I'd be considered one of the better off. I have taken a dual approach this past year. I continue to focus on my career but I also engage politically. This includes being a local councillor since last May. Even if I'm the only elected "politician" in my area talking about a wealth tax and going against austerity - at least it's one more than this time last year. Please put pressure on elected representatives or become one yourself.

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.

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

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.

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! 👍🏻

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.... 😠

Old person here: thank you for coming back to help those "on the back of the train track". You're dad would be proud.

Adam Curtis examines the cold psychopathic selfishness in Nash's version of game theory in his film "Fuck Your Buddy"

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.

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.

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.

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. 😵‍💫😧

"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, 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.

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

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!

'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

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.

Thanks for you videos Gary, I only discovered your channel this week but have ploughed through all of your content. I've shared to my social media but algorithms seem to have killed it so i've been messaging friends and family with direct links to your videos. More people need to see them. It would be great if you could do a video about the likley impacts on the NHS and elderly care in the UK if we remain on this trajectory... I think that might help open some eyes to why they need to act and take this seriously... make it even more relevant to them.

Game theory is part of the old regime. It's part of the free market myth. The game's been captured. The monopoly's in place. Now we're dancing to their tune.

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.

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.

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?

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

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%

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 “

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.

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.

We had a high trust society, now we have a low trust society, ask yourself what changed?

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.

"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.

What have we learnt about Game Theory? Economists and rich people are selfish.

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.

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.

Discovered your channel this week; really interesting stuff and answers lots of things I have been wondering about for a while! I've forwarded your channel to a bunch of people and pre-ordered your book 🙂

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.

This is Thatcher & Ragens biggest legacy

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?

You’ve just started a war it’ll be an honour to pick up this interesting journey it’s the battle of interests vs charity

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 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!

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.

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.

Thanks Gary for your engagement for a better society. Keep on. BRAVO

I'm proud of you Gary! You've highlighted the game better than anyone! It's time you started a political party promoting a fairer society and free market. There is a place for capitalism we just have to be more socially aware I guess.

I’m always banging on about this and passing people your KZfaq channel. Hopefully you gain more and more momentum to be heard properly! Legend ✊🏻

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.

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.

Such an awakening message my brother, keep the good work! Sub and shared. Blessings

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!

Love your channel Gary, thanks for the hard work and education. Here's a perspective that might be worth considering. I'm into behavioural psychology, (I'm terrible at economics) btw. 'Fixing' the selfishness of an entire nation is a tough hill to climb but it might be an idea to consider using the 'selfishness' of the nation to get them behind taxing the rich. A huge problem to over come is also the culture of 'future rich' (the American dream ideal) that people believe they will be those taxed billionaires one day. If people believed that taxing the rich would benefit them directly and immediately, you could speak to their 'selfishness' (although I don't like that word because I don't believe that's what it is but a youtube comment isn't the place to get into that, so I'll use it for the moment). IE Taxing the rich will drop your heating bill by X amount next year. Or it will reduce your health insurance by X amount immediately. Or whatever realistic immediate gain to the voters that might be be. Apparently a tax of 2% on the richest 350 families in the UK would raise approximately £22 billion, roughly £300 per person in the UK. If the labour party (or any party) proposed a policy that they would tax the rich and (for the first year at least) give that 300 directly to individual people, not only would people support the proposal but it would be massive for labour party votes. Basically 'vote for me and I'll pay you £300' The other issue to deal with is that the language of 'taxing the rich' is also a problem. Nobody wants you take anything from them, they'll fight you even if the thing you're taking is relatively worthless. If the rich were 'giving' it might be an easier sell. I haven't thought this through at all but perhaps championing the rich who 'give' and not calling a 'tax' might help. Anyway, just few thoughts, take care, and thanks again for your insight.

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.

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.

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.

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 believe Herbert Spencer was the first economist to put forward that we should create an economic system based on selfishness. He also coined the phrase survival of the fittest about the same time Charles Darwin wrote the origin of species which gave Spencer some credibility among his supporters but Darwin disagreed with Spencer and stated that all apex species became apex species because of empathy and altruism. It seems strange that these economists believe they have created an economic model on nature when nature itself works due to symbiosis and mutual benefits. Herman Minsk another great economist explained that trickle down economics was a falsehood and likened it to putting five spiders in a jar and leaving it for a month to come back to only one spider left alive. Minsk also explained that unregulated capitalism would eat itself and therefore would be the demise of itself. Great work Garry 👍.

