 Yn ymdweud y cyfnod o'r pionir cyfan yn ymddangos cyfnodol o'r ffordd? Ym Hylau Cotum, ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad, ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad, ac mae'n ddweud ymddiad yw'r gweithio ymddiad ymddiad o'r pethau o'r ddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad. A J. Banger, ymddir ymddiad a'r CEO o'r mastur card, ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad ymddiad o'r fforddlu boedd o'r pethau. Satia Nadella, y CEO o Microsoft, ddim yn gafod ein ffordd o'r pethau a'r year o brif, mae'r hyn yn ddyn ni'r eraill y ddechrau. Ieithio cyswedig a du'r Gweithiau ac mae Satia dweud eithweld y faglwlad o'r wyrdan ni'r Microsoft, Cymru i rmono weld ei brливоnau ellanol. Welcome to you both to our packed audience this morning here in Davos and also to all of you who are joining us online. History shows us that industrial revolutions are accompanied by seismic social change fundamental gains and improvements in the lives of workers and citizens. At the outset these gains seem like an impossible dream Felly, sefydlu'n gwirioneddau yw ffledydd yn yng nghyd-dynidio yng ngyllgor yng nglŵl yng Nghymru yw'r argymaint am y drefyn ond mae'n meddwl mwyaf, meddwl, meddwl hwladau, meddwl sgwyr, ond dwy'n meddwl am ddwyng. Mae'n meddwl am yw ymddangosol, ond mae'n meddwl. Y gwaith ymddangoson maen nhw ddechrau. Y gwaith ymddangosol, Carlotta Parish, yn y cyfrifiadau gwirioneddau'r gwyrdd ymddangosol yw'r mewn meddwl has tracked the economic and political paths. And what she shows is that first of all there's a boom, a bubble, then a bust, growing social inequality, growing political populism. Sounds very familiar doesn't it? And then a further adjustment occurs. There are fundamental shifts in the social contract. And these are legal but they're also cultural. So what happens is that they become very new widespread norms within societies about what is just, what is fair, what you can do. And these changes come about through concerted action of different stakeholders. So the state has a fundamental framing role to play. Workers themselves are key. You can't really imagine the gains of the last industrial revolution without the work of trade unions. Those with new ideas, the thinkers and the intellectuals are also really important. But there is a fourth group who are really critical. And I call this group the new industrialists. And these new industrialists are business leaders who dare to challenge their peers, arguing that a new future is possible. One which encompasses new forms of productivity, new forms of human flourishing, but only if we design new social systems. So these early pioneers include people like Sans Simon who started Canals and was a pioneer of the idea that work had to be meaningful if workers were going to be productive. Robert Owen who was the founder of Textiles and also one of the founders of the cooperative movement. The Quakers who founded companies like Barclays Bank, Cadbury's, but also built very different forms of new towns and were one of the first to move to abolish slavery. In the early 20th century we have figures like Joseph Chamberlain, the leading British manufacturer who was an important pioneer for mass education and also for land reform. In the US we have the National Civic Federation where business leaders met with early unionists to introduce the first minimum wage and also controlled child labour, Rosenwald at Sears Rowbuck who introduced kindergarten, low cost housing and perhaps most famously of course Ford who realised that unless he paid his workers more there would be no consumers of his cars and he wouldn't be able to grow his business. So I think what unites these business leaders is that first of all they went against the grain of normative thinking of their peers and secondly they responded with innovation to the growth of economic inequality and social unrest. What's interesting is that they acted through enlightened self-interest. We're not talking today or hear about philanthropy although that often comes later. This is about reshaping capitalism so business works better and society can flourish. So what the new industrious of history wanted to demonstrate was that new forms of technology that underpin their business could lead to higher productivity and a different sort of society. In other words they were pragmatists. They knew that support for new working conditions and social lifestyles would be critical to diffusing the technology as well as their business growth. So what we're going to discuss this morning is what can we learn from history? Where are the new industrious today? And what ideas are emerging that could shape our own social revolution? And I really cannot think of two more interesting people with whom to discuss this set of challenges than Ajay and Sacha. So again thank you so much for joining me. Let's start with what we see emerging today. Ajay can I ask you first where do you look to? Where do you think the ideas are? And frankly do you think the ideas that are coming now are more than talk? The two or three things that are coming through right now. One is this whole conversation around stakeholder capitalism. And I generally react to the objectives that are getting added to capitalism. My view of capitalism is a continuously learning enterprise. In fact what makes it rich is the ability for it to be continuously learning and it allows you to learn as it learns. I would argue that the past 15, 20 years have led to a form of capitalism where inequality seems to have come with it. And I think part of that is that if you look at the way shares are held and the people who have the money to buy shares a lot of the wealth that's been built has been built in the stock market. That's led to greater inequality rather than less. Do I see the need for learning to happen to change where capitalism is going? 