This Canadian Billionaire Changed Business For the Better | CEO Frank Stronach | EP 396

So we got to share with the employees because without employees we can't make a profit. If employees make more money, they have more purchasing power, the economy functions better. But we must open up; we must. It's crucial that small Enterprise, that we don't tie them up in chains and with regulations.

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today, I have the honor to speak with Frank Stac, founder and CEO of Magna International, one of Canada and the world's great companies. Frank built that company from nothing, starting in the 1950s. It's quite a story. We discussed the keys to motivating yourself to start and maintain a successful and expanding business, why that's a good thing for yourself and everybody else.

The idea contained within his corporate constitution, it's an economic charter of rights which advocates for the input, autonomy, and profit-sharing among all workers, management, shareholders, etc. I'm very much looking forward to talking about it with him.

Hello Mr. Struk, it's very, very nice to see you. We met a couple of months ago at a restaurant in Toronto, and I had the opportunity to talk to you about your business ventures over the last five or six decades, which I found extraordinarily interesting. In the intervening period of time, I've read one of your books, the one that's more autobiographical, and I'm very interested in your story. I thought you would make a particularly good podcast guest because one of the things I do with my pod is walk people through the lives of successful individuals because I think it would be better if people believed that they could move forward successfully in the world and that they were equipped with some knowledge about how to do that. I think that's something we could really concentrate on focusing in on.

I know it's very important to you. In this podcast, you came to Canada in the 1950s. We'll go through your story autobiographically. You came armed with a tiny bit of money, some actual skill, some determination, and out of that, you built a massive business empire.

Let's start with this: not everyone listening and watching is going to know what Magna Enterprises is, so would you do us the favor first of laying out your business empire? Tell people what it is that you do and what you've accomplished, how you spread out through the world, what you guys manufacture—just lay out the story, the description of Magna.

Okay, I've always said life is a question of fate and circumstances, being in the right places at the right time with the right ingredients. As it happened, I was born in a working-class family, and when I finished my schooling and I had one or two years of practical experience, I wanted to see the world. I applied for a visa to South Africa, Australia, the United States, and Canada. Sometimes I'm a little tough on the Canadian bureaucracy, but I'm saying it's still the best because they came first forward with a Visa.

So I landed in Quebec City. I took the cheapest fare I could, you know, from Holland on a cold freighter, and I arrived in Quebec back in, I think, April 1954. The immigration officer asked me if I knew anybody in Canada. I said no. He said, "Well then, you go to Montreal." So I moved to Montreal. I took a train to Montreal, but I didn't know anybody. My English was reasonably okay, and there were some English-speaking people on that ship, and so I tried to practice my English.

Anyway, I knew because I had $100 in my pocket, and I knew that wouldn't last me too long if I would right away be in a hotel or whatever it was. So the people told me, "Look, just walk along the streets, and it's customary. If you see a sign 'Room to Let,' just knock on the door, and then you might get a room." So I did that for an hour or two. I knocked on a few doors. I think I looked a little rough from the long journey, and so they said it's already leased. But I did find one; I did find the room.

So the next morning, I got up, and I looked at the road maps and walked around. I worked in the factory, but it was in 54; there was a major recession. I just couldn't find a job. During that time, I was hungry—hungry enough because I wanted to lose weight. I was hungry; I had no money to buy food. If you've experienced that, that's an impression which will last forever; it's burnt in your soul.

So anyway, I ran out of money. I was hungry. I had an acquaintance—not a close friend, but someone I knew from the same town. They came from Kitchener, right? So I saved enough money to buy a Greyhound bus ticket and I moved to Kitchener. I traveled by bus from Montreal. When I got off after the main square, I asked somebody what such-and-such address is. They said, "Look, go up there four blocks and then ask again."

So I went up four blocks, asked. They said, "Well, go up three more blocks and then you might have to make a left." So again, I… after about two hours of walking, I could find the house where that fellow lived. I knocked on the door, and an elderly lady said, "Max, that was the fellow’s name, there’s somebody who wants to see me."

I was very happy to meet somebody which I knew from previous days. Anyway, Max came down, and he looked at me and said, "You look a little rough. Are you hungry?" I said yes. "Come on in." So the next day, I slept there, and the day after, we started job hunting.

In the industrial site, there was nothing, but I did find a job in the kitchen of the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital. In the kitchen, I felt so sorry for myself. I thought when I come to Canada, I’d get a manly job, you know, cutting trees down or taking out stones, something manly. But I was there in the kitchen with a lot of elderly women. Nothing against elderly women; my mother was an elderly woman. I liked her, but I felt sorry for myself, peeling potatoes and washing salads, etc.

So in the evening, I was just itching to get away to meet among people. In those days, there was an "ann clinker" kitchen, so I went there. And those days, they were slow dancing, right, a lot of music. And when they danced with a girl, you know, they say, "Where are you from?" I say, "I'm from Austria." "What do you do?" "Well, I work in the hospital." My hands were so smooth from washing dishes; they thought I was a surgeon. But that was the end. They always kind of said, "No, I'm just working in the kitchen."

But that's the way life is. But anyway, after a little while, after about months or so, I did find a job in an engineering and a production-oriented company. That company worked exclusively for the Arrow aircraft. But that project wasn't financed anymore, and they closed the factory. The AO aircraft factory was closed; the company I worked for was closed.

So I checked a ride from Kitchener to Oakville; they were building a new factory at the time. There were huge lineups. I waited about two or three hours before they interviewed me, and when I interviewed, they said, "You’re too young to have any experience," so I wasn’t hired. And I drifted to Toronto down; I had—well, years later, I had met many times, you know, meetings, lunch meetings, dinner meetings with the President of Ford.

I told him, "You’re lucky if I got hired at the time; I would be the President," right? So I could tease him, right? I knew well enough that I could. But anyway, I did find a job there in a very small company, you know, about 10 people. After a year, after a few months, the owner said, "You’re doing a great job; I want you to be a partner of mine."

And my chest swelled a little, and that’s great—a nice guy, but he never wrote down what it was all about. So I said to myself there’s nothing to do with running the factory, so I looked in the paper and I found a job that paid a lot more. I moved to a rooming house where the toilets were in the hallway, and I saved every dollar.

After a couple of years, I saved about $5,000. I rented a garage; actually, it was the gatehouse of standard products in Dufferin and Tupon in Toronto. The size was about maybe double the garage. I bought a few used machines. I had the $5,000 saved up. Back in terms today, that would be at least $100,000 or $150,000, right?

So I bought the used machines, and I went hustling. I knocked on factory doors and said, "I'm great at solving problems," and they said, "Look, if I can’t solve the problems, you don’t have to pay me." But anyway, after a month, I hired a worker. After a year, about 10 workers. After two years, about 20. After five years, about 3-4,000. After 10 years, about 75,000. After 20 years, 125,000. I built up a company with 170,000 employees and 34 different countries.

