Speaker 1: Ryan Ran, Daniel Moran, thanks so much for joining me today. UM.
Speaker 1: This is a very long overdue UM interview. I'm excited
Speaker 1: for this conversation. I've been a big fan of yours
Speaker 1: for a long time and I've been watching my stuff,
Speaker 1: so I love it when it comes together like that.
Speaker 1: A couple of things that I want to talk about
Speaker 1: just for the audience. Uh one. Uh. You have been
Speaker 1: on a mission helping people create businesses and create like
Speaker 1: financial freedom for themselves, branding and stuff like that, and
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about that because I
Speaker 1: see this massive opportunity of the market that I want
Speaker 1: to kind of move into and I want to talk
Speaker 1: about that. And then I know you want to talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, some of the bigger things in the world,
Speaker 1: that comic form and the direction that the world is
Speaker 1: going and things like that. Yeah, of course we're gonna
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about that. So so let's start there.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I want to start there is because, um,
Speaker 1: I think when it comes to business and branding and
Speaker 1: you know, how do I take care of my own
Speaker 1: personal finances, I have to navigate the bigger piece of
Speaker 1: what's going on in the world and the reason why
Speaker 1: I say that is my story was I started buying
Speaker 1: bank on repos in the from the banks, fixing and
Speaker 1: flipping homes made a bunch of money. I started a
Speaker 1: couple of different businesses. Um, he's selling e commerce. Uh
Speaker 1: In In two thousand one, doing e commerce was not easy. Um.
Speaker 1: I started a medical equipment business, fortunate Exits. UM. But
Speaker 1: I sold everything and I was all in on real
Speaker 1: estate in southern California. And in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: when the great financial crash happened, it didn't work out
Speaker 1: very well for me. Uh, let's just say it actually
Speaker 1: hurt worked out very bad. And and the reason why
Speaker 1: I want to start that story is because there was
Speaker 1: external forces like this global financial system that I wasn't
Speaker 1: paying attention to that affected what I was doing in
Speaker 1: my micro view of my businesses. And so UM, I
Speaker 1: now trying to learn from my mistakes. I try to
Speaker 1: keep a picture on the whole geopolitical picture, so then
Speaker 1: I can navigate within that perfect sense it made, that
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense, I think. I think that's the healthy balance,
Speaker 1: that is the appropriate balance to strike. Whereas a lot
Speaker 1: of our peers are absolutely obsessed with the macro story
Speaker 1: and I happened to think that they're very, very long.
Speaker 1: There's a very pessimistic view of the macro story, and
Speaker 1: I think it's the wrong view. Whereas, if you're going
Speaker 1: to be an entrepreneur, if you're going to be a
Speaker 1: successful business owner, you have to keep the optimistic view
Speaker 1: you have. The macro story is always optimistic. There's more
Speaker 1: abundance today than there was twenty years ago, and that
Speaker 1: is that is there's an alignment with the entire story
Speaker 1: of capitalism. Ever since the seventeen hundreds, when capitalism took
Speaker 1: over in what are now First world countries, we have
Speaker 1: a consistent trend of growth, of solving problems, of more abundance,
Speaker 1: and that hasn't changed. And so where I see a
Speaker 1: lot of our peers getting it wrong is that they
Speaker 1: have a very pessimistic view on the overall climate and
Speaker 1: the overall opportunity, Whereas I think we have more opportunity
Speaker 1: than ever. Okay, so there's there's a lot to unpack there,
Speaker 1: and a lot of this is gonna be speculation, But
Speaker 1: here's here's where I would I would go. So, first
Speaker 1: of all, yeah, you cannot be an entrepreneur without being optimistic, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and I know you work with a lot of would
Speaker 1: be aspiring entrepreneurs and I have the family. I talked
Speaker 1: to you about ideas, and a lot of times they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but this bad thing is gonna happen, and this bad
Speaker 1: thing is gonna happen, right, And I'm like, yeah, all
Speaker 1: that will happen, and I don't care, right, And so
Speaker 1: if you're not optimistic, you just you can't start a business.
Speaker 1: So right up to Bab, I would also say, just
Speaker 1: to kind of set some frame on this is that
Speaker 1: I have said many times and I still believe. I
Speaker 1: am super bullish on what happens when millions of entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: backs are against the wall. No joke, no joke. And
Speaker 1: first of all, and second of all, the only back
Speaker 1: you need to have against the walls you're oup because
Speaker 1: because it's a there's so much abundant, so much that
Speaker 1: is available to entrepreneurs that if you manage your focus
Speaker 1: and your mindset and your habits, you can't not win.
Speaker 1: But you're absolutely right that the world changes reeled aren't
Speaker 1: fast when you've got millions of them against the wall. Yeah. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's where I would disagree just a little bit. Back
Speaker 1: to my original story, Like I was focused on myself.
Speaker 1: I ran my business is really well. I was really
Speaker 1: good at making money. But there were external forces that
Speaker 1: that that affected me that I didn't see. So that's
Speaker 1: kind of where I didn't that put your back against
Speaker 1: the wall. Didn't that set back make you put your
Speaker 1: back against the wall? And the Yeah, I had to
Speaker 1: die or survive, right, And you want you want big man? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I and I and I and I did well.
Speaker 1: I did well. You know, I knew how to make money.
Speaker 1: I just had to figure out this new this new environment.
Speaker 1: But let's let's talk about So let's start with this
Speaker 1: big picture. So a couple of things. Um One, you know,
Speaker 1: if we go back to sevent hundreds and and all
Speaker 1: the way forward, and you know, just looking at modern
Speaker 1: history called the last seventy eight years, you know, obviously
Speaker 1: there's been financial crashes all the time, the dot com
Speaker 1: boom and the two eight boom and all these things.
Speaker 1: But I would say that typically I would frame that
Speaker 1: up as saying that, um, yeah, the crash has happened,
Speaker 1: but the leaders, the powers that be whoever, um have
Speaker 1: typically wanted things to get better. So things crashed. But hey,
Speaker 1: let's fix it. Uh, let's make things better and let's
Speaker 1: keep progressing. And what I'm mostly concerned with in terms
Speaker 1: of the world, like I'm mac FORIM and and global
Speaker 1: ISB and so forth, is I believe we're at a
Speaker 1: point now in time where the global leaders actually don't
Speaker 1: want things to improve, they actually want them to get worse.
Speaker 1: And so let me let me give you a couple
Speaker 1: of points on that. So, for example, the energy crisis
Speaker 1: that we're in globally right, so, um, they do not
Speaker 1: want to manage for human flourishment. They're trying to actually
Speaker 1: destroy human flourishment. They believe that any impact of the world. Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's not I mean, this is all written down.
Speaker 1: It's not speculation at all. We can go we can
Speaker 1: on the end of a second, I would challenge that,
Speaker 1: but we can go into that deeper. So so we
Speaker 1: can go into that. So um, it's it's it's all,
Speaker 1: it's all written down. And so like them trying to
Speaker 1: shut down farms in uh in uh Holland, or like
Speaker 1: what they did in Sri Lanka, or what they've done
Speaker 1: in Europe right by shutting down their own energy sources,
Speaker 1: and now depending on Russia, all these situations that that
Speaker 1: these are man made situations and so and then and
Speaker 1: then we can talk about you know, the financial system
Speaker 1: and so um. Like at a time when like the
Speaker 1: buses like heading for a cliff and we can see
Speaker 1: that there's a master and we would hope the leaders
Speaker 1: would maybe hit the brakes or turn the wheel. They're not.
Speaker 1: And so that's the one thing that I try to
Speaker 1: keep in mind. I find a flaw in your logic.
Speaker 1: May I explain? Yeah? Please? I mean that's what we're
Speaker 1: here for. So so the way that that I heard
Speaker 1: you describe that is you told the story and then
Speaker 1: you listed the evidence for that. And when you have
Speaker 1: a story of where you think the world is going
Speaker 1: or what the agenda is for a group of people,
Speaker 1: you can usually twist facts in order to find that
Speaker 1: they meet the story. If you loved Trump, you were
Speaker 1: able to forgive a whole lot of things that conservatives
Speaker 1: would usually overlook. If you correct, yes, and you can
Speaker 1: change the story. If you hated Trump, you can twist
Speaker 1: any of his words to sound racist. Put it on
Speaker 1: a headline listed on CNN dot com, and it goes
Speaker 1: vicrel So we can all find a way to match
Speaker 1: the beliefs that we already have. And I don't have
Speaker 1: the same story as you, so I interpret information a
Speaker 1: little bit differently. I don't have the story that the
Speaker 1: powers that be want to destroy opportunity. But I we
Speaker 1: both lived through two thousand seven and two thousand eight.
Speaker 1: Some of us were old enough to live through the
Speaker 1: crash in the early two thousand's, and at that time
Speaker 1: there was also a similar story. There's a similar story
Speaker 1: that this time the powers that be want there to
Speaker 1: be a crisis. And you had stories about nine eleven.
Speaker 1: You had stories about the Great Recession and how this
Speaker 1: benefited a small group of people that had a financial
Speaker 1: incentive for this to happen. If you believed that overall story,
Speaker 1: that there was a desire for things to go haywire,
Speaker 1: then you could find confirmation bias in order to support
Speaker 1: that theory. You made the mention that you see, in
Speaker 1: the past, we had leaders who wanted things to get better.
Speaker 1: I mostly agree, and I see that today now. So
Speaker 1: I just think that your original thesis of things tending
Speaker 1: to get better applies to today and that this time
Speaker 1: is not different. Does that make sense? Yeah, But let's
Speaker 1: let's put a couple of facts here to to talk
Speaker 1: about instead of the speculation. So for example, um, I've
Speaker 1: used a chart before. I don't have an handy here,
Speaker 1: but kind of like an ORG chart of the world.
Speaker 1: And so you have at the top the b i
Speaker 1: S the Bank of International Settlements, and then you have
Speaker 1: the I m F. And then you kind of have
Speaker 1: the policymakers down below, which would include the World Olcoming Forum.
Speaker 1: And then down below you have the policy enforcers which
Speaker 1: are like the governments. You have the w HR, all
Speaker 1: those things, and then you have the governments and of
Speaker 1: the people right say this ORG chart and so we
Speaker 1: we know this to be true. So we have like
Speaker 1: Mark Karney, arguably the most connected person in the world.
