This One Bread Story Explains Why Every Planned Economy Collapses — We Had To React

In this episode, I break down the real drivers behind economic systems like socialism and capitalism, tracing how human nature and scarcity have shaped society from the ground up. The conversation focused on why we moved from tribes to feudal kingdoms and eventually to the competitive world of capitalism, and what sparked the rise of Marxism and socialism as reactions to these systems. One concept discussed was the deep psychological desire for security—our evolutionary need to accumulate scarce resources for survival. I explore how this instinct evolved into our modern systems of ownership, productivity, and commerce, arguing that these drives cannot be separated from the systems we build. We also dig into the historical turning points that made the world less violent, allowing individuals to trade and collaborate instead of fighting over resources. Several points were raised, including what happens when economies attempt to centralize decision-making, using real-world examples like East and West Berlin and failed socialist utopias. The discussion explored how innovations—like the limited liability corporation—opened the door for more people to participate in building wealth, and why top-down economic planning always seems to run into the same problems. A key theme that emerged was that while the dream of a fairer system persists, every attempt to replace what exists brings its own set of challenges—often rediscovering the reasons certain structures evolved in the first place. As we consider the future, including the potential of AI to reshape our economies, I challenge listeners to ask: will technology finally solve the problem of scarcity and central control, or will our fundamental need for autonomy always pull us back toward individual freedom and choice? Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Quo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Pique: 20% off at https://piquelife.com/impact Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Surfshark: Go to https://surfshark.com/TOMBor use code TOMB at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark! ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.com http://business.att.com Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order Netsuite: For the first time ever you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to https://NetSuite.ai/Theory https://netsuite.ai/Theory. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business:join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show: https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show SCALING a business:see if you qualify here. https://tombilyeu.com/call: https://tombilyeu.com/call Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox:sign up here. https://tombilyeu.com/: https://tombilyeu.com/ FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok:https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter:https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Speaker 00

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. I want you to break down socialism, but you can't say wealth and you can't say tax. All right, so this is a video that's going to walk through the actual cause and effect and the mechanisms of how economic systems come into existence full stop, walking us through a quick history of how we ended up in capitalism and why Marxism and socialism

• 1:30Speaker 00

  rose up at the exact time that it did.

• 1:32Speaker 01

  The planet Earth is not infinite. It's 71% water, 29% of it is land. Of that land, about half is useful. This is what everyone is, for lack of a better term, fighting over. Scarcity and who owns what drives the thinking behind every system humans have come up with. And I've been hearing about one of those systems a lot lately.

• 1:51Speaker 00

  I don't think people really understand the idea of scarcity, and this is why I find video games like Minecraft to be so incredibly powerful, is you realize that Minecraft is tapping into an evolutionary desire to go and accumulate scarce resources. Wealth accumulation did not give birth to a psychological principle. It is the exact opposite. You are born into a world where you are going to die if you don't accumulate shelter and food at a minimum and water. So if you don't have those resources, which are unfortunately scarce to varying degrees, you'll die. And so the human has, over evolutionary timescales, developed a desire to accumulate those resources to protect themselves from periods where you don't have anything.

• 2:35Speaker 02

  Is that socialism? Socialist. Socialism. I am a democratic socialist.

• 2:41Speaker 01

  Ask 10 people to define socialism, and you'll hear 10 different answers, from the government owns the businesses, to free healthcare, to Denmark, to equality. But there is far more to it than that. This is a word that wars have been fought over, that brings emotion out of people, that almost everyone has an opinion on.

• 2:56Speaker 03

  I believe in socialism. And when you call it socialism, I think it's a misnomer.

• 3:01Speaker 04

  Socialism or capitalism? Capitalism. I think it depends on your interpretations.

• 3:04Speaker 01

  I don't know anywhere in the world where true socialism has worked. And some of those opinions are changing. More people are expressing interest in socialism today than they have in decades. So why did it ever come about? Why has it stood the test of time? Does it mean the same thing today? What exactly is socialism? This video is sponsored by Zapier. More on them later. At first, there was no need to think much about the idea of ownership. We walked around and ate what we hunted or picked out of the ground. But as the population grew, we started bumping into each other. Tribes, clans, civilizations began to form. Skirmishes grew into battles, which evolved into wars, with few exceptions, leaving the leader of whichever group won these wars, the owner of whatever land they controlled. It was theirs to give.

• 3:48Speaker 00

  So when these civilizations, these tribes, the early proto-civilizations, were colliding with each other, one of the most precious things, scarce resources, that you could kill the other tribe and take from them was women. There's something about that realization that really lands for me about how violent our past was, so that when you look at a modern context, one of the single most important things you can do is say, how do we make sure that society continues to protect us from our own nature? Because when you're going back and you don't, he's going to give you the punchline to why this works in a minute.

• 4:27Speaker 00

  But when you have a setup where the only way conflicts over scarce resources like women are decided is through violence, then the world is a much, much, much worse place than what we have now where we use economics. So keep that in mind.

• 4:47Speaker 01

  The population continued to grow. Kingdoms got bigger. One man could not defend every border, could not judge every dispute or till every field. So the rulers started giving land to trusted warriors and lords. Hold this land as your own. Defend it. In return, you'll send me your knights when I need them. Those lords, facing the exact same problem as the rulers, but on a smaller scale, divided the land further and gave it to people to work. Hold this land, grow food for us on it. In return, I'll protect you. Called different things around the world, varying in a few different ways, but the same basic idea. This system, feudalism, was how most of the world operated. A handful of well-connected people owned the land. People started to travel further. Ships got bigger. Villages turned into towns, towns into cities. The ability to grow something on land and then sell to someone in a town or distant

• 5:30Speaker 01

  country for money, instead of just consuming it yourself, this really started to change how people looked at land.

• 5:36Speaker 00

  This is a really important idea to understand. The accumulation of capital, the accumulation of capital, is really important. When you can aggregate more capital than you're able to make by yourself, you're able to start scaling things up. So when he talks about ships are getting bigger, that's what he's talking about. Every now and then, I'll take somebody up to my rooftop and I'll say, okay, look out at the city skyline. When you see buildings, what you're looking at is aggregated capital. That's somebody who either went to a bank, or they borrowed money from somebody else, and they're able to take more money than they were able to make themselves, and they were able to put it together and build this incredible society that we see around us.

• 6:20Speaker 00

  But that requires the ability to overproduce, to be able to create more than you need in any one moment, so that you can put it all together over time, that excess, and make something bigger, better than you would otherwise be able to build. And so the concept of getting away from, it's just me and what I can do, and my farm is able to just support my family, but that's it, you start getting into grain silos and things like that, where people are able to get themselves through periods like a winter. And so that idea of being able to accumulate more than you need right here in this moment is one of the most foundational things to human society. And so if you break that ability to allow the people who are really good at it and

• 7:05Speaker 00

  are able to organize people, or machines, or whatever it is that they're organizing, to create this overproduction, if you break the ability for people to overproduce, to accumulate, you're not able to build the world that we see. It really does become these atomized things where we would fracture back into something pre-feudalism. So not even feudalism. You go way back to tribal, you go back to people being on their own. And one of the first impulses we have is to group up so that we can do that. We can build more than we need. So you break that at your peril. That's going to become important later.

• 7:41Speaker 01

  It started to get interesting and familiar, where everything changed. Rulers, these queens, kings, emperors, started to change what they demanded from the lords they had given land to. Forget your knights. I'll build my own army. From now on, you pay me taxes, gold, silver coins, or goods I can trade to other kingdoms. That land I gave you can do more than just feed your estate. Figure out how to turn a profit on it, and then give me some of that profit. Yes, your highness. And as was tradition, the lords turned right around and said the same thing to the people working their estates or running its workshops. New plan, everybody. Grow more than you need, sell it at the market, give me some of that profit. That simple act of changing what it was about land that made it valuable, moving from

• 8:23Speaker 01

  "fight for me when I call" to "pay me money," meant it didn't really matter who owned the land anymore. Whether you could fight really well with a sword, whatever, as long as whoever owned it could pay the taxes on the land, which meant it was actually in the interest of the ruler now to let people buy, sell, and mortgage land. And so they did. Slowly at first, but over a couple centuries, many people could own the land. This marked the beginning of where we are today. It's this huge break from thousands of years of tradition, where the thought that you, dear peasant, could own land was not even a concept. That was not a thought that people had. This is so interesting for a couple knock-on effects that I just have to touch on. It made the world less violent. The only way to acquire land stopped being raise an army and kill a bunch of people. Take the land they were on as your own.

• 9:07Speaker 01

  You could just buy it instead now.

• 9:09Speaker 00

  We start with this idea of, I'm going to go raid another village, and one of the most incredible pieces of bounty that I can get is to kill the men and the children and to take the women. Okay? Because the ability to give birth and raise a child is extremely valuable. And so that becomes one of the first things that we kill for, okay? Horrid. We start building these societies, but we keep killing for land, because that's how we're going to feed the population, that's how we're able to grow, we need more soldiers, we need to be able to feed them. And so, again, it's through conquest. Then we realize, okay, wait a second, we don't have to do it that way. We can do it through economic acquisition. Now, he's going to be very careful to make the point, this certainly doesn't end violence,

• 9:54Speaker 00

  and we go through a very horrible period where you've got things like the Dutch East India Company, where you've got corporations going around, doing the most unspeakable, war-like things, conquest, taking over peoples. You've got Columbus and his people chopping off hands for people that didn't collect gold fast enough. I mean, you definitely go through a very dark period. But this is laying the seeds for the thing that becomes the modern world, where we all agree that, okay, we're gonna make money, this thing that I'm able to trade for my time. So I'm actually able to capture the value of my time. This is so important. By getting good at something, I can now say, well, we all have the same 24 hours in the day.

• 10:38Speaker 00

  But if I can do something that you guys really value, then I can make more money from my time. I can build a surplus of value with my own individual time. And then the things that I need, we all agree that I can buy them. I don't have to steal them. This is such a shift. And because it happened so slowly and it took so long, people don't realize this is an invention of civilization. This is not the way things always were.

• 11:04Speaker 01

  This is so interesting for a couple of knock on effects that just have to touch on. It made the world less violent. The only way to acquire land stopped being raise an army and kill a bunch of people. Take the land they were on as your own. You could just buy it instead now. Not saying it ended violence, of course not. These were violent times and violence continued. But a new option came into play. If someone figured out how to get more out of land than someone else, they would eventually use that more, that profit, to buy that other person's land. Expand whatever they were doing, make more profit, buy more land, building more and more capital.

• 11:38Speaker 01

  Which brings us to here. A big messy transition period between the eras when some could own land to anyone, in theory, could. Because while anyone could own land, that did not mean that everyone did own land. Peasant life was brutal. It was dangerous. You didn't live long. You couldn't leave the estate you were tied to without the Lord's permission. You had few freedoms, no real rights, but it was stable. Ah, life on the manor weren't half bad. A sturdy cottage, my own strip in the open fields, and the commons where the pigs rooted and the wife gathered kindling. Sure, the Lord took his share, but come feast days, we danced, drank and slept like kings. The seasons ruled us, not some clock. We ate what we grew, mended what we broke, and knew every soul in the village, stable as the old oak. Then the enclosures came.

• 12:22Speaker 01

  One spring, they arrived with ropes and talk of improvement. Commons fence for sheep. Pay a fee to work my strip where wool folded into the big man's profitable fields. Progress, they said. Most of us couldn't. Suddenly, we were free. Free to leave the land that had fed us, free to trudge to the town with nothing but calloused hands and rumbling bellies. Now I stand at the factory gate before dawn, trading my hours for coins that vanish on rant and stale bread. No commons, no strip, no village dance, just the endless clatter of machines and the knowledge that I made some distant bastard rich while my children cough in a damp room I don't own. Oliver Twist, Les Misérables, A Christmas Carol, all stories that are just bigger versions of the story we just heard. Same time period. With very few, if any, safety nets for those that couldn't establish themselves,

• 13:06Speaker 01

  except for workhouses, AKA poorhouses, which were not that different from prisons. Employers could pay and treat the lowest rungs of society, basically however they wanted. They needed money, so they didn't end up in the poorhouse or worse. Working conditions, the terrible pay, get hurt and you're completely out of a job. Child labor. All the worst parts of working you've heard of. That was this period. So it is no wonder that this is the time when the idea of socialism develops, that the people as a group, not rich individuals, should get the fruits of their labor. First, it was this utopian idea based on right and wrong. What if we just did things like this? There was no reason why it would happen, just that would be nice. Until one book raised the stakes. Capital, or the original version published in German Das Kapital, one volume turned into three, 552 total pages.

