Gary suggests that people should: - Educate themselves about the economy. - Work towards collective betterment by understanding societal issues. - Act in unselfish ways to counteract the influence of selfishness. - Protect ordinary people from exploitation by the powerful and wealthy. - Engage in collective action to address societal challenges, such as inequality.
About 12 years ago I played a version of this on a management training course at a place called Ashorne Hill in Warwickshire. I was studying for a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. They presented it as “red or blue” and there were 4 groups of people who were supposedly 4 departments of a business. Everyone voting Red meant the company made money, everyone voting blue meant the company lost money, with points in between where individual departments made money at the expense of everyone else. There were 10 rounds of voting and an opportunity for negotiation after rounds 2,5,8 and 9 with round 10 being worth 3 times as much. Sorry that’s quite verbose but the people running the course said I’d come up with a solution that they’d never seen before which effectively broke the game. I convinced all the other groups to swap their voting sheet so that no one possessed their own and everyone was voting in someone else’s interest. It immediately caused every group to vote red flawlessly. I appreciate that doesn’t necessarily translate to the prisoners dilemma as with that there’s no opportunity for negotiation but I thought I would share this story because I genuinely believe the only way out of this mess is if we can rediscover the sense of community that was taken away from society gradually under thatcher.
This is an example of the use of John Rawls’s veil of ignorance so that in order to vote red or to set up the just society, one does not know one’s position in life and then one votes red, which is for the best interests of others.
This is an example of the use of John Rawls’s veil of ignorance as you ddi not vote for your own interests but for the interests of others. Hence every one voted red.
I always thought that a Prisoner's dilemma provides more commentary on an information deficit than "selfishness". If you were able to communicate or receive information about your fellow Prisoner's choice, then the game immediately crumbles and you likely both make a decision in the collective interest. It is the lack of cooperation and/or communication that makes the Prisoner's dilemma more compelling. It makes you see why powerful or rich people wish to "divide" the population into isolated groups who do not organise or communicate around issues.
Excellent point! We would be much more empathetic and selfless if we were able to communicate and break the barriers between communities and people. Unfortunately Thatcher's motto "there's no such thing as society" has had long standing consequences in this country and needs to be thrown in the bin where it belongs.
I’m a primary school teacher in East London and every day I see how children are drawn to the idea of doing good and being kind to others. The reality is that these young souls and minds are growing up in a city saturated with marketing, depicting a world they feel they need to aspire to. While at the same time, growing up with real hardship so, the idea of making lots of money for oneself is going to be the number one priority. I don’t know how we can say to people who have grown up in poverty or hardship that some of the aspirations that are out there are false ones. Those who are wealthy can do their bit to help, however benevolence is not and should never be the preserve of the rich! How can those who live in poverty be more empowered and gain more agency? Education is one way. The question is, how, in this current system?
Wrong question? We have to change the system. Neoliberalism cannot do it, by design. One move is to understand the monetary system, when we do then a Job Guarantee is possible with price stability. This means no one needs to be prostituting themself to get a decent job at a decent living wage, or kowtowing to a boss, and bullsh1t jobs get crowded out, so everyone benefits. But this ain't gonna happen under the neoliberal paradigm.
so it's the rich people corrupting the childrens minds with marketing, yet you still find a way to claim the rich do more to help others than the poor. This is a strange perspective. I have noticed poorer people are much more likely to give charity to individuals than richer people. Alrhough you live in England which is the source of a lot of the pain in my home country so perhaps people are different there...
@@DaleIsWigging didn't say the rich do more than the poor in helping others. Btw, how is England still the source of a lot of pain in your home country? I can imagine but there aren't many countries like that still where collective memory is that distinct or fresh? Please advise/inform if u will.
@@18_rabbit The main brutal colonial period of Australia was later than many other countries, only 100-200 years ago that's people's grandparents and great grandparents. After that there were still a lot of kidnappings and not allowing the natives to participate in society. Many native people do not have as much inheritance/family money/assets as other families because they have only been allowed to work for the last 50 years. There is no independent foreign policy, we blindly follow britain in it's new clothes (america). There are still clear funding differences and categorical differences when choosing whether white or black states get funding/power. There are still major violations of land that they claim to have given back, like removing rights and approving mining. There is still a large amount of deaths of Aboriginal children in gaol (jail). And as a native plant lover, it is clear the places with more non Aboriginal population tend to clear the land more, the english didnt even cultivate our awesome tasting plants, I cant even buy my own countries fruit at the shop, thats a really strange feeling when you get a craving hahah. There are still (some) places where people shoot blacks on sight and police dont investigate crimes against them, but thats partially due to size of the land. Even if one pretends like all the colonialism has ended (and hasn't just been better hidden) Not enough time has passed for Australia to have adjusted to a fair society without major reperations of some kind.
It's more interesting when you play this game repeatedly. The most effective strategy is _"Forgiving Tit-for-Tat"._ You cooperate with any new player by default, you only punish them if they screw you over, but then you forgive them when they start playing fairly again. Which is actually a pretty good model for morality and human relationships.
The strategy is a nice explanation for the development of cooperation and "high-trust" societies. But I think it can only work with roughly equal players. Most people knew that owners of corporations are exploited them, yet they are still looking for works in the same corporations anyway, because they need a job.
@@Account.for.Comment That would be interesting to test in the same way as the original contest. What would happen when some players are more "powerful" and some players are more "desperate"? What would happen if players could communicate about the reputations of other players, and form allegiances? Would the optimal strategy change? I think it might remain broadly the same (as it seems to in nature). But maybe with some important subtle modifications.
@@andybrice2711 in nature and human society, it became the Selectorate Theory of Politics. Dictators and powerbroker did not cooperate with the masses. They cooperate with a few cronies or voting blocks. The fewer the better, the more optimal for leaders to retain. On the other hand, the least optimal strategy for leaders, is the more optimal strategy for the masses. That the causes of the inequality we have now. Politicians who kept a smaller set of rich billionaires happy are more secured in their position than the ones that try to keep the masses fed.
@@florentin4061 I'm pretty sure I've seen that, yeah. Though the idea's been around for a long time. I remember learning about Game Theory from _"The Trap"_ circa 2007 and thinking _"Well that sounds evil."_ And then watching a Ted Talk by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita circa 2009 and thinking _"Actually that sounds really interesting."_ Then I think I learned about Axelrod's contest from a book which heavily quoted _"The Origins of Virtue"_ but I can't figure out what it was.
When I learnt this in university, it was noted that obviously in real life most people don't betray their friends. The way most game theorists actually analyse this kind of situation is in a recurring game. I.e., the same game played out over and over again. If the game is indefinite, so the players do not know when it is going to end, it turns out the best strategy is to co-operate, which makes intuititve sense.
Excellent episode. Very insightful. An example of training people to be anti-social: I paid for a day of parking in a forest park, but suddenly had to leave for some reason. I tried to give the parking stub to someone else. I paid for the spot for the full day, so it would be nice not to let it go to waste. Then I noticed it said on the stub that it was non-transferable. They used licence plate recognition to enforce it. Players are not allowed to help players. It is against the rules
A good example! Here is another... I was shopping in Tesco and forgot my clubland. I asked the lady next to me, can I please use yours? You get more points and I save a couple quid. She said, no, you should get your own! Perhaps she thought I was scamming her in some way, I just wanted a half price smoothie
Yep great example. There are criminals who devote there time to trying to scam vulnerable people out of there money, those people are rightly vilified but there are so many legal scams that try to trick people into buying extras they don’t need . Booking a flight on an budget airline based in Ireland is a typical example
See? As soon as something as banal as parking is digitalis, our Freedom to be autonomous decision makers is erased. Be warned. God won't help us when Chat GPT runs our banking, our social services, our jobs and our industrial food chain. Tears before bedtime
Maybe it's because I'm autistic, but it's genuinely bevildering to me that people use the prisoner dilemma as an example for people's inherent selfishness and not, you know, a malicious system designed to incentivize selfishness.....
@arimolyki What are you talking about ...? Two of the main assumptions of game theory is the set of von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms and their corresponding representation theorem. It's baked into the prisoner's dilemma that we're utility maximizers as an assumption of the problem. Also, it's no big revelation that the prisoner's dilemma is set up for you to choose to screw over you're friend... it's a competitive game - there's plenty of cooperative games as well; eg, coordination games
There are a good study about that with changing rules and repetition and different strategies. According to the rules being nice or retaliate is more efficient than being an asshole. The dilemma prisoners is really not a good example of game theory (like saying that water melt at 100° is all what physic and chemistry has to offer.
If both players are motivated by self-interest and believe the other to be too, surely the correct approach is S (one year). The offer of zero years if you G is rescinded if the other player Gs too. The decision should account for the bait-and-switch when the other player's decision is included.
I like how the comments on the original comment all function as meta on the original comment (and the video as a whole). A system like the prisoner dilemma in the real world would inevitably have been designed by one party (the police side) to incentivise either painful or harmful outcomes to the participants from the other (suspect) side. So here's a system built around the premise that the community option that also serves you best is the one that carries the highest risk of the harshest punishment, in fact to qualify for the harshest punishment you have to choose not to rat your friend out. And so is the premise of the dilemma a narrowly designed system: again your main problem seems to be whether or not your friend is likely gonna rat you out, how bad you want to think of them, instead of asking: what is wrong with that system?! Please abstain from explaining the rules of the dilemma, I understood it the first time. I'm trying to say: please watch the video for real!
We also have to teach our kids the other side of the coin. That it is OK to look out for each other that it is OK to think and act collectively. This is a long term problem which is going to require a long term solution, we need to engage with young people now as it's going to be their generation and the generations beyond them that this will affect the most and let's be honest, they aren't going to be taught this in our current schooling system. GREAT WORK AS ALWAYS GARY, thank you! 👍🏻
Good luck with that if you tear them away from their all absorbing and brainwashing social media. Facebook has more contact with your kids than you do. The industry whether intentionally or not is making a phoneless life impossible.
I’d go further, it’s not just OK, it’s the long term solution, it might feel like kindness but it’s ultimately self interest. That’s why all the institutions we have/had existed, these problems have been addressed and understood in the past.
The only solution is collective organisation and it will happen in the coming decades. People are already starting to wake up to the global jewish regime and racial awakenings are occurring all across the western world.
Thats basically why unions in the economy are so important, because they have the power of collective bargaining and standing up against corporations. Thats why your current government is trying to discredit and work against unions.
I agree. The push toward individualism for the working masses and collective action for the powerful is broadly fueling many of our social problems today and much of that is due to the perspective modern economics has. Whether a person's position is correct or incorrect is often not as important as the perspective they bring to a problem. If one begins with the assertion that people are individual units seeking to optimize their own situation in every case, then "social" problems become invisible as from that initial perspective there can be no such thing as society or community. It's just a group of individuals. It denies the possibility of emergent mass behavior as well as the world we see right in front of our faces. It feels like just when economics and finance have become extremely intertwined and systematized in our society, economists understand it even less than their predecessors a hundred to two hundred years ago.
Agreed. However Unions in Australia became greedy & entitled (union members corrupted)... I remember builders paid to down tools for poetry readings, jobs passed on from father to son, salaries+bonuses astronomical. It became a barrier for multinationals setting up in our country.
Similar to how they are in the US. Unless you are related or have a very strong connection to someone in the Union you'll never get in. Specifically trade unions seem to be intentionally keeping supply low to increase pay. It reminds me of Gary's description of Citibank.
The real world experience with Unions is that game theory is correct about human selfishness. Usually the leaders of the Union have positions that they keep for life, they put family and friends in some positions of power within the union. Those organization eventually go corrupt
So if ordinary people can learn that simple game 'The Prisoners Dilemma' from game theory, they could then go onto change the variables in their heads to 'Public Interest'/'Private Interest'. Genius Gary, you are showing us we need to change the way we think.
This change in personal to collective labelling needs promoting for people to grasp the ramifications. Unions are the best example of the collective working for the benefit of all. Edit. I note that Union membership is on the rise by significant numbers. A positive sign.
as long as the operator is a divider, it is "probably" not the most likely way to accomplish this mission ... ('Public Interest'/'Private Interest') ...
@@michellebyrom6551 Yes, game theory is a good mathematical system to see how relations between competing interest groups work. This doesn’t mean it promotes selfishness. Like all mathematical models, it can be taken advantage of by whoever can beneficially use it. Sure, the cources teaching about game theory usually give examples of two companies making a deal or a dispute between two friends. But the same model can be used to show a fight between organised workers and selfish businessmen. It is the politics that’s corrupt, not math. People should stop thinking about selfish interests or hedonism any moment they see numbers.
"It's not that our policies suck - it's the people who are stupid!" The complaint used to be "why are people voting against their best interests, are they dumb?!" and this guy takes it a step further - "people should stop trying to vote in their best interests". "Vote for me, I'll sacrifice your individual interests for the greater good!" - it's a bold strategy, let's see how it plays out.
There is another parable that illustrates the point here called the 'allegory of the spoons'. Both in heaven and in hell, people are given access to food, but the spoons are too long and unwieldy to serve oneself. In hell, the people only try to serve themselves, and consequently starve. In heaven, the diners feed one another across the table and eat well. An interesting thought experiment here though, is if you imagine that there are rich and poor at the table of heaven. Yes, the rich need to feed the poor, but in return the poor also needs to feed the rich. You could then supplant wealth with intellect, athleticism, health, wit, wisdom, benevolence, leadership etc. Non of these things will exist in equal measure around the table. So a fair, but never exactly equitable, exchange is required, because we all have very different plates of food to offer each other. The intellect, disciplin, organisation and leadership skills of an entrepreneur feeds differently equipped people with employment. Their labour feeds the entrepreneur with production capacity and so on.
Selfishness, it seems to me, is greatly increased by fear and especially fear of scarcity. Whether intended or not the continued acceptance of a level of poverty in any country is maintaining this level of fear and so preventing people from working together to improve their lives as a community. Along side the fear is the centralising of power which increases the fear as the options for making things better are reduced and the sense of powerlessness increases desperation. As the prisoner's dilemma demonstrates the best outcome is to cooperate. Funnily enough, fear is not the preserve of the poor. Nearly everyone fears losing what they have and the market, though rigged in favour of wealth, is fickle. Certainty as a way of dispelling fear is an illusion. It can never sustain. Trust, on the hand, is something we can nurture and grow and provides an antidote to fear and a way of working together to achieve a more equal society.
The concept of scarcity is used as weapon. If people can be convinced that resources are in short supply, and that an unspecified 'other' wants to take what you are entitled to, this feeling can be used to create division in the society. The more nebulous the 'other' the more fear is generated. It's always easier to fight an enemy you can see. When the 'enemy' is hidden behind innuendo, half-truths and wrong assumptions, it becomes much more frightening. This fear of the unknown can push people into committing unspeakable acts, which can be rationalised and justified with statements like "I was protecting my culture/family/way of life/rights, etc.
@curmudgeon Agree, your post is very well put. Of course, if the Billionaires become aware of a movement of voters who want to tax, redistribute, or cap their earnings, they will feel great Fear too and will do anything in their power to resist or even destroy such proposals. Unless they can perceive the necessity to share their wealth.
This was covered in the Trap by Adam Curtis. All the people at RAND chose the selfish option but all the secretaries chose the unselfish option. Such an amazing documentary series, definitely recommend watching them.
Thank you Gary for your voice of reason! I’ve seen firsthand a more and more pervasive of ‘Americanisation’ of Britain. I was raised in the US but have mostly lived in the UK since 1991. I only stepped into work and tax paying life in 2001. It’s been one unsupportive and disenfranchising experience after another in my sector of first, education and the arts, and now, self employment in food and hospitality. There is still huge support from people, to counteract the lack of government support, but wallets are getting stretched!
I find it weird that people get uppity over supposed Russian or Chinese influence on UK and even stuff about Islam but seems totally oblivious to the huge influence of USA
USA is a different situation. American money rebuilt UK after the war and Americans protect UK militarily. 🇺🇸 and 🇬🇧 are allied. 🇬🇧 is not allied with Russia, China, or Islamic countries. @@keithparker1346
If you haven't seen it Adam Curtis' documentary The Trap is a must watch, it talks about John Nash and the history of game theory and how notably their attempts to prove the theory in the real world repeatedly failed because it turns out people are not automatons that neatly fit their simulations, and have this curious tendency to cooperate. The only ones that played the game as predicted were the economists themselves, but it didn't stop them trying to make it the foundational principal of our modern world.
"it's not a vote winner" says the labour party, which may tell you about whose vote they're after. Not every vote is equal, and mine isn't as important as, for example, the owner of a newspapers.
