Money Minded

3M + Views: The Wealth Debate Everyone is Talking About (Our Take)

• Terry Condon

Share episode

Ask us a question or suggest a topic 🤙

This episode kicks off with a bang—Terry and Ryan dive into the firestorm that erupted after Terry's viral LinkedIn post on a heated debate between Daniel Priestley and Gary "Economics" Stevenson. The topic? A no-holds-barred conversation around wealth inequality, economic freedom, and whether taxing wealth is the way forward—or backward.

What started as a midnight YouTube rabbit hole turned into a 200K+ impression social firestorm. But more importantly, it opened the door for a rich conversation around:

  • 🏦 Why taxing wealth vs. work strikes such a nerve.
  • 🔥 The emotional and personal nature of economic debates—and how social media rewards outrage over nuance.
  • 🧠 What both Priestley and Stevenson got right—and wrong—in their arguments.
  • 🧭 Why it's critical for couples and families to form their own financial philosophies before being swayed by online drama.

This isn’t just about policy—it’s about how we think, talk, and feel about money, fairness, and freedom.

🔗 Links & Mentions:

❤️ For Our Listeners:

Whether you're team "tax the billionaires" or "let the free market run," this episode will challenge your assumptions and offer new perspectives. Perfect for conscious couples building not just a budget—but a belief system.

👥 Join the conversation: What’s your take—tax wealth or expand freedom? leave a comment!

Find out your financial skill score
Do you have the money skills to fund your goals? Take the 4 minute quiz here
🔗 https://financialskill.scoreapp.com/

Join our podcast community
Get live updates, talk shop with us and meet like minded legends in our digital treehouse. Click here to get access now.
🔗 https://www.facebook.com/groups/4609737389252111

Other links 👇

Money mentorship:
Click here to start putting what you've been learning into practice.
🔗 https://www.cashflowco.com.au/mentorship

Terry:

It's pretty much just a recording of that.

Ryan:

Terry. welcome back mate. How are ya?

Terry:

Good, how are you?

Ryan:

Good. It's a nice guitar in the background there. Have you been playing that much recently?

Terry:

It's wrecked, mate. My kids erected. it's anor at this point.

Ryan:

awful. Looks awful.

Terry:

It's, you know what it's full of, it's full of stones from the backyard. I dunno why my kids, they like to put things in places.

Ryan:

doesn't

Terry:

broken.

Ryan:

Strumm, Pete Murray like it used to.

Terry:

no it doesn't. But, it looks good as a background. Anyway, I,

Ryan:

mate. We're talking about a LinkedIn post you made, so

Terry:

it,

Ryan:

not necessarily a LinkedIn post that you made, but debate that's been had that you made a LinkedIn post. post about.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

you shed some light on that please?

Terry:

Yeah, it was interesting. I got a few comments from folks who are actually asking us to do an episode on this because, I put a post up a few weeks back now and I mentioned a podcast episode that I'd listened to on, I believe it's, di of a CEO. And there was a debate done recently between a guy called Daniel Priestly, who is someone that we've both learned a lot from. And another guy called Gary Stevens, I think his name is Gary Economics, and he's kind of, I guess this English guy. And turns out I know people that actually used to work with him. But, he's been doing a lot of content around wealth inequality the way to sort of fix that. And, you know, he was putting forward a position on taxing wealth instead of work. If I was to summarize it, it was basically the idea that we need to tax wealth more and work less. And Daniel Priestley's point of view is no, we need to increase economic freedom and taxing wealth doesn't do that. and so anyway, I basically just wrote this post and just sort of said I watched this debate and I actually started, this is no bullshit. You know me, this is true. I came across this debate just. I kind of woke up, it was like 1130 at night, and I checked the time, I found myself on YouTube, saw the title, clicked into it, and then about 1:00 AM I'd finished watching the debate. And, it was just compelling in the sense that it's probably not, it wasn't sanitized content like they were, they got a bit personal at times. but it was about an important topic. And my initial reaction to it was like, Ooh, I don't like the way that guy did it. I like this guy better. And I thought about it over a course of a few days and I realized they actually both had great points and kind of talked past each other at times. And I put that opinion forward on social media and people hated it because. It's so much easier to look at, I guess, the way people are talking, and go, I'm on his side. and so people weighing in and this posts went berserk because people were writing like essays in the comments. And at this point I think it's gone past 200,000 impressions. and just like I just couldn't reply to all the comments because so many people had these opinions about it. And I believe it's because I put them both on an even keel. I said, I think they both had great points, even though I don't agree with the way that they both made points at times. and so in the comments a few of our listeners, it's a, we would love to hear you guys discuss this. and I think it's an important topic because wealth inequality is a real thing. And you can see the issues that arise from populism right now. You can see'em in Australia and you can see'em in America, and you can see'em all over the world. And it's a conversation that people are having with themselves and having with each other, not always well. So I know that's a kind of a long summary, but that gives a little bit context, hopefully.

Ryan:

Nice. I actually first listened to this episode. I was listening to another episode on Diary of CEO and it came on next and I was actually doing something else. I think I was just chipping away at some work on the computer and I found myself just shaking my head at how bad the argument was between them. Not that the content or the, even the, you know, the topic itself, it was just the fact that the way that Gary, what's he call him, Gary, who? economics,

Terry:

Gary Economics. Yeah,

Ryan:

the way that he debated made me want to stick my head through a window I should say

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

glass.

Terry:

it about it?'cause I had the same react. But what was it for you that kind of rubbed you up the wrong way?

Ryan:

I think that he was asking questions, not seeking answers. He wasn't being curious. He was just like asking questions, trying to corner Daniel into a place of tripping up essentially. So he kept

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

a question before Daniel and had a chance to answer, throw another question, and it just wasn't a meaningful, thoughtful discussion.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

so admittedly I didn't get through the whole thing and we ended up having a conversation about this afterwards. And so I actually don't have the full context of the conversation, but it still.

Terry:

yeah,

Ryan:

but if anyone does go to listen to it, I just wanna give you a forewarning that you might get quite agitated.'cause I was agitated and had to turn it off'cause I was

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

head in.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

interesting views brought forward in that time. the main debate they were having there's a problem, which is that the gap between the rich and the poor gets bigger. There's a wealth gap, it's expanding, how do we close that gap? Right? And kind of deal with the issues that comes from, the poorer side, not being on the right side of that gap. life getting harder, cost of living, being able to own your own home. incomes allowing us to have freedoms, have choices, pursue business ideas, all those things that get harder. Without resources. and now we're talking about how do you close that gap.