100%. But I tell you it beats every other system hollow. But we do hear lots of leaders within capitalism beginning to talk about the need to shift and think differently. I mean, do you think that this is something new, something that's always been there? But what I was trying to get at was if you give it adjectives like inclusive capitalism, you make it sound like capitalism is not inclusive by its basic construct. That is not what I believe. I believe in its execution. It could have been done better and all of us have a responsibility to do so in a form that allows everyone to benefit for a very simple reason. I just believe that social progress or social values and making money do not have to be antagonistic. There is just no reason for that. That's a very narrow definition of capitalism. But if you take the view which our company has been talking about inclusion and the growth of financial inclusion before it became fashionable to talk about inclusive capitalism, we're not the only company. You give tons of examples from history. Microsoft has been doing things even prior to Satya's becoming CEO. Companies do great things for people because they think by doing so, you can spread the peanut butter wider. If you spread the peanut butter wider and you create a bigger middle class, more people growing, we're in the selling business. We sell services or products. If people don't buy them, we don't make no money. Yes, well, that's the kind of forward example. But Satya, if I turn to you, I mean what was really important about the historical pioneers is they built practical experiments. So they thought that the social systems they inherited weren't suitable for a technology revolution. And they said, we've got to try experimenting, whether it was building new cities or starting kindergarten, whatever it was. Do you see any experiments? I mean, definitely we have, you know, here at Davos, we've got really interesting conversations, but where is the practice? Yeah, I mean, I subscribe to what Ajay fundamentally said that the capitalist system is a learning system when it's working best. So that means if it's a learning system, it has to change with even the unintended consequences of its success perhaps in the last, you know, era. I love that Colin Mayer's definition of the social purpose of a corporation, where he talks about a corporation finds profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet. I think that in some sense, yes, there are a couple of keywords. It's the profitable piece. That's what, in some sense, capitalism. That's the only mechanism we have, at least as humankind, we have discovered to allocate our resources efficiently to generate that profit. But to what end? It is to find solutions to challenges of people and planet. That's not to create challenges for people and planet. I think that is where, I think if you do capitalism done right is really bringing that ingenuity, that allocation to help create solutions. To your point about, for example, in our context at Microsoft, and Ajay was referencing this, whenever I believe my license to operate in every country comes from the ability to create local surplus, starting with, say, the jobs in the ecosystem around Microsoft. One of the fundamental things of platform companies is there has to be more value created about the platform for the platform even to be stable. To me, it starts with, in the United Kingdom or in India or in the United States, the first thing is we've got to create lots of local ecosystem jobs. Those local ecosystem jobs around digital technology are then making the small business in that country, in that community, more productive, the large multinational there, more competitive, public sector, more efficient. So that, to me, is the social context. But this is really interesting because that is a new form of capitalism, isn't it? Platform capitalism. And that could kind of lead to sort of further kind of monopolies as we see happening in other areas. Or you could shape that in a particular way to really make sure that you do build those flourishing ecosystems. I mean, do you think you need to intervene to do one or the other? No, I think this is where I think we also need new terminology even in understanding digital network effects. Today, I say this. There is no such thing as big tech. There are different classes of companies nowadays. Well, we might come back to that. Because in some sense, there are aggregators. Aggregators have very different network effects. Aggregators can sort of, in fact, price one side and subsidize another side. Whereas platform companies, to the point Ajay made, you need your customers to be actually successful because that's the only way you get paid. It's actually a one-sided. There are network effects, to your point. But still, it's a one-sided. So I think right now, I would say the granularity of understanding of what is even happening as digital and is becoming the core, I would say, factor of production in the fourth industrial revolution. OK. So if we go up a level. I mean, you've got to, yes. One thing, I think you should think about all our problems come in a triangle. I think in threes it's easy to figure. One is man versus nature. One is one versus many. And the foundation of both of these problems is a long-term versus short-term issue. Whether it's politics, economics, social causes, business, teaching, anything. If you look at it, all our problems stem from these and they can connect back to that. So the one versus many is inclusion. Gender inclusion, economic inclusion, social inclusion. I can give you examples for the last 10 years. We committed. You were asking about concrete examples. We committed to get 500 million people included in the financial ecosystem by 2020. We have with our partners. 500 million. We committed that we would now just made a recent commitment that we are going to get to 100 million trees to be planted with our partners. For example, if you tap your card to go on the New York City subway because I consider that to be an eco-friendly way of travel rather than a taxi or a car, I will compensate you personally by planting a tree on your behalf. And so on. So the multiplier network platform effect in that case is to enable numerical scale to be achieved for such an idea by enabling each individual to express their contribution to the cause. OK, so can I build on this? So if we do move up a level, we can think also historically that in every social revolution more gains have been made, you know, more in the 20th and the 19th. What are going to be the core principles of a 21st century social system? I mean, Ajah, you've spoken about the decency quotient, which I really like that idea. And I'm wondering if you think that in the 21st century, decency has new and added principles that weren't needed in the 20th. I mean, one, you've talked about financial inclusion, which you're working on, but what else do you think? So, I mean, the decency quotient was a way of explaining what I was trying to create as a culture in our company. And I struggled with how to explain it for a while. Until one day, and how these things happen in town halls, we're talking to a bunch of people, and some smart idea strikes you. Turns out to be smart later, at that time I wasn't sure. But I was talking about how when I was young, IQ was what you thought was what mattered. Somewhere in the middle of my growing up, you got told about EQ and the ability to manage yourself through difficult situations. I think DQ is our guiding force for this coming century. And what decency quotient means, the DQ means, is yes, it's inclusion, inclusion of all types. Gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, social purpose, you surround yourself with people who don't look like you, didn't grow up with you, didn't go through the same schools as you, because if you do that, you will never have the same blind spots. And if you don't have the same blind spots, you will innovate. And that's the second aspect of decency, the creation of innovation together, which makes a difference through your platform effect of multiplying the scale of the ability of that innovation to make a difference. And then the last one is trust, which to me is the issue that has suffered the most in the last couple of decades. We've come to a stage where people don't trust companies, people don't trust governments, people don't trust social media, NGOs don't trust the private sector, the private sector doesn't trust NGOs, that cannot be a way to build partnerships and without partnerships, nothing's gonna happen. Because none of us can do it alone. No, no, so what about things, I mean we had a panel yesterday about the future of work, what about things like the freedom to organise, freedom from surveillance? I mean core issues that are rising up globally for workers everywhere, do you think that this could be something that could be written into a contract that you would be advocating for? At the end of the day, I moved to the United States and chose to live here as compared to moving to another country because freedom really matters as a way of life for me. That includes the freedom to say what I want and not feel that I'll be given retribution. It includes the freedom to organise myself for my education, my life, my family and my friends. So how could I say no to the idea of freedom being attached in front of both of those? It's principally the right thing to do. Does it need to be done where both parties are responsible? If I misuse my freedom to cause harm to him, I lose my contract as a citizen and as a friend. That I would draw a line on. But freedom per se, absolutely 110%. Okay, so Sarcha, can I tell you because the FT has said that empathy is your north star and you've spoken and I've written your book very movingly about the role of family in your life. And when I think about what should be one of the critical sort of core principles of a 21st century settlement, I think it has to be a rethink of the boundaries between care and work and between family life and work. And I think my critique of the 20th century system would be that it offloaded all of that onto women and that has kind of been right about your mother as well in a very beautiful way. Can you think about how that might... I mean, does that sort of those personal ideas move forward into how a settlement could be organised? Oh, yeah, it's interesting. I mean, there was this