Not commented on it.

Changed it.

In this week’s video, I speak to Mark Thomas about how change actually happens.

Not in theory, but in practice.

On this channel, we spend a lot of time looking at systems.

Inequality.
Taxation.
Who owns what.

But there is another question that matters just as much.

What does it actually take to change those systems?

One answer is uncomfortable.

The belief that nothing can change is one of the most powerful forces maintaining the status quo.

Because if people believe that, they stop trying before anything begins.

This conversation looks at what happens when that belief is challenged.

And what change looks like when someone decides to engage with it anyway.

Watch the short version here:

The full conversation is available on Patreon: https://patreon.com/BarrysEconomics?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink

17th May, 7pm
At The Bill Murray, London

The show combines stand-up comedy with the economics of being a comedian, and what it takes to survive when the system, psychology and the world feel against you.

It was nominated for Best New Show at the Leicester Comedy Festival (2025), and has received:

Tickets here: https://dice.fm/event/7dm7l9-barrys-economics-live-17th-may-the-bill-murray-london-tickets

Redistribute more or grow the economy.

Round and round.

So why does nothing actually get fixed?

One possibility is that something important is missing from the conversation.

In most fields, bias is accounted for.

Medicine does it.
Law does it.
Aviation does it.

Because decisions made without accounting for bias tend to go wrong.

In economic policy, this is less common.

There is often an assumption that decision-makers are seeing the system clearly.

But research in behavioural science suggests that our position within a system shapes how we perceive it.

As wealth and power increase, certain experiences become less visible.

Constraints.
Trade-offs.
Everyday risks.

Which means that different groups may be working from very different versions of reality.

If that bias isn’t recognised, debates can become circular.

Not because people are unwilling to solve the problem.

But because something important never makes it into the room.

In this week’s video I look at the research behind that idea, and why accounting for bias in economic thinking may be more important than we realise.

Watch here:

But what if the process of becoming extremely wealthy makes that less likely?

Our understanding of the world is shaped by our experiences.

And as wealth increases, certain experiences begin to disappear.

Financial constraints.
Trade-offs.
Everyday forms of risk.

Research in behavioural science suggests that we rely heavily on what is available in our own experience when forming judgments.

Which creates a problem.

As someone’s experience becomes less representative of the average person, their ability to interpret that experience accurately may also change.

There is also evidence that power can alter how people relate to others, including their ability to read emotions and perspectives.

Combined with attribution bias, this can make success appear more predictable and controllable than it really is.

So over time, something unusual happens.

The people whose experience becomes less representative…

Are often treated as if it is more authoritative.

In this week’s video I look at the neuroscience of power, the psychology of wealth, and why we treat certain individuals as if they have universal answers.

Watch here:

This isn’t one of them.

Because the debate you’ve been watching isn’t really about men or women.

It’s about something else.

Research across psychology, neuroscience and behavioural economics points in a similar direction.

Social media amplifies moral outrage.

Group identity forms quickly and shapes how people interpret information.

Social exclusion activates the same systems in the brain as physical pain.

Which makes belonging a powerful force.

When these things interact inside platforms optimised for engagement, certain patterns emerge.

Content that creates identity.

Identity that creates conflict.

Conflict that sustains attention.

What looks like a cultural debate may also be a product of the system itself.

In this week’s video I look at the research behind that process, and why the conversation might not be about what it appears to be about.

Watch here:

And yet it still feels like it’s not enough.

That’s not a personal failure.

It’s the system working exactly as designed.

Modern economies depend on growth.

Growth depends on consumption.

And consumption depends on people continuing to want more.

Research across neuroscience, psychology and economics suggests that this isn’t accidental.

Dopamine drives wanting, not satisfaction.

Beyond a certain point, increases in income stop translating into increases in wellbeing.

And materialistic value systems are associated with lower life satisfaction.

Which creates a tension.

The system functions best when people keep striving.

But individuals don’t necessarily become happier as a result.

So when the feeling of “not enough” shows up, the explanation becomes personal.

You’re not doing enough.
Not achieving enough.
Not optimising enough.

But what if that feeling is structural?

In this week’s video I look at the science behind that idea, and why the problem may not be ambition itself, but the way it’s being directed.

The first thing my brain did wasn’t celebrate.

It said: do it again.

That reaction is not accidental.

It’s the same system that shapes what you watch on these platforms.

Every major social media platform is built on behavioural reinforcement.

It rewards certain actions and encourages repetition.

For viewers, that means your feed is not random.

For creators, it means success creates pressure to adapt.

Research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that variable rewards are one of the most effective ways to shape behaviour.

Which raises a more uncomfortable question.

What happens when both audiences and creators are inside the same system?

Over time, things begin to shift.

Not necessarily towards what is most accurate or valuable.

But towards what performs best.

In this week’s video I look at the science behind that process, and why the people experiencing the most success may also be the most affected by it. Including me!

Watch here:

They promise frameworks, habits and strategies from highly successful people.