Terry:

Yeah. And it's sort of interesting'cause in America and overseas, like this is in some ways more pronounced. but it does exist all over the place. And it is a phenomenon of capitalism. It does get to a logical end point, and it always happens all the way through history. Read all Ray Dalio's work, he'll say the same thing. You get to the long end of the debt cycle, and basically. Fewer and fewer people hold more and more of the assets. and generally what happens is it's when those people start to move into positions or position themselves alongside power where they start to sort of set the rules. And probably the most obvious example of this is the absolute shit show that's been dealing, that has been Elon Musk walking into, the back end of the government in America and basically stripping the whole thing and having no context. And there's been some unbelievable, it's the irony of the whole situation, right? He's going in there for waste fraud of an abuse, and it's the most heinous fraud that's happening is basically removing contracts that aren't him replacing the contracts with contracts for him and then gutting all of the departments that are investigating him. And you're like, yeah, why is.

Ryan:

and having Trump via Teslas in standing in front of how

Terry:

Oh my God. You're just like, is this like the upside down? but I think that's a perfect example of when capitalism gets to its logical end point, that should not be happening, anywhere. and the reality is, it does happen at these points where people do get to the point where they start making the rules to serve themselves. and if you think about it like a game and a monopoly, it's almost like they rig the game. People feel that. And that's why people get outraged. And that's why people like Gary Economics have this kind of big growing audience.'cause people are feeling that and he's speaking directly to the problem. And he's not saying it doesn't exist. He's saying it does exist. and his solution, is one that's, you know, it's palatable for a lot of people. They're like, yeah, fuck these guys. You know, tax wealth more, that sort of thing. and. To be clear, like I don't think that's kind of right or wrong, it's just why he's got more of an audience. And then you have Daniel Priestley, who is more around like the individual and increasing individual economic freedoms His blanket view is as soon as you talk about taxing people more than you are actually taking away people's economic freedoms and that's not the right way to do it. You want to increase people's economic freedoms'cause it's actually people who create jobs and become producers in society that actually make societies better. That's how I kind of saw the two different views. Like, how did you see it?

Ryan:

I still get as, Daniel Priestley sees it as the sovereign individual has the capability of growing the pie and there's more pie going around if that person does so, and I sense that even though he has a really good understanding of looking across business and markets and trends and macro, he does look at from a personal standpoint first expands from there. Whereas Gary economics seems to go from a background of, credit markets and speculating on how credit markets are shifting over time and starts at a high level and then kind of narrows in on the individual.

Terry:

Yep.

Ryan:

Without having the full scope of the conversation, I sense was Gary's been quite Trump-like in the way that he basically goes, here's all the problems, points, fingers on it. Talks about cost of livings, uses the key phrases that people go, fuck yeah, that things aren't fair. venting kind of gets people in a spin. It didn't feel like at the time, but maybe I didn't get to the meat and bones of it, he was kind of offering solutions as such. much as he was just saying things are broken, things are wrong, Daniel Priester was trying to be like, well, how do we fix it?

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

do we get to a point of resolution? How do you, what are actions that we can actually take right now to solve for that? And so it did feel like also Daniel was on a solution path, whereas Gary was on a, here's the problem path. was my sentiment at an early reflection.

Terry:

Yeah. I saw it a little bit differently. I think they both were proposing solutions, but disagreed on what the solution was. They agreed on the problem. They actually both agreed this is an actual problem.

Ryan:

What from Gary?

Terry:

Gary is more about you want to change the system at a structural level instead of just ignoring the fact that's a structural problem that exists. Right. and so I agree with you in terms of like how he framed it. Like he was good at tapping into people's, let's call it discontent and rage and that sort of thing by kind of pointing fingers and making I guess like characterizing the riches. All these people that are trying to screw you over in an actuality. It's just the way that the systems evolve over time and human incentives, that sort of self interest when it becomes more and more possible for a few people to, you know, change more and more in their own self interest. We get to the situation we're in right now in his position. The way I read it and the way I listened to it. it's not actually how I took it the first time at all, by the way. It's probably like after a week or so of me thinking about, okay, beyond the way he was talking and beyond his actual debating style, what is the point that he's getting at? And his, I think you're right. Like he comes from that sort of macro. He understood, he understands how these kind of pieces all fit together. And he's saying that this game is rigged and it doesn't suit, it doesn't suit everyone the same way. And I don't think it's about, I don't think his view is that it should be fair outcomes or equal outcomes, but it should be more equal in terms of opportunity and it's actually just not. and so I think that's why he's got a bit of an audience.'cause he's not pretending that's not true. He is saying that's absolutely fucking true and we need to talk about how we. Structurally change the system if you actually wanna fix it. You can't just ignore that's happening and assume that the individual's all powerful and they can get on top of it. Because someone like Daniel Priestley, there's a bit of a survivorship bias that exists with him. He's one of those people that's really kind of made that true. And so what is true for him doesn't mean it's gonna be true for everybody. and that's how I sort of saw the difference. I don't actually disagree with Daniel I think his actual view, is correct. And we've said this before in the past, there's a whole new asset class that everybody's still ignoring, which is, it's a global, it's a global kind of economy now. And the Internet's made our opportunities far different than they were in the past. And we should be moving in that direction and learning more and improving in that space. So I actually think yes and yes. I kind of look at Daniel Priestley seeing I go correct. I think more and more people should be understanding that we live in a completely different, You know, time and the opportunities we have to look after ourselves are different. And if you don't take agency and assume that you can change things at a structural level, then things don't change. And just because it's hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try it. And that's what I got from Gary's view. He's just because it seems hard doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a go. Because that's why our parents enjoyed a lot more, freedom, a lot more wealth because after World War II there was a little of structural changes that were better for everybody, not just a few people.

Ryan:

So what were the actual structural changes that he, suggested?

Terry:

Yeah. So he, I don't think he was too prescriptive, but in terms of like directionally he was saying right now I. most of the tax comes from people who do work actually, when you're sweating, you get taxed more on your sweat than you do on your assets. Yep. And I don't think he's saying that you should, only ever just, you know, tax people's assets.'cause you do want people to accumulate assets. What he's saying is beyond a certain point, it starts to get ridiculous. and you gotta think in sort of relative terms what it's costing people. I think the best example is, the way they tax things in the states beyond 180 grand. Someone who's a billionaire pays the same tax as someone who's 80 grand. You know what I mean? and they could fix all their social welfare sort of problems if they actually just shifted that threshold. so it's just like saying to people, look, beyond a certain point, you should be sort of taxed a little bit more because in a relative sense, this doesn't hurt you at all, but. Changing the same relative, you know, if it's a, like a 10% change for somebody on a lower income, that is in some cases, you know, that's the difference between having a home and not having a home. so it's kinda like we need to just rethink how much we're taxing and who we're taxing.

