Mark: The richest 85 people on Earth have the same combined wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion. Michelle: Wait, say that again. Eighty-five people? Mark: Eighty-five. That’s a full motorcoach versus half the entire planet. It’s a statistic that feels fundamentally broken, and today’s book argues it’s the spark for a quiet revolution in how we do business. Michelle: It sounds completely unsustainable. It’s the kind of number that makes you feel like the whole system needs a reboot. What book are we talking about? Mark: We are diving into The Business of Good: Social Entrepreneurship and the New Bottom Line by Jason Haber. And what’s fascinating is that Haber isn't just an academic watching from the sidelines. He's a serial entrepreneur who famously turned down a massive commission to rent a New York townhouse to Muammar Gaddafi on principle. Michelle: Wow. Okay, so he’s actually lived this. That’s not a theoretical dilemma; that’s a real-world, 'do I take the money or stand for something' moment. Mark: Exactly. And he says that personal crisis he faced mirrors a much larger one our society went through. That experience is really at the heart of this book, and it all starts with a concept he calls 'The Great Convergence.'

Michelle: The Great Convergence. It sounds almost like a sci-fi event. What does he mean by that? Mark: It’s the collision of two massive forces. To understand it, you have to remember what the world felt like right before the turn of the millennium. The late 90s were defined by the dot-com boom. There was this pervasive 'Making Money Now' mentality. Michelle: Oh, I remember that. The Y2K scare was the big worry, but the underlying feeling was this wild, almost irrational optimism. Everyone was going to be an internet millionaire. Mark: Right. A psychologist at the time made this incredible observation: "People used to apologetically make money. Now you apologetically don’t make money." It was a cultural expectation. If you weren't getting rich, you were doing something wrong. Michelle: That feels like a lifetime ago. What shattered that illusion? Because it definitely shattered. Mark: That's the first part of the convergence: a more troubled world. The 2000s hit us with a relentless series of shocks. The dot-com bubble burst. We had 9/11, which reshaped global politics overnight. Then came the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, and devastating natural disasters. The sense of peace and endless prosperity just evaporated. Michelle: It was a decade of anxiety. You felt it in the air. Mark: And that’s when the second force hits: a smaller, more interconnected world. This is the rise of Web 2.0. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Suddenly, we weren't just consuming information; we were sharing it, instantly, globally. Michelle: Okay, so a troubled world collides with a connected world. I see where this is going. Mark: Precisely. Haber uses this powerful example: the Iranian student protests. In 1999, students protested, the government cracked down violently, and the world barely noticed. It was a blip on the international news cycle. Michelle: I honestly don't even remember that. Mark: Almost no one does. But fast forward ten years to 2009. Another disputed election, more protests. This time, it was called the Green Movement, and it exploded on Twitter. The government tried to shut down communications, but people inside Iran were using social media to get their stories out, and the rest of the world was watching in real-time. Michelle: I remember that. The green profile pictures, the #IranElection hashtag. It felt like everyone was paying attention. Mark: And that’s the point. The communications expert Clay Shirky is quoted in the book, saying that even just retweeting is valuable because it tells dissidents "the outside world is paying attention." That awareness is everything. Michelle: But is a retweet really activism? Or is it just 'slacktivism,' making us feel like we're helping without actually doing anything? Mark: That's a fair and common critique. But Haber's argument is that this new, unavoidable awareness was the critical first step. You can't solve a problem you don't see. For the first time, injustice anywhere felt like it was happening everywhere, right on our screens. This collective consciousness, this Great Convergence, created the demand for a new kind of capitalism. It created a generation that couldn't just go back to 'Making Money Now.' They needed to do something more.

Michelle: A new kind of capitalism. That sounds ambitious. What does that actually look like? Is it just about donating a portion of your profits? Mark: It's much deeper than that. Haber calls it 'Capitalism 2.0,' and it’s about fundamentally changing the goal of a business. For a century, the dominant idea, championed by economists like Milton Friedman, was that the one and only social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits. Period. Michelle: The shareholder is king. That's what we've all been taught. Mark: Exactly. But Capitalism 2.0 introduces a 'triple bottom line': people, planet, and profit. They're all considered equally important. And this isn't some radical new invention. Haber makes a brilliant move by tracing this idea all the way back to one of America's founding fathers. Michelle: Who are we talking about? Mark: Benjamin Franklin. He calls Franklin America's first social entrepreneur. Franklin invented the lightning rod, bifocals, a cleaner stove... and he refused to patent any of them. He wrote, "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously." Michelle: That's incredible. He was basically open-sourcing his inventions for the public good. So this idea of business serving society isn't a new-age Millennial trend; it's baked into American values from the start. Mark: It's a return to those roots. But it got lost somewhere along the way. To show why this reboot is so necessary, the book gives the stark example of Walmart. In 2014, Walmart did nearly half a trillion dollars in sales, yet its employees received over $6 billion in federal welfare assistance because wages were so low. Michelle: Wow. So the taxpayer was essentially subsidizing their payroll. That’s a perfect example of a system where profit is the only thing that matters, and the 'people' part of the bottom line is completely ignored. Mark: It’s the definition of a broken model. And that's where the new social entrepreneurs come in. They have what Haber calls the 'HAD IT' attitude. It's an acronym: Hope, Audacity, Disappointment, Ingenuity, and Tenacity. They are disappointed with the status quo, but they have the hope and audacity to believe they can fix it with ingenuity and tenacity. Michelle: I like that. It's like a superhero origin story. They've HAD IT with the old way. Can you give me an example of a 'Capitalism 2.0' company in action? Mark: A fantastic one from the book is African Clean Energy, or ACE. The problem they tackle is horrific: millions of people, mostly women and children, die every year from inhaling smoke from open-flame cooking. Michelle: I've heard about this. It's a silent killer. Mark: And the traditional solution was charity: give away cheap, low-quality stoves. But they broke easily, didn't work well, and didn't solve the problem. It was a handout, not a solution. ACE took a different approach. They engineered a high-quality, smokeless stovetop that works on multiple fuel sources. And here's the key: they don't give it away. They sell it. Michelle: They sell it to people living in poverty? How does that work? Mark: They treat the poor as customers, not as passive recipients of charity. They use microlending to make the device affordable. The COO, Judith Joan Walker, has this amazing quote in the book. She says people think, "Because we are doing something good for the world, we should also do it for free." She completely rejects that. By building a sustainable, for-profit business, ACE can scale its impact, create local jobs, and provide a product people actually want and value. It’s a win-win. Michelle: That’s a huge mental shift. It’s not about pity; it’s about dignity and empowerment. It’s moving from a handout to a hand-up. That's so different from the charity models we're used to seeing. It reminds me of the whole 'one-for-one' trend. Is that what we're talking about?