So anyway, the message I want to get across is, you know, when we are younger, we all hustle to make some money so that we can live in dignity. I guess I could have lived in dignity in all the 34 countries, but I choose Canada.

I think I’ve seen the world, and I’ve met just about every president—from Clinton to Putin to Tony Blair—just about everybody. And I could see Canada perhaps as the only country now which could be a role model where we could implement an economic charter of rights. Magnet, basically, is more than a business; it's really a culture. I call it the Fair Enterprise system.

The basic philosophy in Fair Enterprise is the human charter of rights at all—it’s not sufficient; we have to fortify it with an economic charter of rights. Economic charters of rights will lead to economic democracies, and economic democracies are the basis for democracy itself.

But let me explain it a little better. We don’t talk too much about it; those conversations are not polite, right? But let me simplify things. Nowadays, all the politicians, all businesses—what, as a matter of fact, most people agree—is that if the economy doesn’t work, nothing else will work. You cannot feed the hungry; you cannot look after the most fragile people— the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped.

But we do not talk about what drives the economy. The economy is driven by three forces: smart managers, hardworking employees, and investors. That means all three have a right to the outcome, which is profits. The message I want to get across is if we fail or if we do not let workers participate in profits, then we’ve got a problem.

Okay, because the world has always been dominated by the Golden Rule, and it still is: the people which have the gold make the rules. I don't want to be dominated by anyone. If I feel that strong, then I should not be able to dominate somebody either. So thereby, the only way we'll be able to achieve that is with an economic charter of rights.

The message I want to get across to Canadians is the human charter of rights alone is not sufficient; we have to fortify it with an economic charter of rights. Economic charters of rights, as I said before, will lead to economic democracies, and economic democracies are the basis for democracy itself. The human charter of rights alone doesn’t mean a lot of things for kids; nothing is free to be hungry.

So the amazing story about the whole thing is when I put in a corporate constitution at Magna in the mid-late 80s, the Constitution basically said—or what the most important thing on the Constitution was—we predetermined what we do with the profits. The Constitution said the profit-sharing said 20% of the profits go to the shareholders, 10% goes to the employees over and above their wages, half in shares, half in cash, 6% management gets, 2% charity gets, and 7% is reinvested for research.

So when I put the Constitution in, the profits went up the first year about 40%, the second year about 100%, the third year about 200%. When you empower employees, where there's a clear concept where they share in the profits, you release an enormous energy, you know, because they're on the front line.

The employees on the front line can see what you have to do to make a better product for a better price. So that's what it's all about. That's the kind of system; that’s what the world needs. We stand perhaps at a crossroad. Who will dominate the world?

The United States is slipping to a certain extent. The United States has dominated the world for the last 100 years, and where freedom and religious freedom, freedom to speak, and a lot of freedoms are granted, we have maybe fallen off and we could do a little better there. But the United States, unfortunately, has a lot of problems. There’s cancer in the inner cities; the poverty is enormous.

I don’t know if it’s feasible, right? But the key question we have to ask ourselves is what can we do to—you know, because the divide is too great. There’s so much money held by just a few, and there’s so much poverty by many.

Okay? So what do we have to do to level that out? Not completely; you can never, you should never level it out. At the same time, I say a country which stifles its citizens in pursuit of productivity, ingenuity, creativity, is a decaying society.

Because you have… the society or the world's made up of different minds, different desires. Let everybody choose their own road to happiness.

Okay? So, but it's very important. So I divide—I actually classify businesses over 300 employees; it’s a large business. Below 300 people, it’s a small business. The law would stipulate that the large businesses, which have more than 300 employees, that the law would provide that workers could share in some of the profits.

That could be determined; it could be an escalated program. The small business, small business basically is the backbone of any country. They pay the most taxes; they have the most employment, and this is where, call it, the new products come forward, the new technology.

So we must do everything we can. We must take the red tapes off, take the chains off small business, and let small business operate under the pure Fair Enterprise principles. So there is… the bureaucracy has climbed enormously.

You know, I could never build a Magna anymore. Imagine starting out in a garage and building 170,000 employees over 400 factories worldwide. I could never because I would choke under the first factory.

Right? I could give you examples now how cumbersome it is. Right? Okay, and when we look back 40-50 years, yes, we have a lot of security; our safety measures and, you know, buildings have to be built that they won’t collapse from the snow load, etc. But the bureaucracy has climbed to such an extent.

But let me… I like to point out, to bring up a change, you won't bring up a change if you point the fingers at whose fault it is, and you cannot do it with chains either.

So I'm saying it’s not the fault of the bureaucrats; in a free society, everybody has a right to find the job, whatever the job openings are. The system, the system we have to change. Our politicians are trapped in the systems because the politics is...

Whoever brings forward something new, any politician or party, they won’t win because you could criticize them. So this is the problem—politics, government, can’t fix things.

So it needs a private citizen; it needs a coalition of what I would call concerned Canadians. This is what we need to get the economy going because the economy, you know, I think it’s frightening what will happen over the next 5-10 years.

We don’t make things anymore. When you look when you see factories, the factories are all warehoused; we don't make things. And when a country doesn’t make things, they got to import everything. Then is where the economy breaks down, where there's no jobs, where people go hungry.

So we got to avoid that. So, I think I’ve given you a bit of a short overview, and I would be very happy now to answer questions, and how can we, how can we fix things?

Okay, so I would like to know, first of all, what skills you brought to Canada with you, and how long it took you to acquire those skills, say on the tool and die maker side; and then also, what attitude do you think you brought to bear to your work that enticed the first person, for example, to offer you a partnership, but that also made you capable of taking the risk and developing the vision to rent that first empty garage?

So how were you trained? How long did that take? What made you a good potential partner? And why did you have enough daring, let’s say, or vision to rent that first garage?

Well, the training, I… I served in high school; high school had only eight classes. I proposed to—in Canada we should—high school should end at grade 10, grade 11, and grade 12. We should teach students trades. That doesn’t mean that the students after grade 12 couldn't go to university.

I’m just telling people the situation I was exposed to. So it was a three-and-a-half-year program. We had one or two days a week where we had theoretical stuff where we had to be in classrooms, and let's say four days we were in the workshops on the floor, learning different things.

So that was the program. What did you learn? What skills did you acquire?

Tool making, of course, for every—you need, let’s say, uh, let’s take this pen here. It’s not made by hand, huh? There’s so much precision, so much knowledge that goes into—a writing pen.

The ink's got to come out for the next few months, such a minute that you can read and write. So you got to make machines or tools. Or, let’s—people might understand. Well, let’s say a bumper for a car is not made by hand.