But there’s a problem.

The science suggests they can’t actually deliver on that promise.

Much of this content is built on survivorship bias.

We study the winners and ask them how they succeeded.

But we don’t see the far larger group of people who followed similar paths and didn’t get the same outcome.

Research across psychology, economics and neuroscience points to something uncomfortable.

Success is far less predictable than it appears.

Confidence is not a reliable signal of accuracy.

And people are often unable to explain their own decisions as clearly as they think.

So why does this content feel so convincing?

Because the business model depends on it.

If success could be packaged into a simple, repeatable formula, you wouldn’t need to keep consuming it.

In this week’s video I look at the research behind these ideas and why the way success is sold may be part of the problem.

But to me that might not be the most important question.

The more important question is what happens when powerful actors publicly demonstrate that the rules don’t apply to them.

Rules often feel frustrating. I’d be the first to say that!

They slow decisions down, constrain power, and sometimes prevent actions that seem immediately useful.

But they exist for a reason!

Research across neuroscience, psychology, political science and economics suggests that when people stop believing rules apply equally, something deeper starts to happen.

Trust erodes.

Cooperation becomes harder.

And societies become more vulnerable to polarisation and more extreme forms of politics.

In this week’s video I look at the research behind that process, and why it may be one of the most important but least discussed stories unfolding in global politics right now.

Watch the full video here:

Subscribe now

I’ve quietly turned on the option for people to support BarrysEconomics financially. Not because the content is going behind a paywall. It isn’t, and it won’t.

But keeping this going takes more time and resources than I realised when I started. To upload weekly and do the rest of the work around the channel, I also need editors and camerafolk to keep things sustainable.

I’d rather be transparent about that than pretend it doesn’t exist.

So if you find the videos or essays useful and want to support the work, there is now a way to do that:

Subscribe now

If you don’t, nothing changes. You’ll keep getting everything as before, and I’ll keep being glad you’re here reading and watching.

Thanks again for being part of it.

Speak soon,

Barry

These aren’t worried parents who don’t understand the technology.

They’re the engineers, executives and designers who built the platforms and saw the internal data.

And many of them made the same decision.

Not my kids.

So why isn’t that the end of the conversation?

Instead the public debate keeps circling around parental choice, free speech, and whether the harm is “proven enough”.

In this week’s video I look at why that happens.

It turns out we have a cognitive bias called the bias blind spot.

We all believe we’re less manipulable than other people.

Ironically, that belief makes us easier to manipulate.

The video also looks at the Facebook experiment that altered the feeds of 700,000 users, and why the deeper issue might not be social media itself but the incentives behind the industry.

Watch the full video here:

If you’d like to support the work:
https://www.patreon.com/c/BarrysEconomics

Subscribe now

It isn’t only political.

It’s neurological.

Learned helplessness occurs when repeated experiences of powerlessness train the brain to stop trying.

Maier & Seligman’s work revealed how quickly this state can set in.

Now apply that to:
– Wealth concentration
– Institutional failure
– Political stagnation

Over time, disengagement becomes rational.

But research on social contagion and tipping points (Centola; Christakis & Fowler) suggests something hopeful:

We consistently underestimate how close change may actually be.

This final episode in the Epstein Economy series explores that tension.

If hopelessness is learned — it can also be unlearned.

Watch here:

Subscribe if you want future essays unpacking the psychology of power and inequality.

Subscribe now

This piece explores that gap.

Not as a moral criticism.

But as neuroscience.

Paul Slovic’s research shows empathy collapses as numbers grow.

Robin Dunbar suggests our brains evolved for tribes — not global capitalism.

Siddharth Kara documents cobalt mining abuses affecting thousands, yet statistics don’t ignite outrage the way a single narrative does.

Shoshana Zuboff describes surveillance capitalism — vast, systemic, invisible.

The result?

We rage at faces.
We tune out systems.

This is Part 3 in a series examining the psychology of power and scale.

Watch here:

If this resonates, consider subscribing — this series is building toward something bigger.

Subscribe now

They make the world feel simpler.

In this week’s video, I explore the neuroscience and psychology behind our obsession with the Epstein scandal — and why focusing on the villain may protect the structure that produced him.

Research shows that punishment activates the brain’s reward circuitry. Moral outrage spreads faster than structural analysis. And people can become psychologically numbed to inequality while remaining highly reactive to individual wrongdoing.

If Epstein becomes the exception, the system remains intact.

This is Part 2 of the series.
Part 3 next Sunday.

Behavioural science suggests something far more uncomfortable: he was a predictable outcome.

In this video, I look at the neuroscience, psychology, and economics behind extreme wealth concentration — and why it doesn’t just create inequality, but actively manufactures the conditions for abuse.

This isn’t about conspiracy theories or secret cabals.
It’s about incentives, silence, and systems that protect power by default.

When accountability fragments and money buys distance from consequences, harm becomes invisible — until it’s too big to ignore.

🎥 Watch the full video here: