All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
41:48
Episode 770 Scott Adams: All the Interesting News and Simultaneous Sipping
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Come on in here.
Yeah, it's time.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And it's good to see you, Erica, Erica, Michael, Mike.
Come on in here, Sharona.
You know what you need for the simultaneous set.
That's why you're here.
You know you are. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh, yeah.
That's the good sipping right there.
Sue, thank you for all your well wishes.
People congratulating me on getting engaged with the lovely Christina Bashan.
A wonderful week for me.
Very happy. And let's talk about some news, okay?
That's why you're here.
I know you are.
So it'll be news, but...
Most of the news is sort of cold news.
It's not hot news.
It's very cold. And is somebody having audio problems?
I don't think so. Let's talk about a few things.
I was impressed by a tweet by Elon Musk.
Now, Elon Musk is part of the so-called PayPal mafia, meaning that he was one of the founders of PayPal.
Several of whom, such as Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, went on to start other wonderful things themselves.
And I always wondered if there's something about that group that was fundamentally different.
It could be they're just geniuses, and once you make your first fortune, it's easier to make your second fortune.
So it could be nothing but coincidence and obvious reasons.
But it seems like those PayPal mafia people just have some different understanding of how the human brain works.
Just some other kind of gear that they seem to be able to go into to capture the X factor, the imagination, the motives, the needs and wants of their people.
There seems to be something that they have an extra vision on.
And this tiny little tweet from Elon Musk is one of those tells, meaning it signals that there's something extra going on from the author of the tweet.
And here's what he said.
It was just the smallest little tweet.
You probably know that he owns a company or he's a founder of a company called the Boring Company.
B-O-R-I-N-G. And it stands for, it's a play on words, but it stands for boring tunnels.
So they've got these big pieces of equipment that will quickly and efficiently bore a pretty big tunnel.
And so he tweets, and here's the exact quote.
Build super-safe, earthquake-proof tunnels under cities to solve traffic.
And then he says, you know, definitely yes, maybe, and no, I like traffic.
So he gives you three choices that are not really three choices.
They're biased toward yes.
But look how well he presented, in one sentence, the proposition.
He said, build super-safe.
So what's interesting here is that he put super safe before he even told you what the topic was.
So you knew that whatever was going to come after build super safe, he's already framed it.
So now you're in the mode of, oh, what is it he's going to be talking about that's super safe?
And then he goes on and says it's earthquake proof.
Good. I don't know what he's talking about yet, but it's super safe.
It's earthquake proof.
So my mind is already in safe.
And then he says tunnels.
Now, if he had said tunnels first, where would my brain be?
If you say, should we build tunnels under cities, we can make them safe.
Completely different, right?
So if you say tunnels first, people get claustrophobic, they think about earthquakes, they think about tunnels collapsing and everything, and then you say, oh, but they're safe, it's already too late, because the person's already bound themselves to an opinion, and it's hard to talk somebody out of an opinion.
If they don't have an opinion, maybe you can assign it, but whatever their first opinion is, is going to be sticky.
So Elon, knowing that if they think tunnels before they think safe, words it so that all the safety stuff is first.
Have you seen me do this when we talk about Generation 4 nuclear?
The way that I always advise people to talk about it is to say, let's say somebody's never heard of Generation 4, they don't know what that means.
So the way you introduce it is to say Generation 4 nuclear is the kind that eats nuclear waste from other plants for its fuel and it's safe for meltdowns.
And the reason that When I say Generation 4, I add, eats nuclear waste and save from meltdowns, is because it's the first thing you're going to wonder about.
Now, in the case of nuclear energy, you don't really have to put the words in reverse, but you've got to say them really upfront and soon.
So anyway, that's just a little signal that Elon certainly understands how people work, brains work.
Joe Biden humorously is stating that he will not comply with a subpoena to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Trump if he is asked.
That's right. Joe Biden just publicly said he would obstruct Congress.
He would obstruct the Senate.
Are you kidding me? I don't think this story could be any funnier.
Then when it comes down to Biden, Biden's saying, yeah, I'm just going to obstruct justice because I don't like how the system is.
It just makes the whole thing ridiculous.
It's that final little straw that just makes the whole thing just look stupid now.
Now, most of you probably thought the whole impeachment thing was stupid and political.
Anyway, but once you get to the point where you say, okay, Biden, come in and talk to us.