• 13:51Speaker 01

  Karl Marx, most famous for the Communist Manifesto and who lends his name to Marxism, dropped what would become an enduring piece of history.

• 13:59Speaker 00

  This is gonna be another really important piece of the story, is you have to understand Karl Marx as a product of his time. So what was going on at that time is that the way that businesses worked, you could only have a business if you were able to absorb personally the losses of that company. So if you started a company and it failed, again, you could have this sort of infinite downside. And so only the wealthy would start companies. Because there was basically two ways to start a company. Have a personal fortune, big enough to absorb whatever losses you might have, or to be so well-connected in the government that you could get a charter from the government where they were going to pick up the tab if anything went wrong. As you can imagine, that was extraordinarily rare.

• 14:44Speaker 00

  So basically, the wealthy were the only people that were able to start companies. So in a time where you've got these wealthy people that are starting businesses, they're accumulating capital, meaning they're like, they're drawing it in from all areas. They're the only ones that are able to expand. You realize, okay, hold on a second. We've created a virtuous loop, but it's a virtuous loop that only benefits the wealthy that can absorb the losses should a company fail. And so I get why Karl Marx starts thinking the way that he thinks in a world where only wealthy people can get wealthier and everybody else is stuck. But what he doesn't anticipate is, I think, like 30 years or something after he writes Das Kapital, may have even been a little bit less.

• 15:28Speaker 00

  But anyway, after he writes Das Kapital, you end up getting the LLC, the Limited Liability Corporation. So the Limited Liability Act passes because people looked at this and realized, hold on a second. We have a lot of very smart people that could probably do very extraordinary things, but they are not going to be able to absorb that sort of infinite downside. And so what we wanna do is say, your downside is gonna be limited. And so this is the birth of the Limited Liability Act, which passed in 1855. Before then, starting a business came with that like unlimited downside. So now, everything changes. But the momentum of what Marx had put out into the world is now starting to gain a life of its own.

• 16:11Speaker 00

  Now, the crazy thing is Marx wasn't a big figure in his life. It's only after his death that this sort of juggernaut of this idea of as the wealthy continue to get wealthier, that resentment is leveraged by politicians and you start getting this desire, based on the overproduction of elites, to leverage that resentment to get the workers to rise up. We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere.

• 16:43Speaker 00

  There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself. Their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality. Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now too.

• 17:27Speaker 00

  So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about what it means to actually be visible in today's day and age. When you build something public, whether it's a business or an audience, anything on social media, you become a target. This is something that legitimately keeps me up at night because our data isn't just on the obvious broker sites.

• 18:08Speaker 00

  It's on old news portals, public forums, obscure directories, places you would never think to look. That's where Incogni's Exposure Scanner comes in. It hunts down your personal information across the wider web, not just the 420-plus broker sites Incogni already removes your data from automatically. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk-free for 30 days. That's incogni, I-N-C-O-G-N-I, dot com slash impact and use code IMPACT. Let's talk about your sales pipeline reviews.

• 18:53Speaker 00

  If your CRM is half-empty fields and notes nobody finished, every review turns into guesswork. I've seen it so many times in my own sales team and that's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent, AI-powered sales CRM that is loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched Meeting Intelligence built right into the CRM. Before the call, it pulls the deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After, it drafts the CRM updates for your rep to review and approve. The record stays complete and you see what's actually happening. Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople

• 19:34Speaker 00

  and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. So make sure you use it. No credit card or payment is needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started today. That's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in just minutes.

• 20:01Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 20:05Speaker 00

  Alright.

• 20:06Speaker 01

  Marx was not a factory worker. He never stood at a factory gate before dawn. He was a middle-class kid from what is now Germany. Born in 1818, lawyer as a father, good education, PhD in philosophy, he wanted to be a professor. But his politics got in the way, so he became a journalist, and he was good at it. Good enough to get his newspaper shut down by the government, then he got kicked out of Paris, then Brussels. By 1849, he landed in London, broke, and stayed there the rest of his life. And here's the part people don't spend much time on. Marx spent decades, deep in poverty, pawning his coat in the winter, three of his children died young, and at one point, he couldn't afford a coffin. The man writing the book about capital had none of it. He survived on two things: freelance journalism, including a decade writing for a New York newspaper, and money from his best friend and writing partner Friedrich Engels, who co-wrote The Communist Manifesto.

• 20:52Speaker 01

  Engels' family owned cotton mills in Manchester, England. In a twist of irony, the book that would inspire revolutions against factory owners was funded by factory profits. So, sitting in the British Museum room, day after day, year after year, Marx read everything.

• 21:07Speaker 00

  So, it's important to understand that this is an overproduced elite. So, when we talk about the overproduction of elites and how important it is, this is what it looks like. This is somebody who is having to pawn his coat in the winter, his kids are dying, but he's not getting a job. He is busy writing a book about how the whole system that he could avail himself of, that would have materially changed his poverty, he is so philosophically against it that he instead continues to mire himself and his family in that poverty. This, by all accounts, this was a very smart person. And so, the question becomes, why was he not doing that? And that is what I think people miss, is this resentment.

• 21:51Speaker 00

  His own father said, "I don't understand how somebody who has been given so many gifts by God and so many gifts by birth in terms of being born into a well-to-do family, that you would end up being this person so filled with resentment." And that, stopping him from engaging in the economy in a meaningful way, is an important part of Marx's story.

• 22:15Speaker 01

  And he asked just one simple question. Why does this system produce so much wealth and so much misery at the same time? Capital, Volume 1, came out in 1867. Almost nobody noticed. He died in 1883. Eleven people came to the funeral. People who would never have guessed that within 40 years, a third of the planet would be governed in his name, rallied by one very simple, very potent idea: profit is unpaid labor. When you walk into a store, you see prices on the shelves. You don't see the workers who made the product, how long they worked, or how much they were paid. The relationship between the person who made it and the person who buys it is hidden. Your purchase looks like a simple transaction: money for a shirt. But hidden inside that shirt is unpaid labor. The worker created more value than they were paid for.

