0:01

Ted Audio Collective The

0:30

real mystery is why I'm only learning this

0:32

now. canva.com. Designed

0:34

for work. Progressive

1:00

Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. National average

1:02

12 month savings of $744 by new

1:04

customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between

1:07

June 2022 and May 2023. Potential

1:11

savings will vary. Discounts not available in

1:13

all states and situations. Through

1:16

conversations with investors and entrepreneurs,

1:19

Unseen Upside by Cambridge Associates

1:21

explores the human impact of

1:24

investing. Season 4 focuses

1:26

on exciting healthcare advancements promising

1:28

to improve outcomes and create

1:31

resilient patient centric systems blending

1:33

technology and compassion. Meet

1:36

the minds behind innovations shaping

1:38

the future of medicine. From

1:40

drug discovery to the role

1:42

of AI. Uncover the Unseen

1:44

Upside. Available now. Hey

1:48

everyone, it's Adam Grant. Welcome back

1:51

to Rethinking, my podcast on the science of

1:53

what makes us tick with the Ted Audio

1:55

Collective. I'm an organizational psychologist

1:57

and I'm taking you inside the minds of

1:59

fast people who explore new thoughts

2:01

and new ways of thinking. My

2:06

guest today is Ian Bremer. He's

2:08

a political scientist and my favorite

2:10

thinker on geopolitics. I have

2:13

a lot of questions for him about the state of

2:15

the world. I expect that

2:17

we're not just like straight-on talking

2:19

about geopolitics, right? You're interested in

2:21

methodology, you're interested in strategy, you're

2:23

interested in how people think the

2:25

way they do. So my assumption

2:27

is that you have a hook

2:29

that is adjacent to

2:31

my day-to-day expertise and not

2:34

directly on them. You know

2:36

me too well, Ian. Am I right? Am I right?

2:38

Yeah. We're gonna be 30 degrees off anything

2:41

you're fully qualified to speak on. That's

2:43

my goal. That's awesome. As

2:46

the founder and president of Eurasia Group, Ian

2:48

runs research and consulting projects to

2:51

help readers understand and manage geopolitical

2:53

risks. He also hosts GZERO

2:55

World, a show on PBS, and

2:57

he gave the most popular TED Talk of all of 2023. So

3:00

I thought it was time to get his help

3:03

making sense of the mess the world is in.

3:07

You have single-handedly changed my interest

3:09

in geopolitics. You've

3:12

increased it. I was gonna say, if

3:14

it had been high before and now

3:16

it's non-existent, I was gonna be, damn!

3:19

The floor was low. Let's be clear. It has

3:21

climbed. And I have to

3:23

tell you, I find this annoying. Which

3:26

part? The fact that I'm now

3:28

more interested in geopolitics than I used to be, because

3:31

I feel like for most of my adult life, I've

3:33

made it a principle to

3:35

avoid things that are low control and

3:38

high stakes. Yeah. So

3:41

I love watching sports even though

3:43

I can't influence the outcome, because at the end

3:45

of the day it doesn't matter. It's low stakes.

3:47

It's great. I know. Like five minutes after the

3:49

game is over, I don't care. And I love

3:52

that about sports. But your world, I hate, because

3:54

when I Start to wonder

3:56

about what's going on in Russia and

3:58

Ukraine or what... President

4:00

she is gonna do in China. I made

4:02

the measure the world. I care about the world

4:05

and so I don't want to pay attention

4:07

to things that matter that I can't influence. And

4:09

so I feel like you've made my life a

4:11

little bit worse even though you've made me

4:13

a lot more informed. A lot

4:15

of things about the Way the

4:17

World works. Are actually

4:20

up for grabs and

4:22

and they will be

4:24

determines not just. By.

4:26

A small group. Of government

4:28

actors who have their finger on

4:30

the button. Because. Governments

4:33

are increasingly incapable. By.

4:35

themselves of driving a lot

4:37

of that change and that's

4:39

at a time that is

4:41

sort of race not just

4:43

with danger but also with

4:45

the ability to have individual

4:47

impact. The Impact: So yeah,

4:49

I would say that someone

4:51

like you who would have

4:53

been nearly irrelevance to geo

4:55

political outcomes influencing them in

4:57

the mid twentieth late twentieth

4:59

century where in the Cold

5:02

War has much more ability

5:04

to engage with. What

5:06

the next ten twenty years of

5:08

geopolitics will bring? Because it's going to

5:10

be a diffusion of actors, some of

5:12

whom you are much more connected with,

5:15

some of whom you have a lot

5:17

more influence over, and also because social

5:19

movements are gonna matter more. we

5:21

did, We don't yet know what the

5:24

new etiologies or that will drive how

5:26

power is distributed around the world. right

5:28

now, this almost an absence of

5:30

it I think to someone like you

5:33

having a little bit more at stake

5:35

in. The future of geopolitics of are

5:37

a little planet. This is the right

5:39

time for you to be more and

5:41

gays and part of my role is

5:44

to make that happen. I'm.

5:46

One of these people that tends to

5:48

think that you appreciate the good things

5:50

in your life by not insulating yourself

5:52

from from real things in the world

5:54

that are challenges. I think that those

5:56

good things you appreciate more so in

5:58

that regard. Isis that this is also

6:00

good for Adam, the you might not

6:02

feel that way. I. Always

6:04

think of the astronaut who came

6:06

back at ago is a new

6:08

the seventies and said looking out

6:10

from space there are no borders

6:12

A countries are a human. Six

6:14

in and you just want to

6:16

grab politicians. And. Sake them and

6:19

say look at that you bastard And I

6:21

think I've always felt that way about geopolitics.

6:23

You love thinking about how the world could

6:25

work better, and there's a part of me

6:28

that thinks, but he really wanted to get

6:30

into the weeds of these people who are

6:32

causing the world to work worse. How do

6:35

you deal with that won't? First of, I

6:37

find people endlessly fascinating. I

6:39

don't actually love thinking about

6:41

classical. International. Politics.

6:45

With. Like you know, sort

6:47

of very, very traditionally run

6:49

small groups of diplomats. And

6:52

small groups generals who deals that

6:54

of essentially a moving pieces on

6:56

the table. The dynamics in the

6:58

world to they are so much

7:00

more complex, fast moving fluid then

7:02

that you've said that Twenty Twenty

7:04

Four is the Voldemort of years.

7:07

partly. ah, where are you on

7:09

this? Are you at all optimistic?

7:11

The reason why this is the

7:13

Voldemort of yours is because the

7:15

most powerful country in the world.

7:18

Is. Experiencing a crisis of democracy.

7:20

So this one election it's really

7:22

important and deeply problematic. And then

7:24

beyond that, we also have these

7:26

two major wars that are going

7:28

on that aren't not heading in

7:30

a direction that most certainly most

7:32

democratic actors are happy with it

7:35

all. And any one of those

7:37

things in the last twenty five

7:39

years would have made you stand

7:41

up and take notice all three

7:43

at the same time. Really bad.

7:45

So. Geopolitically. Yeah, Twenty Twenty Four is

7:48

pretty god awful. I. Feel like

7:50

one of things I've really had a

7:52

hard time processing both as a psychologist

7:54

and a human being, is. This.

7:57

Pendulum swing. Between.

7:59

To. Little. The. Sky is

8:01

falling. The Sky Is falling. There's a

8:04

constitutional crisis land worse for the first

8:06

time and generations though the world is

8:08

falling apart. And on the other hand,

8:10

being in the movie Don't Look Up.

8:13

And just being completely ignorant of

8:15

the reality in front of us?

8:18

How do you think about finding.

8:20

That. Accurate. Balancing.

8:22

Point between those two extremes. I.

8:25

see: geopolitics. As.

8:27

Something that's quite cyclical. It's

8:30

just that the cycles are long. There.

8:32

Are you know all sorts of counteracting

8:34

and balance forces that exists? You get

8:36

out of equilibrating him and you get

8:39

pushed back to equilibrium. You experience of

8:41

power vacuum and actors want to come

8:43

into that that give you have institutions

8:45

that start to break down and there

8:48

are new reasons to have new institutions

8:50

are true. Reform them thing start breaking,

8:52

you have a big crisis then suddenly

8:54

everyone pays attention and use work to

8:56

resolve the crisis now in in the

8:59

global economy. Oh we have those things

9:01

happen all the time. They're called

9:03

recessions. right? You've got bust

9:05

cycles, Things blow up and they

9:07

happen so often that we have

9:09

a whole industries of economists and

9:11

people that serve them middle line

9:13

with them that have. Definitions.

9:16

Of what a technical recession. it's

9:18

at the country level and at

9:21

the global level. And we have

9:23

fiscal and monetary tools and how

9:25

to respond to a recession. And

9:27

and you Those tools exists. whether

9:30

you are a Chinese economist or

9:32

European economist or American economist right

9:34

now. In in geopolitics, there are

9:36

also cycles, but because those cycles

9:39

are long and slow moving cycles,

9:41

we don't recognize them. The cycles,

9:43

and in particular, the bust cycle.

9:45

Of geopolitics which we are

9:48

in right now is one

9:50

where the balance of power.

9:52

No longer relates. To.

9:54

the institutional framework that you have

9:56

and so when you think about

9:58

a lot of the institutions that

10:00

we have today, which were set up

10:03

in the aftermath of World War

10:05

II, today's European Union, which is

10:07

the aftermath of the European economic community

10:09

that was originally set up, or the

10:11

WTO, which is kind of what the

10:13

logical outcome of the GATT process was

10:16

set up with the United Nations and

10:18

the Security Council. Like

10:20

those institutions no

10:23

longer reflect the

10:26

global balance of power at all.