Okay? You need a mold because it’s plastic, right? And it’s produced using machinery. So this is what die-making is about, right? And this is maybe the most important trade to get things done, to get things made right.

When you take a car, might it be a door, might it be a seat, might it be the bumper, right? You need tools, you need technology and special machinery.

So the basics would take three to four years, and then it might take another few years till you slowly work yourself up that you’d be qualified to a die-maker.

We are facing the threat of a government shutdown later this month, and yet again, the administration will ultimately deal with it the same way they always do—with more spending. More spending equals a lower value of the dollar. Protect your savings by diversifying into gold with the help of the Birch Gold Group.

Here's the best part: when you open a gold IRA with Birch Gold, for every $10,000 you spend by December 22nd, Birch Gold will send you a free gold bar. Just text Jordan to 989898.

Navigate transitioning an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in Gold. Don’t let your savings become a victim of the further devaluation of the dollar through more spending. Text Jordan to 989898.

So what machines did you learn to operate when you were doing your training? You also mentioned earlier that you were confident in putting yourself forward as a good problem-solver. So what was the relationship between learning those machines? What machines did you learn? And how did that facilitate your development as a problem-solver?

Interesting—the first day when I came out of high school, my first day at that factory, you know, I needed a platform because I couldn’t quite reach up, right? I was 14 years of age; I couldn’t reach.

There was a vice grip mounted on the thing here, and then there was a piece of steel. The piece of steel was about 4 inches square. Okay? We took two people to lift that steel piece up on the vice grip.

We had a hacksaw, a metal hacksaw. We had to cut a piece down 4 inches square, and that took maybe a week, okay, till we cut the thing down, and then it took maybe about three or four weeks. We had to file it perfectly square.

So that means it’s an amazing thing what that leads to and how you accumulate precision work, right? I did a similar school in Canada where we had a school here to teach young kids how to be die and tool makers, right?

But anyway, so you go, and then we learn things on the lathe where you make running things or milling machines, etc. So you go to a stage, right?

Okay, so anyway, that's what we... I did my first job then in Toronto as a tool and die maker. We made a stamping die to maybe punch out a piece of metal with some holes in it, and that’s basically what the tool and die maker does.

As you go along, it gets more and more sophisticated, right?

So you got familiarized with a wide variety of tools and the ability to make precision parts. Now, you said you also became a good problem-solver, and then you also developed this idea that you could rent your own garage and start producing your own tools.

Now, one of the things you said was that when you went out to sell your services, you told your potential customers that you could solve a problem, and if you didn't, they didn’t have to pay you. You know, the reason I want to focus on that in part is because I want to know how you developed the vision to rent that garage to begin with, and also how you knew that the proper thing to sell to potential customers was your service as a problem-solver, right?

Because what you’re saying to them essentially is, "Well, you guys have a problem and it’s plaguing you, and you need it solved, and I’m the guy that can solve it."

And I’m willing to… you know, demonstrate my capabilities—which is really an excellent approach to sales because you want to find out what the person’s problem is, and you want to be the solution.

But how did you develop that problem-solving ability and your confidence in it, and then why did you think it was worth taking the risk to rent that first garage?

Jordan, you ask great questions. Those have to be answered. The reason why I’m sitting here is, look, I want to roll off the experience I accumulated. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of young Canadians out there that could do the same thing if we teach them the basics right.

And I think a society would be much better off with thousands of smaller companies than one or two large companies, right? That’s what the idea is.

So anyway, so I opened up that factory. I could solve a few problems. I got some orders, and I… I like I said, after two years, I had about 20 people, and I noticed my foreman was a little different, right?

Because when he had just got—he worked so closely together; his name was Herman. I said, "Herman, what’s the matter with you lately?" "Well," he said, "Frank, I’m thinking of opening my own factory."

I said, "I sympathize with that. That’s what I did too. I said, ‘Look, why don’t we talk tomorrow? Maybe we can find a better solution.’" That evening, I was talking to myself, and I said to myself that if that foreman is going to leave me, that would stifle my growth.

I didn’t like that. The next reason was if that foreman is going to leave me, I got to do all the work myself. I like… The third reason was if I hire a new foreman and I don’t show him how to run the business, I still got to do all the work.

And if I hire a new foreman and I show him how to run the business, it’s just a question of time before he goes out and opens up his new factory.

I think the key is we need experience; there’s this huge potential, right? This huge energy which lies dormant in people. We’ve got to teach them the right way.

So I think it’s important. While I’m still… I have everything in my mind quite clearly that we record that, and it’s great that your skill is to ask the right questions—how come and how what, right?

So I’m delighted to sit here.

Well, so you grew very rapidly. So there are two mysteries there to me because one of the things I’ve noticed with small businesses, for example, is that it’s very difficult to get your first customers, right?

It’s very difficult to get from zero to one. Once you have a customer or two, the next customers start to be easier because you can refer them to other customers you have. But getting those first people to decide that you’re the person when no one else has done it or has been willing to show that faith can be very tricky.

So what do you think you managed successfully? How do you think you managed to present yourself successfully to the first people that you offered your services to?

Well, price and quality don’t function, right? If you have a lot of knowledge and you transmit that knowledge to other people, then you can give great service—better pricing, better functioning machinery, better tools.

So that’s the very key, and that’s what I would like to transmit.

So, fortunately, around that time, that’s why I’m always saying life is a question of fate and circumstances being at the right place at the right time.

Around in the early 60s, you know, there was a free trade agreement signed with the United States, and I see this huge potential out there.

I should say I didn’t finish up when I talked the next day with my foreman where I said, I said to him, "Look, why don’t we open up a new factory? You own a third, and I said, ‘No more overtime. I own two-thirds, and by the end of the year, we take some profits out, and we leave some money in for expansions.’”

He said, “Do you mean it?” I said, “Yes.” We went right away to a lawyer and signed the thing.

The guy hustled like crazy; you know, he spent more time in there that was his factory, basically. I took the next foreman, the next foreman, and the next foreman. I said, "Business is easy, right?"

And then when I had about— I think it was about six or seven factories and the free trade agreement, came under the being.

I saw there was enormous potential up there. Up to that now, I only shared with the foreman. I said, "If I—and then I got to know the United States better, Canada better, the power of the unions, the size of the unions."

And I said, "If I… I would have to do certain things to be competitive."

So I had a friend of mine, machinery expert, and he said, "I kind of explain to him I really should go public because I want to have the workers also participate."

Well, he says, "I know a fellow which his name is… I’ll remember it’s Imel, but anyway, he gave me the name. I met him at the ski hill; we went skiing together at Church Beaks.

And he said, "Look, I have a certain… I would like to…" Why do you… "Why don’t you sell your companies and Magna Electronics and you have Clues to control and then you could put that program in there where you can share the profits with the workers?"