Speaker 1: He worked both at the Bank of England the Bank
Speaker 1: of Canada. He's a special Envoy to the u N
Speaker 1: special advisor to the World Coming Forum, probably arguably the
Speaker 1: most the most connected person there right is the most
Speaker 1: connected and most evil men in the world. Why which
Speaker 1: I have a fund debating those people, but please go on, well, well,
Speaker 1: certainly he is, and we'll talk about that as well. Um,
Speaker 1: now I don't I don't believe in this like kind
Speaker 1: of a conspiracy theory world where there's like one small
Speaker 1: group of people that pull all the strings on the
Speaker 1: way that I look at it is that, Um, I
Speaker 1: look at it like a flock of birds, um. And
Speaker 1: you see these birds fly in this formation. It wasn't
Speaker 1: like Hey Larry, you go over there, and hey John,
Speaker 1: you go over there. It's like they just kind of
Speaker 1: birds of a feather flock together, so to speak. Right,
Speaker 1: And so a lot of these people grew up reading
Speaker 1: the same books, going to the same schools, attending the
Speaker 1: same things. They think alike, and they're all moving independently.
Speaker 1: So I'm not I don't think there's just like five
Speaker 1: people in a room that have controlled the world for
Speaker 1: a hundred years. But anyway back to this point. So
Speaker 1: so like a Mark Harney, super influential. He wrote a
Speaker 1: book called Values, and I believe in reading going directly
Speaker 1: to the source so there's not speculation, and read exactly
Speaker 1: what he said. And uh. In that book he says that, look,
Speaker 1: the world is not going to be better. The world
Speaker 1: won't be better, the world will be worse. Um, in
Speaker 1: the future, you won't be driving, you won't be flying,
Speaker 1: you won't be eating meat. He said that any company,
Speaker 1: any any businesses that don't go along with e st
Speaker 1: mandates will be quote economic road kill, So there will
Speaker 1: be no funding that will go to that, and we're
Speaker 1: going to push that agenda. So that's what he said.
Speaker 1: The world won't be better, it will be worse the world.
Speaker 1: You won't be traveling, you won't be driving, you won't
Speaker 1: be flying. So this is in are from from the
Speaker 1: guy who's arguably one of the most influential people in
Speaker 1: the world, wrote it in his book. That's his plan.
Speaker 1: That's his plan. Now we can go to Klaus Schwab
Speaker 1: who's also let's let's let's let's impact this a little
Speaker 1: bit sure, because when you say that's his plan, what
Speaker 1: do you mean, Well, this is what he's written, This
Speaker 1: is his vision for the world, and this is visions.
Speaker 1: Are these predictions, because that's a very important distinction. Well, Uh,
Speaker 1: as as an entrepreneur, you would know that we create
Speaker 1: our future, right, so we set a goal and we
Speaker 1: work towards becoming that becoming a reality. Now there's is
Speaker 1: not the same as no, it's not it's not a prediction.
Speaker 1: It's a goal and it starts with uh, it started
Speaker 1: it starts with actually was in the seven in the
Speaker 1: in the seventies from the u N, which was what
Speaker 1: was called Sustainable Development Goals SDGs UM that have now
Speaker 1: been transformed in UM now Klaus Schwab has has has
Speaker 1: kind of changed them to the seventeen goals now which
Speaker 1: the SDGs are now E s G. So it's kind
Speaker 1: of changed a little bit. But these are goals that
Speaker 1: have been written in stone from the u N, from
Speaker 1: you know, for the last thirty forty years. So your
Speaker 1: your statement was about was about Mark wasn't market was
Speaker 1: about his goals specifically. So we have a very strong
Speaker 1: distinction that I unfortunately can't speak about this person specifically
Speaker 1: because I'm not familiar with this person. But there is
Speaker 1: a distinction between having a goal of not driving, of
Speaker 1: not flying, of not eating meat, and a prediction of that.
Speaker 1: But I would say that if those are his goals,
Speaker 1: he's failing miserably because E s G has been a
Speaker 1: massive failure. You now have funds that are anti E
Speaker 1: s G. They will not invest in companies that fall along.
Speaker 1: That's our that's our opportunity, and I want to I'm
Speaker 1: gonna definitely talk about that. I believe as entrepreneurs we
Speaker 1: can sway the outcome and that's where I have hope. Um, So,
Speaker 1: what we have to understand any capitalism and markets always
Speaker 1: self correct. So if you do, if you did have
Speaker 1: E s G that you found to be exploitive, then
Speaker 1: now there's funds that are going in that direction. In
Speaker 1: E s V investment. E SG investments have been mostly negative,
Speaker 1: they've been mostly failures, even if there is an agenda
Speaker 1: to push that, they're they're failing, miserable. Yeah, so I
Speaker 1: so I agree with those points that it's failing. I
Speaker 1: believe it will fell because I have hope and I
Speaker 1: believe it's I believe it's capitalism and entrepreneurs that will
Speaker 1: be the ones to change always. So I agree with you.
Speaker 1: But what but what I want to highlight is that
Speaker 1: there is a real force going in this direction. I
Speaker 1: believe because I'm optimistic that we will overcome and push
Speaker 1: back and win. But we still have to understand in
Speaker 1: a debate, you have to understand both sides, and so
Speaker 1: we have do have to understand there are people who
Speaker 1: are very powerful and connected to have an agenda to
Speaker 1: push us in this direction. You meant you mentioned Mark
Speaker 1: and if I'm not familiar with, so I can't I
Speaker 1: can't discuss what he standing but a couple. But part
Speaker 1: of the part of the thing is if you don't
Speaker 1: know who he is, then that's a big blind spot
Speaker 1: because like I said, he's arguably one of the most
Speaker 1: powerful people in the world. I can get I would
Speaker 1: be happy to give you this point, but once again,
Speaker 1: if that is his agenda, he's failing miserably. And second
Speaker 1: of all this oftentimes our peers will lump predictions in
Speaker 1: with goals, and now I since I'm not familiar with them,
Speaker 1: I can't comment on the argument for them being one
Speaker 1: or the other. But well, a lot of times people
Speaker 1: go in the direction of the World Economic Forum or
Speaker 1: the UN agenda. They are talking about things as if
Speaker 1: they are goals and agendas rather than being a prediction.
Speaker 1: For example, the most common when the entire World Economic
Speaker 1: form argument is often founded in this idea of you
Speaker 1: will own nothing and be happy. And this quote is
Speaker 1: attributed to Ka Schwab, but he's never said it, Like
Speaker 1: if you want to google it, if you want to
Speaker 1: find it, it's interesting rabbit hole because it's not there.
Speaker 1: And if it came out of a story by Ida
Speaker 1: whatever her name was, I know where that is. But but,
Speaker 1: but but trying to stick on this topic for a minute.
Speaker 1: So let's let's say, uh, these are goals or these
Speaker 1: are plans and goals, and so we can see them
Speaker 1: playing taking places. So these are aligned with the world
Speaker 1: that comic form wills and these are listed on their website.
Speaker 1: These not conspiratorial and so we can see they're already
Speaker 1: in place. For example, Uh, ICE internal combustion engine cars
Speaker 1: are to be phased out in most parts of the
Speaker 1: world in the next five years and certainly in the
Speaker 1: next eight and so this is a plan that they
Speaker 1: want to phase out ICE vehicles. Now part of that
Speaker 1: plan also includes, um not really having cars anymore. Instead
Speaker 1: of all these manufacturers making individual cars, they make fleets
Speaker 1: of cars. And these fleets of cars are like autonomous
Speaker 1: self driving. And so in the story she talked about
Speaker 1: she kind of highlighted this. But I have a car
Speaker 1: that shows up and it takes me where I want
Speaker 1: to go. Story that Yeah, I mean, she she talks
Speaker 1: about it. But you can see all of this in policy.
Speaker 1: And so this was a fiction piece, right, Martin. I know,
Speaker 1: I know what it is, but you're you're describing it
Speaker 1: as if it is an agenda. It was a fiction piece,
Speaker 1: but there's laws on the books. Every nation has already
Speaker 1: put out a goal of getting rid of ice vehicles
Speaker 1: by certain dates for example, or getting too net zero
Speaker 1: or or whatever it is, or getting rid of fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: So these are dates and these are goals that they
Speaker 1: have said. You are are you making the correlation that
Speaker 1: the governments are in step with a fiction piece written
Speaker 1: by a member of the Danish parliament. Push push that
Speaker 1: to the push push push that that article to the side.
Speaker 1: I don't even care about that. I'm talking about actual
Speaker 1: policies that have been place, and the objective of getting
Speaker 1: rid of fossil fuel use it's a big one. Yeah, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: you see this as a negative for society. So uh well,
Speaker 1: so if the goal is for us not to be
Speaker 1: traveling anymore by car by plane, and we have actual
Speaker 1: policies that have been set, like I said, getting rid
Speaker 1: of automobiles for example, restricting our ability to travel, which
Speaker 1: he said that that's the goal in the book, and
Speaker 1: we already have policies going into place to do that.
Speaker 1: So for example, um, we have now carbon trackings uh uh,
Speaker 1: scores that are being put through with master Card on
Speaker 1: credit cards, they're trying it with banks with CBDCs, and
Speaker 1: of course that's written on the on the book. So
Speaker 1: of of these goals of of these multilational companies like
Speaker 1: the World Coming Forum. So these are their policies and
Speaker 1: their goals to get us to this end result of
Speaker 1: this net it's whose goals to get us to not
Speaker 1: drive and not Cloud Schwab, Mark Karney. Um, Okay, give
Speaker 1: me an example of where Cloud Schwab has said that
Speaker 1: this is their agenda. Because I think you're you have
Speaker 1: confirmation bias here because you started that sentence by saying
Speaker 1: it's that is their goal. It's not. It's not confirmation bias.
Speaker 1: When they have an agenda to get to net zero
Speaker 1: by a certain date, then you have to go, well,
Speaker 1: how do they think that we'll get there? So any
Speaker 1: goal without a plan is just a dream. So a
Speaker 1: goal must have a plan. So then they have a
Speaker 1: plan and they spell it out, right, they spell it out. So, um,
Speaker 1: having to restrict movement, cut down on carbon on airplanes
Speaker 1: and cars is part of those steps that get us
Speaker 1: to that end goal. Now we can talk about if
Speaker 1: we have achieved there. So like Vanguard has abandoned their
Speaker 1: zero goal, right, So like I believe it will fail,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't change the fact that these aren't written
Speaker 1: stated goals that they're working towards. Okay, there's I feel
Speaker 1: like a mosquito at a nudest colony. There's so many
Speaker 1: things to look at and discover and to go in,
Speaker 1: and I don't know quite where to start. So let's
Speaker 1: let's start here. If the goal is to be carbon
Speaker 1: net zero by a certain date, we both agree the
Speaker 1: marketplace will get there faster than governments ever can. You
Speaker 1: don't need to have a removal of travel and a
Speaker 1: removal of vehicles in order to achieve that. The marketplace
Speaker 1: is already doing that at unprecedented speed. No, yes it is. Well,
Speaker 1: so I'm for free markets, so I agree with you. However,
Speaker 1: their goals are unrealistic and unattainable, and the only way
Speaker 1: to achieve those goals is not through technology. We don't
Speaker 1: have the technology for that. The only way to achieve
Speaker 1: those goals is to actually stop doing I don't agree.