Ryan:

Yeah. there's no doubt changes need to happen. everyone's kinda looking at it and going, things don't feel fair.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

that sits at the core of it. Right. And how do you make it more fair?

Terry:

Yeah,

Ryan:

you've got kind of like the. reality of the situation, which I think Daniel Presley kind of spoke well, which is we don't have a global tax system. So it's like you can just go, anyone earning over a million dollars a year gets taxed at 60% instead of 45%. so if in Australia or in the states or in the uk anyone earning over a million bucks gonna now pay 65% tax on income,

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

they go, do you know what, I'm not, I'm gonna, I'm not gonna do that. I'm gonna move somewhere else where I'll pay tax somewhere else. and instead of doing that, I'll pay 45% or less. And obviously that already happens, right? Companies move and trademark and do all these different things, but they tend to operate in a country that allows tax relief. And even in America, that happens at a state level. Texas has become, you know, Austin has now become the major city for commerce, entrepreneurship. because Texas said, you know what? We need more economic growth. We want to collect more taxes. We're gonna make more viable for businesses to start and operate here. big business so they can employ people, so make more wages. so the whole game is actually going the other way, which is those places who offer tax relief attract the companies that are earning the profits that can be taxed. whereas Gary's kinda saying, well, what if you went the other way? Which for me just kind of doesn't make sense.'cause if that's the case, unless you can lock people in and say, you were born on this postcode, so you will always pay taxi. or you're born in this country. So, you know, you can only operate a company here. how do you. the tax on higher incomes without just losing the main players.

Terry:

Yeah, I think it's gonna be, that'd be really hard to do. but I think like his argument was, it comes down to who you're optimizing for, right? when I think about the kind of society I wanna live in, I don't wanna be the richest guy on the street when everybody else around me is struggling to eat because I'll have to probably pay for security guards. I'll never be safe. So even though I'm really super wealthy, I'll never feel safe in that society. and I'm just taking it to the, like the furthest degree, right? so when you think about it, you go, how do you build a society where even the average person is doing quite well? So, you know, in our parents generation, a lot of people didn't have to have both. Both partners didn't have to work. You could easily get buy on one income. We're not better off now. Having that everyone has to work two incomes all of the time. We're not better off for that. and so a lot of the, polarization and politicization of things is purely because things are harder and the economic pie hasn't grow. even though in an absolute sense it's grown, yes. It's bigger at a personal, like per capita basis, we're not better off in that sense.'cause if wealth is time and the choice to have with your time, we actually have less. and so when you think about like, why are you trying to tax and what's the role of tax? you know, well for me anyway, I would wanna optimize for a society where maybe I would pay high attacks to have everybody be slightly better off. in a time sense, in a choice sense, doing better, if it meant that the richest people were a little bit less rich. And that's essentially what he was saying about the fifties, right? In America, the most prosperous time, the 1950s was when the highest tax rate, beyond a certain point, there were folks getting taxed like 90%. But these people, these were like the absolute elite of the elite. So the difference to them beyond that point, you know, in a day to day, like all the research shows, but beyond a certain point, the money, the marginal utility of extra money means nothing. It doesn't change your sort of state. so I guess it just comes down to what society you wanna live in. Do you wanna live in a society where maybe your suburb or maybe your state is sick?'cause you get to make a shit ton of money. Like Dubai's a really good example of this right now. Dubai's trying to set itself up this way, and it is setting itself up this way. but do you wanna live in that? and have everything around it be the opposite? Because then you have the same issue. Everyone wants to kind of get into there. These people have all the sort of the opportunities. So, yeah, I think, I don't know enough about, state tax and the way it works. we, maybe we should probably do a little bit more on that. I am chatting to an accountant about that actually about coming on and talking through that more. But, you know, just philosophically I kind of go, yeah, that's true. Like you will get sort of mobility of people with wealth and they'll move towards a sort of place that suits them best. but I really like what they were talking about in terms of the global economy. The fact that Facebook for all intents and purposes operates a business here in Australia, but pays no tax here in Australia. That's not right. They make all this money here from our people, but they actually don't pay any tax here. and so that, that's the kind of problem I think that should be. Solved. I don't know what the answer is, but you go, there's actual, real benefits to solving that problem. it's like Australia with their resources. if we did a better job of taxing the multinational companies that come here in Australia, everybody's education be free, just like it was in the seventies and the eighties. and is that better for people? I think it is. I don't think you have a HX debt, you know, and, you know, everything kind of works better, so Yeah. It's hard to know.

Ryan:

I look at that as to and fro because it's well, Facebook, there should be better attribution of where income's actually earned and where it's taxed Absolutely. For global companies.

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

but then as soon as a company becomes a public company who owns it. Yeah. You've got your biggest shareholder tends to be the founder or founder,

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

of the shareholders are you and I anyway. So doing is taxing yourself or taxing your super or taxing whatever you're investing in, which is a whole nother ballgame. if we, you know, I would assume a lot of guys as soon this podcast, you bought index funds, for example, probably the biggest you have, let's say is Apple because it's the biggest company in the world, I believe still. and or Amazon. if we're increasing the tax on the company, then you're increasing the tax on the thing that you are investing in slash owning. So should we be taxing the company or should we be taxing Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg? Which then becomes, well, shouldn't be a company thing, it should be an individual thing. it's like up until a point, until businesses become public, before that point it should be the company.'cause there's individual owners or you know, a small group of owners, even still, that's probably the same thing should still be on the individual front that we're trying to redistribute. Right. fairness and rights

Terry:

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little bit of both. Like I look at the way, the really wealthy people live like a base. I think it's Zuckerberg, he pays himself a dollar a year, so his income tax is nothing. and same buffet said the same thing. He's I do this'cause I can, but it shouldn't be possible. It shouldn't be that I don't get taxed because the majority of my wealth has actually come. I actually live off loans,

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

right? I live off loans, so I don't actually have any personal income. I just have assets. And because they're unrealized, can't really touch me.