10:30

And that is bringing us into

10:32

what I would call a geopolitical

10:34

recession, a bus cycle. And

10:36

that's why we are

10:39

seeing a lot more things break. The

10:41

United States is still the most powerful

10:43

country, but for many reasons, doesn't want

10:46

to be the global policeman or

10:48

the architect of global free

10:50

trade, doesn't want to drive

10:53

globalization, and certainly doesn't

10:55

want to promote and expand democracy

10:57

all over the world. And

11:00

yet no other country or group

11:02

of countries is prepared to step

11:04

into America's shoes. And

11:07

that is this cyclical

11:11

downturn that we're presently

11:13

experiencing that will create snapback functions

11:15

to bring us to a new

11:17

equilibrium, but it is going to

11:20

take time. And so

11:22

if you needed to be between

11:24

chicken little and don't look

11:26

up, for the next few

11:28

years are going to need

11:30

to be a little more chicken and

11:33

a little less head in the sand. It's

11:36

totally fascinating to think about a geopolitical

11:39

recession. And I think

11:41

that that language actually helps me understand, hey, wait a

11:43

minute, if you look over the course of history, this

11:45

is something we've seen before. It

11:47

has patterns and the causes look different

11:50

today on the surface and they're different

11:52

technologically and socially, but they probably have

11:54

some underlying similarities to

11:56

the causes of the past. I guess

11:58

where your optimism is. striking to me is

12:01

you're saying this is a cycle and

12:03

it will snap back, but

12:05

we're going to have to take action to cause it.

12:08

And you're saying that that action requires actually

12:10

not a level of doom and gloom, but

12:13

sounding the alarm. Yeah. And

12:15

of course, we've already seen that in one

12:17

area of geopolitics. It's manifest in climate where

12:20

we didn't have any institutions that

12:22

existed to manage climate. And

12:25

we had a whole bunch of very

12:27

powerful individuals and organizations that knew that

12:30

if they sounded the alarm, they

12:32

would lose power. So

12:34

they obscured it, in

12:37

some cases actively lied about it and

12:39

made the world a lot worse. But

12:42

nonetheless, here in

12:44

2024, we have new

12:46

global institutions that we have built

12:49

from the ground up. We

12:51

have a world that agrees that not only

12:53

is climate change real, but that we have

12:56

442 parts per

12:58

million of carbon in the atmosphere and

13:00

we can measure the methane too. And

13:02

we know how much the atmosphere has

13:04

warmed and we know the implications of

13:06

deforestation and of more plastic in the

13:08

oceans, all of those things. And

13:11

that is no longer something that you

13:13

can really actively promote and effectively promote

13:15

fake news around. That's a really big

13:18

deal. And we've done it in

13:20

just a matter of a few decades. So it's

13:22

a little late and it's going

13:24

to cost a lot of lives, especially

13:26

non-human lives. But nonetheless, we're

13:28

doing it. Now there are other

13:30

areas that we need to do that. We

13:33

need to do that in the international

13:35

security space. We need to do that

13:37

in the broad international trade space.

13:40

We most urgently need to

13:42

do that in the digital

13:44

space, in the AI space. But

13:47

there's no reason we can't. And

13:49

the only question is how much of a

13:52

crisis do we have to experience before

13:54

there is enough consolidated

13:58

effort to start? building

14:00

those things. When you

14:02

think about democracy in crisis, though, what

14:04

you're articulating is what Carl Weich once

14:06

called a deviation counteracting

14:08

loop, where eventually

14:10

you can't just keep going from

14:12

order to chaos. The chaos will

14:14

then turn back into order. But

14:19

I guess one of the things that concerns me is this

14:22

could be a deviation amplifying loop, where

14:24

if you break some of the institutions of democracy,

14:27

you no longer have the mechanisms in place that

14:29

allow you to repair it and strengthen it. So

14:33

why are you confident that this is going to be

14:35

a cycle as opposed to a phase

14:37

change? I'm much more confident that

14:40

at the global level, you are going

14:42

to see response to create

14:44

institutions that will counter-effect a geopolitical

14:46

recession. But the question you just

14:48

asked me wasn't about the global

14:50

order. It was about the United

14:53

States. That's right. And

14:55

I am not at all confident

14:57

that the United States is yet

14:59

close to where we're going

15:01

to see that snapback function. Not at

15:04

all, in part because the United States

15:06

is so powerful, is so wealthy. We

15:08

have so much oil

15:10

and gas and food, and we live

15:13

in a part of the world that

15:15

is so free of

15:17

geopolitical conflict and rivalry

15:19

and defense buildup. The

15:22

reality of all of that is

15:24

that we can allow for very

15:26

significant institutional erosion

15:28

and damage and destruction

15:30

before we feel like

15:32

it's a crisis. Most

15:35

Americans don't feel like this is a

15:37

crisis. We're normalizing a lot of stuff.

