Latest / Think Twice Show / The Philosophy of Ambition

Transcript

The Philosophy of Ambition · Think Twice Show

0:00
Here's a story of two friends. They start a small company
0:04
selling a product everyone loves.
0:06
They care about the people, the planet, and the purpose.
0:10
And it works. The company grows, but growth
0:13
has gravity. Investors call cross rise.
0:17
Pressure builds. Soon, the very thing they built
0:21
to do good was starting to look unfamiliar.
0:24
The mission turns into a brand, the purpose into a product.
0:28
This is the story of Ben and Jerry's a noble mission ruined
0:32
by excessive growth. Society tells us scale, scale,
0:36
scale. Grow, grow, grow.
0:38
We treat size like a virtue, as a figure is always better.
0:42
We're told to dream without limits.
0:44
But what if your ambition corrupts you?
0:47
What if you can no longer look yourself in the mirror?
0:51
In a world obsessed with scale, it's staying small, the only way
0:55
to remain good. Welcome to Think Twice.
1:11
My name is Benz. My name is Santef.
1:13
So the first question is ambition A moral flaw?
1:17
I think it is in our current economic system, if you've got
1:21
personal ambition to excel economically, that is a moral
1:26
flaw to me. If you've got ambition to excel,
1:31
to promote a balanced life, they're not that's that's
1:35
completely fine. If you've got ambition to
1:38
promote a community or communal living, that's completely fine.
1:42
So the way I look to the question, inherently, I don't
1:45
think ambition is a moral flaw. So my answer would be no.
1:47
But broadly speaking, in a sort of general context, then yeah,
1:51
it is. And we're in agreement.
1:53
We are in agreement. I fall back to Epicurus.
1:57
OK, he says that. Anything with no natural limit
2:00
should come with caution. Yeah, that kind of stuck out to
2:03
me. And since ambition, even
2:05
although natural, it doesn't have a natural limit, it should
2:09
always come with caution. But ambition is desirable.
2:13
That's the thing. Like ambition provides
2:16
fulfilment, purpose, It helps build confidence.
2:18
It's like a good thing, but it's a moral flaw because of the
2:24
context of the world that we live in.
2:25
I agree. I agree.
2:26
From an evolutionary perspective, ambition sort of
2:29
helped us survive. It helped you grow as people,
2:32
helped you develop as humans, right?
2:35
But initially it was always on a sort of local scale, on a small
2:41
sort of basis and. There was a natural limit.
2:44
Inside there was a natural limit.
2:45
Yeah, there was competition amongst people, but it was a
2:48
small amount of people. And often in these small
2:52
communities, you either have religion or you have philosophy,
2:56
which is also a limiter. But now, like the Western, the
2:59
modern Western world is very secular.
3:02
So you don't have those things anymore that provide a limit for
3:05
ambition. As a result, ambition can run
3:08
Rev. I I 100% agree. And to to take your what you're
3:12
saying even further, I actually think that as secular as the
3:16
Western world is, I actually think the new religion is money
3:19
for being like, like truly honest.
3:22
Capitalism. Yeah, and it's like before,
3:26
thousands of years ago, people would look at other people and
3:29
judge them by certain metrics, right?
3:32
If you were pious, you would be considered high status person,
3:37
you'd be considered closer to God, right?
3:40
If you're more religious, if you prayed more, if you did more
3:43
moral things or in other religions, it might be conquest.
3:48
So if you look at like the Roman Empire, if you went out and like
3:53
conquered other people, if you went out and like accumulated
3:56
land, right, you are considered a person of, of high esteem and
4:01
you are considered as someone who's closer to the gods because
4:04
of that action. But now our religion is money.
4:07
If you have more money, you're considered a better person.
4:10
You're considered more successful.
4:11
You're considered to have status in the in, in, in your
4:14
community. And people look at you like
4:16
you're a better person. It's not explicit.
4:18
People don't say, oh, he's got money, therefore he's a good
4:21
person. But in a sense that's kind of
4:23
like the new religion. And I think ambition in that
4:26
context is a moral flaw because what we're really talking about
4:30
is the accumulation of money. You're someone who would put
4:32
money 1st and in a, in a world of trade-offs, right?
4:35
In a life of trade-offs, you would trade personal
4:38
relationships, you would trade loyalty, other things that we
4:42
would consider to be part of a balanced moral life.
4:46
You trade off those things, You know what I mean?
4:49
And you know, we all know the story of the guy who's out
4:51
chasing money. He's put his career 1st and, you
4:55
know, his wife's at home, lonely.
4:57
Yeah, literally. Or the woman who's put her
4:59
career 1st and and she's neglecting some other part of
5:02
her life. Ambition has literally become an
5:05
industry. Like yes, it's become an
5:08
identity for people, which is problematic in itself, like with
5:12
self help books and like personal development coaching.
5:14
And what ends up happening is you essentially get bad
5:17
outcomes. You get people like Boris
5:19
Johnson, for example. Like when I was looking for
5:21
people, I was like, what's an example of ambition gone wrong,
5:26
right? Boris Johnson was like the
5:28
clearest example for me because he essentially wrote two
5:33
articles. You know this isn't it.
5:35
Around Brexit, he wrote. Two articles and literally chose
5:39
the one that was more likely to get him into power.
5:42
As in, he chose a leave and a romaine.
5:45
And then stuck with Lee because it was the most beneficial for
5:49
him. Then you look at like the Wall
5:50
Street crash in 2008. That's like another example.
5:54
Even the motto of Silicon Valley is to move fast and break
5:58
things. And when I looked at all of
6:00
this, I was like, these are what's wrong with ambition?
6:03
100%. But they're celebrating these
6:05
things. And so, yeah, it has to be at
6:06
the moral floor in in today's context. 100% a hundred.
6:10
Percent. But in theory, though in theory,
6:12
ambition isn't too bad like in theory, but in practise, because
6:17
of contextually what happens in the world, it is a moral flow.
6:22
I agree. I think you touched on Boris
6:24
Johnson, but there's obviously other like big capitalists whose
6:29
own personal ambition has driven them to do what they've done.
6:32
And what I kind of want to explore with you is how you see
6:37
that ambition as a reaction to some sort of hole in them,
6:42
right? Some sort of lack that they have
6:45
on an emotional or spiritual level.
6:47
And the ambition is being used to fill that hole because like,
6:51
if you look at someone like Elon Musk, it, it doesn't take a
6:54
rocket scientist or a real like a doctorate in, you know.
6:58
Therapy. Behavioural Therapy.
7:00
To understand the guys in crisis, he is lost and like this
7:08
is the richest person on the planet and someone who's
7:11
celebrated by 1,000,000. And clearly he's used his career
7:17
and the accumulation of wealth for some as some sort of
7:22
compensatory like action to to make.
7:24
I don't know what it is, but it's books.
7:27
There's some trauma in him that he's trying to fulfil.
7:29
I probably don't land exactly where you land like I, I'm with
7:33
the idea that it does provide some sort of purpose for people
7:37
and, and I don't think that's inherently wrong or I don't even
7:40
think that's bad. I think it becomes bad when you
7:44
don't know where to stop essentially because it has no
7:49
natural limit, but like to have it to for you to use that
7:56
trauma, as you said, or that whole to, to fuel endeavours in
8:01
your life. I don't think that's a hugely
8:03
bad thing. Really.
8:05
I don't think that's a hugely bad thing you.
8:07
Know does it fix the issue though?
8:09
Surely if you've got a problem like the whole, if you've got
8:11
trauma or some some part of your character that you're, you've
8:15
got an insecurity that you're trying to compensate for.
8:19
Surely you go and fix the insecurity rather than trying to
8:23
use ambition to compensate for. That I, I don't think they're
8:25
mutually exclusive though. Like I don't think you do one or
8:28
the other. I think you can do both and I
8:31
and I really think you should do both.
8:32
Like. I think it fills you with a
8:35
sense of fulfilment if you use. Because like, like, let's say
8:38
you've got an injury, Yeah, because.
8:39
It's unique, right? Like it's, it's unique to that
8:41
individual. And so when you attack whatever
8:46
goals you, you particularly want to attack, you essentially are
8:51
able to draw on something that's unique to you and you're able to
8:55
tell yourself consistently, This is why I'm able to achieve this
8:58
thing or whatever, because it's unique to me.
9:00
And I I, I just don't think that's a bad thing.
9:04
Yeah, I do understand that. But like you're basically using
9:07
it as fuel to do. And I guess the thing that you
9:09
choose to do is what we will judge, right?
9:12
If you use it to do something good, then that's you're, you're
9:14
basically saying that's a good thing.
9:16
But what I'm saying is that you, that person has been injured in
9:19
some way. Like you hurt your toe, you
9:21
inject it to get through some games, but you haven't addressed
9:24
the core issue, right? That is good to get through the
9:27
games, but at some point you need to go back and like address
9:30
the core issue. Yeah, I I don't think they're
9:32
that's that's a good. I don't think that's a good.
9:35
I thought I. Was really good on that.
9:36
I really, I really brought it home.
9:38
No, I didn't I. Didn't mean I was going to that
9:41
because. Because it's an injury,
9:43
insecurity is the source. Of that injury can do both at
9:47
the same time like you can. So if we take the toe analogy,
9:51
for example, you, you have to have surgery and then miss
9:54
games, right? Like that's the thing.
9:55
But if you could get it better while you're injecting it,
10:01
that's what I'm saying you should do, and that's the
10:03
difference. It's that's rare though, you
10:05
know. No, I, I I think it's very
10:07
possible. Like I, I, I do think that's,
10:10
that's that's very much doable, OK.
10:13
Fair. My, my, my analogy didn't land,
10:14
but let's let's keep it. Moving right, of course, on to
10:16
the next question. Is economic growth opposed to
10:23
morality? Yes.
10:26
Yes, so the the way I understand this question is morality in our
10:30
society. To me, what would be a moral
10:33
society? It's a society that's fair,
10:36
right? A society that's just and treats
10:38
people in a way that, you know, recognises their dignity and
10:42
their humanity. What I'm saying is we've had mad
10:45
growth in especially in most Western societies, GDP has been
10:50
growing for years. I mean, there's been blips the
10:54
economic crisis in the past. The most recent one was COVID,
10:57
but ever since COVID, if you look at GDP, EU kg DP has grown
11:01
for five years straight. We would not say that GDP growth
11:05
has led to a more fair society or more moral society.
11:08
So I'm saying economic growth clearly is opposed to morality.
11:13
What do you think? No, I don't.
11:14
I don't think it's opposed. OK.
11:15
I do think they're in conflict, but I don't think it's opposed
11:18
like so Economic growth is characterised by doing more with
11:22
less, basically right back. On a.
11:25
On a societal level, so it's to become more efficient, right.
11:28
Whilst morality is characterised by respecting fairness and
11:32
autonomy. And I don't think, yeah, and I
11:35
don't think those are opposed. The only the problem sort of
11:38
arises when it becomes economic growth at all costs.
11:44
That's that's where they then become opposed.
11:46
For example, when I, when I, when I thought about this, I
11:48
then thought about what, what are the examples of this?
11:50
And so the Nordic system is a good example of economic growth
11:55
with morality. Basically the reason why you can
11:58
have economic growth with morality is you have to focus on
12:02
innovation, consent and some volunteering.
12:06
Because if everybody is working together to this greater goal,
12:09
because that's all moral, like you're not exploiting anybody.
12:13
And if you're all working together for this great goal,
12:15
you will have economic growth. That's how I see it in my head.
12:18
Yeah, I guess let's, I guess drill down a little bit into
12:21
what economic growth and GDP and what these terms actually mean,
12:25
right. GDP in a sense, the way it's
12:28
actually measured to me is completely divorced from the
12:32
real experiences of real people. Yeah.