Ryan:

quickly unpacking.'cause I think often you go, well, they're rich as hell and they're, you know, they're paying, they must be paying tax. What, when people say they're not paying tax, essentially what they're doing is, let's say I own a billion dollar company and I wanna spend a million bucks on something. I can a million dollars of my shares and pay a shitload of tax, or I can loan a million dollars against a billion. And go and buy something with it. The loan isn't income, so I'm not paying tax on it. I now have a loan, but it's only a million bucks against the billion, so who cares? And so I'll just cover their cost of the interest from a billion dollars invested.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

that's where, you know, these guys actually living off debt in most regards. other than extracting or selling off what they own, which is very different. So they just have a growing debt sheet. But as sits, small next to a much bigger capital balance, asset sheet, it doesn't matter. so that's where you go, how do you tax that

Terry:

Well

Ryan:

you

Terry:

That's what I think his point is, right? they've kept all their money in wealth and it's less taxable. It's harder to get there. So let's figure out how to do that. you, and by the way, I don't think it's about the kind of people we are talking about or he's talking about taxing, aren't the kind of people who are building a business that kind of looks after them and their family and, you know, gets to 10, 20, 30, even$40 million. We're talking about the top like way the top. So if I've got a few stats here, right? so. In Australia, these are the stats. From 2003 to 2022, the top 20% saw an 82% increase in average wealth. The bottom 20% saw just the 20% increase. Right now, the top 10% of households own 44% of all of the wealth. And that is because when you get to a certain point, you cannot spend on a day-to-day basis, it's just easy for you to just go keep buying more assets. And at a certain point it just, you just hoover up all of the assets because it just keeps, it's like a self-fulfilling kind of prophecy. And the analogy I gave is like Australia here, it happens in property, right? So Peter Dutton's got$30 million property portfolio, I think he might've just sold it because he didn't want to be the every man with a$30 million property portfolio. But, did Peter Dutton save a shit ton of money to build a$30 million property portfolio? it never happens that way. It always happens by like a balloon that's happening. You go, yep, cool. You get into the market, you get some equity, you know, you house the house price inflates, you unlock that equity, you go again. You keep doing that, you keep doing that, you read and repeat. And the housing stock concentrates in the hands of fewer and fewer people. the stat that I put up, about a week or so later was the rate of home ownership and how it's declined in Australia. and so that is a marker of people's financial security, their financial sense of like stability. and in a system like ours, I kind of look at that and go, should it be that way? Have we incentivized property and turned it into an asset when it actually should just be an utility? It should be just something that you buy to live in. and if you wanna store your wealth in it and create an income from it. Go and buy a bunch of properties, but should it be that the price of your property portfolio runs far faster than the first home buyer can save at. And so you keep locking out people from buying their homes. that's where it's, you know, it starts to become systemic. And Gary's whole point is we should be asking questions about the system at a certain point, and not just assuming, but because it is, that's the way it'll always be. And it's just too hard. You do actually have agency and you can change that stuff, but you just have to decide to want to, that's what I took from it. Like beyond his, ad hom attacks and the way he was getting it across. I was like, I don't disagree with that. I think it's true. I think we've grown up in a society where I don't know if it's the same for you, but the rhetoric that I grew up in is basically, no, it's all too hard. They're all the same anyway. you know, they're all just, it is a best of a bad branch, like this kind of sentiment and it makes you really apathetic and it makes you really complacent and it makes you kind of think, you know, nothing can really change, so why bother?

Ryan:

politicians.

Terry:

Yeah.'cause when we were talking about changing tax rate, we're talking about changing tax codes and that's policy. And that policy needs to be set by politicians. I think we grew up in a culture, well I did, where it's just don't waste any of your time with that. That's a waste of conversation. but Gary's point is actually that's the only way that anything big has changed ever in history. so assuming that you have no agency there and that's a mistake, yeah.

Ryan:

There's kind of like a bit of an underlying trust I sense almost needs to be built first, which is the government will spend money.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

like you

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

the sentiment that's drawn from, what's the buddy packer, Kerry Packer, his famous, what was it? Yeah, I suppose it was a hearing of some sorts where he was like, anyone that pays more tax than they should have their head read.'cause the government's got no idea how to spend it, so why would I give them more than I need to?

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

and so if you were confident was gonna spend it very well, like you said before. Lift everyone's standard of living to kind of level the playing field. you be more willing to pay tax or are you pretty confident? Which most people's sentiment is the same, is if it goes to government, you know, a lot of it's gonna get, you know, you look at a fucking highway that could cost 5 million to build cost, 50 million, that kind of thing. Where projects are 10 x more expensive than they need to be. Just'cause it's government led

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

are going, well, paying taxes is a of money. it doesn't, it's not improving our lives as such. What if there was a world in which you had confidence that if you paid more tax and you probably look at the, those guys that you're trying to shift it from the other side of the wealth gap to the bottom end. The guys at the top end of that going, well, I can give it to the government who is gonna probably waste 90% of it, or I can. Continue to build it and use philanthropic efforts to actually distribute it in a way in which makes a meaningful difference in the world. And so they go, well, better to actually allocate these funds? Me or the government? Of which there's probably a pretty strong debate that could be had. There you go. Well, maybe not. I don't know. What do you think?

Terry:

Yeah, it's an interesting question.

Ryan:

Especially for an entrepreneur, right?

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

I think I could do a better job with X amount of money in terms of creating change or influence

Terry:

You know,

Ryan:

like you said, there's a bit of a sentiment on who is actually managing that money. And I've probably got a little bit the same that, yeah, there's not a whole lot of confidence in the brain power sometimes of people in those positions.

Terry:

do you know what has given, I've heard myself say the exact same thing, by the way, who's a better allocator, of capital. And, you know, what's made me really question that, how inefficient Elon Musk has been in his government. the amount of inefficiency created from the things that he's gone and done, because he lacks context like the cost. The cost that's been born right now in America, just in the first a hundred days as a result of Doge. It'll be far beyond. So he went in and said, I wanna, I'm gonna create$2 trillion worth of, cuts, right? I wanna give it back to the American. I mean, this is what I'm gonna get back.'cause there's so much waste and fraud here. He ended up saying 150 million is what he was prepared to say. This is what we, sorry, 150 billion is where we ended up. That's a long way off. 2 trillion. But most of the changes that he's put in place have to be reinstated. So the cost, time and money cost to doing that because it's basically like you broke the thing, now we've gotta spend time and money to fix the thing that you broke. And so I think that's a good example of how, it might be a little bit oversimplified to say entrepreneurs are just better allocators of this. In actuality, there's two types of projects, right? There's projects that governments better allocate money on. And I saw this example the other day. It was perfect example. It was, this guy, explaining that. You know, the iPhones a perfect example. You're saying you don't want governments making the iPhone. That would be a shit iPhone. the them trying to sort of sort out the supply chains and figure out how to get all these parts from all over the world to create this thing and then do it in an efficient way. That's what you want private companies entrepreneurs to be able to do. But the iPhone operates on the internet, and the internet was a government led project that nobody actually gave a shit about, and it had no prospect and there was no clear end point to it. But government put money into it because it was a big idea. And so government will create the trillion dollar idea that private companies can go and build on top of, because private companies need to show return on investment. It needs to kind of pay off in this kind of timeframe. Whereas government has a different set of incentives. It's like, how do we grow the pie? How do we create more opportunities for everybody else? Over a longer period of time. And so I think that's a really good example of how, it's just better understanding of who does what. Well, and yes, you don't wanna be overpaying tax like Kerry Pack is, right? if you're lazy, you overpay taxes the biggest expense in your life. but here in Australia, I'd say in a global sense, we live in a, like a really good, we have a good standard of living. the problem we have is that, and we've talked about this in the past, when government controls the money, we always end up with monetary inflation. so we always have more and more supply of money, and that's why our purchasing power has gone down. That's okay if your economy grows faster than your rate of monetary inflation and the inflation rate problem is that it hasn't. and so I think there's a really good example right now of a very good government policy, have you heard of the Future Made in Australia plan?