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

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)!

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.

Comment for the algorithm, engagement for views. Words are become meaningless. Keep up the good work. Economists build simplified models because complexity is hard (ask a meteorologist) and then force people into that model because they think themselves as very clever for making a simplified model.

Superb stuff again Gary. I still struggle to get through to my close family, but I ain't gonna give up! It's easy for " the likes of me" to get onboard as I'm left leaning politically, but the crux of this argument is in the interests of 98% of the population. Left - right - centre - don't give a **** - we're all screwed if things don't change. I've largely given up arguing over immigrants, boat people, whatever. Just concentrate on this argument. There more people hear it from different sources, the more traction it will get. Please keep on Gary, you are truly inspirational.

Gary, a fun idea just to throw between what can often look like a bleak outlook. Could you put up a competition video to win a copy of your book with the question being "which coin has been dropped and recorded at the start of my videos?" Guessing us in the UK might have an edge, but still.

Missing out on one thing. Game theory you have to play multiple games. So if you have a memory of how games go then its very different to if you have a true nash equilibrium with only one game that is independent

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.

The fact that in real life criminals who I would describe as pretty selfish people, yet even they are much more likely to say nothing. Is an indictment of the entire idea and says a lot about the businessman and economists who put it into practice.

Thanks Gary for another great video. I was feeling very disillusioned with people in the UK and you are giving me hope.

So if we act selfishly (or are persuaded to be selfish (i.e. divide and rule)): then apart from the very rich, we will all end up poorer. So it is in the richest members of society interest to keep us all divided and mis-trusting each other, rather than support each other. Explains a lot.

I liked this video, I have had these critiques of some basic economic ideas for some time. I wonder if you could apply this idea to "the tragedy of the commons", which I'd argue is another simplistic abstraction applying ahistorical and inappropriate assumptions

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.

Hi Garry, happy to promote your message. Just an idea, can you create t-shirts, stickers, other merch with your channel name and key messages, so that we can affordably buy to wear in public places?

Keep going Gary. Got your book on pre-order. Looking forward to it. Just seen your appearance on the IEA channel from a year ago. Great stuff! Enjoyed seeing them tie themselves in knots, and your responses to their arguments.

Hi Gary, great vid, love you a lot. I too have often thought about Prisoner's Dilemma in this kind of context and am also trying to find a way to solve the same kinds of issue. If I can get my ducks in a row I’ll contact you at some point. For now this: In the version I think about (I dunno if it’s a variant) the 2 prisoners explicitly CANNOT confer- they are isolated in separate cells. WE (eg British society or global society) are in a privileged position in that we (for now!) have relatively open communication; it’s a small but crucial distinction. Hugs, keep up the fantastic work. See also recent Yanis Varoufakis interview with Novara media which is v interesting.

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 don't remember where I heard this but I think there was some study at a prestigious university like Harvard and they found that a lot of economy students choose to be selfish. But then the question becomes: does learning economics teach people to be selfish or did selfish individuals choose to be become economists. I always thought the latter.

I guide my students to your channel particularly about your previous career. Hopefully they explore more..

As Voltaire once said "Parisians only require comic opera and white bread" and later we had French Revolution or in other parts of Europe revolutions led to socialism and communism

Gary, loved reading the trading game, a gripping book. What does game theory say about information asymmetry where an individual knows 'more' ( more in a very abstract sense ) than the others. Id love to get my copy signed by you at sometime. Keep being authentic and speaking your truth sir !

Great video again. I wonder if something like: "Why Selfishness Will Make Your Kids Poor" Or "How Game Theory Makes will Bankrupt Your Family" could get even more reach. I would also love to see your analysis of Idealised "utopian" solutions for inequality compared to Fake solutions that benefit Capitalists. And how the movement could create our own fake solutions that actually benefit the people while initially seeming to benefit Capital/Power. Also is Game theory related to Climate change/ War?

People are complicated, and we’re all varying shades of grey. You can be brilliant with your friends and family, charitable and kind to strangers, but horrendous and horrible at work. Or the reverse, great at work and the person colleagues love, but horrible to your family. Everyone is different, some are greedy, selfish, compassionate etc… and can act differently depending on the situation. If we can create a consensus towards making the country better and improving all our lives, but lots of people don’t feel they have the time or energy to invest, influence to enact change or don’t feel interested in this.