Speaker 1: I simply don't agree, and I don't think we we
Speaker 1: We don't need a technology to achieve net zero in
Speaker 1: seven years. We're very quickly getting there. We are very
Speaker 1: quickly advancing that technology. I mean what technology as we
Speaker 1: sit here, nuclear fusion just became Did you change did
Speaker 1: you did you read did you read into that? Though?
Speaker 1: That was a big piece, that was a big PR piece.
Speaker 1: The technology is still far off, but it was many
Speaker 1: decades bring many decades away from that. I don't know
Speaker 1: that it's many decades. I mean, if you look at
Speaker 1: the speed of change, even with electric vehicles, we would
Speaker 1: never have predicted that we were here by now. We
Speaker 1: never would have. Yes, electric vehicles are basically a PR
Speaker 1: stunt as well. They make up a small percentage and
Speaker 1: they're not scalable. We we can't produce batteries. We don't
Speaker 1: have the battery technology to do that. And that's why
Speaker 1: a big part of Elon's vision is solar. And solar
Speaker 1: is also uh not going to work, very very very simple.
Speaker 1: This this this, this is not this is not really debatable.
Speaker 1: So in order to have wind or solar, you have
Speaker 1: to have wind and so wind and sun and so
Speaker 1: what you can easily do And I have a chart.
Speaker 1: I let's see if I can pull it up while
Speaker 1: I'm talking to you. Actually we can. I don't know
Speaker 1: if I can share my screen. Um, and so what
Speaker 1: you do is you go, well, most of the world
Speaker 1: isn't sunny enough to run solar, and most of the
Speaker 1: world doesn't have enough wind to power wind and solar.
Speaker 1: So what you do is you you can map out
Speaker 1: the world. I have a map, I'll pull it up here. Well, well,
Speaker 1: here's here's here's the fly of senior logic. We started
Speaker 1: this conversation by talking about what happens when millions of
Speaker 1: entrepreneurs have their backs against the wall, and we agree
Speaker 1: that capitalism is the fastest way to create change, the
Speaker 1: fast way to create well, we agree with the market
Speaker 1: is the way that you create innovation in order to
Speaker 1: solve the world's problems. The only place where we disagree
Speaker 1: is whether or not there are malevolent leaders who are
Speaker 1: trying to destroy what capitalists have built. And where I
Speaker 1: fall on this is that the entrepreneur who are solving
Speaker 1: these problems are doing them at faster and faster rates,
Speaker 1: and that the rate of change is going to increase
Speaker 1: in our favor in order to be able to solve
Speaker 1: these problems. And I think that most leaders know that,
Speaker 1: and that they can see the trend of energy becoming
Speaker 1: free as the result of technological innovation, that they can
Speaker 1: see exactly how we're going to get there, and we
Speaker 1: don't need government force in order to achieve those aims.
Speaker 1: So tell me this map that you've got a couple
Speaker 1: of things, wind and solar. So what you have to
Speaker 1: do is you have to kind of map out where
Speaker 1: wind and solar would even be practical. So, for example,
Speaker 1: you see the United States up there. The blue in
Speaker 1: the middle is where wind there's enough wind two runs windmills.
Speaker 1: The green is where you haven't produced. This will be
Speaker 1: by Peter's ion. You can see how the bottom rights
Speaker 1: ion geopolitics. Okay, and he's got all the sources listed
Speaker 1: there on the bottom left in R, E, L, d Oe, Arena, E, PA, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And so um, where does wind and solar make sense?
Speaker 1: Wh where you have enough wind and solar So you
Speaker 1: can see their America is blessed, right, America is the
Speaker 1: most God blessed piece of land in the world. And
Speaker 1: so we have plenty of wind in the middle, we
Speaker 1: have plenty of sun in the southwest. That's great. But
Speaker 1: as you can see, the rest of the world isn't
Speaker 1: so lucky. Australia looks really well. Um, the south of
Speaker 1: South America looks okay, but most of South America is
Speaker 1: not good. Um. And then what you have to do
Speaker 1: is you have to take where is wind and solar
Speaker 1: work and then within a thousand miles of a major city,
Speaker 1: because you can't move energy across the world to within
Speaker 1: a thousand miles. So this this kind of shows you
Speaker 1: where wind and solar would work in the world. The
Speaker 1: other problem with wind and solar obviously is um is uh,
Speaker 1: it's not doesn't it's not windy, and it's not it's
Speaker 1: not sunny all the time. And so what we've seen
Speaker 1: just in the last couple of months in Europe is
Speaker 1: they had a very low windier like who would have thought,
Speaker 1: you know, low windier. And so now all the all
Speaker 1: the wind that they've built isn't produced enough energy and
Speaker 1: then you can't store it so in order to store
Speaker 1: enough energy. So for the United States, so with technology today,
Speaker 1: with the technology and so this this goes back to
Speaker 1: so you have you have the website capitalism dot com.
Speaker 1: You're obvious you're obviously a capitalist as am I and
Speaker 1: I believe that I believe that humans have an infinite
Speaker 1: return because there's no limit to our imagination. And because
Speaker 1: there's no limit to our imagination, there's no limit to
Speaker 1: what we can achieve. I believe that, but there are
Speaker 1: limitations within timeframes. So I believe I could go make
Speaker 1: a billion dollars. I probably can't make a billion dollars
Speaker 1: by tomorrow, right, it's just limit. Right, So there's limitations, right,
Speaker 1: So you have part of goal stutting is learning how
Speaker 1: to set realistic goals. And so, um, I could probably
Speaker 1: become a billionaire, but probably not by tomorrow, probably not
Speaker 1: by the end of the week or the end of
Speaker 1: this year, right, it might take me five or ten whatever. Right,
Speaker 1: And so when you hear Biden go on and say, oh,
Speaker 1: we're just magically gonna have net zero in five in
Speaker 1: three years from now, well, we could probably get there. Um,
Speaker 1: there's lots of things we could do right now today
Speaker 1: that would help us get there, like switching to nuclear,
Speaker 1: for example, But to build out nuclear is gonna take
Speaker 1: a decade, right, so we can't get there by then.
Speaker 1: And so when you have and the problem that we have,
Speaker 1: and of course you're a capitalist, one of the biggest
Speaker 1: threats and I don't know if you can debate this one.
Speaker 1: But obviously Klaus Schwab as well as a lot of
Speaker 1: let leaders, and we're seeing the United States. But Klaus
Speaker 1: Schwab is pushing something called stakeholder capitalism or what he
Speaker 1: calls a public private partnership, which of course is the
Speaker 1: opposite of capitalism. And so the problem is when you
Speaker 1: have the opposite of capitalist, when you have centrally since
Speaker 1: centrally commanded economies that try to dictate everything from top down.
Speaker 1: They don't have the information from a market economy, they
Speaker 1: don't have the information of entrepreneurs, and so they just
Speaker 1: We're gonna have unicorns in our backyard that poop skittles.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, no, we're not realistic. I view this
Speaker 1: is the same way that I view the term conscious capitalism,
Speaker 1: which was coined by my friend John Mackie. John Mackie
Speaker 1: is the founder of Whole Foods. He lives here in Austin, Texas.
Speaker 1: He's an acquaintance of mine, have been to his house,
Speaker 1: he's spoken at our events, and I have the same
Speaker 1: view of his philosophy on conscious capitalism. My view is
Speaker 1: that capitalism is naturally conscious, that capitalism is better for
Speaker 1: both parties and all parties that are involved. And so
Speaker 1: we don't need to call it conscious capitalism. I see
Speaker 1: that as Yeah, I don't even know what that means.
Speaker 1: But conscious capitalism is basically the same state coortal capitalism,
Speaker 1: where you look at casting a vision or building a
Speaker 1: business in a way that benefits all parties, and you
Speaker 1: start the business from that view, and that's great, that's wonderful,
Speaker 1: except capitalism is already naturally leaning in that direction, and
Speaker 1: you stake colder capitals in the exact same way. It's better.
Speaker 1: But yeah, but we're talking about the partnership between public
Speaker 1: and private. But what Cloud Swab is is who are
Speaker 1: the stakeholders? And the stakeholders are the two hundred or
Speaker 1: so companies that they've listed, and so really it's, uh,
Speaker 1: it's Marxism or communism just rebranded, is what they're trying
Speaker 1: to push. And so that's in Marxism or communism is
Speaker 1: not compatible with capitalism. It's the opposite, right, And so
Speaker 1: we have that's true, But that is a big jump
Speaker 1: in logic. I mean, you just you just went from
Speaker 1: my interpretation of what Cloud Schwab is doing is Marxism
Speaker 1: with a different name, and Marxism and capitalism are antithetical.
Speaker 1: Therefore claud Schwab is antithetical to capital is Um. Those
Speaker 1: were really big leaps in beliefs, and I just don't
Speaker 1: have the same understanding of it. I think Klashwab is
Speaker 1: very benign and mostly a nothing burger, and that as
Speaker 1: as undangerous as a human as they could be. And
Speaker 1: the reason that matters to me is because I see
Speaker 1: so many of our peers putting their energy into trying
Speaker 1: to defeat this organization, where they could just put their
Speaker 1: energy into building really really great stuff and not have
Speaker 1: to worry about these big nothing burgers in the media.
Speaker 1: So I just don't interpret it the same way that
Speaker 1: you do, and I think you're making leaps in logic
Speaker 1: that are leading a confirmation bias. That's my take, okay, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I uh I Again, I go back and say,
Speaker 1: go read their stuff, and have you read this book?
Speaker 1: Have you read Klashwab's books? You read You've read The
Speaker 1: Great Reset, you read the Fourth Industrial Revolution? And there
Speaker 1: are plenty of things that I disagree with. There are
Speaker 1: plenty of things that I think his analysis in correct on,
Speaker 1: and I certainly don't want him to uh be making
Speaker 1: policy decisions in the United States certainly don't want them.
Speaker 1: And if any government were to adopt some of those things,
Speaker 1: then I would push them. I would push against them.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that the build back Better plan failed. I'm
Speaker 1: glad that E. S. G has funds that are against it.
Speaker 1: That's the that's the role of the marketplace. I just
Speaker 1: don't see it as dangerous because he has no power,
Speaker 1: He even has very little influence. So there's plenty of
Speaker 1: things that I disagree with. But when I don't when
Speaker 1: he bragged that, so when he bragged on that he's
Speaker 1: implemented over to hun governments with his young leaders, that's
Speaker 1: not real. That's all fake. You could say the same
Speaker 1: thing about Harvard. You now, it's important, like if you want,
Speaker 1: you can go in and you can look at what
Speaker 1: they're teaching in the Young Global Leaders Associate. You can't.
Speaker 1: You can't say the same of the Harvard And it
Speaker 1: goes back to what I said, like the birds of
Speaker 1: a feather flock together. So of these people that have
Speaker 1: all been kind of trained together and then they go
Speaker 1: out into the world, and so they're not all being
Speaker 1: held together by one puppet guy, but they are all
Speaker 1: taught the same things like most of our government. Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: Obama came from Colombia and you go back and look
Speaker 1: at what does Columbia teach. Well, it doesn't teach anything good.
Speaker 1: And then no wonder, no wonder. Obama and Hillary have
Speaker 1: these worldviews because that's where they learned. Right, that's exactly right,
Speaker 1: exactly right. And you can say the same thing about
Speaker 1: Austrian economists, right, I come from a very Austrian view
Speaker 1: of economics. You could say, well, all these people come
Speaker 1: from this line of thought, therefore they believe these things.
Speaker 1: You can do the same thing with young global leaders.
Speaker 1: But the differences Austrian economics believes in human action and
Speaker 1: believes in freedom and savings, and like everybody's thought process,
Speaker 1: they believe that they're the right one. Otherwise I have
Speaker 1: them I would disagree on that. And I was actually
Speaker 1: asked this question by somebody, and somebody said, how do
Speaker 1: you know you're on the right side? And that's kind
Speaker 1: of the question that that that you're posing right, How
Speaker 1: do you know you're on the right side? And I
Speaker 1: would say I believe I'm on the right side, because
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to tell anybody else what to do.
Speaker 1: Nor am I trying to artificially create money out of
Speaker 1: thin air and steal through inflation. So I'm not doing
Speaker 1: any of that. I believe the side that's trying to
Speaker 1: tell you what to inject into your body, or what
Speaker 1: you can and can't eat, or what you can and
Speaker 1: can't do for business, and it's trying to steal from
Speaker 1: your wealth, I believe they're in the wrong. So I
Speaker 1: believe in freedom, and so I believe freedom is always
Speaker 1: the right side. So you, you and I agree that
Speaker 1: freedom is the most important value to defend. We absolutely
Speaker 1: believe that. And we also agree that any entity or
Speaker 1: large organization that is a threat to freedom needs to
Speaker 1: be distrusted and needs to be eradicated. Maybe too strong
Speaker 1: of a word, but at least we need to be
Speaker 1: skeptical of anything that comes and encroaches upon anyone's freedom.
Speaker 1: We both agree there. I just don't fear organizations that
Speaker 1: push up against that because freedom and capitalism always win,
Speaker 1: always longer. You can temporarily hold back freedom, but it
Speaker 1: never goes away because all that does is in reese
Speaker 1: the demand for individual freedom. We have a very liberating
Speaker 1: trend because freedom cannot be put back in the bag.
Speaker 1: It can't be put back in. It's shoul have been
Speaker 1: putting a bag for a long time. In North Korea, well,
Speaker 1: they've never had it. If you if you open, they've
Speaker 1: never had it before. Before the Communists took over in
Speaker 1: North Korea, they didn't have it. You have it in
Speaker 1: South Korea and all you have a demand for freedom
Speaker 1: bubbling up there, and eventually that will break through. You
Speaker 1: can try to restrict it in small places, you can
Speaker 1: try and push it back temporarily, but long term it
Speaker 1: always It's like building up a damn water always crashes
Speaker 1: for me. So I so I, I obviously agree. The
Speaker 1: only difference is that I I recognize a threat and
Speaker 1: so I need to actively push back on that. So,
Speaker 1: for example, one of the big threats I framed this
Speaker 1: up in a conversation for everybody listening. You can go
Speaker 1: see the whole conversation with Peter McCormick on a podcast
Speaker 1: called whippogoin did and I and the title is the
Speaker 1: Battle for the Fate of Humanity, which is a pretty
Speaker 1: big title. And part of that, you know, is that
Speaker 1: if you go back thousands of years of history, it's
Speaker 1: a repeating story of freedom oppression and then a revolution happens,
Speaker 1: and then freedom and then oppression and the revolution, and
Speaker 1: it just repeats right on and on and on right.
Speaker 1: And so because their model, their model being central planning, communism,
Speaker 1: whatever you wanna call it, doesn't work. It's always going
Speaker 1: to fail over a long enough period of time. And
Speaker 1: so we we we certainly agree there. But what allows
Speaker 1: these revolutions to happen is somebody has that taste for
Speaker 1: freedom and they push forward, and to your point, with
Speaker 1: North Korea starts bubbling up and eventually there's the revolution
Speaker 1: that happens. The problem is, um, if we could get
Speaker 1: to a world where that wouldn't be allowed to happen again, Now,
Speaker 1: how could that happen? So if you understand, yeah, so
Speaker 1: let me let me just kind of frame this out,
Speaker 1: so um, kind of like the movie The Matrix. But basically,
Speaker 1: if you if you take a look at like China
Speaker 1: for example, which by the way, China is being tested
Speaker 1: right now, there's a lot of pushback, what's going on.
Speaker 1: They just had to come off there zero, They just
Speaker 1: had to come off there zer COVID policy, which was
Speaker 1: pretty interesting. But if we if we could imagine a
Speaker 1: world and we know since Facebook admitted that they use
Speaker 1: AI to manage your news feed. So if they could,
Speaker 1: which we know they have been for quite some time,
Speaker 1: if they can use social media's a way to show
Speaker 1: you what they want. They did test that show you
Speaker 1: they can affect your mood. They can make you happy
Speaker 1: or angry, right, and so if they can show you
Speaker 1: like in China where they have a great firewall and
Speaker 1: they only show you the information they want you to see,
Speaker 1: and through technology they're able to censor all other views
Speaker 1: and and and so forth and shut down all dissent. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: that's part of it. The bigger piece, of course is
Speaker 1: the social credit course system that China has, which you
Speaker 1: know they blocked thirty two million people from buying bus
Speaker 1: tickets because they said bad things about the government online,
Speaker 1: and so they can restrict movement. And then the last
Speaker 1: piece that we haven't seen yet but which is coming
Speaker 1: in is the central bank digital currencies. And the thing
Speaker 1: with es central bank digital currencies is want It gives
Speaker 1: them all the data, which is what need. But more importantly,
Speaker 1: it's programmable money. Right, So now, um, not do we
Speaker 1: just block the bus transaction, but now you can't even
Speaker 1: buy it or now you've exceed your carbons. Course, you
Speaker 1: can't fill up with gas your car with gas. But
Speaker 1: when you take all of these new technologies that we're
Speaker 1: moving into, and we're not quite there yet, but we will,
Speaker 1: with CBDCs which are already rolled out in China, and
Speaker 1: social credit course systems and surveillance online, they could potentially
Speaker 1: prevent that dissenting voice ever from popping up again. I
Speaker 1: mean you you had to piece together a lot of
Speaker 1: different pieces, but these are all pelogy and you and
Speaker 1: you had to create one timeline of them all coming
Speaker 1: together to risk their career. They have a social course system,
Speaker 1: we have CBDCs, they're already into. What I'm saying is
Speaker 1: is you you have to assume a lot of things
Speaker 1: will happen and then for it to be misused, you
Speaker 1: just you just project the natural uh trajectory that we're on,
Speaker 1: like this is within this is these pieces. There's a
Speaker 1: massive unplugged from Facebook where Facebook stock is down eight percent,
Speaker 1: where people are turning it all. I mean the millennial
Speaker 1: and old people on Facebook don't get up on Facebook.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the technology with social gratit Core and CBDCs,
Speaker 1: and so that's here and so they could continue jumped
Speaker 1: to that last and I was just at least in
Speaker 1: the US, the Central bank digital currency has been abandoned
Speaker 1: because of FED now because they were able to accomplish
Speaker 1: the base level of what they wanted to do without it,
Speaker 1: they've abandoned that project. And you have many different blockchain
Speaker 1: projects that could be used privately as a way to
Speaker 1: go against that. So you can tell the same story.
Speaker 1: And like you went with one way that the story
Speaker 1: could go, and there's an infinite number of different ways.
Speaker 1: But I believe, but I believe it's important to understand
Speaker 1: that is the way that could go, and that is
Speaker 1: a threat, and so we should be doing everything we
Speaker 1: can to make sure that doesn't become a reality. But
Speaker 1: that's the that's essentially like saying, let's make up a
Speaker 1: story where it ends up with lepre cons running the world.
Speaker 1: So we should be aware of that and try to
Speaker 1: defend against that. It's one story of an infinite number
Speaker 1: of way of stories. I think it's a much more
Speaker 1: empowering use of our attention to say this opens up
Speaker 1: so many opportunities for us to create. This opens up
Speaker 1: for so much opportunity and resources for us to make
Speaker 1: a billion dollars by tomorrow, which is most it does.
Speaker 1: And I want to I want to talk about this
Speaker 1: massive opportunity because bigger problems create bigger opportunities, and I
Speaker 1: see a massive opportunity both to prevent that from happening
Speaker 1: and for entrepreneurs make a lot of money. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna move to that next. So I we definitely agree
Speaker 1: on a lot more than we disagree on, and watching
Speaker 1: Mark and I are just having fun, right, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: like it is. It is very rare to get to
Speaker 1: capitalists who vehemently disagree on something and walk away respecting
Speaker 1: one another, and don't walk away calling each other socialists
Speaker 1: and saying that they're part of the agenda and part
Speaker 1: of the conspiracy. Because Mark and I both agree that
Speaker 1: capitalists and entrepreneurs are the ones who are creating freedom
Speaker 1: and the most important thing that you can do is
Speaker 1: to be free yourself. And then we can pontificate on
Speaker 1: all the different ways that the world could go, all
Speaker 1: the opportunities that could go. So I just wanted to
Speaker 1: add an then there, because it's so rare for these
Speaker 1: types of conversations, right, for for two people that agree
Speaker 1: on so much to focus on the little pieces where
Speaker 1: we disagree and have a good time doing so. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: and we have to understand that piece because the way
Speaker 1: that I see problems, and this is why individualism is
Speaker 1: so important, is because we see the world differently, and
Speaker 1: so I see different problems than you do, so I
Speaker 1: go create different solutions than you do. And so that's
Speaker 1: why capitalism individualism will have to go hand in hand.
Speaker 1: When you have a situation like China where everybody thinks
Speaker 1: the same. They're basically robots. You have no innovation, right,
Speaker 1: and so you and I see the problems a little
Speaker 1: bit differently, and so we're gonna go create solutions differently.