Well, that's not strictly true. Your vote and that owner's vote have the same value. But his opinion influences more voters than yours does, so they're looking to get the newspaper owners to instruct their editors to go after the other mob.
I can't think of a single occasion in history where there has been a drastic reduction in inequality outside of war, plague or starvation so I doubt Gary's proposal will work the way he wants it to. So I would say to educated Westerners. Get out, find a cheaper place to live. Return when the dust settles.
@@GreenLarsen Firstly, if you were actually looking to land that in the net of proving me wrong, well done on hitting a spectator in the back row of the stand. Second, that difference is *trivial* unless one is voting in the Isle of Wight and the other in Lochaber. The issue is that the owner of a newspaper has the power to influence tens if not hundreds of thousands of floating voters, which is why political parties are metaphorically deeptrhoating them.
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t I think you misunderstood my post, as we are in fully agreement towards the power news media wield and by extension the power the owners sadly have. My point was simply that beyond that part of inequality, the UK voting system is also broken and will reward some 3-4 times more power compared to others, simply due to where they live.
It reminds me of a medical papers I saw studying neurodivergent people and their inability to lie. A medical team asked neurodivergent ppl if they would do something 'wrong' that would benefit them, under the conditions of ppl would know what they did and nobody would know. Apparently neurotypicals in the study mostly answered they wouldn't do it if ppl knew but would if nobody found out. Nuerodivergent ppl refused regardless. The conclusion of the paper calls it a flaw of neurodivergent ppl to be unwilling to cheat, lie or steal. My take was always, why do you think that's a good trait to have? to be willing to betray cheat and steal. I think this is the problem with capitalism, it influences ppl to only care about profiteering and nothing else.
When someone can lie it is beneficial for him as he has more options (you dont have to use it). And lying is not always a bad thing, you might get yourself into some bad situation with some attacker or something and maybe you could get yourself out of some trouble by carefully planning what you are saying, or using a well planned lie.
I've been so inspired by you this year and please don't stop because the effects will ripple through society. I'm a maths teacher and I didn't know the first thing about personal finance or economy before you did that first Novara media interview. Now I've signed up for financial teacher training with the intent of permanently adding it to our curriculum for 11-18 year olds. Together we will make a difference.
Governments understand Game Theory. Thatcher's right to buy council homes. Cameron's loans to first time buyers. Both of these were to appeal to people to scramble over others to gain a personal advantage over others - while jettisoning any attached moral aspect of what leveraging those policies meant as a societal impact. In the same way that people working in corporate jobs being offered private healthcare packages would not stop to consider that if all companies offer private healthcare to all employees - what does this mean in terms of creating a two tier healthcare system - and an ideological divorce of ordinary people from protecting the NHS, effectively selling out poorer income families all over the country. We can't blame the participants in these situations because, a.) they're not to blame, b.) they have zero concept most likely of how they are being used to help achieve a corporate or political aim. I love that you're airing this concept of connected responsibility for each other, because in it's essence, the way that bonds are broken between us, is how we all lose over time. Conversely, our uniting is the antidote and path to achieve a fairer society for all. I think you should send out a questionnaire to all your followers and ask them what skills they have, and if they have any free time to commit. We all have useful skills, or we can learn useful skills from each other - in pursuit of using our time to pool awareness and bring clarity to a wider audience in service to a higher goal. But in order to do that you have to be clearer about how and what we are trying to achieve, Because if people can't see what they're working towards, there will be nothing to sustain them in that struggle.
also Thatcher said greed is good. also right wing media reinforce this by creating the picture of us and them, welfare recipients stealing your hard earned tax money
This!! Exactly this. The problem, is that everyone is going to have vastly different environments (I for instance am an American), so "what to do" becomes harder to pin down. The solution to this is to find common ways people can help, and to show people how they can search for them
Wow, up for 40 mins and already over 1000 views. We're all ready to do want we can, thanks Gary. From a previous post I can see the newspapers and media are definitely 100% going to come gunning for you by ridicule and name calling eg communist/socialist. It's already started. 😵💫😧
I remember in my economics program wondering why all the thought experiments revolved around either prisoners, pirates or a guy stuck on a desert island alone. At some point the ideological narrative embedded in it clicked… you are alone, you are selfish and so is everyone else.
@@petertayler1712 interesting. Game theory had its own course in my Econ program. The interesting thing was very few people seemed to actually apply any of its conclusions to what we were learning in micro and macro Econ courses, e.g. whether the concept of the “suboptimal” Nash Equilibrium conflicts with the notion that “free” markets arrive through supply and demand at the optimal level of production and cost. And so on 😅.
Thank you for this and all your videos Gary! Wealth tax? Absolutely 💯!! At the moment we have a "Poor Tax" with the tax thresholds being so low & no sign of them being realistic in the near future! Pensioners like me with very low income (ie. under £15K a year, in a time when apparently £20K is the minimum needed for a life....) are now being taxed, while receiving benefits!!! Bonkers! High rents, exorbitant food prices, highly taxed petrol, high heating costs etc. = poverty for millions of all ages. It's wrong! So wrong! Yet our voices are being censored.... 😠
Censorship is part of the problem. We have to discuss issues in forums like this without naming the issue or openly criticising it. Euphemisms are necessary for most adult conversations, yet none of them are needed to protect innocent children.
So really what you are pushing back against is the Thatcherite premise that there is no society only individuals working in their own interests. Or divide and conquer. I agree with you totally
@lebyrom6551 Agreed - censorship and control of information (propaganda) are an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the problem... and an undeclared war is being manifestly waged to intimidate and punish those who "legitimately" call into question the zealous stripping away of what citizens in supposedly democratic societies have hitherto been encouraged to regard as their fundamental rights.
They want our markets. Then pay the taxes. Currently we subsidise their overheads and profit margins. They won't fkin leave. This is their marketplace. If they do leave great. The markets still there for the opportunity of others willing to pay.
It was Margaret thatchers enthusiasm for 'social atomism' during her reign that helped create more competition amongst individuals. "There is no such thing as society" she famously said. The antitode is raising class consciousness of the merits of cooperation and how excessive competition makes us poorer - as in this video. I would also recommend Alfie Khon's book 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' which expands on what Gary is talking about here.
so funny that it’s called „social atomism“ bc honestly, taking this term very literally, even atoms come together at some point as molecules if it’s more beneficial for them. is class solidarity only (yet another) privilege allowed for the superrich? margaret thatcher surely was thinking of the upper class society she was part of, when she secured tax cuts for her and her superrich corporatist friends. funny how that kind of solidarity is alright, but middle class ppl are taught the opposite. „rules for thee, not for me“ strikes again!
To make it work: 1) Make it super easy to understand the 'Tax the Wealth' movement. - A summary video that explains your theory (including how you propose to tax the wealthy and redistribute) and what people need to do. 2) Make the actions required as simple and undemanding as possible (so people don't have to be excessively unselfish) - Register on a website (60 seconds). Includes commitment (when critical mass reached) to only vote for a party that will tax wealth. - Commit to talking to 6 other people, showing them the video and getting 3 of them to register and take the actions required. (30 minutes- my estimate based on my friends and family- mainly family). - Share on social media (will vary from 10 seconds to many hours depending on resource & commitment) Get famous people and academics involved. Basically above is a benign selling pyramid. 3) Make it easy to to see progress Make it easy to see numbers rack up by county, city, postcode etc. 4) Make it easy to get organised Use registrations to form a database and organise on social media and IRL 5) Use database to let people know when and how to vote. Our dysfunctional FPTP system makes timing key- get it wrong and could end up helping the Party least likely to tax wealth. I'd sign-up and talk to 6 people today.
Back in the day trade unions provided free education. Night-schools,, meetings, actually the Govt of NZ and Australia provided excellent free education and free tertiary education prior to 1980 . The neo liberal economics was taken up with great gusto by the right of centre politicians and state owned assts were sold to the private sector. Unions were extinguished and workers were encouraged to be entrepreneurial and pay there own wages. The finance sector was deregulated and the the new owners of public assets lead the lambs to the slaughter. Your videos provide much needed education on how the monetary and wealth systems now function . I’m grateful for your knowledge sharing
@user-s Agree. Greetings from Auckland New Zealand. Our country has been utterly ruined by Thatcherite, neo-liberal policies. And the myth of globalisation. Our healthy manufacturing industries gutted by competition from Asian countries. Our Brain Drain continues - Our best and brightest leave for bigger and better opportunities in every field. There's no work here, we have sold our best stuff. I wish we'd had more understanding of the Scandinavian way of life and their way of looking after their economies and citizens.
There's a flipside to that scenario, too. In a situation where you really don't like or trust them, then the worst that can happen isn't prison. If you snitch and he doesn't, then he's in jail for 10 years, but he knows you did it and will retaliate. If you both snitch, then you're stuck in prison with a violent psychopath for 5 years. If you don't snitch and he does, then you're in prison for a long time, but your wife and kids aren't killed. This is what you're told the mafia do. Fear, violence and intimidation replace trust. People are going to act selfishly, but selfish interest is to avoid horrible things happening. And because nobody talks or they risk their death and everyone else's, actually it's much easier to get away with things. Also, there is organisation. Even the most brutal and selfish of all people have to come to some kind of arrangement where things work, or they're alone, and it doesn't work. Part of the issue with game theory is that it's about forcing people into a situation where they're forced to be cold and calculating, instead of being in a situation that's about forming relationships and creating beneficial arrangements. ------------------------------- Also, other games exist that are also interesting to consider. For example, both sides know that there is no evidence, but they're being told that they must name someone. Both sides can understand the lack of evidence and see through the trap the police have laid. There's no evidence, don't talk, you're free. But, the police lay this trap all the time, because putting people under pressure and forcing them into making a decision can be very productive for them. Take a totalitarian state. This game is constantly being played, but the interesting thing is that it's being played repeatedly. Your neighbour didn't do anything, but the police are asking you to condemn them. You know this, but if you speak up on their behalf the police may come for you. If you say nothing, then the police might let them go or might take them. If you speak up because you hate them, then often there is some benefit to you (e.g. you can take their land). But then, if you choose not to condemn, people may decide that you're not devoted to the cause. If you choose to condemn, people may turn on you for being overeager. It also matters in this game where you are in the totalitarian curve. If you're at the start, then this never gets off the ground and you save the world. If you speak up and it's too late, you have no freedom of expression, and you're dead. Whereas, a normal society more closely reflects the prisoner's dilemma, as played out over multiples of games. Forming relationships and making mutually beneficial decisions helps everyone, but also rewards that can do that the best. Put in a position where people might rob you, you have to then work out how to cooperate intelligently, but cynicism also doesn't prosper. Or the abstract situation where we have to decide how people are going to be treated. At every step, we have no stake, except that this can be us sometime. It works whether we like the people or not, whether we think that we're really going to be in the situation or not. We're constantly being asked to make that decision, regardless of whether it was required. Or the royal dilemma. Yes, the peasants are subject to your whims, but if you're not capable of maintaining a sense of fairness and honour in the system, then they might rebel. Just because there is no equality doesn't mean that inequality is a good thing. At the same time, exploiting inequality is the job of a medieval king. Doing it well means rewarding their people, and keeping their kingdom. Do it badly, and the kingdom is lost and the peasants put to the sword. --------------------------------- One of the important problems with game theory is that even in games of economic rationality, even trained statisticians and economists don't act as rational economists. There is a whole field of economics that demonstrates that. But we immediately snap back to that idea when we're told to understand the economy. It's just easier not to care if you see people making poor choices as just preferring to starve. It's easier to say that poor people are voting for their own interests when they make poor choices, rather than to question the validity of being offered those choices in that way, with that sales pitch. Also, there's the abstract nature of the actual dilemmas we have politically. We are almost never given the simple binaries of thought or action that we're told to believe exist in these kinds of games. Even in places where there might be those binaries, we don't actually get to push either button. And they rarely have direct or obvious consequences. Which leads to the next part of that, people are then able to abstract away responsibility for what happens. Nobody voted to do the horrible things that happened, they've always voted for the other things, or because the other guy was worse. So, they never have to take stock. And we're given incentives not to believe that things will be bad anyways. And uncertainty just makes it easier to say that we didn't choose the bad thing on purpose.
Well, the other issue with the prisoner's dilemma is that it's presented as a single round the game, which is not reflective of any real situation. Once you begin an open-ended iteration of rounds of the game, a system with rational actors tends to determine that the strategy of grassing as default to be perhaps the least effective strategy; cooperation by default with equivalent retaliation (tit for tat) is in fact generally the most effective and sustainable. With iteration, the only time grassing/defaulting is an optimal strategy is if you *know* for certain that a certain round will be the last.
"The only power the ordinary people have to protect themselves from the rich and the powerful is that there are a lot of them." that was brilliant and spot on.
Yes, very true, there are millions and millions of us. It is already apparent to the Mega Wealthy too. I was following another RUclips series about Climate Change and humanity's Carbon footprint problem. Someone posted "WE are the carbon they want to reduce." A simple and chilling thought. World War III anyone?
As most of Garys videos concentrate on wealth inequality (Fantastic by the way) caused by asset accumulation by wealth especially in the housing market, need to make some statements before discussing possible solutions, Would love to see some videos on solutions as Gary does a great job explaining the cause: 1) Demand for housing is always going to be inelastic (everyone wants to own a family home or a place to live for that matter) therefore as price increases people will pay. It's similar to healthcare in regards to if you are going to die you will more than likely pay whatever price is demanded to cure you. In a hierarchy of wants a place to live is just below, not being ill & food and water. 2) Supply of houses is fixed in the short term and the current building of new houses (increasing supply) is limited mainly by policies preventing on land (We like the countryside, everything has a tradeoff). 3) The cost of physically building a house is the same no matter where you build it (within reason), it's the land that is the truly a scare resource that is increasing in value. If you're a property owner your increase in value comes from scarity of land. If you cut supply i.e property owners don't sell with increased demand i.e increasing population. Prices go up. 4) If property and rent increase this causes a flow of capital(money) from those seeking to buy and rent to property owners. This flow of money from those who would usually spend it (consume) will dampen spend elsewhere in the economy. I.e If I have to spend 50% my income for 40 years paying a property owner when 30 years ago I would have to have spent 25% of my income over 30 years this will have a dramatic effect on the economy. This leads to reduced demand for goods and services leading to fewer jobs. 5) Inflating property prices does not help the economy. It locks capital in a inefficient asset that doesn't increase productivity (i.e number of good and services we can produce dosn't change with increased investment). We want a tax system that causes a shift in what asset classes are invested away from rent seeking. The overall aim is grow the economy and make sure everyone can benefit. Therefore a policies should: 1) Increase the supply of housing -> reduce the price of houses 2) Decrease the available return of property as a investment-> Prevent hoarding of rent seeking behaviour on property and shift to investment in productive asset classes 3) Not punish owners of single properties ownership i.e not punish those that want to own a property to live in. Some suggestions (this is a youtube comment section and each one needs a full exploration of tradeoffs): 1) Increase tax on property as an investment, this is very hard to do. Most investment properties are held by offshore companies in 0% tax countries. Therefore would suggest UK property has to be held by a UK Company as a starter. All rent and capital gains held by these companies should be taxed at x%. At the moment tax is not paid on most investment property due to being held offshore so a starter would be make sure it's at least taxed. 2) Decrease red tape on brown field land and reduce taxing of profit on new builds increasing supply. 3) Make productive asset classes more attractive, tax-efficient to invest in. I.e 5 year tax free on UK start ups, 0% tax on infrastructure investments. I'm sure the list here is quite long etc It would be great to hear from Gary exploring some of the solutions as he does a great job explaining the cause. ....... Also the video talks about single game scenarios, in multi game scenarios i.e play prisoner dilema 100 times with same person optimal strategy tends towards co-orporation. How do we move society and property to be closer to multi game scenarios?
Good you are coming up with solutions, however just to note, those non-resident landlords should be paying tax on income from UK rental properties (if you want to read more google the non resident landlord scheme). What is needed is political willpower to direct resources and ensure the rules are followed.
A great starting point. Higher Income Tax thresholds and less VAT on non luxury items would put more disposable income into the economy. Energy and broadband supplies are as essential to modern living as water is to life so remove the tax. Energy producers are reporting incredible profits at the same time as investment, especially in alternative sources, is being cut under the claim of unaffordable. A major contradiction. Lots of other points that would be lost in comments.
Excellent analysis. Enjoyed reading your potential solutions too. These narratives need to start filtering down into normal political discourse and it’s our collective responsibility to try and make that happen.