So that’s what I finally did. I was totally green when it comes down to a public company, right? I did not have total control; I had a board there, right?

And they were…in driving the stock-up, right? And the defense industry was very, very…they were mainly Magna Electronics, did mainly defense work, right, and that was very popular. I was in automotive.

I said after a year, so I said I don’t think this makes a lot. I said, "Um, I want to be out." Okay? And I said, "I sell my stock on the market." So they pleaded with me, “Please sell the stock to us.”

So they said, "Fine, no problem. Just give us a year time." And I said, "Fine." They were basically okay.

But the market kind of went down; the shares—they didn’t have the money. I never sued anybody, and I just said, "Look, under the circumstances, you guys can’t be on the board."

And then I put in different directors, and after a while, I went to the board and read to the public and said, “I forgo about 25% of my stocks if you, the shareholders, vote for multiple votes.”

Because I came to the conclusion I want to run things, and I can’t have 20 guys or 50 guys left and right debating forever, right?

So I had the shareholders vote for that. Then I said, "In return, I also give…giving a certain discipline.”

This is why I put the corporate constitution in. That if I had control, I only could take out so much. There was clear cut control of what management could do, and that sort of became the Magna environment.

But yeah, let’s go back to your foreman. So you had said that when you made that arrangement with him that you valued his work and you wanted him around, and you were concerned that if he left, all that work would fall on your shoulders again and also stop you from moving ahead.

You sat down and contemplated what sort of deal you would have to make with him in order for his needs to be met and yours. There’s something very important there about the nature of a deal, you know?

People often think that with a deal, you try to win, or with a deal, you try to compromise, but my sense with the proper negotiation is that you want to figure out what you want so that you’re thrilled to progress with the deal.

And you want to figure out what your partner wants so he’s thrilled to progress with the deal. Because if you set it up that way, then your interests are aligned, and you’re both going to work as hard as you can autonomously.

Now, you knew your foreman had the same kind of entrepreneurial vision you did, and you wanted to unleash his abilities. And so you offered him a third of the company; you said you’d take two-thirds.

And then you said he was thrilled, which is a good thing to have happen in a partner. He went off and treated this factory like it was his own—partly because it was now.

And then you said you duplicated that subsidiary structure across six factories and then expanded much more dramatically.

You also noted at that point that the principle of distributed ownership should be brought down to the workers.

So you were starting to develop that as an explicit philosophy. Now, why do you think it was that you realized that your foreman needed ownership? Why do you think you were willing to grant it to him?

And why do you think that the agreement that you made, which was that you would own two-thirds of the company and he would own one-third, was a desirable and compelling motivational arrangement for your foreman?

First of all, a deal, you’ve got to make a deal for both sides; it’s got to be good, right?

And as a company grows, circumstances may change a bit, etc., etc. So you make provisions if you can. The reason why I think he was delighted with the deal is, when we had verbal arrangements, I never went back on my word.

I think that’s crucial, right? So he felt comfortable. When they say, "We take out the third," right, we share, it made him feel kind of comfortable—the very crucial thing.

Later on, if I, you know, once when I had about 30, 40, or 50 or 100 factories and I had a prospective manager which I interviewed, I said, "Look, there are the names, the addresses of 100 factories, whoever manager you want to choose, and ask him how I run things."

Okay? The message what I wanted to get across is if you promise something, you must keep it. It doesn’t matter what the thing is because if you’ve got the ability, you can always make money. If you lose your reputation, you can never repair it.

So I think I had a reputation built up. And again, when it said small companies, you don’t need a formal structure. It’s kind of loose; it’s pure free enterprise.

Like when I was small, when I had about 20, 30, or 40 workers, I showed you my bank book and said, "Look, this is our contract. If you do XXX, I’ll share with you."

Right? So you don’t… it’s pure free enterprise, and that’s what I want to get across. That’s pure capitalism.

But capitalism, if it doesn’t change, if you do not allow workers to participate, the capitalistic system is self-destructive. Let me give you a quick story, right?

I spent a lot of time in Washington. At one time, I had a meeting with the leader of the House, Mitch McConnell—he’s the senator from Kentucky; he was the president of the Senate. I had a farm in Kentucky, so I knew him.

So I said, "Mitch, let’s… you know, I’d like to see you one of those days." So we arranged; I met him. And they said, "Mitch, America did create why the free enterprise system and without free enterprise there's no free society.

So we must do everything we can to have free enterprise." But he said free enterprise has a major problem. So he said, "What do you mean by that?"

I said, "Much more and more capital is held by fewer and fewer."

And I said, "In nature, when a species does not reproduce itself, another species will take over, and the laws of nature are much stronger than any man-made law."

Right? And that’s what happens. Now, that’s the way we’re going to go.

So we got to share with the employees because without employees, we can't make a profit. If employees make more money, they have more purchasing power; the economy functions better.

Okay? So we must have the large companies; they must have more of a discipline because they sometimes they're run by institutions and they have got no more affinity for people. They just look at the share price; they look at the profits.

So it's not there, right? So, uh, the owners are not there anymore also. Anyway, we need to have the discipline there, but we must open up; we must. It’s so crucial that small enterprises, that we don’t tie them up in chains and with regulations.

The Bible is the root of all wisdom, inspiration, and spiritual nourishment. The Hallow app empowers you to explore the Bible's profound teachings and to effortlessly incorporate them into your daily life. A great place to start while you deepen your understanding of the Bible is to check out Father Mike Schmid's Bible in a Year, available on the Hallow app for brief daily readings and reflections.

Here, you can dive into an extensive library of Bible reading plans accompanied by insightful reflections and audio-guided meditations. Whether you're a seasoned Bible reader or just starting your journey, the Hallow app provides a platform for you to engage with scripture like never before.

Studying the Bible's literary brilliance has influenced countless writers, poets, and artists throughout history. By studying the Bible yourself, you'll gain a deeper appreciation for the power of storytelling, symbolism, and metaphor, enriching your understanding of literature across different genres.

The Hallow app also helps you connect with a community of like-minded individuals, sharing experiences, insights, and encouragement along the path to spiritual growth. Download the app for free at hallow.com/Jordan. You can set reminders and track your progress along the way. Enrich your education and nurture your mind and soul today. Download the Hallow app at hallow.com/Jordan; that's hallow.com/Jordan for an exclusive three-month free trial of all 10,000-plus prayers and meditations.

Okay, now you highlighted three things. You know, the first thing you highlighted was that the people you were negotiating could trust you.

Now, people who are cynically critical of capitalism tend to justify that by noting the winner-take-all problem that you described and then presume that if you're greedy and you shovel everything towards yourself, you’re most likely to, let's say, win in the capitalist enterprise.