Speaker 1: But I would say back to this this point that
Speaker 1: we're on just a second ago, Um, you jumped to
Speaker 1: this world where maybe we have lepri cons and that's
Speaker 1: kind of funny, but like we literally have social credit
Speaker 1: score systems and CBDCs going into place right now, we
Speaker 1: have health passports and gateway So just what three or
Speaker 1: four weeks ago, the g twenty, the top twenty countries
Speaker 1: in the world, met and agreed to push through a
Speaker 1: health pathport system to control movement around the world. This
Speaker 1: is not speculation of of lepre cons This is they
Speaker 1: literally had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and
Speaker 1: they want to do this. Now, can it be stopped?
Speaker 1: Will it happen? Of course that's the speculation part. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that the top twenty countries didn't get
Speaker 1: together and just just do that. So we're not just
Speaker 1: speculating this could happen. These are technologies we have in
Speaker 1: place right now, and governments and leaders have said we
Speaker 1: want to install these to happen. So it's it's it's
Speaker 1: a real threat. Will it happen? Not if I can
Speaker 1: do anything about it? Right, Like when when there are
Speaker 1: pushes against freedom, it's our responsibility to push against them. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I just want the one thing I would a mobile
Speaker 1: story as you that there's a unified effort to take
Speaker 1: away our freedom and ours the G twenty that's a
Speaker 1: pretty unified effort. But you know what I'm saying is
Speaker 1: a unified effort to restrict freedom and to prevent any
Speaker 1: revolution from ever fighting. The just agreed to install a
Speaker 1: piece of technology to control everybody's movement. Once again, you
Speaker 1: are using you are looking at a global narrative that
Speaker 1: you have and then finding evidence for it, like we
Speaker 1: could sit here and debate conclude that that is an entire,
Speaker 1: an entire agenda to restrict freedom and prevent revolutions from happening.
Speaker 1: I would just say if if, if you don't look
Speaker 1: at all the signs together, then you don't get the
Speaker 1: context that no, no, no, that's confirmation. Then is confirmation
Speaker 1: by It's not when we're starting with a story and
Speaker 1: then breaking into pieces of evidence that that that is
Speaker 1: non inductive reading reasoning that that is that is you
Speaker 1: are confirmed by you have a suspicion and then gets confirmed.
Speaker 1: And now we're looking at all these other pieces and
Speaker 1: I think I think the argument falls apart when you
Speaker 1: remove the story from it. Yeah, So, like I always
Speaker 1: want to summarize here, I just want to. I want
Speaker 1: to summary because I know we want to need to
Speaker 1: move on. And it's that over overall, you have a
Speaker 1: different overarching story than I do. And I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'm right because you can have you but and
Speaker 1: you you have all of the reasons why I like
Speaker 1: evidence to support your claim. I have mine, And at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, I don't know if I
Speaker 1: am right or wrong. I know how I will know
Speaker 1: if I am wrong. I like I know that if
Speaker 1: I start seeing X, Y, and Z, I will have
Speaker 1: to rethink my worldview. I know that if I start
Speaker 1: seeing my travel restricted and then I can't own a car,
Speaker 1: I will say maybe Mark was right on this podcast.
Speaker 1: By that point, well, I don't agree with that. We're
Speaker 1: trying to predict a few you know, we're trying to
Speaker 1: predict the future, right. I think that there's that there's
Speaker 1: always a chance that freedom always wins. So I would
Speaker 1: need to adjust my strategy because my strategy right now
Speaker 1: is to empower entrepreneurs to create financial freedom. I would
Speaker 1: need to adjust my strategy if I see that we
Speaker 1: can't travel and there's no movement allowed anymore. So so
Speaker 1: I know how I know where if I am wrong.
Speaker 1: What I encourage people to do is they're weighing your
Speaker 1: list of reasons, and my list of reasons is to
Speaker 1: answer the question, how will I know if my worldview
Speaker 1: is wrong? How will I know? Because we all have
Speaker 1: an overarching story. You've got one, I've got one. How
Speaker 1: often do we question that overarching story? Because I don't
Speaker 1: think that we're ever free if we're being run by
Speaker 1: our subconscious stories. So just like I have a family,
Speaker 1: member who believes that there's going to be a rapture
Speaker 1: and uh, and Jesus is going to rescue all of
Speaker 1: the Christians and they're going to disappear, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: have a seven year tribulation. She has that overarching story
Speaker 1: and she looks at every political discussion through that lens.
Speaker 1: I don't have that story. I think that's crazy whack
Speaker 1: of doodle. So I don't have but I will know
Speaker 1: that if all the Christians disappear one day, I was
Speaker 1: wrong and I need to rethink my thesis. So I
Speaker 1: think it's important that we ask the question of how
Speaker 1: will we know if our worldview is wrong? And I
Speaker 1: think only then can we start to test if we
Speaker 1: are right or wrong. So, great summary. Let me give
Speaker 1: a summary as well. Um So, what I would say
Speaker 1: is I agree confirmation bias is a serious problem that
Speaker 1: most people suffer. Everybody suffers from all we're all susceptible
Speaker 1: to it. And so what we all need to do,
Speaker 1: and I preach this all the time, is that what
Speaker 1: we should always be doing is looking for information that
Speaker 1: goes against our bias. We're always trying to find the holes.
Speaker 1: And so, um, I made a video recently, and I said,
Speaker 1: why I don't think there's gonna be another market crash?
Speaker 1: And why I think that the market is gonna keep
Speaker 1: going up? And uh, I said, are you one certain
Speaker 1: a hundred percent certain that the market is gonna crash?
Speaker 1: Of course you're not, are you ninety percent? So maybe
Speaker 1: there's let's explore that right And oh man, I got
Speaker 1: people so piste off. I had all these people telling
Speaker 1: the beautiful they're unsubscribing from my channel, how they're right? Right?
Speaker 1: So I do believe in always looking um for information
Speaker 1: that goes against my confirmation bias. I think the difference
Speaker 1: between my view and your view, as I'm understanding right
Speaker 1: now and like in through your summary in our conversation
Speaker 1: is that, Um, what you're saying is until I see
Speaker 1: those things happening, I don't have that worldview, which which
Speaker 1: is understandable. The problem with that view is that by
Speaker 1: the time you do see it, it's too late. And
Speaker 1: so what I do is, UM, I try to use
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of reasoning, one obviously looking for stuff
Speaker 1: that goes against it. And I'll come back to that.
Speaker 1: But what I try to do is I try to
Speaker 1: use history, so we understand natural chain of events, cause
Speaker 1: and effect right, and so we understand the way history works.
Speaker 1: But we also, like I said, I'd like to go
Speaker 1: directly to the source rather than opinions and speculations. Directly source.
Speaker 1: What did this person who's trying to push these falls?
Speaker 1: What did they say? What are their goals? When the
Speaker 1: G twenty has a meeting and comes out of the
Speaker 1: meeting said our new objective is to pass this and
Speaker 1: put it into place. I take that seriously. Now, will
Speaker 1: it happen? I hope not. If I can do anything
Speaker 1: about it, I won't. But this is their objective. This
Speaker 1: is not speculation. Now it is speculation, and fl will
Speaker 1: ever achieve that goal. But they've told that now to
Speaker 1: the confirmation bias piece, I would then go look for
Speaker 1: um information to go against that bias. So I would go,
Speaker 1: is there any information that would show that that's not
Speaker 1: going to happen? Are there any lawmakers? Are there any
Speaker 1: you know NGOs that are saying that's wrong and we're
Speaker 1: not gonna do it. And the answer is no. So
Speaker 1: there is no other information goes against this. So um,
Speaker 1: it is speculation. We don't know the feut None of
Speaker 1: us do, which is why there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: as as certainties. But but when the G twenty says
Speaker 1: they're going to do this, and they have all adopted
Speaker 1: this and voted on and agreed to it, then I
Speaker 1: have to go, well, that's probably the direction we're going,
Speaker 1: unless something were to derail that. I mean, we could
Speaker 1: go down a really long rabbit hole here because confirmation bias.
Speaker 1: But so you so you gave your summary. Well, but
Speaker 1: but then I need to find other information that goes
Speaker 1: against the bias, and I can't. Okay, you gave your summy,
Speaker 1: I gave mine. Let's talk about opportunit. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the oportunity. Let's talk about because you know, I do
Speaker 1: talk a lot about um bad things that are potentially
Speaker 1: going to happen, um, But at the same time, I'm
Speaker 1: full of hope and uh, and I hope for the future.
Speaker 1: I do want to make just one comment before we
Speaker 1: jump into that, because something that you said over and
Speaker 1: over and I've said over and over, which is I
Speaker 1: believe free of him always wins. I do. I believe that. However, UM,
Speaker 1: something I've been struggling with a lot, and that is
Speaker 1: that not everybody wants freedom and as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: most people don't. And I believe that as as a
Speaker 1: human we have this natural drive and desire, which is
Speaker 1: why capitalism is there. Right. Capitalism is about becoming more
Speaker 1: efficient with my scarce resources. Right, instead of carrying one
Speaker 1: rock at a time, I made a wheelbarrel to carry
Speaker 1: ten rocks, right, um, And so we're always trying to
Speaker 1: do that. And then and then free involuntary trade. I
Speaker 1: killed an animal, you have a fire, Hey, let's share
Speaker 1: the fire and the food. Right, that's capitalism. But but
Speaker 1: not everybody has that. And so what we can see
Speaker 1: this was really highlighted. I don't know if you saw
Speaker 1: doctor Matteis Desmond. He kind of came up with that
Speaker 1: whole um theory on crap on the mass formation psychosis,
Speaker 1: and it was talking about how liket of the people
Speaker 1: are just gonna go along with whatever narrative is. People
Speaker 1: are going to reject whatever the narratives, and then there's
Speaker 1: like the fort in the middle that could way either way.
Speaker 1: And so when it when it comes to freedom, you know,
Speaker 1: most people do they just want to live their life. Man,
Speaker 1: let me just live my life. Let me just be
Speaker 1: with my kids. I don't want to get involved in
Speaker 1: that right kind of a thing. And so, um, you
Speaker 1: talked about the rapture and I don't necessarily believe that,
Speaker 1: but um I do. I do believe in the Bible,
Speaker 1: and in the Bible, whether you believe it or not,
Speaker 1: there's there's this history in there, and one of the
Speaker 1: stories and it's just kind of highlights this is that
Speaker 1: you know, Moses went and free the Israelites from Egypt,
Speaker 1: and they went to the went to the desert, right
Speaker 1: and when they got there, after four years of slavery
Speaker 1: where they were being beaten and killed and whatever, they
Speaker 1: get over there, and then because they didn't know what
Speaker 1: was coming next, they said, at least just let us
Speaker 1: go back to Egypt or we were slaves, because at
Speaker 1: least we knew where our food was coming from. And
Speaker 1: I think that just sets the mindset of a lot
Speaker 1: of people where they would rather trade security for freedom.