This has been discussed since the 19th century, but as Georgism after Henry George. Here an entry about Land Value Tax (LVT, AKA Land Valuation Tax): From "J is for Junk Economics" by Michael Hudson. (He's Gary's Yankee Uncle IMO) "A means of keeping down mortgage debt (and hence, housing prices), by taxing the rental valuation of land, so that it will not be available to be pledged as interest payments to banks for mortgage loans. (See Groundrent, Rent and Rent Theory.) To classical economists, land is provided by nature and hence has no cost of production and hence no value as such (see Factors of Production). But it does have a market price, reflecting mainly rent of location, largely from civic improvements (see Commons and Public Domain), and the willingness of banks to lend against it." " The higher the yearly tax charge is, the lower the land price becomes, because less income is available to be capitalized (financialized) into a bank loan and paid as mortgage debt service. (See Myth #15 and #16 in “The 22 Most Pervasive Economic Myths of Our Time” later in this book.) A Land Valuation Tax thus acts as a counterweight to mortgage debt - which is why banks oppose property taxes, realizing that what is not paid to the tax collector can be paid to themselves as interest. (See Henry George Theorem and the contrast between a Single Tax and a Flat Tax.)" It's an option, but it's going to be hard to convince human turkeys to stop voting for Xmas. And there's a lot of money going into ensuring they still do. So, change isn't going to be easy or quick, but we need to start somewhere. We need to be having these conversations within our own kith and kin. So that the idea that TINA - That There Is No Alternative - is shown for the lie it is.
I’ve been surrounded by people in my hometown that have “drummed” it into their children that they “ only look after number one “ and also by parents that often quote that they “only want what’s best for their children” to which I respond by saying “ yes and look where that has gotten us “
'The police set it up', we often forget that these game theory situations are fixed not in the favour of the prisoners. The trolley problem is the same
Yeah, but they're set up that way as a simple model of complex situations which frequently occur in nature or human societies. For situations with an unequivocal answer it wouldn't be worthwhile constructing a thought experiment.
@@andybrice2711 that doesn't invalidate the criticism that they're modeling situations of coersion and claiming them as models of free will. What it really shows is how moldable our behavior is by games that we engage in. Whatever motive the game assumes is going to define incentives and thereby is inherently incentivizing that motive. It also shows how other games like one motivating commitment to in-group loyalty can override an attempt to impose another game.
@@AdobadoFantastico I think that's certainly a reasonable criticism of Nash. But not of Game Theory in general. Originally Game Theory modelled the behaviour of two competing agents. (For example in a war, or a ruthless business negotiation.) And it did a good job of that. But then some economists made the stretch that it can be used to model all human behaviour. Because they either believed that humans were inherently selfish, or that they should be.
Incredible video, came here after seeing one of your interviews. Im completing the last year of my finance degree now and have trouble with the fact that I consider myself very left economically and I see the ignorance and willful ignoring of the problems in our economy. Thank you so much for this channel, it's very refreshing and your ideas are incredibly well structured.
"Rich people are selfish" is subtly wrong. It would be better to say that selfish people are rich, because we live under a system that rewards those who are selfish.
All people are selfish. Selfishness isn't the problem. Even the most altruistic people are 'selfish'. Selfishness is simply putting your own needs first. This is an evolutionary imperative. Altruistic people satisfy their need to recognise the needs of others. The real problem lies with most people not knowing what constitutes getting their needs met. Interdependence of all things means that you cannot get your own needs met if you ignore the needs of others. Lack of judicious regulation and lack of education are the primary issues causing societal breakdown and increases in inequality.
This is a recurring trend. Right wing policy is almost universally some variation of a self report. Why do you think the far right is so obsessed with screaming about “grooming” and calling the people they hate Pedos? It’s always a confession.
@@Humanity101-zp4sqYou're arguing about semantics and in doing so made a meaningless statement. You see, if according to your definition everyone is selfish, then selfish is not a relevant description of anyone, since it just means human. So pick a new word, try to graps the concept again, and then before posting replace your word with the word selfish so the rest of us understand what you mean.
As always, a super informative video. Society needs to push for economics to become a gcse core subject too. A-Level economics gave me a basic understanding, which developed over time, just through being interested. While I will share this, and talk about it, I can't help but think that so many people who really need to engage, won't do so because they're just not people who want to learn about economics ☹️ That really shows how important it is, to get this message out there, to people who wouldn't know what to do for the best. The people the very wealthy are so very happy to keep in the dark.
This great video drives home the empirical finding in psychology that students who go to study economics come out behaving more individualistically and selfishly than when they started their degree. Class solidarity and empathy is the antidote.
That's part of it, definitely. In the end it's using knowledge and statistics. Your knowledge of the other prisoner's character and the chances he will take the selfish way.
@@jagolago-bobthat's where outside influence comes in. It's far easier to convince someone the other is the enemy if you separate them and bombard them with negativity about the other. The legal forces will do this in the game. There's lots of ways society separates and conditions people's thought in real life.
@@excel04 yes, this is why the ideological right (Trump, Farage, Truss etc) in recent years have got more into the culture wars and woke thing. They want to divert attention from the disbenefits of their libertarian economics and instead create mistrust amd division.
Thatcher convinced the working class not to vote for the welfare of the country, but to concern themselves only with the money in their pockets. She appealed to humanity's innate greed to persuade otherwise thoughtful and kind people to think the way Tories think: Me first. Every man for himself, rather than All for one, one for all. Economics is founded on Adam Smith's notion that the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker are purely self-interested, which tells you a lot about Adam Smith and the class he emerged from.
what the prisoner's dilemma actually demonstrates is why humans naturally form cooperative communities. If we fill out the prisoners dilemma to a still simplified but wider context: if you have 2 communities of 20 people each, and every year two of those people get arrested and have to play the prisoners dilemma game. In one community the two people arrested always cooperate and always get a combination of 2 years in prison, and a second community where one or more of the two people always snitches and those two people always get a total of 10 years in prison. The first community will always have a maximum of two people absent. But after 10 years the second community will have an average of 10 people absent, 50% of its population, and will stay that way forever. If those two communities are in competition for resources the second one with 10 active members will always lose out to the the first with 18 active members. So it's always in the communities interests for those two people to trust each other and not snitch, and because the community as a whole prospers for having fewer people in prison its always in the interests of both individuals to not snitch as well. A community where the culture is that everyone looks out for their own individual interests will always lose out and all members of that community will be collectively less successful when competing with a community that cooperates.
Will comment on every video you post going forward! In anyone else is reading this, this is a huge thing we can all do to propel this message forward 💛💪🏼 more power to you Gary!
You said politicians you’ve spoken to say your theory is not a vote winner. Your videos are great at explaining what’s going on but there’s one big stumbling block. 80% of people are happy to go with the flow and 20% need to win, get promotion, get power . Politicians are the 20% and in your game theory they will always take the selfish option. I think the only way you’ll get people in power (MP’s) to vote unselfishly is if they come from the 80% and unless MP’s are chosen like jurors for example ( a nice even representation of the public ) your fighting a very stiff battle. That said, I wish you all the luck in the world and you’ve got my backing 100%
Those few will change nothing as they have no incentive to do so. They stand to lose so will never be in favour of anything that takes from them. We definitely need a more even representation of the population serving us in Government, not serving themselves. Both major parties might trot out that certain strategies are not vote winners. I am imagine this could be in part due to those who fund them who of course are not the average Joe.
@neilwelch good reply. I can't agree with your major assumptions and percentages though. When people are hurting (for themselves, their family, or others) they start to reason and think carefully. I believe people are more aware than you are stating. And yes, 1. economic conditions are going to deteriorate alongside 2. Climatic and environmental collapse. Alternatively, 3. Another European war. These may be opportunities for civic, political, industrial re-set. Maybe. We know how to live, and have thousands of years of experience and history. But, do we learn? Unfortunately, the resources are always captured by the strongest. Not the best, or most enlightened, or the collective minded. Only the strongest. Humans will still make a pig's breakfast of whatever is left, after even one of the above 3 catastrophes. I wish I wasn't so negative. I just don't believe anyone in politics or local government any more...
Hi Gary, just found your channel via a LBC James O'Brian interview leading to this post on youtube. Excellent stuff mate, very illuminating and I believe so on point. May I humbly suggest you join the Reform UK party and get an interview with Richard Tice, Ben Habib or Nigel Farage. I imagine if you did, both yourself and Reform U.K would be the end of the LIBLABCON stranglehold on the country and the chance to enact your philosophy's on the bigger stage. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to future content, thank you.
Gary is 100% right, and negative gearing that we have in Australia needs to be looked at. What Gary is possibly missing is the real life experience of banks making it very clear to you that you have to focused 100% on making money, be selfish, just so you fit their criteria, their ideal of what kind of client they will support. You usually only get this message when your account is reviewed and the bank thinks your income is not what they think it should be. We like me may not naturally think in selfish terms, but the current reality of the systems that control us makes it impossible for us to act in a selfless way. These systems be it banking, or government are designed to keep us all extremely busy and fragmented, not united as we should, and really need to be.
I really appreciate the effort you put into your campaign Gary. I wouldn't describe my family and I as well off, but more as comfortable. If I'm honest I don't follow your efforts for my own personal circumstance, I follow them because I care. It breaks my heart when I see my friends struggling as a result of the status quo. Keep up all you do, fight for hope!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🎮 Overview of Game Theory* - Game theory is a field of mathematics applied in economics to analyze real-life situations with multiple players and outcomes. - The Prisoner's Dilemma is a famous game used to illustrate selfish behavior and strategic decision-making. - Players aim to maximize their gain by choosing between cooperating and betraying each other. 03:25 *🕵️♂️ Analysis of The Prisoner's Dilemma* - The game presents four possible outcomes based on players' choices: both cooperate, both betray, one cooperates while the other betrays. - Game theory reveals dominant strategies where players maximize their benefits, often resulting in a suboptimal outcome for both. - Despite the possibility of mutual cooperation leading to a better outcome, the dominant strategy often leads to betrayal due to self-interest. 08:12 *🤝 Critique of Game Theory's Assumptions* - Game theory's analysis relies on the assumption of selfishness as the primary motivator for decision-making. - Real-world scenarios may involve factors like trust, loyalty, or social norms, challenging the selfishness assumption. - The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the limitations of solely relying on game theory to understand human behavior. 12:01 *💡 Application of Game Theory to Economic Policy* - The speaker discusses applying game theory concepts to economic policies aimed at reducing inequality and improving living standards. - Political reluctance and public skepticism hinder the implementation of policies beneficial to ordinary people. - Individual decisions to prioritize self-interest or collective action impact the outcome of societal challenges, resembling a macro-level Prisoner's Dilemma. Made with HARPA AI
There is yet another major flaw of prisoners dilemma; that there is an implicit third player - the system - which can (and is) also influenced by at minimum the players. The dilemma as commonly stated assumes good faith in the system - i.e. that it will honor any deal and not act it it's own best interest.
I was thinking about this recently. As someone who has always never had much, where do I put my time and energy? I feel like I keep burning out just trying to scrape by and also my actions are insignificant and inconsequential so what does it matter. Logically I should put all my effort into selfish endeavours until I reach some kind of threshhold where I can spend some time and energy, on what? - trying to convince other people to not be selfish? but then the people that can effect real change are either disinterested or active participants/beneficiaries of the status quo. So, what are the options? if you write to your tory MP everyone knows you can expect snark back, if you protest you are now a criminal. If you talk to your peers, most people are too weary to be politically active or else actively hostile to any kind of egalitarian politics as the current media environment has made alot of ordinary people hostile to anything that sounds like socialism even if they agree with such policies. There are alot of catch 22's in there and I'm sure alot of people feel the same way as me.
I am willing to devote some of my time in an unselfish way. Suggestion: read "The Logic of Collective Action" by Professor of Political Science Mancur Olson. Prof. Olson, by the way began with a very successful career as a data driven commercial economist, who's worth increased only if he was accurate most of the time for his clients. Later in life when he followed his passion into an academic political science career, he was shocked by the lack of rigor in the profession. Most colleagues lacking any useful new data, simply pontificated in books based on their prejudices and conjecture, while Mancur did numerous field studies and followed the direction of the generated data as he had done previously as an economist. In "The Logic of Collective Action", Prof. Olson's conclusion was: the success of any human group's action was fundamentally dependent on the scale (size) of the group. Small groups (approx 3500-ish) were invariably captured by a minority subset of it's members who hijacked the group's resources toward their minority's self serving agenda, which was hidden from the group as a whole. Does this sound familiar ? That's the problem I am working on as time permits. Democracy is a scale problem, not unlike the successful hunter/gatherer tribe scale -vs- the beginnings of agricultural civilization where elites were enabled to fight over control of the collective resources at the expense always of the majority of members.
Great vid, I've only been watching your stuff for a couple weeks and agree with the message. I guess where I'm getting a bit stuck is around practical steps individuals can take to drive a movement like this forward? Other than the obvious of sharing the message etc?
Great video. (Earned my subscription). Some time ago I watched a video speaking of a mathematician that organized a contest to evaluate the outcome of the prisoner's dilemma, not for one single play, but for a round of many consecutive plays... That contest proved that the best strategies to get a good outcome in the long run were the ones that were generous (not gassing first) and forgiving... So, these mathematicians proved, that if you want to build a better society (which involves a lot of "actions/plays") you shouldn't be following the selfish strategy... I am an engineer who has been reading about economics (e.g. Ha-Joong, and others), and I believe the problem has to do with the fact that the "neo-classical/neo-liberal school of thought" is too dominant in academia. In my opinion this school of thought uses wrong/superficial assumptions about many things (human behaviour, production/industry, etc.)... This causes GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)!
Basically its environmental conditioning rather than game theory, in the prisoner dilemma it makes no mention of the conditions and other interpersonal factors that will effect decision making. Outcomes based theories on individual persons based on simplified outcomes only interpretations is just far too removed from reality, just like our current so called economic theories. Contrary to our so called leaders and experts there are values higher on the hierarchy than simple materialism and numbers when it comes to human beings. Values like social cohesion, the social contract, interperonsal relations, personal beliefs, morales and ethics are the foundations of the social building block and by ignoring them we simply get bad outcomes for everyone.
As an international relations masters grad (international political economy) I've done some political and economic game theory and I always found it's foundations so limited. It pretty much limits an extreme limited logic and refuses alternative motives humans have to make some prediction. But in the end it says nothing about the real way people, states, or any actor may interact
I have a higher than average salary but still cannot understand how people like me will vote for low tax and austerity to help their pocket a little bit…I think me voting for funded public services is me being selfish…a positive social environment with lower inequality and higher levels of happiness can only be good for me
We don't. Similar situation to you here. Whenever I say I am voting left people say "they will tax you" and I say 'yes please". My mental health would be in a much better state if I knew everyone was being looked after and there was a social net. We are many more than people think. Just isolated.
It comes down to where is the government getting its money from. If the government paid for its expenses by taxing an equal amount this would be true. If the government however gets its extra money from borrowing, then that money is being borrowed from the rich. And they will only give you that money if they get more back later. Blowout government debts is one of the biggest factors driving the super wealthy getting richer and sucking money out of the people at large. For this to work they actually have to tax the rich, not borrow from them.
"higher than average" probably means you are one of the lucky few that's paid an fair salary. Most salaries are woefully low, and way lower than they should be. Tax wealth, not normal salaries. People on higher than average salaries are not the ones driving up asset prices....
Hi Gary, I’ve only recently come across you but whole heartedly agree with your conclusion and something I came to a number of years ago. As such I used my skill set to bring together the local authority, two universities and a deprived local community and the National Trust to try and regenerate a swathe of the town that I live in. So far it’s going well but I would like to set up an economic model that ensures the buy in of all these parties going forward. Happy to talk about this further if you’re interested. Otherwise keep doing what you’re doing. Best wishes, Carwyn
Capital Gains Tax is set at 10% and is one of the few taxes which directly affects the wealthiest in society (see Rishi Sunak's recent tax bill). Labour announced last week that they have no plans to increase it. Seems to me, that if the masses could be galvanised to support raising it as a major issue to start fixing the economy, then political parties would be more inclined to see it as a vote winning policy. But labour are likely to win the next GE anyway, so things aren't likely to change any time soon.
The political party's rely on your vote, if people work together on mass to message what they want policy to be, things would change. If people want higher taxation for wealth pick a day for people to message their MP. These days it would probably be more visible on social media pages. That is how democracy is surposed to work. What is needed is a point of single direction of that action and enough people to act, a templet of the proposal agreed. The reason for the templet is it would be a uniformed message that shows collective agreement. Let's say 50,000 messages on the same day to a chosen site would be hard to ignore.