He's like, no, I think I better obstruct some justice here.
I'm just not going to do that.
Your whole argument is gone.
There's nothing left. All right.
There's some interesting stuff happening.
Let's talk about historian and writer Stephen Beschloss.
He tweeted this morning that he still doesn't understand why Trump still won the presidency after he was called out for allegedly, alleged being the operative word here, mocking a disabled man with a gesture that looked like he was Imitating it and mocking it.
Now, how can you be a presidential historian and not be aware of all the compilation clips showing him do the same gesture, mocking other people like Ted Cruz, who have no physical disability whatsoever?
And so I tweeted back, He was saying he couldn't understand how he could get elected after that happens.
And I said, because his supporters have access to more news than his critics, which is literally true, by the way.
So supporters all saw the compilation clips.
Didn't all see it.
Some people just didn't care.
But remember, he was the president who was elected under the promise of being offensive.
Trump never promised his supporters that he would be unoffensive.
He literally promised he would be offensive.
He promised it.
He said it publicly. Because that's what it means when he says he's not going to be politically correct.
The opposite of politically correct is not racist.
The people on the left would like us to believe that.
But the opposite of politically correct is offensive.
It's not racist. It's not sexist.
It's not any of those things. You could be those too.
I'm not saying that you're off the hook for that stuff.
I'm saying that being offensive is its own category.
It just means you don't give a shit about what somebody thinks.
It doesn't mean you're a racist.
It doesn't mean you're a misogynist or any of that stuff.
So President Trump promised it directly and he promised it as clearly as you can say it.
I'm not going to be politically correct.
Only has one meaning.
I'm going to be offensive.
So if you're asking why would people vote for somebody who surprised us by being in the opinion of some people, I think they're wrong, but that he did something that some people think is offensive.
That's what he promised. So why would his supporters change their mind if he gave them exactly what he said he was going to do, which is I'm not going to worry about that stuff.
If it's offensive, it's offensive.
But the bigger question is, how could you be a famous historian, presidential historian and author, and this is like your main topic, and I don't think he'd ever seen the compilation clips, because it would certainly soften your opinion about it if you had, as it did for everybody who saw them.
Now, somebody tried to argue, well, I've seen the compilation clips, and he uses a little more movement when he's talking about the guy who has the bad arm, Then the other times when, admittedly, he does a similar movement, but they're a little less aggressive.
So therefore, it must be that really this one time he used exactly those same movements, they were a little more aggressive.
So that must mean he was really mocking the guy.
No, it doesn't mean that.
It doesn't mean that at all.
It's not even slightly meaning that.
Here's what it means.
He does this mocking action fairly often.
There are lots of videos of him doing it in different contexts.
Some of them are bigger motions than others.
That's it. That's all you know.
All you know is he makes the motion bigger sometimes and smaller sometimes.
You don't know anything else.
Anything else is mind reading.
Alright, let's talk about Iran.
So, there's a report that there might have been, I think the official report of like 300 deaths in these protests recently.
Reuters said there were 1,500 people killed in two weeks.
If Iran murdered 1,500 of its own citizens in two weeks, let's say that's true, how do they stay a country?
I mean, that's a pretty big death count.
for a country that at least sometimes has access to the internet so I'd be really watching that story 1500 seems close to a breaking point you know if you were to imagine how many how many Iranian citizens protesting would have to be murdered by the government before the country would fall and I don't know the number.
Is it 10,000?
Is it 20,000?
Would they have to kill 20,000 of their own people before the public would say, all right, that's enough.
We're done with this government.
1,500 is a lot.
Probably not enough to topple the country, but it's moving in that direction.
And I haven't heard if the protests have slowed down, but I suppose they have.
We did hear that the reason for the bad smell in Tehran Apparently there had been a bad smell on a lot of days and people were trying to figure out what that was.
It was because they were burning a low-quality fuel that you normally wouldn't use because of this problem unless you had shortages.
So that smell that they sometimes smell in Turan, which is apparently pretty bad, is a polluting, dangerous kind of fuel that you wouldn't burn unless you had to, basically.
Things are going bad there.
I'm going to talk about North Korea, and then I'm going to pivot back to Iran.
The thing that fascinates me about North Korea, and I say this all the time, is that it's a pretend military situation, but it's actually just a psychological problem, a psychology puzzle.
Now, if it were just a military problem, I wouldn't have any insight and nothing to add.