But you pointed out something very much contrary to that—three things, actually. The first is that you don’t develop a reputation by screwing other people; you develop a reputation by telling other people what you’re going to do and then bloody well doing it, and that you should also write down what you say you’re going to do so that everybody remembers and knows exactly what the deal is.

You said that by the time you were negotiating, let’s say with a foreman who wanted to leave, you had enough track record of trust with him so that he believed that you would do what you said you were going to do, and he could envision a future with you without having to worry about your motivations.

So you established your trust. Then you also realized that he was going to be a hell of a lot more motivated if he was an owner in the system, right?

Right? And so your answer to the problem of capitalism isn’t exactly less capitalism; it’s a much more distributed and generous form of capitalism that pulls everybody—the workers, the managers, and owners—into the profit-making structure.

Now, the other advantage… this is so cool. I learned this as I built enterprises too: if you make a really great deal with someone, and the person is good and they’re competent and they’re honest and they’re productive, and they’re generous—if you make a really good deal with them and you can let them go off on their own, that means that they’re going to take care of a thousand details on their own, keeping their own affairs in order that you don’t have to take care of anymore.

You don’t have to micromanage, and that means that you can go off and, you know, expand your enterprise and do your own thing.

And so the advantage you gain by distributing more responsibility, let’s say to an extremely competent foreman, the advantage you gain is massive freedom.

And you also gain the advantage of the fact that that foreman who now partakes in the enterprise is going to be much more motivated to make the enterprise work.

And so even if you end up paying him more, like a third of the company, let’s say, or the profit share that you described, the overall profit is going to be so much greater that there’s nothing in it but benefit for you and for him.

And then you also pointed out—and this is a very crucial thing for people to understand because this is where the left-wing critics of capitalism actually have a point, although it's not a problem that's specific to capitalism—which is that as an enterprise grows—and it doesn’t matter what the enterprise is—the benefits tend to flow into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

And that destabilizes the whole damn enterprise because you get too many slaves on the bottom and not enough pharaohs on the top, and that produces discontent and dissatisfaction and demotivation, and that can bring the whole damn system to a halt.

So your solution to that was to set up this Constitution that you described, which also enabled you to grow. I’m going to review it again because it’s very, very important.

This is the economic charter of rights. So your management philosophy is to distribute responsibility and profit and to make that an explicit part of the agreement, and the deal is: 20% of the profits go to the shareholders, 6% to the management, 10% to the workers, 2% to charity, 7% reinvested in research and further development.

And you make that explicit. Now, the trust you described is also crucial because the workers with whom you’re arranging to share the profits aren’t going to trust that deal or go along with it if they think you’re going to gerrymander the books on the profit side, right?

They have to believe that you're actually going to play a straight game. But if you can explain to them that, well, you’re going to play a straight game because if you motivate them properly, they’re going to work a hell of a lot harder, and everybody’s going to make a lot more money, and the products are going to have higher quality, and we’re going to sell more—then there’s absolutely nothing there for people to steal selfishly and run away with.

There’s only the possibility that all that distributed responsibility and ability is going to produce more and more… well, it’s going to be more and more productive and more and more generous.

Now, I asked you when we met at the restaurant a couple of months ago whether or not you had run into labor problems as you grew because going from no employees to 100,000, you’re obviously going to be dealing with potential labor issues.

And you said that as a consequence of this Constitution and the trustworthiness of the process that you’ve had, that you’ve been able to pay your workers a premium rate but that you’ve also had almost no labor trouble.

Is that correct?

If I got that right?

Yeah, that is correct. The interesting part about it is we were basically in the automobile industry, and the auto workers' union was maybe the strongest union in America, right?

Okay? So anyway, the president of the Canadian auto workers' union, his name was Basag, or still is his name, and I called him and said, "MERS, let's have lunch." The two of us. We have an obligation: what are we going to do to maintain jobs and create new jobs?

I said, "Let's have lunch." So we agreed, and then we sat down and said, "It shouldn’t be that difficult to put on one page what’s important for the workers and on one page what’s important for business."

And we call that a framework of economic justice. After a few weeks, we managed it a bit. We agreed on that structure.

He said to me, “I might not get it through to my membership.” Okay? And but he did get it through, and we incorporated that.

We took two factories where we said, "Look, we're going to try and see how that works." The part was our workers were very upset. They said, "Look, all we find—we are happy you want to change a totally different thing here." I took a—I said, "Look, I have an obligation; we live in a society. We are a very important part of that society. We got to find ways and means; can we learn from that?"

Right? Because when I made my—you know, if you have a few hundred factories, when I made my rounds, I made it a habit, always, to at least every month, I see maybe a new factory which I haven’t seen for a while.

When I made my rounds, I got the workers together and said, "Look, those are the basic principles." But they said, "Let’s make one thing clear: no government can guarantee your jobs, no union can guarantee your jobs, not even Magna can guarantee your jobs. But I’m the head of Magna; I can guarantee one thing.

The basic principles—and that is the very key as it is—if labor and management work together and make a quality product, that’s the best guarantee. That’s the best guarantee, and we can make a quality product if we communicate and we put a very important structure in our company right."

We ordered the human capital. It’s a very unusual thing.

Here’s the first thing: I put in a hotline. I had some trusted people, and we got a big notice in the factories. If you’re unhappy with something, that something discrimination or unfairness or a woman gets bested by whatever it is, call the hotline, but you don’t have to give your name.

I had people investigate; those were trusted people. And now, when I would talk with managers, they said, "That’s one of the best things you did."

Because the first reaction, when I did that, they said, "Are you spying on us?" They were unhappy, but now, it’s other.

Because if you have an unhappy employee, unhappiness is contagious. If you got unhappy employees, there's no way you can make a quality product at a competitive price.

So that’s very… we’ve done that on a verbal thing where we have a written human audit where an employee got an envelope with no name on it, and they could take it home and fill it out, you know, various questions: "Is it safe? Is it fair? Discrimination? Or whatever you could fill it out.”

And there’s only one in an envelope—no name on it—and you drop it in a box, and it’s collected, and then we analyze it, and we could see right away if there was a problem.

Okay? We could see it. So that is another worry. Because as a manager, let’s say, the average factory was about 200 people.

And our—in our—that’s another very important thing too.

To become, I always had efficiency experts come to me and say, "Christ, together with 400 factories, reduce it to 20 or whatever." That means to have maybe 5,000 or 10,000 people per factory.

People become a number. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work, right?

So we look, you should never forget the human side, right? By having smaller factories, and let’s say the factory is located more in the northerly region, it’s run like a factory, right?

If hunting season comes and some people want to take some time off, other people jump in. I said, "I cover for you; I work the extra time."