I don’t think you understood the point of Prisoner’s Dilemma Gary. If you are only interested in reducing your prison time you should cooperate with the other prisoner so you can both go free. The dilemma is whether you can trust the other person. It’s not an explanation of being “selfish” it’s an explanation of the cost associated with trust. Cheers.
Fantastic explanation Gary. I think a huge part of the challenge in overhauling the system is overcoming that tendency towards essentialism - by which I mean convincing people that they have been trained to be selfish, rather than it being somehow “natural,” which is essentially the central plank of neoclassical economics.
Appreciate your views and your craft Gary. I myself 25yr old working in consulting. I’m at a crossroads, I love reading and learning (would say I’m a philomath). The first ever book I stumbled across for GCSE Economics was Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The first ever book I buy myself with my own money was the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Ive always challenged my own thoughts and perspectives on pretty much everything. Aristotle- the more you know, the more you don’t know. I grew up in Hackney too and seeing how this part of London changed from 2005/6 to now 2024 is pretty crazy. I’ve very much accepted the reality that my purpose in life is to be someone people can count on, enjoy life whilst on this journey to accumulate and own wealth. To what degree I’m “educated” might matter and might not (well it should I think). I think the big question here is (or has always been) is “what type of society do we want for humans?” I’ve spent time pondering this whilst doing my studies what not whatever. Maybe one that is fulfilling, enables us to help and propel future generations to new heights, a full on progressive human civilisation id say. It’s in our nature ever since we evolved or were created by God. My utopia for humanity would be in parallel with this. At the foundation of it all - there is no money. I come from poverty having finished my masters, done an internship and now on a grad scheme - my mum told me “hey, you’re earning more than I’ve ever earned or your father in a year.” That puts a whole lot of fucking shit into perspective. I’m sure many of us have observed this or seen it, but having my mum say that to me I’ll never forget. If we remove money/transactions from society that will solve everything. But can we as humans who “depend” on this system do this??? I’m not too sure. The civilisation we’ve created “won’t” allow for such a supreme change. I don’t know everything and this was my honest 2 cents. Happy for others to challenge my views or express their insight etc. apologies for any grammar or typos I was in the rain when this happened lol.
An open mind is a beautiful thing. Money cannot be replaced there has always been a form of exchange for items that have different value. The problem is in the creation of a system and governence of that system to the point of complete understanding of its simplicity and full disclosure training for every single person. That would rid us of alot of hate and anger peddled through political properganda. We were almost there. The first corruption of modern money was when the USA became the global currency after the brakedown of the Bretton Woods System in 1971. There was ment to be a stand alone global currency for international exchange that never came to be.
I love how you framed this! Maybe a video explaining what philanthropy is actually about (reducing tax bills and improving PR image) could be a good follow up to this one. It’s always seemed bonkers to me that people think ultra wealthy putting a fraction of a percent towards their non-profit foundation will do a damn thing to balance out a broken system.
As a game designer who's worked in the video game industry for 10+ years, I fucking hate game theory. The theory of mind it employs is laughably crude and the lack of imagination it reveals of those who pretend it has real applicability to social interactions is depressing. A game mechanic/design does not exist in a vacuum.
When I discussed with other working class mates what I mostly see is that even though they believe, or already know, what we discuss about inequality, they differ on an another believe; they think that there is no way to change the actual situation. Whatever is the proposal they hear, they just don't believe that's gonna a be a game changer.
In some ways it appears that the United States of America has already done that (~15:30) teaching of people to be greedy and their unequalness has steadily got worse and the wrong side of the unequalness dilemma has increased.
Problem with game theory is that it's based on a rational actor. Human beings are absolutely NOT rational actors. There are entire fields based on this fact, such as psychology, marketing, behavioral economics and many more.
Great video. This is essentially the big, age-old challenge for trade unions in any workplace too. If people stick together there's a good chance they'll improve things but divided the boss has all the power. So ultimately a great deal of it comes down to confidence in collective power. Totally agree it applies to society as a whole too. Reject the idea that we're all atomised individuals. If we have each others' backs we can win!
Many more council's will hit the wall as our system was designed for local councils to be funded by centeral government. Central government however are more interested in holding and increasing market value. People will blame the councils that go first but rest will follow as the situation is unsustainable. Placing the price on residents will only increase this spiralling crisis.
I can't help but feel like you've missed the point of the prisoners dilemma in such profound ways it's hard to even untangle this mess. And I'm not sure if this is due to some attempt to "simplify" things or if this is your genuine take on things. But, first of all, selfishness is irrelevant. It's not an argument for, against or related to selfishness. It's about having reward matrix, it's completely, utterly irrelevant what you value. You value your friends wellbeing, cool, that wellbeing might be a plus on the reward matrix. Prison time is a stand-in for "something you don't want to happen". It makes absolutely no difference if it's personal benefit, or "your mom gets cancer treatment" or "world hunger reduces by 1%" or whatever. It's something you value... And the other person does not. That brings us to, the main point is that this "selfish criminal" or any such player of the game with such reward matrix, would find that co-operation *is the best strategy*. You benefit more from co-operation. Not because you care about the other player and their goals, but because that's the whole point, the whole joke, of this lopsided reward matrix. The best thing, considering what you value, would be to co-operate, but you can't arrange this in any easy way given the constraints of the game. So you predictably do worse than what seems reasonably possible with a bit of shuffling, bit of easing of those constraints.
Reminds me of Daniel Schmachtenberger’s point that there is exactly one wicked problem at the root of the meta-crisis, that if we don’t have a solution to, nothing else will matter: the problem of coordination dilemmas at scale.
What an insightful video. I studied economics myself at a top London university and remember this theory. Never did I think of the assumptions behind the theory or being able to apply this to how modern British people think and are in this dilemma themselves against the rich/powerful. Amazing video, keep it up Gary! 👏
All careerists, no matter what sector, tend to be cynical, self centred and unhappy. If you consider any politician/legislator as being a careerist then it follows that they will not be progressive politically and will take the easy establishment option. Impressively calm and centred presentation. Always appreciate your work Gary at a time of craven leadership across the globe.
Thanks Gary! I am so glad you are speaking up I’ve seen this situation for decades but have never been able to break it down as simply as you do! I really appreciate what you’re doing keep up the good work. Love seeing you on TV hearing truth being spoken out loud is so refreshing.
People on above average income have the capacity to change things but no incentive. People on below average income have to incentive but not the capacity (as they are too busy keeping their heads above water).
I was randomly asked to participate in an economics study when I was in college. They paid you based off of how well you did. I can't remember exactly what the rules were, but I immediately recognized it as a test of game theory. What was interesting is that you could, in a way, force people to go along with you if you're trying to get the best outcome for both of you. They announced everyone's winnings one by one from lowest to highest. Everyone else got less than 10$. I got 50. We all couldve walked out with way more than that, but people are dumb/uneducate. Because I knew what game theory was and how cooperative actions yield better outcomes, I still won a competition, which feels so dumb. It's also dumb that economists think that no one ever sees the benefit of compromise, sacrifice, or cooperation. If those things didn't exist, society wouldn't exist.
If we changed Two tax laws we could make this country better over night. One Set the limit of Inheritance Tax to £5,000,000 before you pay it, reduce it to 10-20%, but close the loop holes. Also give people more options to pay. A friend I worked with was in a insane situation where he had to borrow money to pay the Inheritance Tax Bill before he could inherit the property and sell the property. The banks in that situation crucify you on rates charged as well. The HMRC need to be more flexible with how you pay. Two set a Wealth Tax up as the following; £0 - £10 million - 0% £10 Million - £250 Million - 1% £250 Million - £500 Million - 2% £500 Million - £750 Million - 3% £750 Million - £1 Billion - 4% £1 Billion + - 5% This could be the biggest game changer going.
I HAVE PLAYED THIS GAME IN REAL LIFE I was thirteen year old my mate was fourteen years old got picked up by the police in the question of a missing two pounds 1962 They were going to search us but left the room so my mate took his quid and popped into his mouth and swallowed I did the same with difficulty but got there The cops searched found nothing of course then said we know you did it if one admits it the other can go free ,we will leave you to discuss it , my mate had already done a stretch in Borstal so I took the rap and admitted it ,being the younger and having a clean sheet expecting a light sentence which I got ,a small fine and the return of the money, my mate went halves with the money after the case which made the papers of course BOY EATS POUND NOTES the headlines screamed You will be pleased to know I went straight after that ,who knows ,if I kept up my criminal career I could be a rich and powerful politician today
We only have to look at Norway. Their distribution of wealth is exemplary. Yes, high taxes, but they invest in their people. Of course, they didn't fall for the privatisation trap. But we had Thatcher and all this ridiculous idea of a small government without social services. Taxes are fine when they go back to society, but in the UK they are used to cover up the holes left by people focusing only on profit and not on services. The system protects those evading taxes and living off money laundering. Nothing to be proud of when so many people are in destitution in the UK.
I'm not certain which "economists" you have been reading, but this example is literally used to show the exact opposite - that perfectly "rational" actors (which economists love) *cannot* be selfish, as selfish actors end up worse off in the long run due to their inability to collaborate. As some others have already posted, in the "iterated" version of this game selfishness has been shown to be a losing strategy and "forgiving tit-for-tat" (that is, a strategy where you cooperate, but retaliate once if the other player doesn't cooperate, but sometimes you don't retaliate) is the most effective strategy found. In other words, this game is used to show mathematically that cooperation is beneficial. Economists also work on the related problem that you are wondering about - how do you change incentives so that everyone collaborates in a positive way? PS, the idea that "economics" as a profession uniformly encourages greed and self-interest is a simple narrative pushed by conservatives to make it seem like their ideas have stronger academic backing than they actually do. In reality, there are lots of economists that advocate a broad range of economic policies (from laissez-faire capitalism through to true Marxist-style socialism).
Gary I just found this channel and I want to thank you for this education. I will look through your library and see what I can learn. Thank you Sir for this work.
The assumptions economists make are generally misunderstood, like rational expectations. They aren't supposed to describe every aspect of human behaviour. It is an assumption that is thought to hold up in certain scenarios (and is tested, not just blindly assumed). One area where game theory is used, for example, is when analysing the behaviour of monopolistic firms and oligopolies. In these scenarios, it is assumed the firms will prioritise making profits over anything else. It doesn't rest on the assumption that all humans are selfish. Just that, in certain economic situations, people/firms act in their own interests.
It comes down to awareness. If you know the principles by which the world works you change your actions. But people are fed the lies and they eat them up
Tangent, but does anyone else find it weird how the scenario of the prisoner's dilemma is a really unjust justice system? It is a system of unequal punishment for equal crimes- in fact, whether you did the crime or not is completely irrelevant to the outcome! Also, how can the testimony of someone facing jail time be trusted? It's literally being coerced out of the person! And yet this is the justice system in much of the world...
People all want to return to the "good old days" when ordinary people could afford to buy a house but they forget that the top rate of tax was 83% in 1979 and has been cut by both Labour and Conservatives and is now 39.6%. The tax that ordinary people pay when they spend money has only gone up in the same period from 15% VAT to 20%. I want to return to the good old days of progressive taxation. This has been 45 years in the making it won't be fixed overnight and as long as the government keeps looking at cutting tax then it never will.
you talk about. 'if enough people are willing to act unselfishly' (time stamp 14:57) - you could look at it another way.... the group of ppl who fall into this 'unselfish' group vs the group of selfish - this results in the top right or bottom left scenario - 1 player gets everything the other player gets nothing. - i think thats the reality we're currently in.
I’m working class, from a council estate, went to uni, got a 1st, got into debt in the process, got a decent job (prob the same job I would have got if I’d done an apprenticeship but that’s another story). But I look around me and most people I know from both working and middle seem to think their whole existence is to go to work and earn money, more money and more money and pay into a pension so they can retire at 65. In essence brainwashed and yes selfish as a natural bi product. What a life.
I am behind you 100% and I am sharing people I know will notice you are right and I am with you all the way we need people like you in this world please don't give up
This is a very valuable insight, thank you for sharing that. The interesting part to me is, from an American, a situation where the government is no longer responsive to the will of the average person, or even their constituents. This has been proven in poli sci studies. So just like the prisoner's dilemma assumes a selfish perspective before the analysis even begins, the reality of the political environment only allows decision making for those wealthy enough to influence policy, and those wealthy enough are more likely to act selfishly and unethically than the general public (also proven in several studies). So we find ourself in a game where only the selfish get to decide, through established means, what the rules of the game are, and they then have the dilemma of whether they change the rules to further benefit themselves, or to benefit others. And as the rules become more and more beneficial for those with the most money, those without power become a larger share of the overall population affected by the rules.
I have been very interested in Gary’s message and everything that he says makes sense in identifying the problem, wealth inequality. The part that I would like to hear more about is what happens after. We tax the extremely wealthy.. now all the wealth is in the hands of a government. Great we win.. how does that money rebuild asset diversity among the population? Are we talking wealth redistribution? UBI? Government just holds on to the assets and manages it centrally? or some kind other program that will balance the scales? Getting the wealth from the ultra wealthy sounds like the easy part.
The problem is the unrealistic example of a completely isolated incident. The thing is, life isn't about winning all the interactions. It's in part about being a good player so you're wanted in the next interaction. It's like sport in school. Sure, get all the goals if you want. But don't expect to get chosen next time.
I'm a big fan of your content and really appreciate the hard work you do in trying to make this country better. That being said, I think it does effectively boil down to corruption within the government itself (I believe both major political parties are complicit in this) and the greediness of individuals. To be able to educate people to understand these kind of problems requires work from both institutions and the family unit. Western society in general has adopted the mantra of every person for themselves, i.e., maximising their own happiness/wellbeing/wealth and that is exacerbated by most government institutions and then also the top end of society (the rich who benefit from this). And so I really struggle to figure out a way to help fix these societal issues. Most people just don't want to listen which I don't blame them for because of how much of a struggle it is to just feed their kids and or heat their homes.
The sad thing is that, as far as much of the media and many politicians are concerned, it is far easier and more profitable to be selfish than it is to be fair or altruistic.
I love this video. I’ve watched it 3 or 4 times over the past few months. It’s stirring stuff and makes me want to take action. Your words are getting through. Please keep banging your drum for this most worthy and necessary of causes. I believe you have what it takes to lead this army. I for one would fight alongside you (and I’m generally a pretty impassive kind of chap). I can see and feel the danger of the ever-increasing wealth divide. Something has to change. The only positive of the current situation is that the worse it gets, the more your position resonates. Everyone has a breaking point and you need to trigger that breaking point. Strength in numbers is all we have.
Gary suggests that people should:
- Educate themselves about the economy.
- Work towards collective betterment by understanding societal issues.
- Act in unselfish ways to counteract the influence of selfishness.
- Protect ordinary people from exploitation by the powerful and wealthy.
- Engage in collective action to address societal challenges, such as inequality.
About 12 years ago I played a version of this on a management training course at a place called Ashorne Hill in Warwickshire. I was studying for a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. They presented it as “red or blue” and there were 4 groups of people who were supposedly 4 departments of a business. Everyone voting Red meant the company made money, everyone voting blue meant the company lost money, with points in between where individual departments made money at the expense of everyone else. There were 10 rounds of voting and an opportunity for negotiation after rounds 2,5,8 and 9 with round 10 being worth 3 times as much.
Sorry that’s quite verbose but the people running the course said I’d come up with a solution that they’d never seen before which effectively broke the game. I convinced all the other groups to swap their voting sheet so that no one possessed their own and everyone was voting in someone else’s interest. It immediately caused every group to vote red flawlessly.
I appreciate that doesn’t necessarily translate to the prisoners dilemma as with that there’s no opportunity for negotiation but I thought I would share this story because I genuinely believe the only way out of this mess is if we can rediscover the sense of community that was taken away from society gradually under thatcher.
Beautiful!
This is an example of the use of John Rawls’s veil of ignorance so that in order to vote red or to set up the just society, one does not know one’s position in life and then one votes red, which is for the best interests of others.
This is an example of the use of John Rawls’s veil of ignorance as you ddi not vote for your own interests but for the interests of others. Hence every one voted red.
Thanks for this. I've not formally studied the Humanities so had no idea there was a name for such a concept.
Rawls’ veil of ignorance can be considered a way to build a just society in terms of justice as fairness
I always thought that a Prisoner's dilemma provides more commentary on an information deficit than "selfishness". If you were able to communicate or receive information about your fellow Prisoner's choice, then the game immediately crumbles and you likely both make a decision in the collective interest.
It is the lack of cooperation and/or communication that makes the Prisoner's dilemma more compelling.
It makes you see why powerful or rich people wish to "divide" the population into isolated groups who do not organise or communicate around issues.