• 23:00Speaker 01

  That difference, the profit, goes to the capitalist. Not necessarily because capitalists are evil, Marx would have said, but because it's built into how the wage system works. Rich owners keep getting richer and more powerful, workers compete for jobs, which keeps wages down. To escape this, you, me, us, the people as a whole, must own the means of making the shirt. It's the only way to escape this oppressive working for wages. And it is here that two opposing forces that refuse to budge fight over what exactly profit is. The capitalist saying, "What about losses?" The socialist saying, "Losses are just failed exploitation." Without profit, there can't be prices. How will you know what to make? We'll know. To date, where we are today, it is that final question, how to know what to make, that has proven very hard for socialist societies to answer.

• 23:45Speaker 01

  Experiment after experiment has had to try in their own way, because what is probably the most interesting thing about Das Kapital, the key literature of socialism, it does not say how things should work. Marx offered no ideas for how to do things differently, no system, no outline. It's a full critique of capitalism, but the other side of the equation is left almost completely to interpretation, to answer simple questions like, how do you decide what to stock a grocery store with? Walk into any grocery store, along with hundreds of other people who will visit it each day, and as you walk through the aisle, choosing what you will and will not put in your cart, upon committing to some and paying for them, you are saying to whoever makes it, "Yes, I want this, and against the infinite number of other things I can buy with $5, I'll take it."

• 24:27Speaker 01

  Add this up with all the people deciding how to spend their $5, and useful signals appear to those who make things. The group that made what sold makes enough money to keep making the thing. The group that didn't is now aware that they shouldn't keep making the thing, at least not at that price. Unable to find a price that works, don't sell the thing for long enough, and all the materials work, everything that went into making the losing thing will eventually have to stop making those products and will now be available to be used by some new maker that wants to test their hand at chocolate bars. Day after day, signals coming in from people of all walks of life saying, "Keep making that, don't keep making that." A bottoms-up system that lets the people vote for how they want the world's scarce resources to be used. Now, walk into a different grocery store. The shelves were stocked months ago by a group of planners who sat in a room and decided

• 25:12Speaker 01

  how much bread this store would need, how much bread every store would need, how much wheat to grow that bread, how many tractors to harvest that wheat, how much steel to build those tractors. There's no vote to add up, because the deciding has already happened. The signal doesn't travel from your cart up to the maker, it travels from the plan down to the factory. The factory's job isn't to figure out what you want, it's to hit the number it was given. Make 10,000 chocolate bars this quarter. Whether anyone wants those chocolate bars is a separate question, and honestly, it's not the factory's question. And when nobody buys them, nothing stops. The materials, the workers, the machines, none of it gets released to some new maker with a better idea because they were never the factories to release. They stay right where the plan put them until a new plan says otherwise. The feedback that took one bad sales week in the first store takes months, years, sometimes never in this one.

• 25:57Speaker 01

  Day after day, decisions flowing in one direction, from the few at the top to the many below, a top-down system, where a small group of people get to decide how the world's scarce resources will be used. But what about the real world? Not two imaginary grocery stores, what if we could set up an experiment?

• 26:14Speaker 00

  You're often going to hear that the debate came down, like he laid out, that this is the labor-value theory of capital. So, that work, the person doing the thing, is the thing that creates the surplus of value. And you're going to hear people arguing about that till the end of time. Steve Keen, who looks closely at this, says this is one of the flaws in Marx's thinking, and he is very pro-Marx, like, very pro-Marx. And he was saying, "The problem with Marx is that he did not want to admit that machinery also can help create this added value." So, it isn't just human labor that creates it, machines can also create it.

• 26:56Speaker 01

  One city, one people, split down the middle for 28 years, then rejoin for 35. The finest-grained natural experiment the world has ever run on socialism. Berlin is the experiment inside the experiment. It's almost too good of an experiment. You have allies during World War II, everyone working together to beat Germany, but they were not all friends. Capitalists in one group, the United States, England and France, and a bunch of others. And then, you have the Soviet Union, a fully socialist country, which became that way with a lot of help from the writing of Marx's In Capital and The Communist Manifesto, which we've talked about a lot. This is what it looks like, where he said, "Revolution is necessary to tear down the system." It will not tear itself down, rise against capitalism. This is what Vladimir Lenin used during the Bolshevik Revolution.

• 27:38Speaker 01

  Anyway, with Germany defeated, the usual splitting up of the loser's territory began. Germany as a whole was split up into four different zones, with each of the four allied countries administering part of it. But Berlin was too important, it was the capital. France, the US and England were like, "No, no, just because it's deep in the Soviet side doesn't mean we don't get to be there." So, Berlin, completely surrounded by Soviet-occupied Germany, was split into four zones. The US, England and France in the West, Soviets taking the East. A tiny sliver of democracy and capitalism in Soviet territory, an affront to the Soviet system. So, the Soviets tried to force the issue. They cut off rail, they blocked roads, they tried to force West Germany into their control. It doesn't work.

• 28:16Speaker 05

  275,000 flights, at an estimated cost to America and England of over $300 million, defeated the Russians' diabolical plan. They gave up the blockade on May 12, 1949. All the barriers were lifted, normal traffic began again. The free world had called Russia's bluff in the high-stakes poker game of international politics.

• 28:39Speaker 01

  For 11 months, the West fed 2 million people from the sky, 277,000 flights, at the peak of plane lands every 62 seconds. Most of the cargo, 2/3 of it, is coal. The Soviets blink, they lift the blockade, and Berlin settles into being two cities wearing one name. And then, the quiet part starts. People leave, not dramatically, a metro ticket, a suitcase, get on the train, ride a few stops, don't come back. Between 1949 and 1961, 2.7 million East Germans from Berlin and the rest of East Germany exit Soviet-occupied Germany through this one open seam, stepping over the line between East and West Berlin. The most disturbing part to the Soviets is half of them are under 25, doctors, engineers, teachers. The East loses a quarter of its physicians.

• 29:22Speaker 01

  That many people does not go unnoticed. It was quite obvious to everyone at this point. So, 12 years after the last plane of the airlift landed, East Germany's leader holds a press conference. A journalist asks about rumors of the border closing. His answer: "Nobody has the intention of building a wall." The journalist didn't ask about a wall. Nobody had asked about a wall. He introduced the word himself. A Freudian slip, as he certainly knew what would happen 59 days later. I use Zapier for over five years, but the latest way I'm using it has made my whole team faster. It is a small team. Everyone's building their own tools now. Some in Claude Code, some in Codex, ChatGPT, whatever they like. And every one of those tools needs to reach the same apps. Slack, Google Drive, Stripe, email, Shopify. The old way, every single person sets up their own connection to every single service.

• 30:06Speaker 01

  Six people times a dozen apps. It's a mess and nobody really knows who has access to what. With Zapier MCP, everyone on my team makes one connection. And that single connection puts more than 9,000 apps on the other side. Slack, Stripe, Shopify, our database, all of it. One setup instead of a dozen and nothing's off the menu. And I still have control over how it's all used. Permissions are set per tool. The team can read from our database, but not write to it. Instead of asking people to be careful and make the risky thing impossible. The team is more willing to build things and everyone can use their own tools. The Zapier MCP lets you build faster and make sure you keep your data, your tools, your models and your rules. You can start for free with my Zapier link, also in the description. Thank you to Zapier for sponsoring this video. Let's get back to it.

• 30:46Speaker 00

  MCPs are dope, by the way.

• 30:47Speaker 01

  The barbed wire was strung, streets torn up, train lines severed, all in one night. No wall when the sun went down, wake up and there's a wall. Running 96 miles through the center of the city and wrapping around the edges of West Berlin. Cutting it off from East Berlin and the East German countryside. The concrete came within a week. We've all seen a wall, but this one, everything they built, the guard towers, the dog runs, the tripwires, all of it faces inward. So now our two imaginary grocery stores are real and they're 20 minutes apart. East side, the Kaffala at Linninplatz carries about 3,000 items. One of each, not yellow mustard and spicy mustard, one mustard. West side, Baula, one of 120 in West Berlin. About 7,000 items, competing with three other chains, including what would become today's Aldi. The west side, it's a normal market.

• 31:32Speaker 01

  People buy things, the price of those things is set by the store. They don't sell or more than normal sells, the store manager will adjust their next order. The east side is a much more interesting story. What you're about to see and hear is exactly how the economy was planned for Berlin and the Soviet Union as a whole. Using historical documents, going from the top to the bottom.

• 31:50Speaker 00

  So let's go a little bit deeper. So he planted the seeds already, talking about this price signal. So this is going to be the argument that you're going to hear a lot. It's a brilliant argument and it really is the death knell to why socialism isn't going to work. It came from a guy named Ludwig von Misses. And he was trying to explain to people why the markets in a socialist system, they always end up collapsing. And it's because you're getting rid of the price signal. And once you get rid of the price signal, then you're unable to maintain appropriate stocks. You're unable to maintain the variety that you would see, the price competitiveness, et cetera.

• 32:31Speaker 00

  By creating competition and then allowing the consumer to vote, you push things to get better. You push people to improve their logistics systems. You push people to improve their product quality. You push them to drive the cost down. So you're doing all of this stuff just through the mechanism of understanding that a person trying to run a store wants to win, right? They want to do well. They want to have a business that supports them and their family. Maybe they want to accumulate their own money. They want to get rich. They want to like have yachts and all that stuff. But the way that they have to do it because of this update to the system where this isn't feudalism anymore. This is capitalism.

• 33:09Speaker 00

  This is the ability to outperform people, to accumulate more capital than the next person, buy things with that and expand. Okay, which is very different than what's going on on the other side of Germany where it's this top down control. It's about authoritarian control. It is about saying, hey, we have to make sure that the wilted lettuce gets to everybody's table evenly. So everything needs to come up through this central command. We're not going to allow for this kind of competition. And so instead we get something totally different. Now, again, I've been very honest that we can have a totally different argument if we want about China and what the dangers are there. They are extraordinarily dangerous.

• 33:49Speaker 00

  But just to say communism as a philosophy, and by the way socialism and communism are the same thing. Marx never once talked about socialism. He only talked about communism. It was Lenin who gave the word socialism, trying to explain the path to, the literal path was what he was trying to describe.

• 34:09Speaker 01

  The decision for what goes into the east side grocery begins 1,000 miles away in Moscow, where the head of the Soviet Communist Party is located. The word Politburo, you might've heard before. This is it, the head of the party. The Politburo, a committee of 11 men, sets the priorities for all of the Soviet Union for the next five years. What do we want for our population? How should we prioritize the military? Are there any industries we want to develop? Are there any we would like to shut down? Many big decisions, all written down in the official five year plan. And it's a beast. It's huge, hundreds of pages long. The five year plan is then handed to the State Planning Commission. 3,000 people in that commission map it all out in physical units. This much grain becomes this much flour, becomes this many loaves of bread. 2,000 commodities, grain, coal, gravel, glass.

• 34:54Speaker 01

  Everything is balanced in a ledger with the explicit goal of ensuring fairness in the spirit of, from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution. But early on, the Politburo realized that if they just handed things out, here's your pair of shoes, here's your bread for the week. The people would feel like medieval peasants. That's terrible for morale and more importantly, terrible for getting people to work. Somebody still needs to make the bread. So the State Planning Commission was also in charge of deciding how much people should be paid. So they create the ledger of stuff to make and the wage scale, which simply divides the entire workforce into eight broad pay bands. The lowest worker earning 250 per hour, the highest earning seven. You cannot earn more and you could not earn less. And here's where it's easy to feel lost. You're giving people wages, which is money, which means you're going to buy something with that money.

• 35:39Speaker 01

  But everything is kind of free. What do you spend this money on? Okay, so there must be prices in this system. It has to be prices. Okay, if there are prices, how is the price of a loaf of bread decided? Enter the Office of Prices. That's its real name. They are handed the ledger of stuff to make and the wage scale. With the wage scale, they can see how much in total wages will be paid. Here's our entire workforce. Here's how much it will be paid. They could also see how much total stuff will be made.

• 36:06Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. Let's talk about how much you're paying to stay safe online. Count it up. A VPN, a password manager, something to block ads and trackers. The service scrub your data off of broker lists, a tool to flag scam emails. That's five, five subscriptions, apps, logins, and most people still have gaps. That's the problem Surfshark solves. It's not a VPN. It's an all in one security suite. One tool that protects your connection, your personal info and your devices all at the same time.

• 36:44Speaker 00

  Go to surfshark.com/tomb or use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark, backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. That's S U R F S H A R K dot com slash TOMB. Surfshark dot com slash TOMB. Use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark.

• 37:12Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. So one of the really interesting things about this is understanding the fact that Marx did not opine on what exactly you should do with his ideas. This is exactly what I think is going on today. People have an idea of the problems with the system, so they want to break this system, but they don't actually know what's going to replace the system. And once you start actually trying to replace the system and build something back, you start getting all the gotchas of the way that an economy works. So that you end back up in this kind of situation where you're having to do things where you're like, no, no, no. This isn't the same as capitalism. This is totally different. But it's actually dealing with all the same psychological principles that capitalism was born out of.

• 37:57Speaker 00

  So one of them is accepting that this is just the way the human mind works and it happened over a very long stretch of time. And things have changed as society has changed, like the introduction of feudalism from tribalism and then getting to capitalism, post feudalism. Like these things just sort of evolve out of each other, but they're, they are coming up from the people, not down from the top. And so now, when you try to re-engineer the system, you suddenly realize, oh, those things that I hated, they exist for a reason. And this is where we run into trouble when we get into a cycle in history where people are merely painting the vision of how everything is going to be great. But they don't talk about how we actually get there.

• 38:39Speaker 00

  And that becomes the problem is what socialists are going to find out. It was the same for me as a game developer. You suddenly realize, oh my God, there are reasons that games that maybe I didn't like the way they were doing something. But there was a reason that they were doing that. They were dealing with some sort of knock on effect from a decision that you make when you're building the world. And the same is exactly true for somebody trying to do a planned economy. Is you run into all these things that had reasons for existing. You didn't like them, you didn't understand them, but instead of treating it like Chesterton's fence, which has never knocked down a fence unless you know the reason. So you go up, you see that something's there, you don't know why it's there. So you knock it down because like, oh, I don't even know why it's there. Then you find out that you should do the exact opposite.

• 39:23Speaker 00

  If you go somewhere and you see a fence, your impulse should be to leave it because you don't know why it's there. And so these moments where you see these kinds of ideologies on the rise, that is somebody knocking down a fence that they don't understand.

• 39:36Speaker 01

  How much should a family of four spend on bread? It should be cheap, not more than 1% of the lowest earning worker. If the lowest earning worker earns a thousand Deutschmarks in a month, and the ledger says they get 10 loaves of bread in a month, then a loaf of bread should be one Deutschmark. Asking this kind of question over and over until all their numbers added up in a way that balanced how much people were paid in wages against what the plan had said each person was allotted. Milk, furniture, car tires, gasoline, medicine. Every price was tagged, stamped on, or even engraved into the thing before it left the factory. The price was simply the price. It was not set based on anything other than deciding how much of a thing a person should need in a year, and then how much of that person's pay should be used to buy it. Alright, so with prices set, the Office of Prices hands everything over

• 40:21Speaker 01

  to East Germany's Ministry of Trade and Supply. They take it and assign quotas and allotments across the region's 15 districts. Berlin is the 15th district. You have this many people, you get this much. The bakery here makes this much bread, so you get this much flour. Everything is signed to a physical location. The state bakeries in the 15th district get flour delivered on a truck. They bake bread with it, put that bread on a truck, and the manager of the grocery store unloads the truck. They unload the truck with whatever arrives. The outcome of this experiment can be highlighted in many ways. By the time the wall came down, the East Berlin grocery store still had about 3,000 items, while the West ones pushed towards 10,000. Big markets cleared 15,000. But the clearest outcomes show up in two very different parts of life. By the time the Berlin Wall came down, the wait time for either of the two cars you could buy was over 10 years.

• 41:05Speaker 01

  The main car you could buy in East Berlin, the Trebbant, was the exact same car the state-run auto company produced at the time the wall went up. Same materials, about the same engine, no upgrades for over 30 years. Used ones went for more than new ones because people didn't want to wait 10 years. West Berlin, on the other hand, had dozens of cars, and you could buy one same day. And then there was health. Over that same 30 years, these neighbors, friends, family who shared a city, they breathed the same air, had the same genetics. Those in East Berlin had a life expectancy 2 and 1/2 to 3 years shorter than West Berlin. Well documented, deeply studied. Within 10 years of the wall being torn down, East and West being unified, 1989 to 1999, the gap completely erased. Those in East Berlin had the exact same life expectancy as those in the West.

• 41:50Speaker 00

  This is a very important concept in entrepreneurship, and it actually comes from a nautical term. So it's called velocity made good, VMG. So velocity made good is the ability on a ship to go, okay, I'm trying to get, you know, over there, which is, let's say, due north, but the wind is blowing due east, or due west, or whatever. And so I've got to find a way between angling my sails and tacking back and forth to build up this momentum, but harness it in a very specific direction that may be against the way that the wind is actually blowing, or at least not completely aligned with it. That is what an entrepreneur does. An entrepreneur takes an incredibly messy,

• 42:35Speaker 00

  problematic situation, and figures out a way to angle the sails, to deal with the limitations that you're confronted with, and be able to tack things back and forth so that you can get momentum going in the direction you actually want to end up with. I've talked about this before. Steve Jobs, one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time, one of the greatest creators of value essentially out of thin air, was just extraordinarily good at organizing otherwise disparate human beings, the employees in the company, and pointing them in a direction, and being the person who's making all those decisions about should we go this way or that way, which is actually one of the things that makes a decentralized utopia just mechanistically impossible. Humans just don't agree like that. So we need somebody that sits at the top,

• 43:20Speaker 00

  that's making these decisions, so that when people don't agree, which is just the reality of the human mind, put a bunch of people together, they're not all going to agree. So somebody has to be able to make good out of the energy, right? So the wind blowing, they've got to be able to capture with the sails, tack back and forth, and get moving in a direction. That skill, that ability to make good of the velocity, is very difficult. It is one of the most extraordinarily difficult things about being an entrepreneur. And if anybody has only ever encountered me as a YouTube talking head, my background is entirely entrepreneurship. So I've spent the last 25 years building companies, and I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out, what is that very difficult to describe thing that makes somebody either good or bad at being an entrepreneur?

• 44:05Speaker 00

  And it really is a huge part of this. So if you're going to talk about the value of labor, and you don't talk about the need for somebody that has the vision, the ability to integrate all these different systems, the ability to make decisions when you have competing department heads or whatever that want to go in different directions, if you never make sense of that, you're never going to understand what made Steve Jobs one of the most extraordinary entrepreneurs of our time. And what he did, there's a great movie called, it's the one by Aaron Sorkin, and fast bender, Michael Fassbender, plays Steve Jobs. And the Wozniak character comes up to him and says, what do you even do? You didn't invent the computer. You didn't write a single line of code.

• 44:50Speaker 00

  So why are you the one that gets all the accolades for Apple? And he says, Woz, you're a tremendous instrument player. You're the best in your row. But I play the entire orchestra. What he's trying to get at is, he is the one that brings all of these disparate voices, disparate talents together to point them in a direction, to get the public to believe a certain thing about the company, to create a certain sense of what it is through marketing and things like that, through strategic partnerships, to pick the right partnerships, to point the company in the right direction. And because it's, even as an entrepreneur, it's very hard to understand this thing. I don't expect economists or talking heads that haven't spent decades running companies

• 45:35Speaker 00

  to be able to understand this. But it is precisely the thing that Karl Marx failed to understand. The need to galvanize people, to have a dream, to have a vision, to have a mission in the company, to point people in a direction, to know what to say yes to, what to say no to. All of that stuff is incredibly valuable. And it is the way in which you end up getting the surplus value out of these disparate employees, who, yes, when they come together, you are getting a disproportionate amount of value out of the careful orchestration of all of those people. But them being able to do it by themselves is impossible because you're just not going to be able to get enough moving pieces. You very quickly realize, oh, I need other people in this company. Once you start having other people,

• 46:19Speaker 00

  you realize that you need orchestration. And anybody that's worked for bad managers will tell you, when it's done wrong, it's really done wrong. And when it's done well, it's done well. Now, I think there's a very worthy debate to be had about are companies doing themselves a disservice by capturing too much of the profits and not making sure that the employees are sharing in that more profoundly so that you have a thriving middle class, so that there are people to actually buy your stuff? Yes, I think it is very important that we have that debate. However, if you're trying to talk about socialism and you don't understand this concept of velocity made good, you don't understand the concept of somebody that's orchestrating the whole,

• 47:01Speaker 00

  and that that is the only way for that value to be created, that those people by themselves would not be able to create that surplus value, and if they could, they should just go do it themselves. And in an era where somebody cannot start their own company, I certainly understand why Marx would push back on that. But we don't live in that era. We live in an era where if somebody really does have the right idea, they really can go do it. And that brings us to the failed utopias. Now, if you guys don't know about these, there are some absolutely extraordinary ones that have failed in America, let alone around the world. And so if you look at them, there was, the most famous one was founded by this guy named Robert Owen.

• 47:47Speaker 00

  He was a wealthy Welsh industrialist who founded the famous but extremely ill-fated Cooperative Commune of New Harmony. This was in Indiana in 1825. Now, he was a, I think he was Scottish? So he had these factories in Scotland. Very wealthy man, comes to Indiana. He talks to any politician who will listen to him. And he's like, listen, guys, there's a better way to do this. And this whole capitalist thing, it's really detrimental. I've got a better way, and I'll prove it. And so he starts New Harmony. And they end up abolishing private property. They want everything to be done as a collective.

• 48:29Speaker 00

  Literally, the idea of everybody should do what they can according to their ability, and then everybody should be given according to their needs. So nobody can do something private. But then there are these mechanistic knock-ons. So what happens when everybody's working, but nobody owns what they work? Where do you take the food? You don't take it to your house. So you create some sort of collective place for them to drop it off. And this is what literally happens in New Harmony, which, by the way, it didn't even last a year despite the fact that it was being funded by this wealthy guy. Put 80% of his net worth into it, by the way. And so abolish private property. You go work in the fields. You take your lettuce, as one example,

• 49:12Speaker 00

  and you drop it off at the, like, distribution place. I think there was 800 people in the commune. So not even a big group. You drop it off, and now people were saying that by the time it ended up on your plate, because getting rid of private property ended up creating all these 10,000, like bureaucratic little steps, and so you couldn't even get fresh lettuce onto your table when there's only 800 of you. And so people start getting really frustrated, really annoyed. And you run into what is the single most important thing to understand about why socialism always, always, always will lead to violence. It is something known as the freeloader problem. You will inevitably get to the point

• 49:56Speaker 00

  where some people are very good at what they do, and they're out there, and they're working hard. And that then creates more than that person needs because they're so good at doing that thing. And then other people that aren't. Working are able to take advantage of that. And so the person working hard starts saying, well, hold on a second. Why am I working so hard when you're not, but you're getting just as much as I'm getting? That doesn't make any sense. So that person stops working as hard. You already have the wilted lettuce problem. So now you've got this wildly inefficient system that's actually being driven by the most productive among you. They start getting angry because the freeloaders are just taking advantage of those people working.

• 50:37Speaker 00

  And the message that spreads is not, hey, come work really hard so that other people can ride on the back of your hard work and talents. It becomes, hey, come get this stuff. It's really easy. All this stuff is free. And so the message gets out that it's free, that it's easy, which I hope sounds very familiar to people following the socialist movement. And you promise all this easy stuff, but you forget that it's all going to ride on the back of this orchestration problem. It's all going to ride on the back of people needing to be actually effective at being able to, either through orchestration or overperformance, or most likely both, that you can get this surplus that can then be distributed to the other people.

• 51:19Speaker 00

  And very quickly, you get a replication of society, which is you get people that have a right-leaning temperament, who do not like being taken advantage of. And then you get the people who are being taken advantage of, starting to basically try to rise up, organize to work against those other people and force them to keep delivering. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart. And that's exactly what happened. And by the way, they weren't the only one. There were several other examples of these utopian societies that popped up, and they all failed for the exact same reasons. And that's why, from a mechanistic standpoint, you've got to understand that idea of velocity made good.

• 51:59Speaker 00

  Why and how exactly we create the more abundance than we have to pay the individual person for. It is not that that person is being exploited. It's that that person is part of a system that requires other things, other than just them doing their thing. Yeah.

• 52:19Speaker 01

  What's not clear to me today, though, is if this is what people mean when they talk about socialism, this true top-down kind of society. That's not what Nordic countries are. Sweden, Norway, Finland, they're free markets. Prices are set by the grocery store owner. The government then collects a lot of tax on everyone, not just the wealthy. Businesses can hire and fire at will. There's nothing different about their capitalism than a place like the US. But there's a massive safety net funded by taxes. If you did it in the US, the average income here is about $70,000. So in Denmark, if you make 1.5 times more than the average, you pay about 54% in total taxes. So that would be an income of about $105,000 here. Everybody is taxed. But the means of production are most definitely not owned by the government, the people. In fact, the Nordic countries intentionally set themselves up like this.