It relates to the people—work has got to be an equal. And I said to myself, and I said to the managers, "Your number one thing is every day you got to work: Are you respected by the workers? That’s your main name; you got to be respected.

And once when you build that thing, then you’ll be productive. You think of the workers thinking of better ways to make things, right? Business is easy; all you have to do is make a better product for a better price. That’s as easy as it is.

According to a recent report, Planned Parenthood continues to rake in billions despite dwindling clients. The biggest takeaway here is that Planned Parenthood is generating vast profits, including millions in taxpayer funding.

With the help of Pre-Born, you and I are stealing their clientele—meaning the babies they are trying to kill. Pre-Born operates on a very slim budget as they rescue over 200 babies’ lives every day, and they receive no government funding.

Pre-Born's network of clinics are situated in the darkest corners, competing head-to-head with the abortion giants. They need our help now more than ever. When you donate $28 to Pre-Born, you will offer a free ultrasound to expectant mothers caught in crisis.

Once she hears that heartbeat and sees that precious life, her baby's chance at life doubles. If you would like to sponsor a precious baby’s life, your gift will be tax deductible and will go directly towards saving babies’ lives.

Dial pound 250 and say the keyword "baby," or visit preborn.com. All gifts are tax deductible. You will never regret saving a child’s life—that’s pound 250, baby, or visit preborn.com.

Jordan, so you pointed out there are a number of things that are extremely interesting. So one of them… imagine that you’re trying to differentiate your enterprise as it grows. You have 100,000 employees, and obviously, there has to be a hierarchy between you and them.

The question is, what size should the pieces of that hierarchy be? You know, there’s an anthropological literature that relates cortical expansion, so brain size, to average group size in primate communities.

And the optimized group size for human beings seems to be something around 200. What generally happens in hunter-gatherer societies is that if a society exceeds about 200 individuals, it’ll break into two separate societies.

That’s very common, and I think the reason for that is, well, I think the reason for that is the one that you just pointed out is that there’s a—a once a network of associations gets to be too big, you stop having that personal connection with people and you start to become a number, like I've certainly seen this in educational institutions.

You know, the huge universities reduce the university students to numbers; they’re irrelevant. There’s no personal relationship, and so the students end up feeling alienated.

And you know, in the typical educational apparatus in the higher education field, you have a 40% dropout in the first year, and that is a catastrophic figure.

And I know a college, Hillsdale College, is a small place; it’s only got 12-200 people and it’s hierarchically organized. They’ve managed to get their dropout rate down to 1%. So 40% is an absolute crime.

Now you… how do you do in terms of employee wages, in terms of per capita employee productivity, and with regard to turnover?

Well, first of all, I want to listen to you; there’s—in universities, there’s a lecture course, or what is the optimum people on the leadership, etc., and how many people are below or whatever…. It’s 200, right?

So I should go back to school to maybe learn more about that, so, but in practice, you get to know, you learn as you go along in practice; in every business might be a little different, right?

Okay? But in now, I could see about a factory with 200 people… the manager had to again, in practice, know everybody by his first name.

"How is Billy, your son? How is he in football?" It’s that kind of environment, right? Not a phony one, right? Not a phony one, because employees will realize if it’s phony or if it’s genuine, right? It’s very crucial, right?

So anyway, over the years, I’ve given a lot of lectures in universities and always start the students when they started out, the success of life can only be measured by the degree of happiness you reach you have, but I said, "Let me tell you from my experience, it’s a lot easier to be happy if you got some money."

The smart students always would ask how can we make some money?

So I said, "Look, if you’re around 20 in your early 20s, you don’t know yourself that well. Experiment a bit, do something what you enjoy. When you enjoy something, you’re going to be good at it. If you put in the extra effort, you could be one of the best at whatever it is. If you’re one of the best, money is a byproduct.”

But I said, "But one thing: don’t forget, you must not forget that life has been great to you; your parents sacrificed that you perhaps went to school. You have a right to use that knowledge you accumulated in school for your own benefits, but never forget a portion of that wisdom, of that knowledge has got to go back to society for a better society."

But the very interesting thing is, only the last number of years, I came to the conclusion that, look, we have no faculties.

Right? Meaning, as far as I can see, universities, their mandate is to teach young people: can we have a more civilized society? Or, to be more specific, can we teach young people? Can we as a university participate to develop a structure that could lead to an ideal society?

That should be the main focus of a university. Yes, in universities, we teach great medicine and great art, great sport, great technology, but we do not teach, you know, what is the structure of an ideal society.

But it don’t mean, in the United States, about 70% of the universities are subsidized by private industry.

And in Canada, 100% under the provincial jurisdiction, okay? 100% subsidized, and management doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds them, okay?

But luckily, I could convince the minister of education or universities to turn around, and… uh, I think I’m doing a series in search of the ideal structure which would lead to an ideal society.

Your workers— you’ve had little labor trouble formally. How do you know that your workers are in fact, comparatively well-paid in relationship to other enterprises of your type, and how do you guys do in terms of retention and promotion?

Well, we do constantly a survey. The corporate Constitution says the wages got to be average to the competition within the region, and the profits at lay town, we had a formula.

It’s not up to a manager to say, "I like that person," or this or that "She’s beautiful," or whatever. It’s we have a formula.

The formula was based upon we wanted to reward loyalty. Suppose you get a point for years you've been with the company. Suppose you’ve been with the company five years; you get five points for loyalty.

Suppose you get a point for every $5,000 you earn, and suppose you earn $50,000; you get points for knowledge, right?

And the more points you have, the more you share out of the profits, right? But it’s preformulated.

So we want to reward loyalty and performance. The managers are separate, right? They participate in their factory.

I’ve always said there are no bad employees—only bad managers. There are very few bad managers, or let me rephrase it—there are a few bad managers that need more learning experience, right?

But there are very few bad managers, okay? Because we… it’s our thing to… it’s our thing to assist them in learning what makes a factory run and to care.

I guess as a businessman it’s what makes the economy run in a country. The economy—we need a new model of the economy, and I think Canada could be the first country with an economic charter of rights.

It's fundamental. How many companies?

Okay, you’ve had a lot of success with this particular model of corporate governance, and it has allowed you to grow very rapidly, to develop a very large enterprise, and to maintain it across now quite a long time because it's about 50 years—70 years.

That’s very long in the corporate world. How widespread have your ideas of constitutional profit-sharing become, and what, in your view, has been the impediment to their wider acceptance?

Well, keep in mind I was for many years on the corporate governance board of NASDAQ, or the New York Stock Exchange, okay, where we take a look—uh, minority interests or the market not behaving properly, right?

And we worked at and interfaced with the security commission and brought forward that the market needs changing, okay? There’s no different in here—it’s constant and it should be done within the company, right?