Ryan:

Only from you. Yeah.

Terry:

Yeah, I think that's a really good example. Same thing, it's let's make a new market. We're uniquely positioned as a country to benefit from, you know, the drive towards renewables and clean energy sources. That's what the world wants. And we're in a really good position to be like a global superpower in that. So let's actually build that marketplace. Let's incentivize businesses to start up, get that going, and let's make sure that Australia as a society gets to profit from it. we sort of stuff that up with our mining'cause we don't get to tax our resources the way we did. And those interests are really entrenched, but if you made this whole new market, then you can set it up the right way. and I reckon that's another good example of where you're, I think It might be 30 billion in the next five years that they're allocating towards it. but it could unlock over the course of the next 30 years trillions.

Ryan:

where, where trillions coming from?

Terry:

so if you create that market right, and then over, so think of it like an investment, right? We're gonna incentivize this whole new sort of industry here in Australia and it's gonna be all about the way we produce this clean energy for everybody else. And we're gonna become a global sort of superpower in this. The wealth that gets created from that over the next 30 years could exceed the 30 billion that started it just because of the demand

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

that energy source and the fact that we can be. Really well positioned to do it. So, you know, having, reading through that plan, it actually makes great sense and they've thought really deliberately about how they're gonna incentivize the investment. and it also create a sense of urgency and when those opportunities come along, making sure that Australians, especially in regional areas, benefit disproportionately. so that it's like creating new jobs, retraining people from existing sort of, resource based industries and, you know, creating stability and income for them as well. and again, a private company's not gonna do that. They're not gonna say, I'm gonna make a market.

Ryan:

If

Terry:

they think,

Ryan:

it's commercially viable, unless it makes sense. And so really what the government's doing there is saying, well, we'll try and create the conditions entrepreneurs, businesses to come grow something. gotta subsidize it to try those conditions. But

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

be guys that come and do that, which is kinda

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

it's the same as reducing taxes. This kind saying, well, hey, we'll tax you less. So it's a better conditions for you to come and set up, shop here start to grow and build this market. You look at everyone wants to be Silicon Valley or

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

so that you have the biggest taxpayers in the world come and operate where you are.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

argue that subsidies is the exact same thing.

Terry:

It's reducing taxes.

Ryan:

It's

Terry:

Yeah. that's what I'm saying. it's not so simple as it's always all about taxing more. it's about how you use the instruments you sort of have, and I think government has more, we should be, we could be demanding more of government in that sense. just because it has been this way doesn't mean it has to be this way. And I think, you know, coming back to the actual discussion between Daniel, and Gary, that's where I saw them sort of start to talk past each other. Daniel wasn't really as classy as he was, Like he was getting personally attacked at times and he held his cool really well, but he also didn't take on, he just kind of didn't take on or sort of seek to understand really what Gary was getting at.

Ryan:

feel like he had a chance to'cause he was getting peppered with so many questions.

Terry:

it's true.

Ryan:

ask a question back because he was getting the next question

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

I could one.

Terry:

yeah. And he came really armed and it's probably the way this conversation was set up to, he came really armed with his kind of facts and figures as well that he could kind of point to. so we just kind of kept like a good politician kind of kept sticking to his speaking points. whereas, you know, I think. Gary was definitely trying to trip him up in the same way, and it's probably like the way it was all framed, right? The debate, the great debate of the wealth inequality. What if it was the great discussion? What if we kind of talked our way through it and you were like, okay, just explain more about what you're thinking, what you're kind of saying, and tell me more about this. because there was a point later on in the conversation where I think he did, he really did say something that I was like, that's true. and he sort of mentioned that he's had people come up to him who sit in the bracket that he's talking to, who aren't educated, don't listen to the dire of the ceo, who don't live in those environments. They don't even know what they don't know, right? And those people working their rings off working harder and harder, two and three jobs for less. And when they sort of see his content, they said. You know what I, I hear all this sort of stuff about how I should be working harder and I'm the hardest working person that I know. There's nobody that does, works as hard as I am and I'm not getting ahead and you telling me that it's not all my fault, just made me feel a lot better.'cause I feel like a fucking loser, you know? and when he was saying to Daniel Priestley, he's saying I don't disagree with the, I definitely want people to hustle. I definitely want people to do better. but dismissing this idea and saying, no, you shouldn't do this. This is all wrong. You shouldn't do that. You should just work harder and make your own opportunities and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. He's that creates mental health issues for people. there's two sides to that coin basically. And I'd never really thought about that, until I sort of heard him say that. And I was like, I can understand that. as if you were completely ignorant and you just didn't know. let's say you grew up in a rural sort of town and you're a welder and it's got harder and harder for you, but you took on more and more time and jobs and that sort of thing, and you just didn't even see that there's this whole other thing going on. And then you heard someone just say, no, you just work harder. You're like, dude, I'm working hard. I'm working harder than I ever was.

Ryan:

what's the most effective use of my time or my resources, which is do I want to, can I, should I work harder or should I try to influence policy? What's likely to get me the outcome that I need? If I'm that person that's working hard, I go, well, can I influence policy? Do I think I could. Do that and I go down that route. Or do I actually just try to this shitty game that's hasn't really been built for me and leave that to people that are willing.

Terry:

I would invert exactly what you said the other way.'cause they have been working harder and it has been a losing game for them. So do you keep playing the game? You're not winning or do you actually start going, no, I'm gonna start asking different questions here.

Ryan:

So you are, to do that, you need at least 50% of the population asking different questions. Yeah. if you live in a democracy, you need to influence. And even then, at some point

Terry:

Not necessarily. It's of the right. Enough of the same. that conversation needs to be, had enough times.