I'm new to this channel, its very intresting and thought provoking.Will stay tuned.

In high school (in Africa) in boarding school, we had strict rules about silence during study hours. We would stay silent as long as no one was watching over us. We had class heads who would patrol the school grounds, whenever they were out of earshot we would go wild with crazy noise especially if the headmistress had left the compound we would break all the rules. Our headmistress would come back to chaos and we would all get lined up and asked to write down on a piece of paper whom we saw/heard speaking (noise makers!). Almost 99% of the time we handed in blank folded papers so we would all get punished anyway, but we never told on each other ever! Despite different classes having rivalries or students having best friends and enemies we always supported each other but we had never really had any discussions/agreements in advance on how to solve this situation. It was a very spur-in-the-moment kind of thing. Sometimes we would be pardoned, and other times we would face punishment but we always picked the same strategy, I remember times when some people went against this strategy, and there were consequences. I guess we evolved to be part of communities and we do what is best for the good of all rather than individuals even though one might be tempted to pick selfishly. This depends on the organization/groups and the relationships forged and what people have to gain or lose in the long-term not just the short term we tend to be rational in this case....mostly even though behavioral economics might argue otherwise.

These sorts of videos give me so much hope to see a comments section full of kind people engaging with these kinds of topics and just 20 minutes of careful thought, from the heart. Love from Australia man, it's all just as fucked here.

Hi Gary, I did economics at university about 4/5 years ago now. I have very little social platform but I understand well what you're saying. What specifically can I as an individual do to help? How can we as a nation mobilise to make ourselves heard?

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.

🎯 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

It seems an insanely monumental challenge but I believe if enough people can grasp the concept of equality, you/me/everyone can triumph

Gary, awesome stuff on all fronts. 🙌 You are an absolute legend, sir. 100% agree about society's benefit from collaboration and the crazy myth/narrative of individual interests/self interests being sufficient to meet our macro-societal goals (eg improved living standards/well being for all, sustainability etc). Isn't another use of the game by microeconomists' to highlight a positive idea of the Nash Equilibrium (ie the G-G)? That being, for the market system to definitely help society many things about that system have to be in place - that aren't fully in place in the UK or, basically, any real world economy. One of these being the paramount importance of having competitive markets, where lots of firms survive/exist, including small firms, and all play by the same rules. So the game can also highlight a dark outcome of S-S? This being the incentive to collude amongst firms in markets where a few firms - like members of an elite, closed club or cartel - have all the market power (ie a market which has little competition) - eg the so called oligopolies. The simplest collusion being that all those in the elite club of firms keep prices high. The consumer is screwed over because they are effectively buying from a monopoly. Don't microeconomists use this game more to show the real world dangers of uncompetitive markets (of which we have so many today) and the importance of legislation and pro-consumer competition authoriites) to prevent the threat of collusion over high prices by these 'oligopolies'?

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! 👏

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.

What I love about this example, is that starting with bad assumptions can trick you into believing something that is obviously wrong is right, even when it has been proven wrong in the real world. That "dominant" selfish strategy is an obviously losing strategy. If you do it and convince other's you're right, you've locked yourself in a spiral where you always get bad outcomes and no one trusts anyone. Which is honestly a lot of society today. Bad outcomes keep happening yet people have convinced themselves that the selfish strategy that keeps delivering bad outcomes somehow is the best available strategy, because we manage to avoid the literally worst possible outcomes. Every serious real life crime organization has long since figured out that the actual and obvious dominant strategy is that no one ever talks. They also don't just trust people to co-operate, they actively punish those who break the cycle of co-operation. The real life lesson of that game is that co-operation wins and you should punish people who only think about themselves or otherwise the system breaks down. Or you know. Join a union and eat the rich.

I, too, have struggled with this dilemma, Gary; For everything to get better, it just basically requires everyone to work together. But for a million both internal and external reasons, we don't. Frustrating huh, Gary ! It is for this reason, no matter how much our technology improves, I still deem the regular human being no better than the animals in the forest (who also instinctually follow this principle) It is my opinion that our next step in evolution as a species, starts at truly understanding this concept and shaping our world around it.

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.

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.

Bang on mate, individualism is part of the divide and conquer. People are designed to be part of a community, building a big enough community we grow and succeed together. Game theory is part of the problem, as it's twisted to benefit the rich.