Speaker 1: Freedom is messy, it's dangerous, it's scary, and so I
Speaker 1: think it's up to us, the capitalist to really push
Speaker 1: this because the majority of people don't all want that.
Speaker 1: I think we actually all want it. It's a matter
Speaker 1: of who's willing to fight for it. We all desire freedom, right,
Speaker 1: But you're right that we will prioritize safety before we
Speaker 1: prioritize freedom. You and I have you and I have
Speaker 1: the well, our our lizard brain comes first. You and
Speaker 1: I just have the belief that freedom is the best
Speaker 1: way to provide those things. We happen to believe that
Speaker 1: the food system that has been created by capitalism is
Speaker 1: way better than what any dictator could ever create. Like,
Speaker 1: no dictator is ever gonna let me walk to whole Foods.
Speaker 1: They're just not there's not going to create that system,
Speaker 1: whereas capitalism will. And so we just happened. I think
Speaker 1: to think a little bit longer term, and that longer
Speaker 1: term is about the society that we're building and the
Speaker 1: systems through which we accomplish those goals, and capitalism happens
Speaker 1: to be the best way to do that. Okay, So, um,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know, but I recently wrote
Speaker 1: a book it's got a best seller categories, is called
Speaker 1: The uncommon Is Manifesto, and my co author Alex Fetzky, um,
Speaker 1: I had kind of abandoned the word capitalist because it
Speaker 1: just has this negative connotation and people misunderstand it. And
Speaker 1: I've been using like free markets, you know, but he's like, no,
Speaker 1: we need to reclaim that word. We need to stand up,
Speaker 1: we need to defend that word. And so in that
Speaker 1: book we have like a whole glossary of terms, and
Speaker 1: we really make the case for capitalism in that book.
Speaker 1: But anyway, let's let's jump to the hope and the optimism,
Speaker 1: but more importantly the opportunity that I see. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be pivoting into this opportunity for next year. And
Speaker 1: I know you're doing a lot of the same things.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about that. So big problems problems equal opportunities,
Speaker 1: and big problems equal bigger opportunities. And as I said,
Speaker 1: I'm very bullish on what happens when millions of entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: or backs against the wall. I believe that our greatest
Speaker 1: and I don't know if I believe this is I
Speaker 1: believe in the factual what the greatest vote we have
Speaker 1: is with our money. Um, we saw with the mid
Speaker 1: terms like and whatever elections like our vote doesn't really matter,
Speaker 1: but our vote with our money does. So you've mentioned, um,
Speaker 1: you know E s G failing and now anti e
Speaker 1: SG funds being set up. People are voting with their money, right,
Speaker 1: we saw what six states now have divested their funds
Speaker 1: from black Rock, and black rocks like, oh shoot, and
Speaker 1: now Vanguard said, okay, we're abandoning that right, and so
Speaker 1: the vote with the money is really making an impact.
Speaker 1: We agree on that right totally. Okay, so we might
Speaker 1: have the opinions about black Rock, but yes, as voting
Speaker 1: with your dollar is the most important. I love that
Speaker 1: you just said the way we vote politically doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: about how we vote with our money matters very much. Sure.
Speaker 1: That's that's that's the ultimate vote, right, That's the ultimate
Speaker 1: vote is with our money. And so you know, UM,
Speaker 1: without without opinion on black Rock, UM, six states did
Speaker 1: divest their money from black Rock, and we have nineteen
Speaker 1: states that have now filed lawsuits against a handful of
Speaker 1: banks because the s G policies. And so I'm very
Speaker 1: I'm very bullish on that. And that's that's, that's that's
Speaker 1: the proof that we need to keep going. Right. But
Speaker 1: but here's this opportunity that I'm seeing and maybe this
Speaker 1: is too uh, this is too far on my side
Speaker 1: to look at this, but let me just frame this
Speaker 1: up for you. So, UM, we know that UM, our
Speaker 1: vote is our vote, our money is our biggest opportunity
Speaker 1: and our vote at the at the at the ballots
Speaker 1: don't really say much. Um, I think regardless of what
Speaker 1: political al you're on, Um, really, I think it's all
Speaker 1: summarized in the race in Pennsylvania where you had a
Speaker 1: celebrity doctor who's good looking and very articulate and I
Speaker 1: thought was a liberal. He used to be backed by
Speaker 1: Oprah's best friend, Dr Oz. Everybody loves him, super smart,
Speaker 1: he's a doctor. And you have a guy who can't
Speaker 1: even put a sentence together. And I get it, he
Speaker 1: had a stroke and whatever. And I don't want to
Speaker 1: pick fun on that, but if if you had a
Speaker 1: stroke or you're sick or whatever and you can't talk like,
Speaker 1: you can't be a representative and and and they voted
Speaker 1: him in over a very well spoken, well like celebrity doctor,
Speaker 1: And I think that just frames it all up. Either
Speaker 1: they are so ideologically blind or what it was corrupt
Speaker 1: or whatever. But anyway, the vote with our money. So
Speaker 1: here's here's what I'm seeing. So as an opportunity, and
Speaker 1: you help people do this, So I want your opinion
Speaker 1: on him. So, um, you you remember, you know, in
Speaker 1: the last election, Biden and Trump. Um Trump. Obama had
Speaker 1: broken every voting record in the world. He had or
Speaker 1: you know, in the United States, had the most votes.
Speaker 1: Trump came and beat that. He got even more votes
Speaker 1: than Obama did, and then Trump Biden. Trump beat it again,
Speaker 1: he got even more votes. And then somehow Biden also
Speaker 1: beat it. So, however you look at to be fair,
Speaker 1: Hillary got more votes than than Donnie did too, so
Speaker 1: they both broke the record. Okay, So if if you
Speaker 1: want to look at it, it's at least like a
Speaker 1: very close fifty fifty of the country. Um. Some some
Speaker 1: people might think that there's a silent majority because of
Speaker 1: the way that the polling works. If you look at
Speaker 1: a map of the United States, it's mostly read with
Speaker 1: a couple of blue blue areas. Um, So I would
Speaker 1: say at least half of the country is this uh
Speaker 1: kind of conservative base maybe sev who are probably not
Speaker 1: happy with the direction things are going, and they call
Speaker 1: themselves a silent majority, right. Um. I get about five
Speaker 1: thousand comments a week across my social media platforms, and
Speaker 1: I constantly get emails from people like do we do?
Speaker 1: What do we do? I don't know what to do? Right?
Speaker 1: All these things and part of the problem is And
Speaker 1: then you saw that speech. Biden gave that speech with
Speaker 1: the red background with two military people there, and he's like,
Speaker 1: the biggest threat that we have in America is conservatives. Maga, maga,
Speaker 1: Conservatives are the problem, and we need to do this right.
Speaker 1: And uh, he basically demonized at least at least half
Speaker 1: the country, if not more. Right. Um, And so all
Speaker 1: of these people have been demonized. All these people are
Speaker 1: the problem, and all of these people aren't happy with
Speaker 1: the way it's going, but they don't know what to do,
Speaker 1: so that let's frame up one. But then here's where
Speaker 1: I see this opportunity. So um, I believe that not
Speaker 1: only do humans have a drive for freedom, they also
Speaker 1: have a drive they want truth. We need we have
Speaker 1: to live in truth. And so when you see like
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, they got so big and under these
Speaker 1: communist dictator regimes that people have to are they're forced
Speaker 1: to live a lie, and they don't want to live
Speaker 1: a lie. And when somebody breaks through and lives in
Speaker 1: the truth, that people see that and they want that truth.
Speaker 1: And I believe that truth has been sucked out of
Speaker 1: our ecosystem. And so now boys can be girls and uh,
Speaker 1: you can be whatever you want and like all the things.
Speaker 1: And so it's create a lot of problems. And we
Speaker 1: can see that this this this truth has been sucked
Speaker 1: out and it's like it's created this vacuum. So look
Speaker 1: at the rise of Jordan Peterson, Like he came out
Speaker 1: and said, shut up, wipe your face off, pull yourself
Speaker 1: up by your bootstraps, play the hand that you're dealt
Speaker 1: and like he just boom, Like people wanted that they
Speaker 1: needed to hear that. You can see it with Andrew Tate,
Speaker 1: similar message, kind of same thing. Maloney over the in
Speaker 1: in Italy kind of said the same thing. These people
Speaker 1: that are willing to stand up and speak the truth
Speaker 1: are really growing because there's this vacuum that's being created, right,
Speaker 1: and so it's it's it's it's important to comment here
Speaker 1: because you keep saying the truth. We had an interesting
Speaker 1: Twitter exchange this past week about reality being a subjective
Speaker 1: or objective, and I think what you are commenting on
Speaker 1: is people speaking according to their values, having having values
Speaker 1: that go against the narrative, and being willing to speak
Speaker 1: against them because you the truth may or may not
Speaker 1: be knowable by human beings, but doubling down on your
Speaker 1: values and speaking from that that will call that truth.
Speaker 1: That is very rare in society because most people are
Speaker 1: just willing to go along with whatever the macro narrative is.
Speaker 1: What you're commenting on, I think is more a reflection
Speaker 1: of people being bold enough to say what other people
Speaker 1: are not willing to say. That is alignment with many
Speaker 1: people's values. I just wanted to slip that in there,
Speaker 1: because there's I think you and I are would say
Speaker 1: the same thing as values wise, but use different words
Speaker 1: to describe it. So I just wanted to add some
Speaker 1: context there. Yeah, I I don't. I don't believe in
Speaker 1: the subjective reality. I'm more of an objectivist in that
Speaker 1: in that terms, And so how do you know how
Speaker 1: do you know what is objectively true? Well, I think,
Speaker 1: for example, back to this kind of Jordan Peterson example,
Speaker 1: do you is it true that you're going to be
Speaker 1: more successful in life, meaning have better happiness and achieve
Speaker 1: better results and take care of your friends and family.
Speaker 1: If you sit in the corner and wallow about yourself pity,
Speaker 1: or if you take responsibility and take action in your life.
Speaker 1: It depends on the person in his life situation, so
Speaker 1: I definitely will be. I definitely will be fighting for
Speaker 1: my own freedom and my own prosperity. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of people in very affluent families who get lots of
Speaker 1: money from mom and dad for sitting in the corner
Speaker 1: and wallowing about their life. Well, I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: saying who gets the most money, But I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, being able to take control of their life,
Speaker 1: be responsible, feel happy, feel fulfilled, and actually like create
Speaker 1: progress you have. You can only do those things if
Speaker 1: you take responsibility, take action. I'm sitting in a corner.