And, uh, so it’s expected that the management lives to certain standards; employees have to live in society; we have to teach standards; we have to… we don’t teach enough to our kids what it’s all about, okay?

And I moved to, after I finished my schooling in Austria, I moved to Switzerland, right?

And, um, it was a great learning experience. It’s a great country with great people. It’s made relatively easy to demand a referendum, okay?

And so… on important things, they have a referendum. I think it was in the Wall Street Journal that the Swiss people defeated the referendum to have more vacation. I think the referendum was to move the vacation up from three weeks to five weeks.

The people defeated it and said, "We cannot afford it." Right?

Right? It’s the ultimate democracy. So why have the ideas that you’ve put forward in relationship to the corporate Constitution not been accepted and implemented by more companies?

Do you think? I mean, your model has shown that if you’re more generous with the profit distribution and if you formalize that distribution, you seem to gain an increment in productivity.

So why, also, given the fact that, you know, capital tends to accrue in the hands of fewer and fewer people and that that’s a problem for the maintenance of the popularity of the capitalist system in general, why do you think your economic model hasn’t met with more acceptance? Is it just that it’s too new?

I mean, new ideas take a long time to distribute. What’s the impediment?

Sure, I wrote a book called The Greed Factor, right? And Homo sapiens are born with some greed. Without greed, Homo sapiens cannot exist; and, uh, but greed, after a certain thing, becomes the most destructive for us.

So, like I said, I’ve pinned it on the corporate governance board. It’s what an education. We’ve made it too complicated for public companies, right?

The paragraphs, like I mean, it’s so complicated that, um, it’s just a few anymore, right? So young entrepreneurs think, “Ah, it’s…” and everything is more complicated, so we got to get back again.

And there was nothing wrong with Canada about 40, 50, 60 years ago. So everything functioned quite well, so we have gotten into where we analyze.

Where we look when you take a look at our… what the best— the best way to bring it across is when you take a look at our DAX code, Codex, it’s a thick book with thousands of paragraphs.

Keep in mind, when I fully ran Magna, I had 20 lawyers on one side of my office and 20 financial experts just on the other side. When I went to the lawyers, I said, "Look, I’d like to do XXX.

Is that within the law?" They say, "That’s within the law." Okay? I went to the thing here; now how is it treated from a tax point of view? After a week, you know, you got the thing.

It’s so complicated; it’s so gray it could be this way, but they said there are some experts down in the city which… so you send them the problem or the clarification, and after a few weeks, they get a big bill, and they can be either way.

So, everything—every paragraph, there are thousands and thousands that are more convoluted than the others. Until we have a tax system black and white where everyone can fill out…down,

we have… how can a society function? The DAX system is slandered in favor of specialized interest groups. That’s the dilemma, Al.

So you mentioned earlier in our conversation that you believe that it would be very difficult for you to start your, you know, dual garage basic factory today—that the regulatory burden would be just too high.

And so, you know, as societies move forward in time, they tend to accrue more and more rules, right? They tend to stagnate themselves, and that’s a constant danger.

I mean, one of the advantages to the capitalist system is that large, unwieldy enterprises that no longer function get killed by the market and disappear, and we don’t really have an equivalent function of death, let’s say, in the bureaucratic realm.

We have elections, but that doesn’t really affect the bureaucratic state. Do you have any sense of how it might be possible to clear out some of the regulations that are impeding entrepreneurial development?

And do you have—have you had any success in talking to politicians, let’s say, in Canada about how that some of that house cleaning might occur?

The politicians can’t do it. I could give you many reasons, or maybe some other time we have a little more time.

But again, I want to point out, no chainsaw approach. It’s not the fault of the bureaucrats; it’s the fault of the system.

One civilized way will be not to rehire until we reach a certain status, right? It’s got to relate to the… you know, to the GDP to what we can create; it needs X same as a management needs X manages.

The same a society could have where on the bureaucratic side a certain percentage related to what the country produces.

Let’s talk a little bit about the future. Now, one of the things we discussed when we first met was a new product that you're bringing to market, especially for urban commuters.

Do you want to talk about the product that you guys are bringing to market soon and where you're going to build that and what your vision is for that?

Yes, about two years ago the premier called me, and he said, "I got a problem." I said, "What?" He said, "Channel Motors is closing." You know the car industry. I got inducted into the American Automotive Hall of Fame in 2018.

I said, "Yeah, give me a few days; give me a week. I’ll bring forward something." At around that time, I had to go down a few times. I should say the Magna head office is in Aurora, which is about 21 minutes down to the 401, right?

So anyway, around that time, I had to go down a few times. It used to take me half an hour from the outer ring to Bay Street; now it would take, if everything is fine, an hour, but you could take two hours.

So I got stuck a few times for two hours, and I said, "What a waste of human energy! What a waste of nonrenewable energies! But most of all, what a—to inhale the carbon monoxide for two hours on the way in, two hours home.

You know, I said, "What damage that does to the health and well-being of people." So anyway, I went back to the workbench, okay?

I should say Magna is a major cafe manufacturing company. We have one factory where we produce all the Mini Coopers for the whole world; that’ll be shipped out of our factories under the showrooms right across the world.

We developed the brand to repeat, you know, right from our factory to the showrooms—a very unique car. No welding, no screwing; it was built like an airplane; it was glued together, right?

But anyway, I think I’ve done that for 60 years. I came to the conclusion it’s got to be a small electric car. I think we could call it micromobility, and in loose terms, micromobility means you need—you got to be able to park at least four of those in a regular car parking spot.

To be more precise, it cannot be wider than 3.2 feet and not longer than 7 feet, and you can plug it in in any electrical outlet. In a few hours, you can go 100 kilometers with it for less than a dollar. You can have a quick charging too.

So it will change transportation. Its main purpose is to get people from your home to your workplace and back home. We also developed an equivalent small pickup truck that will do in-city merchandise delivery, and I should be in mass production in about 2-3 months.

The factory is just around; we got the first prototypes coming after L, and it will change transportation for many reasons. The primary reason is there’s only so much oil in the ground.

The reason why gasoline prices are relatively cheap years is the United States is utilizing 120 million tons of grain to convert into ethanol to keep the gasoline price down. You can’t do that for long because the next wave will be—the critical wave for society will be food shortages in the world—not triggered by the UK; it would have come anyway but will be accelerated quicker by what goes on in Ukraine because Ukraine is a major food producer.

And the United States can’t do that, so the gasoline prices will go up dramatically. I would say it will double in two to three years.

But most of all, I predict in eight years gasoline will be rationed; it will only be available for essential purposes. One of the essential purposes will be electric trucks—not electric, but gasoline trucks will haul the food from the farms to the cities because the critical power will not be there for large electric trucks.

