Dearest Joseph, as I watched your interview with Mr. Krugman, honestly, most of what he said went way over my head. However, as I listened to Mr. Krugman's words, on the split screen, I found myself watching your face instead of his. I was so impressed by your attention and focus. You REALLY listened to what was being said. Thank you for using your intelligence and understanding of the issues facing our world today for people like me. You could be going along with the rich and famous attitude, while making a bazillion bucks and hoarding it all for yourself just like the 1% is obviously doing. Instead, you really are making a positive difference in our world. I am deeply grateful for you and the work you are doing to make planet earth a better place for all of us.
“And I've spent a lot of time ever since then thinking about what's the purpose of all the effort that I put into things” … absolutely loved the existential tangent you went on — but not a tangent really. It’s as much a part of the conversation as the economics involved. Is it I work therefore I am? Or, I contribute to society (ideally in a fruitful way) therefore I am? Would UBI, if ample, strip people of a sense of purpose they innately need? So thought provoking! Thank you!!!
Joe, great interview. There's no better or more efficient way to get smarter about economics and current events than reading Paul Krugman.
One thing I would add is regarding UBI. You are concerned about communism, about people not having the incentive to work hard, be creative, take risks. First, I would say that UBI is often thought of for a world where AI and robots do all the production far cheaper and better than humans, so you couldn't make a living that way anyway.
But another thing I would add with regard to incentives is that it's not at all some linear function of after tax income per hour. It's not at all like higher taxes always decrease how hard people work. I can tell you from experience (BA in econ and MBA) that something called the income and substitution effects is textbook economics. What it basically says is that as your after tax wage goes up, this is an incentive to substitute labor for leisure, but it also makes it so that you don't have to work as many hours to achieve the standard of living you re accustomed to. Either effect can dominate, depending.
If people always worked less hours when their after tax wage went down, then the people of the industrial revolution, working in sweat shops for a fraction of today's wages, would have worked much less. But, in fact, they worked many more hours.
The relation between taxes and hours people work is, in fact, complex. There's a lot of psychology and culture involved, but the consensus of the best economists in this area is that you could make taxes on the rich much higher without it decreasing work and risk taking. Ask yourself if the reward for hard work and risk taking were you would make $2 billion instead of $200 billion, and it were a world where $2 billion is just as rare, and ranks you just as high, do you really think that will make a difference in how hard people work.
In fact, having a good social safety net makes people willing to take much more risk to do big things, knowing that failure won't lead to utter disaster.
I enjoyed the conversation. Writing, thinking, economics, etc., are Krugman's strong points, but I always enjoy him, and he knows what he is talking about; you just have to hang in there. Joe, you did very well with him, and thank you for the conversations you are having and for thinking about where all of this is leading us.
The tech industry is trying to make itself feel better and/or deceive us with the idea of providing a monthly income. But they truly don't imagine themselves paying that cost. The connection between joblessness and the rise of fascism warrants discussion and further investigation. However, first, you need someone who wants to lead as an authoritarian; that is the danger: if people are unhappy or dissatisfied, the risk increases. Regarding jobs, I agree that a key issue for young men is the need to feel valued, useful, and like they are contributing. If there are no jobs and there is this income, how will they feel then? Personally, I enjoyed my work, but my main conflict was finding enough time to spend with my children, care for our home, and meet all our other needs.
hi joe, i know this is unrelated to this video but i just wanted to let you know my favourite role of yours is lyle in manic! can you tell us anything about it? it’s such a life changing movie and it’s so realistic towards mental illnesses and is very well shown.
If there's a camera please turn it off. The difference between the Ellen DeGeneres show was Meghan Markle knew about the camera because she put it on or saw them help attach it to her sweater
Thank you JGL for this discourse and all you generate on your sites across arts, social, political platforms. You're a gem for being a pebble among us.
I love this subject matter. Yes, there are problems, but there are also many proven solutions that could be applied quickly and effectively.
Anthropic was just fined $1.5 billion for stealing content. That sounds huge, but it’s less than 1% of what they’re worth today. Back in 2021, when they first launched, their Series A round raised about US$124 million. At that stage, there’s no way they could have afforded the licensing costs. So the message seems to be: steal what you can’t afford, get rich off it, and when you’re finally fined, just pay what amounts to pocket change.
Paying creators based on whether their specific tokens contributed to an AI output is virtually impossible. It’s like asking a poet to trace the origin of every word in their poem, where they first heard it, who influenced the phrasing, and who shaped the meaning. Attribution becomes unworkable at that level of granularity.
A more practical approach is to treat AI training material as databases. Each dataset should be clearly catalogued with titles and sources. Artists could then search to see if their work is included. An automated system might even flag when a title or piece of content has been pulled in, allowing the artist to simply click “opt out.” This matters because sometimes content is uploaded illegally on free sites, and no AI company can realistically check every single piece of data themselves. But if artists can review flagged entries, they regain agency.
