The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 396. Magna CEO on Turning Five Thousand Dollars Into One Billion | Frank Stronach

Episode Date: November 13, 2023

Dr. Jordan B Peterson sits down with founder and CEO of Magna International, Frank Stronach. They discuss the keys to starting and maintaining a successful business, and the ideas contained within the Economic Charter Rights, which advocates for the input and autonomy of all workers and profit sharing to be exercised company wide. Frank Stronach is the Founder and Honorary Chairman of Magna International Inc., the world's most diversified automotive parts supplier with more than 170,000 employees in 43 countries and sales of over $40 billion US. At Magna, he introduced his unique management philosophy known as Fair Enterprise, which is based on a business Charter of Rights that predetermines the annual percentage of profits shared between employees, management, investors and society.  - Links -  For Frank Stronach: The Stronach Foundation for Economic Rights; https://economiccharter.ca/  On Instagram https://www.instagram.com/officialfrankstronach/  The Greed Factor (Book) https://www.amazon.com/Greed-Factor-Solutions-Revitalize-Enterprise-ebook/dp/B08R7V792K/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1699902367&refinements=p_27%3AFrank+Stronach&s=books&sr=1-2  Official website for the SARIT car https://saritmobility.com/

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today I have the honor to speak with Frank Stronach, founder and CEO of Magna International, one of Canada and the world's great companies. Frank built that company from nothing starting in the 1950s. It's quite a story. We discuss the keys to motivating yourself, to starting and maintaining a successful and expanding business. Why that's a good thing for yourself and everybody else. The idea contained within his corporate constitution, it's an economic charter

of rights, which advocates for the input, autonomy, and profit sharing among all workers, management, shareholders, etc. And I'm very much looking forward to talking about it with him. Hello, Mr. Strontok, it's very, very nice to see you. We met a couple of months ago at a restaurant in Toronto, and I had the opportunity to talk to you about your business ventures over the last five or six decades, which I found extraordinarily interesting. And in the intervening period of time, I've read your, I've read one of your books, the one that's more autobiographical.

And I'm very interested in your story. I thought you would make a particularly good podcast, yes, because one of the things I do with my podcast is walk people through the lives of successful individuals, because I think it would be better if people believed that they could move forward successfully in the world and that they were equipped with some knowledge about how to do that. And I think that's something we could really concentrate on focusing in on. I know it's very important to you in this podcast. You came to Canada in the 1950s. We'll go through your story autobiographically.

You came armed with a tiny bit of money, some actual skill, some determination, and out of that you built a massive business empire. Let's start with this. Not everyone listening and watching are going to know what Magna Enterprises is. So would you do us the favor first of laying out your business empire? Tell people what it is that you do and what you've accomplished,

how you spread out through the world, what you guys manufacture, just layout the story, the description of Magna. Okay, I have always said, life is a question of fate and circumstances, being at the right places at the right time with the right ingredients. As it happened, I was born in a working-class family, and when I finished my schooling and I had one or two years, practically experience, I wanted to see the world. I applied for a visa to South Africa, Australia, the United States, and Canada. Sometimes I'm a little tough on the Canadian bureaucracy, but I'm saying it's still the best because they came first forward with the visa. So I landed in Griepek City.

I took the cheapest fare I could. You know, from Holland, on the cold freighter. And so I arrived in Griepek, I think it was about April 1954 and the immigration office asked me, do you know anybody in Canada said no. So I said, well, then you go to Montreal. I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a job some English-speaking people on that ship, and so I tried to practice English. So anyway, I knew because I had $200 in my pocket, and I knew that wouldn't last me too long, if I would right away board a hotel or whatever.

So the people don't build up, just walk along the streets, and it's customary. If you see a sign, room to let's just knock on the door and you might get a room. So I did work for them. And I worked too, right? In October, there were a few signs I've seen in October. I think I kind of looked a little rough from the long journey.

And so they say it's already leased, but I did find the room. So the next morning I got up and I looked at the roadmaps, I looked at them and walked around. And I walked in the factory, but it was in 54. There was a major recession. I just couldn't find the job, right? And during that time, I was hungry, hungry not because I wanted to lose weight. I was hungry, I had no money to buy food. And if you experience that, that's an impression which will last forever.

It's burnt in your soul, right? So anyway, I run out of money, I was hungry, I had an acquaintance, not a close friend, but somebody knew from the same down they came from. And that was in Kitchener, right? So I saved enough money to do, I of greyhound pasta, get the ant. And I moved to Kitchener. I dropped it by a bus by Kitchener for Montreal. And so when they got off the main square, I asked somebody where such as such a address

is, they said, look, go up there for blocks. And then I asked again, so up for blocks four blocks asked you, well, go up three more blocks and then you might have to make a left one. So I, again, I, after about two hours of walking, I could find the house where that fellow lived and knocked on the door and the elderly lady said, Max, that was the fullest name. Somebody everyone would see me. I was very happy feeling to meet somebody which you know from previous days. So anyway, Max came down and he looked at me.

He said, do you look a little rough? Are you hungry? I said, yes, come on in. So the next day, I slept there. The next day, we started chop hunting. In the industrial site, there was nothing, but I did find a chop at the kitchen of Waterloo Hospital in the kitchen.

And so I felt so sorry for myself. I feel when they come to Canada, I get a manly job, cutting trees down or taking out stone, something manly, but I worse there in the kitchen with a lot of elderly women, nothing against elderly women. My mother was an elderly woman I liked, but I felt sorry for myself to beling potatoes, washing solids, etc., etc. So a evening it was just etching to get away to me amongst people in those days. There was an Austrian clapping kitchen there. So I went there in those days, there was flute dancing, right?

A lot of music. And when they danced with the girl, you know, you know, what you do way of from, I say, from Austria, what you do, I work in a hospital. My hands were so smooth from watching dishes. They thought I was a surgeon. So, but those the end they always kind of said, no, I'm just working at the kitchen. Then I did, they, I guess they didn't want to dance close. They didn't want to go out with a guy, which works in the kitchen, but that's the way life is.

But anyway, after a little while, after about a month or so, I did find a job in an engineering and a production orienteue company. worked exclusively for the Avro-Aro aircraft, which Canada developed. But that project wasn't financed anymore, and it was closed. The Avro-Eagraph Factory, I think, was close. The company I worked for was close. So I hit check the right to from Kitchener to Oakville. The fort was building a new factory at the time. There were huge lineups. I waited up about two, three hours before they interview me and they interviewed

a luk, the Astia Dull and Daimek, you two young two-cat and any experiences. So I wasn't hired and I drafted to Toronto down the hatch right to Toronto, but here late. I had many times meeting lunch meeting, dinner meeting with the president of Ford, and it was really lucky. If I got hired, I might be the president, right? So I could tease him, right? I knew him well enough that I could do. But then I did find a job then, a very small company, you know, about 10 people. After a few months, the guy said, the owner said, you're doing a great job. I want you to be a part of mine.

And my chest's well a little, and that's great. And nice guy, but he'd never wrote it down, what it's all about. So I said to myself, there's nothing to do with the run of factories. I looked in the papers and I found the job, I got paid a lot more. I moved in a rooming house where the toilets were in the hallway and I saved every dollar. After a couple of years I saved about $5,000. I a garage. Actually, it was the gatehouse of standard products in Dufferin on two-point in Toronto. And the size was about, maybe

doubled the garage. I bought a few used machines. I had a $5,000 saved up because in terms today, that would be at least $100,000 or $150,000, right? So I bought the used machines and all they went hustling and knocked on factory doors and they said, I'm a great in-suffering problems. And they said, like, if I can't solve the problems, you don't have to pay me. But anyway, after one month, I hired a worker They said, luck, if I can't solve the problems, you don't have to pay me.

But anyway, after one month, I hired a worker, after a year, about 10 workers, after two years, about 20, after five years, about three, four thousand, after 10 years, about 75,000, after 20 years, 125,000 down, I build up a company with 170,000 employees in 34 different countries. So, anyway, the message I want to get across is, you know, when we're younger, we all hustle to make some money so that we can live in dignity. I guess I could have lived in dignity in all those 34 countries, but I chose Canada. I think I've seen the world and I met just about every president, you know, from Clinton to Putin, to Donnie Blair, just about everybody.

And I could see Canada, perhaps the only country now, which could be a role model, which, where we could implement an economic chart of rights. Mac, basically, is more than a business. It's really a culture. I call it the Fanta Price System. The basic philosophy in Fanta Price is the human charter of rights alone is that sufficient.

We have to fortified with an economic charter of rights. Economic charter of rights, really economic democracies, and economic democracies are the basis for democracy itself. But let me explain it a little better because we don't talk too much about it. Those conversations are not the Lapl they'll apply default, right? But let me simplify things now. All the politicians, all business, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what,

what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, work, not Nell's will work. You cannot treat the hungry, you cannot look after the most fragile people, the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped. But we do not talk what drives the economy.

The economy is driven by three forces. Smart managers, hardworking employees, and investors. That means all three of the right to the outcome, which is profits. The message I want to get across is, if we fail, or if we do not let workers participate in profits, then we get a problem. Because the world has always been dominant by the golden rule and still is. The people which have the gold make the rules. I don't want to be dominant by anyone. If I feel that strong, then I should not be able to dominate somebody either. So thereby, at the only way we be able to achieve that is why an economic charter of France.

The message I want to get across to Canadians is the human charter of France alone is not sufficient. We have to fortify it with an economic charter of rights. Economic charter of rights, as I said before, will lead to economic democracies. And economic democracies are the basis for democracy itself. The human charter of rights alone doesn't mean a lot of things for a kid that enters the Detroit, he's free to be hungry. So the amazing story about the whole thing is, when I put

in a corporate constitution that Magnet was about in the mid-late eighties, the constitution basically said, or the most important thing on the constitution was, we pre-determined what we do at the profits. So the Constitution said, the profit sharing said, 20% of the profits go to the shareholders. Then percent goes to the employees over and above the wages, half in shares, half in cash, 6% management gets, 2% charity gets, and 7% is reinvested for research. So when I put the constitution in, the profits went up the first year, about 40%, the second year, about 100%, the third% about 200%. When you empower employees, where they share, where they have clear concept, where they share their profits, you release an enormous energy. You know, because they are in the front line, the employees are in the front line, they can see what

you have to do to make a better product for a better price. So that's what it's all about. That's the kind of, that's what the world needs. You know, we stand, perhaps at the crossroad, who will dominate the world. The United States is slipping to a certain extent. The United States has dominated the world for the last hundred years, and to have freedom and the religious freedom, freedom to speak, and a lot of freedom, great, right? We have maybe followed it up and we could do a little better there, but the United States, unfortunately, has a lot of problems. This can't send to inner cities.

The poverty is enormous. I don't know if it's feasible, right? But the key question we have to ask ourselves, what can we do? Because the divide is too great. There's so much money self by just a few, and there's so much poverty by many. So what do we have to do? So what do we have to do to level that out, not completely, you should never level it out. At the same time I say, I come to its diversity citizen, pursuit of productivity and shinurity, creativity is decaying this society because the society or the world's made up of different minds, different desires, different, let everybody choose their own route to happiness. So, but it's very important.

So, I divide, I divide, actually, the program, I classify business over 300 employees, it's a large business. Below 300 people, it's a small business. The law would stipulate that the large business, which have more than 300 employees, that the law would provide that workers could share in some of the profits. And that could be determined, right? They could be an escalated program. The small business, small business basically is the backbone of any country. This, they pay the most taxes, they have the most employment. And this is where employment and this is where, call it, the new products come forward, the new technology, it says, so we must do everything we can. That's what that, we take the red tapes off, take the chains of small business and let small business

operate under the pure French, the French principles. So there is the bureaucracy has climbed enormously, you know, I could never build the magnet anymore. Imagine starting out in a garage, imagine to build 170,000 employees, over 400 factories worldwide. I could could never because I would choke on the first factory, right? And I could give you examples now how cumbersome it is, right? Okay, and when we look back 40, 50 years, yes, we have a lot of security, our safety measurement, and you know, buildings have to be both that then look collapse over the snow load and so on. But the bureaucracy has climbed to such an extent. But let me, I'd like to point out, to bring about change, you won't bring about change if you point the fingers

whose fault it is, and you cannot do it with the chain so either. So I'm saying it's not the fault of the bureaucrats. In a free society, everybody is the right to find the job, whatever the job openings are. It's the system, the system we have to change. Our politicians are trapped in the systems because the politics is whoever brings forward something new, any politician or party, they won't win because you get criticized. So this is the problem. Politics, government can't fix things. So it needs a private citizen. It is a coalition of what I would call

concerned Canadians, which, where you could leave the program, relative short, that you could combine, this is what we need to get the economy going. Because the economy, you know, I think it's frightening what will happen over the next 5-10 years. We don't make things anymore. When you look, when you see factories, the factories are all warehouses. We don't make things. And when a country does make things, they got to import everything down the earth where the economy breaks down and where there's no jobs where people go hungry. So we got to wet that. So I think if you better sort over few and I would be very happy to answer questions and how can we fix things? Okay, so I would like to know, first of all, what skills you brought Canada with you and how long it took you to acquire those skills, say on the tool and die maker side. And then also what attitude do you think you brought to bear to your work

that enticed the first person, for example, to offer you a partnership, but that also made you capable of taking the risk and developing the vision to rent that first empty garage. So how were you trained? How long did that take? What made you a good potential partner? And why did you have enough daring, let's say, or vision to rent that first garage? Well, the training I served high school, high school, it was only eight classes. And I proposed to, in Canada, we should, high school should enter grade 10, grade 11, a grade 12, we should, a student should focus, we should teach him trades. And that doesn't mean that the students after grade 12 could go to university. I'm just now telling people the situation I was exposed to.