15:40

In any well-functioning democracy, if you

15:42

had a person running

15:45

for president that had done everything

15:47

in his power to

15:49

subvert the free

15:52

and fair election of the

15:54

predecessor, which is the foundational

15:56

element of a well-functioning democracy,

15:59

and then was running again and was

16:01

going to be the nominee and could easily win.

16:03

It's at least a coin flip. That

16:06

would be the most

16:08

important issue in the election. Nothing

16:10

else would be close. And

16:12

yet here we are in 2024. Trump's

16:14

about to get the nomination, and it's not

16:16

the most important issue in the election. We're

16:18

instead talking about immigration. We're talking about the

16:20

economy. We're talking about abortion. We're

16:23

talking about a whole bunch of things

16:25

that are all perfectly reasonable topics to

16:27

discuss in any normal election in any

16:29

well-functioning democracy, but the U.S. is not

16:31

having a normal election and it is

16:33

not a well-functioning democracy. And

16:35

that is a very serious problem. This is being

16:37

normalized. The average

16:39

person right now is facing

16:41

2024 and saying, well, maybe this

16:44

is just the way it works now. That is because

16:46

there's a lot of damage, the

16:48

legitimacy of American institutions,

16:51

in many cases at record lows. And

16:53

we're the only major democracy in the

16:55

world today that is incapable of

16:58

having a free and fair election that is

17:00

seen as legitimate by all of

17:02

its population. We're the only one, the

17:04

only big democracy where that's true. That's a

17:06

very serious problem. It's a huge

17:09

problem. And I mean, part

17:11

of my confusion when we talk about America is

17:14

why was no one working on this over the

17:16

last four years? Like

17:18

why, for example, were

17:21

there not why didn't no one

17:23

explore term limits for jobs in

17:25

Congress? Why did

17:27

nobody set an age limit on the

17:29

presidency like we have for flying a

17:32

plane? Where were some of the

17:34

reforms that could have

17:36

at least given us some stability?

17:38

Well, one reason is because the

17:40

tribalism in Congress is

17:42

only growing. That's true

17:45

under Obama. That's true

17:47

under Trump. It's true under Biden.

17:50

Now, I mean, Trump is certainly

17:52

a beneficiary, a greater beneficiary of

17:54

the tribalism than Obama or Biden.

17:56

He's done more to drive it.

17:58

But it's not like having a

18:00

normal centrist like Joe Biden

18:03

in office has prevented it

18:05

from getting worse. We

18:07

have done some things that matter. For

18:09

example, a lot of money is being

18:12

invested in red state and

18:14

blue state jobs that will

18:17

make a difference for the working and

18:19

middle class over the medium term. A

18:21

lot of money is being invested in

18:24

infrastructure like the building of roads

18:26

and bridges. If you travel around

18:28

this country, you will see those

18:30

things being built. That is now

18:32

happening. But almost

18:35

no money is going into

18:37

investments of civic infrastructure,

18:39

of soft infrastructure, of

18:42

the institutions that make people into

18:45

good citizens. You're

18:48

not spending money on things that would make families

18:50

stronger. You're not spending money on things that would

18:52

make public schools stronger. You're not making money on

18:54

things that would make churches function more

18:56

effectively or community groups. All the things that

18:58

have been falling apart over decades

19:00

in the United States. I think that

19:02

those soft things are not as valued.

19:05

They are also harder to measure. But

19:08

that is actually where the depth of the

19:10

challenges in the US exist. All

19:12

right, that makes sense. It makes me

19:14

feel slightly better because you're just my

19:17

democracy therapist. I'm kind

19:19

of like your political psychologist. It's

19:21

kind of a role that I play with heads of state.

19:23

It's kind of weird. I

19:27

guess I'm not all that shocked that

19:29

it's something that you just expressed. Yeah,

19:32

no, I was going to say, I've seen you do it. It's

19:38

funny because normally people go

19:40

to therapists for personal problems.

19:44

Here, the geopolitical

19:46

instability has become a

19:49

personal problem. It has because

19:51

especially for people that have responsibility for

19:53

it, most of those leaders are

19:56

not villains. Most of those

19:58

leaders are trying to do the best. for

20:00

their population in

20:02

the context of massive, massive

20:05

constraints. And they want

20:07

to like unload on

20:10

someone that is not going to

20:12

blow smoke up their ass. Someone's not going to

20:14

bullshit them. Of course, their day-to-day is spent mostly

20:17

with people that want something from them or

20:19

someone that's too scared and never going to give

20:21

them really good feedback. And trying to give them

20:24

help from their perspective, from

20:26

their context. You're not giving them

20:28

help from the context of just

20:30

the geopolitical map. And Lord knows you're not

20:32

doing it from the perspective of, I'm an American

20:34

from New York. You have

20:36

to get like what their constraints

20:38

are. Their geopolitical constraints,

20:41

their national constraints, their security, their economic

20:43

constraints, all of those things. To

20:46

go back to your recession analogy, we've

20:49

spent our whole careers figuring out

20:51

how to insulate ourselves from an economic recession.