Came here to say the same thing but you said it very well already 👍
Came here to say the same thing but you said it very well already 👍
Top analysis, thank you. Yes, it's classic divide and conquer.
Excellent point! We would be much more empathetic and selfless if we were able to communicate and break the barriers between communities and people.
Unfortunately Thatcher's motto "there's no such thing as society" has had long standing consequences in this country and needs to be thrown in the bin where it belongs.
That's why they hate unregulated social media - especially tiktok
I’m a primary school teacher in East London and every day I see how children are drawn to the idea of doing good and being kind to others. The reality is that these young souls and minds are growing up in a city saturated with marketing, depicting a world they feel they need to aspire to. While at the same time, growing up with real hardship so, the idea of making lots of money for oneself is going to be the number one priority. I don’t know how we can say to people who have grown up in poverty or hardship that some of the aspirations that are out there are false ones. Those who are wealthy can do their bit to help, however benevolence is not and should never be the preserve of the rich! How can those who live in poverty be more empowered and gain more agency? Education is one way. The question is, how, in this current system?
Wrong question? We have to change the system. Neoliberalism cannot do it, by design. One move is to understand the monetary system, when we do then a Job Guarantee is possible with price stability. This means no one needs to be prostituting themself to get a decent job at a decent living wage, or kowtowing to a boss, and bullsh1t jobs get crowded out, so everyone benefits. But this ain't gonna happen under the neoliberal paradigm.
so it's the rich people corrupting the childrens minds with marketing, yet you still find a way to claim the rich do more to help others than the poor.
This is a strange perspective.
I have noticed poorer people are much more likely to give charity to individuals than richer people.
Alrhough you live in England which is the source of a lot of the pain in my home country so perhaps people are different there...
@@DaleIsWiggingI think you have misunderstood me. I agree with you entirely.
@@DaleIsWigging didn't say the rich do more than the poor in helping others. Btw, how is England still the source of a lot of pain in your home country? I can imagine but there aren't many countries like that still where collective memory is that distinct or fresh? Please advise/inform if u will.
@@18_rabbit The main brutal colonial period of Australia was later than many other countries, only 100-200 years ago that's people's grandparents and great grandparents. After that there were still a lot of kidnappings and not allowing the natives to participate in society.
Many native people do not have as much inheritance/family money/assets as other families because they have only been allowed to work for the last 50 years. There is no independent foreign policy, we blindly follow britain in it's new clothes (america). There are still clear funding differences and categorical differences when choosing whether white or black states get funding/power. There are still major violations of land that they claim to have given back, like removing rights and approving mining. There is still a large amount of deaths of Aboriginal children in gaol (jail).
And as a native plant lover, it is clear the places with more non Aboriginal population tend to clear the land more, the english didnt even cultivate our awesome tasting plants, I cant even buy my own countries fruit at the shop, thats a really strange feeling when you get a craving hahah.
There are still (some) places where people shoot blacks on sight and police dont investigate crimes against them, but thats partially due to size of the land.
Even if one pretends like all the colonialism has ended (and hasn't just been better hidden) Not enough time has passed for Australia to have adjusted to a fair society without major reperations of some kind.
It's more interesting when you play this game repeatedly. The most effective strategy is _"Forgiving Tit-for-Tat"._ You cooperate with any new player by default, you only punish them if they screw you over, but then you forgive them when they start playing fairly again. Which is actually a pretty good model for morality and human relationships.
The strategy is a nice explanation for the development of cooperation and "high-trust" societies. But I think it can only work with roughly equal players. Most people knew that owners of corporations are exploited them, yet they are still looking for works in the same corporations anyway, because they need a job.
@@Account.for.Comment That would be interesting to test in the same way as the original contest.
What would happen when some players are more "powerful" and some players are more "desperate"?
What would happen if players could communicate about the reputations of other players, and form allegiances?
Would the optimal strategy change? I think it might remain broadly the same (as it seems to in nature). But maybe with some important subtle modifications.
Watched the veritasium video about game theory huh?
@@andybrice2711 in nature and human society, it became the Selectorate Theory of Politics. Dictators and powerbroker did not cooperate with the masses. They cooperate with a few cronies or voting blocks. The fewer the better, the more optimal for leaders to retain. On the other hand, the least optimal strategy for leaders, is the more optimal strategy for the masses.
That the causes of the inequality we have now. Politicians who kept a smaller set of rich billionaires happy are more secured in their position than the ones that try to keep the masses fed.
@@florentin4061 I'm pretty sure I've seen that, yeah. Though the idea's been around for a long time.
I remember learning about Game Theory from _"The Trap"_ circa 2007 and thinking _"Well that sounds evil."_
And then watching a Ted Talk by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita circa 2009 and thinking _"Actually that sounds really interesting."_
Then I think I learned about Axelrod's contest from a book which heavily quoted _"The Origins of Virtue"_ but I can't figure out what it was.
When I learnt this in university, it was noted that obviously in real life most people don't betray their friends. The way most game theorists actually analyse this kind of situation is in a recurring game. I.e., the same game played out over and over again. If the game is indefinite, so the players do not know when it is going to end, it turns out the best strategy is to co-operate, which makes intuititve sense.
Excellent episode. Very insightful. An example of training people to be anti-social: I paid for a day of parking in a forest park, but suddenly had to leave for some reason. I tried to give the parking stub to someone else. I paid for the spot for the full day, so it would be nice not to let it go to waste. Then I noticed it said on the stub that it was non-transferable. They used licence plate recognition to enforce it. Players are not allowed to help players. It is against the rules
A good example! Here is another... I was shopping in Tesco and forgot my clubland. I asked the lady next to me, can I please use yours? You get more points and I save a couple quid. She said, no, you should get your own! Perhaps she thought I was scamming her in some way, I just wanted a half price smoothie
Disgustingly greedy.
Yep great example. There are criminals who devote there time to trying to scam vulnerable people out of there money, those people are rightly vilified but there are so many legal scams that try to trick people into buying extras they don’t need . Booking a flight on an budget airline based in Ireland is a typical example
See? As soon as something as banal as parking is digitalis, our Freedom to be autonomous decision makers is erased.
Be warned. God won't help us when Chat GPT runs our banking, our social services, our jobs and our industrial food chain. Tears before bedtime
Even auto correct put 'digitalis' into my text when I actually typed DIGITALISED
Maybe it's because I'm autistic, but it's genuinely bevildering to me that people use the prisoner dilemma as an example for people's inherent selfishness and not, you know, a malicious system designed to incentivize selfishness.....
@arimolyki What are you talking about ...? Two of the main assumptions of game theory is the set of von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms and their corresponding representation theorem. It's baked into the prisoner's dilemma that we're utility maximizers as an assumption of the problem.
Also, it's no big revelation that the prisoner's dilemma is set up for you to choose to screw over you're friend... it's a competitive game - there's plenty of cooperative games as well; eg, coordination games
There are a good study about that with changing rules and repetition and different strategies. According to the rules being nice or retaliate is more efficient than being an asshole. The dilemma prisoners is really not a good example of game theory (like saying that water melt at 100° is all what physic and chemistry has to offer.
If both players are motivated by self-interest and believe the other to be too, surely the correct approach is S (one year).
The offer of zero years if you G is rescinded if the other player Gs too.
The decision should account for the bait-and-switch when the other player's decision is included.
I like how the comments on the original comment all function as meta on the original comment (and the video as a whole). A system like the prisoner dilemma in the real world would inevitably have been designed by one party (the police side) to incentivise either painful or harmful outcomes to the participants from the other (suspect) side. So here's a system built around the premise that the community option that also serves you best is the one that carries the highest risk of the harshest punishment, in fact to qualify for the harshest punishment you have to choose not to rat your friend out. And so is the premise of the dilemma a narrowly designed system: again your main problem seems to be whether or not your friend is likely gonna rat you out, how bad you want to think of them, instead of asking: what is wrong with that system?! Please abstain from explaining the rules of the dilemma, I understood it the first time. I'm trying to say: please watch the video for real!
More accurately it's a malicious system designed to punish cooperation.
We also have to teach our kids the other side of the coin. That it is OK to look out for each other that it is OK to think and act collectively. This is a long term problem which is going to require a long term solution, we need to engage with young people now as it's going to be their generation and the generations beyond them that this will affect the most and let's be honest, they aren't going to be taught this in our current schooling system.
GREAT WORK AS ALWAYS GARY, thank you! 👍🏻
Good luck with that if you tear them away from their all absorbing and brainwashing social media. Facebook has more contact with your kids than you do.
The industry whether intentionally or not is making a phoneless life impossible.
I’d go further, it’s not just OK, it’s the long term solution, it might feel like kindness but it’s ultimately self interest. That’s why all the institutions we have/had existed, these problems have been addressed and understood in the past.
Not just OK... Necessary!
The only solution is collective organisation and it will happen in the coming decades. People are already starting to wake up to the global jewish regime and racial awakenings are occurring all across the western world.
Thats basically why unions in the economy are so important, because they have the power of collective bargaining and standing up against corporations. Thats why your current government is trying to discredit and work against unions.
I agree. The push toward individualism for the working masses and collective action for the powerful is broadly fueling many of our social problems today and much of that is due to the perspective modern economics has. Whether a person's position is correct or incorrect is often not as important as the perspective they bring to a problem. If one begins with the assertion that people are individual units seeking to optimize their own situation in every case, then "social" problems become invisible as from that initial perspective there can be no such thing as society or community. It's just a group of individuals. It denies the possibility of emergent mass behavior as well as the world we see right in front of our faces.
It feels like just when economics and finance have become extremely intertwined and systematized in our society, economists understand it even less than their predecessors a hundred to two hundred years ago.
Agreed. However Unions in Australia became greedy & entitled (union members corrupted)... I remember builders paid to down tools for poetry readings, jobs passed on from father to son, salaries+bonuses astronomical. It became a barrier for multinationals setting up in our country.
Similar to how they are in the US. Unless you are related or have a very strong connection to someone in the Union you'll never get in. Specifically trade unions seem to be intentionally keeping supply low to increase pay. It reminds me of Gary's description of Citibank.
The real world experience with Unions is that game theory is correct about human selfishness. Usually the leaders of the Union have positions that they keep for life, they put family and friends in some positions of power within the union. Those organization eventually go corrupt
Unfortunately it seems that a lot of the rank and file union members in the US have lost the plot and thrown in with a man who will destroy them.
So if ordinary people can learn that simple game 'The Prisoners Dilemma' from game theory, they could then go onto change the variables in their heads to 'Public Interest'/'Private Interest'. Genius Gary, you are showing us we need to change the way we think.
This change in personal to collective labelling needs promoting for people to grasp the ramifications. Unions are the best example of the collective working for the benefit of all.
Edit. I note that Union membership is on the rise by significant numbers. A positive sign.
as long as the operator is a divider, it is "probably" not the most likely way to accomplish this mission ... ('Public Interest'/'Private Interest') ...
@@michellebyrom6551 Yes, game theory is a good mathematical system to see how relations between competing interest groups work. This doesn’t mean it promotes selfishness. Like all mathematical models, it can be taken advantage of by whoever can beneficially use it. Sure, the cources teaching about game theory usually give examples of two companies making a deal or a dispute between two friends. But the same model can be used to show a fight between organised workers and selfish businessmen. It is the politics that’s corrupt, not math. People should stop thinking about selfish interests or hedonism any moment they see numbers.
"It's not that our policies suck - it's the people who are stupid!"
The complaint used to be "why are people voting against their best interests, are they dumb?!" and this guy takes it a step further - "people should stop trying to vote in their best interests".
"Vote for me, I'll sacrifice your individual interests for the greater good!" - it's a bold strategy, let's see how it plays out.
There is another parable that illustrates the point here called the 'allegory of the spoons'. Both in heaven and in hell, people are given access to food, but the spoons are too long and unwieldy to serve oneself. In hell, the people only try to serve themselves, and consequently starve. In heaven, the diners feed one another across the table and eat well. An interesting thought experiment here though, is if you imagine that there are rich and poor at the table of heaven. Yes, the rich need to feed the poor, but in return the poor also needs to feed the rich. You could then supplant wealth with intellect, athleticism, health, wit, wisdom, benevolence, leadership etc. Non of these things will exist in equal measure around the table. So a fair, but never exactly equitable, exchange is required, because we all have very different plates of food to offer each other. The intellect, disciplin, organisation and leadership skills of an entrepreneur feeds differently equipped people with employment. Their labour feeds the entrepreneur with production capacity and so on.
Selfishness, it seems to me, is greatly increased by fear and especially fear of scarcity. Whether intended or not the continued acceptance of a level of poverty in any country is maintaining this level of fear and so preventing people from working together to improve their lives as a community. Along side the fear is the centralising of power which increases the fear as the options for making things better are reduced and the sense of powerlessness increases desperation. As the prisoner's dilemma demonstrates the best outcome is to cooperate. Funnily enough, fear is not the preserve of the poor. Nearly everyone fears losing what they have and the market, though rigged in favour of wealth, is fickle. Certainty as a way of dispelling fear is an illusion. It can never sustain. Trust, on the hand, is something we can nurture and grow and provides an antidote to fear and a way of working together to achieve a more equal society.
The concept of scarcity is used as weapon. If people can be convinced that resources are in short supply, and that an unspecified 'other' wants to take what you are entitled to, this feeling can be used to create division in the society. The more nebulous the 'other' the more fear is generated.
It's always easier to fight an enemy you can see. When the 'enemy' is hidden behind innuendo, half-truths and wrong assumptions, it becomes much more frightening. This fear of the unknown can push people into committing unspeakable acts, which can be rationalised and justified with statements like "I was protecting my culture/family/way of life/rights, etc.
There is no money is another fear they propel, while demonising the very state that can provide expenditure for investment on demand of government.
@curmudgeon Agree, your post is very well put. Of course, if the Billionaires become aware of a movement of voters who want to tax, redistribute, or cap their earnings, they will feel great Fear too and will do anything in their power to resist or even destroy such proposals.
Unless they can perceive the necessity to share their wealth.
nNOOOO Selfishness is not because of fear -- you wish that is true.
This was covered in the Trap by Adam Curtis. All the people at RAND chose the selfish option but all the secretaries chose the unselfish option. Such an amazing documentary series, definitely recommend watching them.
-So the RAND people argued that the secretaries must be _irrational_ for not acting selfishly like them. You can't make it up
‘The Trap’ (Adam Curtis) is a ‘must see’.🎥🌷
Thank you Gary for your voice of reason! I’ve seen firsthand a more and more pervasive of ‘Americanisation’ of Britain. I was raised in the US but have mostly lived in the UK since 1991. I only stepped into work and tax paying life in 2001. It’s been one unsupportive and disenfranchising experience after another in my sector of first, education and the arts, and now, self employment in food and hospitality. There is still huge support from people, to counteract the lack of government support, but wallets are getting stretched!
I agree
I find it weird that people get uppity over supposed Russian or Chinese influence on UK and even stuff about Islam but seems totally oblivious to the huge influence of USA
USA is a different situation. American money rebuilt UK after the war and Americans protect UK militarily. 🇺🇸 and 🇬🇧 are allied. 🇬🇧 is not allied with Russia, China, or Islamic countries. @@keithparker1346
@@keithparker1346 Did China ever do anything bad to the UK? It has always been used by corrupt politicians as a scapegoat to divert hatred.
If you haven't seen it Adam Curtis' documentary The Trap is a must watch, it talks about John Nash and the history of game theory and how notably their attempts to prove the theory in the real world repeatedly failed because it turns out people are not automatons that neatly fit their simulations, and have this curious tendency to cooperate. The only ones that played the game as predicted were the economists themselves, but it didn't stop them trying to make it the foundational principal of our modern world.
"it's not a vote winner" says the labour party, which may tell you about whose vote they're after. Not every vote is equal, and mine isn't as important as, for example, the owner of a newspapers.
Well, that's not strictly true. Your vote and that owner's vote have the same value. But his opinion influences more voters than yours does, so they're looking to get the newspaper owners to instruct their editors to go after the other mob.
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t that depends mainly on where the two of them live. Since the UK is FPtP, some votes count for a lot more then other. Sadly
I can't think of a single occasion in history where there has been a drastic reduction in inequality outside of war, plague or starvation so I doubt Gary's proposal will work the way he wants it to. So I would say to educated Westerners. Get out, find a cheaper place to live. Return when the dust settles.
@@GreenLarsen Firstly, if you were actually looking to land that in the net of proving me wrong, well done on hitting a spectator in the back row of the stand.
Second, that difference is *trivial* unless one is voting in the Isle of Wight and the other in Lochaber.
The issue is that the owner of a newspaper has the power to influence tens if not hundreds of thousands of floating voters, which is why political parties are metaphorically deeptrhoating them.