12:35
OK, Yeah. Do you get what I'm trying to
12:36
say? Which is why I, I, I don't think
12:38
the two, I mean we're kind of in agreement.
12:40
You said though in conflict. I'm.
12:42
I'm saying they're opposed. I think we're like close on on
12:45
on how we feel about that, but the way GDP is actually
12:49
genuinely calculated is just completely divorced from the
12:52
reality of people's lives, which is why GDP can grow but people
12:56
feel like. Nothing's happening to them.
12:58
You. Know what I mean?
12:59
We had a cost of living crisis. GDP was up that year.
13:02
Makes no sense. There's more and more poverty in
13:05
the UK in real terms in the last five years, GDP is up.
13:09
It just literally makes no sense. 30% of people children in
13:13
the UK live in relative poverty in the UK.
13:17
That's insane, right? So I, I just think the, the, the
13:20
2 are completely divorced and there's obviously like flaws of
13:23
the way GDP is calculated. It's not even doesn't even take
13:26
into account unpaid work, right? So all of the care that you
13:30
might give a family member, parents being at home with
13:32
children doing child rearing, stuff that actually impacts the
13:36
welfare of human beings is not calculated in GDP.
13:39
So I don't think economic growth on a macro level is in any way
13:43
connected to real human experiences.
13:47
Yeah, I but I think the problem there is the metric, not so much
13:52
that they're opposed. Well, let me let me try and draw
13:56
a bit further now because the metric is wrong.
14:00
But we use the metric to to talk about economics.
14:03
That's the real, like problem because when you open a
14:07
newspaper and, you know, the ONS has like, released statistics
14:10
for what's happening in the economy, unemployment figures
14:13
have just come out. The media is running stories
14:15
based on that number. Does that make sense?
14:18
So the way we see the society and economics in the society is
14:22
tethered to this number, but that number is not tethered to
14:25
real human experiences. So I appreciate the numbers
14:29
wrong, but the way we use that numbers also wrong.
14:32
Like in in a conversation, Rory Struart, Alastair Campbell,
14:35
they've got that the podcast leading leading with rest is
14:39
politics or something, right? So they talked to Gary Stevenson
14:42
about what's happened in the last five years in the economy.
14:46
Now, Rory Stewart is a Tory, He's a he's a politician.
14:49
Gary Economics is a economist. So he's asking Gary why has the
14:54
UK economy languished in comparison to the US economy.
14:58
Rory's talking about GDP, he's saying USGDP has grown over the
15:02
last 10 years or whatever. Gary's talking about inequality.
15:06
So the experiences of real people both in the UK and the
15:09
US, Rory, who's the politician whose job it is to talk about
15:13
the economy and to create narratives around the economy
15:16
for the public to to understand, all he can think about is the
15:20
macro level, like GDP number, and it's completely divorced
15:25
from real people. So not only does that dictate
15:28
the way the public understands it, it also dictates policy on a
15:32
governmental level, and it's extremely important for that
15:35
reason. Yeah, but I, I, I still don't
15:36
think they're opposed though, because for example, in in the
15:40
Nordic system, they've got the lowest inequality.
15:44
OK, it's basically like they have high tax, high taxes,
15:47
right? They have strong unions and they
15:50
pour I think like 6-7 percent into their education.
15:54
The female labour participation is about 75%.
15:57
When you put it all together, it's the trust of the people in
16:02
order to achieve economic growth.
16:06
And yeah, I guess they can be in conflict if we look at a sort of
16:10
neoliberalist take on on capitalism and democracy.
16:15
But if we have a sort of Social Democratic take up on it,
16:20
they're not actually opposed you.
16:22
You actually look at it in essence, if you understand what
16:24
I mean. Yeah, I guess I don't, I don't
16:26
see, like, yes, the Nordic system might have less
16:29
inequality, but less inequality to me is not the target.
16:33
Yeah, I think there needs to be drastic overhaul and there needs
16:37
to be like, no inequality. Yes, there's going to be
16:41
variations in in common, like, you know who who owns what.