Ryan:

about this. you're an entrepreneur obviously. you thinking right now, I should build some assets, you know, work on the business? Or are you thinking I should. try and influence policy. what do you feel like is a likely thing to get you the result that you're seeking?

Terry:

I think it's a false choice. I don't have to choose between those two. I can do both, right?

Ryan:

you probably don't have to, but the welder

Terry:

if I was a welder, I would actually try more.

Ryan:

because either

Terry:

To kind of try equal. Yeah, because the thing is, you know, we probably are just completely blind to our PR privilege here, right? Like in terms of the education. So the comment you just made around what's a better use of my time? What's more productive? That sort of thing that, that, thinking develops over, like as a result of the environment that you've been in, the education that you've had and the modeling as well. But if you've had none of that modeling, you don't even ask yourself that question. You're just going what's going wrong? Why am I working harder not getting anywhere? why is it harder and harder for me?

Ryan:

like I've reached that point through education, whereas people without that education don't, is that what you're saying? That they're

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

shit,

Terry:

and just exposure, right? Like the kind of people you've been around, the things that you've seen, the conversations that you've heard. Like it makes you think in that way. And we're like very lucky in that sense. Whereas there are people who they don't even know what they don't know. And so I. You're assuming that everyone can ask themselves that question and make different decisions, and if you're completely ignorant in that sense, and you don't know that you're ignorant, you wouldn't, so it just wouldn't operate, like you just, it wouldn't be the same for that person.

Ryan:

I don't quite understand. So if I'm, put myself in the position of that welder, I'm working my ass off

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

60 hours a week,

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

to pay, And then I start to ask the other question, do you know what? The game's fucked? try and change the game or the ecosystem or the conditions that I'm working in. How does you still have a certain amount of energy and time you can put into something for me to go, gonna now learn how that system works and I'm gonna go try and influence the people or influence change. It takes time and effort, so it means time away from doing the thing. So anyone makes that choice.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

of hours in the day, do I spend it doing this or doing that? I feel like that's pretty black and white.

Terry:

Yeah. I mean, I guess it depends on you, like what opportunities you have in front of you, right? if you don't even see the opportunities that you have in front of you, you're not even aware of them. and again, I don't think it's exactly what Gary was saying, right? He's not saying Don't work harder, don't work smarter, and those sort of things. He's just saying, don't be ignorant. Of the, of the, um, influence you can have or the change you can make by demanding it. and you don't demand it you don't have to be, that doesn't mean you have to become the expert. You have to go and put up a protest sign and spend all your time doing that sort of stuff. It's more in the decisions that you make and the way that you make those decisions. Things that you do and don't.

Ryan:

What would be an example of that?

Terry:

Well, I think what I said before about that future made in Australia plan, it's really simple. you vote for that to happen and you vote in that direction'cause you kind of go, that's actually better. and it's gonna give more people more opportunities or you don't, you just kind of vote the way that you've always voted.'cause you didn't do any work to understand it. You just went, nah, you know, that's just who I vote for and that's how it works. and so that to me like it's not a lot of work. For me, it probably took me maybe an hour or so to kind of work my way through and understand what that was. but. We're going to be voting in a couple of weeks, or a week or so, whenever it is. I don't even know what it is.

Ryan:

days. it's this weekend.

Terry:

so to me, like that's really all I'm talking about. you can be ignorant of policy, politics, the system and that sort of thing. Or you can start to go, well, how do you actually, start to influence it? Yeah. You've only got your vote. you're not the billionaire that's sitting in government, but if more and more people do that instead of just kind of, and what I see a lot of is just like that party politics, just kind of like that party is good at business and that party is shit at business. it's just not that simple. it's the.

Ryan:

like that's like seeking consensus across the board that's a better path. And so I get the part where one vote that doesn't actually go that far. and like you look at the US like everyone so easy from Australian to look into the US and go, wow, like seems like a cooked unit. but everyone's getting behind him versus it actually feels like there's really good governance existing on the other side. you know, with

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

Kamala Harris and types. but more than 50% of people.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

the majority, if you like, the Democratic, majority that he's a better leader. and so a lot of people are going, well, does one vote make much of a difference? And that's probably fair enough.

Terry:

Well, in America it's a different system. It's, you know, you can lose the popular vote.

Ryan:

that's why I say that wasn't quite 50%. But, still that,

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

is true in Australia where you go, well, do we

Terry:

Yeah. it's a way better system we've got here. I think that system over there is so backwards.

Ryan:

And that's for me to influence that right influence policy, then actually I need to educate the people, which is a very different thing for a welder to go, I need to influence the people with my one vote, amongst 26 million other votes.

Terry:

yeah, I mean,

Ryan:

we voters bar.

Terry:

yeah, I mean like even the fact that we're discussing this now, right? This creates other discussions. so someone will listen to this and have a conversation about it and say, Terry's full of shit. He doesn't know what he's talking about. You should be doing this, or this should be working. The fact that you are just engaging with the idea that that's something that works for us, that should work for us. I think really that's the only point I'm making is you can operate in this world where you believe you're in a vacuum and you can only think you can control is yourself, but it's actually not true. You don't operate in a vacuum, you operate in a society and every time you touch somebody else, you're influencing them. Every time you speak a word, every time you make a choice. All of those things have a ripple effect. and I think that we actually have far greater agency if we live in that world. whereas if we kind of just go, just stick your head down just too much, just kind of focus on yourself and that sort of thing, like that can work if you find yourself in the right domain. But if you're in the wrong domain. And if you dunno what you don't know and you're completely ignorant, I can actually see why people get radicalized the way they have in America. A hundred percent. I can see that. because, you know, you watch a lot of these people, right? Talk about how trump's the, you know, the best thing since sliced bread. And then they get asked questions about things they, you know, think are really important. And it's things that Trump put in place and they go, yeah, the Democrat. And it's that's Trump's decision. That's his decision. And that's the side of the coin where it's you know, I watched this conversation the other day where this lady's we've been paying for all this stuff and you know, we've been taxed to the hill and this guy's you don't like the tax code, right? She's no, yeah, we've been shouldering the backs of everything. and he's you know, that's Donald Trump's tax code that you're talking about. That's the rules that he put in place. when the Democrats came in. They didn't change that. That's actually been Trump's tax code all the way through. So everything you just said to me is what you don't like. She's no, I'll vote for Donald Trump every day of the week. And I'm like, that is the cost of ignorance where you just go,'cause then someone can walk in, right? And just say, this is how it is, I'm gonna fix it. They're the bad guys. and you're easily manipulated. Very easily manipulated.

Ryan:

The hard part is then you start looking go. Is it ignorant to think that you can overcome ignorance?

Terry:

I don't think so.