Or you will not solve the traffic change because there is the critical power; it isn’t there; it would take much time to—and you might have to go with small atomic power stations, right?

But that’s another thing right there. But the grid system isn’t there. I built the first hydrogen car with BMW about, uh, yeah, about 15 years ago, yes, it works.

But much more compact, much more expensive, and I see a small electric car, you know, that’s the answer for now—for the next 50-100 years.

Do you want to talk a little bit about what it looks like and what people can expect? What people can expect to see and experience when they use this particular vehicle?

Okay, they’re basically small. Right? Again, its main purpose is to go from your home to your workplace and back home.

Okay? And that means—we have stifled the speed at 32 km per hour, right? So basically, the insurance will be minimal, practically none, because you can't do any damage.

So, two people can sit in a car, and people in a pickup truck, four people can sit in there. It could be a taxi; it could be a merchandise delivery vehicle.

So, yeah, I think we… we showed it at the Canadian Auto Show; we had the biggest lineups, and thousands of people drove it. They got all enthusiastic about it.

And the key question is how do we get around? That’s the key question, right?

Well, it looked like a kind of a hybrid between an electric car and a motorcycle, essentially. And you mentioned as well, you know, that many families have a conundrum where, because there are two people working and they tend to work in different locations, that they need two vehicles.

And one of the vehicles—and both vehicles are very expensive, and they’re overdetermined for the purpose. People need a commuter vehicle, essentially, as well as an ordinary vehicle to do all the other things they need to do with it.

And your sense was that this vehicle would supply a low-cost alternative to people who need primarily transportation to work and back and who wouldn’t be using the vehicle—they would be using their other vehicle for primary purposes other than that. Does that seem about right?

A few changes. When I look down the road, I would normally call it the metal classes of two-car garages—two cars, right?

Because the husband may go to work; in most cases, the wife does. But in many cases, the wife stayed home; she had to bring the kids to school or the shopping, etc.

So when I look down the road, I think we'll have to issue a special permit for a large electric car for a family that they could go to the cottage or for special purposes—not for daily commute, huh?

Okay? And you have two or three. You can actually get four small cars in a regular two-car garage.

And this is where kids will see their friends or where the wife or husband was going shopping. So you run around to things, meet up with your friends, and go to school or whatever.

Go to work, and just—it’s reliable transport at a low cost and no emissions.

I would like to thank you very much for the time you spent today. I think it’s very useful to explain to people. I think it’s extremely useful to have explained to people.

I don’t want to flatter you; you are gifted to bring out the inner workings of a lot of machinery—a lot of people.

And that’s, you know, as a technician, yes, I’d be able to transmit reasonable well, but you have a gift to transmit it that it can be easily understood by the people, so I’m delighted that I came.

I’m delighted that I was invited.

Well, it’s… so what struck me in our conversations was the importance of disseminating your vision for fostering a generous productivity.

You know, you created an enterprise that’s distributed, and you said that you’ve made millionaires out of many of your foremen out of people who rose to the position where they could run their own factories.

You’ve given people the opportunity to have a tremendous amount of autonomy under your overarching authority and to bring out the best of them as they build their factories and as they employ more and more people.

And you’ve managed also to distribute that responsibility and opportunity all the way down to the workers.

And, you know, it’s absolutely obvious to me that there’s never been a more effective machine for producing wealth than the free exchange capitalist system.

The data on that are crystal clear. As soon as you stop countries from doing absolutely idiotic economic things and free up their population under a quasi-capitalist market, then everybody becomes richer.

You then have the emergent problem of inequality, and that’s a problem. But your system of distributed profits, given that it's honestly run, is a reasonable solution to that problem.

And it’s very good to hear you talk about how motivated you’ve been to build the company and to produce all the products you have, but also how much you’ve been able to motivate other people while being productive and solving the problem of unequal distribution.

So thank you very much for bringing that to everyone’s attention.

I had a few more words. My motivation was never to be hungry anymore and live in dignity.

And the reason is—it’s very important. If a manager, let’s say a Magna manager, wanted to make more money, he had to replace himself and has to open up another factory.

So a manager could replace himself maybe 20, 30, or 50 times, and then he gets a cut from each factory where he made a contribution, a percentage of the profits.

And this way, some of their yearly income was maybe $5 million or $10 million. So the more they made, the more the shareholders made, the more workers made.

So when I said it’s so important that we have smaller companies that young kids got to see.

“I want to be able to do like Ch B. I want to make 50 million or 100 million or, or like the football player, like the hockey player.” We must give him the motivation.

Right?

But let it be right. Some people are quite happy with… let it be. Let everybody be. Let everybody be. Let everybody find their own rate of happiness.

Thank you. My pleasure, man. To everybody watching and listening, thank you very much for your time and attention.

The film crew up here in Northern Ontario and down where Frank is. Thank you for the flawless technical expertise on this front.

Thanks to Daily Wire Plus for making these conversations possible.

I'm going to continue talking to Mr. Frank Stronic for another half an hour on the Daily Wire Plus platform—a bastion of free speech in an increasingly sensorial world.

So if those of you who are watching and listening are inclined to devote your attention to that platform, that would be much appreciated, and maybe increasingly necessary, as the months unfold.

I'm looking forward to coming and looking at your factory, Mr. Stronic. I think that would be very much fun.

I love looking at industrial enterprises because, well, it’s lovely to see that much concerted and harmonious effort working out to produce things that people actually need.

I really wish you luck with your new vehicle.

I hope that you’ve hit the market dead on and that people find this vehicle, you know, inexpensive, reliable, and useful, like many of your other products have been.

And so that would be a lovely thing to see; it would be great to see that happening in Canada because we lack a little entrepreneurial zing at the moment.

And that’s, that’s not as it should be.

And so, I didn’t get to the most important message: what’s my call? My main aim is, I got about 10-15 years ago very heavily into agriculture.

I got into it—the more I could see this chemical jungle, you know, with all the pesticide and all the fungicide.

So 95% of the food eaten comes from industrial farms. On industrial farms, you see no more flyway; there’s no more pheasants.

There’s no more rabbits. We spray everything with fungicides, and pesticides.

It gets in the air; we breathe it. It gets in water; we drink it. It gets in the soil; we eat the food, and all the kids practice Val cheese, and the stage of diabetics is on the rise.

So my main aim is, my main goal is I don’t—I don't want to see any Canadian kid go to school hungry. That means breakfast has got to be served.

I don’t want to see any Canadian kid to leave the school hungry; that means lunch has got to be served.

And by law, it would—the state has to be organic. I got every reasonable—all in, but there’s lots more to do where the public should know.

Thank you. I enjoyed being with you.

My pleasure, man, and we’ll meet in a couple of minutes on the Daily Wire side and then again in the future.

And thanks again, everybody, for watching and listening today.