16:45
But for a wealthy country like the UK, for 30% of children to
16:49
be living in poverty suggests to me that it's a systemic failure
16:53
rather than a bad application of the system.
16:56
Does that make sense? Yeah.
16:57
Like if we just did it like the Nordics, like, it would be
17:00
different. It would be different.
17:02
I agree. But systemically, there's still
17:05
a problem at the heart of of capitalism.
17:08
Yeah. Yeah.
17:08
And that's fine. Capitalism.
17:09
There's a problem, but we're not denying that.
17:13
But what we were discussing is economic growth opposed to
17:16
morality, and I don't think it is.
17:18
That's that's the question. I I will actually concede.
17:21
I actually don't mind conceding because I I understand exactly
17:24
where you're don't. Do that.
17:28
That's hard to say that I I. Will concede I need.
17:30
To rub salt in the wounds on that and back, yeah, I get it,
17:33
I. Get I get it.
17:34
No, I'll I'll happily concede I think.
17:36
I think they are in conflict though.
17:38
Yeah, they are definitely in conflict.
17:40
In another sense, they are divorced.
17:42
They're two separate things. And there are, to me, many
17:46
reasons why the current economic system that we have in the West,
17:51
the central banking system, kind of needs people to suffer in
17:57
order for it to run, for example, right?
17:59
Economists have this thing called the natural equilibrium
18:03
of unemployment. Heads of central banks don't
18:05
come out and talk about this because it's kind of neck, you
18:07
can't, it's a, it's APR disaster waiting to happen.
18:10
But central banks accept that a certain amount of people in a
18:15
society can't have a job. You cannot have 100% employment
18:19
for, for, for a number of reasons within that system.
18:22
Now, does that not stink? Yeah, You need to have a So
18:25
we've got 5% unemployment in the UK right now.
18:28
That's like trending slightly high.
18:29
It's usually between like 3 and 4%, which is considered a good
18:32
#3 or 4% of the population need to suffer for the system to
18:37
work. Ain't that crazy?
18:39
That's a systemic problem rather than a poor application of the
18:42
system. And to me, like there's clues
18:45
like that that show that it's, it's not about like chasing
18:50
economic growth in a different way.
18:52
It's about the the economy and the way it's structured.
18:55
Yeah, it needs to change. It needs to overhaul basically.
18:58
That's what I'm trying to say. That's a different question.
19:03
OK. I'll show our final segment.
19:08
You build a. Company attached to your
19:10
identity based on fairness with fair trade ingredients, living
19:16
wages and social good. Then it explodes and becomes
19:19
massive. To keep it alive, you sell, but
19:23
you write your values into the contract.
19:25
The mission must stay. The ethics must lead.
19:28
Years later, the brand is global.
19:31
The message still supports peace and love.
19:33
But behind the slogan and the cost cuts, marketing plans and
19:37
the layers of corporate approval, you can either stay
19:40
inside, fighting the boardrooms to keep it so intact, or walk
19:44
away knowing your name will be on the front of something that
19:47
no longer feels like your own. What do you do?
19:51
I protect what I believe in and I I walk away.
19:54
You have to. Yeah, you have to do that.
19:56
Yeah, you. Just got to leave.
19:58
I I would argue in that moral dilemma there was a mistake
20:01
selling. But if I am where I am, I've
20:03
sold and. Hold on, so you wouldn't sell?
20:06
Like no. Ever.
20:09
No, because to me this situation is what is going to happen.
20:14
It's inevitable. It's not like a matter of if,
20:16
it's a matter of when this. Happened, yeah.
20:19
So it's like if I'm comfortable with that, I don't know like why
20:23
I would ever be comfortable with that.
20:24
But if I was comfortable with this happening to the company
20:27
that that I started, then fine, I would sell, but I wouldn't
20:30
sell. So I wouldn't be in this on this
20:33
dilemma. Do you not, do you not think
20:34
that there is there's some value in your message reaching a lot
20:39
of people? Like what?
20:40
What is the point of having the greatest message if it doesn't
20:42
reach enough people? Well, my ambition would be to
20:47
reach those people. I don't need to sell to reach
20:49
all those people. I get that.
