The works cgp books Videos

+KanyeTroll Intrinsic motivation. People would volunteer at things they are passionate about like scientific research or do things they find fulfilling like learning to be a nurse or doctor to take care of people.

+Avinash Tyagi lol

+TrangleC Probably one of the only good ideas he had, together with his austrian economic lovers.

+XBlueM0ndayX Mhm. I think the main problem with your way of thinking is that you think in a terms of groups, while I think in terms of individuals.While I employ someone (or agree to work for someone), I don't do it for the society or economy. I do it solely for my own interest.Economy is an abstract concept that shows us how well people are doing. It's not something that we care about per se, it's just a representation of human safety and welfare. When I say that something will hurt the economy I mean that actual people will die and suffer because amount of wealth with decrease (or cease to increase when it could have been increasing).Our "social responsibility" is dealt with in a best possible way through trade. Someone ows something to others - he/she pays for it. If he/she don't want this particular thing (including roads or healthcare or bagels) he/she stops paying. Voluntary, efficient and moral.I don't think that people deserve to exist whatever they do or don't do. They have only as much freedom as resposibility.

Social responsibility is a responsibility you owe to society in order to make sure it functions, like following the law. In this case, I would say it's a social responsibility to employ other humans because without that there is no wealth distribution and the only logical result will be an overwhelming number of vagrants."They" would be the CEOs and corporations that employ hundreds or thousands of people who have the ability to replace that labour with machines.Our societies have done some bizarre sort of flip where the economy no longer serves the benefit of the people, but rather people are expected to serve the benefit of the economy. Humans are expected to accept the loss of jobs to machines as a good thing because it will make the economy more efficient, even though it will leave anyone who is replaced as completely redundant, not only in an employment sense but an existential sense. They can't produce anything of value to society, or earn any money to enjoy life, so what's their reason for existing?With the increased automation of industries it would be very likely that businesses would become highly centralised, with the only businesses likely to succeed being those who can afford to automate. The barriers to entry would be insanely high, preventing small business and new entrants from gaining a sufficient market share to survive. And then such a small portion of the population will have jobs that there won't be anyone to buy the goods, which then creates an inefficient economy.Face it, our economic models, even communism, are all based on people having jobs. Not EVERYONE can be a successful business owner.

+XBlueM0ndayX I am afraid you have to elaborate. Who are "they", what is "social responsibility" and who are "they" owing it to? Also why would anyone NOT employ the cheapest possible labour? This makes no sense, if two exactly the same employees wanted the job, and one wanted 10000$ a month but second wanted 5000$ a month every sensible person employ the second one.Also you have not really tackled some of my points, but if you don't want to, you don't have to...

+Mbeluba They should do it as their social responsibility. They want to have their cake and eat it too by having a market for their produce, but increase their own profits by only employing the cheapest labour possible.

+XBlueM0ndayX If we assume this will take place, which I don't really agree with.The very fact that you have to extract resources produced by someone (even if someone used robot to do so, it's still his/her work. Like when you use photoshop and printer to make a poster. It's yours work outcome) and you do this by force is making this immoral.Then you give this stolen resources to people who didn't produce anything. Why? Why should anyone recieve them? What makes one person existence a reason enough to make others his/her slave? To provide for someone who didn't provided for me in any way?I prefer MGI because it's simple. It's far superior to regulated economy, minimal income, progressive tax, complicated welfare, public education and public healthcare.If we had pure capitalism with MGI providing for all those useless people, it would be far better than our current semi-socialist system.

+Mbeluba What would the "moral problems" of MGI be if 99% of the population is unemployable due to technology?

Thank you so much for this video. Really helped me. I was wondering what GCSEs are you doing and what tier have you been entered in. You seem really smart

@leewsb No this is part 2, part 3 just got uploaded, it's not disjuncted.....

StuddleyG: it is in Mark and Luke, but The reference is to the Hebrew Bib

This video was strangely linked. Good word usage on your part.

Thanks again proff....novice from london, keep it coming.

@EltonJThe LOL! Yer eyes n ears are sharp, as usual.....

Part 3 Kerry? Great Stuff!