license for you is this much. [50:30] >> you agree on both points then that you [50:31] should tax corporations based on where [50:33] their customers are consuming [50:35] and you should tax individuals [50:38] irrespective of where they decide to fly [50:39] off to. [50:40] >> Look, I think in a globalized world that [50:42] we live in, an individual should be [50:44] allowed to make a new life for [50:46] themselves if they want to, right? Like [50:47] so for example, if I genuinely I I I [50:50] make a new life for myself in the UK 20 [50:52] years ago. I came here from Australia [50:54] and I don't want to pay tax in Australia [50:56] because I was born in Australia. I paid [50:57] a million dollars worth of tax in [50:58] Australia, but I now live here. Like my [51:01] I've got three kids here and I've got a [51:02] house here and my whole life is here. I [51:04] don't like the idea that just because I [51:06] was born in Australia, it's it's not [51:08] possible for me to make a new life. [51:10] >> we we have a tax treaty. [51:11] >> Yeah. [51:12] >> Like there are ways of handling this. [51:14] But this ridiculous Look, every rich [51:16] person I know in Europe is playing this [51:18] ridiculous game of trying to avoid [51:20] taxes, right? I don't know how you can [51:23] look at that and think this is a good [51:24] system. [51:25] >> issue is you and I both know it's so [51:27] easy to just turn this into a company [51:29] game. So like for example, if if [51:33] >> to appropriately close the loopholes. [51:35] >> Like yeah, but like I just I'm seeing so [51:38] many people demonize people. Like Nick, [51:41] right? They go, "Oh, this guy he's, you [51:43] know, he's a rich guy and he's like, you [51:45] know, he shouldn't be so rich." [51:47] Honestly, he's not the problem. I'm sure [51:49] you pay a bunch of taxes and also you [51:51] you create economic activity around you. [51:53] These mega corporations do trillions of [51:57] dollars out of economy. [51:58] >> If we take a mega corporation, you know, [52:01] think of one in your head and we decide [52:03] to tax them where their customers are. I [52:05] was looking at some of the research and [52:06] it says corporations really just absorb [52:08] the tax. When countries like the UK or [52:09] France introduce taxes based on local [52:11] users, [52:13] tech giants like the like the biggest in [52:15] the world immediately raised fees and [52:17] prices for the consumer and small [52:18] businesses inside those specific [52:20] countries to offset the cost. [52:21] >> If we had a global tax system that [52:23] prevented this, then they wouldn't do [52:24] it. They couldn't do it. [52:26] >> If the compliance cost of tracking user [52:27] locations and paying to local taxes [52:29] outweighs the profit from the region, [52:30] companies also tend to simply block [52:32] users in those countries or pull their [52:34] products entirely. [52:34] >> Great. Great. And that opens up a [52:37] possibility of a local company to do it. [52:39] >> Worse. [52:40] >> Huh? [52:41] >> Worse. [52:41] >> Maybe better. [52:42] >> I was thinking here about the large [52:44] language models and I was thinking about [52:46] that as an example. If you know, if if [52:48] the UK tried to take on Gemini or [52:50] ChatGPT, etc., [52:52] we would be using a significantly worse [52:54] technology. [52:55] >> The the truth is that those [52:56] [clears throat] [52:57] those mega corps [52:58] >> no? [52:59] >> Those mega corps, they don't do this. [53:01] They they want to own the world and they [53:02] want to dominate the world. They they're [53:03] not interested in cutting countries out, [53:05] right? None of them actually cut [53:07] countries out. [53:08] >> What do you think? You think Facebook is [53:09] just going to leave the UK? [53:10] >> Yeah, like they're they're not going to [53:12] do that. They So And the other way is [53:14] how you do it. So if you simply charge [53:16] >> in Australia, though? [53:18] With the news publishing business? [53:19] >> They they might do it very briefly as a [53:21] way to punish political uh dissent, but [53:24] ultimately they operate globally. They [53:26] have a global business model and they uh [53:29] essentially, too, we just need to say, [53:31] "I'm sorry, you've had your 20, 30 years [53:34] of not paying taxes anywhere, but we're [53:35] not doing that anymore." And you know, [53:38] we are very good at coordinating when we [53:39] want to coordinate and we need to say [53:42] the bad guy here, I mean, it is really [53:44] just pulling money out of our economies [53:46] and taking it to other other places. And [53:49] one of the reasons that the USA has [53:51] become so wealthy with its stock market [53:53] is because it is the end valuation where [53:56] all of these vampire squids end up with [53:58] their balance sheet. [53:59] >> at what happened, it was [54:01] Australia I was thinking about, but it [54:03] also happened in Canada where they [54:04] passed a law called the Online News Act [54:06] requiring tech giants to pay local [54:07] publishers whenever Canadian users [54:10] shared or viewed news links. And [54:11] immediately, instead of paying the user [54:14] location tax, Meta simply blocked all [54:15] news content from every user in Canada [54:18] because the cost of compliance just [54:20] wasn't worth the hassle for one [54:21] particular market. And you have the same [54:22] thing happen with Amazon where several [54:24] US states like California tried to force [54:26] Amazon to collect local sales tax simply [54:28] because Amazon had independent [54:30] affiliates like bloggers, and etc. um [54:32] living in those states. And rather than [54:33] dealing with the complex local tax [54:35] collection, Amazon instantly terminated [54:36] thousands of affiliate accounts. [54:38] >> Yeah. [54:38] >> If every state required Amazon to [54:41] collect local sales tax, then obviously [54:43] they couldn't do any of that. They would [54:44] have to deal with it, right? It's just [54:47] It These big corporations have a massive [54:50] advantage over the jurisdictions that [54:53] they're operating in because they have [54:54] so much more power and so much more [54:56] flexibility. [54:57] >> So, what is the What is your solution [54:59] then, Daniel, to solve for this [55:02] inequality problem that we're [55:03] experiencing? Because, you know, you [55:05] seem to be less interested in the sort [55:07] of workers' rights piece because that [55:08] seems to [55:10] >> it. [55:10] >> We tried You're saying we tried it. [55:12] >> Yeah. What I would like, personally, is [55:14] I want to see way more small businesses, [55:16] and I want the government to favor small [55:17] businesses, and essentially say, "We're [55:20] going to reduce the taxes and the [55:21] pressure on the small businesses. We're [55:23] going to advantage local small [55:24] businesses that are here and paying tax. [55:26] Um we're going to create special [55:28] economic trading zones if your business [55:29] is based here uh and is a smaller size. [55:32] We're going to basically make ourselves [55:34] highly competitive for small businesses [55:36] to show up and do their A game. [55:38] >> What about big businesses? [55:39] >> Punish Punish big businesses that that [55:42] are [55:42] >> I wouldn't punish them. I would just [55:44] tilt the play I'm 100% with him. Tilt [55:47] the playing field [55:49] towards smaller businesses and startups. [55:52] You know, I I'm not sure if you've heard [55:53] about this thing that I just joined the [55:55] board of called Enterprise Britain. [55:57] >> Okay. [55:57] >> that [55:58] Brent Hoberman who does Founders Forum [56:00] >> Yep. [56:01] >> and Steve Fitzpatrick who founded Ovo [56:03] just started. It's called Enterprise [56:05] Britain. It's a group of us who have [56:06] gotten together [56:08] with the express purpose of doing [56:11] exactly pretty much what you what you [56:13] describe, which is to try to make [56:16] Britain an even better environment for [56:19] business. Mostly small and medium-sized [56:21] businesses. One of the great challenges [56:23] here is to try to find capital [56:24] structures that allow small companies to [56:27] turn into larger companies while [56:29] remaining here and not fleeing to a [56:31] better place. But I'm I am 100% [56:34] in agreement with this. [56:36] And [56:38] you can have an incredibly dynamic [56:39] fast-growing economy [56:42] where all of the benefits flow to the [56:44] people at the very top and everybody [56:46] else gets screwed. [56:47] >> [laughter] [56:47] >> And you have to do both. You have to do [56:50] both. [56:52] >> I've spent the last decade building and [56:53] investing in companies and so often the [56:55] conversation around marketing budgets [56:56] follows the exact same pattern. The [56:58] budget gets approved but then the [57:00] results don't come back. And most of the [57:01] time the creative pitch and the offer is [57:04] fine. The problem lies with the [57:06] audience. Ads reach people who will [57:08] never buy or refer. Nor do they have the [57:11] power to sign off anything at all. And [57:13] this is why so much budget gets wasted. [57:16] LinkedIn Ads, the sponsor of this [57:17] podcast, lets you reach them [57:18] specifically by job title, seniority, [57:22] company size, industry, the skills that [57:24] they have and much more. You're no [57:26] longer hoping your ad reaches the right [57:27] person. Instead you're defining exactly [57:30] who sees it. And LinkedIn Ads drives the [57:32] highest B2B return on ad spend across [57:35] all major ad networks. Give them a try [57:38] at linkedin.com/diary. [57:40] And if you spend $250 on your first [57:42] campaign, you'll get a $250 credit for [57:45] your next one just by going to [57:47] linkedin.com/diary. [57:50] Keep this to yourself. Terms and [57:51] conditions apply. [57:52] For every founder, there comes a point [57:54] in building a company where your job [57:55] shifts from being the person inside your [57:56] business actioning everything to the [57:58] person responsible for absolutely [58:00] everything. The only way I've been able [58:02] to make this shift across the different [58:03] companies and teams I'm responsible for [58:05] is by knowing that the right systems are [58:07] in place to manage everything. Systems [58:09] that don't need me in order for them to [58:11] work. Our sponsor Pipedrive is one of [58:13] those systems. An easy-to-use [58:15] intelligent CRM tool for growing sales [58:17] teams. My teams use it and have for the [58:19] last decade because it's genuinely the [58:21] most effective way to run a sales [58:23] operation. Through one dashboard, you [58:24] get every deal visible and every stage [58:27] of the sales process is clear. And what [58:29] needs to happen next is all there in [58:32] real time. When a system like this [58:34] works, you don't need to be in every [58:35] conversation to know exactly if your [58:37] business is moving forward, where and [58:40] what the blockers are. Over 100,000 [58:41] companies are already running their [58:43] sales on it. So, if you'd like to join [58:45] them, sign up at pipedrive.com/ceo [58:49] where you'll get an exclusive 30-day [58:52] free trial instead of the usual 14 days. [58:55] No credit card is needed. That's [58:56] pipedrive.com/ceo. [59:00] I mean, one of the most important [59:01] subjects at the moment in society is [59:04] artificial intelligence. [59:05] And we you probably saw recently Eric [59:07] Schmidt did a commencement speech in [59:08] front of thousands of students and every [59:09] time he said the word [59:10] every time he said the word AI, um, one [59:13] of the things that Anthropic, who are [59:14] one of the leading AI companies, said [59:16] recently is that entry-level jobs are at [59:17] risk. And I've got this graph here [59:19] showing the decline of entry-level job [59:22] postings. I believe it was on LinkedIn. [59:25] Um, pulled from somewhere. It it that [59:27] they're consistently dropping and [59:28] dropping and dropping. And AI is I think [59:31] about it so often. I was up late last [59:33] night trying to think through some of [59:35] this stuff because Anthropic released a [59:37] report yesterday showing that the AI [59:38] models will be able to improve [59:39] themselves theoretically in the future [59:42] and what this might mean. [59:44] How disruptive do you think AI is going [59:46] to be as it relates to job losses? [59:47] >> You know, I don't think Bernie Sanders' [59:49] latest idea is terrible. [59:51] >> US will own 50% of all the AI companies. [59:53] >> Yeah, it is absolutely true that AI has [59:55] monetizing for free humanity's [59:59] intellectual property and a few people [60:01] are going to directly benefit from that [60:03] and I think that [60:05] um in the same way that Norway created a [60:07] sovereign wealth fund with this enormous [60:10] asset that they had uh creating a [60:12] sovereign wealth fund with 50% of the [60:15] value created by AI and recycling that [60:18] into uh [60:20] I think it's unclear exactly how those [60:22] benefits should be should be recycled, [60:24] but trying to find a way to make some of [60:27] that value a cushion for the disruption [60:30] that it will inevitably cause, I don't [60:32] think that's a crazy idea. [60:33] >> It's a good idea for China and the US. [60:35] >> Yes. [60:37] Yes. [60:38] >> But not for anywhere else necessarily. [60:39] It's not going to help Senegal or [60:41] Southampton much. [60:42] >> No, in fact it'll damage a lot of those [60:44] places. You know, like the Philippines [60:46] has benefited enormously by being the [60:49] outsourced back office [60:51] for a lot of small businesses that AI [60:53] can now do a lot of those those uh those [60:55] jobs. Um [60:57] one of the things that I always come [60:58] back to is the idea that say the UK has [61:01] 5.7 million businesses, we have a [61:02] million unemployed people. We need 1/5 [61:06] of the businesses to employ one person. [61:08] AI does actually make your business [61:10] better. Like AI is really good at [61:12] helping you with your marketing. AI is [61:13] great at helping you do legal contracts. [61:16] There are 100 ways that AI could [61:17] actually make 5.7 million businesses a [61:20] little bit better to the point where [61:22] they want to hire someone. And if we can [61:24] incentivize those things to happen, [61:26] businesses are trained on how to use AI [61:28] to their advantage and tax breaks for [61:30] small businesses that are hiring. And we [61:32] will you know, there's actually 5.7 [61:35] million businesses and a million [61:36] unemployed people. That's a good There's [61:38] a good match there. [61:39] >> Uh you know, um a lot of people have [61:40] been talking about AI agents. [61:42] And uh what an AI agent can do for [61:45] anyone that doesn't know is it can go on [61:46] your computer and it can get any task [61:48] you want done on the computer. Um [61:50] whether that's, you know, editing tasks [61:52] or whether it's, you know, manual data [61:53] entry tasks or whatever it is, it can [61:55] click around on a computer and do [61:56] things. A lot of the entry-level roles [61:59] we're often given are that kind of work. [62:01] I think my entry-level entry-level job [62:03] after I dropped out of university was [62:04] kind of doing that kind of thing. There [62:06] [snorts] was also a little bit of a [62:07] sales component where I'd cold call [62:08] people. Um AI can now do the cold calls, [62:11] too. And increasingly, if we just play [62:12] the rate of development forward, we'll [62:13] be able to do those things. So, if these [62:15] businesses get more and more efficient, [62:17] um again, it comes back to this [62:19] entry-level point is [62:22] what what role will entry-level team [62:24] members have in these kind of companies? [62:26] >> So, what's interesting for me, I have a [62:28] group of companies, small businesses, [62:30] dynamic small businesses. We've [62:32] implemented AI in all of them, and as a [62:34] result, we've hired people. [62:35] >> Who have you hired? [62:36] >> So, entry-level people. [62:37] >> We've hired some entry-level people who [62:39] are augmented by AI, so they become more [62:41] valuable because of AI. But like things [62:44] like appointment setting, we've ended up [62:46] hiring more sales people because we get [62:48] more appointments. We We use it with our [62:50] marketing and we end up hiring people [62:52] who can actually have those final [62:53] conversations with people. At the very [62:55] core of my organizations, we have an AI [62:57] layer, and the AI layer has context and [63:00] skills and models and security layer, [63:02] right? All all in there. And it spits [63:04] out amazing information and data and [63:07] reports and tells us who to talk to and [63:09] why to talk to them and what