So it was a three and a half year program. We had one or two days where we had theoretical stuff, where we had to be in classrooms. And let's say four days, we went on the workshop on the floor learning different things. So that was the program. What did you learn? What skills did you acquire? It tourmaking is sort of for every... Let's say...

Let's take this bend here. That's not made by hand. There's so much precision, so much knowledge goes in a writing ban. The angst got to come out for the next few months, it's such a minute just that you can read and write. So you've got to make machines or tools, or let's people might may understand, well let's have bumper for a car, it's not my bare hand, okay, you need a mall because it's plastic, right? And it's, so this is what dual making is about, right? And this is, this is maybe the most important thread to make that thing smart. When you take a car, it might appear a door, it might appear a seat, it might appear a bumper, you need tools to detect and then special machinery.

So that will call it the basics, would take three to four years, and then it might take another few years, till you slowly walk yourself up, that you'll be a qualified Dulland Dimeca. And so what machines did you learn to operate when you were doing your training? And you also mentioned earlier that you were confident in putting yourself forward as a good problem solver. And so what was the relationship between learning those machines? What machines did you learn? And how did that facilitate your development as a problem solver?

Interesting. The first one, I came out of high school my first day at that factory. You know, I needed a platform because I couldn't quite reach up, right? I was 14 years of age. I couldn't reach up. There was a vice-script month at the other thing here. And then there was a piece of steel. The piece of steel was about 4 inches square, okay? We took two people to lift that steel up on the vice grip. And then we had a hacksaw, a metal hacksaw, we had to cut a piece down four inches square. And that took maybe a week, okay, till we cut the

thing down. And then it took maybe about three, four weeks. We had to file it perfectly square. So that, man, it's an amazing thing what that leads to and how you accumulate the precision work, right? I did a similar schooling Canada where we had a school here to teach young kids how to be drawn on diebakers, right? But anyway, so you go and then we learn things on the late way, you make round things or a milling machine and later on,, computerized machines, et cetera, et cetera. So you go to a stage, right? So anyway, that's what I did. My first shop, then in Toronto, as a dual-end-i-maker,

we made a stampede die, right? We did, maybe punch out a piece of metal and with some holes in it. So that's basically what the Dulland I make at S and S as you go along it gets more and more sophisticated. Right, right. So you got familiarized with a wide variety of tools and the ability to make precision parts. Now you said you also became a good problem solver, and then you also developed this idea that you could rent your own garage and start producing your own tools. Now, one of the things you said was that

when you went out to sell your services, you told your potential customers that you could solve a problem, and if you didn't, they didn't have to pay you. And, you know, the reason I wanna focus on that in part is because I want to know how you developed the vision to rent that garage to begin with But also how you knew that the proper thing to sell to potential customers Was your service as a problem solve right because what you're saying to them essentially is well you guys have a problem and It's plaguing you

and you need it solved. And I'm the guy that can solve it and I'm willing to, you know, demonstrate my capabilities, which is really an excellent approach to sales because you want to find out what the person's problem is and you want to be the solution. But how did you develop that problem-solving ability

and your confidence in it? And then why did you think it was worth taking the risk to rent that first garage? Jordan, you ask great questions. She made those have to be answered. The reason why I'm sitting here is, look, I want to roll off the experience I accumulated. There's thousands and thousands and thousands of young Canadians out there which could do the same thing if We if we teach them the basics, right? And I think a society would be much better off with thousands of smaller companies than want to do large companies Right? That's what that's that's the idea. So anyway, so I opened up the factory, I could

solve a few problems, I got some orders, and I, like I said, after two years, I had about 20 people, and I noticed my form when it was a little different, right? Because when they had just got, you walked so closely together, his name was Herman, and said, Herman, what's the matter with you lately? Well, he said, Frank, I'm thinking of opening my own factory. Hmm, I said,

I sympathize with that, that's what I did do. I said, look, why don't we talk tomorrow? Maybe we can find a better solution. That evening I was talking to myself and I said to myself, if that woman's going to leave me, that would start from my throat. I didn't like that. The next reason was, if that woman's going to leave me, I got to do all the work myself. I liked that if less. The third reason was, if I hire a new woman, and I don't show him how to run the business, I still got it all to work.

If I hire new foreman and I show him how business is run, it's just a question of time before he goes out and opens up his new factory. I think the key is we need, we need those experience. There is, there is this huge potential, this huge energy, which lies storming people. We are the teacher of the right way. So I think it's important while I'm still I have everything in my mind quite clearly, that we've recought that. And it's great that you use Kelly as to ask the right question. How come and how what, right?

Okay, so I'm delighted to sit here. Well, so you grew very rapidly. So there's two mysteries there to me because one of the things I've noticed with small businesses, for example, is that it's very difficult to get your first customers, right? It's very difficult to get from zero to one. Once you have a customer or two,

the next customers start to be easier because you can refer them to other customers you have, but getting those first people to decide that you're the person when no one else has done it or has been willing to show that faith, that can be very tricky. So what do you think you manage successfully? How do you think you manage to present yourself successfully

to the first people that you offered your services to? Well, surprise equality doesn't function, right? And if you have a lot of knowledge and you and you transmit that knowledge to other people, then you can give a great service, better pricing, better functioning, machinery, better tools. So that's the very key and that's what I would like to transmit. So fortunately, around that time, that's what I'm always saying, life is a question of fate and circumstances being at the right place at the right time. Around the early 60s, you know, there was a free trade arrangement signed with the United States. And I see this huge potential out there.

I should say I didn't finish up when I docked the next day with my foreman. Where I said to him, look, why don't we open up a new factory, you're on the third. And I said no more over time, I own two thirds. And by the end of the year, we'd take pro-rather some money out. And we leave some money saying for expansions. He said, do you mean it? I said, yes. We went right away to a lawyer and signed the thing here. The guy hustled like crazy. You know, he spent more time in there. That was his factory. Basically, I took the next form, the next form, the next form, the next form. I said, business is easy, right? And then, And then when I heard about, I think it was about sex of certain factories, and the free trade arrangement

came under the being, I saw this enormous potential up there. Up to that now, I only shared with the former. I said, if I, and then I got to know the United States better Canada better, the power of the unions, the size of the unions, and I said, if I, if I, I would have to do certain things to become better deaf. So I, I had a friend of mine, a machinery dealer, and he said, I kind of explained to him I really shook a public because I'm on the half. The walk has also participated. Well, he says, I know a fellow, which his name is. I'll remember it. It's a material, but anyway, he gave me the name.

I met him at the ski hill. We went skiing to get up at at church Beaks and he said, look, that was magnet electronics. He said, I have a certain age, I would like to retire. Why don't you sell your companies in Magnet Electronics and you have clues to control and then you could put that program in that where we also vacates other profits with workers. So that's what I find I did that I was totally green when he comes down to Buppie Company, Company. I did not have total control. I had a bought there.

They were more in the driving the stock up. The defense industry was very—they were mainly magnetistronic, they mainly defense work. That was very popular. And I was an automoreefin, I said, after a year, so I said, I don't think this makes a lot of... I said, I want to be out, okay? And I said, I sell my stock on the market. So they pleaded with me, please sell the stock to us, so they said, I sell my stock on the market. So they pleaded with me, please sell the stock to us, so they said, fine.

No problem. And I give us a year time, and I said, fine. They were basically okay guys, but the market kind of went down. The share step, they didn't have the money. I never sued anybody, and I just said, look, under the circumstances, you guys can't be have the money. I never sued anybody. That's a sad luck. Under the circumstances, you guys can't be on the board. And then I put in different directors and after a while, I went

to the board and went to the public and say, I forgot, I forgot, 25% of my stocks, if you the shareholders vote for a multiple vote, because I came to the conclusion, I won the run things and I can't have 20 guys, or 15 guys left and right, they're discussing debating forever, right? So I, I, the shareholders voted for that. Then I said, in the return, I was a gift-fitting, a certain discipline. This is where the corporate constitution ended. That if I had come through, I only could take out so much. There was clear-cut come through what management could do. That sort of became uh, became the magna, the magna environment. But the, yeah.

Well, let's go back to your foreman. So you had said that when you made that arrangement with him, that you valued his work and you wanted him around and you were concerned that if he left, well, all of that work would fall on your shoulders again and also stop you from moving ahead. And you sat down and contemplated, all of that work would fall on your shoulders again and also stop you from moving ahead. And you sat down and contemplated what sort of deal you would have to make with him in order for his needs to be met in yours. And there's something very important there about the nature of a deal. You know, people often think that with a deal, you try to win or with a deal, you try

to compromise. But my sense with a proper negotiation is that you want to figure out what you want so that you're thrilled to progress with the deal, and you want to figure out what your partner wants. So he's thrilled to progress with the deal. Because if you set it up that way, then your interests are aligned, and you're both going to work as hard as you can autonomously. Now, you knew your foreman had the same kind of entrepreneurial vision you did and you wanted to unleash his abilities. And so you offered him a third of the company.

You said you'd take two thirds and then you said he was thrilled, which is a good thing to have happened in a partner. And he went off and treated this factory like it was his own partly because it was. Now, and then you said you duplicated that subsidiary structure across six factories and then expanded much more dramatically. And you also, at that point, also noted that that principle of distributed ownership should be brought down to the workers. So you were starting to develop that as an explicit philosophy. Now, why do you think it was that you realized

that your foreman needed ownership? Why do you think you were willing to grant it to him? And why do you think that the agreement that you made, which was that you would own one third of the, or that he would own one think that the agreement that you made, which was that you would own one third of the, or that he would own one third of the company and you would own two thirds? Why do you think that was a desirable and compelling motivational arrangement for your foreman? First of all, a deal, you got to be a deal for both sides. It's got to be good, right? And as a company

grows, circumstances might change a bit, et cetera, et cetera. So you make provisions if you can. The reason why I think he, he was delighted with the deal is when we had verbal arrangements, I never went back on my word. I think that's a very key. So he felt comfortable when he say, that I, that's, that's very crucial. Like later on, if I, if you know, once when I had about 30 or 40 or 50 or 100 factories, and I had a perspective, a manager, which I interviewed, I said, look, that's the name, the addresses of 100 factories. Whoever manages it, you want to choose and ask him how I run things. The message that I wanted to get across if you promise something, you must keep it, doesn't matter what the thing is, because if you got the ability can always make money. If you lose your reputation, you can never repair it. So I think I had

a reputation build up. And again, when I said, small companies, you don't need a formal structure, it's kind of loose, it's pure free enterprise. Look, when I was small, when I had about 20, 30, 40 work, as I showed you my bank book and said, look, this is a contract we have here. If you do XXXX, I share it with you, right? So you don't, it's pure free enterprise. And that's what I want to get across. That's pure capitalism. But capitalism, if we don't change, if we do not look like workers, participate, capitalistic, the system is self-destructive. And let me give you a quick story, right? I spent a lot of time in Washington. At one time I had a meeting with the leader of the House, Mitch McConnell. He's the senator from Kentucky, he was the president of the Senate.