Speaker 1: You will never do that. So it's like it's like
Speaker 1: you are, you are. You're talking about a value again,
Speaker 1: this is a value that you and actually, okay, that's
Speaker 1: a whole rabbit hole we probably don't need to go
Speaker 1: down because we are so so people live in their values.
Speaker 1: People willing to go against the narrative whatever. Right, So
Speaker 1: the narrative has been so stacked one way that now
Speaker 1: people who will stand up with a different narrative wouldn't
Speaker 1: call it that. But I think again, so I think
Speaker 1: there's this massive opportunity where we have all these people globally,
Speaker 1: right in Italy, in Europe, even in Canada you have
Speaker 1: Pierre Poliv but you know Jordan Peterson, you have Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: you got uh Andrew Tate. You know all these different examples,
Speaker 1: and so, um, you have five thousand comments. We come
Speaker 1: acrostal Spedia. What do I do? All these people need
Speaker 1: to vote with their money? But how how do they
Speaker 1: vote with their money when every company has gone woke?
Speaker 1: And so I look at it, Um, this is my strategy.
Speaker 1: So I'll break it down. I'm calling it a three
Speaker 1: part strategy. It's a top down, bottom up, inside out.
Speaker 1: And so I borrowed it from Marxism, right, I stole
Speaker 1: it from Marxism. So Marxism came into the United States
Speaker 1: through a three part strategy, top down, bottom up, inside out,
Speaker 1: and I think we can fight back doing the same thing.
Speaker 1: And so top down is like politics, which we've already
Speaker 1: kind of agreed that there's not a lot of leverage there,
Speaker 1: but like local politics is still important. My sheriff's important,
Speaker 1: my governor is important, and you know, the further away
Speaker 1: it gets less important. But hey, uh, if i'm if
Speaker 1: I'm breathing, i'm swinging, I might as well be voting. Right,
Speaker 1: then there's the bottom up. And that's like the education piece,
Speaker 1: and so we can we can share education, we can
Speaker 1: wake people up, things like that. But then most importantly,
Speaker 1: it's the inside out. And this is where they really won,
Speaker 1: which is money. That's the businesses. And so we have
Speaker 1: all these businesses that are pushing these woke ideologies, the disneys,
Speaker 1: go woke, go broke, you know Netflix, Netflix pushing their movies,
Speaker 1: or you've got t mobile what we can all day.
Speaker 1: You get the point. But where do people spend their
Speaker 1: money if they don't align with that? And we're seeing
Speaker 1: businesses pop up and and the best example I have
Speaker 1: is Ben Shapiro so with Daily Wire, right and and
Speaker 1: I mean just look at this right, So, uh, Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro started Daily Wire. Now they're doing a couple of things. One,
Speaker 1: they're creating movies that are anti woke movies. So people
Speaker 1: now have another option to spend their money. The best example,
Speaker 1: which you were probably thinking of, is Harry's Razors. I
Speaker 1: mean it is just like, well Harry's Razors. Harry's Razor
Speaker 1: was their sponsor and they were a woke company. And
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro says, he's like really mean things. He's like
Speaker 1: this angry guy and he said that men can't get pregnant,
Speaker 1: and Harry's Razors was all mad and they said, you
Speaker 1: retrack that, or we're gonna pull our sponsor a ship,
Speaker 1: and he said, you know what, actually take your sponsorship.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start Jeremy's Razors. And the whole website is
Speaker 1: we're just an anti woke company basically, and they're crushing it.
Speaker 1: Good question. And we have you know, we have my pillow,
Speaker 1: we got you know, black Rifle coffee. You know, uh,
Speaker 1: we you know, we can we we can look at
Speaker 1: different examples we got uh now there's like my Patriot mobile.
Speaker 1: You talked about this anti E s G fund which
Speaker 1: is Strive Asset Management, and so we're starting to see that, right,
Speaker 1: And UM, I'm curious your perspective. One, do you see
Speaker 1: that as a big problem in a big opportunity that
Speaker 1: if there's this vacuum and then to um do you
Speaker 1: see that? And then too, I looking at Harry's and
Speaker 1: Jeremy's Razors, and I know you're like this big Amazon
Speaker 1: guy branding products and building them out through But Jeremy
Speaker 1: is a friend of mine. I'm going to visit him
Speaker 1: in a few weeks down done in Nashville. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: I completely aligned with where they're going. But it seems
Speaker 1: like this opportunity is so big that like I could
Speaker 1: almost just take any product off Amazon top seller and
Speaker 1: just rebrand it and probably fill a pretty big void boom.
Speaker 1: So this is this, this, this is where you're something.
Speaker 1: You're hitting something really beautiful here. So I wrote a book.
Speaker 1: It's called Twelve Months to one Million. It's basically the
Speaker 1: playbook for building a million dollar business in about twelve months,
Speaker 1: broken down into you know, the step by step formula.
Speaker 1: But the first step in there is choose your who.
Speaker 1: Decide who your customer is going to be, not what
Speaker 1: product you're gonna sell, not what your mission statement is,
Speaker 1: but who it's for. What Jeremy Boring at Jeremy's Razors
Speaker 1: did so beautifully is they already have a very clear who.
Speaker 1: It's based on values. It's based on the underserved. It's
Speaker 1: those who don't feel like they have a voice or
Speaker 1: a place to put their dollars right now. And they said,
Speaker 1: all right, great, we'll start with Razors. We'll go here
Speaker 1: and we will serve the people who match our values.
Speaker 1: What's beautiful about that is we can do this with anything.
Speaker 1: We can do this with coffee. Black refle coffee did
Speaker 1: exactly the same thing. We can do this with toys.
Speaker 1: We could do those, We can fellows, we can, We
Speaker 1: can do it with any commodity because for the first
Speaker 1: time in history, we care about the values behind our
Speaker 1: decisions and where our dollar is going as much as
Speaker 1: we care about the product itself, if not more. I
Speaker 1: was just I had dinner two days ago with somebody
Speaker 1: who has a basically controls an audience of several million people,
Speaker 1: and they have a very Christian audience, like Board again
Speaker 1: conservative Christian audience, and we were basically brainstorming what a
Speaker 1: food brand would look like because a lot of times
Speaker 1: are dollars go to Kraft Hynds, or they go to Starbucks,
Speaker 1: they go to snack companies that we don't agree with.
Speaker 1: But if you had a food brand that what had
Speaker 1: a very clear mission for a clear person, you get
Speaker 1: that audience. And so so my answer to your question,
Speaker 1: like what do we do about this, I say start businesses.
Speaker 1: Start businesses for the people that you want to serve.
Speaker 1: You likely want to serve people just like you. Great,
Speaker 1: that makes for a very fun vision in filled exciting,
Speaker 1: profitable company because all we need to do is pick
Speaker 1: the person that we serve and then carve out, you know,
Speaker 1: the three to five products that that person buys or
Speaker 1: wants to buy and sell them consistently. Because four products
Speaker 1: that sell twenty five sales atday at a thirty dollar
Speaker 1: price point is a million dollar business. We just need
Speaker 1: to fill in those variables, and it starts with choosing who.
Speaker 1: And the beauty of what you're talking about is we
Speaker 1: can choose just about any product. Jeremy just posted how
Speaker 1: he wants to start a whiskey company now because the
Speaker 1: whiskey companies are going woke and it's just a great
Speaker 1: example of that values sell product and so if you
Speaker 1: believe in these things, you can start a business for
Speaker 1: exactly those types of people. People will push against you
Speaker 1: and people will choose to love you, and that I
Speaker 1: think is the opportunity. Now you have woke businesses, you'll
Speaker 1: have anti woke businesses, and people will be able to
Speaker 1: vote with their dollars because we have different options that
Speaker 1: align with our values. I think that is the opportunity
Speaker 1: for a about the next ten years to build a
Speaker 1: multimillion dollar business. Given if you don't have a good idea,
Speaker 1: even if you don't have experience, even you don't have
Speaker 1: a marketing budget, even you don't have VC capital, Like
Speaker 1: I think that is the opportunity for the next decade
Speaker 1: if we can what I literally we could call that
Speaker 1: capitalism agenda, Mark, we can we can just call that
Speaker 1: that's the agenda. That's the opportunity because many people as
Speaker 1: rich as possible before. And what I love about it, Ryan,
Speaker 1: is that not only is it a massive opportunity, so um,
Speaker 1: you know, uh I. I was doing an interview with
Speaker 1: my buddy George Gammon the other day and uh he
Speaker 1: has a very similar channel to my my channel, and
Speaker 1: I was asking him why, you know why all these
Speaker 1: videos are like fear porn, you know? And uhah, whatever, right,
Speaker 1: and it's like the world's gonna blow up, here's what
Speaker 1: you gonna do, right, And it's like these fear porn
Speaker 1: videos work out good. And and somebody messaged me DM
Speaker 1: me on Twitter. I think, um and they said, you
Speaker 1: know that that that that that question has been just
Speaker 1: repeated in my mind over and over and I've just
Speaker 1: been thinking about it. Why do I like fear born
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, and he wrote me this long answer
Speaker 1: and basically summarized and he said, look, I'm a midillennial. Uh,
Speaker 1: the economy has been ruined by these baby boomers real
Speaker 1: estates too expensive socks or two overvalued. I don't have
Speaker 1: a chance. I have nowhere to get in. I'm broke,
Speaker 1: and I guess I just rooting for the world to crash,
Speaker 1: so I have an opportunity to get back in. And
Speaker 1: it was interesting. It was like this really long message
Speaker 1: and I and I was like, you know what, I
Speaker 1: appreciate that long message. I'm gonna write him a long
Speaker 1: message back. And I wrote him a long message. I said, look,
Speaker 1: I get it. I understand your viewpoint. But look man,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of opportunity you can you can make a
Speaker 1: million because he said he said, if I found somebody
Speaker 1: that was behind this, I'd put all my might and
Speaker 1: being into it. And so I said, hey, you said
Speaker 1: you would put all your might and being into it.