20:55

People are taught how to save, they're

20:57

taught how to manage their financial

21:00

risk. But

21:02

when it comes to shielding yourself from

21:04

a geopolitical recession, there are no tools

21:06

available. It speaks to something that I wanted

21:08

to ask you about. I knew your TED Talk was going to be

21:11

a big hit. But I

21:13

didn't know that it would dominate every other talk of

21:15

2023. I get why talks

21:17

about psychology go viral because I know what to

21:19

do with those. But to talk about geopolitics, I

21:21

don't have any personal use for that. And yet

21:23

what you're doing is you're giving people a framework

21:26

that makes sense to the world. I

21:28

think people are freaked out in

21:30

this environment. I think they're also getting angry.

21:33

They're getting spun up. This is something they

21:35

do care about. They feel a little

21:37

helpless. And I think

21:39

helping them understand what's going on, even

21:41

if you can't do anything about it,

21:44

is a comforting thing. I

21:46

really do. People are so much

21:48

more scared of things they don't understand. I

21:51

think even if you believe ignorance

21:53

is bliss, ignorance is almost impossible

21:55

today. You try really

21:57

hard to turn off the TV and not read

21:59

the new. newspaper and not check in on social

22:01

media and you're still going to find out about a

22:04

lot of the headlines that are driving moral outrage. And

22:07

so given the choice between being

22:09

aware and frightened

22:12

and frustrated and wanting to

22:15

bang your head against a wall, this

22:17

reminds me of some work by

22:19

neuroscientists showing that particularly if you tend

22:22

to be a highly anxious, emotionally reactive

22:24

person, that having

22:26

negative information actually feels

22:29

better than just having

22:31

uncertainty. A little negative

22:33

information is something you can

22:35

do something with. You can arm yourself

22:37

with that in defense of

22:39

future misinformation and in defense of people

22:41

that are angry because you don't want

22:44

to be angry. None of these people

22:46

really want to be

22:48

angry, but it is better

22:50

than floating around in uncertainty

22:53

all the time. There's a classic

22:55

Murray Davis article, probably

22:58

my all-time favorite work of sociology,

23:00

called That's Interesting, where he

23:02

analyzes why ideas take off and he

23:04

starts with the argument that ideas

23:06

live and die not because they're true

23:09

or false, but because they're interesting or

23:11

boring. And

23:13

then he says, well, what makes an

23:15

idea interesting? An interesting idea is one

23:18

that challenges conventional wisdom. But

23:21

you have to be careful. You can't challenge

23:23

strongly held beliefs because then people just

23:25

get mad or they

23:27

get defensive. You have to challenge weakly

23:29

held assumptions. And that's where

23:31

people have the appetite to be curious and say,

23:33

huh, I never would have thought

23:35

that. You could be interesting by telling people that

23:38

something they thought was bad was actually good. You

23:41

could be interesting by telling people that

23:43

something they thought was simple is actually

23:45

complicated or vice versa. You

23:47

could be interesting by telling people that something

23:50

they thought was a unitary

23:53

phenomenon is actually a multiplex

23:55

phenomenon. And I think that's exactly what you

23:57

did. Actually we'll play a little clip here. What

24:00

kind of a world order might

24:02

we expect over the

24:04

next 10 years? We're

24:06

not going to have a

24:09

bipolar or a unipolar or even a

24:11

multipolar world. You said you think there's

24:14

one global order? In fact, there are

24:16

several different ones. If you want to

24:18

understand how to get out of the

24:20

geopolitical recession, you fundamentally need

24:23

to understand that, right?

24:25

You can't act as if this

24:27

is the old world of superpowers

24:30

and then you're just waiting for the next one

24:32

to come along. That's why I brought up climate

24:34

before because it turns out that one of these

24:36

sort of global orders, if you wanted to break

24:39

it down further, is one that we're already well

24:41

on the way of creating 21st

24:43

century architecture that is completely new. It's

24:46

very funny. That book, Ministry of

24:48

the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, it

24:50

talks about what a medium

24:53

term, let's say 2040-2050 future

24:56

looks like when you create

24:58

a super ministry that deals

25:00

with climate because the crisis

25:02

becomes a lot larger and it gets well

25:04

beyond what governments are capable of doing. That

25:08

is precisely the kind of thing

25:10

that is underlying and going on

25:12

geopolitically in all sorts of

25:14

different avenues and aspects right now. It's just

25:16

not happening in one place in a unitary

25:18

way. If

25:22

there's a surefire way to wake up feeling

25:24

fresh after a night of enjoying alcohol, it's

25:26

with z-biotics. Z-biotics pre-alcohol probiotic

25:29

drink is the world's first genetically

25:31

engineered probiotic. It was invented by

25:33

PHG scientists to tackle rough mornings

25:35

after drinking. Here's how it works.