Ryan:

Maybe maybe it's naive.

Terry:

think about slavery in America. That doesn't get changed if people don't decide that it's worth changing. anything big has only ever happened that way. so it's just a case of, I don't know. points like this, in history, right, where we're talking about wealth inequality and those sort of things. You can keep doing it the way you've been doing it or you can think a little bit bigger. and yeah, when you look back, you go, well, anytime revolution's happened, big sort of shifts and changes. Then the New Deal after World War II that completely reset, society in America and that became a global standard, around the world. And that was because These conversations were had basically, it wasn't like, no, it is the way it is. Fuck it.

Ryan:

Yeah. I actually

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

just finished reading Nexus, which is the Yuval Noah Harare's book, information, history of Information Networks.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

the fact that you have conversations lead to sharing of knowledge, creating a shared understanding, you reduce the amount of ignorance a country, if you like, or within the democracy, is a crucial part of it. Obviously the big challenge is becoming that people are into, information, networks, if you like.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

yeah, obviously you have your red states, your blue states who see things differently within that, you know, you've got people on social media, Facebook, algorithms, section people into seeing certain types of content, other groups of people or other types of content, and so

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

extreme separation between views. One of the great things Australia probably has going for us is that our extremism isn't as great. From the perspective of less people. Like it's not a GI state against states. It's also people see

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

country more so than a set of countries. also that conversation can be had and more generally, you know, one person can be raised and it's a conversation like the voice was, only six to 12 months ago where all of a sudden everyone was having the conversation. At least people talked about it and there was knowledge shared

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

somewhat more informed on that

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

we can actually have a bit of a national conversation. Whereas it's pretty hard to see that even being possible in countries like the States now because of sheer size, because of the extreme news.

Terry:

you know, grant, we've had him on the podcast before, grant Butters, who's in the program. So he lived over in, America for years. And, I was chatting to him the other day and he said, mate, you cannot believe the amount of content that's just shoved down their throats all the time. And what you just said, like the filter bubble, just like you live here, for example, you live in Florida, you don't know anything. You just know what they tell you all the time. And if you encounter somebody from like New York, you think they're from a different country. and it's, he's it's absolutely crazy.

Ryan:

basically propaganda.

Terry:

yeah, it gets to that point where, and then that discussion I said before where that lady is talking about how in the middle income and middle America's paid for everything and the tax code sucks. she doesn't even know what she's talking about. She's talking about Trump tax code. but she's been told that it's all them. It's a problem. And that's why I think the conversations are really important. Like you actually are having a conversation in the real world with somebody. You're getting outta that and you're sort of colliding your ideas with reality. But How do you have better discussions really? Um, you know, it was good content, it was good. You know, Trump would call it good ratings'cause it was like really fiery conversation and you're like, man, did he actually just say that to him? but yeah, I think, more productive conversations where you're not trying to demonize the other person or their point of view. You're just trying to understand it. it is, helpful.

Ryan:

Do you, I have a question. Like how do you breed curiosity in people to actually wanna know how things are working or could work, like loosening to the debate between albanese the other day? and then even Brit randomly started doing a, like a questionnaire thing

Terry:

Oh, the Compass. Did she do the compass, the vote Compass?

Ryan:

might have been Compass, I wish I had but of them, it just becomes like, all of a sudden it's a, you know, it's a fight of buzzwords. It's who can say we will fix cost of living

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

than the other person?

Terry:

Yeah,

Ryan:

many times can I say, I'll help out hardworking Australian

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

you like, no.

Terry:

Yeah. It's not a great, I don't think it's a great format that sort of debate and especially, The way it's mediated. the guy, the way he was mediating, it was almost like he was trying to gotcha both of dut and albanese at times as well. and I'm like, you literally giving him 30 seconds to answer your question and then you're like, okay. and then you ask your following question that kind of drives the, I don't really I don't think it's, but I can see why they do it.'cause again, ratings right

Ryan:

It's

Terry:

is.

Ryan:

not like someone's laying up, Hey, here's the future, the Australian Future Plan, or whatever it's called. You mentioned before strategy. This is what the next five to 10 years could look like. And this is how I shift things and then kind of discuss and debate the strategy. a minute or 30 seconds to go. Tell us what you think about this. gonna produce the cost of living.

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

Cool.

Terry:

And so, you know, there was a, if you were watching the same one that I was watching, I'd be interested to see whether you picked up on this. But, they. Talked about modeling changes in negative gearing. and that's like a huge political No-no. because Bill Shorten years ago, sort of came forward with that because, you know, negative gearing is what's, and the capital gains tax and the way that those policy have been created, that's what's created our kind of housing bubble in Australia. that's what turned housing from a utility into an investment. and it's a way better bank account than the bank. and so they've modeled what would that look like to change things, and that's very politically unpalatable. You'll never get elected on that because anybody who's kind of benefiting from that system is don't come and take what's mine. Right. But again, we're not thinking about

Ryan:

is there more people in that position or more people saying, the people with investment properties.

Terry:

so that's where it starts to shift, right? Like previously in the past you'd say more of the boomers, more of the voting population. But now it's kind of, it is. I'd say it's probably whether it's this election or the next election, where there's more people who haven't benefited from that kind of policy than have, just because of the way those, actually, no, sorry, boomers are still like a massive part of the, they're still a big part of our actual living population, so that'll probably exist for a while. but the point is

Ryan:

hard to fathom. how many Australians would own 1, 2, 3 investment properties? Even more so how many Australians would have negatively geared properties so that expenses are higher than the income. We'd have to be. Less than a million

Terry:

yeah,

Ryan:

to,

Terry:

it's not hate, it's not he, but like this is where

Ryan:

Australians are there? That's a.

Terry:

Yeah, but it's not just about who's in that position now. It's who sees themselves in that position and what they think. and how they've kind of been taught to think about it, right? That's the way my dad got rich, and that's the way I got rich and that's the way I'm gonna be rich. and so I kind of vote in that way because I kind of vote with what I've seen, heard and felt. But, so I don't think it's like distinct to who owns the property. It's more like what's your sort of philosophy. and yeah, it's, it was interesting because that is a discussion that housing, they know it's a problem. They know that housing affordability is a huge problem and both sides, most of the time they create short term policies that do nothing but fuel demand and they don't really fix the supply issue. and there's been a bunch of reports on this where. Like the massive problem is between federal government and the state government. The state government's, the ones who open up the land and the federal government are the ones who create the incentives. And so federal government create all these incentives to fuel. you only need a 2% deposit on this house now that does something, but drive up the price of property. Peter Dutton's policy is take money outta your super and buy a house that's gonna do nothing but drive the price of property up.