to talk to [63:10] them about. All these things are [63:11] happening because of AI. [63:12] >> But it doesn't get around the point that [63:13] like if you think about Uber, uh Dara [63:15] has been pretty clear that the 9 million [63:17] drivers they have, I think it is, are [63:19] going to lose their jobs in the future. [63:20] If you think about the the other sort of [63:22] white-collar professions we've [63:23] described, they those roles won't won't [63:26] exist in the future. Well, I should say [63:28] those roles will be will be will be [63:30] changed. [63:30] >> Correct. If I put on my more optimistic [63:33] hat, it the thing is is that [63:35] all businesses operate in a competitive [63:38] environment. And there are two ways to [63:40] compete. [63:41] One is to be cheaper. The other is to be [63:44] better. [63:45] Right? And the thing about AI [63:49] is that yeah, there are tasks that you [63:52] can automate away, [63:55] but one person [63:57] with good AI tools may be able to do the [64:00] job of five. [64:01] >> Mhm. [64:02] >> Right? And yeah, you could eliminate [64:05] that job, or you could keep that person, [64:07] give them the right tools, and [64:09] outcompete your competitors. [64:10] >> The right tools. [64:11] >> The right tools. [64:12] >> I think there's an assumption that we'll [64:13] >> I mean, this is of course what happened [64:15] with computers, right? I mean, I'm I am [64:17] older than you guys. So, I reme- I [64:19] remember when calculators hit. [64:23] You had to be there to realize how [64:25] freaked out people were about [64:27] calculators. [64:29] Right? Like people were talking about [64:30] like, "Well, what are the accountants [64:31] going to do?" And [64:33] And And will kids learn math anymore? I [64:36] mean, it was it was like extremely [64:39] controversial to bring a calculator to [64:41] to to school. And then along came [64:44] computers. And the truth is that [64:46] computers didn't reduce the amount of [64:49] work that people did. They increased the [64:50] amount of work that people did. And I do [64:53] believe that there are ways in which AI [64:55] is probably going to do that. And so, [64:57] the job loss may not be as apocalyptic [65:00] as it now feels like it may be. Because [65:03] again, at the end of the day, you have [65:05] two ways to choose to compete. If you [65:08] you know, you can get rid of somebody [65:11] and do X, but you could keep that person [65:14] and have them do five X and outcompete, [65:17] you know, your competitors in another [65:18] dimension. I think that that will be [65:21] something that people are likely to do. [65:22] Doctors are just going to be better [65:24] doctors. [65:25] >> I think I I definitely agree that [65:26] there's going to be this sort of [65:27] augmentation of certain individuals. I [65:30] think maybe the difference between like [65:31] calculators or computers versus this is [65:34] AI is coming into a technological [65:37] economy [65:38] and it is coming in with instant scale. [65:42] In a way that when Anthropic shipped [65:44] their new model last week, it went to [65:47] all of us at once, everywhere in the [65:50] world. We were all boom, step changed. [65:52] With computers, I remember the day that [65:54] like my dad ordered the first computer [65:56] for a house and we waited for weeks and [65:57] weeks and weeks and then we got it, it [65:59] was super expensive to get one. We [66:01] unboxed it. I remember us all stood [66:02] around it looking at and it was like [66:03] this Windows 95 machine that had like no [66:05] memory on it. Um so the distribution, [66:07] the sort of disruption was much slower. [66:10] >> The pace The pace was much slower. It's [66:12] much slower. [66:12] >> Right. [66:13] >> And I understand that like with my with [66:15] our team, there's no intent we have no [66:17] intention at all to let anybody go [66:18] because of AI. We're reskilling people, [66:21] training people. However, would we end [66:23] up hiring less people, especially in the [66:26] near term than we would have otherwise? [66:28] I think that's maybe conceivable. [66:30] >> Yeah. [66:31] >> Um and a lot of companies I think are in [66:32] that position where I actually was [66:33] speaking to someone yesterday and they [66:34] said, "We're just letting the natural [66:35] attrition in our call center [66:38] take care of the shift." Which means [66:42] they they have they lose 25% of people [66:44] from their call center naturally. [66:46] They're just not hiring other people [66:47] back in. And actually Klarna's CEO said [66:49] the same thing. He said, "We're just [66:50] letting the attrition take care of it." [66:52] >> I'll give you another example though, [66:53] just to counter that. Um I work with a [66:56] husband and wife couple in the north of [66:58] England who they had a little video [67:01] production agency and like one or two [67:03] people who did a little a little of [67:05] contracting with them. Uh they used AI [67:07] to create a piece of software and that [67:09] piece of software [67:11] uh helps automate script writing and a [67:13] few of the things that they do. Um they [67:15] launched a waiting list for this. They [67:17] got 5,500 people to join the waiting [67:19] list. They then signed up their first [67:20] 1,500 clients to a piece of software [67:22] that cost almost nothing for them to [67:24] build in 4 months. [67:25] Um and now they're hiring a team of 10 [67:27] people and this is a husband and wife [67:30] who had a small constrained business who [67:33] are now uh [67:34] building out a bigger business and this [67:36] is something that could never have [67:37] happened. They haven't had to raise [67:40] billion [67:41] millions of dollars. They haven't had to [67:43] hire 30 40 people. So this this tiny [67:46] little SAS opportunity is suddenly [67:48] possible because of AI and it would take [67:50] take that AI away and that [67:52] fast growth dynamic little businesses is [67:55] >> Yeah, I [clears throat] think [67:55] anecdotally I could come up with lots of [67:57] examples as well where particular people [67:58] are highly entrepreneurial. They come [67:59] across an opportunity, but there's this [68:01] broad if you just zoom out on the way [68:03] that people generate value in the [68:05] economy so much of that's going to [68:07] change and it's going to be quite quick [68:08] it feels like. [68:09] >> Oh totally. [68:09] >> And I don't know what you do about like [68:11] what do you do about that sudden shift? [68:13] >> this happened in the Jevons paradox. The [68:15] person who had a tractor displaced a [68:17] hundred people who were in the field and [68:20] those hundred people went into the city [68:22] looking for work all at once and it was [68:24] Charles Dickens wrote the tale of two [68:26] cities. He wrote [68:28] Oliver Twist. [68:29] Guess who else came out of the Jevons [68:31] paradox? Our good friend Karl Marx who [68:33] came up with the most toxic ideas ever [68:35] created and written down, right? He came [68:37] off the back of the Jevons paradox. [68:39] >> do you do about it? [68:41] >> Uh UBI? [68:41] >> I'm not a big fan of UBI at the moment. [68:44] >> Isn't that kind of what this 50% Bernie [68:45] Sanders thing would do? [68:46] >> Well it's it's sovereign wealth fund [68:47] basically. But you have to find a way to [68:50] help manage through this transition and [68:53] you have to I think depend on the value [68:55] create the look the whole [68:57] the whole valuation that AI is [69:00] predicated on is job disruption. Yeah. [69:03] Right, you can't you can't get to those [69:05] numbers unless you're displacing lots of [69:07] jobs. [69:07] >> Exactly. [69:08] >> And and if that's true, then we should [69:12] grab some of that value that is created [69:15] and recycle it into the economy to try [69:17] to cushion the disruption that it [69:19] creates. [69:20] >> This is a bit of a socialist idea idea, [69:21] right? [69:22] >> call that socialism. [69:23] >> What do you call that? [69:24] >> know. Just common sense. [69:26] >> But wouldn't that broadly apply to all [69:27] all companies and rich people if there's [69:30] if they are disrupting the economy and [69:31] taking an unfair share of that [69:33] disruption, should we not just grab and [69:36] recycle back in? [69:36] >> But that's the that is the basis upon [69:38] which every high-functioning democracy [69:40] in the in the world operates. I mean, [69:43] every high-functioning democracy in the [69:44] world has progressive taxation, labor [69:46] standards, rule of law. [69:49] >> seizing private property, uh which would [69:51] be a socialist way of doing things and a [69:53] communist way of doing things, [69:55] and [69:56] owning strategic assets, which [70:00] >> Which are private property. [70:01] >> So, for example, the the Dubai [70:03] government owns the uh physical hotel [70:06] buildings that uh that run Dubai, and it [70:10] leases those out to hotel operators, but [70:12] it keeps money in its sovereign wealth [70:14] fund because it says basically a big [70:16] part of Dubai is that we own these kind [70:18] of land assets. [70:19] >> So, do you think we should go and take a [70:22] portion of these companies? [70:24] >> Well, the difference was that the Dubai [70:25] government actually developed those [70:27] assets. [70:27] >> Right, but we're we're already too far [70:29] down the line with within a capitalist [70:30] society like [70:31] >> So, we might say we might say that data [70:33] is the new oil, and data is a common [70:35] good, and it is a common asset that has [70:37] been um sequestered uh illegitimately by [70:40] these companies. So, therefore, you're [70:42] not seizing what they created, you're [70:43] you're basically saying, "I'm sorry, but [70:45] you need to pay a license back to this [70:47] sovereign wealth fund because you're [70:49] using a common asset that you were able [70:51] to essentially seize." [70:53] >> it from you stole it from Africans and [70:55] British people. You stole it from people [70:56] in Australia. [70:58] You saw it from people in Canada. [70:59] >> The biggest issue that we're having is [71:01] that we're actually the nature of the [71:03] entire economy is changing. So, this [71:05] happened 250 years ago where the nature [71:07] of the economy was land and we had an [71:09] economic system called feudalism and [71:11] colonialism. And then the nature of the [71:13] economy was industrialization [71:16] and we had a economic system called [71:17] socialism and capitalism. And now the [71:19] nature of the economy is actually [71:21] fundamentally changing. So, in economics [71:23] there's four factors of production, [71:24] land, labor, and capital enterprise. [71:26] We're now swinging like a pendulum from [71:28] land through capital, labor, and now [71:30] we're actually in an enterprise economy. [71:32] And we need some sort of economic system [71:34] that reflects the reality of how money [71:36] and wealth is made in the [71:37] >> that? Is that go to Open AI, take 50% of [71:40] that company [71:42] and then pay out the profits of that 50% [71:44] to the people? [71:45] >> I'm always skeptical of any socialist [71:47] ideas. If it comes from Bernie Sanders, [71:49] I'm skeptical. [71:50] >> Okay, but Bernie Sanders is not a [71:51] socialist. [71:52] >> He says he's a socialist. [71:53] >> No, he he says he's a socialist. [71:55] >> Well, socialism is not a word. [71:56] >> Socialism [71:57] >> Socialism is [72:00] you know, the government owning all the [72:01] means of production, right? The look, [72:04] there are a million forms of capitalism, [72:07] right? We have we [72:09] Every country operates slightly [72:10] differently. And there [72:13] I don't think that Bernie Sanders is [72:15] saying [72:17] that we should abandon markets. [72:20] What he is saying is we should manage [72:22] markets for the public benefit, not [72:25] exclusively for the benefit of the [72:27] owners of capital. And I think that's [72:29] really different. [72:30] >> You know, with like an Amazon, they're [72:32] using the roads [72:34] >> Yeah. [72:34] >> and the infrastructure. [72:35] >> Correct. [72:36] >> So, would you go take 50% of those [72:38] companies as well for public benefit and [72:41] then pay it out to [72:42] >> No, but [72:43] >> the citizens? [72:43] >> We effectively do take part of them in [72:46] the form of taxes, right? Now Now Now [72:49] the taxes that we impose on those [72:51] companies, I would argue, and [72:53] Dan may may agree, are insufficient. [72:56] They do not accurately reflect the value [73:00] that we give them. [73:01] They don't return equal value that we [73:04] >> increase the taxes on companies like [73:05] Amazon? You both agree? [73:06] >> Uh well, Amazon is very successfully [73:09] avoiding taxes. [73:10] >> Yes. [73:11] >> So, would you agree to increase the tax? [73:13] >> we need to have we need to close tax [73:14] loopholes. We need to make sure that [73:16] they're paying taxes like all other [73:17] companies uh that operate within the [73:19] economy. [73:20] >> Like the guy at the pub that you're [73:22] talking about pays. [73:23] >> Yeah. Right? [73:23] >> Yeah. [73:24] >> He pays a lot of tax. [73:25] >> Exactly. And and the retailers and all [73:26] that sort of stuff who are in [73:27] competition with Amazon. [73:28] >> Right. [73:29] >> Look, one of the biggest issues that we [73:30] have is we have widespread incompetence [73:32] in government, and I'll give you a quick [73:33] stat on this. In the UK government, you [73:36] are 10 times more likely to die than to [73:39] be fired for poor performance. And the [73:41] UK government fires people at 1/600 the [73:44] rate as normal businesses for [73:46] incompetence. So, we have an [73:48] accumulation of massive incompetence in [73:51] government. So, the idea you can come up [73:53] we can come up with all the best ideas [73:55] under the sun at this table. We have a [73:58] fundamentally incompetent set of people [74:01] who have misaligned incentives. [74:05] Uh we have basically a revolving door [74:07] between [74:08] financial industrial complex, technology [74:10] industrial complex, and then [74:11] >> then? [74:12] >> Well, the you Singaporean government, [74:14] they basically said that we're going to [74:16] have a very high degree of meritocracy [74:19] in government that essentially we [74:20] promote and fire based on outcomes and [74:23] merit merit. [74:24] >> Singapore is a miracle of governance. [74:26] >> Amazing governance. [74:27] >> a it's a it's a miracle of governance, [74:29] but it is a very small place. [74:31] >> Yeah, totally. [74:32] >> And perhaps the only place in the [74:33] history of planet Earth that has [74:35] benefited from [74:38] uh a well-meaning dictator. Right? [74:39] >> Yeah. Well, I [74:40] Well, yeah, Dubai. [74:42] >> It's an astonishing story of capability, [74:45] competence, for- foresight. [74:48] >> Um so, what is the solution with this AI [74:50] revolution? It's I think we all agree [74:51] that there's going to be job disruption. [74:54] And there's going to be a new type of [74:55] job. There's going to be probably a [74:56] delta of people transitioning to those [74:58] new types of jobs. [74:59] Um I I've said this before, but I even [75:01] noticed that within our recruitment [75:02] processes now, we are really looking for [75:05] people that have a certain set of [75:06] skills. [75:06] >> We always ask. [75:07] >> And it's harder and harder and harder to [75:09] find those people. Um [75:11] >> Well, that's training. That's education [75:12] and training. [75:13] >> It is. And that takes time. [75:14] >> The school system needs to produce [75:15] people that you would want to hire. [75:17] >> Yeah. And that takes a lot of time. [75:19] >> I ask the question, "How deep are you in [75:20] the AI rabbit hole?" And anyone who [75:22] says, "Oh, a lot." I'm like, "Okay, join [75:25] the team." [75:25] >> And and then also, if you think about [75:27] humanoid robots, Elon Musk's pay packet [75:29] mandates him to deliver millions of [75:31] humanoid robots, or else he doesn't get [75:33] his big pay packet. If we think about [75:34] robotics and humanoid robots coming [75:36] through, we watched the other day Figure [75:38] AI release this video showing a humanoid [75:40] robot sorting packages on a production [75:43] line for 8 days straight. Beating a [75:45] human sorting those packages on the [75:46] production line. My car in Los Angeles [75:49] now drives itself, and as do the taxis. [75:51] And there's a huge race to make [75:53] autonomous vehicles. [75:55] Um I'm sure there's new jobs created, [75:57] and I understand in foresight it's hard [75:58] to understand what those will be. Um I [76:00] assume they'll be more human jobs, more [76:01] sales jobs. [76:02] >> My only thing that I can say is that it [76:05] the future is small businesses. It's [76:07] It's small teams of 10 people making [76:09] YouTube channels. It's small teams of 10 [76:11] people making software. It's like the [76:14] when you have millions and millions of [76:15] little small businesses, everyone's [76:17] happier. [76:18] >> But if you read what Anthropic released [76:19] yesterday, they're making the claim that [76:21] actually we're getting to a point where [76:23] it will be an individual with a [76:26] team of agents who can now make a [76:28] trillion-dollar company without hiring a [76:29] single person. [76:31] And actually, when you said about making [76:32] software, making that they would they [76:34] might argue that that will be agents [76:36] making that software. Anthropic said [76:37] that the amount of code each individual [76:39] is producing on their own is eight [76:41] times. And there's one particular quote, [76:43] which I actually screenshotted on my [76:44] phone last night, comes from an engineer [76:45] Anthropic [76:47] who was saying they feel useless because [76:49] now they they say they haven't written a [76:50] line of code in months and months and [76:52] months. This Anthropic engineer was [76:53] basically saying like, "I come to work, [76:55] this agent writes the code for me, and I [76:57] kind of sit and watch, and I feel [76:58] useless." [77:00] Um so we all those examples you gave [77:02] >> Okay, but what would happen in that [77:04] situation is you would have a massive [77:05] deflationary effect the cost of if if [77:08] there was one person doing all sorts of [77:09] things in the economy, then the cost of [77:11] that would go to the cost of the [77:13] electricity to run it, right? So, [77:15] massive deflationary. And then the [77:17] question becomes, "Well, what does [77:18] everyone do, right? What do we all do?" [77:20] We do human things, right? Humans always [77:22] come up with things to do with each [77:24] other. Uh like if I was to tell my [77:26] grandfather that there is a job called a [77:27] personal trainer who takes you to the [77:29] gym and counts your reps, right? My [77:32] grandfather would go, "That's insane." [77:34] And I say, "Oh, there's 50,000 personal [77:36] trainers in gyms all over the country." [77:38] So, there are always these crazy new [77:40] jobs that get created. I look at what [77:42] trust fund kids do, right? Cuz a lot of [77:43] trust fund kids they go they they don't [77:46] have to worry about money, and they [77:46] don't have to worry about resources, and [77:48] they go find something to do, and it's [77:50] always weird. [77:50] >> going to traverse through, you know, [77:53] potentially the jobs we have now [77:55] involuntarily [77:56] go through this transition moment where [77:59] I think history's quite clear on what [78:00] happens in these transition moments. It [78:02] gets ugly. It gets ugly. [78:03] >> Yeah. [78:04] >> And then we'll come to, you know, what [78:05] what I'm hearing is that you're saying [78:06] we will come to some kind of utopia on [78:08] the other end of this. [78:09] >> No. [78:10] >> No. [78:10] >> No. [78:11] No, I don't think I don't think there's [78:14] going to be utopia. [78:15] >> What do you think? [78:15] >> look, I I don't think utopias exist. I [78:18] do think that markets are the greatest [78:20] social technology ever invented for [78:22] creating prosperity and for ennobling [78:24] the human spirit. But that is not [78:26] because markets are efficient allocators [78:28] of scarce resources, which is the [78:30] conventional view. Markets are an [78:32] evolutionary system that enables groups [78:35] of people to come together and solve [78:36] complex problems and solutions to human [78:39] problems is what prosperity actually is. [78:42] It isn't GDP or money. And the best [78:45] world that you can build I think on [78:48] Earth [78:49] is a market economy [78:51] governed by a robust democracy that [78:54] robustly includes all citizens in that [78:58] economy. And your your answer is small [79:01] business and I I'm 100% behind you and I [79:04] I wish you all the success. My answer is [79:08] that a lot of people are going to end up [79:10] working for large companies and or [79:12] medium companies and that we have to [79:14] ensure or my part of the answer is that [79:16] we have to have standards in place to [79:20] ensure that those companies treat people [79:23] well enough so that they can [79:25] be dignified participants in both the [79:28] society and the economy. And that will [79:31] require [79:33] innovation in laws and rules and all [79:36] sorts of mechanisms to enable that but [79:39] that there is no alternative if you want [79:42] to live in a decent society. And and but [79:45] the high order bit for me and the reason [79:47] I work on economics is that the existing [79:51] economic paradigm basically says markets [79:54] are perfectly efficient and we should [79:55] just let them run and [79:57] you know, [79:58] what comes will come. [79:59] >> So you're really focused on increasing [80:01] the workers' lives and pay. [80:04] >> So if you understand the economy from [80:06] the conventional point of view [80:08] including people in the economy is a [80:11] liberal luxury [80:13] that you can afford if and when you have [80:16] growth. [80:17] And I think everything the new economics [80:19] says is that including more people in [80:22] the economy more robustly is actually [80:24] the tech technical mechanism that makes [80:27] both economies grow and democracies [80:30] function. [80:31] >> So just to simplify that, what does that [80:32] mean? If you if from a policy [80:34] perspective. [80:35] >> It is very hard to answer in an [80:37] uncertain future. In an AI if you don't [80:40] know what what's going to happen with [80:41] the economy. I mean, we have no idea how [80:43] much job loss there will be. We have we [80:45] are we are I think Dan says quite [80:47] rightly going through a transition where [80:49] the shape of the economy will change. [80:51] >> So, do we do nothing through the [80:52] transition? [80:52] >> No. No, we aggressively experiment with [80:56] ways to include more people in the [80:58] economy. Bernie Sanders' idea is an [81:01] experiment. What's the worst that can [81:03] happen? Like just think about it. What [81:05] is the worst that can happen? [81:07] >> The worst would be is that you give [81:08] government more money and they leverage [81:10] more debt. And as soon as the government [81:12] has a new asset. [81:13] >> The economy of the United States does [81:15] not need assets to leverage more debt. [81:17] We just [laughter] created We just [81:18] created We We We We didn't need That is [81:21] not true. That is just not true. We have [81:23] 37 trillion dollars of debt, all of [81:25] which was basically given away in wars [81:28] or tax cuts for rich people. So, [81:30] >> But they they can print more money and [81:32] >> Absolutely, but these two things they're [81:34] not connected. But the truth is that the [81:37] worst that can happen by running that [81:38] experiment is that there will be a few [81:41] dozen guys [81:42] who are worth a hundred billion and not [81:45] two hundred billion. [81:46] Like that is the worst that that can do. [81:49] Is that going to be the end all be all? [81:51] Will it work perfectly? I have no idea. [81:53] But what I do know is that democracies [81:56] need to move aggressively to try to make [81:58] sure that these technological [82:01] innovations benefit the society broadly, [82:04] not just a few people narrowly. [82:05] >> If I think about the UK, if you [82:06] implemented something like that here, [82:09] would [82:10] would people leave? [82:13] So, if you implemented say we had an AI [82:14] company here and you said well, the UK's [82:16] going to own half of it, would that [82:17] company just get [82:18] >> restructure somewhere else because it's [82:19] digital. They They probably would. [82:21] >> now you're back to this old problem. [82:22] >> The issue that I We've been seeing this [82:24] with the data centers. People are going [82:25] I read a report that said the reason [82:27] Open AI didn't open a data center in the [82:29] UK which they said they were going to is [82:31] because energy costs four times more [82:32] here. [82:32] >> Yeah. [82:33] >> So they said we're going to go somewhere [82:34] where it's cheap. [82:35] >> Yeah. [82:36] >> And would that not be the case here [82:37] where you'd get the sort of brain drain [82:39] where [82:39] >> And the risk that you run with this [82:41] Bernie Sanders model is that we leverage [82:44] the the government's balance sheet or [82:46] non-balance sheet to take out huge debt [82:48] in the name of our kids and our [82:50] grandkids that they have to repay. They [82:52] buy up all these intangible assets and [82:55] then they're left holding those assets [82:58] that may or may not perform and may and [83:00] will have debt regardless and then the [83:03] super clever little anthropic guys say [83:05] oh actually we're just going to [83:06] restructure to Vanuatu now leave you [83:09] guys holding all of that toxic debt and [83:11] we're going to go run this from [83:12] somewhere else. That could happen. [83:14] >> The other thing that could happen is if [83:16] let's say open AI as one example are [83:18] making a hundred pounds profit at the [83:20] moment a hundred dollars profit at the [83:21] moment and Bernie Sanders says we want [83:23] fifty dollars of that profit. [83:26] China [83:27] are going to have an additional fifty [83:28] theoretically an additional fifty [83:30] dollars to invest in their frontier [83:31] models [83:32] >> Yeah [83:33] Bernie's not saying I'll take fifty [83:34] dollars your fifty percent of your [83:36] profit. [83:37] >> What is he saying? [83:37] >> I'll take fifty percent of your stock. [83:39] >> Which means that then the US would have [83:41] a equal voting [83:43] >> Yeah. [83:44] >> power? [83:44] Well then you're going to get gridlock [83:46] in terms of voting right? So if the US [83:48] own fifty percent of the company and Sam [83:50] Altman let's say owns fifty percent [83:52] they're going to have to vote on [83:53] decisions. [83:54] >> Well you could put some directors from [83:55] the from the public on that board. [83:57] >> And what happens when it to a company [83:59] when you have the government on the on [84:01] the voting board [84:02] >> I'm just saying I mean you effectively [84:04] have this in lots of countries where [84:05] labor has a seat at the table. [84:07] >> Right? With one of your companies if if [84:09] half of your board with the government [84:11] do you think you'd be able to be as [84:12] innovative move as fast I mean we talked [84:13] about the bureaucracy of of the [84:15] government. [84:15] >> Yeah I I'm not suggesting that half the [84:17] directors should be on the government. [84:19] >> Mind you that's what China has as well. [84:20] China has got essentially the the CCP on [84:23] the board of all of those companies out [84:24] as well. [84:25] >> And they work and they move pretty fast. [84:27] >> It's a slightly different government, [84:28] isn't it? It [clears throat] is and [84:29] there's different levels of competence [84:31] and and meritocracy hierarchy. I I I [84:34] worry about all of these solutions that [84:36] empower government cuz I don't trust [84:37] government. My entire life has been one [84:39] thing after the next made worse by [84:41] government, right? That's that's my [84:42] reality born in 18 what 1981. I've never [84:45] had a good experience with government. [84:46] >> Okay, but dude [84:49] you you grew up in Australia [84:52] and you live in the UK. [84:54] If you hate government so much, move to [84:56] the Congo. [84:58] Seriously. You are [85:00] Look, I mean it is just no one likes to [85:03] be constrained. Everyone wants other [85:05] people held to a high standard. And it [85:08] it just [85:09] seriously there is no libertarian [85:11] paradise in the world [85:14] where nobody follows any rules, nobody [85:15] pays any taxes and everybody lives like [85:17] a king. If you hate government, there [85:20] are plenty There are 220 countries in [85:22] the world. 150 of them effectively have [85:25] no government. Why do you not move your [85:28] base of operations to those places? [85:30] Because [85:32] you would instantly be somebody's [85:35] you know, lunch. [85:37] >> [laughter] [85:37] >> I'm not an anarchist. I'm not an [85:38] anarchist. When a government doesn't [85:41] fire incompetent people [85:42] >> Okay, and and everybody agrees with this [85:45] the previous government Everybody agrees [85:46] democracy is the worst economic It's the [85:49] worst [85:49] >> Exactly. [85:50] >> except all the others, right? Like of [85:52] course [85:54] it is easy to to to point to these [85:58] things and say they're incompetent, but [86:01] it is it is just not honest to say that [86:04] government doesn't improve our lives. [86:07] There is literally no example on planet [86:09] Earth of a high-functioning society [86:12] without big government. [86:13] >> saying well, without big government, [86:15] that's not true. [86:16] >> Give me an example. [86:18] >> Singapore. [86:18] >> Singapore is insanely big government. [86:21] >> 22% of GDP. [86:22] >> Okay, but they are involved in every [86:25] element of people's lives. [86:28] >> They fire the competent people. [86:30] >> And and again, we're in violent [86:33] agreement that we should have [86:34] governments that do that. [86:35] >> Yeah. [86:36] >> You should work hard [86:38] >> Yeah. [86:38] >> on the politics in the UK to to bring in [86:41] reforms that would increase the velocity [86:44] of competence. [86:45] >> Cuz I love that. [86:45] >> That's the answer. [86:46] >> Yeah. [86:46] >> That is the answer is to is to work hard [86:49] >> To increase competence. [86:50] >> a government that is as high functioning [86:52] as they can be. But here's the thing and [86:54] I think you will agree. Look, look, [86:56] Microsoft big companies are equally [86:59] incompetent. Microsoft bought my company [87:01] a quant for 6.4 billion dollars. This is [87:03] a company that was growing at 40% [87:05] year-over-year spent so long, 30-40% [87:08] year-over-year, 750 million dollars in [87:10] sales, 200 million in EBITDA or [87:12] something like that. [87:13] >> Wow. [87:13] >> 3,000-4,000 of the best internet [87:16] advertising people on planet Earth and [87:18] in one year it was gone. [87:20] >> Wow. [87:21] >> Gone. [87:22] And they wrote the entire 6 billion [87:24] dollars off 5 years later. Incompetence [87:27] lives everywhere. [87:29] >> Yeah. [87:30] >> I I I I I I and I just don't think it is [87:32] realistic to say, "Oh, pox on them, you [87:35] know, [87:36] they suck." I just [87:38] Dan, there is no place on Earth without [87:42] government co-creating prosperity. [87:44] >> For for sure. Here's where I put my hope [87:46] in this post-AI world. I want to stack [87:48] the favor I want to stack the economy in [87:50] the favor of the small family business [87:52] and the a small business, right? [87:53] >> You and me, I'm 100% with you. Yeah. I [87:55] agree. I agree. The question is how do [87:58] we get there? And you and I are [87:59] completely aligned in some ways. We need [88:02] to aggressively tilt the balance of [88:05] power in the economy towards the little [88:07] guy. From the biggest most exploitive [88:10] companies to small and medium-sized [88:12] businesses. [88:13] >> big government and big corporate uh [88:16] sucking the life out of little people [88:19] and little businesses. [88:20] >> And I think you are no doubt correct in [88:23] some cases. But, the only thing in human [88:26] societies that has the power to confront [88:28] big business is big government, right? [88:30] There's [88:31] In the history of the world, there has [88:32] never been another force that what that [88:35] had the power to to address this [88:37] problem. And the reason I care so much [88:40] about this economic paradigm is that all [88:43] of the problems you were describing [88:45] >> Yeah. [88:46] >> are a consequence of an economic [88:49] paradigm that was designed to create [88:51] those problems. [88:52] >> Mhm. [88:52] >> That's why we have are in the box we're [88:55] in is because neoliberalism literally [88:58] said the bigger is better and that we [89:00] should afford no protection to small [89:02] businesses, that we should actively [89:04] advantage the largest players, that that [89:08] free trade is good for everyone. All of [89:10] these things that weren't true and dis- [89:14] and ended up advantaging [89:16] in this room, me effectively, and you [89:20] know, a few thousand people from around [89:22] the world and disadvantaged everyone [89:24] else. And I think the starting point for [89:27] for change is is addressing the fact [89:31] that we just understood economic cause [89:34] and effect in [89:36] inadequately. The The things that we [89:38] thought would lead to growth led to [89:40] concentration. [89:42] Right? And the things that we thought [89:44] were [89:45] bad for the economy, in many cases those [89:47] were good for the economy because Look, [89:49] I again, you know the UK so much better [89:51] than me and I I hate to argue with you [89:53] about it, but the truth is that you [89:55] cannot sustain a capitalist system [89:58] unless most people are paid enough to [90:00] buy the stuff that the that the system [90:02] produces. And there has to be a balance. [90:05] And there And again, in the history of [90:07] the world, there is no example of a [90:10] thriving economy that did not impose [90:13] those standards or or create through [90:16] some mechanism the countervailing power [90:18] that enabled the the the the owners of [90:21] capital and everybody else to work [90:23] together to benefit everyone in the long [90:25] term. [90:26] >> You and I You and I are in so much [90:28] agreement on on most of on most of it. [90:30] >> an inch apart. [90:31] >> Yeah, I know. Right. And what is that [90:32] inch? [90:33] >> So, I've seen Nick's policies [90:34] implemented and I don't feel it's [90:36] enough. And the reason I don't feel it's [90:37] enough is I think people are more than [90:39] consumers, they're more than wallets. [90:41] >> Okay, you've only heard me talk about [90:42] the minimum wage and something else. You [90:43] haven't seen all the policies, so [90:45] >> But the missing piece for me is [90:48] ownership. When people had houses, they [90:51] felt really good about communities. When [90:54] people had small businesses that they [90:55] owned, they felt really good about their [90:57] communities. And when people own some [91:00] shares in the overall economy of the [91:02] fastest growing companies in the [91:04] economy, then they feel like they're [91:05] participating. So, for me the [91:06] non-negotiables of fixing this problem [91:09] is that people can easily own a house, [91:11] own a business, and own shares in the [91:12] fastest growing economy. [91:13] >> Yes, yes, yes. And how do we get there? [91:16] >> [laughter] [91:17] >> Yes, yes, yes, I totally agree. And I [91:19] think I I just think that Dan and I have [91:21] a slightly different view on the path to [91:23] get [91:24] >> capitalism is ownership. It's ownership. [91:26] That's what capitalism is. Otherwise, [91:28] you If you don't own anything, you're [91:30] not a capitalist. If we [91:34] >> So, you agree on the the outcome, but [91:36] the path. [91:36] >> Yes. But how did Nick get rich? Like [91:38] Nick started companies. He owned He [91:41] owned a family business. He leveraged [91:43] the family business into an investment [91:45] into Amazon. [91:46] >> Born on third base. [91:47] >> It's own But it's ownership ownership [91:49] ownership and did a lot with it. [91:50] >> Okay. Fair. [91:52] >> But I'm saying [91:52] >> Let's be fair. [91:53] >> But how is that applicable? You're [91:55] saying other people should do what Nick [91:56] did. [91:56] >> Yeah, but it's hard to get born into a [91:58] family that owns a small business and [92:00] >> Well, if there's more people who own [92:02] small businesses than there are more [92:03] >> easier. [92:03] >> Then there it is easier, right? I I just [92:06] want to I do want more people to be [92:07] >> What What do you mean by this? [92:08] >> Well, it it's all about how how you get [92:10] there, right? [92:11] >> But you overlook the fact being born on [92:13] third base, we should aim for more [92:15] people to be born on third base. If more [92:17] people have [92:17] >> Third base is coming from a family [92:20] >> that owns a small business. [92:21] >> with [92:22] or whose parents earn enough income to [92:26] enable all of that, right? And and and [92:28] and look, not everybody who is affluent [92:31] In fact, a a tiny minority of people who [92:33] are affluent uh uh uh [92:35] >> [laughter] [92:36] >> are are small business owners, right? [92:38] That they are mostly doctors and lawyers [92:40] and professionals of a variety of kinds [92:43] who work I'm not against that. in in big [92:45] companies in middle management roles and [92:47] they I'm not saying everyone should be a [92:49] small business. [92:49] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, anyway, I just think [92:51] that I I think the higher order bit here [92:54] I mean, for me and it and this may sound [92:56] like too squishy for you [92:58] is that [92:59] is that societies have both the right [93:02] and the responsibility [93:04] to organize their economies in ways that [93:08] benefit everyone. [93:09] >> Is socialism the answer? [93:10] >> No, socialism is most definitely not the [93:13] answer because socialism again, we [93:16] we need to operationally define that [93:17] term. [93:18] >> Yeah. [93:18] >> If socialism means, look it up in the [93:21] dictionary, the state ownership of the [93:22] means of production. That is a [93:24] catastrophe. [93:26] Right? And it's a catastrophe because [93:28] all socialism can do [93:31] is split up [93:33] existing prosperity [93:35] in a fairer way. [93:37] It can do that. The problem is is that [93:39] socialism does not know how to create [93:42] more prosperity. [93:43] >> Okay. [93:43] >> So, for 1 minute, you can make everybody [93:46] better off, but 10 years later, everyone [93:49] is poor because once because this is the [93:52] power of markets. Is what markets do as [93:55] evolutionary systems is they generate [93:57] increasing prosperity. They [94:00] That's what solutions to human problems [94:02] is, right? Going from aspirin to [94:04] antibiotics is economic progress, right? [94:07] And the beauty of markets is they [94:09] they're evolutionary systems where every [94:12] business effectively is an organism [94:15] competing to fill a niche, which is the [94:18] perfect product for whatever market [94:21] segment they're creating. You are You [94:22] are canonical example of this, right? [94:25] What you have done here. And thank [94:26] goodness for it, right? Because in a [94:28] world where there wasn't capitalism, [94:31] there's no way you you have effectively [94:34] independently created what was a [94:35] television network. It's miraculous. [94:38] Like you have more reach than MSNBC, [94:41] dude. That is the power of markets. But [94:44] you know, they have to be harnessed to [94:47] benefit people broadly. This does not [94:49] mean that the profit motive shouldn't [94:51] exist, but and and [94:53] >> But how though? This is what I'm trying [94:54] to get to. And this sounds a little bit [94:56] like there's this middle ground we're [94:57] like playing with where socialism on one [94:59] end is okay, you know, short term, [95:01] whatever you said. Then on the other end [95:03] you've got this like extreme capitalist [95:04] approach. And I was like [95:06] >> Those are the laissez-faire capitalism, [95:08] right? And this socialist statist [95:11] control. Both of those things are [95:12] terrible ideas. [95:14] >> Am I right in thinking [95:14] >> something in the middle. [95:15] >> On on the left side then on the [95:16] socialism side you get lower growth in [95:18] your economy over the long term. [95:20] >> Correct. [95:21] >> Okay. And then in a capitalist economy [95:23] you might have higher growth, but then [95:25] you have more inequality. [95:26] >> Yeah, correct. And the sweet spot, and [95:28] this is [95:29] This is the [95:31] one of the most important This is an [95:32] important matter. One of the most [95:33] important points I would like to make [95:36] is that all of the evidence suggests [95:38] that when you come to the middle [95:40] and you have a market economy that is [95:43] actually actively managed to include [95:46] people that is the growth sweet spot. [95:49] And you have more growth. So [95:52] >> You have more growth. Absolutely. GDP [95:54] growth rates in the United States were [95:56] 4, 4 and 1/2% for decades, '40s, '50s, [95:59] '60s. [96:00] And then as soon as the neoliberals took [96:02] over in 1975, GDP growth rates fell [96:05] first to 3% and now to 2%. [96:07] >> When they did what? [96:09] >> Cut taxes for rich people, deregulated [96:11] powerful people, and suppressed wages [96:13] for everybody else. So, the most [96:15] important socioeconomic fact, as I've [96:17] said many times before in the United [96:19] States, is that the median full-time [96:20] worker earns about $60,000 a year today. [96:23] If they had maintained their same share [96:25] of GDP since 1975, instead of earning [96:28] 60, they would earn $120,000 a year. [96:31] >> So, there's you're saying there's no [96:33] trade-off in the middle? Because there's [96:34] trade-offs on both ends, right? We just [96:36] described the trade-offs. You're saying [96:37] that in the middle there's the sweet [96:38] spot. [96:38] >> sweet spot. [96:39] >> Where there's [96:39] >> Where there's maximum amounts of growth, [96:42] maximum amounts of participation, [96:44] maximum amounts of political stability. [96:48] This is what Daron Acemoglu and James [96:50] Robinson call the narrow corridor. This [96:53] perfect balance between laissez-faire [96:55] capitalism and socialism. I mean, [96:57] socialism is stupid because because it [97:00] kills markets. But this impulse to more [97:03] fairly share, let's call that where [97:05] socialism comes from, this impulse to [97:08] have a society which is more [97:09] egalitarian. But what all the data [97:12] suggests is that when you build a market [97:15] economy that basically tries to make [97:19] sure that everyone participates, where [97:21] workers get a fair share of the wages, [97:23] where as the company, as the economy [97:26] grows, as it did for years, and you've [97:27] got another you have a you have a you [97:30] have a a great graph in here. [97:33] So, for decades, [97:37] as productivity grew, [97:39] everybody benefited. And then in the [97:41] '70s, it decoupled. [97:43] And [97:44] as soon as it decoupled, GDP growth [97:46] rates fell. [97:48] Right? If we had and and all of this [97:51] the all of this was a consequence of [97:53] policy. [97:54] Of policy. So, here's another thing the [97:57] new economics teaches is that there's [97:59] this idea that a middle class, a [98:02] thriving middle class is the consequence [98:04] of economic growth. That if we just let [98:06] the economy grow, we'll get this great [98:08] middle class. And that is because [98:11] economists assume the the economy is [98:12] something called ergodic. Now, ergodic [98:15] means Let me show you the difference [98:17] between two games. One is ergodic, one [98:19] is non-ergodic. Rock, paper, scissors is [98:22] an ergodic game. And what that means is [98:25] the outcome of the next game has nothing [98:27] to do with the game before. Yeah. Right? [98:29] Monopoly is a non-ergodic game. And in [98:33] Monopoly [98:34] no matter how much how many times you go [98:36] to Monopoly school [98:39] if you play a game of Monopoly long [98:40] enough, one person will own everything [98:42] and everybody else will have nothing. [98:44] And that is what a market economy is. It [98:47] is characterized by luck [98:49] path dependence and compounding. [98:52] >> The past. [98:53] >> The pa- Well, it's the past, right? [98:55] Where you start. [98:56] >> Yeah. [98:56] >> Right? Some of us started on third base. [98:59] Some of us, like you, as I recall, [99:01] started on actually first base or [99:04] home plate or something like that. [99:05] >> Well, I think yeah, probably probably [99:06] second base. [99:07] >> Okay, maybe second base, but whatever. [99:09] But we [99:09] >> I had parents that loved me, electricity [99:10] in the house. [99:11] >> Okay, fair point, right? And you're very [99:13] capable and good-looking and all the [99:15] rest of it, right? [99:16] >> It could have [99:16] >> No, I mean, just if we're just being [99:18] honest, right? We're just being honest. [99:20] You had some natural advantages. But you [99:23] know, in Monopoly, you land on Park [99:24] Place the first roll [99:26] you roll it. You get four good rolls in [99:28] Monopoly, you're going to win the game, [99:29] right? And compounding. The better you [99:32] do, the better you do. And the thing [99:34] about in in an ergodic system is that [99:37] both advantages and disadvantages [99:39] compound. Surely you know people in your [99:41] life who have had a couple of things of [99:43] bad luck, right? And then they spiral [99:45] into oblivion, right? And so what that [99:48] means is that a a middle class and thus [99:52] a high-functioning society with social [99:54] cohesion is always always [99:58] a a deliberate construction. It is [100:00] always created by policy. [100:03] Always. [100:04] And all of these things that we are [100:07] pushing back against, him and his way, [100:10] me and my way, are a consequence of [100:12] basically an economic theory that said [100:14] to policy makers, do it that way. And it [100:17] was a mistake. And we should recognize [100:20] that mistake and try to heal these [100:22] mistakes, which we can. We can have a [100:25] great society. We can have an ownership [100:26] society. We can have anything we want. [100:28] We just have to decide to do it and not [100:31] let [100:33] a small group of incredibly rich people [100:35] dictate the terms of the economy. [100:38] This is within our grasp. [100:39] >> What are your thoughts on [100:40] >> I agree in principle with all of that, [100:42] especially the last bit, the small group [100:43] of very, very powerful people dictating [100:45] the economy, meeting up in Davos, coming [100:47] up with the how our lives should live. [100:50] Um there's there's more to the story [100:51] here. In the early '70s, they decoupled [100:56] uh the the dollar from uh gold and they [100:58] created the fiat system, which meant [101:00] they could print money that inflated [101:02] assets, that financialized that [101:04] financialized assets including the [101:06] family home, which meant that as soon as [101:08] we could print money, we could inflate [101:10] the value homes and make it out of reach [101:11] of most people. [101:12] >> then finance took over and became 20% of [101:15] the economy and all the rest of it. [101:16] >> Yeah, we ended up with these two massive [101:18] institutions, which is the technology [101:20] industrial complex and the finance [101:22] industrial complex. And those two [101:24] institutions have driven a wedge in [101:27] society. My only difference with Nick, [101:29] and it's a small difference, is that I [101:32] don't believe raising the floor is going [101:34] to be enough. I I really do [101:37] >> I I I didn't say it's enough. [101:38] >> I I It's table stakes. [101:40] >> Yeah. And [101:42] and I My experience with that [101:43] >> It's a It's a minimum. [101:44] >> is because it's cuz I've seen the [101:45] minimum and and the pitchforks are out. [101:47] Uh here in the UK where we have that [101:49] minimum. My my worry here is that where [101:52] we are, the technology economy and the [101:55] finance economy is racing as if it's in [101:57] a car. And then all of the workers who [102:00] are selling time for money, labor for [102:02] money, it's as if they're running and [102:04] we're saying, "Ah, you guys just need [102:06] better shoe You need comfier shoes. If [102:07] we give you a pair of Nikes, will you [102:08] guys be happy?" And it's like this is [102:11] not going to close that gap. [102:12] >> Yeah. [102:12] >> Um we we have to acknowledge that [102:14] technology and finance are the two like [102:17] big funds and big tech are the comp are [102:20] basically hollowing out the middle [102:21] class. And if we don't acknowledge who [102:23] the real bad guys are, when I say bad [102:25] guys, I'm not sure they're real bad [102:27] guys, but essentially systemically [102:29] they're systemically they're the bad [102:30] guys. [102:31] >> Yeah. [102:31] >> We need to essentially say, "Hey, big [102:33] finance, big tech, you can't [102:34] financialize our houses. That's for us [102:36] to live in and for us to own. [102:38] Um and you also can't just eradicate all [102:40] of our little tall small businesses. We [102:43] we need to tip the scales back in the [102:44] favor of those small businesses because [102:47] little towns, you go into any town in [102:48] England, little like little towns in [102:50] England, the thriving towns that [102:52] everyone wants to live in, they have [102:54] lots of small businesses. They have a [102:55] butcher, baker, candlestick maker type [102:57] like stuff is going on. [102:58] >> By the way, the best high street in [103:00] London is the one I live on. It's the [103:01] one I live on high street. So, you [103:03] agree? [103:03] >> 100%. [103:05] >> Yeah. [103:06] >> I've got 60 seconds and