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t I think you misunderstood my post, as we are in fully agreement towards the power news media wield and by extension the power the owners sadly have. My point was simply that beyond that part of inequality, the UK voting system is also broken and will reward some 3-4 times more power compared to others, simply due to where they live.
Thanks Gary for your engagement for a better society. Keep on. BRAVO
It reminds me of a medical papers I saw studying neurodivergent people and their inability to lie. A medical team asked neurodivergent ppl if they would do something 'wrong' that would benefit them, under the conditions of ppl would know what they did and nobody would know. Apparently neurotypicals in the study mostly answered they wouldn't do it if ppl knew but would if nobody found out. Nuerodivergent ppl refused regardless. The conclusion of the paper calls it a flaw of neurodivergent ppl to be unwilling to cheat, lie or steal.
My take was always, why do you think that's a good trait to have? to be willing to betray cheat and steal. I think this is the problem with capitalism, it influences ppl to only care about profiteering and nothing else.
That study is nonsense, one of the most dodgy, willing to steal, persons I know is neurodivergent.
Agree. The definition of is "doing the right thing - even when no one is watching !
Yeah, no one ever stole before capitalism. It's not like selfishness was an evolutionary advantage or anything.
When someone can lie it is beneficial for him as he has more options (you dont have to use it). And lying is not always a bad thing, you might get yourself into some bad situation with some attacker or something and maybe you could get yourself out of some trouble by carefully planning what you are saying, or using a well planned lie.
I've been so inspired by you this year and please don't stop because the effects will ripple through society. I'm a maths teacher and I didn't know the first thing about personal finance or economy before you did that first Novara media interview. Now I've signed up for financial teacher training with the intent of permanently adding it to our curriculum for 11-18 year olds. Together we will make a difference.
Governments understand Game Theory. Thatcher's right to buy council homes. Cameron's loans to first time buyers. Both of these were to appeal to people to scramble over others to gain a personal advantage over others - while jettisoning any attached moral aspect of what leveraging those policies meant as a societal impact. In the same way that people working in corporate jobs being offered private healthcare packages would not stop to consider that if all companies offer private healthcare to all employees - what does this mean in terms of creating a two tier healthcare system - and an ideological divorce of ordinary people from protecting the NHS, effectively selling out poorer income families all over the country. We can't blame the participants in these situations because, a.) they're not to blame, b.) they have zero concept most likely of how they are being used to help achieve a corporate or political aim. I love that you're airing this concept of connected responsibility for each other, because in it's essence, the way that bonds are broken between us, is how we all lose over time. Conversely, our uniting is the antidote and path to achieve a fairer society for all. I think you should send out a questionnaire to all your followers and ask them what skills they have, and if they have any free time to commit. We all have useful skills, or we can learn useful skills from each other - in pursuit of using our time to pool awareness and bring clarity to a wider audience in service to a higher goal. But in order to do that you have to be clearer about how and what we are trying to achieve, Because if people can't see what they're working towards, there will be nothing to sustain them in that struggle.
also Thatcher said greed is good. also right wing media reinforce this by creating the picture of us and them, welfare recipients stealing your hard earned tax money
This!! Exactly this. The problem, is that everyone is going to have vastly different environments (I for instance am an American), so "what to do" becomes harder to pin down. The solution to this is to find common ways people can help, and to show people how they can search for them
Old person here: thank you for coming back to help those "on the back of the train track". You're dad would be proud.
Wow, up for 40 mins and already over 1000 views. We're all ready to do want we can, thanks Gary.
From a previous post I can see the newspapers and media are definitely 100% going to come gunning for you by ridicule and name calling eg communist/socialist. It's already started. 😵💫😧
From fascist leaning papers that's a compliment.
If they aren't demonising you, your probably not being effective.
I remember in my economics program wondering why all the thought experiments revolved around either prisoners, pirates or a guy stuck on a desert island alone. At some point the ideological narrative embedded in it clicked… you are alone, you are selfish and so is everyone else.
We didn't learn the prisoner's dilemma in econ. It was taught in my pure math course.
@@petertayler1712 interesting. Game theory had its own course in my Econ program. The interesting thing was very few people seemed to actually apply any of its conclusions to what we were learning in micro and macro Econ courses, e.g. whether the concept of the “suboptimal” Nash Equilibrium conflicts with the notion that “free” markets arrive through supply and demand at the optimal level of production and cost. And so on 😅.
Thank you for this and all your videos Gary!
Wealth tax? Absolutely 💯!! At the moment we have a "Poor Tax" with the tax thresholds being so low & no sign of them being realistic in the near future! Pensioners like me with very low income (ie. under £15K a year, in a time when apparently £20K is the minimum needed for a life....) are now being taxed, while receiving benefits!!! Bonkers! High rents, exorbitant food prices, highly taxed petrol, high heating costs etc. = poverty for millions of all ages. It's wrong! So wrong!
Yet our voices are being censored.... 😠
Censorship is part of the problem. We have to discuss issues in forums like this without naming the issue or openly criticising it. Euphemisms are necessary for most adult conversations, yet none of them are needed to protect innocent children.
So really what you are pushing back against is the Thatcherite premise that there is no society only individuals working in their own interests. Or divide and conquer. I agree with you totally
@lebyrom6551 Agreed - censorship and control of information (propaganda) are an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the problem... and an undeclared war is being manifestly waged to intimidate and punish those who "legitimately" call into question the zealous stripping away of what citizens in supposedly democratic societies have hitherto been encouraged to regard as their fundamental rights.
They want our markets. Then pay the taxes. Currently we subsidise their overheads and profit margins. They won't fkin leave. This is their marketplace. If they do leave great. The markets still there for the opportunity of others willing to pay.
It was Margaret thatchers enthusiasm for 'social atomism' during her reign that helped create more competition amongst individuals. "There is no such thing as society" she famously said.
The antitode is raising class consciousness of the merits of cooperation and how excessive competition makes us poorer - as in this video.
I would also recommend Alfie Khon's book 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' which expands on what Gary is talking about here.
so funny that it’s called „social atomism“ bc honestly, taking this term very literally, even atoms come together at some point as molecules if it’s more beneficial for them. is class solidarity only (yet another) privilege allowed for the superrich? margaret thatcher surely was thinking of the upper class society she was part of, when she secured tax cuts for her and her superrich corporatist friends. funny how that kind of solidarity is alright, but middle class ppl are taught the opposite. „rules for thee, not for me“ strikes again!
To make it work:
1) Make it super easy to understand the 'Tax the Wealth' movement.
- A summary video that explains your theory (including how you propose to tax the wealthy and redistribute) and what people need to do.
2) Make the actions required as simple and undemanding as possible (so people don't have to be excessively unselfish)
- Register on a website (60 seconds). Includes commitment (when critical mass reached) to only vote for a party that will tax wealth.
- Commit to talking to 6 other people, showing them the video and getting 3 of them to register and take the actions required. (30 minutes- my estimate based on my friends and family- mainly family).
- Share on social media (will vary from 10 seconds to many hours depending on resource & commitment)
Get famous people and academics involved.
Basically above is a benign selling pyramid.
3) Make it easy to to see progress
Make it easy to see numbers rack up by county, city, postcode etc.
4) Make it easy to get organised
Use registrations to form a database and organise on social media and IRL
5) Use database to let people know when and how to vote. Our dysfunctional FPTP system makes timing key- get it wrong and could end up helping the Party least likely to tax wealth.
I'd sign-up and talk to 6 people today.
Back in the day trade unions provided free education. Night-schools,, meetings, actually the Govt of NZ and Australia provided excellent free education and free tertiary education prior to 1980 .
The neo liberal economics was taken up with great gusto by the right of centre politicians and state owned assts were sold to the private sector.
Unions were extinguished and workers were encouraged to be entrepreneurial and pay there own wages. The finance sector was deregulated and the the new owners of public assets lead the lambs to the slaughter.
Your videos provide much needed education on how the monetary and wealth systems now function .
I’m grateful for your knowledge sharing
@user-s Agree. Greetings from Auckland New Zealand. Our country has been utterly ruined by Thatcherite, neo-liberal policies.
And the myth of globalisation.
Our healthy manufacturing industries gutted by competition from Asian countries.
Our Brain Drain continues - Our best and brightest leave for bigger and better opportunities in every field.
There's no work here, we have sold our best stuff.
I wish we'd had more understanding of the Scandinavian way of life and their way of looking after their economies and citizens.
There's a flipside to that scenario, too.
In a situation where you really don't like or trust them, then the worst that can happen isn't prison. If you snitch and he doesn't, then he's in jail for 10 years, but he knows you did it and will retaliate. If you both snitch, then you're stuck in prison with a violent psychopath for 5 years. If you don't snitch and he does, then you're in prison for a long time, but your wife and kids aren't killed. This is what you're told the mafia do. Fear, violence and intimidation replace trust. People are going to act selfishly, but selfish interest is to avoid horrible things happening. And because nobody talks or they risk their death and everyone else's, actually it's much easier to get away with things. Also, there is organisation. Even the most brutal and selfish of all people have to come to some kind of arrangement where things work, or they're alone, and it doesn't work.
Part of the issue with game theory is that it's about forcing people into a situation where they're forced to be cold and calculating, instead of being in a situation that's about forming relationships and creating beneficial arrangements.
-------------------------------
Also, other games exist that are also interesting to consider.
For example, both sides know that there is no evidence, but they're being told that they must name someone. Both sides can understand the lack of evidence and see through the trap the police have laid. There's no evidence, don't talk, you're free. But, the police lay this trap all the time, because putting people under pressure and forcing them into making a decision can be very productive for them.
Take a totalitarian state. This game is constantly being played, but the interesting thing is that it's being played repeatedly. Your neighbour didn't do anything, but the police are asking you to condemn them. You know this, but if you speak up on their behalf the police may come for you. If you say nothing, then the police might let them go or might take them. If you speak up because you hate them, then often there is some benefit to you (e.g. you can take their land). But then, if you choose not to condemn, people may decide that you're not devoted to the cause. If you choose to condemn, people may turn on you for being overeager. It also matters in this game where you are in the totalitarian curve. If you're at the start, then this never gets off the ground and you save the world. If you speak up and it's too late, you have no freedom of expression, and you're dead.
Whereas, a normal society more closely reflects the prisoner's dilemma, as played out over multiples of games. Forming relationships and making mutually beneficial decisions helps everyone, but also rewards that can do that the best. Put in a position where people might rob you, you have to then work out how to cooperate intelligently, but cynicism also doesn't prosper.
Or the abstract situation where we have to decide how people are going to be treated. At every step, we have no stake, except
that this can be us sometime. It works whether we like the people or not, whether we think that we're really going to be in the situation or not. We're constantly being asked to make that decision, regardless of whether it was required.
Or the royal dilemma. Yes, the peasants are subject to your whims, but if you're not capable of maintaining a sense of fairness and honour in the system, then they might rebel. Just because there is no equality doesn't mean that inequality is a good thing. At the same time, exploiting inequality is the job of a medieval king. Doing it well means rewarding their people, and keeping their kingdom. Do it badly, and the kingdom is lost and the peasants put to the sword.
---------------------------------
One of the important problems with game theory is that even in games of economic rationality, even trained statisticians and economists don't act as rational economists. There is a whole field of economics that demonstrates that. But we immediately snap back to that idea when we're told to understand the economy. It's just easier not to care if you see people making poor choices as just preferring to starve. It's easier to say that poor people are voting for their own interests when they make poor choices, rather than to question the validity of being offered those choices in that way, with that sales pitch.
Also, there's the abstract nature of the actual dilemmas we have politically. We are almost never given the simple binaries of thought or action that we're told to believe exist in these kinds of games. Even in places where there might be those binaries, we don't actually get to push either button. And they rarely have direct or obvious consequences.
Which leads to the next part of that, people are then able to abstract away responsibility for what happens. Nobody voted to do the horrible things that happened, they've always voted for the other things, or because the other guy was worse. So, they never have to take stock. And we're given incentives not to believe that things will be bad anyways. And uncertainty just makes it easier to say that we didn't choose the bad thing on purpose.
Well, the other issue with the prisoner's dilemma is that it's presented as a single round the game, which is not reflective of any real situation. Once you begin an open-ended iteration of rounds of the game, a system with rational actors tends to determine that the strategy of grassing as default to be perhaps the least effective strategy; cooperation by default with equivalent retaliation (tit for tat) is in fact generally the most effective and sustainable. With iteration, the only time grassing/defaulting is an optimal strategy is if you *know* for certain that a certain round will be the last.
"The only power the ordinary people have to protect themselves from the rich and the powerful is that there are a lot of them." that was brilliant and spot on.
Yes, very true, there are millions and millions of us.
It is already apparent to the Mega Wealthy too.
I was following another RUclips series about Climate Change and humanity's Carbon footprint problem. Someone posted
"WE are the carbon they want to reduce."
A simple and chilling thought.
World War III anyone?
Adam Curtis examines the cold psychopathic selfishness in Nash's version of game theory in his film "Fuck Your Buddy"
You got a link to this please?
ruclips.net/video/fbQcqJh52U8/видео.htmlsi=ldxBDzMb_b2GdJFn
@@Syphil23 it’s on iPlayer
@@Syphil23 On youtube under title: The Trap (2007, Adam Curtis) - Cap. 1 Fuck you, buddy (Sub. español)
@@Syphil23 Sure, it's part 1 of The Trap 2007 a very interesting series
ruclips.net/video/prd68ZGg83A/видео.html
Let's assume people are selfish. Therefore, people are selfish.
As most of Garys videos concentrate on wealth inequality (Fantastic by the way) caused by asset accumulation by wealth especially in the housing market, need to make some statements before discussing possible solutions, Would love to see some videos on solutions as Gary does a great job explaining the cause:
1) Demand for housing is always going to be inelastic (everyone wants to own a family home or a place to live for that matter) therefore as price increases people will pay. It's similar to healthcare in regards to if you are going to die you will more than likely pay whatever price is demanded to cure you. In a hierarchy of wants a place to live is just below, not being ill & food and water.
2) Supply of houses is fixed in the short term and the current building of new houses (increasing supply) is limited mainly by policies preventing on land (We like the countryside, everything has a tradeoff).
3) The cost of physically building a house is the same no matter where you build it (within reason), it's the land that is the truly a scare resource that is increasing in value. If you're a property owner your increase in value comes from scarity of land. If you cut supply i.e property owners don't sell with increased demand i.e increasing population. Prices go up.
4) If property and rent increase this causes a flow of capital(money) from those seeking to buy and rent to property owners. This flow of money from those who would usually spend it (consume) will dampen spend elsewhere in the economy. I.e If I have to spend 50% my income for 40 years paying a property owner when 30 years ago I would have to have spent 25% of my income over 30 years this will have a dramatic effect on the economy. This leads to reduced demand for goods and services leading to fewer jobs.
5) Inflating property prices does not help the economy. It locks capital in a inefficient asset that doesn't increase productivity (i.e number of good and services we can produce dosn't change with increased investment). We want a tax system that causes a shift in what asset classes are invested away from rent seeking. The overall aim is grow the economy and make sure everyone can benefit.
Therefore a policies should:
1) Increase the supply of housing -> reduce the price of houses
2) Decrease the available return of property as a investment-> Prevent hoarding of rent seeking behaviour on property and shift to investment in productive asset classes
3) Not punish owners of single properties ownership i.e not punish those that want to own a property to live in.
Some suggestions (this is a youtube comment section and each one needs a full exploration of tradeoffs):
1) Increase tax on property as an investment, this is very hard to do. Most investment properties are held by offshore companies in 0% tax countries. Therefore would suggest UK property has to be held by a UK Company as a starter. All rent and capital gains held by these companies should be taxed at x%. At the moment tax is not paid on most investment property due to being held offshore so a starter would be make sure it's at least taxed.
2) Decrease red tape on brown field land and reduce taxing of profit on new builds increasing supply.
3) Make productive asset classes more attractive, tax-efficient to invest in. I.e 5 year tax free on UK start ups, 0% tax on infrastructure investments. I'm sure the list here is quite long etc
It would be great to hear from Gary exploring some of the solutions as he does a great job explaining the cause.
.......
Also the video talks about single game scenarios, in multi game scenarios i.e play prisoner dilema 100 times with same person optimal strategy tends towards co-orporation. How do we move society and property to be closer to multi game scenarios?
Good you are coming up with solutions, however just to note, those non-resident landlords should be paying tax on income from UK rental properties (if you want to read more google the non resident landlord scheme). What is needed is political willpower to direct resources and ensure the rules are followed.