But in the realm of psychology...
I can at least brainstorm a little bit and maybe add something to the texture and composition of the ideas.
And that might be worth something.
So let's talk about that. Now, I'll try to put like a different spin on this so it doesn't seem like you're hearing the same North Korea story every time.
But here's the basic problem.
If you try to get trust first, you have an unsolvable problem.
Meaning that North Korea says we'll do this if you do that.
We say we'll do this if you do that.
But nobody wants to go first because there's no trust.
So what do you do when the problem is trust and you don't know how to create trust?
Well, the first thing you should do is not start there.
Don't start with trust because that's just not possible.
There's no way to get there from here.
We can't just suddenly trust and then work from there.
So you have to cheat the system a little bit.
You have to figure out how to get fake trust or do what I call the magic trick.
I'll explain that in a minute.
But here's how I would approach it if I were president of the country.
I would start by saying, hey, North Korea, can we agree on what the vision looks like?
So I would get North Korea to say, can we just agree what we want it to look like?
What would be the state of success?
Describe it. And then have a common vision.
Let's say that state of success is that North Korea stays in business.
They open up for more commerce.
Their weapons are no longer pointed at us.
Our weapons are no longer pointed at them.
So let's just first agree what it should look like.
Don't need too many details.
Just say, we'd like to be trading partners, we'd like to not be enemies, and we'd like to not have our military in any way threatening yours or yours to threaten ours.
So you start there.
It's very important to have the image of where you're going.
Otherwise, you won't go in the same direction.
Second thing is, you need some kind of a road map.
Well, actually, first you need to reframe things, which is part of the vision.
Here's the most persuasive sentence I can think of to reframe our relationship with North Korea.
It goes like this. Hey, North Korea, there are lots of reasons for us to be friends and get along.
There are no reasons to be enemies.
That's it. That's the whole argument.
There are lots of reasons to get along.
Safety and Economics.
Lots of reasons. There isn't a single reason.
You can't list one and neither can we.
Why we should be pointing weapons at each other.
North Korea. I can't think of a reason we should be pointing weapons at you and vice versa.
Can you? Do you have any reasons?
And this is terribly powerful.
Because you're not telling them what they should do.
You're asking. Asking is really persuasive compared to telling.
If you say, stop pointing your weapons at us, people just automatically take the reverse.
Well, I'll point my weapons at you.
Don't tell me I can't point my weapons at you.
I'm a country. Manage your own country.
I'll point my weapons anywhere I want.
But if you say, we can't think of a reason to point a weapon at you.
Help us out here. Can you think of a reason to point a weapon at us?
Because we can't think of one.
It completely changes how you imagine the situation.
It's very powerful. The next thing you do is build some kind of a roadmap where you have a series of steps where you can say, okay, we opened it up to a little bit of travel.
That went okay. Okay, we did some things with some currency.
We set up some systems to talk with each other, and that went okay.
So you want a long-term roadmap where it's stuff that's kind of easy.
Because you want something that looks like momentum.
Momentum is very important.
Because being in a locked state for a long time is bad.
Nobody can get what they want.
But if you have even a little bit of progress, just a little bit, then people start thinking of it in a directional sense.
And then it's easier for them to add the next bit of little progress.
So you need to, at a minimum, Something needs to be happening every day.
This is a systems versus a goal, right?
So the goal is that you're living in peace, whatever.
But the system getting there should be that every single day, North Korea is working with South Korea and the United States to have a little bit more interaction on a positive way in whatever low-level...
Random things are just positive, small progress.
So you always have to have that going on.
I don't think we have that. I haven't heard of anything lately that would sound to my mind like anything, like progress.
So you need to find that, even if it's very, very small.
So here's where I think it needs to go.
And this will get back to Iran and other countries, China and Russia.
So I'm going to make a very big case, and it goes like this.
In our history, including our recent history, you know, World War II, Vietnam, in our human history, military conflict has been, unfortunately, an effective tool.
A country could take over another country.
It happens. And they could even make a gain out of it.
It might even work out well for the conquering country.
Took it over, collect taxes, maybe you're more secure from other countries attacking you, whatever.
But I would say that in 2020, and it's been the case for a while, the economic war is just better.
And we see Trump being the Really, the major face of what I'd call economic war.
Now, we've had sanctions and economic wars for decades, but Trump seems to be the one who really defines the transition from, I can't think of any reasons to send bombs, when we could just squeeze the economy.
