That's why you see, every banks got an impact investment fund.

Every Silicon Valley business claims it's a humanitarian project.

And yet what I think in general the winners of Orange are unwilling to, dio is get off the man's back that not willing to pay higher taxes or to stop avoiding.

They're not willing to let go of their double Dutch with higher sin, which taxman over they all use.

They're not willing to pay people more to do their jobs.

They're not willing to stop lobbying, austerity and the kinds of public policies that we know are gonna hurt people.

But benefit financial elites.

They're not willing to actually commit to the communities that have made them as as companies which they can now effortlessly abandoned by sourcing here and selling their what does it look like to imagine the kind of change that would involve the winners of our age stepping off that guy's back or being made to step off that guy's back win win sounds so great, right?

Because it's like taking one victory and then just doubling it.

What could be wrong with doing well by doing good?

What could be wrong with all these kind of philanthropy?

Capitalism?

Double bottom line, triple Bottom line.

The win win takes a situation, a concept that's actually derived from the world of trade.

Like you have ice cream, I have money, I want ice cream.

You want money and we do a deal.

And in that narrow case that actually is a win win.

That's exchange.

That's marketing.

That's that's correct.

Use of win win.

What has happened is that this concept of the win win has been kind of jammed into the sphere of social change and making the world better and actually solving our biggest public problems, where it has no business on ice cream.

Trade is actual win win situation.

Feminism is not a win win problem.

A lot of men are gonna have to lose a lot of power and privilege and the right to grow people at the office and have positions that their mediocrity did not actually entitle them.

Teoh for that revolution to succeed.

When everything is couches, a win win.

What you are really saying is that the kinds of social change that actually costs the winners something are ruled out.

What you're really saying is the best kind of solutions.

Don't ask anybody to get off anybody's back.

What you're really saying is, yeah, tell women the problem is their posture.

They should lean forward and raise their hand more that way.

We don't have to actually pay them equally because that would hurt shareholder value.

What you're really saying is yet let's have charter schools and, you know, let's have Mark Zuckerberg gives some money to a school because what you really don't want to do in the United States, I know this is alien.

Here is end the unbelievably barbaric system.

We have a funding public education by your local property taxes.

So basically, the nicer your house, the better the education you get in America.

We don't want to end that.

So what the winners of our age do is get out in front of it by saying no.

No, I I recognize the desire for more equity in education system.

Let's not higher taxes, public education.

But let's do this new thing that they're promoting in Silicon Valley, where Silicon Valley companies pay for you to go to college and then you pay them a percentage of your income, which used to be called taxation but is now done, is an app only for the luckiest students with the highest likelihood of repayment.

And so I believe that this win win thing, although it sounds so good, is actually part of the privatization of the solution of public problems.

I don't think all problems are need to be solved by the public.

But when you look at a problem like social mobility, like the empowerment of women, like what trade has done to communities in this country and the anger that it is aroused, those are the kinds of problems that cannot be solved by really clever businesses or really fun APS or rich people who happen to be feeling generous on a particular day.

Those are the kind of problems we can only solve together, and those kinds of solutions have been discredited by the fantasy of the win win that allows the winners to keep standing on people's backs.