Mark: That's the perfect transition, because the 'one-for-one' model is a huge part of this story. It's probably the most famous version of social entrepreneurship, and it was popularized by one company: TOMS Shoes. Michelle: Of course. Buy a pair, give a pair. It was everywhere. And it felt so simple and good. Mark: It was marketing genius. The founder, Blake Mycoskie, explained its appeal perfectly: "There is no ambiguity... You buy a pair of shoes; we give a pair of shoes to a child in need." It's direct, it's emotional, and it's easy to understand. The company became a massive success, valued at over $600 million. Michelle: But the criticism, which always felt right to me, was that it doesn't solve the reason kids don't have shoes in the first place. It can disrupt local shoe-making economies and create a cycle of dependency. Mark: You've hit on the exact critique that the book explores. One critic, Adriana Herrera, is quoted saying, "TOMS has created a business model that actually needs poor children without shoes in order to sell its shoes." It's a harsh but powerful point. The children become part of the marketing. Michelle: So is the one-for-one model a failure then? Mark: Not a failure, but perhaps a stepping stone. An evolution. To his credit, Mycoskie listened to the criticism. He said, "If you are really serious about poverty alleviation, our critics said, then you need to create jobs. At first I took that personally, but then I realized that they were right." TOMS eventually started opening manufacturing facilities in the countries where they were donating, like Haiti, to create jobs. Michelle: So they evolved their model. That's impressive. Mark: And it shows the maturation of the whole movement. Haber contrasts the early TOMS model with a company called Oliberté. They also make shoes, but their entire model is different. They built a fair-trade certified factory in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. They source all their materials from African countries. Their goal isn't to give away shoes; it's to create stable, well-paying manufacturing jobs. Michelle: They're not just treating a symptom; they're trying to cure the disease. They're building an economy, not just a charity drop. Mark: Exactly. It's the difference between giving a fish and revolutionizing the fishing industry, as another social entrepreneur, Bill Drayton, puts it. It’s a deeper, more sustainable, and ultimately more dignified approach. It’s about creating the opportunity for people to thrive on their own terms.

Michelle: It really feels like we've traced an entire evolution here. From the blind optimism of the 90s, to a global wake-up call, to the birth of this new idea of 'Capitalism 2.0,' and then even the evolution of that idea from simple gestures to truly sustainable impact. Mark: That's the arc of the book perfectly. A crisis forces a reckoning, which leads to a new business model, which then has to mature and evolve to create real, lasting change. It's a story of trial and error, of learning and adapting. Michelle: So what's the big takeaway for us? For someone listening who isn't going to start a global shoe company or a clean energy venture tomorrow? Mark: I think Haber brings it all home beautifully in the final chapter. He talks about the famous 'Pale Blue Dot' photograph of Earth taken from Voyager 1, billions of miles away. Carl Sagan’s reflection on that image was that on this tiny, fragile dot, is everyone you love, everyone you know, every human being who ever was. Michelle: It's such a humbling perspective. Mark: It is. And Haber connects this to the social entrepreneurship movement. He argues this whole shift is about finally recognizing that we're all on this pale blue dot together. The problems of poverty, disease, and environmental decay aren't 'over there' problems; they are 'our' problems. And the solution isn't just in grand gestures, but in changing the system itself—one transaction, one job, one company at a time. It’s about making our everyday economic choices part of the solution. Michelle: That makes it feel so much more accessible. It makes you think differently about where you spend your money. Maybe the first step for all of us is just to start asking that question: 'What's the business of good behind this brand I'm buying from?' Mark: That's a powerful first step. And it's a question more and more people are asking. Michelle: We'd love to hear what our listeners think. What are some of the purpose-driven brands you admire? Let us know on our social channels. It’s a conversation worth having. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.