Ryan:

you can claim interest as a tax deduction potentially time buyers.

Terry:

yeah, so that increases your borrowing capacity, which is gonna mean that you can borrow more,

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

who it's benefiting, the person who's selling the house to you, not you.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

so like that to me, that is a discussion that has to be had, and it needs to be, you know, it needs to be a two, three hour let's hash it out. Like, why do you think that's better? how is that even better? What are you actually doing for supply? and I know, you know, both parties had kind of different sort of approaches with both of them. You can buy votes with your policies, same as what you said. Use a buzzword and say, look, you only need a 2% deposit. You can get the money outta the super. We gotta get you into the market. you know, first time bonus should be able to get in there, but it just perpetuates the problem. so yeah, that format is shocking, right? It's just have your 32nd sound bite and if it doesn't land, you're gonna get picked on by the MC guy or the other guy

Ryan:

Like even that, to be honest, some of those questions that Brit read out to me, I was like, it's almost, it's what's the word? it's no rude, not rude. What's the word? Where it's

Terry:

antagonistic.

Ryan:

some of the questions that I read were like, condescending almost. no, you realize that

Terry:

yeah,

Ryan:

you basically saying I'm a dumb dumb.

Terry:

yeah.

Ryan:

what you think po negative Oh, well, was, it was a like art scale, I think. Agree, disagree, somewhere in between.

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

think about that question. That actually doesn't even make sense. I need a good example. But anyway,

Terry:

Yeah, right. I didn't do the compass. but no, it's a good tool.

Ryan:

There was some good questions in it, but it was obviously like, I was just trying to see will you sway in the direction of voting for the person that says, I'll reduce the cost of living, or will you swinging the direction of the person that says, that was the was there.

Terry:

yeah. it's probably that I just, I saw this document where it actually just put all the policies next to each other. So it was like, on this, what does labor want What does liberal want? are they for it or against it? And I just went down the whole list and looked at every single policy, I found that pretty helpful. but Compass does a similar thing. it just gives you an interface that sits on top of it where it's yeah, here's the issue. What do you think about the issue? And then sort of tells you where you sit on the spectrum, I guess.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

But I think, you know, yeah. You go,

Ryan:

Coming back to the debate between Priestly and Gary economics. So Gary didn't actually put forward any solutions, did he? He was just like, let's just question things. Or did he actually say, here's some solutions that could work.

Terry:

yeah, I'd call it very broad brush strokes. I think what he's pushing for is an acknowledgement that we need to do something about this problem rather than ignore it.

Ryan:

Wasn't that the point of the debate? let's have a debate about how we fix the problem. So it's yeah, there's a problem. What do we do about it?

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

having, is there a problem?

Terry:

I guess like where you try to, so you would say the arena in which we think we're gonna solve the problem, we disagree on that. Between the two of them. So Daniel Priestley's Arena was like purely at the individual level. and Gary Economics is like, no, the arena that we should be focusing on is actually the systemic structural level. Daniel Priestley didn't really present any specific solutions either. They both just talked about different arenas that make sense.

Ryan:

kind of not really.

Terry:

Daniel Priestley didn't say We should do exactly this. He said, that won't work. We should just be giving people more sort of individual economic freedom. That's not really like prescriptive either. It's more just directionally, I think we should do that. so I wouldn't say either of them got super tactical and sort of said, here's my five point plan to fix it. It was like, nah, don't look there. Look here, don't look over there. Look here.

Ryan:

we need some five point plans.

Terry:

Well, that's what I like about that future made in Australia one.'cause it is a well laid out plan. It's first we're gonna do this, we're gonna incentivize the industry like this, then we're gonna create a standard, a global standard that looks like this. here's how we're gonna create a sense of urgency in the market. and this is how things can change over time. and it is kind of really well thought through, you know, to the point you were making around debate versus actually come forward with something.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Terry:

what I like about that too is it's written into, law now. both parties agreed that it was a good idea. so I just voted in a way that I was like, what's the most likely that this plan actually gets enacted? It's usually for the person who created the plan. Who believes in it the most.

Ryan:

There's no plans for closing. The wealth gap is there. There's no five point plans for that.

Terry:

Nah, nah.

Ryan:

five point plan.

Terry:

That's why labor, if indeed it was true, that's why they would've been modeling a change to capital gains and a change to, negative gearing. Because if you're gonna try, you would be looking there. You'd be starting there in Australia.

Ryan:

Yeah,

Terry:

yeah. but

Ryan:

at the end, I was like, good to have the debate, but I also go, hopefully by the end of a debate you can come up with some solutions.

Terry:

yeah, you know what I think debates are good for is just surfacing different views. Like just get different views out on the table and then make sense of real, like what I got from it was like, I learned a lot about, you know. from Daniel's perspective around like the prob like, I guess the way that kind of, the point of sale tax works, and how that works at a business level. And you know what I said about Facebook and that sort of thing, I didn't really think through that. And I was like, that is actually pretty shit where we've got these massive like companies, making a bunch of money, but not really contributing in the place where they're making the money. and so that kind of thing, it's good to kind of, you surface all those kind of different views. and that's why what I got out of it was like I had my initial reaction and then I kind of thought about it for about a week or so and I was like, if I can separate Gary's style from his substance, the actual message from the messenger. you know, I think he had a point and I think Daniel had a point. and both of them can be correct in a different sense basically. And that's not me sitting on the fence. if I was gonna bet in a direction, I would actually say, I think Gary's point of view is getting more steam because that's actually where probably big change will happen. Not small change.

Ryan:

I'm gonna go back and listen and try to find point'cause I didn't quite get there. Maybe we can catch up and spend another hour. No, just kidding. Wouldn't do that

Terry:

Yeah.

Ryan:

mate. Good discussion.

Terry:

I know it's a bit of a different episode. This one, no structure to it. people ask us to talk through it. So let's just have a conversation.

Ryan:

I'll wait for me.

Terry:

I don't know. Let me know. let us know if you're in our podcast community and there's a link underneath this, let us know what you thought of this. You know, we like to, be quite structured and really sort of think through our episodes and things, because we wanna value your time. But if you like this kind of thing and you want to have more of us to have kind of more unstructured, free form discussions about things that you find important, tell us what you want us to discuss and we can give you more of that if that's what you want.'cause it's easier for us. we don't have to spend hours and hours putting stuff together. but yeah, curious to see what you thought. If you've been listening to us for a while, would really love your opinion. So if you get an email from me or you're in the Facebook community, or you wanna put it on reviews, let us know. Good or bad, what you thought.

Ryan:

Chat soon.

People on this episode