25:38

When you drink, alcohol gets converted

25:40

into a toxic byproduct in the

25:42

gut. It's this byproduct,

25:44

not dehydration, that's to blame for

25:46

your rough next day. Z-biotics

25:49

produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.

25:52

Just remember to make z-biotics your first drink

25:54

of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel

25:56

your best tomorrow. Go to

25:59

zbiotics.com. to get

26:01

15% off your first

26:03

order when you use rethinking at

26:05

checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100%

26:07

money back guarantee, so if you're

26:09

unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund

26:11

your money no questions asked. Remember

26:14

to head to zbiotics.com/rethinking and use

26:16

the code rethinking at checkout for

26:19

15% off. Thank

26:21

you Zbiotics for sponsoring this episode and

26:23

our good times. Tired

26:26

of unnecessary payroll errors and the problems

26:28

they bring, like employees missing bills because

26:31

of shorted paychecks? Managers taking

26:33

the heat from angry employees about those

26:35

shorted paychecks? HR and payroll

26:37

teams clocking late hours to correct time

26:39

sheets? Expense mistakes? Missing

26:42

overtime and sick days? All

26:44

of that is so unnecessary. Pump

26:46

the brakes on payroll errors for good

26:48

by putting employees in the driver's seat.

26:51

With Paycom's Betty, employees do their

26:53

own payroll. Betty identifies errors and

26:55

guides employees to fix them before

26:58

submission right in the app because

27:00

no one can afford for payroll to be

27:03

wrong and no one knows when their pay

27:05

is wrong or right better than employees. So

27:08

why not let them fix payroll problems

27:10

before they become problems? When

27:12

you get payroll precision every

27:14

time, unnecessary payroll hassles become,

27:16

well, unnecessary. Manage

27:19

the process to make payroll right for everyone

27:21

with Paycom. Learn more

27:24

at paycom.com/soundrise. That's

27:27

paycom.com/soundrise. Let's

27:32

go to a lightning round here. All right, what's the

27:34

worst advice you've ever gotten? Become a

27:36

chemical engineer. I'm

27:38

really glad you didn't. What's

27:40

the worst advice you see heads of state get?

27:43

To respond frequently

27:46

and too much to

27:48

near-term political, domestic political

27:50

incentives that don't matter, to be

27:53

too risk averse because

27:56

of the domestic politics. I see it

27:58

happen constantly. I

28:00

see massive opportunities that are missed

28:03

because you have domestic political advisers that

28:06

don't see the big picture. And

28:08

what got them elected is

28:10

not what makes them a great president, prime

28:13

minister. That's a hard transition to make,

28:15

especially when you have a lot of the same trusted

28:17

people around you. Is there

28:19

a country on the rise that interests you right now? I'd

28:22

say Kenya. I think

28:24

that they are increasingly

28:28

the leader of Africa

28:30

in transition energy and

28:32

new technology, comparatively

28:35

small economy. Their president

28:37

is actively reaching out.

28:40

And that is a big deal for

28:42

a whole bunch of countries that are,

28:44

in many cases, democratically imploding or

28:47

having military coups. And

28:49

they desperately need someone to take leadership on

28:51

these issues. Is there a country

28:53

in trouble that we may not realize? Yeah,

28:57

our own. I think people

28:59

underappreciate how much democracy is

29:02

truly in crisis in the United States. They think it

29:04

can't happen here. And it's

29:06

not about America becoming a dictatorship.

29:09

But it is about a new McCarthyism. It

29:12

is about politicizing institutions

29:14

that are fundamental to rule of law, like the

29:16

Department of Justice, like the FBI, like the IRS.

29:18

I think that we are in danger of that

29:20

happening after this election. Do you have

29:22

a remedy for any of that? Not

29:25

a near-term remedy. That's why it's such a problem.

29:27

There are fewer guardrails

29:29

this time around than

29:32

we've had in the past. The

29:34

fact large numbers of people no

29:36

longer believe in core

29:38

political institutions is

29:41

a real challenge. The biggest

29:43

guardrail in the United States is the decentralization

29:45

of the system. In Europe, it's the centralization

29:47

of the system. In Europe, it's like no

29:49

matter how much you screw up in Hungary

29:52

or in Poland, the EU has supranational

29:55

authority and can force

29:57

you into compliance or

29:59

else. else, real economic damage.