20:51
That is what that's the calculation that.
20:53
You don't, you don't think you would need to sell to reach more
20:55
people than you currently would? There's obvious there's
20:58
obviously value in selling to a larger company, right?
21:01
To reach more people, right? That's not what the company
21:03
would say. That's not why the company would
21:05
buy me. That's why the other companies
21:06
buying the company, right? That's what they would say to
21:08
me, but that's not the real reason.
21:10
What's the real reason? The real reason is that they can
21:13
make changes to my company that would increase their profits
21:17
above and beyond the price they paid for my for the asset.
21:21
That's the real calculation. Of course.
21:24
And how do they do? How do they increase those
21:26
profits? By reaching more people?
21:28
Maybe it could be by increasing the price, it could be by
21:31
cutting employees, it could be by doing like some Fugazi share
21:35
schemes, share buybacks. There's loads of corporate
21:39
tricks you can. Play.
21:40
You just don't believe that they want to reach more people.
21:43
Well, I, I think you could get lucky and like their, their
21:47
financial interests aligned with your, your like what you wanted,
21:51
which is for loads of people to, to hear your message or, you
21:55
know, buy your product. But I think this because it's
21:59
not actually truly aligned. It's just like you're rolling a
22:01
dice, bro. We probably.
22:02
Need to talk about what we might do with things.
22:07
I mean, he's talking about it. Well, we.
22:09
Can't run it forever. I like.
22:10
Why not? I have a life to live now.
22:15
He always to say working forever.
22:18
Well, because honestly, like that's obviously.
22:21
You feel what we're doing. We're doing think class
22:22
planning. Well, obviously I'm not, I'm
22:26
not, I'm not saying respect to the dilemma.
22:29
Obviously I'm not saying you shouldn't sell, but you've done
22:32
everything possible to try and ensure your company values stay
22:36
the same. Right.
22:37
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And unless you want like a a
22:39
small operation and then maybe that's it, maybe it just stays
22:43
small forever and scale is always the enemy.
22:47
Is that basically what you're saying?
22:50
Scale is the enemy. You try to fit me into that.
22:53
No, I'm just, I'm just. I'll ask it.
22:56
There's a question. No, no, obviously not.
22:58
But to sell to like a big corporate.
23:01
You realise that like if you have a big enough company,
23:04
anything bigger than you as a corporation.
23:06
Yes, but there's levels to that, ain't it?
23:08
There's levels to that. When hair care products get
23:10
bought out by Unilever, we know what's going to happen.
23:12
Yeah, OK, You know what I mean? Because it's Unilever, but if
23:16
like the ethos of that company always aligned with yours
23:19
anyway, then you can, you know, have a higher degree of
23:22
confidence that your message and your all the things you put in
23:25
place. So you might sell there is there
23:27
is a world in which you could yeah, if like if the company was
23:30
like the corporation was correct.
23:32
Yeah, but it wouldn't be like like big fish eat small fish.
23:36
It'll be more like 2 small fish to come together.
23:38
One slightly bigger fish. If if it's out outright buy, but
23:43
it could also be a partnership. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
23:46
OK, that's interesting. We'll talk about it later.
23:52
All right. Thank you for joining us.
23:55
All right, take care see you next week.
23:56
Appreciate you. I think a good example of how
24:11
the economic system that we currently have doesn't
24:13
necessarily serve the population is the list trust government in
24:16
2022, right List trust. Obviously she comes out with her
24:19
mini budget with quasi Quateng and it was a complete disaster.
24:23
And in the actual budget, like what she's actually proposing is
24:26
like, you know, Thatcherite, you know, policies cut, cut taxes on
24:29
on the wealthy, increased borrowing for the government,
24:32
right? To me, the reason why the list
24:33
trust government clearly shows how the government is beholden
24:37
to financial markets and not the people is the fact that list
24:40
trust got kicked out because the bond markets rejected her,
24:43
right? The bond markets reacted really
24:45
negatively to her, her many budget.
24:47
She was out within like 2 months, quick, quick time.