It's probably safer, probably fewer people die, probably get a better result.
So we've moved from military as the primary weapon of country against country, at least of, say, big, powerful countries, to economics.
You see this with China, for example.
Because there's no situation where having a military war with China will ever make sense for China or for us.
You can't even imagine any circumstance in your wildest imagination Where either the United States or China would ever come out ahead or think they could come out ahead by starting a war with each other.
And I would argue that after we've moved from military as really the main and only tool to economics as the main and only tool, there's still another phase.
And it would be a really good phase to get to.
And I'll call it the countries as brands phase.
It goes like this.
Ideally, we would not want to have to put sanctions on North Korea, but we would still want economic pressure to cause them to get rid of, let's say, their prison camps or to get rid of any other activity we think over there we don't want.
We'd like to get to a place...
Where North Korea wants to take care of itself to improve its brand.
For example, if, let's say, North Korea opened up and became a manufacturing center tomorrow, and you started getting your clothing saying made in North Korea, would you be cool with that?
Probably not, because you'd say, what about Otto Warmbier?
You'd say, what about their prison camps?
What about their counterfeiting or whatever else they're doing?
What about their nukes?
So you would be disincentivized from buying North Korean products because their brand is no good.
And if they needed to fix their brand, they would do it for their own purposes, which is to increase their economic gain, and we wouldn't have to pressure them.
So we wouldn't have to threaten them with bombs.
We wouldn't have to threaten them with sanctions.
We would just say, you know, A lot more people are going to buy North Korean sneakers if you clean up your act.
So I think the ultimate place you want to go is that the nuclear countries compete on a brand basis.
You see, for example, China putting massive amounts into Africa.
Now, part of that is to secure natural resources, etc.
I think that's the main part.
But that entire process It has a lot to do with brand and what you think about China and would you rather do business with China or the United States or Russia?
Which of those brands works best for you?
China is at the moment ruining its brand with what they're doing with the forced transplants and the prison camps in Hong Kong and all that and you can see that the decoupling for China is going to be big I think and it's going to hurt China's economy is going to be precarious specifically because their brand has been ruined in the past year or so.
So I think where you need to go with North Korea is to say, look, here's the deal.
We don't want to do military.
Economic pressure is sort of a 2019 solution.
Can we get to a better place where you're just competing on brand?
And if you want to set up manufacturing facilities, well nobody's going to buy your stuff until you clean up your act.
So maybe you can sell to a third world country or something, but you're not going to get the big markets until you clean up your act.
So that's where I see it going.
From military as the tool to economic sanctions as the tool, that's where we are today, to someday, and I'm only talking about the big nuclear countries, including North Korea because they're nuclear, the big ones just have to compete on brand because it doesn't make sense for two nuclear countries to be sanctioning each other or shooting at each other.
It just doesn't make sense. Alright, so here's the magic trick I talked about.
If you're trying to get people to trust each other, and you're trying to get people to move down this road map, down the path, sometimes you have to do this little psychological trick that I'll call the magic trick, and it can take many forms.
But it's how you get out of a psychological roadblock.
If you're stymied psychologically, this is a magic trick that just works psychologically to get you out of that blockage.
And I'll start by an example and then generalize it.
Suppose we said to North Korea, and again, this is just brainstorming.
You should all understand I don't know enough about international Events to have firm, good opinions on this thing.
So this is in the service of educating you on the concept.
Suppose you said to North Korea, well, North Korea, we've asked you to go first with your nukes, and you've asked us to go first, United States, by withdrawing our military from South Korea.
But how about this?
We're going to unilaterally declare an end to the North Korean War.
We'll just say, we're out. As far as we're concerned, the war is over.
The war that's been technically on the books for, I don't know, 40 whatever years.
So the first thing you do is just psychological.
You say, we don't see a reason to be at war.
We don't see why you should point at us.
We're just going to end it. You know, you could end it too.
We'd love it if you'd agree.
But we're going to end it because there's nobody to fight with.
You can't have a war unless you have two sides that want to be in a war, and we don't have that.
So we're just going to say it doesn't exist anymore.
So make it official. So that's the first thing, and it's just psychological and it costs you nothing.
Here's the second thing.
You declare that you're going to repurpose your forces in South Korea.
This is the part where I don't know what I'm talking about, so just go with the concept more than the details here.