Speaker 1: Would you put all your might and being into creating
Speaker 1: a million dollar business in the next twelve months, because
Speaker 1: you totally could. Here's how, And I said, step by
Speaker 1: step by step, like five steps. So what I love
Speaker 1: about is like this is a potential opportunity for all
Speaker 1: these people who feel disenfranchise. There's massive opportunity here. But
Speaker 1: what I like even better is is this group specifically
Speaker 1: these values and maybe these are more of my people
Speaker 1: than your people. But these people that see this these
Speaker 1: problems coming, like hey this this health passport movement system
Speaker 1: could be coming. Hey, this e s G to restrict
Speaker 1: movement could be coming. And I could start a business
Speaker 1: to counter that, and I can allow people to then
Speaker 1: vote with their money to choose and show to people
Speaker 1: which one they want. And so not only is an
Speaker 1: opportunity for me to go make money, but for me
Speaker 1: and and maybe we we only get here once we've
Speaker 1: made enough money. But making enough money isn't isn't it
Speaker 1: isn't isn't my objective anymore? Right, It's like, can I
Speaker 1: make money and affect change the way I want to
Speaker 1: affect change? And so I think that gives people the
Speaker 1: opportunity where they can one make money but also affect
Speaker 1: real change. According to the world view, if you don't
Speaker 1: want to see the world going woke, then do something
Speaker 1: about it. The opportunity and the solution at the same time. Yes,
Speaker 1: And the interesting thing there is that if you stand
Speaker 1: for something, you will end up making much more money
Speaker 1: than if you just have a lifeless, purposeless, visionless business.
Speaker 1: So if if you were to start, if you could
Speaker 1: at least pretend that you didn't have a money problem,
Speaker 1: and you could start the business with the vision and
Speaker 1: the values alignment first, you would become wealthier than if
Speaker 1: you had just started trying to grasp for money in
Speaker 1: the first place. And and these are the types of
Speaker 1: businesses that exit too, because you know when when Dollar
Speaker 1: Shape Club exited to uh To, you know Uni lever A,
Speaker 1: Uni Lever Gilette, when Dollar Shavee Club had its exit.
Speaker 1: If you read, if you read the PR statement about
Speaker 1: why it was acquired, it was about the customer base.
Speaker 1: It was because there was a brand new customer base.
Speaker 1: It was the young It was mostly the young male
Speaker 1: who was who was not buying from Gillette. They were
Speaker 1: buying from Dollar Shape Cub because it was it was
Speaker 1: the commercial was our razors are fn great, But it
Speaker 1: was it was that market rather than are our parents
Speaker 1: Gillette brand? And they knew that they could plug in
Speaker 1: different variables and different products into that same suite of
Speaker 1: customers because they were targeting a person not just selling
Speaker 1: a product. And so when you have build a business
Speaker 1: that's based on values and attracts a specific type of who,
Speaker 1: you not only get launched the profitability faster because you're
Speaker 1: speaking directly to a person, You not only get recurring customers,
Speaker 1: You not only are able to charge a higher price
Speaker 1: point because people are voting with their dollars, but you're
Speaker 1: actually putting yourself in a position to potentially sell a
Speaker 1: business to a larger firm that has a customer base
Speaker 1: that will complement that. And so the upside here of
Speaker 1: creating something that has that values alignment is many, many
Speaker 1: millions of dollars. And I think we're only now seeing
Speaker 1: the beginning of that gold rush. So I'm really glad
Speaker 1: you're making that observation money. And what I what I what?
Speaker 1: Elso I like to let that from a business standpoint
Speaker 1: is kind of to the point is like who are
Speaker 1: you selling to? So typically you know, when you're selling
Speaker 1: a product, I'm selling to you know, expecting mothers or
Speaker 1: middle aged men, and you have to kind of figure
Speaker 1: out that avatar, who is this, where are they? What
Speaker 1: are the concerns in their head? All those things. But
Speaker 1: once you figure out for this audience. Then you could
Speaker 1: just apply that across a whole spectrum of products. Right,
Speaker 1: So that's like a way to really scale this thing up. Now,
Speaker 1: what about what about taking it to another level? And
Speaker 1: so really, when you look at a lot of these
Speaker 1: woke companies, UM, a lot of these wold companies might
Speaker 1: put things on their website like, hey, we donate to
Speaker 1: uh BLM or Antifa or l g B d Q
Speaker 1: or whatever these whatever these things are. We want to
Speaker 1: support you know, teaching trends in elementary schools or whatever. Right,
Speaker 1: so they have the things that they support and they're behind.
Speaker 1: Do you think these uh anti woke companies or whatever
Speaker 1: would also do something similar where they would say, hey,
Speaker 1: well we support UM keeping kids safe in school, or
Speaker 1: we support whatever something like that, some sort of elective
Speaker 1: collective action superPAC type thing. Of course, I mean we're
Speaker 1: already starting to see that. The my kind of my story,
Speaker 1: if you will, on how politics works is when when
Speaker 1: you're in power, you're mostly satisfied, and when you're out
Speaker 1: of power, you tend to mobilize and organize. And so
Speaker 1: while Trump was president, the left did more mobilization and
Speaker 1: so they got behind more causes the conservative side. The
Speaker 1: right is doing that now where we are starting to
Speaker 1: organize around clauses, which is why something like a Jeremy's
Speaker 1: Razors was so perfectly timed because people are voting with
Speaker 1: their dollars promote those values. So we're starting to see
Speaker 1: that happen. Where As these organizations are profiting, you see
Speaker 1: that they're standing for something and customers want to be
Speaker 1: a part of that story. Because they stand for something,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be charities that are started. There's I think
Speaker 1: that maybe a good example of this would be our
Speaker 1: friends at the Operation Underground Railroad. Right. Operation Underground Railroad
Speaker 1: is doing amazing work riscuing kids from trafficking, and you
Speaker 1: have businesses that are making donations to support that. For example,
Speaker 1: I invested in a company called Ancient Strength. They are
Speaker 1: a protein company and they're a health company. They sell
Speaker 1: a delicious protein powder and a significant portion of their
Speaker 1: sales goes right to Operation Underground Railroad. When they do promotions,
Speaker 1: they're doing webinars to draw awareness of rescuing kids from
Speaker 1: trafficking rather than the benefits of eating protein. Right. That
Speaker 1: that is a values alignment that is starting a company
Speaker 1: in a saturated market like who would go into a
Speaker 1: business selling protein, right, It's there's so many competitors. But
Speaker 1: the founder Mark said, I want this to be more
Speaker 1: than just selling protein. I want this to stand for something.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be a cause, like the thing that
Speaker 1: I care about most in the world, rescuing children. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to sell protein and give a peace to
Speaker 1: it to this cause because I have no other way
Speaker 1: for me to make so much money that it might
Speaker 1: make a difference on this thing that matters to me
Speaker 1: so much. So that company Ancient Strength is kind of
Speaker 1: reflecting what you're talking about. Where it is making a
Speaker 1: statement and where they spend their money, and that is
Speaker 1: to causes that people like us tend to support, and
Speaker 1: you're I think you're absolutely going to see more of that.
Speaker 1: We just we haven't had enough time of organizing, while
Speaker 1: the Left has had more time to do that. Um.
Speaker 1: It makes me think of back to stakeholder capitalism, which
Speaker 1: is kind of in direct contrast to Milton Friedman, who
Speaker 1: basically his theory was that business should only focus on profit,
Speaker 1: that's it, and by focusing on profit you get all
Speaker 1: the other benefits of like philanthropy. So when I drive
Speaker 1: by my local high school. I see all these businesses
Speaker 1: advertising at the high school. Why, well, because they're supporting
Speaker 1: the community. Why are the supporting the community, Well, because
Speaker 1: they hope to get more business, right, and so philanthropy
Speaker 1: profit drives philanthropy. Um and and this is a way
Speaker 1: where I think we can change the world. We can
Speaker 1: align with our values, we can make money. It's the
Speaker 1: massive opportunity. So we certainly agree on most things, and
Speaker 1: and and again just to kind of highlight the reason
Speaker 1: why it's important for you and I and everybody else
Speaker 1: to have a little bit of differences of opinion is
Speaker 1: because we just see different problems and then we come
Speaker 1: up with different solutions and we all need to be
Speaker 1: doing it and we and we and we come up
Speaker 1: with different solutions differently. So UM, good stuff, Ryan, I
Speaker 1: think we've gone a long time. Big problem, bigger problem
Speaker 1: for me than you either way, big problems uh and
Speaker 1: and and big solutions. We are aligned where I see
Speaker 1: massive hope and prosperity because I am extremely bullish entrepreneurs,
Speaker 1: extremely bullish on capitalism uh and human ingenuity um and
Speaker 1: the drive for freedom. So with that, and let's let
Speaker 1: me let me honor like I I recognize that you
Speaker 1: know it's it's your show. Your audience is going to
Speaker 1: align with your view on the world much more than mine.
Speaker 1: And I would say, if that's your take, the thing
Speaker 1: you need to do in order to impact change start
Speaker 1: a business and get rich. This like if if you
Speaker 1: be an be an owner, if you believe that there
Speaker 1: is malintent among the leaders, then become a leader. If
Speaker 1: you think that there is malintent among people who own
Speaker 1: businesses and make decisions, start a business, build a really
Speaker 1: profitable one, and have your values infiltrate the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. We give so much energy and attention to
Speaker 1: people that we don't like and the things that they
Speaker 1: stand for, and so little attention to how we can
Speaker 1: spread our own values and do something about it. We
Speaker 1: give so little attention and focus to creating something that
Speaker 1: is response to the things that we don't want to
Speaker 1: see in the world and creating the vision that we
Speaker 1: want to see. Whereas I say, as we if we
Speaker 1: give all of our attention to creating a difference, then
Speaker 1: we won't ever have to worry about governments or big
Speaker 1: powers or organizations, because we'll be so busy creating something
Speaker 1: bigger than what than what they could take that, they
Speaker 1: won't be able to stop us. So I say, if
Speaker 1: you are more in alignment with Mark's view of things,
Speaker 1: the best thing you can do is to create something
Speaker 1: that matches your values, that creates something for those types
Speaker 1: of customers to get fabulously wealthy, doing so in the
Speaker 1: process and infecting change every step of the way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: uh said in a short way is stop being a
Speaker 1: victim and go create the world you want. All right?
Speaker 1: So yeah, great stuff, Ryan, I enjoyed every minute of this.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for debating me, for having me,
Speaker 1: for talking about for for standing for values of capitalism
Speaker 1: and freedom and money and investing. Thank you for what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Thank you for having me on. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you to you as well. Um. If I do
Speaker 1: know that that own nothing to be be happy came from
Speaker 1: the story, but I'd get it. But if you believe
Speaker 1: that that's their goal, to own nothing to be happy,
Speaker 1: then become an owner, own your business, own your assets.
Speaker 1: And this is the way that you do it, and
Speaker 1: uh do it do it through business. Um. All right,
Speaker 1: with that, well hood and sign it off, Ryan, Uh.
Speaker 1: Follow Ryan check it out capitalism dot com on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Ryan Moran M O r a N. We'll link
Speaker 1: through it in the show notes down below, and with
Speaker 1: that we'll sign it off. Thanks Ryan, great to see you,
Speaker 1: Bark