• 53:04Speaker 01

  They watched what happened in the early part of the Russian revolution. We're like, no, we're not going to do that. So we've never seen a true socialist system of any size really fulfill the ideas laid out by Marx. We've seen a very real dedicated effort to do it, but they've all ended up at about the same spot. So why hasn't it worked?

• 53:21Speaker 01

  Stalin, 29 years. Mao Zedong, 27 years. Fidel Castro, 49 years. The average rule for leaders of socialist systems is over 15 years. Longer if you look at the ones who were ruling for a long time but died in office, like Hugo Chavez. Blame the person, yes, these men were not good people, but there have been no truer words spoken than these. Play the clip.

• 53:42Speaker 06

  The basic rule on incentives is you get what you're rewarded for.

• 53:46Speaker 01

  A center that decides where everything goes, it is the ultimate place of power a human can be stationed. Directing the flow of calories, electricity, medicine, so much power radiating out from one point changes the incentives of everybody in the system. The manager of the East Berlin grocery store has no reason to care what customers actually want. If the store runs out of milk by 10:00 AM, the manager doesn't lose a dime. In fact, fewer customers means less work. Croissants are incredibly time-consuming to make, layer by layer, just right, otherwise they don't puff. The bakery is much better off having dense, thick loaves of bread that take a fifth of the time to make and fill their quota faster. They have no other bakery to compete with for customers, so no consequences. And the truck driver moves weight, not loaves of bread. Gravel, nails, bricks, machinery will all be moved before bread, because the faster the quote is filled, the faster the driver can be done.

• 54:30Speaker 01

  Why would you work any longer than you have to? Because the planning board has said what you will be paid. Doing better is just more work that doesn't come with a reward. And the 3,000 people in the planning commission, they just want to be told the quotas they assigned were hit. Last thing the chief of the commission wants to do is tell the Politburo they made a mistake. It's all downside. If you get fired, what other planning commission is there to work for? And the people in the very top really don't want to hear the area they're responsible for isn't working anyway. So much power is concentrated at the top, and there's no way to get there, except for someone to select you to the post. That a weakness in your area is someone else's political ammunition to have you removed. So a very, very small group of people ends up running the system, and they run it blindly, because no one brings them problems, because why would they? Unless, of course, that person's trying to move up the system.

• 55:14Speaker 01

  In which case, that's a threat for those occupying one of those few spots at the top. So probably get rid of that person so they can't make any more noise and install someone who tells you everything is going well. So the leader hears no bad news, and would be skeptical if he did. He's paranoid from years of people trying to get to the center of power, to adjust the system in their favor. Because adjusting the whole system in your favor or taking someone else's power is the only route to getting more. Can't go start a business, can't get elected, the pie is fixed. So one person doing better takes from someone else. The result has been one person and a tiny group of trusted advisors consolidate control of two things, the military and the means of production. A monopoly on violence and a monopoly on production. Human nature is simply not intended to hold that much power.

• 55:57Speaker 01

  It's so tempting to make sure you stay in power, to put your thumb on the scale. There's the old saying, power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Maybe that could change. One of the things that could change that is a massive amount of abundance. If there isn't scarcity, socialism and even communism seems almost likely. There would be no reason for markets, prices, and power structures. Everything is just available, enough to go around, no needing to fight over who gets what. Perhaps the flaws in our human nature are smoothed out. But we aren't there yet. We still live on a planet with 71% water, 29% land, and a finite amount of resources. Because of that, the question of who owns what is not going to go away. Both of the systems we looked at today, at their core, human attempts to solve the exact same problem, how to manage that scarcity.

• 56:41Speaker 01

  One system trusts chaotic decisions of millions, the other trusts a collective planned vision. Maybe the ultimate system isn't one we've tried yet. Or maybe until we reach a world of absolute abundance, we are destined to keep shifting the needle back and forth between the security of the collective and the freedom of the individual. But whatever the future holds, it will still be driven by that very basic, very human question, who owns what and who gets to decide.

• 57:05Speaker 00

  Indeed. All right, that was, uh, that was great. I don't, I hadn't encountered this guy before. Um, what's his name? Let's make sure that we give him a shout.

• 57:12Speaker 07

  Phil Andrews, and his channel is called Maxonomics.

• 57:15Speaker 00

  All right. Uh, make sure that we link to that in the description. But that was great, man. A really great video, definitely somebody I'm subscribing to now. Uh, you guys should do the same. That was really wonderful. Um, that was wild, man. I don't know if there are, this is going to be one of the defining questions of our time. And I don't hear a lot of people that are able to really articulate what's actually going on very well. Uh, and this is definitely going to be an ideological battle that's going to rage for quite some time. Um, yeah.

• 57:43Speaker 07

  There were some people in the chat that said, yes, this is true. The Politburo didn't do a good job doing central planning, but if we gave it to AI, they might be able to fix that problem.

• 57:51Speaker 00

  Here's the thing, that really is possibly true, and all of this might be moot once AI comes along. I do think people have to be honest, though, about, um, is there something in us that yearns to breathe free? Is there something where I don't want to be told, even if you're going to make my life better, I, I want to choose whether I listen to you or not? And so I want the ability to go do my own thing. Now, if I have the ability to go do my own thing, great. But if I don't have the ability to do my own thing, and you're forcing me to listen to the AI, even if it's going to make my life better and longer, that I just have some fundamental aversion to that. I think that really is true of the human spirit, and I think that we're going to have to find a way to let people avail themselves of AI and not force them to abide by AI.

• 58:35Speaker 00

  But when you start thinking about things like, well, you can't be on the road driving your own car, it's too dangerous. So AI cars, they all pot up, they all talk to each other, and they can drive perfectly fast and perfect unison and perfect sync. Uh, their accident rate is, you know, vanishingly small compared to human drivers. So now, we're not going to let you drive. And then it's like, okay, well, this other thing, also, we need AI. So we need the cameras everywhere to make sure, right? And so that one is going to be another debate of how much are we willing to give up for safety? And I think people will give up a lot, much to my dismay. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition, we all do.

• 59:18Speaker 00

  You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break, and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient-dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription.

• 1:00:01Speaker 00

  You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.