And you say to North Korea, now that we're not at war, We're going to unilaterally.
We don't even need to get your agreement.
We're just going to repurpose our forces so that they're more about, let's say, containing China's military in the area.
So we'll say, North Korea, we still have a lot of military here.
Maybe we didn't remove any of it, but we're going to repurpose it.
It'll have a different function, and it's because we don't see you as the threat anymore.
We see in the long term, China is our mutual threat.
In other words, you create a situation in which you say, somewhat artificially, this is the magic trick, because you're saying to yourself, wait a minute, let me think ahead to you.
You're saying to yourself, Scott, North Korea is not going to believe that you just changed the mission of your military right on their border, and you're just leaving the same stuff there.
Like that's completely not believable.
That's the magic trick.
The magic trick is that they don't need to believe it exactly.
They need to think it sort of looks like it's moving in the right direction.
In other words, North Korea may need to convince its own population that the United States does not have And simply saying that we're going to leave it there but we're going to change its mission doesn't really make North Korea that safe compared to the current situation.
But if you combine that with ending the war and then saying we're just going to aim our guns in a different direction, suddenly that's the magic trick because it feels like something's happening.
Even though the reality is we'd have the same military assets, it wouldn't take much to just turn the guns in the other direction.
So I think you could get there by offering a unilateral go-first concession that's almost entirely psychological and they know it.
Because they know they have the same problem, that they're solving a psychology problem, not a military problem.
And I think that they might be willing to go along with the charade, if you will, that it's a different time and that the real concern is that maybe China gets a little aggressive over there.
So the reframe would be to say, you know, in the long run, North Korea, we would like you to be on our side because we're both a little concerned about China.
And maybe you should be concerned too.
You're right on the border and they'd certainly like to have more control over you, not less.
So that's the idea.
I've got a prediction for the future about housing.
Here's a housing prediction of the future.
I think we will reach a point where corporations will provide a relatively low-income homes for free in return for using an entire suite of products that are all from the same corporation.
So let me give you an example. If you're living in an apartment or a house, no matter who you are, you're probably paying for a variety of insurances, you're paying for your phone service, your cable, your internet, your Your wifi, your electricity, your gardening, you might have appliance insurance, and that stuff.
So suppose a corporation said, you may live in this house, maybe it's a lease or something, and you can live there for free.
But you don't have any choice while you're living there.
You have to use our cable, our phone, our products, our insurance, etc.
And those things collectively, and you have to use our gardener, etc.
Collectively, it might be enough that you could get a corporation to give you a free home.
You just have to use their products at market prices, same price everybody else is doing.
Yes, somebody's saying in the comments, Walmart housing versus Amazon housing.
Yeah, I was thinking the companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Walmart, exactly.
Those are the companies. And here's the other thing, delivery.
Right now I use a whole bunch of different delivery systems from, you know, FedEx to UPS to Amazon to the mail to DoorDash to you name it.
Maybe just use one.
I would see that coming.
There's a company called Lifetime Fitness that's branching out to create entire living communities around their facilities.
Their Lifetime Fitness is a big health club that has lots of different services from childcare to all kinds of things.
Now they're building a Lifetime Work So there's like an office space you can rent that's actually connected to their gym, which is great.
And then it's also connected apparently to some apartments.
So you could actually have an apartment, a place of work, and a gym with all kinds of different facilities from haircuts to childcare to food and everything else.
And it's all right in one place.
So it's basically three buildings.
They give you living, working, and all your recreation and childcare and everything else.
Just drop the kids off and they can play and stuff.
And I thought, apparently the business model for this works.
So I saw an interview with the CEO and they're building these things and he says that at least the working space part of it would be profitable on day one.
And I imagine the living spaces ones would be as well because that's easy to cost down.
This might be a pretty big deal.
I love the idea of putting all of your good stuff in one place and getting rid of the commute.
So that's another model.
So I think you're going to see in the next 10 years all these new models for how to provide low-cost, high-quality life.
And all of these are in the category of reducing the, I would say, the corporate, not corporate, the federal debt.
Because right now we don't have enough money for all of us to live a good life.
There's no amount of taxes that would let everybody have a good life.
You have to lower the cost of having a good life.
And then there's enough money.
And so you're going to see it with lifestyle and housing.
It can change a lot.
It's sort of a weird week, isn't it?