I'm going to [103:08] show you how much I can get done because [103:10] of our sponsor called WhisperFlow. It's [103:12] a business I invested in that turns your [103:14] speech into text in any app or device. [103:17] I'm going to post into our Slack channel [103:19] which rewards whichever team member [103:20] conducted the most experiments this [103:22] week. Hi everyone, here is this week's [103:25] experimenter of the week. [103:26] Congratulations to the Diary of a CEO [103:28] trailer team which is Ant, Liv, Dom, and [103:31] Cam. You guys have won. [103:34] Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. So, [103:36] here is one of our founders on an email [103:37] chain that I want to connect my team [103:38] with. All I have to say is add my team's [103:41] emails, and Whisper will do exactly [103:44] that. Now, a quick message to Juan, who [103:46] does my schedule every single week. Hey [103:48] Juan, it's Steven here. Could I record [103:50] on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.? Actually, no. [103:52] Do you know what? Let's record at 3:00 [103:53] p.m. on Wednesday. [103:55] WhisperFlow is four times faster than [103:57] typing, and it is incredibly easy to [103:59] use. So, if you want to give it a go, [104:01] all you have to do is head to [104:02] whisperflow.ai/steven [104:05] to download it today. [104:07] I've done almost 700 interviews with [104:09] some of the most interesting people in [104:10] the world, and one of the things you [104:11] learn, which is unexpected, is that [104:13] vulnerability is the doorway to [104:16] connection. And after sitting here for [104:17] 2-3 hours with a guest, I feel a deep [104:20] sense of connection to them. And as they [104:22] leave, what I get them to do is to write [104:24] a question in the Diary of a CEO. We've [104:28] taken all of the questions from the [104:29] Diary of a CEO. We have put the question [104:33] here on this card with the name of the [104:35] person that wrote it. So, you can sit at [104:37] home, as I do with my fiance, and my [104:39] colleagues at work, and other people in [104:40] my life. Whenever we get a minute, we [104:42] play the Diary of a CEO conversation [104:44] cards, and it is incredible what [104:47] happens. These are great if you're in a [104:49] romantic relationship, and you want to [104:50] connect your partner more. These are [104:51] also great if you're in a team, and you [104:53] want to bond your team together. And I [104:55] have to say they're also great for [104:56] families that want to learn more about [104:58] each other, and that need a good excuse [105:00] to spend some time in a digital world in [105:03] the analog environment connecting human [105:05] to human. It is remarkable what the [105:07] right question at the right time can do. [105:10] Go to the diary.com, [105:13] and you can get these conversation cards [105:14] right now. [105:16] One thing I find interesting is you're [105:17] saying that there's this sweet spot in [105:18] the middle. [105:19] >> Yes. [105:19] >> Where you you still get the the upside [105:22] >> dynamism. [105:23] >> there's a sweet spot in the middle? [105:23] >> And decency. [105:25] It's a very narrow sweet spot, and it's [105:27] very hard to achieve because Germany has [105:31] really tried so hard, and they've like [105:34] they their economy is collapsing. They [105:35] their economy is going so badly at the [105:37] moment. Um and they've tried everything. [105:40] They've got Workers have to be on the [105:41] board, for example, of every company. [105:43] You've got to have a worker on the [105:45] board. So, they're like doing as much as [105:46] they can to to inclusion, and the German [105:49] economy [105:50] >> so where does it work? [105:51] >> Okay, but here here's the thing. It's it [105:53] it is simply not fair [105:55] to say the German economy is collapsing. [105:58] Like have you been to Germany? [106:00] >> [laughter] [106:01] >> Yeah. [106:01] >> Like come on. Like have you been to [106:04] Stockholm? [106:05] >> There's There's definitely a function. [106:06] There's definitely a forward momentum. [106:07] >> a function. Yeah, there's definitely a [106:08] forward momentum, but the German car [106:11] industry is getting hollowed out right [106:13] now. [106:13] >> China? [106:14] >> Right. China's doing that. [106:15] >> Okay, but just because workers are on [106:18] the board of German companies, that that [106:20] that [106:21] and German people are unhappy, [106:24] you can't necessarily connect these [106:26] things. [106:27] >> I just want to acknowledge though that [106:29] like there are places like Dubai, which [106:31] are very close to laissez-faire [106:32] capitalism with a sovereign wealth fund, [106:34] and just just just hold on. If you talk [106:38] to someone who lives in Dubai, they [106:39] freaking love Dubai. Like they they are [106:41] they're the happiest people like and [106:45] they [106:45] they talk entrepreneurs entrepreneurial [106:47] people. [106:48] >> Yeah, the rich people, not the not the [106:50] poor brown people who are [106:51] >> Well, I mean because [laughter] they're [106:52] just Indians in Dubai. Well, they they [106:55] Yes, and also when I talk to a lot of [106:57] the Uber drivers there and I talk to [106:58] people who work in cafes there and all [107:00] that. So, they're all quite pro Dubai as [107:02] well. [107:02] >> Okay, but that's because their other [107:03] options are horrific. [107:05] >> Yeah. [107:05] >> That is it's probably more extreme [107:07] inequality, isn't it? [107:08] >> It's um [107:09] >> inequality, isn't it? [107:10] >> inequality but because the place is [107:11] growing until recently obviously with [107:15] right because the place is growing, it [107:16] feels like there's a rising tide for [107:17] everybody. There's something about [107:19] economic growth that makes people very [107:21] very happy, and there's something about [107:23] a lack of economic growth that makes [107:24] people miserable here in the UK, for [107:26] example. [107:26] >> Okay, but but just again, Dubai is a [107:29] place [107:30] the UAE has been powered by the most [107:33] extraordinary gusher of free cash [107:37] probably the planet has ever seen. I [107:39] mean, you can look up on your [107:41] iPad there the like the tailwind that [107:45] economy gets from the unlimited [107:48] resources [107:49] >> say that's why people love to buy it. [107:51] They love it because of the [107:51] entrepreneurial vibe. Like [107:53] >> Who loves it? [107:54] >> Like ambitious people. [107:56] >> Yeah, so this is the rich [107:58] >> Well, no, [clears throat] I I see I see [108:00] young No, I see young people who want to [108:02] have a crack. [108:02] >> And that big because they're they're [108:04] rich relative to the people doing the [108:05] work. [108:06] >> Well, what they're what they're what [108:07] they're looking for is a place where [108:09] their work will be rewarded. Let's [108:11] imagine the UK where your ability to get [108:14] onto capitalism, your first million or [108:16] your first two million is very easily [108:18] low taxed in order to get things going [108:21] for you economically. I I just want to [108:23] see a situation where ambitious [108:25] Yeah, like your ambitious people Like [108:27] what I hate is that I see these young [108:30] people who are really super smart. I [108:31] wish they were here building. And [108:33] they're like, you can't succeed in the [108:34] UK. They'll just tax it off you. As soon [108:36] as you earn anything, they take it. [108:38] >> What if you're not ambitious? [108:39] >> I think you're benefited by a lot of the [108:41] ambitious people. So when when you get [108:43] one in a If if you get one in 10 people [108:45] who are entrepreneurial or one in 100 [108:47] people who are entrepreneurial, they're [108:48] creating optionality. They're creating [108:50] companies [108:50] >> this? The US is [108:52] sort of set up you know, the American [108:53] dream. [108:55] This is more of a US approach, isn't it? [108:57] And what we have there is higher [108:58] inequality. [108:59] >> you to to to one extreme, the US you hit [109:02] the top rate of income tax when you hit [109:04] $700,000. [109:05] In the UK, it's 100,000. And and and it [109:08] immediately goes to 60% tax, 62% tax. [109:12] And then it drops to 45% after that. [109:15] Like but there's this kind of like [109:16] >> Does it really? [109:17] >> Yeah, it's [109:17] this this this weird pain. that [109:22] You basically pay 20% 40% 60% 45% and [109:26] it's this kind of [109:27] >> But to the point [laughter] [109:29] >> You should probably fix that. [109:30] >> I prefer the US the US approach sounds [109:32] more like [109:32] >> People are leaving to the US like a lot [109:34] of Brits are actually going to the US. [109:35] >> has an inequality has higher inequality. [109:38] Which means it's probably more likely [109:40] that the pitchforks will come out. [109:41] >> Well, for an ambitious person I don't [109:43] care about inequality, right? Inequality [109:45] is the opportunity to get ahead. [109:47] >> They might not but from a social [109:48] perspective the pitchforks are probably [109:50] going to come out sooner in the US [109:51] because of that inequality than in [109:54] somewhere else. [109:55] >> They seem [109:56] they seem to be coming out here in a big [109:58] way like [109:59] >> They're coming out here but they're also [110:00] coming out in the United States. [110:01] >> Look at look at Zack Polanski [110:04] is is gaining a huge political movement. [110:07] >> Zoltan in the [110:08] UK and sorry in New York is [110:11] we're seeing a rise of socialism in the [110:13] United States. [110:13] >> Okay, but Zoltan Dammy calls himself a [110:16] socialist because he does not have [110:18] another word for what he is doing. [110:20] >> He has said seize the means of [110:22] production. He's said it and he said [110:23] take houses off landlords. Like he he's [110:26] a he's a card-carrying socialist. [110:28] >> But he hasn't done any really socialist [110:31] things. I I just think that there [110:32] there's a bit of a confusion but asking [110:34] wealthy people to pay a little bit more [110:36] tax is not socialism. [110:39] Standing up grocery stores in food [110:42] deserts because no grocery store will [110:44] will will will do it because it's not [110:47] profitable enough is not socialism. This [110:50] is the government provisioning [110:53] benefits to [110:54] citizens. Fixing potholes, making bike [110:57] ramps, whatever the stuff he's doing. [110:59] These are not socialist things. What [111:01] they are is not strictly neoliberal [111:04] things which is just like letting rich [111:05] people run roughshod over everybody [111:08] else. [111:08] >> The thing that I see with say a food [111:10] desert and [111:12] a store is that the tax system is so [111:14] punitive that a small opportunity like [111:18] setting up a grocery store with all the [111:20] taxes and all the regulations and all [111:21] the stuff the government puts on you is [111:23] just not worth doing it. There are [111:24] better opportunities out there. Like I'm [111:26] not talking about remove it for rich [111:28] people. I'm saying for startups, for [111:30] small businesses, for businesses that [111:31] employ less than 200 people. If you [111:33] basically create very positive very [111:36] positive conditions for small businesses [111:38] to get started they will set up a [111:40] grocery store in a in a bad neighborhood [111:42] because they go, "Yeah, you know what? I [111:44] can figure out how it works in this [111:46] >> Do you Do you think there's a chance [111:47] that we have a a bit of a bias as [111:50] entrepreneurs? Everyone at this table is [111:51] an entrepreneur. And for whatever [111:53] reason, I think a lot of mine might be [111:54] some like I don't know trauma or [111:55] whatever, I had a bias towards setting [111:58] up a business and taking that risk. [111:59] Whereas like my other three siblings, [112:01] they didn't do that. And I don't know [112:04] what I did to have that bias within me. [112:06] Like if you really think about it, I [112:07] it's it was probably something my [112:09] parents didn't intend to do. Which meant [112:11] that at 18 when my four three siblings [112:13] went to university and sort of followed [112:14] that more one could say safer path, [112:16] well, yeah, safer path, I dropped out. [112:19] >> How angry were your parents when you [112:20] dropped out? [112:20] >> didn't speak to them. My mom was [112:22] Yeah, my mom's Nigerian as well. So she [112:24] didn't She left school when she was a [112:25] child, didn't get an education, can't [112:27] read, can't write. [112:27] >> a tough [112:28] >> tough conversation. An understatement of [112:31] >> [laughter] [112:31] >> what happened. But for whatever reason, [112:33] that's the path that I took and I'm I I [112:35] can acknowledge that I'm in a bit of a [112:37] minority. [112:38] >> Yeah. [112:38] >> And I think I sometimes consider like [112:41] maybe I don't realize that through [112:42] privilege or through some genetic [112:44] privilege or whatever, I had this [112:45] particular orientation towards like [112:47] entrepreneurialism that maybe other [112:49] people don't always have and that means [112:52] that the start the grocery store [112:54] >> crucified in the comments, "Not everyone [112:56] can be an entrepreneur." Right? I'm not [112:57] saying everyone can be an entrepreneur. [112:59] I've never said that. I'm [113:00] >> grocery store analogy there is someone [113:02] would start that grocery store if it was [113:03] easier. [113:04] >> Well, [113:05] >> But not everybody would. [113:06] >> There's always a risk to reward ratio, [113:07] and government brings in all sorts of [113:09] regulations, and government only really [113:11] thinks about big businesses. If you talk [113:13] to anyone in government, small [113:14] businesses don't exist, and they just [113:16] simply think, "Why hasn't Tesco done [113:17] it?" or "Why hasn't like Walmart done [113:19] it?" [113:19] >> Yeah, I I've never started a business in [113:21] the UK, but I can tell you that in the [113:24] United States, the the barrier to [113:26] setting up a grocery store in a food [113:29] desert is not the regulation, it's [113:31] Safeway. It's the supply chain. It's the [113:35] It's all the stuff that you've [113:37] described, which makes it incredibly [113:39] difficult for for somebody to operate a [113:43] single location grocery store. Anywhere. [113:46] >> Yeah, and this is the Yeah, what do you [113:48] do about that? [113:49] >> Uh uh So, what I would do uh is I would [113:53] I would And again, in the United States, [113:56] we used to have lots of laws that [113:57] pointed the economy towards small [113:59] businesses. So, if I was in charge, I [114:02] would impose a much higher minimum wage, [114:03] but I would do it progressively. All the [114:06] labor standards, all the all of the [114:08] regulations would be imposed [114:09] progressively. And in terms of [114:11] regulation, I would make it far like for [114:14] a big company, there's a lot of regs, [114:16] right? You have to follow every rule to [114:18] the T. For a small business, [114:21] you have a lot more flexibility. It's [114:23] impo- Because because we need the [114:25] standards, [114:26] but it turns out to be really hard as a [114:28] single proprietor even to even to read [114:31] the manual, right? To know what you're [114:32] supposed to do. So, to me, it would all [114:35] be progressive. So, it would be easy to [114:38] get capital, easy to start a business [114:40] relatively unencumbered by by [114:42] regulation, although constrained to a [114:44] certain extent. [114:45] There are terrible things that small [114:47] business people do, too. [114:48] >> Wait, how do you make it easier to get [114:49] capital? [114:50] >> Oh, you could have government programs [114:52] that were designed to help small [114:53] businesses get off the ground. [114:54] >> We have the British Bank that [114:57] under [114:58] under writes for the first 25,000 of [115:00] loans here in the [115:01] >> Business Administration in the United [115:03] States that did a lot of that work. [115:04] >> Yeah, so we we have a lending [115:05] institution here that is 75% [115:08] underwritten by government for £25,000 [115:10] startup loan. Right, so there is some [115:12] some schemes that can can work. I [115:13] started all my companies on a on a [115:15] credit card. The key thing is is there's [115:17] a difference between entrepreneurs and [115:19] startups that are intending to scale and [115:21] just small businesses that want to exist [115:23] as a small business. I'm really big on [115:25] the idea that we want to we want [115:26] communities that have lots of small [115:27] businesses even if they have no [115:28] intention to scale and exit and any of [115:30] those sorts of things. [115:31] >> That old-fashioned thing, right? [115:34] >> Yeah, and and it's a good and it's good [115:36] to do that. [115:36] >> trying to create Walmart. You just [115:38] wanted to run a grocery store. [115:39] >> Yeah, it's hard though, isn't it? Cuz [115:40] you wanted to be CBS or you would have [115:43] you would have been a network. [115:44] >> But with a grocery store idea, if you've [115:45] got mom and pop grocery store here, then [115:47] next to it you have, let's say, I don't [115:49] know, in the UK it's called Spar, which [115:50] is a grocery store, 7-Eleven. The [115:52] problem is if those are next to each [115:53] other and one has [115:55] economies of scale, i.e. 7-Eleven can [115:58] buy the cucumber Yeah, for 20% of the [116:01] cost of the mom and pop shop, then if [116:04] you're on that street, the 7-Eleven is [116:06] going to survive. [116:07] >> That's why that's why we tilt towards [116:09] small [116:09] >> States used to have laws that expressly [116:12] prohibited that. [116:14] >> And why did they get rid of them? [116:15] >> Neoliberalism. [116:17] >> So they got rid of the restrictions on [116:18] >> Yeah, there there used to be express [116:20] laws to make sure that big companies [116:22] could not buy raw materials cheaper than [116:25] than small companies. Like when I was [116:27] young, when I was your age, if you [116:30] wanted to buy a competitor, [116:32] you were sweating bullets because you [116:35] had that had to be reviewed by a body [116:38] and if they thought that you were [116:39] consolidating too much, they would just [116:41] say no. [116:42] >> But if you think of I think about all my [116:43] friends that have opened retail stores [116:45] through their companies and they they [116:46] only do that when they get really big [116:48] because their e-com business is [116:49] supporting it. So if you think about I [116:51] know the Gymshark the represent on our [116:53] active. So you can't [116:54] >> Okay, with respect to retail, you are [116:56] largely correct. It depends on what kind [116:57] of retail. Like you could have a gym, [116:59] you can't e-commerce a gym, or you know, [117:01] there are all kinds of retail, some of [117:03] which is somewhat immune from [117:06] e-commerce, and some of which is getting [117:08] destroyed by e-commerce. Doesn't It [117:10] doesn't matter if we're talking about [117:11] retail. They were all [117:12] regional manufacturing companies, [117:14] regional everything. [117:15] >> Sure. [117:16] >> And it all went away, and you have never [117:19] experienced a world in which that used [117:22] to exist. Like you're you're entire [117:24] business experience is this sort of [117:26] neoliberal world of giant companies. [117:29] >> And the world I grew up in, we [117:31] >> you're you're young, medium, old, [117:33] >> right? But I I remember what it was like [117:36] to go to the video store and select [117:38] videos from the video store. I remember [117:40] what it was Yeah. Like I remember going [117:42] to the CD store and listening to music [117:44] and talking to the retail employees. [117:46] When I was growing up, the cool kids [117:48] worked at the CD store, the geeky kids [117:51] worked at the bookstore, and everybody [117:52] worked at the everyone else worked at [117:53] the grocery store. [117:54] >> Yeah. [117:55] >> And all of those business models are [117:56] gone. And this is what I mean, we need [117:58] to kind of tip back towards small [118:00] business experimentation being protected [118:03] and all of that. The other thing [118:04] [clears throat] too, and I should should [118:05] raise this about minimum wage and giving [118:07] people more money, [118:08] the bottom half of taxpayers in the UK [118:11] pay 9.5% of all the income taxes. The [118:15] government could remove taxes off of 50% [118:18] of workers in one move, and it would [118:21] cost 33 billion, and you just get rid of [118:23] that, and then every single person in [118:25] the bottom half of income earners gets a [118:27] 10% pay rise to 15% pay rise, right? [118:30] >> I love it. [118:30] >> So, where do we get the 32 billion from? [118:32] >> Just Just keep in mind, their budget is [118:33] 1.4 trillion. [118:35] >> I know, I know, I know. But we're going [118:36] to have to if we [118:37] >> 1.4 trillion, you're talking about this [118:39] much to take 15 million people [118:41] >> Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying, where [118:42] does the money go? Cuz I know what's [118:43] going to happen. [118:44] Keir Starmer is saying they found this [118:45] 20 million billion 20 billion dollar [118:47] black hole in the finances, and they and [118:50] that's the reason why they're saying [118:51] they've had to cut back on pensions and [118:52] these kinds of things. So if we add [118:54] another 30 billion to that, where where [118:56] do we where do we get the money from? [118:58] >> You're talking about reduce the amount [119:00] of administrative burden to tax 15 [119:03] million people and keep on top of the [119:05] tax on 15 million people. Just the sheer [119:08] volume of people who have to work at [119:09] HMRC. [119:10] >> I completely agree. [119:11] >> All of this insanity. [119:12] >> I'm saying where does the money come [119:13] from? [119:13] >> Yeah. So out of 1.4 trillion, I'm pretty [119:16] sure we could find half of 1% 1% of it [119:19] or whatever to get these number of [119:21] people out of tax. Um I think we could [119:23] tax big corporations who are taking the [119:25] piss. [119:26] Uh and I also think the economic [119:28] spending rounds of getting those people [119:30] those poor the poorer half of people [119:33] should not be paying tax. If you give [119:35] them more money, they'll spend more [119:36] money, right? Then they [119:36] >> Okay. I agree with you. So you're saying [119:39] tax big corporations more [119:41] in the UK at point of consumption. [119:44] >> Personally, I would make it a like it's [119:46] very similar to a broadcast license that [119:48] it's a fixed fee that's very hard to [119:50] wiggle out of. [119:51] >> So if I'm a let's say I'm an Open AI. [119:54] >> Yeah, you might have a broadcast license [119:55] to pay [119:57] to to access this market. [119:58] >> So you're going to charge up say you say [120:00] to I'm going to charge Open AI 4 billion [120:02] 5 billion to access our market. [120:04] >> Well for example, Facebook is very much [120:06] broadcasting videos and content all the [120:08] time. So is YouTube, so is Google, all [120:10] that sort of stuff. So you just simply [120:12] say, "Guys, the cost of doing business [120:14] in this country, if you want access to [120:15] this market, is a fixed broadcast [120:17] license fee of 500 million a year or [120:19] whatever it is." And you just say based [120:21] on the number of views that you guys get [120:22] and how much attention you suck out of [120:24] our economy, we just essentially tax the [120:26] attention. You're literally if people [120:28] are spending an hour a day on their [120:29] phone doom scrolling, we're that that is [120:32] a broadcast. You're broadcasting to our [120:34] people, so therefore we've got a [120:35] broadcast license. Um so those are the [120:38] types of things that I would look at [120:39] because they're very hard to wiggle out [120:40] of. [120:41] >> Do you think then these these companies [120:43] like an Open AI would would then as we [120:44] said earlier I increase the subscription [120:46] fee in this market? And you see that [120:48] sometimes where in certain countries [120:49] something is cheaper. I remember going [120:51] to the United I I used to go to the [120:52] United States to buy my Apple products [120:53] cuz it was cheaper there. [120:54] >> Yeah. [120:55] >> And then in the UK it cost me like not [120:57] even not even a little bit more. It was [120:58] like hundreds of dollars more to buy a [120:59] laptop here. The same laptop in this [121:02] market versus this one cost different [121:04] amounts of money. [121:05] >> They they may choose to try and pass on [121:06] that consumption tax to to consumers. [121:09] Maybe they do do that. Uh maybe we could [121:11] try and avoid maybe we could try and [121:13] legislate against that that they have to [121:15] essentially be on parity with where they [121:17] are in other markets that they they have [121:18] to charge parity. Um if we don't if we [121:21] don't do anything we essentially have [121:25] nurses and [121:27] uh you know [121:29] like teachers and all the people who are [121:31] in the normal 50% of the economy whose [121:33] job is now to hold up the economy while [121:35] Starbucks doesn't pay taxes, while [121:37] Amazon doesn't pay taxes, while Google [121:39] doesn't pay taxes. [121:39] >> And and Steve, I think all your [121:40] questions are really really good, but [121:42] they all point to the same thing which [121:44] is it which is that you know, the [121:47] economy is a collective action problem. [121:49] >> Mhm. [121:50] >> Right? And [121:51] >> No, it's a global action problem. [121:53] >> It's a global it's a global collective [121:54] action problem. And if we want [121:58] if we want robust solutions to these [122:00] problems, we're going to have to [122:02] robustly coordinate activity across the [122:05] world. Uh [122:06] and you know, like for during the by [122:08] administration they tried really hard to [122:10] do this global [122:11] profit tax where where uh but that [122:14] collapsed under the weight of pressure. [122:16] But all you know, again, all of your [122:18] questions I think are really good, but [122:20] they all point to the same fundamental [122:22] weakness of of of governance. [122:24] >> And Nick, you you need to talk to your [122:26] billionaire mates and also say if we [122:29] don't start investing in the economies [122:31] that we do business with, which you are [122:32] saying, right? Of course, right? But [122:33] essentially [122:34] >> It's a lonely business. I'll just tell [122:35] you. [122:36] >> But it's it's like [122:37] >> [laughter] [122:37] >> it's like [122:38] those CEOs of those companies You, [122:41] you know, you drain this you drain the [122:42] whole economy out and you and and then [122:44] what then what next? Like [122:46] >> I think on this pass-through problem, I [122:47] was thinking I was looking at different [122:49] ways that this ends up being applied. [122:50] So, if you think about the Big Mac, the [122:52] Big Mac costs different things in [122:53] different states depending on how much [122:55] tax that that that state charges. So, in [122:57] Oregon, the Big Mac is $8, whereas in [122:59] Chicago, it's almost $9. [123:02] Um if you think about like bookstores, [123:03] you can buy one book on the high street [123:05] for $20, the same book online is $10. [123:07] >> Yeah. [123:07] >> Because they're passing through the [123:08] cost. So, it's conceivable that if we we [123:11] say to big corporations, "Right, you [123:12] guys are going to pay a a bigger tax to [123:14] sell into the UK," then the UK consumer [123:17] that they'll they might pass that on to [123:19] the UK consumer. [123:21] And they might look at different markets [123:22] and because you know, they might say as [123:24] a company, "We want to make 30% [123:25] margins." And the way to make 30% [123:27] margins in the UK is to bump the cost. [123:29] >> could say, "I'm going to use a VPN and [123:31] pretend that I'm going to be in a [123:32] different market and pay a lower price." [123:34] And doesn't matter, you still have to [123:36] pay the broadcast license if you want to [123:37] be available in our in our country. [123:39] These are hard problems and we need to [123:41] know who is the person that we're [123:42] targeting. It's it's the Black Rocks of [123:45] the world, it's the it's the big banks [123:47] of the world, it's the big mortgage like [123:49] >> I had a So, I had a private conversation [123:51] with the CTO of a very large company, [123:53] technology business, and he was saying [123:56] to me, he goes, "I don't think the UK [123:57] understands the situation it's putting [123:59] itself in and the EU with all this [124:02] regulation." He said to me, um [124:05] "that we sell this particular product. [124:08] It's a physical product. And because the [124:10] UK and I think EU have put this new law [124:12] in where you have to have removable [124:15] batteries. [124:15] >> Mhm. [124:17] >> Interestingly, the unintended [124:18] consequence of that is we have to stock [124:20] more lithium batteries, more of them go [124:22] into landfill, and also your devices [124:24] break because they're no longer [124:25] waterproof. [124:27] So, you're going to actually it's [124:27] harming the environment. And also, he [124:29] said, "The thing you guys don't realize [124:32] is that you're actually not a big market [124:33] anymore for us. And because South [124:35] America's coming online, we actually [124:36] don't have to sell the product here. And [124:38] you think about this in terms of some of [124:40] the regulations around AI as well. [124:42] When a new product launches on a chat [124:43] GPT, [124:44] >> Yeah. [124:45] >> it goes in the US first because of [124:46] regulations. [124:47] >> Yeah. [124:47] >> And then maybe [124:48] >> No, it goes in the US first because it's [124:50] the biggest market. [124:51] >> Biggest market, but also we have we're [124:53] our regulations around some software and [124:55] GDPR and all these kinds of things means [124:57] that sometimes we just don't get the [124:58] features. [124:59] And sometimes in my history in our [125:01] history of building a [125:02] the previous business I was in, [125:04] as creators, we would sometimes have to [125:06] wait 12 or 18 months to get the same [125:08] tools that my competitors [125:10] >> in the United States could use. [125:12] Monetization tools, they they'd have the [125:13] monetization tools first and then we'd [125:15] have to wait 18 months. [125:16] >> The economy is a set of trade-offs. Like [125:18] that is the problem. Like economics is [125:20] called a set of trade the the actual [125:21] definition of economics is making [125:22] trade-offs um and picking picking your [125:24] trade-offs. I totally get it. Like [125:26] regulation does actually suck for [125:28] consumers and for businesses [125:31] um and like the the EU is now [125:33] over-regulated to the extent that you [125:35] can't even take a a lid off of bottle [125:37] without, you know, the government being [125:39] involved with how the lid comes off the [125:41] bottle. And it's killing it's killing [125:44] our dynamism. We are really [125:45] >> Yeah. [125:46] >> And the US is under-regulated and if you [125:48] buy chicken in a in a store and and [125:51] don't cook it, [125:52] >> Could be anything. [125:52] >> [laughter] [125:53] >> one in three chances you'll you'll [125:55] you'll you'll get [125:56] either E. coli [clears throat] or [125:57] salmonella, right? [125:59] >> And your life expectancy is lower. [126:00] >> Exactly. [126:02] >> Everyone who eats in the US [126:05] >> And it comes back from the US and goes, [126:06] "Oh my goodness, I hate I hate eating [126:08] food in the US cuz [126:09] >> Yes, it's all trade-offs. It's all [126:11] trade-offs. [126:11] >> Does this not then mean our ultimate [126:13] conclusion of this conversation is [126:14] around [126:16] morals and ethics around the trade-offs [126:19] that we think are the right ones to [126:20] make. [126:20] >> Yes. [126:21] >> And so it's a question really of morals [126:22] and ethics. [126:23] >> Yes. [126:24] >> Human flourishing. [126:26] Yes. 100%. [126:28] >> The purpose of the economy is is to [126:30] improve human human lives. The way to do [126:33] this is to massively maximize small [126:36] business power because when people [126:38] when when people when people have to [126:40] work when I have to work shoulder to [126:42] shoulder with my workers, I treat people [126:44] well, right? When I'm a mega corporation [126:47] who have faceless workers down on the [126:49] factory floor that I will never meet, I [126:50] will never sit next to on a plane, I [126:52] will never come in contact with my [126:53] workers, I can treat them however I [126:55] like. [126:55] >> Why do you think that's reductive, Nick? [126:57] >> Uh well, I think that what Dan is saying [126:59] is true and massively insufficient. [127:02] >> [laughter] [127:02] >> Of course, I mean, we're in violent [127:04] agreement about the small business [127:06] point. Like, I don't want to be naive [127:08] and think we should go back to the '60s [127:10] or something like that. Like, I don't [127:11] think that's true. But again, here's [127:14] what the new economics shows, that [127:17] corporate consolidation [127:19] increases prices, [127:22] lowers