A great starting point. Higher Income Tax thresholds and less VAT on non luxury items would put more disposable income into the economy. Energy and broadband supplies are as essential to modern living as water is to life so remove the tax. Energy producers are reporting incredible profits at the same time as investment, especially in alternative sources, is being cut under the claim of unaffordable. A major contradiction. Lots of other points that would be lost in comments.
Excellent analysis. Enjoyed reading your potential solutions too.
These narratives need to start filtering down into normal political discourse and it’s our collective responsibility to try and make that happen.
This has been discussed since the 19th century, but as Georgism after Henry George. Here an entry about Land Value Tax (LVT, AKA Land Valuation Tax): From "J is for Junk Economics" by Michael Hudson. (He's Gary's Yankee Uncle IMO)
"A means of keeping down mortgage debt (and hence, housing prices), by taxing the rental valuation of land, so that it will not be available to be pledged as interest payments to banks for mortgage loans. (See Groundrent, Rent and Rent Theory.) To classical economists, land is provided by nature and hence has no cost of production and hence no value as such (see Factors of Production). But it does have a market price, reflecting mainly rent of location, largely from civic improvements (see Commons and Public Domain), and the willingness of banks to lend against it."
" The higher the yearly tax charge is, the lower the land price becomes, because less income is available to be capitalized (financialized) into a bank loan and paid as mortgage debt service. (See Myth #15 and #16 in “The 22 Most Pervasive Economic Myths of Our Time” later in this book.) A Land Valuation Tax thus acts as a counterweight to mortgage debt - which is why banks oppose property taxes, realizing that what is not paid to the tax collector can be paid to themselves as interest. (See Henry George Theorem and the contrast between a Single Tax and a Flat Tax.)"
It's an option, but it's going to be hard to convince human turkeys to stop voting for Xmas. And there's a lot of money going into ensuring they still do. So, change isn't going to be easy or quick, but we need to start somewhere. We need to be having these conversations within our own kith and kin. So that the idea that TINA - That There Is No Alternative - is shown for the lie it is.
@@BigHenFor thanks for your pedantic comment. Have a nice evening
I’ve been surrounded by people in my hometown that have “drummed” it into their children that they “ only look after number one “ and also by parents that often quote that they “only want what’s best for their children” to which I respond by saying “ yes and look where that has gotten us “
'The police set it up', we often forget that these game theory situations are fixed not in the favour of the prisoners. The trolley problem is the same
And the wolf and villagers game
Yeah, but they're set up that way as a simple model of complex situations which frequently occur in nature or human societies.
For situations with an unequivocal answer it wouldn't be worthwhile constructing a thought experiment.
@@andybrice2711 that doesn't invalidate the criticism that they're modeling situations of coersion and claiming them as models of free will. What it really shows is how moldable our behavior is by games that we engage in. Whatever motive the game assumes is going to define incentives and thereby is inherently incentivizing that motive. It also shows how other games like one motivating commitment to in-group loyalty can override an attempt to impose another game.
@@AdobadoFantastico I think that's certainly a reasonable criticism of Nash. But not of Game Theory in general.
Originally Game Theory modelled the behaviour of two competing agents. (For example in a war, or a ruthless business negotiation.) And it did a good job of that.
But then some economists made the stretch that it can be used to model all human behaviour. Because they either believed that humans were inherently selfish, or that they should be.
LOL too true. The correct response to the trolley problem is "how the fuck did these people get tied up on the tracks?"
Incredible video, came here after seeing one of your interviews. Im completing the last year of my finance degree now and have trouble with the fact that I consider myself very left economically and I see the ignorance and willful ignoring of the problems in our economy. Thank you so much for this channel, it's very refreshing and your ideas are incredibly well structured.
What have we learnt about Game Theory? Economists and rich people are selfish.
"Rich people are selfish" is subtly wrong. It would be better to say that selfish people are rich, because we live under a system that rewards those who are selfish.
It's not about selfishness. It's about maximising your chances of winning. Most of it takes place unconsciously , in the everyday.
All people are selfish. Selfishness isn't the problem. Even the most altruistic people are 'selfish'. Selfishness is simply putting your own needs first. This is an evolutionary imperative. Altruistic people satisfy their need to recognise the needs of others. The real problem lies with most people not knowing what constitutes getting their needs met. Interdependence of all things means that you cannot get your own needs met if you ignore the needs of others. Lack of judicious regulation and lack of education are the primary issues causing societal breakdown and increases in inequality.
This is a recurring trend. Right wing policy is almost universally some variation of a self report. Why do you think the far right is so obsessed with screaming about “grooming” and calling the people they hate Pedos? It’s always a confession.
@@Humanity101-zp4sqYou're arguing about semantics and in doing so made a meaningless statement. You see, if according to your definition everyone is selfish, then selfish is not a relevant description of anyone, since it just means human. So pick a new word, try to graps the concept again, and then before posting replace your word with the word selfish so the rest of us understand what you mean.
As always, a super informative video.
Society needs to push for economics to become a gcse core subject too.
A-Level economics gave me a basic understanding, which developed over time, just through being interested.
While I will share this, and talk about it, I can't help but think that so many people who really need to engage, won't do so because they're just not people who want to learn about economics ☹️
That really shows how important it is, to get this message out there, to people who wouldn't know what to do for the best. The people the very wealthy are so very happy to keep in the dark.
I’m always banging on about this and passing people your RUclips channel. Hopefully you gain more and more momentum to be heard properly! Legend ✊🏻
Yes.
This great video drives home the empirical finding in psychology that students who go to study economics come out behaving more individualistically and selfishly than when they started their degree. Class solidarity and empathy is the antidote.
The expectation isn't that you are selfish and all about number 1, it's fear that the other person is selfish and screws you over
That's part of it, definitely. In the end it's using knowledge and statistics. Your knowledge of the other prisoner's character and the chances he will take the selfish way.
@@jagolago-bobthat's where outside influence comes in. It's far easier to convince someone the other is the enemy if you separate them and bombard them with negativity about the other. The legal forces will do this in the game. There's lots of ways society separates and conditions people's thought in real life.
@@excel04 Yes, divide and conquer. That's their tactic.
We need to bring people together for a common goal- a decent, relatively comfortable life.
You mean lack of trust? This is one of the short comings of diversity.
@@excel04 yes, this is why the ideological right (Trump, Farage, Truss etc) in recent years have got more into the culture wars and woke thing. They want to divert attention from the disbenefits of their libertarian economics and instead create mistrust amd division.
Thatcher convinced the working class not to vote for the welfare of the country, but to concern themselves only with the money in their pockets. She appealed to humanity's innate greed to persuade otherwise thoughtful and kind people to think the way Tories think: Me first. Every man for himself, rather than All for one, one for all.
Economics is founded on Adam Smith's notion that the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker are purely self-interested, which tells you a lot about Adam Smith and the class he emerged from.
what the prisoner's dilemma actually demonstrates is why humans naturally form cooperative communities. If we fill out the prisoners dilemma to a still simplified but wider context: if you have 2 communities of 20 people each, and every year two of those people get arrested and have to play the prisoners dilemma game. In one community the two people arrested always cooperate and always get a combination of 2 years in prison, and a second community where one or more of the two people always snitches and those two people always get a total of 10 years in prison. The first community will always have a maximum of two people absent. But after 10 years the second community will have an average of 10 people absent, 50% of its population, and will stay that way forever. If those two communities are in competition for resources the second one with 10 active members will always lose out to the the first with 18 active members.
So it's always in the communities interests for those two people to trust each other and not snitch, and because the community as a whole prospers for having fewer people in prison its always in the interests of both individuals to not snitch as well. A community where the culture is that everyone looks out for their own individual interests will always lose out and all members of that community will be collectively less successful when competing with a community that cooperates.
Will comment on every video you post going forward! In anyone else is reading this, this is a huge thing we can all do to propel this message forward 💛💪🏼 more power to you Gary!
You said politicians you’ve spoken to say your theory is not a vote winner. Your videos are great at explaining what’s going on but there’s one big stumbling block. 80% of people are happy to go with the flow and 20% need to win, get promotion, get power . Politicians are the 20% and in your game theory they will always take the selfish option. I think the only way you’ll get people in power (MP’s) to vote unselfishly is if they come from the 80% and unless MP’s are chosen like jurors for example ( a nice even representation of the public ) your fighting a very stiff battle. That said, I wish you all the luck in the world and you’ve got my backing 100%
Those few will change nothing as they have no incentive to do so. They stand to lose so will never be in favour of anything that takes from them. We definitely need a more even representation of the population serving us in Government, not serving themselves. Both major parties might trot out that certain strategies are not vote winners. I am imagine this could be in part due to those who fund them who of course are not the average Joe.
@neilwelch good reply. I can't agree with your major assumptions and percentages though.
When people are hurting (for themselves, their family, or others) they start to reason and think carefully.
I believe people are more aware than you are stating.
And yes, 1. economic conditions are going to deteriorate alongside 2. Climatic and environmental collapse.
Alternatively, 3. Another European war.
These may be opportunities for civic, political, industrial re-set. Maybe.
We know how to live, and have thousands of years of experience and history.
But, do we learn?
Unfortunately, the resources are always captured by the strongest. Not the best, or most enlightened, or the collective minded. Only the strongest.
Humans will still make a pig's breakfast of whatever is left, after even one of the above 3 catastrophes.
I wish I wasn't so negative.
I just don't believe anyone in politics or local government any more...
Hi Gary, just found your channel via a LBC James O'Brian interview leading to this post on youtube. Excellent stuff mate, very illuminating and I believe so on point. May I humbly suggest you join the Reform UK party and get an interview with Richard Tice, Ben Habib or Nigel Farage. I imagine if you did, both yourself and Reform U.K would be the end of the LIBLABCON stranglehold on the country and the chance to enact your philosophy's on the bigger stage. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to future content, thank you.
We had a high trust society, now we have a low trust society, ask yourself what changed?
Gary is 100% right, and negative gearing that we have in Australia needs to be looked at. What Gary is possibly missing is the real life experience of banks making it very clear to you that you have to focused 100% on making money, be selfish, just so you fit their criteria, their ideal of what kind of client they will support. You usually only get this message when your account is reviewed and the bank thinks your income is not what they think it should be. We like me may not naturally think in selfish terms, but the current reality of the systems that control us makes it impossible for us to act in a selfless way. These systems be it banking, or government are designed to keep us all extremely busy and fragmented, not united as we should, and really need to be.
I really appreciate the effort you put into your campaign Gary. I wouldn't describe my family and I as well off, but more as comfortable. If I'm honest I don't follow your efforts for my own personal circumstance, I follow them because I care. It breaks my heart when I see my friends struggling as a result of the status quo. Keep up all you do, fight for hope!
@MessageNow_____Gary. Yeah....Nah you bot
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🎮 Overview of Game Theory*
- Game theory is a field of mathematics applied in economics to analyze real-life situations with multiple players and outcomes.
- The Prisoner's Dilemma is a famous game used to illustrate selfish behavior and strategic decision-making.
- Players aim to maximize their gain by choosing between cooperating and betraying each other.
03:25 *🕵️♂️ Analysis of The Prisoner's Dilemma*
- The game presents four possible outcomes based on players' choices: both cooperate, both betray, one cooperates while the other betrays.
- Game theory reveals dominant strategies where players maximize their benefits, often resulting in a suboptimal outcome for both.
- Despite the possibility of mutual cooperation leading to a better outcome, the dominant strategy often leads to betrayal due to self-interest.
08:12 *🤝 Critique of Game Theory's Assumptions*
- Game theory's analysis relies on the assumption of selfishness as the primary motivator for decision-making.
- Real-world scenarios may involve factors like trust, loyalty, or social norms, challenging the selfishness assumption.
- The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the limitations of solely relying on game theory to understand human behavior.
12:01 *💡 Application of Game Theory to Economic Policy*
- The speaker discusses applying game theory concepts to economic policies aimed at reducing inequality and improving living standards.
- Political reluctance and public skepticism hinder the implementation of policies beneficial to ordinary people.
- Individual decisions to prioritize self-interest or collective action impact the outcome of societal challenges, resembling a macro-level Prisoner's Dilemma.
Made with HARPA AI
There is yet another major flaw of prisoners dilemma; that there is an implicit third player - the system - which can (and is) also influenced by at minimum the players. The dilemma as commonly stated assumes good faith in the system - i.e. that it will honor any deal and not act it it's own best interest.
I was thinking about this recently. As someone who has always never had much, where do I put my time and energy? I feel like I keep burning out just trying to scrape by and also my actions are insignificant and inconsequential so what does it matter. Logically I should put all my effort into selfish endeavours until I reach some kind of threshhold where I can spend some time and energy, on what? - trying to convince other people to not be selfish? but then the people that can effect real change are either disinterested or active participants/beneficiaries of the status quo. So, what are the options? if you write to your tory MP everyone knows you can expect snark back, if you protest you are now a criminal. If you talk to your peers, most people are too weary to be politically active or else actively hostile to any kind of egalitarian politics as the current media environment has made alot of ordinary people hostile to anything that sounds like socialism even if they agree with such policies. There are alot of catch 22's in there and I'm sure alot of people feel the same way as me.
I do.
I am willing to devote some of my time in an unselfish way.
Suggestion: read "The Logic of Collective Action" by Professor of Political Science Mancur Olson. Prof. Olson, by the way began with a very successful career as a data driven commercial economist, who's worth increased only if he was accurate most of the time for his clients. Later in life when he followed his passion into an academic political science career, he was shocked by the lack of rigor in the profession. Most colleagues lacking any useful new data, simply pontificated in books based on their prejudices and conjecture, while Mancur did numerous field studies and followed the direction of the generated data as he had done previously as an economist.
In "The Logic of Collective Action", Prof. Olson's conclusion was: the success of any human group's action was fundamentally dependent on the scale (size) of the group. Small groups (approx 3500-ish) were invariably captured by a minority subset of it's members who hijacked the group's resources toward their minority's self serving agenda, which was hidden from the group as a whole. Does this sound familiar ? That's the problem I am working on as time permits. Democracy is a scale problem, not unlike the successful hunter/gatherer tribe scale -vs- the beginnings of agricultural civilization where elites were enabled to fight over control of the collective resources at the expense always of the majority of members.
Great vid, I've only been watching your stuff for a couple weeks and agree with the message. I guess where I'm getting a bit stuck is around practical steps individuals can take to drive a movement like this forward? Other than the obvious of sharing the message etc?
Great video. (Earned my subscription).
Some time ago I watched a video speaking of a mathematician that organized a contest to evaluate the outcome of the prisoner's dilemma, not for one single play, but for a round of many consecutive plays...
That contest proved that the best strategies to get a good outcome in the long run were the ones that were generous (not gassing first) and forgiving...
So, these mathematicians proved, that if you want to build a better society (which involves a lot of "actions/plays") you shouldn't be following the selfish strategy...
I am an engineer who has been reading about economics (e.g. Ha-Joong, and others), and I believe the problem has to do with the fact that the "neo-classical/neo-liberal school of thought" is too dominant in academia. In my opinion this school of thought uses wrong/superficial assumptions about many things (human behaviour, production/industry, etc.)... This causes GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)!
Basically its environmental conditioning rather than game theory, in the prisoner dilemma it makes no mention of the conditions and other interpersonal factors that will effect decision making. Outcomes based theories on individual persons based on simplified outcomes only interpretations is just far too removed from reality, just like our current so called economic theories.
Contrary to our so called leaders and experts there are values higher on the hierarchy than simple materialism and numbers when it comes to human beings. Values like social cohesion, the social contract, interperonsal relations, personal beliefs, morales and ethics are the foundations of the social building block and by ignoring them we simply get bad outcomes for everyone.
Yes, but there is no life if we can't feed ourselves or children. Our physical needs must be met first.
As an international relations masters grad (international political economy) I've done some political and economic game theory and I always found it's foundations so limited. It pretty much limits an extreme limited logic and refuses alternative motives humans have to make some prediction. But in the end it says nothing about the real way people, states, or any actor may interact
I have a higher than average salary but still cannot understand how people like me will vote for low tax and austerity to help their pocket a little bit…I think me voting for funded public services is me being selfish…a positive social environment with lower inequality and higher levels of happiness can only be good for me
We don't. Similar situation to you here. Whenever I say I am voting left people say "they will tax you" and I say 'yes please". My mental health would be in a much better state if I knew everyone was being looked after and there was a social net.
We are many more than people think. Just isolated.
It comes down to where is the government getting its money from. If the government paid for its expenses by taxing an equal amount this would be true. If the government however gets its extra money from borrowing, then that money is being borrowed from the rich. And they will only give you that money if they get more back later. Blowout government debts is one of the biggest factors driving the super wealthy getting richer and sucking money out of the people at large. For this to work they actually have to tax the rich, not borrow from them.