I had a farming Kentucky, so I knew him. So I said Mitch, let's, you know, I like to see you one of the days. So we arranged that meeting and they said Mitch, America did great way to free enterprise system. And without free enterprise, there's no free society. So we must do everything we can to have free enterprise. But it said free enterprise got a major problem. So he said, what do you mean by that? I said, Metsch, more or more capital is helped by fear and fear. And I said, I said, in nature, when a species does the three produce itself, another species will they go up. At the loss of nature,

a much stronger than any man-made law, right? And that's what happens now. That's the way we are going to go. So we got to share with the employees because without employees we can't make a profit and if employees make more money They have more purchasing power the economy functions better Okay, so we must we must have the large companies They must have more of a discipline because they sometimes they run by institutions by a buy and they have got no more affinity for people that they just look at the share price, they look at the profits, so it's not there, right? So the others are not there anymore or anyway, we need a discipline there, but we must open up, we must, it's so crucial that small enterprise that we don't die

might be in chains and with regulations. You highlighted three things. The first thing you highlighted was that the people that you were negotiating could trust you. Now, people who are cynically critical of capitalism tend to justify that by noting the sort of winner take all problem that you described. And then they presume that if you're greedy and you shovel everything towards yourself, you're most likely to, let's say, win in the capitalist enterprise. But you pointed out something very much contrary to that. Three things actually. The first is that you don't develop a reputation by screwing other people. You develop a reputation

by telling other people what you're going to do and then bloody well doing it. And that you should also write down what you say you're going to do so that everybody remembers and knows exactly what the deal is. That you said that by the time you were negotiating, let's say, with a foreman who wanted to leave, you had enough track record with him of trust so that he believed that you would do what you said you were going to do and he could envision a future with you without having to worry about your motivations. So you established your trust. Then you also realized that he was going to be a hell of a lot more motivated if he was an owner in the system, right? And so your answer to the problem of capitalism isn't exactly less capitalism.

It's a much more distributed and generous form of capitalism that pulls everybody, the workers and the managers and owners into the profit-making structure. Now, the other advantage, this is so cool, because I've learned this as I've built enterprises too. If you make a really great deal with someone and the person's good and they're competent and they're honest and they're productive and they're generous, if you make a really good deal with them

and you can let them go off on their own, that means that they're going to take care of a thousand details on their own, keeping their own affairs in order that you don're going to take care of a thousand details on their own, keeping their own affairs in order that you don't have to take care of anymore. You don't have to micromanage. And that means that you can go off and expand your enterprise and do your own thing. And so the advantage you gain by distributing more responsibility, let's say to an extremely competent foreman, the advantage you gain is mass and freedom. And

you also gain the advantage of the fact that that foreman, who now partakes in the enterprise, is going to be much more motivated to make the enterprise work. And so even if you end up paying him more, like a third of the company, let's say, or the profit share that you described, the overall profit is going to be so much greater that there's nothing in it but benefit for you and for him. And then you also pointed out, and this is a very crucial thing for people to understand, because this is where the left wing critics of capitalism actually have a point, although it's not a problem that's specific to capitalism, which is that as an enterprise grows, and it doesn't matter what

the enterprise is, the benefits tend to flow into the hands of fewer and fewer people. And that destabilizes the whole damn enterprise because you get too many slaves on the bottom and not enough arrows on the top. And that produces discontent and dissatisfaction and aim motivation. And that can bring the whole damn system to a halt. So your solution to that was to set up this constitution that you described, which also enabled you to grow. I'm going to reveal it again because it's very, very important. This is the economic charter of rights.

So your management philosophy is to distribute responsibility and profit and to make that an explicit part of the agreement and the deal is 20% of the profits go to the shareholders 6% to the management 10% to the workers 2% to charity 7% reinvested in 2% to charity, 7% reinvested in research and further development. And you make that explicit. Now, the trust you described is also crucial because the workers with whom you're arranging to share the profits aren't going to trust that deal or go along with it if they think you're going to gerrymandor the books on the profit side, right? They have to have to actually believe that you're going to play a straight game. But if you can explain

to them that, well, you're going to play a straight game because if you motivate them properly, they're going to work a hell of a lot harder and everybody's going to make a lot more money and the products are going to have higher quality and we're going to sell more. Then there's absolutely nothing there for people to steal selfishly and run away with. There's only the possibility for people to steal selfishly and run away with. There's only the possibility that all that distributed responsibility and ability is going to produce more and more, well, it's going to be more and more productive and more and more generous.

Now, I asked you when we met at the restaurant, a couple of months ago, whether or not you had run into labor problems as you grew because going from, you know, no employees to a hundred thousand, you're obviously going to be dealing with potential labor issues. And you've said that as a consequence of this constitution and the trustworthiness of the process that you've had, that you've been able to pay your workers a premium rate, but that you've also had almost no labor trouble. Is that correct? If I got that right? Yeah, that's correct. And the interesting part about it is we were basically in the automobile industry and the other workers union was maybe the strongest union in America, right?

Okay. So anyway, the president of the Canadian Order Workers' Human, his name was Buss Hargraff, was still his name, and I call them and I said, but let's have lunch. To do a first, we have an application. What do we get to do to maintain jobs and great new jobs? I said, let's have lunch. So we agreed and then we sat down and said, it shouldn't be that difficult to put on one page, what's important for the workers and on one page what's important for business. And we call that a framework of economic justice. After a few weeks, we managed a bit, we agreed on the thing, on that structure. He said to me, I might not get a true to my membership. Okay. But he did get it through. And we incorporated that. We took two factories where we said, look, we're going to try and see how that works. Right? But workers were

very upset. They said, look, we find we are happy, you want to change a total different thing here. I took, I took, I said, luck, I have an application, we live in a society, we are a very important part of that society, we got to find ways and means, can we learn from that, right? Because when I made my, you know, if you have a few hundred factors, when I made my rounds, I made it a habit always to at least every month, say, see maybe a new a factory which I haven't seen for a while. When I made my rounds, I got to work as together and I said, look, those are the basic principles, but they said, let's make one thing clear.

No government can guarantee your chops, no union can guarantee your chops, not even magna can guarantee your chops, but I'm the head of the magna, I can guarantee one thing, the basic principles. And that is the very key idea is, if we, if labor, in management work together and make a quality product, that's the best guarantee, that's the best guarantee. And we can make the quality product if we communicate and we put a very important structure in our company, right? We audit the human capital. It's a very unusual thing here. The usual thing here. First of all, I put in a hotline. I had some trusted people.

And we got a big notice on the factories. If you're unhappy with something, that's is, call a hotline. But you don't have to give your name. And I had people then investigate those with trusted people. And now when I were dark with managers, they said, that's one of the best things you're dead. Because the first reaction when they said, I said, are you spying on us? They were unhappy. But now it's an other. Because if you have an unhappy employee, unhappiness is contagious. If you get unhappy employees, there's no way you can make a quality product at a competitive price.

So that's very... So we've done that on a verbal thing where we have a den, we did actually audit a human audit where an employee got a den, we love, we with no name on it. No, no, and they could take it home and fill it out. You know, various questions that say, if it's a fair discrimination or whatever, you could fill it out. There's only one in an downward log, no name on it, and did drop it in a box. And it's collected, and then we analyze it.