24:50
They ran her out of government. But when half a million people
24:54
get on the streets to protest about the UK government selling
24:56
arms to Israel, nothing happens. When a million people hit the
24:59
streets against the Iraqi invasion, the UK invasion of
25:03
Iraq, nothing happens. Invasion goes ahead.
25:05
So to me I think that's a very clear sign that it's actually
25:09
financial markets, that economic growth and government policy is
25:12
designed to serve, rather than the people itself.
25:14
If economic growth was really about welfare, we would it would
25:20
be the people that are chasing this trust out of out of
25:21
government or whatever government.
25:24
If if the people are angry and don't want what the government's
25:27
doing, it'd be the people. Running there was a time though
25:30
that economic growth did improve life for citizens.
25:33
There was a time that that happened, obviously doesn't
25:36
happen now because private equity is such a massive thing
25:39
and that is that's honestly what drives the GDP of the US and oil
25:42
those those two things are basically what drives the GDP of
25:44
the US so and that. Don't help no one and no bill.
25:46
Precisely so. So when so when you're saying
25:50
this is not to defend this trust or anything, but like when
25:52
you're saying, OK, they they want to increase economic
25:54
growth, It's not there is you would hope there there is some
25:58
idea that it's supposed to help the average person.
26:00
Obviously it doesn't. But that is I assume the concept
26:02
of their decisions. If you understand what.
26:04
I mean, as in you think when we go back to the core of wireless
26:06
trust made her decision precisely.
26:08
Yeah. I mean, which is kind of why I
26:09
conceded a little bit on on this question of like, is it opposed
26:12
to? I don't think it's opposed to, I
26:15
can concede it's not opposed to you, but it's, it's definitely a
26:17
secondary thought. Do you know what I'm?
26:18
Saying yes, it's definitely a secondary.
26:20
Thought it's certainly not a primary concern of of the
26:22
government or the the the UK central bank right, but the
26:25
central bank is about keeping markets stable and providing an
26:29
environment where financial markets can thrive rather than
26:32
people having a job and being able to pay their bills.
26:35
Like I said, if 5% of the UK population or 4% needs to be
26:38
unemployed, that's a mad thing. We're basically saying like this
26:42
is a completely broken system that's unfair on at least 4% of
26:45
people. And if you going back to the
26:47
previous statistics I heard about child poverty, there's 30%
26:50
of children in the UK who live in poverty, 70% of those people,
26:54
70% of those households, at least one parent already has a
26:57
job. Do you know what I mean?
26:58
So we're not even talking about there's 4% of the population who
27:01
don't have a job. There's even a bigger proportion
27:03
of people who have a. Job but are just.
27:05
Below the red. Line in poverty you.
27:07
Know what I mean? That's crazy.
27:09
So yeah, I I accept they're not maybe not opposed, but they're
27:11
certainly divorced from one another.
27:13
Yeah. The problem with ambition is
27:16
that when prizes are big enough and in the world now where
27:18
prizes can be huge, ambition undoubtedly becomes a moral
27:21
flaw. You see it on a larger scale in
27:23
the Olympics or in sport where doping is such a major factor
27:28
because they now question their morals because their ambition is
27:30
so great. And the bigger the prizes are,
27:34
and in a world that obviously has huge prizes, that makes it
27:38
inevitable that ambition will will be the will be the thing
27:41
that drives you to to sort of crumble your morality,
27:45
basically. In today's society the prizes
27:48
are so big, but on top of that, society is also telling you that
27:52
this is a core part of your identity, right?
27:54
If you don't get the prize, if you don't at least like Excel,
27:59
you are actually a less than like it questions your own self
28:03
worth. So not only do you have massive
28:04
prizes, your entire identity is actually underpinned by your
28:07
ambition. Do you know what I mean?
28:09
If you're someone who who has no ambition, doesn't make any
28:11
money, what do we call you in society?
28:12
We call you a bum, a loser, loser.
28:14
And that is the worst thing of all.
28:16
And that is to be avoided at all costs for most people.