Because we don't have all the usual Trump news.
We've got a little, but Yeah, there are other things worth talking about.
I got a question for you.
I realize that one of the biggest things that's missing in the current time to solve all of our biggest problems is a job that might exist.
So here's a question for you.
Does this already exist?
Is there such thing as a major, a college major, or a profession with a professional organization For what I would call system design.
Now, when I say system, I don't mean a computer system.
I mean a system such as healthcare.
A system such as building homes for low-income people.
A system such as building a community.
So somebody's saying yes.
If you could be more specific.
Because an engineer doesn't get you there.
Somebody's saying IDEO. IDEO is a design firm in San Francisco and elsewhere.
I've worked with them.
I guess you could argue that they would be capable of that, yes.
That's actually not bad.
But I haven't seen them work on, maybe they do, on systems for like governments and stuff.
Imagineers, operations.
So it's not really a project manager job.
Anyway, so here's the point.
What we need is people who would be the designers of how to fix addiction, the designer of how to build a low-cost home, the designer of how to fix healthcare.
And we should be looking at what designers are coming up with and letting the public grapple with it.
Let me give you my cleanest example of this.
If you were going to design a home today to sell, how would you do it?
Well, you do it the way all the big home builders do.
They would build a home that would look good in a photograph and would make you want to buy it if you walk through it.
So right now, the process of designing a home is designing a home that somebody will buy because that's the whole point.
You want to sell them.
But what the designers don't do Is build it from the function up so that it's perfect for the customer.
Homes are built for the benefit of the seller, you know, the person who built the home in the first place, not for the benefit of the buyer.
That's the way all products are built, right?
Products are built for the benefit of the person who built it, not the benefit of the person who is buying it.
But you could imagine, maybe it's an open source project in which you say, let's design a perfect living room.
Just the dimensions. And once you've designed it, you make sure that it's perfectly square or rectangular in the sense that when you're doing, let's say, the walls and the floors, that you never have to cut anything.
So you take the floor tiles and they're all, I don't know, one foot by one foot.
And it always fits exactly into your perfect living room because you've sized it so it's exactly, you know, even amount of one foot tiles.
Now the point is that you could drop construction costs to almost nothing if you made it so easy that anybody could put it in their own floor because literally nothing is being cut.
They could build their own wall and blocks.
Again, nothing's being sawed.
Nothing's being Nothing's being nailed.
So I do think that if you started with function and said, all right, what do people do?
And then you built the perfect room to do it.
It's got the right closets and drawers and surfaces and outlets and height and light and all that stuff.
And then you could have maybe some, you know, several examples that are the best of the versions.
So here are the things you should be able to do away with by better planning.
You should be able to do away with the engineering expense because you only build a few different types of models.
You don't need an engineer because it's pre-engineered.
You should be able to do away with the architect because, again, you're doing common designs and you design at once and that's all you need.
You should be able to do away with most maintenance such as painting.
So if you make an exterior that's, let's say, brick or something else, you never need to paint it.
So you just do away with maintenance.
So if you started with design first, you could do away with just huge swaths of costs.
You could centralize some things, etc.
So it's all about design.
Sooner or later, somebody is going to design it.
I was thinking of doing this on Twitter, and the way I would do it is I would start a separate Twitter address, and I would tweet out, for example, show me a picture of the perfect bathroom, the perfect bedroom, the perfect living room.
People would just submit comments and vote them up.
Maybe you could build Maybe you could build the beginning of what would look like an ideal low-cost home.
And then, once you have the ideal low-cost home, you encourage companies to compete with suites of services, you know, your Wi-Fi, your phone, your insurance, everything else.
And then you make them compete suite against suite in a shell of a building that's perfectly designed to be the most livable place.
All right. Somebody says a lot of hotels have good design.
You know, here's the thing.
If you're a designer, you don't really have the option of just designing the thing that somebody else already designed because your job is a designer.
So you've got to make the next hotel look different from the last.
And if they're different, one of them is not as good, right?
So hotels are about making your thing look different.
And as long as you're making your thing look different, you're going to be able to rank them from the one that's good to the one that's better.
Whereas if you started with, let's just make the best room, and then we'll stick these best rooms together until we've got best houses.
That would be a completely different way to approach it.
All right. There's nothing else exciting going on today, so I'm going to move along.
But what we need are designers and project managers to fix the world.
▲
Export Selection