wages, [127:23] decreases consumer choice, and decreases [127:26] the rate of innovation. [127:28] Right? And I 100% agree. [127:29] >> Because innovation again, the the [127:32] conventional view of innovation, the the [127:34] conventional economic view of in in [127:36] innovation is this sort of great man [127:38] theory is you have this smart, rich guy [127:40] who's seeing somewhere and he [127:42] he or she has this amazing idea and [127:44] that's innovation. That is not what [127:45] innovation is. Innovation is always [127:48] combinatorial. In technology makes [127:51] itself out of itself. [127:53] You You start with a rock. [127:56] The rock or the rock was our first [127:57] technology. And you can do a lot of [127:59] stuff with rocks. [128:00] And we also had sticks. Actually, sticks [128:02] were our first technology. [128:04] But you tie a rock to a stick, [128:06] you have a hammer, [128:08] a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel, [128:13] it goes on and on and on. And what that [128:16] means in terms of policy is that because [128:18] innovation is combinatorial, [128:21] the more diverse people in a network [128:25] who come together with different ideas [128:27] and different sets of experiences, that [128:29] is what drives the rate of innovation. [128:31] And this is [128:33] mathematically demonstrated that a [128:35] diverse group of people working on a [128:38] problem will absolutely consistently [128:41] outperform a a a homogeneous group of [128:44] high performers. [128:45] >> Mhm. [128:45] >> And then when they when they become [128:47] really successful, which will happen [128:48] eventually if you let that system play [128:50] out, you have this inequality unless you [128:53] intervene at some point [128:54] >> and recycle it. [128:55] >> And then when you go to recycle it, [128:58] you go get back to this issue of us [129:00] having needing global cohesion [129:02] >> Yes. [129:03] >> because some people won't want the [129:04] recycling [129:05] >> Correct. [129:05] >> and they'll say, "Well, I'm just going [129:06] to go to Ireland or I'm going to go to [129:08] Dubai or I'm going to go somewhere [129:09] else." [129:10] >> Correct. Correct. [129:10] >> is maybe a function of the new economy [129:12] where people can just get up and leave [129:14] and take their value with them. [129:15] >> Yes. And this is the conundrum. [129:17] >> This is the conundrum. But the meta [129:20] issue above the conundrum is recognizing [129:24] that citizens have both the right and [129:26] the responsibility to want to address [129:28] that problem. [129:29] And we and you grew up in a world where [129:31] it was illegitimate to address that [129:33] problem. That that that economics told [129:36] you [129:37] don't worry about those problems. The [129:39] market will sort it out. [129:40] >> Is there like a radical idea of how to [129:42] solve this? Do Do we need like all the [129:44] the very very rich people in the world [129:46] to come together collectively and say, [129:49] "We're going to create a new model." [129:50] Like how do how do you I don't know. Is [129:52] there any radical ways to solve this [129:54] stuff or is it just all trade-offs once [129:55] again? [129:56] >> One of the big One of the big radical [129:58] ways is breaking up companies and it's [130:00] unthinkable. If I You know Jeff Bezos, [130:02] right? [130:03] >> Yes, I do. [130:04] >> So [130:04] >> He was in my wedding. [130:05] >> I wonder if he would lose more sleep [130:07] about higher taxes or having his company [130:09] broken up. [130:10] >> Oh, for sure broken up. [130:11] >> Because if you broke up Google from [130:13] YouTube, if you broke up AWS, Amazon [130:15] Prime, and Amazon, [clears throat] if [130:17] you like the biggest thing that scares [130:19] the billionaires is back in competition [130:22] with the market. And it's like, "Oh my [130:24] goodness, I don't want to have to [130:24] compete. I've got this amazing monopoly [130:26] that just works." [130:27] Right? So, [130:28] >> is is that a perfect solution? Cuz I was [130:30] thinking if [130:30] >> It's not a perfect solution. [130:31] >> pretty good solution. [130:32] >> worst solution available. [130:34] >> It's a good [130:34] >> [laughter] [130:34] >> It's pretty good It's pretty good. It's [130:36] pretty effective. [130:36] >> But I mean, this is what Teddy Roosevelt [130:38] did in busting [130:38] >> companies aren't making any any money [130:40] though. They're like being subsidized by [130:41] the mothership. So, like in an Let's say [130:43] Amazon Prime, [130:44] that's competing against Netflix and [130:47] >> these companies make money where they [130:48] want to make money [130:49] >> Yeah. [130:49] >> for [130:50] >> for tax optimization and strategic [130:52] reasons. Look, I mean, you know, like [130:54] when we started amazon.com, I'm not sure [130:56] if you guys remember, the whole hit on [130:58] it was it's not profitable. [130:59] >> Mhm. [131:00] >> Right? The secret to amazon.com success [131:03] is the negative cash conversion cycle. [131:06] Right? For [131:07] virtually every business on planet [131:09] Earth, to grow requires capital. Right? [131:12] For all of your businesses, growth [131:14] requires capital. But for amazon.com, [131:17] we took an order, [131:19] we put up a website, you take an order, [131:22] you instantaneously [131:24] transmit that order to a book warehouse, [131:26] which has all of the titles in stock. [131:29] It's shipped the next day, it's received [131:31] the next day. [131:33] You ship it out, hit the hit the person [131:35] hit the person's credit card, but then [131:37] you don't have to pay the bookseller for [131:39] 90 days. [131:40] >> Mhm. [131:40] >> Right? And what that means is [131:43] the bigger the company gets, the better [131:44] cash flow gets, whether you're making [131:46] money or not. So, we didn't have to make [131:48] money. Because we had Most companies [131:50] have to make money [131:51] >> Mhm. [131:52] >> because if they don't, they don't have [131:53] the cash flow to continue. [131:55] >> Like Amazon Prime businesses and [131:57] >> Yeah. [131:57] >> And so, there are things available that [132:01] >> These co- [132:01] >> We could have made money in 1 minute [132:02] just by increasing our prices by 3 or [132:04] 4%. [132:05] >> Yeah, these companies are also not worth [132:07] trillions of dollars because they're not [132:08] profitable. They're They're worth [132:09] trillions of dollars because they are [132:11] making money. They But the issue is is [132:13] they have strategic monopolies, and if [132:15] you really want to make them lose sleep, [132:17] you need to break up strategic [132:18] monopolies. You need to say there's an [132:20] actual limit to how big a fund can be. [132:22] There's an actual limit as to how big a [132:24] strategic monopoly can be. Uh you can't [132:27] have things that hedge naturally against [132:29] each other and prevent real competition. [132:31] So, like these things are ways of And [132:35] also it ties up their attention. So, [132:37] while they're thinking about not getting [132:38] broken up, they're also not competing [132:40] with all the other guys out there. So, [132:42] like it's It's basically capitalism runs [132:44] on competition. And this is the one [132:46] thing that we've missed that the real [132:49] >> less competition. [132:49] >> Yeah, like when Adam Smith said [132:52] capitalism works, he said it only works [132:54] when there's competition. If there's one [132:55] bakery in town, [132:56] any bread at any quality at any price is [132:59] what you have to pay. As soon as there's [133:00] two bakeries in town, [133:03] it has to be the best quality at the [133:04] best price. [133:04] >> Although with two, you can collude. But [133:06] if you have five, it's very hard. [133:08] >> It's an Amazon It's an Amazon has a [133:09] monopoly over [133:11] >> strategic monopoly. [133:11] >> A strategic monopoly. So, what does one [133:13] do with Amazon? [133:14] >> You break it up. [133:15] >> Yeah. Into what? [133:15] >> AWS, Amazon Prime, Amazon Retail. [133:18] >> Fine, but they still got a monopoly in [133:20] online e-commerce theoretically. [133:22] >> Yeah, well, it's just harder It's easier [133:24] for someone to come along and compete. [133:25] Right now, it's very, very hard for me [133:27] to compete with Amazon because they are [133:29] pulling in cash from AWS, they're [133:31] pulling in cash from all these other [133:32] subscriptions. They're so Amazon Basics [133:35] >> You could You could break up the retail. [133:37] You could say, "You can have a [133:37] bookstore. You can have an electronic [133:39] store. You can have this and that." [133:40] >> sell You can't be the everything store, [133:42] right? So, you could There's all sorts [133:44] of ways that you But you have to [133:45] acknowledge when someone has achieved a [133:47] strategic monopoly. [133:48] >> idea? Do you still own shares in Amazon? [133:50] >> No, sadly. [133:51] >> Okay. [133:51] >> [laughter] [133:52] >> I wouldn't be here talking to you guys [133:53] if I still did. [133:55] >> No, no, no, no. [133:56] >> [laughter] [133:57] >> No, Jeff Jeff won't come. [134:00] Uh no, I I sadly I sold my shares. But [134:03] uh [134:04] you know, I I I am open to all of these [134:06] ideas [134:07] because I know I mean, I am completely [134:10] with Dan. I know that the world would be [134:12] a better place if these companies were [134:14] smaller and we had more competition. And [134:17] again, [134:18] there's no there are no silver bullets [134:20] to these complex problems the world [134:22] faces. We are not at this table going to [134:24] come up with this algorithmic idea that [134:27] is just going to make the world a better [134:29] place. It it [134:31] None of these solutions are perfect. [134:33] They are always going to be the least [134:35] worst thing that we can come up with. [134:37] But I think it at the at the level of [134:39] principle [134:41] um living in a world where we try [134:44] actively [134:46] to limit concentrated power in all its [134:49] forms [134:50] where we try actively to include people [134:53] in whatever way, whether as [134:55] entrepreneurs or just workers, as [134:57] robustly as possible [135:00] where we try to make sure that people [135:02] are engaged enough in the economy so [135:04] that they'll be supportive of the [135:06] democracy, not want to burn it down. [135:08] These are high-level principles that I [135:10] think reasonable people can agree with [135:12] and they come into conflict with people [135:15] like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark [135:17] Zuckerberg who do not want to live in [135:19] that world, who want to live in an [135:21] oligarchical world. And [135:23] I just think that [135:26] we should have that fight and win. [135:30] >> [laughter] [135:31] >> We have a closing tradition where the [135:32] last guest leaves a question for the [135:33] next not knowing who they're leaving it [135:34] for and I think it's quite a relevant [135:35] question. Um I'll ask you first, Dan. [135:37] The question is, in a world with so many [135:39] challenges, what can we do to restore [135:42] hope and trigger engagement? [135:45] >> [snorts] [135:46] [laughter] [135:47] >> Uh [135:48] getting back to what we were talking [135:50] about [135:52] we need we need people to know that the [135:54] game the rules of the game have changed [135:56] and that the rules that we grew up with [135:58] where we grew up in a particular [136:00] industrialized late-stage industrialized [136:02] world that had those rules and we now [136:04] live in an early-stage digital [136:06] revolution world. And the thing that [136:08] gives me hope is I know how the rules of [136:10] that world work, right? Someone [136:11] explained it to me. They actually [136:12] explained, this is how you start a [136:14] business, this is how you grow a [136:15] business, this is how you make a [136:16] million, this is how you hire some [136:18] people, this is how you get a great team [136:20] work inside by side. That gave me an [136:23] enormous amount of hope. I have a [136:24] pathway out of where I was born and the [136:27] wealth I was born with and where I am [136:29] now. Someone explained to me the [136:31] pathway. Here's how the rules work and [136:33] here's how you make make success. [136:35] One of the things that makes people feel [136:37] hopeless is that they're stuck in a game [136:39] where no one explains the rules. [136:40] >> So, explaining the rules. [136:42] >> So, I would say we need a schooling [136:44] system. The thing we don't talk about [136:45] enough is that the schooling system has [136:47] to explain to kids the relevant [136:49] information as to how to function in the [136:51] current economy. [136:53] >> I so played that forward in my head and [136:54] I was thinking, okay, you get a million [136:55] kids and you explain all of the rules to [136:56] them. [136:57] At some point, if you just give it a [136:59] year or two, say they all knew the [137:01] rules. [137:01] >> Mhm. [137:02] >> Um [137:02] there's still an edge. [137:04] And some of them would figure out the [137:06] edge. [137:06] >> Totally. [137:07] >> And then you've got this pocket that [137:08] know everyone knows the rules, but then [137:10] others know this particular way to beat [137:13] the system and that could be with, I [137:14] don't know, they learn about AI, they [137:15] learn about whatever, and then you're [137:17] kind of back into the same place. And [137:19] you were one such person who [137:22] got the edge. Someone came to you and [137:23] went, [137:24] you know, they're saying the rules are [137:25] this. That's actually there's a way to [137:27] get an edge. [137:28] >> Yeah. [137:28] >> And you had it within you for whatever [137:29] reason to capitalize on that edge and [137:32] now you're a multi-millionaire. [137:33] >> I almost said that edge. [137:34] >> So, so that there's always going to be [137:35] the rule and then the rules get There's [137:37] >> There's no time to explain. [137:39] >> Every single day after you explain the [137:40] rules to someone, [137:41] >> Yeah. [137:41] >> there's a new set of rules. [137:43] >> consistent is change. And at the moment, [137:45] most people I encounter who have never [137:48] had any explanation going on about how [137:50] the world works now, they are hopeless. [137:52] They feel completely hopeless. As in [137:54] like I see kids who are sending out um [137:58] CVs to Microsoft or to like some major [138:02] company. They don't realize that those [138:04] companies are getting 3,500 [138:06] applications a day. [138:07] >> after you explain the rules to them, the [138:09] rules are 1 day less relevant. And so [138:12] it's true. You'd have to go to school [138:13] every single day. [138:15] >> Well, yeah. You lifelong learning. You [138:16] do have to do lifelong learning. Like [138:17] there is this lifelong Part of the rules [138:19] is lifelong learning. That is actually [138:20] one of the rules, which is the only [138:22] consistent is change. [138:23] >> It sounds like you're saying there that [138:24] if we teach people the rules of [138:26] business, [138:27] then people will have more hope and but [138:29] but I there's so many people that I [138:30] know. Like my my fiance who she doesn't [138:33] she cares about something else much more [138:35] than she cares about business. She cares [138:36] about like [138:37] >> She just started out She set up Bali [138:38] Breathwork and she was able [138:39] [clears throat] to [138:40] Right? She was able to create Bali [138:42] Breathwork [138:43] because Well, I said it, not you, right? [138:46] She was able to figure out how to turn [138:49] her passion into something that is [138:52] commercially sustainable. [138:53] >> But I'm just using her as an example cuz [138:55] we are fundamentally She maybe she got [138:58] it in part because she has a dad who's [139:01] an entrepreneur. She has a fiance who [139:03] supports [139:04] Um she has the support network. Like she [139:06] supports me, I support her. [139:07] >> how to enroll people into her success. [139:09] All of that is called pitching, [139:11] publishing content, creating a product [139:13] offering. [clears throat] I only know [139:14] one thing that I've seen work again and [139:16] again and again and again, which is I [139:18] teach people the people who learn the [139:20] entrepreneurial method suddenly feel [139:21] agency and hope. [139:22] >> I I agree and I I agree [139:24] and this is it's not for everyone. It's [139:26] for people like that had whatever mean [139:28] you had in terms of like the upbringing, [139:29] the luck, the whatever, the fortune, the [139:31] >> not saying everyone's going to be an [139:32] entrepreneur. My answer to that question [139:35] >> is entrepreneurship [139:36] >> is the entrepreneurial tool set gives [139:38] people a lot of hope. [139:39] >> I get that and that one of the things [139:41] that we have to acknowledge is that's a [139:42] certain type of person who has a certain [139:44] type of goals. There are some people who [139:47] actually just want to go outside and [139:50] they don't they want to work maybe they [139:51] want to work one day a week or two days [139:52] a week. [139:53] >> Sure. I don't want to do push-ups and I [139:55] don't want to do sit-ups. So, want to go [139:56] to the gym. But, if you ask a fitness [139:58] professional, "How do you improve your [139:59] body? How do you feel good?" Right? The [140:01] fitness professional says, "Hey, these [140:03] are all the things that I've seen [140:04] working for a lot of people about going [140:06] out and getting fit." And you might not [140:07] want to do them initially, but actually, [140:09] the people who do these things [140:11] hope [140:11] >> And the people that do these things [140:13] might have an inherent privilege, right? [140:15] >> Like the monopoly analogy. The world's [140:16] not fair. Like the world's not fair. [140:18] Some people are born on third base. I [140:19] need to know your answer to the same [140:20] question. [140:20] >> I think we we need to have vital [140:23] democracies that manage economies in [140:26] ways that are optimized around human [140:29] flourishing and not capital efficiency, [140:32] not capital accumu- accumulation. That [140:35] we live in a world [140:37] you completely grew up in a world where [140:40] the highest good was capital efficiency. [140:43] The capital efficiency and godliness [140:44] were the same. [140:45] >> Mhm. [140:46] >> And we have organized society in this [140:47] way. We In the United States, it we have [140:50] literally have a norm and a set of [140:53] regulations around maximizing [140:54] shareholder value for corporations, [140:56] right? This was invented out of whole [140:58] cloth in the 1970s. This whole idea that [141:02] the purpose of the corporation should be [141:04] merely to enrich shareholders. And the [141:06] evil of that idea isn't it What they [141:09] weren't saying was, "Screw the poor." [141:12] What they said was, "If you maximize [141:15] value for shareholders, it will be good [141:17] for everybody." And that was the lie cuz [141:19] it wasn't good for everybody. It was [141:21] good for a tiny minority of people. And [141:23] the lie was that when you do that, [141:27] growth rates will go up, GDP will go up, [141:30] we'll have a rising tide. And the tide [141:32] didn't rise. [141:34] It fell. And what modern economics says [141:38] is that we can have a different [141:39] construct, we can have a different [141:40] society that purposefully includes [141:43] people in a robust way, whether they're [141:45] a worker, whether they're a small [141:47] business. And if we do that, [141:50] everyone will benefit. The economy will [141:53] grow faster, people will be paid better, [141:55] prices will be lower, we will have more [141:57] innovation. [141:59] This is within our grasp. We just have [142:01] to decide to do it. [142:03] >> You should go into politics. [142:04] >> I am in politics. Well, I I hear that. [142:07] One thing I don't like is waiting for [142:09] the world to change. And I like I like [142:11] personal agency and [142:13] at Nick's level that he's playing at, I [142:15] love the fact that he's in politics and [142:17] he's he's using his wealth and his power [142:18] and his influence to change the system. [142:21] For most people, waiting for the world [142:22] to change does not feel empowering. And [142:25] and I guess what where I'm coming from [142:27] is [142:28] like yes, tilt towards this because [142:31] that's the political movement that's [142:32] required to make sure the world includes [142:35] more people in capitalism and I love [142:37] that. Um and while that's happening, [142:40] take personal accountability, personal [142:41] agency, figure out what is your next [142:44] move, watch all the episodes of Diary of [142:46] a CEO, learn from people and you know, [142:48] and [142:49] >> Jump on. [142:50] >> And [142:50] >> [laughter] [142:50] >> and figure out yeah, subscribe, right? I [142:54] said do me a favor, subscribe to the [142:55] channel. But if if that if that is done, [142:58] like people people who do that end up [143:01] feeling hopeful because hope comes from [143:03] having personal agency and personal [143:05] agency is knowing your next move that's [143:07] going to benefit you and move you [143:09] forward. [143:09] >> I agree I agree and I real I I do you [143:12] know the older I've gotten, the more I [143:13] realize my own privilege. [143:15] And my privilege isn't necessarily that [143:17] I built a business and that I have money [143:20] now and all those things. My privilege [143:21] is something happened when I was young. [143:25] From the point of maybe even where my [143:26] parents got together. [143:27] >> guilty about it? [143:28] >> I don't feel guilty about it, but it [143:29] just has allowed me to see my own bias [143:33] and to realize that I have this unknown [143:35] unknown. Unfortunately, that's growing [143:37] by the day because I'm getting more [143:38] entrenched in my own privilege. And what [143:40] I mean by this is like I play out the [143:41] scenario of theoretically, my dad left [143:45] my mom and my mom um [143:47] still struggles to read and write, and [143:50] she would have had like four kids, can't [143:52] read or write, can't really get [143:54] employment. She worked at St. St. Luke's [143:55] Hospice Hospice as a volunteer. And I [143:57] go, "God, if that one thing had [143:59] happened, how different would my of life [144:01] have been?" [144:02] And And so that's like a privilege that [144:04] I I've never even acknowledged because [144:07] it's kind of inherent. It was like built [144:08] into my life. And then would I be sat [144:10] here now? Would I be [144:12] be the person I am today if that one [144:14] little thing had happened? No. Would I [144:16] be ambitious and optimistic about the [144:18] world? Or would I be theoretically Could [144:19] I be resentful? Could I be like some of [144:22] my other friends who came from the same [144:23] city where I came from who didn't have a [144:25] father, who I've I've said to some of my [144:28] friends I said to one one of my [144:29] particular friends back home, "If you [144:31] would just get a job for a couple of [144:32] months, I will pay your rent for years." [144:35] Didn't happen. Can't get a job at a [144:37] Subway for for 3 months so that I would [144:39] pay his rent for years. I ended up [144:41] helping him anyway, but I just I [144:43] remember saying that to him. It just [144:44] highlighted to me that there's a real [144:47] deep inherent privilege that I have that [144:49] I'm like not even aware that I have. It [144:51] Sometimes it's trauma, my DNA. My [144:53] brothers are all very smart, naturally. [144:55] Um and what if I didn't? [144:57] What if like I didn't have those two [144:59] parents? And what if I didn't have the [145:00] whatever genetic composition I had? Like [145:02] then would the advice apply that [145:06] then would the advice I give to the [145:07] world would it apply? So I I I I mull [145:10] that and go, "It's got to pass that lens [145:12] for it to be broadly applicable and [145:14] therefore [145:15] I think effective advice." [145:17] >> I I love your level of compassion and [145:19] empathy for people and the fact that [145:20] you're having that self ex [145:22] exploration means you're an incredible [145:24] type of person. [145:26] With each individual, each person wants [145:28] to do the most with what they've got. [145:30] I'm saying that if I was to visit a [145:32] small town that had a thriving 10, 15, [145:35] 20 businesses in there, there were [145:37] enough entrepreneurs to create [145:39] optionality for people, that would be a [145:40] good town to go to, right? And if I go [145:42] to a town where there are no [145:44] entrepreneurs and there are like [145:45] everyone feels downtrodden and there's [145:46] one big Costco and that's the only [145:48] employer in town, that's going to be a [145:50] town. So, all I'm saying is you [145:52] need a critical mass of people who have [145:55] agency and that lifts up the like having [145:59] a few Do you know, in in Japan they call [146:02] it the Shogun family, right? And the [146:04] Shogun family lifts up the that little [146:05] community and that around that Shogun [146:08] family you end up with lots of other [146:10] businesses and lots of other like it it [146:11] it flows out. But when you have one [146:13] monolith in the world that is the only [146:16] company in town and it is the only place [146:18] that ships stuff to your door and it's [146:21] the there's only one place to get your [146:22] CDs and there's only one place to get [146:24] your Netflix, then pretty much everyone [146:26] else is just reduced to being a [146:27] consumer. [146:28] >> What do you think, Nick? [146:29] >> I I again, I've said it before. I I I [146:31] I agree with this sentiment 100%. I am [146:35] an entrepreneur myself, but I expect [146:38] that operating an empowerment applies to [146:41] it will no doubt apply to a high [146:43] percentage of the people who watch your [146:45] show. [146:46] Right? Lots and lots of people who watch [146:47] this show are entrepreneurial, want to [146:50] be entrepreneurial, so on and so forth, [146:52] but I suspect you're talking about less [146:54] than 5% of people on planet Earth that [146:57] fit that paradigm and I want to create a [146:59] paradigm that works for everybody. [147:01] >> And you're saying if you hit those 5% [147:03] >> Well, even in the UK it's 6 million [147:05] self-employed people out of 30 million [147:07] workers. It's not It's not tiny. It's a [147:09] pretty decent percent. Right? It it it [147:12] is a major opportunity that more people [147:14] than ever could take part in. If you ask [147:16] the health professional, how do you get [147:18] hope? Go to the gym, go for a run, all [147:20] that stuff. You asking an entrepreneur, [147:22] how do you get hope? Through personal [147:24] agency. I'm going to tell you what's [147:25] worked What's worked for me is the [147:27] entrepreneurial method. [147:29] >> That To me we need to ask a broad group [147:30] of people. [147:31] >> Yeah. [147:31] >> But I suspect that what they will come [147:33] back to you with is the quiet miracle of [147:36] a normal life. [147:37] >> If you want that, that's great. I want [147:39] that and I want that for everyone. [147:41] That's gone away. It's gone. [147:43] Houses are unaffordable. Sorry. Local [147:46] jobs don't exist. No one's paying [147:48] healthy wages. Like all of that stuff [147:50] that I want as well, it's great to sit [147:53] there and want it, right? But that [147:54] doesn't give me hope. That gives me [147:56] disappointment that it used to exist. [147:58] Right? My the family home that most [148:01] people would love to raise a family in, [148:03] it's 1.2 million pounds now. [148:05] >> Right. [148:05] >> Right? [148:06] >> And if you want to fix that, you have to [148:07] enact [148:08] >> This. [148:08] >> Yeah. [148:09] >> You have to do these things. [148:11] >> people most [148:11] >> What is that? People are going to wonder [148:12] what's in that piece of paper. Cuz [148:13] >> So, this is, you know, I mean the the [148:17] main body of my work is coming up with a [148:20] different economic paradigm, a way of [148:22] understanding economic cause and effect [148:24] that leads to the world that Dan [148:27] prefers, that I prefer. I think I don't [148:29] know, but I sense it's the world that [148:32] you prefer. And what you have to do is [148:34] you have to rip down the existing [148:36] economic framework and replace it with a [148:38] 21st century thing that inclines policy [148:42] makers to make good decisions not bad [148:44] ones. And the booklet itself that that [148:46] can you show the booklet? [148:47] >> Yeah. [148:48] >> So, this booklet is 21st century [148:51] economics. Now, this is [148:53] aimed at policy makers and [148:55] professionals. [148:56] >> Yeah. [148:57] >> But but if you go to [148:59] uh markets built for humans.org, you can [149:02] download this for free and that is [149:05] merely an expression of the paradigm [149:07] itself. Going from believing that uh we [149:11] should just increase uh capital [149:13] efficiency to human flourishing, going [149:15] from understanding human beings as homo [149:17] economicus to homo sapiens, going from [149:20] understanding the economy as a Pareto [149:22] optimal equilibrium to a complex to an [149:24] ecology, all the stuff. But when you [149:27] understand it in a new way, you come to [149:29] very different conclusions about how you [149:31] should organize the world, and that is [149:33] the starting point for global [149:35] transformation. [149:37] >> I love it. He's already a billionaire. [149:39] He's got time on his hands, and he's got [149:40] money to fly around the world doing it. [149:42] Do it. And while he's doing it, [149:44] >> all I need is for people like you to [149:45] help me explain it. [149:47] >> Yeah. And and like I I love it. I'm not [149:49] against it. I'm just saying what will [149:50] give most people hope is taking agency [149:53] over their life where they can do [149:54] something this week to improve their [149:55] life. [149:56] >> So, next time I see you, there will be a [149:57] test. [149:58] >> download download [laughter] it. Give it [150:00] to your lawmakers. [150:02] >> Well, so what I'll do then? I mean, [150:03] we've got different reading materials [150:04] people that are listening can can pursue [150:06] here. And we've got Dan's books here, [150:08] which I'll link below. Dan, is there a [150:09] particular best book to start with in [150:11] your opinion? [150:11] >> The most recent one is called The [150:13] Lifestyle Business Playbook, and it's [150:15] basically how to get started with a [150:16] small business. And a business that will [150:18] give you more fun, freedom, and [150:19] flexibility. And I like the idea of [150:21] supporting anyone who's trying to create [150:22] a better economy. Some of the most [150:24] miserable people I know are [150:26] waiting for the system to change, and I [150:28] don't want you to be that person. I want [150:29] you to be doing something in your own [150:30] life. [150:32] >> And then over here, I mean, [150:33] I'm going to link all of your books [150:34] below as well, but [150:35] >> Yeah, I mean, I I just think that um a [150:37] starting point for global transformation [150:40] is under Look, economics is the [150:42] operating system of the world. [150:44] If it's the wrong operating system, you [150:47] end up with a very bad circumstance. [150:49] It it and in economics is invisible to [150:52] most people. They don't even understand [150:54] it's the it's the water they're swimming [150:56] in. They don't understand that policy [150:58] makers are making decisions that affect [151:01] their lives based on a particular [151:03] understanding of how the economy works. [151:05] And if that's wrong, then you're going [151:08] to make some terrible decisions. If you [151:10] believe that prosperity trickles down [151:12] from the top, you're going to enact a [151:14] certain set of policies. If you believe [151:17] that growth is built from the middle [151:19] out, you will make an entirely different [151:21] set of [151:22] policies. If you believe that the middle [151:25] class is a consequence of economic [151:27] growth, you will go one way. If you [151:29] believe that the thriving middle class [151:31] is the cause of growth, you will do a [151:33] completely different set of things in [151:35] terms of policy. All of them aligned [151:37] with what Dan wants. But but [151:41] that's where you have to start. That's [151:43] That's the meta Those are the meta [151:45] questions that you have to answer. And [151:46] then you And then you deduce logically [151:50] to all of the things that Dan prefers. [151:53] But you have to start up here. You have [151:55] to start with the set of ideas that [151:57] govern how people see economic cause and [151:59] effect. And that is what this is. [152:04] >> I should link it below. Thank you so [152:06] much. We're done. [152:06] >> Thank you. [152:07] >> You are fantastic. [152:08] >> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm [152:10] where they know exactly what video you [152:12] would like to watch next based on AI and [152:14] all of your viewing behavior. And the [152:16] algorithm says that this video is the [152:19] perfect video for you. It's different [152:21] for everybody looking right now. Check [152:23] this video out. I bet you you might love [152:25] it.