And we could see right away if there was a problem. Okay, we could see it. So that is another worry, because as a manager, let's say, the average factor was about 200 people in our, you know, that's another very important thing to become. I always had deficiency experts come to me, Christ, they got over 400 factors, reduce it, reduce it, maybe do 20 or whatever.

That means to have maybe 5,000-10,000 people per factory. People become a number. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. So you should never forget the human side. By having smaller factories, let's say the factory is located more in the Nordally region, it's like a factory, right? If hunting season comes and some people want to take some time off, other people jump in and say like I cover for you. I've walked the extra time.

It's everything relates to people. The work has got to be in equal. And I sit to myself and I sit to the managers. Your number one thing is every day you've got to walk. Are you respected by the workers? That's your main aim. You've got to be respected. And once when you build that thing, then your people are ductive, right? You'll be, they think of the workers think of better ways to make things, right? And dare and business is easy. All you have to do is make a better project for a better price. That's as easy as it is. So you pointed out there are a number of things that are extremely

interesting. So one of them, you imagine that you're trying to differentiate your enterprise as it grows. You have 100,000 employees and obviously there has to be a hierarchy between you and them. The question is, what size should the pieces of that hierarchy be? You know, there's an anthropological literature that relates cortical expansion, so brain size, to average group size in primate communities. And the optimized group size for human beings seems to be something around 200. What generally happens in hunter-gatherer societies is that if a society exceeds about 200 individuals, it'll break into two separate societies. That's very common.

And I think the reason for that is, you know, I think the reason for that is the one that you just pointed out is that there's a once a network of associations gets to be too big, you stop having that personal connection with people and you start to become a number. Like I've certainly seen this in educational institutions, you know, the huge universities reduce the university students to numbers. They're irrelevant. There's no personal relationship. And so the students end up feeling alienated

and that demolishes their motivation. And you know, in the typical educational apparatus in the higher education field, you have a 40% dropout in the first year. And that's a catastrophic figure. And I know a college, a Hillsdale college, a small place. It's only got 1,200 people and it's hierarchically organized. They've managed to get their dropout right down to 1%. So 40% is an absolute crime.

Now, you, how do you do? You talked about human audit. You also talked about allowing employees to put forward their concerns and to indicate their unhappiness with process and to bring new ideas to the forefront without having to worry that they were going to be targeted for doing so. And that was very effective. So you set up communication networks in your factories and you kept them small so you could do that. How do you guys do in terms of employee wages, in terms of per capita employee productivity and with regard to turnover?

Well, first of all, I want to listen to you, there is, and the university is a lecture course, what is the optimum people on the leadership, and how many people are below or whatever. It's 200, right? So I should go back to school to maybe learn more about that. So that's what, in practice, you get to know, you learn as you go along in practice, and every business might be a little different, right? Okay. But in our thing, it's what I could see about a factory. We do on the people, the manager has to again and bracked and knew everybody by his first name. In house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house,

in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house,

in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, in house, You know, or if it's genuinely math, right? It's very crucial, right? So anyway, over the years, I gave a lot of lectures in universities, and I always thought the students, when they started out, the success of life can only be measured,

the degree of happiness you reach, you have. But I said, let me tell you for my experience. It's a lot easier to be happy if you got some money. The smart students always say, if I ask, well, how can we make some money? So I said, luck, if you be around 20 on your early 20s, you don't know yourself that well. Experiment a bit. Do something what you enjoy.

When you enjoy something, you're going to be good in it. If you put in the extra effort, you could be one of the best, whatever it is. If you be one of the best, money is a by-product. But it's sad. But one thing, don't forget. You must not forget. Life has been great to you. You have parents sacrificed that you perhaps went to school. You have a right to use that knowledge,

what you accumulated in school for your own benefits, but never forget. wisdom, of that knowledge, gotta go back to society for a better society. But the very interesting thing is, it's only the last number of years I came to the conclusion that, look, we have no faculties, right? They may, as far as I can see universities, their main idea is to teach young people can we have a more civilized society? Or be more specific?

Can we teach young people, can we as a university participate to develop a structure which could lead to an ideal society. That should be the main focus of a university. Yes, we in the universities, we teach great medicine and great art, great sport, great technology, but we do not teach, you know, what is the structure of an ideal society. But it dawned on me, and the United States about 70% of the universe is a subsidized private industry, and in Canada 100% under the provincial jurisdiction, okay, 100% subsidized, and management doesn't want to bite the hand which feeds them. But luckily I could convince the Minister of Education of universities, children and

I think I'm doing a series in search of the ideal structure, which would lead to an ideal society. Your workers, you've had little labor trouble formally. How do you know that your workers are in fact like comparatively well paid in relationship to other enterprises of your type? And how do you guys do in terms of retention and promotion? Well, we do constantly a survey. The corporate constitution says the weights has got to be averaged to the competition within the region, and the profits at late town, we had a formula.

It's not up to a manager, say, like the person who had just said that. She's beautiful or whatever. It's we have a formula. The formula was based upon, we wanted to reward loyalty. And suppose you get a point for a year you've been with the company. Suppose you've been with the company five years, you get five points for loyalty. And suppose you get a point for a $5,000 earned. And suppose you have 50,000 to get ten points for knowledge.

And the more points you have, the more you share out of the part, right? But it's pre-formulator, right? So we want to reword loyalty and performance. The managers are separate, right? They purely put a date in their factory. I've always said there is no bad employees, only bad managers. And the bad or, there's very few bad managers, or let me rephrase it, there's some managers which need more learning experience, right? But there's very few bad measures, but there's no bad employees, okay? Because we, it's our thing too. It's our thing to assist them in learning and what makes the factory run and I guess

as a business man, it's what makes the economy run in a country. The economy, we need a new model of the economy. And I think I counted it the first country with an economic chart of rights. An economic chart of rights, it's fundamental. How many companies, okay, you've had a lot of success with this particular model of corporate governance and it's allowed you to grow very rapidly to develop a very large enterprise and to maintain it across now quite a long time because it's about 50 years, 70 years, 70 years.

That's very long in the corporate world. How widespread have your ideas of constitutional profit sharing become? And what in your view has been the impediment to their wider acceptance? Well, keep in mind, there was for many years on the corporate governance, but of Nastyk, with the new Arctic change.

Okay, where we take a look, minority interest or what the market not behaving properly, right? And we worked at the interface with the Security Commission and brought forward that the market needs changing. Okay? There's no different in here. It's a constant. And it should be done within the company. So it's expected that the management left a certain standards. Employees have to leave in society.