person I worked for when I was probably in my early 30s who said something to me, which is always stuck... Five years ago. That's right. Who said something which is always stuck with me, which is, look, we all end up spending so much time at work that it better have deep meaning. And so in some sense, where does that meaning come from? How do you cultivate it? And I think empathy, I mean, to me, that word, I think is at the core of what we all need in order to create what we create. So if you sort of say, where does innovation come from? Innovation comes from because somehow you were able to meet the unmet, unarticulated needs of customers. To me, that's empathy, right? I mean, and you just can't go to work and say, let me switch on the empathy button. And so you need to cultivate what is happening in your life to be able to be innovative at work. And I believe that. In fact, recently we even put together management training. So we have 18,000 managers at Microsoft. And we said, look here, how do we train? What does it even mean to be a manager? And I'll always remember the first time when I had like five people reporting to me, it was sort of a hard job because there's a boss who expects a lot out of you. These five people who are working for you sort of are looking at you and say, why are you leading us? And that's when you have to really shape. It's a real privilege that I get to lead. It is really about mentoring them. So we have this framework. It's called model coach care. That's what we're trying to get our 18,000, including me, trained on what it means to be a leader. But that last word is what's sort of captivating me, the care, right? So that ability to care for the people you work with, sometimes full-time, even vendors, to your point about sort of even changing the counter. One of the things we changed was a policy around sick leave. And we said, okay, if you're a full-time person at Microsoft, you have a certain set of benefits, but here are people who are contractors, who live amongst us, who work amongst us, they don't get the same benefits. So what can we do to change that? So I think doing all that is what will get you to be more empathetic, starting with the people who you work with. Obviously, you do it with your family, and that's what's going to be the source of creating. When you're sure to do it with your family. For sure, yeah. And that better be the source of innovation. But what about as a global company? Do you think you can lead, by example, within Microsoft, but do you think you can also have a role to say to others who perhaps want to follow but feel they can't in other markets or to kind of say, look, we can kind of restructure both for our workers, but also kind of more widely in society? Or do you feel that's somewhere that you can't really go? I think, you know, like if you go back to the capitalist system, being a learning system, each company raising the bar creates, I think, the flywheel that allows us to create movements. Like, I mean, take an employee, in order for us to be able to attract talent, keep talent, you better be capturing the zeitgeist of what people expect. If anything, that's the real governor. So some of these things that I may even be saying is what is about me being in touch with what is the unmet and articulated need of anybody who is joining Microsoft. And if we don't do that as a leadership team or as a CEO, they're going to vote with their feet and they'll be elsewhere. But do you think your role is also to contribute to greater systems? I mean to kind of contribute either through sort of knowledge, technology, corporate taxation, to kind of building sort of global systems that could help everybody have access to that. Or do you think it is just for your workers at Microsoft? No, I mean, fundamentally, I think the key thing that we can do and should be doing is in a world where digital technology, take just even the skilling. Because what can we spread? What can we democratise more so than any particular example of what we may be doing? What we can democratise is the access to what is the core resource of the fourth industrial revolution, so that it's available everywhere. And that then empowers the people inside the organisation. And to your point, I don't think we need to go look out and say what is the new system, the same systems that perhaps shaped even the previous industrial revolution. You mentioned many. Take the cooperative movement. Such a movement can actually be very helpful in today's data-driven world. Well, it's interesting that technology is in many ways bringing those ideas back, that things are getting exactly to that. They're getting reinvented, aren't they? Can we talk about the fact that this revolution is taking place in the context of threatened ecological collapse? I mean, yesterday this was the conversation. So it's clear that we need to live in new ways and we need to do business in new ways. And I think one principle of the new social revolution would be that it would be underpinned by moving from an economy of extraction to one of cooperation. Exactly that. I mean, Satya, you have made this very important announcement about Microsoft and its current and future carbon footprint. Can you talk a bit about how that connects to good work and how maybe it connects to different kinds of durable products, you know, a whole different form of economy that creates good work? Yeah, so the way I started, we'll get