Of course, there also need to be incentives for artists to opt in. One model could be similar to HitRecord: creators knowingly upload work for remixing, with clear terms of use. For higher-tier professionals, AI companies could establish AI Content Creation Agreements, contracts where creators are paid up front to generate material specifically for AI training, much like session musicians are paid to record an album. Instead of royalties, creators could receive tiered payouts: deferred bonuses unlocked once the company hits investment milestones (e.g., $1B investment = $1,000 bonus; $10B = $10,000; $100B = $100,000). This shifts the model from “steal now, pay later” to “hire now, reward later.”
The bigger picture is that jobs become less relevant if the bottom three tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy, food, shelter, medical care, are universally met. In that future, communities like HitRecord could flourish as spaces where people pursue purpose, creativity, and connection. If robots provide the essentials, then humans can focus on the top two tiers of the hierarchy without fear of deprivation. Crucially, this shouldn’t mean handing out cash for misuse. It means robots directly providing dignified minimums: food, housing, healthcare.
As for control of media, gatekeeping should come from an informed public. Just as people can report breaches of broadcasting codes of conduct, we need mechanisms for reporting breaches of ethical journalism.
The real key for the future is in search. People need to be able to find exactly what they’re looking for, and also be encouraged to explore alternative perspectives. Instead of being shown the “other side’s” political hatred, users should be able to view a clear, detailed explanation of how that perspective works, without emotional loading.
The future of information shouldn’t be algorithms tugging at the primal, emotional parts of our brains. It should be about customisable bias settings, where each person decides what kind of content they want to see. Do you want to examine a perspective from a sympathetic angle? From a critical one? From a neutral frame? You should be able to adjust the lens. That way, we control what we consume and how we engage with it, researching viewpoints on our own terms, rather than being manipulated by outrage-driven feeds.
Shiaria is not a good person and she's the only one I can get a ride from. Everyone knows it but no one wants to talk to help. They like traumas and drama. They like bothering me when I fall asleep instead of building trust in the ER. What is the solution Joey?
Dearest Joseph, as I watched your interview with Mr. Krugman, honestly, most of what he said went way over my head. However, as I listened to Mr. Krugman's words, on the split screen, I found myself watching your face instead of his. I was so impressed by your attention and focus. You REALLY listened to what was being said. Thank you for using your intelligence and understanding of the issues facing our world today for people like me. You could be going along with the rich and famous attitude, while making a bazillion bucks and hoarding it all for yourself just like the 1% is obviously doing. Instead, you really are making a positive difference in our world. I am deeply grateful for you and the work you are doing to make planet earth a better place for all of us.
“And I've spent a lot of time ever since then thinking about what's the purpose of all the effort that I put into things” … absolutely loved the existential tangent you went on — but not a tangent really. It’s as much a part of the conversation as the economics involved. Is it I work therefore I am? Or, I contribute to society (ideally in a fruitful way) therefore I am? Would UBI, if ample, strip people of a sense of purpose they innately need? So thought provoking! Thank you!!!
Joe, great interview. There's no better or more efficient way to get smarter about economics and current events than reading Paul Krugman.
One thing I would add is regarding UBI. You are concerned about communism, about people not having the incentive to work hard, be creative, take risks. First, I would say that UBI is often thought of for a world where AI and robots do all the production far cheaper and better than humans, so you couldn't make a living that way anyway.
But another thing I would add with regard to incentives is that it's not at all some linear function of after tax income per hour. It's not at all like higher taxes always decrease how hard people work. I can tell you from experience (BA in econ and MBA) that something called the income and substitution effects is textbook economics. What it basically says is that as your after tax wage goes up, this is an incentive to substitute labor for leisure, but it also makes it so that you don't have to work as many hours to achieve the standard of living you re accustomed to. Either effect can dominate, depending.
If people always worked less hours when their after tax wage went down, then the people of the industrial revolution, working in sweat shops for a fraction of today's wages, would have worked much less. But, in fact, they worked many more hours.
The relation between taxes and hours people work is, in fact, complex. There's a lot of psychology and culture involved, but the consensus of the best economists in this area is that you could make taxes on the rich much higher without it decreasing work and risk taking. Ask yourself if the reward for hard work and risk taking were you would make $2 billion instead of $200 billion, and it were a world where $2 billion is just as rare, and ranks you just as high, do you really think that will make a difference in how hard people work.
In fact, having a good social safety net makes people willing to take much more risk to do big things, knowing that failure won't lead to utter disaster.
Thanks again, for the great interview.
I enjoyed the conversation. Writing, thinking, economics, etc., are Krugman's strong points, but I always enjoy him, and he knows what he is talking about; you just have to hang in there. Joe, you did very well with him, and thank you for the conversations you are having and for thinking about where all of this is leading us.
The tech industry is trying to make itself feel better and/or deceive us with the idea of providing a monthly income. But they truly don't imagine themselves paying that cost. The connection between joblessness and the rise of fascism warrants discussion and further investigation. However, first, you need someone who wants to lead as an authoritarian; that is the danger: if people are unhappy or dissatisfied, the risk increases. Regarding jobs, I agree that a key issue for young men is the need to feel valued, useful, and like they are contributing. If there are no jobs and there is this income, how will they feel then? Personally, I enjoyed my work, but my main conflict was finding enough time to spend with my children, care for our home, and meet all our other needs.
They shut the water off without a notice
Well I think now is the time for a meet and greet desimone wants an answer now about lease renewal. Please don't make me sign one more year
Yo there's something on here
hi joe, i know this is unrelated to this video but i just wanted to let you know my favourite role of yours is lyle in manic! can you tell us anything about it? it’s such a life changing movie and it’s so realistic towards mental illnesses and is very well shown.
If there's a camera please turn it off. The difference between the Ellen DeGeneres show was Meghan Markle knew about the camera because she put it on or saw them help attach it to her sweater
Joe do you have a hidden camera? You can come inside my apartment. I don't trust anyone else.
The cops put a code on my Uber
Thank you JGL for this discourse and all you generate on your sites across arts, social, political platforms. You're a gem for being a pebble among us.
OMG
I love this subject matter. Yes, there are problems, but there are also many proven solutions that could be applied quickly and effectively.
Anthropic was just fined $1.5 billion for stealing content. That sounds huge, but it’s less than 1% of what they’re worth today. Back in 2021, when they first launched, their Series A round raised about US$124 million. At that stage, there’s no way they could have afforded the licensing costs. So the message seems to be: steal what you can’t afford, get rich off it, and when you’re finally fined, just pay what amounts to pocket change.
Paying creators based on whether their specific tokens contributed to an AI output is virtually impossible. It’s like asking a poet to trace the origin of every word in their poem, where they first heard it, who influenced the phrasing, and who shaped the meaning. Attribution becomes unworkable at that level of granularity.
A more practical approach is to treat AI training material as databases. Each dataset should be clearly catalogued with titles and sources. Artists could then search to see if their work is included. An automated system might even flag when a title or piece of content has been pulled in, allowing the artist to simply click “opt out.” This matters because sometimes content is uploaded illegally on free sites, and no AI company can realistically check every single piece of data themselves. But if artists can review flagged entries, they regain agency.
Of course, there also need to be incentives for artists to opt in. One model could be similar to HitRecord: creators knowingly upload work for remixing, with clear terms of use. For higher-tier professionals, AI companies could establish AI Content Creation Agreements, contracts where creators are paid up front to generate material specifically for AI training, much like session musicians are paid to record an album. Instead of royalties, creators could receive tiered payouts: deferred bonuses unlocked once the company hits investment milestones (e.g., $1B investment = $1,000 bonus; $10B = $10,000; $100B = $100,000). This shifts the model from “steal now, pay later” to “hire now, reward later.”
The bigger picture is that jobs become less relevant if the bottom three tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy, food, shelter, medical care, are universally met. In that future, communities like HitRecord could flourish as spaces where people pursue purpose, creativity, and connection. If robots provide the essentials, then humans can focus on the top two tiers of the hierarchy without fear of deprivation. Crucially, this shouldn’t mean handing out cash for misuse. It means robots directly providing dignified minimums: food, housing, healthcare.
As for control of media, gatekeeping should come from an informed public. Just as people can report breaches of broadcasting codes of conduct, we need mechanisms for reporting breaches of ethical journalism.
The real key for the future is in search. People need to be able to find exactly what they’re looking for, and also be encouraged to explore alternative perspectives. Instead of being shown the “other side’s” political hatred, users should be able to view a clear, detailed explanation of how that perspective works, without emotional loading.
The future of information shouldn’t be algorithms tugging at the primal, emotional parts of our brains. It should be about customisable bias settings, where each person decides what kind of content they want to see. Do you want to examine a perspective from a sympathetic angle? From a critical one? From a neutral frame? You should be able to adjust the lens. That way, we control what we consume and how we engage with it, researching viewpoints on our own terms, rather than being manipulated by outrage-driven feeds.
Shiaria is not a good person and she's the only one I can get a ride from. Everyone knows it but no one wants to talk to help. They like traumas and drama. They like bothering me when I fall asleep instead of building trust in the ER. What is the solution Joey?