We have to teach standards. We don't teach enough for kids what it's all about. And I moved to, after I finished my schooling in Austria, I moved to Switzerland. And it was a great learning experience. It's a great country, great people. It's made relative easy to demand a referendum. Okay, and so on. Important things they have referendum said. About two years, I think it wasn't the Wall Street Journal, Swiss people defeated the referendum to have more vacation. I think the referendum was to move the vacation up from three weeks to five weeks, the people

defeated it and said, we cannot afford it. Right. Right. It's the ultimate democracy. So why have the ideas that you've put forward in relationship to the corporate constitution, not being accepted and implemented by more companies, do you think? I mean, your model has shown that if you're more generous with the profit distribution, and if you formalize that distribution, you seem to gain an increment productivity. And so why also given the fact that, you know, capital tends to occur in the hands of fewer and fewer

people, why, and that that's a problem for the maintenance of the popularity of the capitalist system in general, why do you think your economic model hasn't met with more acceptance? Is it just that it's too new? You know, I mean, new ideas take a long time to distribute. What's the impediment? Sure. I brought a book to Creed Factor, right? And homo sapiens are born with some greed. Without greed, homo sapiens cannot exist.

And but greed after a certain thing, it's the most destructive force. So like I said, I've pinned on the corporate governance board. It's what an education. We've made it too complicated for public companies, right? The barographs, like, it's so complicated that it's just a feasible anymore, right? So I am in the university, it's, it's, and so everything you should work on, we've got to get back again.

There was nothing wrong with Canada about 40, 50, 60 years ago. So everything functioning quite well. So we have gotten into that where we analyze, where we look at the best way to bring it across is, when you take a look at our DAX codex, it's a deck book with thousands of paragraphs. Keep in mind when I fully run Magda, I had 20 lawyers on one side of my office and 20 financial experts just on the other side. When I went to the lawyers and said, I'd like to do XXXX, here's that Twitter in the law. Well, they said, that's with him the law. I went to the thing here now. How is it treated from a

tax point of view? After a week, you know, you got the think it's so complete, it's so great, it could be it away. But they said, there's some experts down in the city, which, so you gift, you sent them the problem or the gratification. After a few weeks, they get a big bill and they can be either way. So everything, every barograph, there's thousands and thousands, they more come for looted than the others. And till we have a DAC system, black and white, where everybody can fill out down, we have from, how can the society function? The DAC system is a slanted and favor of specialized

and discrepancy. That's the dilemma. Well, so you mentioned earlier in our conversation that you believe that it would be very difficult for you to start your dual garage basic factory today that the regulatory burden would be just too high. And so, as societies move forward in time, they tend to accrue more and more rules. They tend to stagnate themselves, and that's a constant danger. I mean, one of the advantages to the capitalist system is that large, unwieldy enterprises that no longer function get killed by the market disappear. We don't really have an equivalent function of death,

let's say, in the bureaucratic realm. We have elections, but that doesn't really affect the bureaucratic state. Do you have any sense of how it might be possible to clear out some of the regulations that are impeding entrepreneurial development? Have you had any success in talking to politicians, let's say, in Canada about how some of that house cleaning might occur? The politicians can't do it. I could give you many reasons, maybe some other times we have a little more time. But again, one point out, no chance approach. It's not the fault of the bureaucrats. It's the fault of the system.

But one piece of civilized way would be not the rehire, till he reaches certain status. Right? certain status, right? And it's got to relate to the GDP, to the GDP, to what we can create. It needs X. Same as management needs X manages. The same society could have and on the bureaucratic side, a set of percentage related to the market, do what does the country produce? Let's talk a little bit about the future. Now, one of the things we discussed when we first met was a new product that you're bringing to market. And on the cheap and easily accessible transportation side, especially for urban commuters. Do you want

to talk about the product that you guys are bringing to market soon and where you're going to build that and what your vision is for that? Yes, about two years ago, the Premier called me and he said, I got a problem. I said, what? Is the channel mode is disclosing? You know the kind of three, I got inducted into American, other mode, if all of fame in in 2018. So I said, yeah, give me a few days, give me a week, I'll bring forward something. At around that time, I had to go down, down a few times, I should say the magnet head office is an Aurora, which is about 21 minutes down to the 401. So anyway, around that time,

I had to go down a few times, what used to take me half an hour from the other ring to the inner ring to base rate. Now, if everything is fine, what they can do, but you could take two hours. So I got stuck a few times, two hours. And I said, what a waste of human energy, what a waste of non-renewable energy. But, I said, what damage does to the health, the well-being of people. So anyway, I went back to the workbench, okay. I should

say, Magna is a major coffee manufacturing company. We have one factory where we produce all the mini-coupes for the whole world. They can be shipped out of our factories right under the showrooms, right across the world. We developed the Asmratton to repeat, you know, right from our factory, shipped to the showrooms. A very unique car, no welding, no screwing. It was built like an airplane. It was glued together, right? But anyway, so I think I've done that for 60 years.

I came to the conclusion it's got to be a small electric car. I think we can't defraise my crew mobility. And in loose terms, my crew mobility means you need, you've got to be able to pocket least four of doors in a regular car parking spot. To be more precise, if they cannot be waited at 3.5 feet, not longer than 7 feet. And you can plug it in and then any electric outs outlet one thin wolf and the few hours you can go 100 kilometers with it for less than a dollar you can have a quick charging to. So it will change transportation, its main purpose is to get people from your home, to your workplace and back home. We also done an equivalent, a small backup truck,

which will do in a city merchandise delivery. And I should be in mass production about two, three months. The fact is just throughout we got the first brother dice coming off the line and it will change, it will change transportation for many reasons. The primary reason is there's only so much well in the grounds. The reason why gasoline prices are relative cheap is

the United States is utilizing 120 million tons of grain to convert it into ethanol to keep the gasoline price down. You can't do that for long because the next wave will be or the critical wave for society will be food shortages in the world, not triggered by the deal would have come anyway, but will be accelerated quicker by what goes on the deal. Ukraine, because the Ukraine is a major food producer. So, anti-related states can't do that. So, the gasoline prices will go up dramatically. I would say, will double in two, three years. But most of all, I predicted eight years.

gasoline will be rationalized, will only be available for essential purposes. One of the essential purpose will be electric trucks. I thought the electric, but me, gasoline trucks will hold the food from the farms to the cities, because the crit power will not be there for a large electric trucks or you will not solve the traffic chains because there is the crit power isn't there. It would take much time to do it. You might have to go with small atomic power stations, but that's a lot of thing here, right? But the grid system isn't there. I built the first hydrogen car, with BMW, about 15 years ago.

Yes, it works, but much more complex, much more expensive. And I see a small electric car, you know, that's the answer for now for the next 50-100 years. You want to talk a little bit about what it looks like and what people can expect to see and experience when they use this particular vehicle? Okay, they're basically small, right? We... Again, it's main purpose is to go from your home, to your workplace and back home. Okay? And that means we have stifled the speed, at 32 kilometers per hour, right?

So basically, the insurance will be so minimal, practically none, because you can't do any damage. So, and two people can sit in the car, and people in the pickup truck, there's four people can sit in there. You could be a taxi, you could be merchandise delivery vehicle. So I think we have, we showed it on the Canadian Auto Show, we had the biggest line-ups and thousands of people drove it, they got all enthusiastic about it. And the key question is, how do we got to get around? That's the key question. Right. Well, it looked like it looked like a kind of a hybrid

between electric car and a motorcycle, essentially. And you mentioned as well, you know, that many families have a conundrum where because there are two people working and they tend to work in different locations that they need two vehicles and one of the vehicles and both vehicles are very expensive and they're they're over determined for the purpose. People need a commuter vehicle essentially as well as an ordinary vehicle to do all the other things they need to do with it. Neurosense was that this vehicle would supply a low cost alternative to people who need primarily need transportation to work and back and who wouldn't be using the vehicle, who would be using their other vehicle for primary purposes other than that. So that's seem about right?

A few changes. When I looked down the road, now usually call it the metal glass as a two car garage, two cars, right, because the husband maybe went to work, he must have some cases the wife do, but he many cases the wife stay at home, she a kid said to bring the kids to school or at the shopping and so on, so when I looked down the road, I think you need a special permit for a large electric car, for a family that you could go to the cottage or that for special purposes, not for daily commute. Okay, and you have two or three, you could actually get four small cars in the regular Ducar garage. And this is where cats are, you see their friends

or the wife or the husband go shopping. So you to run around, right? To teach things, meet up with your friends and go to school or whatever, go to work. And just it's reliable transport at low cost and no greenhouse gases. I would like to thank you very much for the time you spent today. I very think it's very useful to explain to people. I think it's extremely useful to have explained to people.

A trotnet, I don't want to flatter you. You are gifted to bring out the inner war kigs of a lot of machinery, a lot of people. And that's, you know, as a technician, yes, I'd be able to trans-reasonable well, but you have a gift to transmit it that it be easily understood by the people. So I've delighted that I came. I'm delighted that I was invited. Well, it's it's so what would struck me in our conversations was the importance of disseminating your vision for fostering a generous productivity. You know, you created an enterprise that's distributed. You said that you've made millionaires out of many of your foreman, out of people who've rose to the position where they

could run their own factories. You've given people the opportunity to have a tremendous amount of autonomy under your overarching authority and to bring out the best of them as they build their own factories and as they employ more and more people. And you've managed also to distribute that responsibility and opportunity all the way down to the workers. And, you know, it's absolutely obvious to me that there's never been a more effective machine for producing wealth than the free exchange capitalist system, the data on

that are crystal clear. As soon as you stop countries from doing absolutely idiotic economic things and free up their population under a quasi capitalist market, then everybody becomes richer. Then you have the emergent problem of inequality, and that's a problem, but your system of distributed profits, given that it's honestly run, is a reasonable solution to that problem. And it's very good to hear you talk about how motivated you've been to build the company and to produce all the products you have, but also how much you've been able to motivate other people, well, being productive and solving the problem of unequal distribution.

So thank you very much for bringing that to everyone's attention. I got, I had a few more words. My motivation was never to be hungry anymore and live in dignity. And the reason is, it's very important. If a manager, let's say a man, a manager wanted to make more money's here to replace himself and has to open up another factory.

So a manager could replace himself maybe 20, 30 or 50 times. And then he gets a cut from each factory where he made a contribution, a percentage of the profits. In this way, some of them, the yearly income maybe was 5 million or 10 million. So the more they made, the more the shareholders made, the more the workers were made. So we, when I said, it's so important that we have, that we have smaller companies, that we have smaller companies that young kids got to see, I wanna be able to do like, like, so proud. I wanna make 50 million or 100 million or like the football player, like the hockey player, we must give them the motivation, right?

But let it be, like some people are quite happy with the next XX, let it be, let everybody, I love to beat all those stuff so long. Let it be, let everybody be, let everybody be, let everybody be, let everybody find downright the happiness. Thank you. My pleasure, man. To everybody watching and listening, thank you very much for your time and attention. The film crew up here in Northern Ontario. And Downward Frank is.

Thank you for the flawless technical, the provision of flawless technical expertise on this front to the daily wire plus for making these conversations possible. I'm going to continue talking to Mr. Frank Stronek for another half an hour on the daily wire plus platform, a bastion of free speech and an increasingly sensorial world. And so if those of you who are watching and listening are inclined to devote your attention to that platform, that would be much appreciated and maybe increasingly necessary as the months unfold. I'm looking forward to coming and looking at your factory, Mr. Strannock. I think that would be very much fun.

It's I love looking at industrial enterprises because, well, it's lovely to see that much concerted and harmonious effort working out to produce things that people actually need. I really wish you luck with your new vehicle. I hope that you've hit the market dead on and that people find this vehicle, you know, inexpensive, reliable, and useful, like many of your other products have been. And so that would be a lovely thing to see. It would be great to see that happening in Canada, because we lack a little entrepreneurial zing at the moment, and that's not as it should be. And so I didn't get into the most important message. What's my, uh, called my main aim is my main aim is I got about 15 years ago, very heavily in the agriculture. The deep I got to end it, the more I could see this camera to jungle, you know, with all

the pesticides and all the fungicide. So 95% of the food eat and comes from industrial farms. And then industrial farms is in no more eagles fly away. There's no more fessence. There's no more rapids. We spray everything. We had fungicide and pesticides. He gets in the air.

We breathe in, gets in water. We think that gets in the soil with the food. And all the kids' active allergies and stage two dapetics is on the rise. So my main aim is, my main goal is, I don't want to see any Canadian kid to go to school hungry. That means breakfast got to be served. I don't want to see any Canadian kid to leave the school hungry. That means lunch has got to be served. And below it would the state it has to be organic. I got every reasonable everything in, but there's lots more to whether

public should know. Thank you, George, being with you. My pleasure, man, and we'll meet in a couple of minutes on the daily wire side and then again in the future. And thanks again, everybody for watching and listening today. music