to sort of what is the changing nature of work and what does good work look like. But fundamentally, though, I'm very grounded in the fact that the world is not economically growing at the rate at which it was growing even a few decades ago. You know, Robert Gordon has written a lot about how he sort of says, look, you know, the productivity stats don't show the type of growth we saw. In fact, I'm very proud of the fact that he does reference the PC revolution because of what happened at work with things like spreadsheets and so on, changing and showing up in even productivity stats. But if you look at the last ten years, that's not been much. So to me, we better first say, OK, if this fourth industrial revolution is going to be real, this software better contribute or digital technology better contribute to what I'll call first broad sectoral growth in the world. I mean, I worry a lot about like all the emerging markets were all growing, catch up growth, that's stalling. I mean, catch up growth is super important because they never enjoyed what is enjoyed today in the developed world. And so therefore, first thing I feel that, hey, this is the most malleable resource, right, unlike the previous industrial revolutions, digital technology by definition is abundant. We can drive a lot of economic growth. But to Ajay's earlier point, we do recognise that this time around, we better have much more inclusive growth, right, whether it's urban and rural, whether it's emerging markets in developed markets, or it better be also across all sectors, right, agriculture, health, energy. Or it's reuse versus extraction, for example. Because that's something the technology has not been good at. But actually, in some sense, it depends on what you mean by extraction. In some sense, the fact that software itself is not extracting from the planet is a good thing. It's making the resources that we are using much more efficient. You could say, hey, you don't want to have rentier capitalism. That is any point to your point about monopolies. But overall, they can be more inclusive growth. That will be important. The other one is trust. Ajay referenced that as well. Because if technology is going to be pervasive, whether it's privacy as a human right, or the Geneva Convention for Cyber, or AI ethics are going to be important. And then the last part to your point is also, how do you do it in a sustainable way? And that was something that we talked about last week. You know, what are our commitments? What are our obligations? Every company has to, in some sense, have real commitments around whether it's their own operations and what they're doing with the supply chain. Because commitments we're making are not just about us saying, oh, we're going to be green. What are we going to do to change our business model such that the effects of our operation in the world are going to help us have a more sustainable future? So can I just build on this with you, Ajay? Because I think also one of the markers for me about moving from an economy of extraction to cooperation is about different forms of partnership. And I think that you have really modeled some of those forms of partnership where perhaps previously people who would have been seen as your competitors, your sharing information technology with them in a way to kind of build in a very horizontal way, which I think is a kind of marker versus kind of old command and control of the last industrial revolution. Can you say something about that? And whether again you think that that can model different kinds of relationships between the different stakeholders in society? Well, I'll tell you how it sounds like we'd figured it out. We stumbled into it. And the reason we stumbled into it was we were looking for a way to attack cash. And I thought that cash was the friend of the rich and not of the poor. And the absence of an identity, the operating in a cash economy hurts inclusion in so many ways. So we were trying to get at that. And I realized that we were a B2B company. I couldn't get anything done without people who actually reached consumers and touched them. So once we got past the talking, it got down to the practicality of it. And I realized the need of the partnerships, both with other people in the private sector. He and I are collaborating on a bunch of things together, but also with the public sector. And if you take someone like Queen Maxima, who is the UN's ambassador for inclusion, she created the CEO partnership with us as one of the members, because the idea was to get people like us together to find ways to put our resources and try and get to this. I think, without partnerships, you can't get there. The other thing is, I don't believe there's enough philanthropic money in the world to solve the problems we have or enough government money in the world to solve the problems we have. But if private companies bring their capital, their ingenuity, their technology, their innovation and their people, essentially their decency to work every day or their empathy, which I like. So he comes after D, he's smart. He's thinking, he'll get another one soon. So he's smarter than I am. But the idea of decency or empathy means the same thing. What they mean is caring for something beyond yourself. And I think that when you bring that to work, then you can bring the power of our capital to this problem. I just believe you cannot solve these problems by writing checks. The