30:03

And we've seen this play out over and over again. In

30:06

the United States, it's that

30:08

no matter how bad Washington is

30:10

dysfunctional, you have a lot of

30:12

experiments that are happening, some

30:15

from the left, some from the right,

30:17

in very vibrant and dynamic economies at

30:19

the city level and the state level. And they have a

30:21

lot of autonomy. And that ultimately

30:24

helps to maintain the level of stability

30:26

in the US. But still, you kind

30:28

of want the ultimate federal democracy to

30:30

work. And that is increasingly not true.

30:33

What's the most interesting experiment that a country

30:35

is running right now with democracy? It's

30:38

not one experiment. It's dozens of

30:40

experiments. And some of

30:42

them are nanny state-ish and

30:45

top-down. And some of them are

30:47

really explosively entrepreneurial and very light-touch

30:50

regulation and bottom-up. It's very interesting.

30:52

I mean, Texas today is

30:55

the highest producer of

30:57

post-carbon energy in the United States. We're

31:00

watching in real time two completely

31:02

different types of governance, not

31:04

at war with each other, but competing with

31:06

each other in a universe of ideas. And

31:08

they're attracting very different types of investment. What

31:12

is something you've rethought lately? Whether

31:15

or not democracies are

31:17

ultimately more stable than

31:20

authoritarian regimes because of the role

31:22

that technology is playing. I

31:25

think the shift from communications

31:27

technology that was decentralizing to

31:30

data and surveillance technology, which is

31:32

centralizing and top-down in the hands

31:34

of governments and tech companies, is

31:37

proving a significant competitive

31:40

advantage for technologically-enabled

31:43

authoritarian regimes and

31:46

is proving a significant weakness

31:49

for advanced democracies

31:52

where the tech is in the hands of

31:54

the private sector. So you

31:56

said in your TED Talk that when you were a student,

31:59

the U.S. was the principal exporter of democracy

32:01

in the world. And

32:03

today we're the principal exporter of

32:05

tools that destroy democracy. You're

32:08

in charge of those tools all of a sudden. What are

32:10

the first changes you're gonna make? I

32:12

debated a lot whether I was going to give that

32:14

line in the speech because

32:17

it feels really

32:19

dramatic and I was

32:21

worried it was gonna upset people. But

32:24

the more I thought about it the more I

32:26

realized I really believe it. So

32:29

what do you do? Well one

32:31

is you assign accountability. For

32:34

the people that are producing and

32:37

exporting those tools that destroy democracy

32:39

they have to have more accountability

32:41

for what's on their platforms. And

32:44

that's not saying it's illegal, that's

32:47

saying that if you do something that damages

32:49

people you can be sued for it. I

32:52

worry Adam that we are great capitalists

32:55

when it comes to profitability but we're

32:57

great socialists when it comes to losses.

33:00

You take these incredible self-made

33:02

or supposedly self-made billionaires and suddenly

33:04

they face losses that they are

33:07

accountable for and they're like hey

33:09

that's not me that's not me

33:12

that's somebody else got to pay for that. That's

33:14

the government, that's a bailout right.

33:16

There are no atheists and foxholes yeah there

33:18

are no libertarians in a financial crisis either

33:20

right. It's like all gimme gimme gimme and

33:23

that's particularly true when you talk about people

33:25

that are putting carbon in the atmosphere or

33:27

people that are shoving algorithms down our children's

33:29

throats. And the reality is that there are

33:31

knock on negative externalities that need to be

33:34

paid for and if these companies that are

33:36

making the profits don't pay for them then

33:38

you and I are gonna pay for them

33:40

and our kids are gonna pay for them.

33:43

So that's what I do if you give

33:45

me power is I don't destroy

33:47

these companies at all. We need

33:49

them. They're powerful, they're technologically empowering

33:51

but I need them to be

33:53

responsible and accountable

33:56

for the negative externalities. I've

34:00

talked with leaders of many

34:02

of these social media companies. I

34:04

don't understand why they've been so slow to

34:06

act in the absence of

34:08

that kind of government accountability to say,

34:11

we know it's a problem that our

34:13

algorithms amplify outrage and

34:15

misinformation. Why don't we have

34:17

a threshold where if information starts to go viral,

34:20

it gets flagged for fact checking? That

34:23

doesn't seem that hard. Why don't we have

34:25

bridging algorithms that help people identify

34:27

the common ground in their values instead of

34:29

just the reasons to hate each other? Not

34:32

that hard to code and experiment with. Why

34:34

do you think more action isn't being taken here? Because they don't

34:36

want to pay for it. You're

34:38

talking about direct costs that they don't

34:41

have to pay that are contrary to

34:43

their business model. And I mean, ultimately,

34:45

these organizations are not

34:47

the ones responsible for the

34:49

well-being of society. Governments

34:51

are. The corporations are responsible for turning

34:53

a profit. And they need

34:56

to be in a well-regulated system.