"higher than average" probably means you are one of the lucky few that's paid an fair salary. Most salaries are woefully low, and way lower than they should be. Tax wealth, not normal salaries. People on higher than average salaries are not the ones driving up asset prices....
You are naive
Hi Gary,
I’ve only recently come across you but whole heartedly agree with your conclusion and something I came to a number of years ago. As such I used my skill set to bring together the local authority, two universities and a deprived local community and the National Trust to try and regenerate a swathe of the town that I live in. So far it’s going well but I would like to set up an economic model that ensures the buy in of all these parties going forward. Happy to talk about this further if you’re interested.
Otherwise keep doing what you’re doing.
Best wishes,
Carwyn
This is Thatcher & Ragens biggest legacy
Capital Gains Tax is set at 10% and is one of the few taxes which directly affects the wealthiest in society (see Rishi Sunak's recent tax bill).
Labour announced last week that they have no plans to increase it.
Seems to me, that if the masses could be galvanised to support raising it as a major issue to start fixing the economy, then political parties would be more inclined to see it as a vote winning policy.
But labour are likely to win the next GE anyway, so things aren't likely to change any time soon.
The political party's rely on your vote, if people work together on mass to message what they want policy to be, things would change. If people want higher taxation for wealth pick a day for people to message their MP. These days it would probably be more visible on social media pages. That is how democracy is surposed to work. What is needed is a point of single direction of that action and enough people to act, a templet of the proposal agreed. The reason for the templet is it would be a uniformed message that shows collective agreement. Let's say 50,000 messages on the same day to a chosen site would be hard to ignore.
I don’t think you understood the point of Prisoner’s Dilemma Gary.
If you are only interested in reducing your prison time you should cooperate with the other prisoner so you can both go free.
The dilemma is whether you can trust the other person.
It’s not an explanation of being “selfish” it’s an explanation of the cost associated with trust.
Cheers.
Fantastic explanation Gary.
I think a huge part of the challenge in overhauling the system is overcoming that tendency towards essentialism - by which I mean convincing people that they have been trained to be selfish, rather than it being somehow “natural,” which is essentially the central plank of neoclassical economics.
Appreciate your views and your craft Gary. I myself 25yr old working in consulting. I’m at a crossroads, I love reading and learning (would say I’m a philomath). The first ever book I stumbled across for GCSE Economics was Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The first ever book I buy myself with my own money was the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Ive always challenged my own thoughts and perspectives on pretty much everything. Aristotle- the more you know, the more you don’t know. I grew up in Hackney too and seeing how this part of London changed from 2005/6 to now 2024 is pretty crazy.
I’ve very much accepted the reality that my purpose in life is to be someone people can count on, enjoy life whilst on this journey to accumulate and own wealth.
To what degree I’m “educated” might matter and might not (well it should I think). I think the big question here is (or has always been) is “what type of society do we want for humans?”
I’ve spent time pondering this whilst doing my studies what not whatever. Maybe one that is fulfilling, enables us to help and propel future generations to new heights, a full on progressive human civilisation id say. It’s in our nature ever since we evolved or were created by God. My utopia for humanity would be in parallel with this. At the foundation of it all - there is no money.
I come from poverty having finished my masters, done an internship and now on a grad scheme - my mum told me “hey, you’re earning more than I’ve ever earned or your father in a year.” That puts a whole lot of fucking shit into perspective. I’m sure many of us have observed this or seen it, but having my mum say that to me I’ll never forget.
If we remove money/transactions from society that will solve everything. But can we as humans who “depend” on this system do this??? I’m not too sure. The civilisation we’ve created “won’t” allow for such a supreme change.
I don’t know everything and this was my honest 2 cents. Happy for others to challenge my views or express their insight etc. apologies for any grammar or typos I was in the rain when this happened lol.
An open mind is a beautiful thing. Money cannot be replaced there has always been a form of exchange for items that have different value. The problem is in the creation of a system and governence of that system to the point of complete understanding of its simplicity and full disclosure training for every single person. That would rid us of alot of hate and anger peddled through political properganda. We were almost there. The first corruption of modern money was when the USA became the global currency after the brakedown of the Bretton Woods System in 1971. There was ment to be a stand alone global currency for international exchange that never came to be.
I love how you framed this! Maybe a video explaining what philanthropy is actually about (reducing tax bills and improving PR image) could be a good follow up to this one. It’s always seemed bonkers to me that people think ultra wealthy putting a fraction of a percent towards their non-profit foundation will do a damn thing to balance out a broken system.
As a game designer who's worked in the video game industry for 10+ years, I fucking hate game theory. The theory of mind it employs is laughably crude and the lack of imagination it reveals of those who pretend it has real applicability to social interactions is depressing. A game mechanic/design does not exist in a vacuum.
When I discussed with other working class mates what I mostly see is that even though they believe, or already know, what we discuss about inequality, they differ on an another believe; they think that there is no way to change the actual situation. Whatever is the proposal they hear, they just don't believe that's gonna a be a game changer.
@1:35 you can't be arrested for telling the truth - or maybe these days you can...
In some ways it appears that the United States of America has already done that (~15:30) teaching of people to be greedy and their unequalness has steadily got worse and the wrong side of the unequalness dilemma has increased.
Problem with game theory is that it's based on a rational actor. Human beings are absolutely NOT rational actors. There are entire fields based on this fact, such as psychology, marketing, behavioral economics and many more.
Thanks Gary for another great video. I was feeling very disillusioned with people in the UK and you are giving me hope.
Great video. This is essentially the big, age-old challenge for trade unions in any workplace too. If people stick together there's a good chance they'll improve things but divided the boss has all the power. So ultimately a great deal of it comes down to confidence in collective power. Totally agree it applies to society as a whole too. Reject the idea that we're all atomised individuals. If we have each others' backs we can win!
Many more council's will hit the wall as our system was designed for local councils to be funded by centeral government. Central government however are more interested in holding and increasing market value. People will blame the councils that go first but rest will follow as the situation is unsustainable. Placing the price on residents will only increase this spiralling crisis.
I can't help but feel like you've missed the point of the prisoners dilemma in such profound ways it's hard to even untangle this mess. And I'm not sure if this is due to some attempt to "simplify" things or if this is your genuine take on things.
But, first of all, selfishness is irrelevant. It's not an argument for, against or related to selfishness. It's about having reward matrix, it's completely, utterly irrelevant what you value. You value your friends wellbeing, cool, that wellbeing might be a plus on the reward matrix. Prison time is a stand-in for "something you don't want to happen". It makes absolutely no difference if it's personal benefit, or "your mom gets cancer treatment" or "world hunger reduces by 1%" or whatever. It's something you value... And the other person does not.
That brings us to, the main point is that this "selfish criminal" or any such player of the game with such reward matrix, would find that co-operation *is the best strategy*. You benefit more from co-operation. Not because you care about the other player and their goals, but because that's the whole point, the whole joke, of this lopsided reward matrix. The best thing, considering what you value, would be to co-operate, but you can't arrange this in any easy way given the constraints of the game. So you predictably do worse than what seems reasonably possible with a bit of shuffling, bit of easing of those constraints.
Reminds me of Daniel Schmachtenberger’s point that there is exactly one wicked problem at the root of the meta-crisis, that if we don’t have a solution to, nothing else will matter: the problem of coordination dilemmas at scale.
What an insightful video. I studied economics myself at a top London university and remember this theory. Never did I think of the assumptions behind the theory or being able to apply this to how modern British people think and are in this dilemma themselves against the rich/powerful. Amazing video, keep it up Gary! 👏
All careerists, no matter what sector, tend to be cynical, self centred and unhappy.
If you consider any politician/legislator as being a careerist then it follows that they will not be progressive politically and will take the easy establishment option.
Impressively calm and centred presentation.
Always appreciate your work Gary at a time of craven leadership across the globe.
Thanks Gary! I am so glad you are speaking up I’ve seen this situation for decades but have never been able to break it down as simply as you do! I really appreciate what you’re doing keep up the good work. Love seeing you on TV hearing truth being spoken out loud is so refreshing.
People on above average income have the capacity to change things but no incentive. People on below average income have to incentive but not the capacity (as they are too busy keeping their heads above water).
I was randomly asked to participate in an economics study when I was in college. They paid you based off of how well you did. I can't remember exactly what the rules were, but I immediately recognized it as a test of game theory. What was interesting is that you could, in a way, force people to go along with you if you're trying to get the best outcome for both of you. They announced everyone's winnings one by one from lowest to highest. Everyone else got less than 10$. I got 50. We all couldve walked out with way more than that, but people are dumb/uneducate. Because I knew what game theory was and how cooperative actions yield better outcomes, I still won a competition, which feels so dumb. It's also dumb that economists think that no one ever sees the benefit of compromise, sacrifice, or cooperation. If those things didn't exist, society wouldn't exist.
If we changed Two tax laws we could make this country better over night.
One Set the limit of Inheritance Tax to £5,000,000 before you pay it, reduce it to 10-20%, but close the loop holes. Also give people more options to pay. A friend I worked with was in a insane situation where he had to borrow money to pay the Inheritance Tax Bill before he could inherit the property and sell the property. The banks in that situation crucify you on rates charged as well. The HMRC need to be more flexible with how you pay.
Two set a Wealth Tax up as the following;
£0 - £10 million - 0%
£10 Million - £250 Million - 1%
£250 Million - £500 Million - 2%
£500 Million - £750 Million - 3%
£750 Million - £1 Billion - 4%
£1 Billion + - 5%
This could be the biggest game changer going.
I HAVE PLAYED THIS GAME IN REAL LIFE
I was thirteen year old my mate was fourteen years old
got picked up by the police in the question of a missing two pounds 1962
They were going to search us but left the room so my mate took his quid and popped into his mouth and swallowed I did the same with difficulty but got there
The cops searched found nothing of course then said we know you did it if one admits it the other can go free ,we will leave you to discuss it , my mate had already done a stretch in Borstal so I took the rap and admitted it ,being the younger and having a clean sheet expecting a light sentence which I got ,a small fine and the return of the money, my mate went halves with the money after the case which made the papers of course BOY EATS POUND NOTES the headlines screamed You will be pleased to know I went straight after that ,who knows ,if I kept up my criminal career I could be a rich and powerful politician today
We only have to look at Norway. Their distribution of wealth is exemplary. Yes, high taxes, but they invest in their people. Of course, they didn't fall for the privatisation trap. But we had Thatcher and all this ridiculous idea of a small government without social services. Taxes are fine when they go back to society, but in the UK they are used to cover up the holes left by people focusing only on profit and not on services. The system protects those evading taxes and living off money laundering. Nothing to be proud of when so many people are in destitution in the UK.
I'm not certain which "economists" you have been reading, but this example is literally used to show the exact opposite - that perfectly "rational" actors (which economists love) *cannot* be selfish, as selfish actors end up worse off in the long run due to their inability to collaborate. As some others have already posted, in the "iterated" version of this game selfishness has been shown to be a losing strategy and "forgiving tit-for-tat" (that is, a strategy where you cooperate, but retaliate once if the other player doesn't cooperate, but sometimes you don't retaliate) is the most effective strategy found. In other words, this game is used to show mathematically that cooperation is beneficial.
Economists also work on the related problem that you are wondering about - how do you change incentives so that everyone collaborates in a positive way?
PS, the idea that "economics" as a profession uniformly encourages greed and self-interest is a simple narrative pushed by conservatives to make it seem like their ideas have stronger academic backing than they actually do. In reality, there are lots of economists that advocate a broad range of economic policies (from laissez-faire capitalism through to true Marxist-style socialism).
Hate the game not the player…
This quote does not apply in a game where the players define the rules through peer pressure and precedent.
Gary I just found this channel and I want to thank you for this education. I will look through your library and see what I can learn. Thank you Sir for this work.
The assumptions economists make are generally misunderstood, like rational expectations. They aren't supposed to describe every aspect of human behaviour. It is an assumption that is thought to hold up in certain scenarios (and is tested, not just blindly assumed). One area where game theory is used, for example, is when analysing the behaviour of monopolistic firms and oligopolies. In these scenarios, it is assumed the firms will prioritise making profits over anything else. It doesn't rest on the assumption that all humans are selfish. Just that, in certain economic situations, people/firms act in their own interests.
keep going gary, well done
It comes down to awareness. If you know the principles by which the world works you change your actions. But people are fed the lies and they eat them up
Tangent, but does anyone else find it weird how the scenario of the prisoner's dilemma is a really unjust justice system? It is a system of unequal punishment for equal crimes- in fact, whether you did the crime or not is completely irrelevant to the outcome! Also, how can the testimony of someone facing jail time be trusted? It's literally being coerced out of the person! And yet this is the justice system in much of the world...
People all want to return to the "good old days" when ordinary people could afford to buy a house but they forget that the top rate of tax was 83% in 1979 and has been cut by both Labour and Conservatives and is now 39.6%. The tax that ordinary people pay when they spend money has only gone up in the same period from 15% VAT to 20%. I want to return to the good old days of progressive taxation. This has been 45 years in the making it won't be fixed overnight and as long as the government keeps looking at cutting tax then it never will.
you talk about. 'if enough people are willing to act unselfishly' (time stamp 14:57) - you could look at it another way.... the group of ppl who fall into this 'unselfish' group vs the group of selfish - this results in the top right or bottom left scenario - 1 player gets everything the other player gets nothing. - i think thats the reality we're currently in.
I kind of love the fact that this like a "casual kitchen-table conversation" type of style
I’m working class, from a council estate, went to uni, got a 1st, got into debt in the process, got a decent job (prob the same job I would have got if I’d done an apprenticeship but that’s another story). But I look around me and most people I know from both working and middle seem to think their whole existence is to go to work and earn money, more money and more money and pay into a pension so they can retire at 65. In essence brainwashed and yes selfish as a natural bi product. What a life.
I am behind you 100% and I am sharing people I know will notice you are right and I am with you all the way we need people like you in this world please don't give up
This is a very valuable insight, thank you for sharing that. The interesting part to me is, from an American, a situation where the government is no longer responsive to the will of the average person, or even their constituents. This has been proven in poli sci studies. So just like the prisoner's dilemma assumes a selfish perspective before the analysis even begins, the reality of the political environment only allows decision making for those wealthy enough to influence policy, and those wealthy enough are more likely to act selfishly and unethically than the general public (also proven in several studies). So we find ourself in a game where only the selfish get to decide, through established means, what the rules of the game are, and they then have the dilemma of whether they change the rules to further benefit themselves, or to benefit others. And as the rules become more and more beneficial for those with the most money, those without power become a larger share of the overall population affected by the rules.
I have been very interested in Gary’s message and everything that he says makes sense in identifying the problem, wealth inequality. The part that I would like to hear more about is what happens after. We tax the extremely wealthy.. now all the wealth is in the hands of a government. Great we win.. how does that money rebuild asset diversity among the population?
Are we talking wealth redistribution? UBI? Government just holds on to the assets and manages it centrally? or some kind other program that will balance the scales?
Getting the wealth from the ultra wealthy sounds like the easy part.
The problem is the unrealistic example of a completely isolated incident.
The thing is, life isn't about winning all the interactions. It's in part about being a good player so you're wanted in the next interaction.
It's like sport in school. Sure, get all the goals if you want. But don't expect to get chosen next time.
I'm a big fan of your content and really appreciate the hard work you do in trying to make this country better. That being said, I think it does effectively boil down to corruption within the government itself (I believe both major political parties are complicit in this) and the greediness of individuals.
To be able to educate people to understand these kind of problems requires work from both institutions and the family unit. Western society in general has adopted the mantra of every person for themselves, i.e., maximising their own happiness/wellbeing/wealth and that is exacerbated by most government institutions and then also the top end of society (the rich who benefit from this).
And so I really struggle to figure out a way to help fix these societal issues. Most people just don't want to listen which I don't blame them for because of how much of a struggle it is to just feed their kids and or heat their homes.
The sad thing is that, as far as much of the media and many politicians are concerned, it is far easier and more profitable to be selfish than it is to be fair or altruistic.
I love this video. I’ve watched it 3 or 4 times over the past few months. It’s stirring stuff and makes me want to take action. Your words are getting through. Please keep banging your drum for this most worthy and necessary of causes. I believe you have what it takes to lead this army. I for one would fight alongside you (and I’m generally a pretty impassive kind of chap). I can see and feel the danger of the ever-increasing wealth divide. Something has to change. The only positive of the current situation is that the worse it gets, the more your position resonates. Everyone has a breaking point and you need to trigger that breaking point. Strength in numbers is all we have.