Gates Foundation is one of the richest foundations in the world. We have the Mastercard Foundation among one of the richest. I'm telling you, you can put all our resources together, we can't solve these problems by ourselves. Well, I want to come back to that. But do you think that your new partnership will fundamentally shift power between big companies, small companies, civil society? I don't look at it as power. I look at it as the only way to get things done is that you need people to partner with so you can get to scale. If those partners are bigger than you, Microsoft is a much bigger company than us. Apple is a much bigger company than us. Others are smaller. I will partner with anybody. We partnered with the World Food Programme. We told them, we're going to get you 100 million meals. Said school children who go to school will get fed a meal at lunchtime. That tends to keep them in school, their parents tend to send them, which means girls benefit more. That is the logic. I have no clue how to get to 100 million. We did in two years. So, I mean, that is amazing. But I want to, I mean, I don't think the audience would let me off the hook if I don't ask you a slightly more difficult question, which is that. As compared to the nabby-pabby ones you were asking for now. I mean, I think one... Oh, we can ask you instead. Yes, okay. Then I'm really terrified. But the thing is, you know, that you will be familiar with the examples of, like, for instance, Shoshana Zewof's surveillance capitalism, the idea that actually this is all a mechanism to, in fact, extract further, to intensify the extraction rather than to think about horizontal cooperation. So do you think you could, because obviously that would be an intensification of a mass system rather than what we're trying to move towards, can you say something about that? I mean, I am completely in belief of that horizontal. I'll give you an example with data and privacy. He was going, he was talking about that in trust. We've got data responsibility principles. The first one is it's your data as a consumer. You have the right to benefit from it in some form. You have the right to be forgotten. You have the right to know what's being collected. I, as a company, have the responsibility of collecting the minimum amount that I need to do work for you. And second, whatever I collect, I should keep safe. Now, the idea of that is to put you back in the driving seat. That is back to being horizontal, not vertical. I do not believe there is scale available in vertical forms to solve our issues. Do you want to say something? Yeah, I mean, I think this is one of those places where you really need to understand the different business models at play. If you are an aggregator, you have a completely different incentive structure versus if you're a platform company. So this is where I think there needs to be a little more understanding of what are the business models that lead to surveillance capitalism. But I'll come back to what's the self-corrective mechanism. There's this great book I read, which I think it's called The Narrow Corridor. And I love that description, which is it's that state and society figuring out how to oppose each other so that we find that narrow corridor of freedom. And I think that is a good metaphor. I mean, this has happened all through history. So to your point about power, power has to be shared. And when one side has too much, the other side will oppose it, whether it's the state in terms of, say, antitrust sometimes, or whether it's society in terms of, say, privacy. Either way, I think we will have to find that narrow corridor of progress and liberty. But if we take this right into, I mean, I'm a designer of future welfare systems and my critique is that we have industrial health systems, you know, you get a number, you're put in a bed, you're moved along, school the same, you're aged, trunk of knowledge in the classroom, the next one. And, you know, what I see amongst business and government, really, is the kind of a conversation about should we invest more in those systems? And even with technology, shall we use technology to kind of make them more efficient? 99% of where I see technology, it's making 20th century systems more efficient. And I think to this point, there's a big difference between AI-enabled industrial health care if we just get concrete about something that has to be in the kind of new social contract, versus people-powered health, people creating health with the support of AI. And so giving people the tools versus, let's say, Microsoft or MasterCard, inventing what the next healthcare looks like. I mean, are these things that you're kind of talking and thinking about? Yeah, for sure, but at least I come down on, it's both sides. People absolutely, I mean, one of the things that even in your book, which I was referencing, which I like a lot is, for example, if you are in the health system, whether it's state or even private, there is no concierge service when you really need it, especially the more vulnerable you are, the more you need it. You don't have those relationships. And so, for example, that's a place where actually something like AI can help. So we should build those tools. But fundamentally, the welfare state itself needs to be healthy in order to actually have the funding in order to be able to create the welfare mechanisms. And so, therefore, there needs to be new types of efficiency brought in so the people who need it, when they need it, are able to get the help and they're not getting the run around. So I think there needs to be, yes, real redesign of the welfare system. I agree. And I think that usually successful systems look like the new form of technology. You know, as I say that they, so we have to be able to imagine something that this era of technology revolution gives to that kind of imagining of the social system. I mean, Ajay, you look like you're going to say something about it. This is why I was telling you about those data principles. Remember what we were trying to do? Put the consumer back in control. I believe that that is the way to do things. Put an educated consumer back in control of what they can manage. Whether it be their own data or it be anything as simple, take the world of cyber security. When I was serving on a presidential commission, one of the things I pushed for and a number of us did was the idea of making it easy for the average individual to know whether the TV they are buying and putting in their home is safer in its design than another TV. Today, you don't know. You have to be a complete nerd to read through the technical stuff. Even he won't get it. And he's a nerd, right? And so if you were Satya and you couldn't figure out that that TV was safer than this one, that's not a good thing. But imagine if you were able to create a food nutrition label equivalent stamp on a TV that said that TV or a health hygiene stamp, that TV is in A category versus B on cyber security. What would you do? You would empower the citizen to make the right decision. That, to me, is what real future of this technology can be. We can build the platforms, but our platforms are not designed to make us the overseers of everything. Our platforms are designed to provide scale by putting the consumer back in control so they can then determine how they operate. But there are kind of fundamental design principles in those systems, aren't they? So, I mean, if we talk about relationships, we think about LinkedIn, for example. We know that actually LinkedIn is very powerful to kind of intensify... He owns LinkedIn. I know. So you mean I need to look like this? I mean, look at him, yeah. Look at him when you're asking about LinkedIn. OK. So... Listen, Adela, can't we talk about LinkedIn? I guess this is the privilege you get of being a few years senior to someone in high school. I am older and more pretty, but this is like where I've become the kind of gooseberry of the conversation. But look, I mean, the thing about LinkedIn is it's a very, very powerful way of cementing powerful networks. And we know that, I mean, we were talking about this earlier, that what you need to thrive in this century is very diverse relationships, whether it's to kind of have good health, to be taken care of when you're older, to find a good job, and that, unfortunately, the systems, if you design them well from a technology point of view, do not run to those kinds of... You know, I mean, I've been designing systems but, on a much smaller scale, I don't have the kind of power that you two have to kind of do the mass design. But what could we do, and what could be the responsibility of what I call the new industrious to think about what those design principles could be to disrupt that from the beginning? So I'm not asking you to kind of, you know, intervene in social systems directly, but to think from the beginning about how systems morph or don't. Like, I mean, since you brought up LinkedIn, I mean, the thing that I think is super important for us, in fact, we have this, you know, exciting thing called the plus one, which is how do you help people have a diverse network? We know once you have a diverse network of connections, your economic opportunity, your ability to get the right mentorship and pick up... Well, I think it's more important than reskilling in the traditional way, you see, for example, which there's been a lot of... In fact, it does lead to a dynamic feedback loop for reskilling. See, the problem with reskilling is, sometimes you skill yourself on something without knowing that that is absolutely the thing to skill yourself to get better economic opportunity. I mean, your vision is limited by what you know. What you know. As compared to what you should know. But also, your hard skills are limited by your soft skills, which are in a very unequal society, very hard to kind of develop and need to be through those kinds of networks, which I think both of you could be... Well, Henry, I... You know, I was talking to you a little while ago, and we were talking about LinkedIn and before all the jokes started, but the fact is that we're working on something called the portability of benefits for workers in a gig economy. And the problem is if you're a driver or a tradesperson in a gig job, or you're a software programmer for cyber somewhere, and you want to get re-skilled into something else, the challenges, where do you get that opportunity from? We are not fully employed at somebody. If you're fully employed at Microsoft, he probably runs a bunch of training courses and enables me as an employee of his to move from this to that. So, what we said was, if you could get part of your benefits in the form of the equivalent of loyalty points which you could convert to learning new skills along the way, how would you know what skill to learn if you weren't connected into something like a LinkedIn to know that the new opportunity for someone like me could actually be in that field? Yes. So, I think there's a symbiotic relationship between these platform companies that create networks and other platform companies that allow for the portability of benefits to generate a whole new opportunity, once again, a horizontal participation as compared to a vertical one. That's why I believe in that principle. Without partnerships, me alone, portability of benefits, so what? Him alone, LinkedIn, so what? Together, we can make music. And neither of us is a good musician. I want to squeeze in two more questions, so I want a bit of rapid fire. So, one thing I want to say is that... Ask him first. Historically, all these important pioneers, do you think that they had it more easily in some ways because they were not in a globalised world? Because it is interesting that, you know, most runs of technology in a quality last about 20 years. We're now at 50 years and nothing is shifting. So, what is the difference? Why aren't you the kind of new industrialists who are so far sighted breaking through? I'm glad you asked him first. I'm glad you asked him first. And quickly because... It might be that in the previous era you had a business that sort of... The impact of, let's say, anything that you were doing not leading to equitable growth was much more visible in your community. In fact, if I understand it right, that's what happened in the 1850s and the early 1800s in the north of England. Whereas today in a globalised world, your globalised operations will tell you. See, this is why I kind of look at it and say every time any country I show up in any community, even in the United States, I show up, you start by asking what your contribution to that local community and country is. So, I don't believe that as a multinational company you can sort of just live in some ether. You have to be grounded. You should be grounded in the fact that your licence to operate in every country is going to be fundamentally defined by whether you're creating local surplus or not. And so, as long as we stay grounded on that, I do believe we can be. Or everyone here can be a new industrialist as enlightened as anybody else in the past. Yes, okay. Although I think they look to kind of bigger leaders to kind of maybe get permission for ideas that people have at the local level and then if somebody kind of at the global level signals that is very important. Ajay. I think setting an example is really important. I say what he just said about operating in a country a little differently, but it says the same thing. It's not your birthright to be operating in a country because you happen to be a successful multinational. You're there because they want you there. You're there because you bring value to them. You're there because you enhance their social capital. You enhance their intellectual capital. You give them jobs, you give them something. Surplus, as he calls it. I believe in that completely. The one thing I do believe in is you set an example. And if we set the example of tangible things we can do, I've just gave you a few. The meals, the trees. Well, I think the portable benefits are really critical. If we do them as compared to just talk about them, you create the platform for others to say, I can do it too. And that's the scale effect that we need. Our problems are too big to solve if we don't get the scale of everybody's shoulder being put to the beat. That's the issue. A final question for closing. Henry Ford, one minute each. Henry Ford thought, you talked about doing, he thought the most important thing he could do was a significant wage rise for all his workers. What is the most significant thing that you think, or you, as a new industrialist can do now? Trust. Trust. What does that mean? What would that mean every day? Generate the belief that society and the state and capitalist companies can actually work together to solve the problems in that triangle I was talking about. As compared to holding each other at bay, somehow we believe that the best way to manage is only the way you manage. That's not true. You're going to need these partnerships. You're going to need that scale. You're going to need the capital, the technology of the public sector and the private sector. That's the trust I'm talking about. That trust deficit has got to come back in what we're doing. And concretely then to... Exactly what I said. I'm giving you examples. So those examples as an example of trust. Brilliant. OK, Satya. Can you pick the one thing that we can do and I think... In fact, it's our existential priority. If we don't do it, we won't exist. Is to empower people and organisations across the planet. If you think about the fourth industrial revolution, the best thing we can do is democratise access to these digital tools, digital technologies, such that they can have that broad sectoral impact in every part of the... Tools in people's hands. Absolutely. OK. Well, the good news, I think, is that history is on our side. If we do look at history, the revolution is coming. I mean, the question is how we shape it, but there isn't a question about whether the social revolution is coming. So thank you, Ajay and Satya, so much for joining me. I really appreciate the conversation and for helping move all this thinking along. And thank you too for our audience for being here this morning. Thank you very much. Y Llywodraeth Cymru