34:58

Look, you and I constantly find

35:00

examples in our environment of things

35:02

that are not great for us,

35:04

that we don't like, that are

35:06

results of us being lied to

35:09

or misrepresented by excesses of

35:11

under-regulated stuff. We do

35:13

everything we can to allow the individual

35:15

to succeed, but we don't take care

35:18

of the community. I think

35:20

it is not surprising that this is

35:22

also the system that has attracted and

35:25

has allowed for the emergence

35:27

of the Elon Musk's and

35:29

the Jeff Bezos's, who

35:31

are the most successful entrepreneurial minds

35:34

in the world today. And

35:36

yet at the same time, they are

35:38

two of the least civic-minded people, two

35:41

of the least community-minded people in the world

35:43

today. And they're the same people. And

35:45

why is that? Because there are

35:47

some things that are fundamentally broken with the U.S.

35:50

system. There's a reason why

35:52

our economy is doing so incredibly well,

35:54

and yet our political system is such

35:56

hot garbage in both cases, compared to

35:58

every other advanced industrial device. At

36:01

You and I are both fans of

36:04

following people we disagree with. I think

36:06

you're a little bit more for thought.

36:08

I'd I say this? I think you're

36:11

more tolerant of the following people you

36:13

disagree with the even when you think

36:15

they're thinking is flawed. Yeah, whereas. I.

36:18

I I only want to follow them if I

36:20

really believe I can learn something from them. Talk.

36:23

To me that that why you're doing it

36:25

right and I'm doing it right. You want

36:27

to understand where geopolitics is going? You need

36:29

to be engage. With. People that

36:31

are early stages in the wave with

36:34

we're Powers Go It. Doesn't.

36:36

Mean you liked them, but you have to engage

36:38

with them. So. It

36:40

sounds to me like you're you're looking

36:42

less to learn directly from those people

36:45

and using them in some cases as

36:47

a prism for what their audience response

36:49

to and values. I think you also

36:51

do learn from them because you want

36:53

to understand what they're trying to do

36:56

you. You do want to understand what

36:58

motivates different kinds of powerful people. Under.

37:01

Underlying motivations really important, and if

37:03

you don't spend time figuring out

37:05

who those people are, you are

37:08

missing a large piece of the

37:10

political spectrum, a large piece of

37:12

the geopolitical environment. Finally,

37:15

What's the question you have for me? Well,

37:17

I guess I'd be interested in

37:20

knowing if geopolitics is a part

37:22

of the landscape you weren't paying

37:24

attention to before. and now you

37:26

are. What are the couple of

37:28

areas out there that intellectually you

37:30

feel would help fill out your

37:32

understanding of humanity that you aren't

37:35

on top of? Yeah, and who

37:37

the people that could help you

37:39

get their. I've. Been talking about the

37:41

question the other way. Which is where do I have?

37:43

I have something to contribute. And.

37:46

You know, when it? when I see. The

37:48

kinds of geo political bus that were

37:50

watching. I think. Okay, we have huge

37:52

problems with how we select leaders. We

37:55

have massive problems when it comes to

37:57

group thinks and the way that you

37:59

know. That a cabinet or a team is managed

38:01

and I have a lot to say about that. And

38:03

so I guess I've been grappling with the question of

38:06

how much more do I need to know. That's

38:08

in part because I want most of my

38:10

learning to come from evidence as opposed to

38:12

opinion. And you live in a world

38:15

where the information you need doesn't have data yet. Well.

38:17

And that's also why I have

38:19

a much higher tolerance of following

38:21

people that you who you say

38:24

have ideas that are flawed. I

38:26

think that's a good place to wrap. Okay,

38:28

fair enough. I don't know. I thought were

38:31

just getting interesting. Frankly, it, ah yeah, you're

38:33

You have the wrong definition of interesting. says

38:35

it's with time. I learned a lot about

38:37

myself that I didn't expect to article us

38:40

cuz it's always good Southsea same. thanks for

38:42

doing this or that. I

38:47

think it's really helpful to look at what's

38:49

happening. As a global geopolitical recessive, it opens

38:51

the door to understanding what causes geopolitical but

38:54

and how we can a steep them faster

38:56

when they happen and prevent some of them

38:58

from occurring in the first place. Rethinking

39:05

is hosted by me. Adam Branch is

39:07

So as part of It's Head audio

39:09

collected and this episode was produced in

39:12

mix by Cosmic Standard or producers are

39:14

Henna, Kingsley Mile and a Citizen or

39:16

editor is I Hunter Salazar. Fact Checkers

39:19

Paul Durbin original music by Hunters Do

39:21

and Allison Late and Brown or team

39:23

includes Eliza Smith Sake of Winning the

39:26

Maya Adams The So Quit and Been

39:28

Saying Julia Dickerson and Will Eat Anything

39:30

Rogers. I.

39:38

Love a to buy to grid. I'm a political

39:40

scientist, right? I mean, it's the fastest way to

39:42

any social science. It's hard to draw to. Bacteria.