Culture in Decline: Economics 101

2012 ,    »  -   227 Comments
Ratings: 6.42/10 from 110 users.

Culture in Decline: Economics 101The topic of this show entitled Economics 101 deals with the subject of Economic Calculation, Market Rationale and its effects, along with considerations of the Scientific Principles of Sustainability.

This episode features long winded and generally insulting rhetoric, a special guest Gremlin, CID's "Man on the Street" and the return of the evil peach-suit capitalist - Peter's alter ego.

Culture in Decline is a satirical yet serious expression that challenges various cultural phenomena existing today which most of society seems to take for granted. Nothing is considered sacred in this Series except for a detached benchmark of fundamental logic and reason - forcing the viewer to step out of the box of "Normality" and to consider our societal practices without traditional baggage and biases. Previous episode: What Democracy?

More great documentaries

227 Comments / User Reviews

  1. charlieprimero

    The amazing part is that this guy seems blissfully unaware of the past century of economic writing and real-world evidence debunking ye olde "scientific socialism" economic model.

  2. CapnCanard

    PJ has expressed a great deal of my own gut feelings and intuitions in this film. I tend to have very similar views, views that I arrived at without being sucked into accepting the standard economic model. A model that I believe, as Joseph appears to as well, is delusional. This delusional economic world is unsustainable. I believe we have accepted economic forces to be far more important than nature, so much so that it trumps all "scientific principles/law". Long story short: we need to align with nature... or to live in accord with the rhythm of our symbiotic world. If we don't then we will face a very steep painful decline and crash.

  3. Douwe Beerda

    It is actually not true that money evolved from barter systems. Read the book Debt, the first 5000 years. It is very interesting and it also explains why national money systems were really invented. This had much more to do with kings being able to pay for army`s then a kind of evolution from non existing barter. It is a great book and I think it would make this series even better.

  4. alans

    Finally a worthy doc to watch. Arranging human activity around GDP statistics or simply "favorable data" and unnecessary and wasteful accumulation of goods is insanity. The economy has to serve our needs, not the other way around. Economics is defined as the efficient use and allocation of resources, yet economics itself is not efficient. If we could only rid the "idealism" factor from economics, economics itself would be more efficient. Theory and practice are often two different matters.

  5. Mercenarry ForHire

    Great video, I cant wait to see how things unfold as i grow older. What predictable and unpredictable things may pop up.

    Truly something that cant be described with worlds :D

  6. Cato

    It could be argued "ye olde" scientific socialism has come of age.
    Perhaps our vastly superior technical ability compared to the time of Marx could allow this "Utopia" to work.
    We can easily produce enough for everyone now.
    Clean water for the world?
    $5-$21 billion
    Compare that to US DOD alone military expenditure for 2012 of $707 billion.
    There are any amount of these kinds of figures to be used.

    The last century of economic writing is obviously a crock...the real world evidence is to be seen in every bank scandal and every failing economy.

  7. justin les

    The human race needs to grow up a bit more for socialism. It took like a million years to get them to this point, you cant expect people to get over themselves that quickly. They worship beauty, they crowd around dry wit like bloodthirsty wolves, the sneering elitists that they are. They dont really care about each other, they only seem interested in evolving their precious social darwinism and pathetic jokery. The fruit has definitely spoiled.

  8. CAG

    The dude who hosts this is an arrogant d-bag, which makes this unwatchable. He may have valid points, but who would know?

  9. Malchik

    If s*** keeps up, you won't have to wait until you're much older.

  10. john Palermo

    I wish one of these doc's would give real advice on how to deal with the ignorant masses. I know the reality all to well and the data has long since been absorbed and message understood but now how do I go about my daily life surrounded by those who are still zombies?
    They are driving me crazy. Dogma, Faith, Left Right Paradigm, it's in my face passing itself off as fact/reality and positive action 24/7 and I cant take much i guess

  11. Neverborn

    ... I think he's allowed to be a little arrogant ... get over the fact you think he's arrogant and you may learn something, but who would know?

  12. Bogdan Herteg

    This doc is so illogic. At first the economics is seen as a wrong approach, but 20 min later is the only solution. And to see the culture just in decline because it has more dimensions (like art, religion) than a corporation values is scary. This is zeitgeist propaganda in different package.

  13. Hesusa

    I think this is his atempt at dealing with the ignorant mases. I mean the clip with the rocket launch and other "trying to be comical" inserts are there so your average Joe will not switch it off after a minute. However on me it has the opposite effect... I still watched it till the end though. He has valid points. Bigger problem is how to get from the current way of doing buisiness to something that does not screw up everything by default.

  14. tariqxl

    Trying to change the system is pointless without changing the human psyche because the system we have in place is a direct reflection of that psyche. People constantly blame systems, consumerism breeds greed, religions start wars, communism breeds corruption. None of those are true - people are greedy, all life is inherently so, a snake will eat itself to death and a plant will flood its system and drown while people complaining that they don't make enough money will still die of obesity. People start wars whether they believe in Allah, JHWH, Jehovah, Eli, Quetzalcoatl or panspermia. If I were to kill in the name of Kyza (my dog) you wouldn't blame poor Kyza. If people aren't buying what I'm selling here there's one small piece of evidence. 96% percent of the worlds populace are followers its an instinct that has evolved with us a a social animal, people will imitate what they view as a successful behavior as that will make them more likely to be successful. So at the end when Peter Joseph took off his jacket to reveal that 'lets all unf*ck it up together' T-shirt who thought 'I want that T-shirt'? I'm betting 96% did and thats why consumerism is the dominant practice around the world. Change the follower mentality - change the system.

  15. Terry Chylinski

    This documentary put into words and gave visuals of exactly how I see our society. The basic written laws are ignored as we travel through our world without really experiencing or respecting it.

  16. silkop

    Nice to see that PJ finally found a show format which suits the depth of his ideas (self-indulgent pretentious trivializing clownsmanship aimed at younger kids). The production quality also seems way better than of his Zeitgeist movies. So yeah, I can definitely see progress there.

  17. dmxi

    "the revolution is just a t-shirt away!" - clever cloggs -

  18. runnysplack

    It's pretty ignorant to think that every ideological teaching that we suffer is based on truth when that "truth", "trickles down", from a group of people with the goals of self gratification, self indulgence, and self satisfaction in mind. I really have to laugh at people when they believe that truth is a conclusion based on egotistical self righteousness, or fear; personified by a single or closed mindset. Now, can you offer anything tangible, or are you just whining because business is shitty?

  19. runnysplack

    I don't think understand. Again watch please. Then study facts on interwebz also you read associate books...... Understand then no?

  20. runnysplack

    This whole movement and all movements like it were designed in a way to make you think for yourself, to ask questions and educate yourself to find answers. You have to figure this out for yourself. I can give you some advice though. Don't ever push your opinions on people because you will lose every argument, assuming the bases of your argument is to get people to listen and, in turn, change their opinion. It is futile to argue with ignorance and infinitely more futile to argue with those who are not willing to listen. Ask questions!

  21. John Jacquard

    "(self-indulgent pretentious trivializing clownsmanship aimed at younger kids)" yeah because we all know raping humanity and the earth with a scarcity based wasteful society with the overall psychological development of a five year old who won't share his toys (monetary system, ill give you this only, if you give me that")
    MUST be the only correct way. any alternative is what you stated. and make sure you never judge information by it's own merit , instead believe the status quo at all costs. after all we are ONLY driving our self to extinction with the current paradigm.

  22. John Jacquard

    you are wise.

  23. John Jacquard

    what is your method for extracting relevant information? just curious

  24. John Jacquard

    i feel your pain brother, and ask that everyday one thing that helps me is to ask them "if you look at mother nature say any living organism at the cellular level you will see co-operation is the only way life can work equal distribution of resources . if cells go off on their own that is auto immune disease in fact that is the ONLY way any living thing can even survive let alone flourish, now with that evident understanding, why does mankind think a opposite approach, (scarcity based selfish monetary system separate countries wooden boxes for houses, separatism, hate everyone that isn't your best friend or family) how COULD a monetary debt based system EVER work without self destructing like it is today thousands of bits of evidence surrounding us at all times everywhere you go. democracy is fake, we live in a dictatorship called MOTHER NATURE and if we do not create a system in harmony with the natural laws of her we will parish no if ands or buts. today's society is the most ignornant set of values possible." sorry as you probably know it can be hard to speak on the subject with few words without missing something

  25. runnysplack

    There are factors today that weren't taken into account when these "debunkers", wrote their books and articles. People are taught to think in a linear fasion and once that idea makes sense and is shown to work, there is no changing it. Austrian economics is joke and John Nash's version of economic stability known as "**** you buddy", where our greed, according to real-world theory, is supposed to balance the economy if we all fight it out in a game of school-yard-bullying, is also a joke. I'm afraid that nay-sayers of the revolution need a better argument than what pompous, parsimonious, pigheaded advocates of free-market crapitalism had to say sixty years ago.

  26. John Jacquard

    that is your assumption. not necessarily what he was feeling while speaking. that is a fallacy to assume such things when it is impossible to be in his head he never made any statements about "feeling" and there is a difference between arrogance and being correct.

  27. John Jacquard

    yes but your forgetting one thing they were "taught" to be as you described. change what people are taught and you get a different result. those behaviors you listed are what is rewarded by money so is it surprising to see those behaviors exhibited?

  28. John Jacquard

    if you watched the video you would see the part where he explains all the books that he read and then describes the fallacy inherent within all the books and evidence why they are irrelevant to the physical world which are the real laws and resources needed for all life on this planet not imaginary paper with ink printed on it that has no direct correlation to reality. money is a fantasy world. a way to have the whole planet a prison.

  29. John Jacquard

    the facts brought up in this video are inarguable. the only way to disagree is to misunderstand, or not know in entirety the workings of the physical world, including society humanity and life on earth

  30. John Jacquard

    the concept of infinite growth, on a planet with finite resources is a utopia.

  31. John Jacquard

    how could you believe that?

  32. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    take a breath between sips of kool-aid or you might choke. in my opinion most people would agree that there are many problems with society today and changes need to be made. but stating that we should share/pool resources giving up ownership over resources and property . that is not realistic. some person/company/government right or wrong owns these things and i do not see most of them giving them up freely. are you suggesting that they are taken against the owners will? are you promoting force? what if the countries with the largest percentages of these remaining resources choose not to join? these are just a couple of questions that require proper answers before i take my first sip of the kool-aid.

  33. phillip wong

    I love how some people say " he speak what is on my mind". Blah blah Blah...

    What this guy is good at is speaking garbage. What we need is more competition between firms so that more high income people are hired, and more jobs cater to those people. It is pathetic, and I don' 't like how people want money for just being alive. No, you are no better than famine people in east Africa . You want to put food on the table? Fine, be productive, and find a way to service you fellow men.

  34. Unity

    Over the Edge:
    Indeed just taking a person/company/government's property for sharing/pooling does not sound realistic... yet it happens under disguise. The concept of ownership has become a very loose term... do you think companies from Europe, the US, or Canada have a right to "own" property in Thailand for their own use of lumber, or Brazil for their own use of Soy crops for animal feeding, or several countries for the extraction of clean drinking water. I know this is supposed to be a free market, but native people are robbed from their sustainable habitat, their resources and their property, just because some company gives the government money.
    So people that have been living for hundreds of years in a habitat which provides food and water are robbed from their lives, and their property was taken by force (as believed irrational against companies), just because the people's government was bribed... and the natives are left without a thing. I hope this might persuade you into at least tasting the kool-aid ;)

  35. Unity

    Phillip Wong:
    I agree with being productive, and finding a way to service your fellow men... though it is hard to service your fellow men in a competitive society, where benefitting other people does not provide for oneself.

    People in Africa undergoing famine don't have food resources because of the way the "modern society" has been exploiting "3rd World" Countries... they give weapons and cars to the people in power, in exchange for easy access to the natural resources, which used to be property of the native people, giving them the healthy environment that provides food and water.

  36. over the edge

    again i agree that their are problems and terrible practices within our society. pointing them out in no way makes this solution any more viable. but as you brought it up what of the lands and resources that have been in the hands of a country, society, person and so on for a long time. what if they don't buy in? do you do the same thing and take it away from them? what if these resources are on lands that have a sacred or sentimental value to a few? do you force them away in order to satisfy the majority? what if the countries with the largest percentages of remaining resources wish to stay away from this movement? that is not an unreasonable assumption. i am all for exploring answers but the assumptions made by this movement does not conform with human behavior. when i follow it to what i see as logical conclusions the only way to control a sufficient percentage of resources is to employ the same or similar tactics as the movement is accusing others of. the ends should never justify the means.

  37. runnysplack

    This is laughable Mista Wong! I don't think you understood his points. See, this is all about being a productive member of society and helping your fellow man. But instead of making goods available to buy, you make basic needs available so that people can become productive.

    The way I see it there are two things in this world that man values above all else and those are power and recognition. Money, as it is used today, is the bases for power but only a few people, ideally those with the most money, prosper over all others. This is why people starve, do you truely believe that a child, dieing of thirst on the side of the road, is at all capable of taking out a loan to fund a small business? Laughable! This is also why the Asian fur trade exists ( you know the one where they skin cats and dogs alive, laugh about it, then sell their furs under mislabeled names like " Asian wolf hound", or " Rabbit", or even " Siberian tundra cat"?) I could go on.

    I do agree, however, that the world needs more competion, but imagine a world where the social hierarchy isn't based on self worth as determined by monetary gain, but instead the determinant is contribution to our collective gain? Just a thought though. Hey, maybe you should have one too rather than regurgitating what your malignant peers yell you to.

  38. Alex Storr

    FFS, will people stop calling him arrogant! All people who deliver a strong view on something will come across in this way - a preacher, a poitician, an evolutionary biologist etc etc etc. If you don't agree with the views stated by someone, try arguing against their comments rather than attacking their style of delivery or simply their demeanour. I am not fond of PJ's delivery sometimes, but I can see beyond this towards the content of his remarks.

  39. Alex Storr

    you need to research The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement more. They are foreseeing that the system will gradually destroy itself and that as purchasing power diminishes the need for money will be eradicated. Nobody ever suggested that property will be taken by force like the swift introduction of a communist state.

  40. over the edge

    Alex Storr
    i have watched all the videos available and visited the website and nowhere does it address how ownership is transferred from the individual/corporation/country to the collective. please explain it to me.

  41. phillip wong

    By servicing others, it means, producing some products, or services that others want to buy. This is capitalism, understand?

    Don 't get out of discussion, and talk about Western Imperialism.

  42. phillip wong

    Seriously, you know nothing. The basically ideal of capitalism is that by serving yourself, you benefit your fellow men. You really think the baker, farmer, fisherman, meat cutter, cooks are all working from the benevolence of their heart to serve you your meal? No! They do it out of their own pure self-interest,

    I don 't think people need to start a business. Most people in society just sell their labor, or human capital to firms. You have a problem with that?

    I am not regurgitating anything. I understand how economics work, and you don 't. You need to stop spouting things you don't know.

  43. Bogdan Herteg

    My point is that the pretension to create an economic system by applying these principles will cause an alteration of human society comparable with communism and fascism. Saving the economic system by reducing the complexity of human mind to some pragmatic paradigm is hardly a great achievement. It’s not a wise start / restart.

  44. John Jacquard

    you have trillions of cells in your body that make "you" which ones "own" what? evolution cannot be stopped, and when a species reaches the limitations of it's hardware it will evolve to network into a community just like the trillion of cells that make a human being .humans are the cells of humanity. this evolution will prevail because it is the only correct notion this makes ownership obsolete. this makes selfishness (profit) obsolete it money was the last paradigm the next one will be an internet of humanity. whatever justifications you have for protecting the current status quo has nothing to do with the truth... you cannot stop evolution son.

  45. John Jacquard

    first off i prefer coffee thank you. (it's my fav :D) secondly the concept you refer to is outdated and will be out grown. lets take a human being . they think they are that one thing but that is not really true they are a community of trillions of cells. so what cell owns what?

  46. phillip wong

    You think?

    First of all, he really did not provide ****. Second, is a ******.

  47. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    analogies are great but i prefer facts and detailed explanations. i will ask again. how will the control be transferred from those who possess it now to the collective? what is the contingency plan if the areas with the most resources do not wish to participate both on the small and large scale? if you cannot answer in detail i will not waste my time supporting an idea that does not back up it's claims. if force in any way is promoted i will not support this idea

  48. khahh_gdye

    I think it is tragic that a person he can study for years in economy and still not have learned anything about economic theory. I think he should read those books again

  49. John Jacquard

    okay, i can respect that. first you must understand that the full detail regarding this system cannot be explained in a few paragraphs alone.also the same goes for really comprehending the topic you must research all the material to really grasp it. however i MAY be able to assist. my comment is not an analogy.the trillions of cells really do make you up. you are not one thing. each human is really a cell of humanity this is fact any concept that cannot fit with these truths cannot be true. once a functioning rbe city is established on a smaller scale (smaller functioning city) outsiders(countries, people,etc.) will be able to examine the RBE and anyone (participating) that has the ability to do so will be able to advance a specific part of the system or prove a better way (no copyrights) in any area. it is not a perfect system, so initially any problems or challenges can be worked out and the city is self sufficient, then surrounding areas will be able to join. when one does ,outsiders can examine what is happening , the effects on people , environment etc.however successful it becomes each time there is an expansion to it, will be open to be viewed, tracked statistically or improved upon by the inherent freedom of the system itself. after a while the evidence of the the benefits will be seen other countries and it will evolve to eventually include the rest of the world. the idea of force is obsolete because the foundational values and the system itself is primary goal is to free ALL people from servitude and slavery of money, labor , and ownership. the important thing to understand is that the smaller initial city will be watched by everyone then improved upon to give the people the highest quality of life with the best methods at the time. there will be no opinion involved only proof evident by the city the effects on the people and the sustainability of the system. again there is no quick and easy way to fathom it's entirety without doing years of research, because of number of factors regarding this topic.i hope this short comment can be of use to you.

  50. runnysplack

    I can't understand you through your internet accent. Did you just tell me not to refer to western impirialism even though that is exactly what happens when your precious capitalism is allowed to run amok? Do really think that countries like China or India are not headed in that direction as we speak? Do you know what fiat currency is? Do you know what happens when a country is allowed to live beyond their means? Do you know what mega corporations do to small businesses and farmers? Can you tell me why 68% of college graduates can't get a job after graduation and why most of them will never be able to pay back their student loans in their lifetime or their children's lifetime? Capitalism, Mista Wong, is water companies going in to poor countries and stealing their resources then selling it back to them at rediculous prices. Capitalism is women and children being forced into slavery to pick diamonds for some rich warlord. Capitalism is the drug war, capitalism is why nothing changes in politics, capitalism is oil spills and it is why people in the steppes of Russia and Mongolia are driven from their homes so mines can be built and mountains can be blown to smithereens. Capitalism is not the poor farmer selling his goods at the market with a smile on his face because that person is dead. In his place is a monster called Big Agriculture. Please try to understand, Phillip. The people don't rule the world with gold, the world bank rules the world with debt based slavery.

  51. John Jacquard

    what specific things are you referring to that you believe he did not understand? you did not include the relevant details in your comment.

  52. John Jacquard

    what analogy? what i said is literal scientific fact.

  53. runnysplack

    I've been searching for this answer for a long time, probably seven years now, and the best that I can come up with is that it is inevitable. But this is just one idea of many to counteract the problem and inevitable conclusion of monetary economics.

    What you want to hear is "Everyone will just give up all their **** so that we can better the collective of humanity". Which I agree is completely s*upid and not feasible at all. What you're looking for, and I don't mean to be presumptuous, is that archimedes point, if you will, by which you can base your level of understanding and the validity of these ideas. But the truth is that there is no one explanation or one way that people would be willing to allocate their resources for free, across the entire planet for the betterment of mankind.

    Look at it this way. As you may know our entire infrastructure is based off of non-renewable resources. Oil, in other words. This is completely unsustainable and if not fixed in a way that is sustainable, will be the cause of one of the worst case scenarios imaginable. At the turn of the twentieth century, oil production had a ratio of resource invested vs. resources acquired that was 1:200. It is now roughly 1:4 and falling. Once that ratio hits the negative, or resources acquired are less than resources invested, investors will lose interest, corporations will lose capital and people will lose jobs. Oil prices directly effect the economy and not only that, they effect jobs and other markets across the board.

    It is a belief among many of my colleagues that in order to be sustainable we need to take a look at nature. If the cells in your body are working in correlation with eachother you are a perfectly healthy human being, but if your cells start working by themselves that is called an autoimmune disease. Nature wastes nothing and is 100% sustainable, humans waste 95% of everything we create and work outside of nature. Essentially we are the world's autoimmune disease. In order to become sustainable we would need a change in perception that is borderline metaphysical and as I've debated you before, under a different name, I know that is hard for you to accept.

    This movement in no way advocates the use of force nor does it expect people to follow them. They offer ideas that, if put in place, could potentially change the face of the world and allow every single person to have all of their basic needs met. That's a better world in my opinion.

    The wars in the middle east are resource wars, not freedom wars. I don't care what peer reviewed paper says differentoy, there is no denying it and its only going to get worse.

    Honestly, if you think about it, the only way that to free up resources for sustainable managment, like this movement advocates, is to devalue currency and make money, in general, obsolete. Rather than dismissing these ideas as junk, think of how you can help do that and I'm sure you'll see the answer to your question.

  54. runnysplack

    First they ignore you , then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Laugh all you want but you can't escape the universal paradox If you don't know what that is, just keep laughing but please don't get in the way.

  55. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    who pays to develop this "first city"? the cost to build and develop the initial technology would require vast amounts of money not to mention a method of earning money to pay the taxes on the land as well as the money needed to supply the vast number of resources that will not be contained within the "city" ? while i agree that this process will benefit the less fortunate it in no way provides an incentive to those who control the resources to give them up. they will still possess the power and wealth that comes with controlling the resources. and while you are developing this city and still living in a monetary world how will this approach provide "highest quality of life with the best methods at the time" without controlling the resources?
    and yes it was just an analogy (and a bad one at that). the human body is a actual living system and RBE is non living so they are not comparable. also there are more cells in "you" that are not "you" then there are that are "you". there are many cells that if not fought against they will kill you . our body is in a constant state of war that can never be won but if you wish to compare constant war for supremacy and control to your system so be it.

  56. over the edge

    Paul MacLeod
    you managed to quote what this proposal "is not" and what a possible end goal is. not how to get there

  57. over the edge

    why is this answer "inevitable." . i can think of many possible answers bit i will agree most of not all are terrible this answer is not inevitable. yes our economy is based on a finite resource (oil) but it wasn't always that way and our society still existed within a monetary system before oil. the "the cells in your body are working in correlation with eachother you are a perfectly healthy human being" is wrong as i explained to another poster. then "Nature wastes nothing and is 100% sustainable," please back that up? nature kills off entire species. nature tries every day to kill us off and we only survive (since hunter gatherer days) by manipulating it for our benefit. without a substantially smaller population and a refusal to manipulate nature will we be anything approaching 100% sustainable. pointing out the wars in the middle east shows problems with the current system that i never claimed weren't there. again i need positive proof for your system not negative proof against the current system.if you devalue money dramatically without this system available on a massive scale you are punishing those with less the most as they will not be able to survive without resorting to less than ideal solutions. even if you make money obsolete there will still be those who control what will still be currency (resources) and those who control them will not let them go freely in my opinion.

  58. runnysplack

    Yes I understand the basic idea of capitalism is to serve people by serving yourself but it does not benefit everyone and it does not, not because they aren't productive enough, but because of the self serving nature of capitalism. Not everyone has the opportunity to better themselves through labour or go to school to get the education needed in order to sell their labour. This will increase as automation increases.

    The primary goal of business is to increase short term profits for its shareholders no matter the environmental, economic, or social consequences. That means that it doesn't matter if people die or all the forests die or all the animals die or the very ecosystem, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE ARE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, dies, as long as money is made. Why can't people come to grips with this concept?

    I have a problem with people who do business and don't care who or what they hurt. Your idea of economics is about 1000years outdated because in the real world, as in today, as in while you think and type and spout your rhetoric about how it serves by default, its edifice is on the precipice of destruction.

  59. Simon Gramstrup

    I think that believers of competition reacts like believers of any religion reacts when opposed. They seem to be unable to accept any problems with money and refuses to even consider taking a scientific/logical and collaborative approach to designing a society ..or any other road for that matter. Sad and closeminded..

  60. alans

    I don't have time to read all this. Can you break it down into a few sentences?

  61. alans

    I think there has to be a balance between cooperation and competition.

  62. runnysplack

    If those cells are not working to rid your body of bad cells, then you die. What he is trying to say is that if we do not all work together to better ourselves, and we continue to fight eachother and kill eachother, and kill everything around us for the benefit of the individual we will eventually kill ourselves. Remember, Carl Sagan? " An organism at war with itself is doomed, we are one planet"?

    When he stated that an RBE, like the cells in your body, working together, is like a living organism; It's time to think outside the box. Don't take it literally as in governance could be a living entity. It's like a well oiled machine, analogous to the well oiled machine that is your body, which is a good analogy. Your bodies cells, as in the ones that are supposed to be there, work together to keep you healthy. If we had a governing system, not necessarily an RBE, that works with nature and the carrying (population) capacity, and the caring ( resource managment) capacity, we would be better off rather than just having a few people own everything and everyone else is left with dirt.

    You are jumping to conclusions. Forget about the bad cells and the constant fight for supremacy. I understand that that is the natural order of things but it does not apply here. Think of what crime is related to, I don't know the exact percentage, but close to 95% of all crime is money related. With money comes power, with power comes the desire to keep that power. Human rights violations like genocide, whether it's directly attributed to a totalitarian dictatorship or whether it's not directly attributed, but still a result of, a specific regime, or purchase of capital or other means of monetary acquisition, is a result of the monetary system. Read Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism.

  63. runnysplack

    You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. Can you propose another way? Or do you think that the current system is the best that we can do?

  64. runnysplack

    How to get there, in a nutshell:

    Gain support for the movement, particularily from influencial figures.
    Acquire enough funds to build experimental city
    Educate people on how it can work
    Educate people on how the current system is unsustainable
    Educate people more
    For those that still can't understand, educate them more
    For those that want no part, stop trying
    Gain support from local industry (the hardest part)
    Automate all menial tasks inside city ( food preparation, farming, (aquaponics, hydroponics, not conventional farming), etc)
    Use only renewable energy sources depending on the location of the city( wave, wind, solar, geothermal, human( no there will not be slaves riding bicycles in the boiler room) ( pavement can now be made to conduct electricity which could be stored for later use)

    If everyone is in a community driven mindset it can work as long as all ends are met.

    Store results in a vault
    Wait for the downfall of society

    Say I told you so
    Rebuild society as RBE
    Use barter system as transition......

    When capitalism was introduced noone knew what would come of it but it was useful at the time. Noone will know what will come of an RBE or similar system. Can you tell the future?

  65. John Jacquard

    your communicating in a way where your placing some kind of responsibility on me about your assumptions i like to help but i'm unable to go through something so complex from start to finish on here it is important to go through it before making assumptions because one missed thing from the research COULD give one a misinterpretation. if you are serious in your inquiry all your questions have already been answered at the venus project dott com the FAQ section good luck to you sir.

  66. John Jacquard

    you are not one thing. you are trillions of cells (just the ones that ARE you i'm talking about) if they didn't co-operate in a RBE there would be no you, this is inarguable your twisting it around from the truth it is not an area where opinion is necessary. ALL living systems HAVE to work this way give me an example of any one living things that the very cells, organs etc. it is MADE out of are not equally sharing the oxygen, the nutrients, the blood it is all co-operating nature has laws that must be obeyed in order to survive this is the dictatorship that we have no choice to obey this is why we are facing our demise unless we switch to a RBE it is "inevitable" or we perish. BESIDES that you cannot stop evolution when a species reaches it's limitations with it's hardware it will evolve to a network system (humanity)

  67. John Jacquard


  68. Vlatko

    @John Jacquard,

    Although I do like zeitgeist, I must admit that your analogy with the nature, trillions of cells, etc. is fallacious... like any other analogy drawn from human social world to the natural world.

    Firstly, nature is all about murder, selfishness and death... sprinkled here and there with a little bit of altruism (which if you really read about it you'll see that it is apparently good, but in fact it is selfish too).

    Nature is in balance because species adopt Evolutionary stable strategies (game theory, behavioral ecology, and evolutionary psychology) and most of them are locked in spiral arms races. From the outside it looks perfect, but from the inside it is very bloody.

    Secondly, the cells you're mentioning are not EQUAL. They're all fed equally, but on the first sight of danger (cold, deprivation of food or oxygen) guess who's gonna die first. In hypothermia your body will protect the brain cells (almost all resources and heat goes there), and will deliberately kill peripheral cells - arms, legs (deprived from heat and food). There are MORE important cells and there are LESS important cells.

    Not to mentions the genes. There are genes which internally sabotage other genes (on a gene level) in order to pass on to the next generations.

    Let's also look at the ants... slaves, workers, soldiers, queens and kings. Soldiers will willingly die for the queen and the only purpose of workers is to feed the queen and the offspring.

    Don't look at the nature. Every connection drawn from nature to human social behavior always ends badly.

  69. John Jacquard

    well spoken sir.

  70. John Jacquard

    nice to talk with you by the way. back to the topic.....
    going by your explanation how do you explain any life more detailed than a single cell organism? how can it possibly exist at all ,ever if this "nature is all about murder, selfishness and death... sprinkled here and there with a little bit of altruism" was true . it would be impossible for trillions of cells to exist as one entity by your explanation. any two cells next to each other would murder and steal what the other one has,your incorrect sir. every cell is not out for itself how many just in one finger tip? next to speak of fallacious. lets examine the organs of a human for example. the lungs have a job they bring oxegen to the WHOLE body , without DEBT or SERVITUDE. the heart, blood to the WHOLE body.the brain? messages to the WHOLE body. the nervous system, impulses to the WHOLE body no please tell me exactly how " "nature is all about murder, selfishness and death... sprinkled here and there with a little bit of altruism" fits in specifically with what i have just mentioned. and also explain why cell is not separating from every other cell if " "nature is all about murder, selfishness and death... sprinkled here and there with a little bit of altruism" is true . please have your explanation pertain to these examples, as they were what i was originally referring to , thank you for all your videos sir!

  71. runnysplack

    This is just your perception. There has never been, so far as I know, a system of governance that was based off of nature. Look up Network Theory and how it applies to ecology.

  72. phillip wong

    As labor productivity increase, there is less need for uneducated labor. This is a given, but the solution is not socialism, but innovation. What this means is people coming up with new products, and services in the marketplace to absorb the excess labor.

    Also, it is wrong to think capitalism is there to help everyone. It is not. It favors brains, and hard work. It punish the stupid, the lazy, and the uneducated. It gives incentives for education, hard work, initiative, and risk taking.

    So, Yes, capitalism is unforgiving, but it favors "good qualities" over the "long term".

  73. Vlatko

    @John Jacquard,

    Nature is all about murder, selfishness and death indeed. The way of life on Earth is literally death. You can't deny that.

    Cells do work together and cooperate, but there are more important cells and less important cells. There is certain amount of hierarchy in the body (the trillion cells). You can live without one lung, legs, arms, eyes, years, one kidney... but you can't live without heart, brain, liver etc.

    We want to be equal in every right, don't we, thus the analogy with the trillion cells and the nature fails.

  74. Vlatko


    What is my perception? Who said that there was a system of governance that was based off of nature?

    The point was that analogies between "how should be human social life organized" and "nature" are wrong and can be deadly.

  75. John Jacquard

    i dont know what YOU mean by equal. equal to me is being judged by the merit of our own intelligence or what we offer to something not our skin color or height or "hey this guy is different beliefs" what you say is equality the brain is important but without any blood its worthless, without fresh oxygen it cannot function what your saying is an aspect of nature but the aspect i'm referring to works different then that, it is co-operative, but i bring it up because for example just in the tip of your thumb is 6 billion co-operating cells. if it was like you say how could you ever get 5 cells to not murder each other in the whole thumb it's estimated 18- 30 billion (humans same density as water) im specifically referring to something your ignoring and switching to a different topic, but i wasn't referring to that topic. each cell has all the abilities and senses a full human has it is it's own being . so if it works the way you say how could tens or hundreds of billions co-operate ever? also the part your reffering to is being "pushed" cause and effect the environment sets up situations and the entity has to adapt to it. i would not classify it like you have i would look at all the variables and say when resources are low (not abundant) livings things exhibit certain characteristics to survive cause and effect. say lions if there are 50 Buffalo per lion the lions will co-operate if not they will survive, this is my second point since humans have some ability to "setup" the values tenants and systems of operate for the environment THEY live in , let's be aware of that cause and effect. the current paradigm is of debt and scarcity. Is it any wonder why we are currently like lions without enough buffalo to go around?

  76. John Jacquard

    the things i'm referring to in nature are that way, the things your referring to in nature is a viewpoint through a certain culture.(social darwinism)the current paradigm perpetuates "survival of the fittest" but that does not take everything into account. see my comment below for the details.

  77. John Jacquard

    i mean no disrespect just conversation i don;t judge just saying.....
    " There is certain amount of hierarchy in the body (the trillion cells). You can live without one lung, legs, arms, eyes, years, one kidney... but you can't live without heart, brain, liver etc." this is not true. how does the brain get it;s oxygen? how does the liver get fresh blood? that's not hierarchy , it's structure. if you have a car the engine isn't "king" to dictate. there is no fuel without the gas tank the engine cannot run without a clean air filter or a carburetor. if the fuel lines are rotted the whole car does not work. it's only on the surface that in the body there is hierarchy but upon deeper examination you find everything depends on each other, a human cannot survive if the digestion system fails, all organs contribute even though they have a different job. my original point is that. a cell is a like a mini human. in nature when you have billions or trillions of cells in a system (not unlike humanity where humans are each cell) the only functioning system is co-operation otherwise each cell would be out for their own or each organ having a specific function that every other organ relies on for survival there is no debt servitude or imaginary control mechanisms.

  78. John Jacquard

    i have a challenge for you. read the definition of sociopath, antisocial behavior, psychopath now tell me how the monetary system ISN'T that.
    and if it is , why would we have a socio-economic system with those characteristics? let alone the value systems established by the culture stemming from society regarding the socio-economic system. why can we recognize a sociopath in isolation is detrimental? (except for in business of course, we want them there right?) yet when the entire culture established by the current status quo set forth by the principles of the socio-economic system displays these qualities we are unable to identify the same detrimental "self destructing" qualities that have humanity destroying itself and the only environment it has.

  79. Vlatko

    @John Jacquard,

    1. I'm not defending the monetary system.

    2. Everything I've said so far is not my insinuation. It is established biological knowledge of how natural world works (including your body).

    3. I'll just reinforce that natural world in some cases is cooperative but only for genetic selfish reasons.

    4. In my opinion, successful modern human society, different than the current one, should not draw analogies from the natural world.

  80. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    while this red herring we have been chasing has been fun. how about providing actual hard evidence and an explanation of how this transfer of ownership will occur without using analogies that only show your lack of knowledge of human biology.

  81. runnysplack

    Your perception of nature is death where everything is out to kill you which is absolutely true, but you're not seeing the other side of nature; life. Nature is a cycle of necessities and consequences. Death is necessary for life, likewise, life is necessary for death. When an animal dies it brings new life. Bacteria multiply, plants grow, essentially life gets fed. Life is a consequence of suitable conditions and when life arises, so does death. Nature recycles everything as should we.

    Behaviour is how we govern ourselves. Laws are in place to circumvent negative behaviour, these laws are determined by what good behaviour should be, therefore, governance equals social conduct.

    When, John or myself say that our social behaviour should be synonymous with nature, you're looking at the idea in a literal sense using your perception of what nature is. Nature is a battleground and a nursery at the same time, this is obvious. However, when you look closer it is also a cooperative. Yes most of the time it is a malicious cooperation but that is beside the point. When basing a model of social behaviour off of nature you don't use the negative aspects of it, only the positive. How many times did they edit the bible before it finally worked for the catholic church?

  82. Vlatko


    Hahaha... good one. You should have told us earlier that we have to look only at the "good" side of the nature. That's better.

  83. runnysplack

    There are no hard facts because it has never been done without violence.

    These are some of the points represented by the zeitgeist movement that I disagree with. This resource transfer couldn't be done unless society was a shell of what it used to be. Unless it happened through proper education of moral values but that would take years and the chances of that happening are like a hundred yard touchdown pass with both players blindfolded.

  84. John Jacquard

    it's good to talk with you.

  85. John Jacquard

    it's already there, you have to learn all about the system of what a RBE is in all the details it is not simple enough to explain that here.
    however.if you wanted "evidence" or proof you would research every detail of the system to see if it was valid or not based off the information. "how about providing actual hard evidence and an explanation of how this transfer of ownership will occur " you know what your asking me is impossible so why the front? you know very well no person could give you that evidence in a comment it shows your true intentions. as far as "without using analogies that only show your lack of knowledge of human biology. " i don't know what information is contained in those words or what your communicating, but i can tell you that if it is an attempt to get some kind of rise out of me it is as effective as someone arguing the sky is purple.

  86. John Jacquard

    i don't understand your logic . originally i specifically explained what area of nature i was referring to very clearly, and asked you how your view applies on those specific levels and as a response you talk about a completely different part of nature than i was. now with this response , you act like what i said was regarding genes and species interaction and ignore the parts of nature that could never exist without co-operation.

  87. John Jacquard

    information on this topic is being spread so that when the monetary system finishes in it's suicide and most people loose everything thing have they will know of an alternative.(if we cannot get there before hand)

  88. Vlatko

    @John Jacquard,

    You don't understand the logic, because all "nature" (including your cell examples) is a subtle selfish process. Cells in one body do cooperate, but only with one pre-programmed goal - to sustain the vehicle and therefore to propagate the genes. They don't cooperate because they're good, but on the contrary because they're selfish.

    I showed you an example when a body is favoring one group of cells in the expense of other group. I showed you that there is inequality among the cells in one body, and I also showed you that there is hierarchy among them.

    It is true, the brain will not survive without oxygen for long, thus it is interlocked with the hearth and the lungs, but it can survive without limbs, and many other organs, which shows that some cells are less important than others when it comes to life or death situation.

    You can cherry pick some good bits from the nature, but that is far from your original premise - "the trillion cells within us".

  89. dmxi

    man-kind has rid itself from the shackles of symbiosis.

  90. runnysplack seems that my sarcasm sense is tingling, maybe I should elaborate.If you see death as waste like, Over the edge does then nature recycles 100% of its waste just like we should.

    Some animals cooperate to serve eachother by serving themselves just like we should as a whole. Capitalism serves more the individual than the collective. But we should not base this service on the wellbeing of the individual alone, but on the collective whole. While servicing the whole you service yourself and gain recognition for it. This can't be done with capitalism because all money that you earn perpetuates another's debt.

    I know you don't advocate the market system but I'm using capitalism as an example.

  91. runnysplack

    It's hard to get people to see differently or even see your view on a particular subject outside of their own understanding. When people ask for hard evidence of this resource transfer, even though they know very well that that is impossible because it has never been done before on the level that is needed, they use that as a bases to prove you wrong because all you can do is hypothesize.

    However, what they don't realize is that ever social system ever devised that was supposed to be for the people turned out to be a pervertion of itself. Capitalism was supposed to be a balanced free market where people could buy and sell goods and use money or gold in place of a barter system. Instead it turned out to be what it is today. Socialism was supposed to be a system of collaboration of wealth for the collective good but turned out to be an ideal place for dictators. All of these systems were first hypothesized, then they gained support, and they they were brought to fruition. The difference with a RBE is that it takes away the ability of the greedy to rise above all others.The biggest problem that any social revolution has is convincing the people that there is a better way and not to fear that change.

  92. John Jacquard

    nice to speak with you guys, i need to put in more effort because i must be a terrible communicator because i wasn't clear and concise enough regarding specific topics i was referring to, therefore there was much confusion as to what i meant was talking about, and how it relates to the subject at hand. you guys beat me. i am wrong. you got me! i tried but a failed where you succeeded. you won , you got the gold medal and i just ended of shoved in a locker in the gym room with a wedgie and my lunch money stolen. i guess it's back to the drawing board and i will return when i can communicate in a way where people talking to me can understand what i mean. if not ,it's a room full of people talking to themselves .if they are not able to get the correct meaning through to the people they are trying to speak with what is really being accomplished? i am able to take this defeat and learn from it. thank you guys.

  93. John Jacquard

    true. the systems you all mentioned had the corruption built in the very rules and structure that was the foundation. also did not address the specific problems needed to have anything other than corruption. the values them self were based on out dated notions ,scarcity, and myths like "human nature". not to mention the control mechanisms designed into them to funnel wealth the the very top elite that devised them.

  94. runnysplack

    You see this hierarchy working inside of society where we have caretakers for the physically challenged. Society is a part of nature as created by humans and is a co-operative. Without that co-operation these people would die. If you lose a lung by way of an accident you will die without help. Yes you can survive with out legs, arms, ears, eyes, a kidney, or a lung, but not without the co-operation of the pack. Inside the body the digestive system, the central nervous system, and the respiratory system work together to keep you alive and healthy, one cannot work without the other. The fact that we have two lungs and two kidneys is an evolutionary trait devised to make the body more efficient and I will site my source for this once I get home and off this poopy phone.

    If an animal in the wild that relies on sound for one reason or another will die without the ability to hear, if an animal relays on sight but has no eyes it will die, if an animal relies on speed but has one leg, it will die. Imagine trying to fight of a bear without arms, comical.

  95. runnysplack

    People just pick things apart to try to prove you wrong because that's what they like to do. You haven't said anything that doesn't have a point so I don't k.ow what you're talking about. The body works together as a whole to keep itself healthy and one part or system can't work without the other. The liver can't work without the brain, the heart can't work without the liver, the intestines can't work without the kidneys. We have two of those because of its more efficient to have two. Just like the way we have two lungs. Besides the fact that you can live with only one of these organs, it doesn't mean that the body isn'ta system of trillions of co-operating parts. And for the linear minded scientist wannabes out there I will site my sources when I get to my computer. Actually, I think there might even be a documentary on this site that explains it.

  96. Vlatko


    I thought you've understood my comments about the human body and biology in general, but apparently you didn't.

    It is not true that one part or system can't work without the other. I gave numerous examples where that is not true. Some systems are interlocked, some system are not. Further more some systems are superior, some systems are inferior.

    You can live without both eyes, both years, both legs, both arms, both testicles, your penis, hear, nails, colon, the nose, etc. The emphasis is on the word "both".

  97. over the edge

    first off i agree that changes need to be made. i also wish any new system should be as fair as possible and provide a chance of sustainability. here is where this movement loses me. it provides no actual hard evidence for many claims and until then it is not only dangerous but selfish to inflict this idea onto a public that rarely questions for itself. maybe these solutions are what is needed. but until such time that this has been proven through real world testing on a reasonable scale or at least provides models taking into account most (i agree "all" would be impossible) possible hurdles and the solutions for these problems (free of analogies) explained in depth (again it has been a couple of months for me but the information on Mr Josephs websites provide little in depth detail). until this movement can back up claims it shouldn't be making them. not only will i not support it until such time but i will treat it the same as any unfounded claim and oppose it

  98. Unity

    @Runnysplack @Vlatko @John Jacquard

    I believe the issue isn't much about whether organs can function by themselves or without the other... rather the questions is DO THEY FUNCTION AT BEST CAPACITY?? Yes we can walk without arms, but the body's weight doesn't transfer properly... Yes we can see without one eye, but proper depth perception is sacrificed... Yes, a deaf person can learn to speak, but clarity is not well achieved.

    There might in fact be some superior systems, and some not so much interlocked, but they ALL are a part of the body as a whole. Instead of using body parts/organs, I prefer to use living organisms. A flock of birds, a school of fish, a herd of Buffalo, a culture of bacteria, a colony of ants, or a swarm of bees... these species live and have survived in cooperation with one another, YES there may be competition, but it's limited to the WANTS/NEEDS of a specific individual, whether it be for reproduction or perhaps the craving of a specific piece of food... BUT no one is left behind, AND each of these species would go extinct without CO-OPERATION.

  99. runnysplack

    I don't know man, this conversation has been going on for a while and its easy to get lost on a mobile.

    From what I gather, you're saying that the body is more of a hierarchical structure than a co-operative one. And I'm saying that this is true but its also true that it is a co-operative one.

  100. runnysplack

    I actually agree with you on this. However, I see the merit in the ideas of Peter Joseph and Jacque fresco so I don't openly oppose it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so why do you oppose it so fervently?

  101. israeli1

    he may have read the first page out of every book and got a bit confused...
    stupid docs are abundant these days, but the part of reading the entire Harvard economics literature makes him a liar too.

  102. John Jacquard

    i will list places for the details for you.
    the venus project website faq, reading list
    youtube jacque fesco online seminar .....many many hours of videos
    the book the best that money can't by ....
    all in all a few hours a day take a year or more to go through if your sincere

  103. John Jacquard

    you bet.

  104. runnysplack

    That's my understanding as well. We need this cooperation in society.

  105. John Jacquard

    If we can make the iPhone what it is today, imagine a world where apple, IBM, Toshiba, dell, hewlett packard ,Verizon,Microsoft,Motorola,sprint,canon,Texas instruments,sun and all the others worked together to create 1 computer. if we had a removal of copyrights we could apply this to every product in the world today. tell me this would not increase technology a thousand fold, products made to last 100 years because removal of planned obsolescence. just these 2 aspects of a RBE would change what it means to be human , imagine instead of wooden houses we used spherical and cylinder shaped plexiglass with concrete center solar coated outer coating for disaster proof Lego pieces for houses and buildings that snapped together for original designs this would change what it means to have a house. imagine being able to take any classes educated in the fields you are passionate and your calling in life with no debt to repay or no limitations with payments that would change what it means to be educated these few things alone are a small tiny fragments of a RBE and the changes in these systems would increase everyone's quality of life 5 times just these couple things that are impossible in a monetary system to establish so you ask yourself what kind of world do you want?

  106. runnysplack

    How do you know he never read it all? He bases his understanding of economics off a book called Modern Money Mechanics. Do you think a vocabulary like his just comes naturally to people?

  107. John Jacquard

    what about food in the current monetary system? how many hundreds of brands of peanut butter exist? how many are used? how many get wasted? how many factories for these and the resources required to make them? are they all made the best possible ingredients? or are they made to make profit? now multiply these things by EVERY FOOD ITEM IN THE WORLD! imagine switching to just 1 manufacturer 20 variates the best ingredients (no price no profit) how much waste and resources could be saved (making enough just for everyone on the planet through surveys and statistical information) now apply this to every food product in the world and we have just cut at least 50% of the waste in food product through thousands of manufacturers today those saved resources through each individual system be it food be it buildings etc. are why everyone can get what they need for FREE and yes they work hard in their field that they LOVE to work in for FREE as well. in america today it is estimated that 70% of people HATE their n jobs today. how may people you know gave up their passion in life for steady work or career just for the money they are miserable! what does that do for efficiency? who is going to put in more effort? guess the effect on productivity people today in the world feel like "oh, i don't get paid ENOUGH to put in all my effort at work" waste waste waste these aspects would change the attitudes of people and raise their quality of life

  108. John Jacquard

    imagine a world where distribution centers replace stores and you take things out like a public library to use as you like for the length of time you desire. imagine being able to go to a car lot drive 500 miles drop the car off at another lot visit family. imagine a 50 story hydroponic skyscraper growing organic food in every population of 1000 people all available for free. these few things could change they way we live life today our priorities could be on larger topics beyond basic survival for instance being able to improve society just because you have a better way in the field you love to work.

  109. John Jacquard

    imagine if every system worked the way the internet does. constantly evolving. access on demand, world communication, constant improvement. imagine if we allowed our belief system, customs,culture,to advance the way say microprocessor technology does. this would increase the happiness productivity sustainability and quality of life for ALL people.

  110. John Jacquard

    all the things i have listed can be done with the current level of technology today. any problems can be addressed more effectively because freedom to improve upon if you have the ability to do so it's not a utopia, instead the opposite, using the best of what we have setting up society in a way that rewards people by improving society (instead of individual profit and sociopaths tendencies of today)ask yourself right now why is the world NOT this way if we can have iphones if we can have microwaves and 65 inch tv's if we can have public libraries and theaters if we can coherently work in the fields of nano technology and all the other advancements in the last 200 years we can do this . IT IS COMMON SENSE!

  111. John Jacquard

    what kind of world do you want?

  112. over the edge

    you ask "why do you oppose it so fervently?" why ? because it is a claim that when challenged resorts to analogies or red herrings instead of facts. we have a finite time and finite resources to apply to solutions and when energy is diverted to solutions that have no factual backing you delay a possible solution from all of us. a solution should not be pushed upon the masses until most if not all questions are addressed in a logical evidence based manner

  113. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    i have read most of the articles and watched most of the videos on this subject. have you? if the explanation of my question is too long than provide a link that explains "in detail" how the greedy will just give up control of the resources?

  114. israeli1

    this guy claims that all these books put together represent one approach: the free market will take care of everything and the less government you have the better your economy is. this is chapter one, first book. where is the rest? he mentions Keynes by name but his theory is absent. he ignores completely any kind of different economic thought (which is 90% of current research). he says the world today is 100% capitalistic whereas every reasonable economist will tell you there is no such thing- governments around the capitalistic world are using socialistic tools like progressive taxes, pollution fines and many more. it's not a binary code, every one is in a different spot on a very gray area.
    the documentary sounds like 2-3 Wikipedia subjects put together and the vocabulary sounds like a communist brochure. some people have the gift of sounding like they know everything, he is one of them.

  115. John Jacquard

    how could i ever answer that? i cannot tell you what anyone person or group will do , the RBE is all about using the best known methods to improve upon existing systems the best we know how. you keep trying to set me up with some impossible task to prove something to you that's not my responsibility. i don't care what you think or believe.(in terms of feeling like it's my personal job to prove to you about something) we either work together and improve things or it will continue to fall apart.

  116. John Jacquard

    what do you suggest then? what is your alternative?

  117. John Jacquard

    if you have done the research then you have your answer VALUES. if we switch to a value system of improving upon the human condition and preservation of the environment , and that the whole earth is each person's property everyone would give up the control of resources for a dramatic increase in quality of life I gave some specific examples some paragraphs below and how it would translate to a better life for everyone. if you still don't understand try to understand how each system fits together to make the whole.

  118. John Jacquard

    that is a blatant lie about the red herring , your comprehension of an all inclusive system spanning multiple disciplines and a planet full of systems is the thing that is lacking. as a result you project your assumptions onto the system itself that sir is a red herring!

  119. John Jacquard

    you have to understand that such a detailed system has to be understood over time. meaning in order to understand the entirety you have to break it down to a system it's details then how that system connects to the rest. it is important to understand the general public has to grasp the general idea and identify with the basic values first. that is why the general information is more accessible than the fine details.It would be great if everyone jumped on board and we could switch before life gets too bad in the monetary system collapse , however it's probably not realistic. most people will probably have to lose their houses cars jobs and all the rest to be open to a new way.that is when they will lose faith in politics and the status quo of what they have conditioned. most people will be ready when this current system collapses so bad that most people cannot survive i wish that wasn't the case. the monetary system is built to self destruct and there is money to be made by the elite on the way down as well. i wish these events could be surpassed but it does not look like we will be able to avoid all that pain and suffering in the world. it seems for individuals not unlike yourself. they have to have the PROOF that this system(money) is killing humanity and the planet. my only hope is that it will not be too late to setup by that time.

  120. John Jacquard

    okay go ahead keep believing that. don't even get involved with these topics. go on with your life and watch what happens to the world, watch as the monetary system collapses in a self destructive spiral that takes away most people's cars homes jobs careers basic needs for their family. a RBE is not some alternative suggestion to the monetary system. it is a purposal to save humanity. if we are not able to do it in time just sit back and watch the show.

  121. israeli1

    there are two basic truths about the economy-
    1. government is less efficient and has a creativity level of close to zero. since we want an efficient use of resources and our current way of work relies mainly on creativity we can't let the government the power of "central planning".
    2. what government does better is regulation and supervision. so we need to see much more of it, especially in the u.s. (seems like capitalism has gone a bit wild there).
    as to what could be done to improve the economy- it's a great topic for a 10 book series and i don't think i have enough knowledge to be the one to write it. but i do believe a Harvard professor would do a much better job then the documentary film maker who claims to know his job better then him.

  122. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    comparing a living system (humans) that you either clearly do not understand the mechanics of or if you do misrepresent or ignore the complete system to a non living system is a red herring. using a false analogy in no way replaces actual proof. next do not tell me "don't even get involved with these topics". the best system would desire questions and alternate views. wouldn't it? there should be people demanding proof and facts for any proposal. i have never said that if possible this system is not a better solution to current conditions. i just ask how this system is going to completely remove human behavior. again why would those who have everything they desire and would have to lower their personal lifestyle to benefit others? they have the ability to take only what they need now and not gather more than they will ever need but they still do . what about this new system changes their personal motivation because without them giving up what they have now (control) this system fails badly

  123. John Jacquard

    some good points

  124. John Jacquard

    research the topic , your answer is there way before you get 10% way through the material.good luck (i meant don't get involved if your not interested in first covering all available material, then deciding your opinion, before making assumptions you don't have the information yet to make)

  125. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    if the answer is there please provide a link to the answer and i will read /watch it. again maybe it is my fault and i missed it but i have gone to the websites and read/watched most if not all the supplied material and this question (among others) has not been sufficiently addressed to me. not if the answer is so easy to find please point it out to me. again analogies or assumptions based on no demonstrable facts is of no use to me.

  126. John Jacquard

    "comparing a living system (humans) that you either clearly do not understand the mechanics of or if you do misrepresent or ignore the complete system to a non living system is a red herring"

    what is the meaning and intention behind this above sentence?
    your just using language as a way to try and gain control but what you do not realize is your INTERPRETING my original statement that was free from opinion. your arguing that the sky is purple, and through your particular conditioning i believe your genuine about what your saying but it is inarguable whether or not cells co-operate. there are as many in one finger as there are people in the world. it would be impossible for any more than say 50 cells to ever exist in a species if your assumptions regarding the issue were true. next (this is hilarious.)you say "ignore the complete system" THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING LOLOLOL when it comes to understanding the RBE. i was using cellular biology, as well as the organ system specifically as a direct analogy to the point i was making. last time i checked they are their own system. my point is THOSE specific. THOSE particular systems. 1.cellular biology and 2. the organ system work in a co-operative way. it is obvious the it is YOU that do not understand ..1. how to extract relevant information to comment on the actual specifics of the topic. 3.the entirety of a RBE system. regarding number 3 your questions and or comments regarding a RBE are a directly coupled to the research you have done and your ability to successfully communicate information in a conversation. sir. you gave failed at these attempts so far. because you have not put in enough effort in these areas i have listed. maybe if you spend less time making assumptions , as well as trying to manipulate through insults you will be able to conversate.

  127. John Jacquard

    " i just ask how this system is going to completely remove human behavior. again why would those who have everything they desire and would have to lower their personal lifestyle to benefit others? they have the ability to take only what they need now and not gather more than they will ever need but they still do . what about this new system changes their personal motivation because without them giving up what they have now (control) this system fails badly"

    then why are you here asking me this? go research it. i told you several times it is not possible for me to go through such complexity and details in short messages it is not a quick simple explanation your answer in embedded within the comprehension of the complete system. i gave you places to start though. the value system. the operation of society through it's subsystems.

  128. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    so no link or explanation then?

  129. John Jacquard

    human behavior is coupled with the type of environment, value system and upbringing regarding the person. if we set up these the best we can we can see a drastic improvement. also give people access to relevant education topics they enjoy, meet their needs (food ,shelter, educate,access good and services on demand all for free)

  130. John Jacquard

    people will donate their properties because the whole system will be better even billionaires will have a much higher quality of life. think of before the days of internet and now with access to computer and internet , your quaility of life is better talk with people all over access to information access entertainment) we can literally apply this concept with the concept of a public library with no return restrictions to improve peoples lives, that will drastically alter behavior in a positive way.

  131. John Jacquard

    it wont show youtube jacque fresco online seminar you will see colored frame videos there are hundreds of hours videos covering all details and questions answers. next the book the best that money can't buy, next the venus project website FAQ has all your questions listed with intricate details. i promise you your concerns have been thought of and addressed if you stay patient while researching it does take time and open mind

  132. John Jacquard

    i do agree it is difficult to find the more in depth information on this topic and there are hundreds of videos that just cover the basics.but it is out there.

  133. John Jacquard

    you have to be patient because it may take a while to get to the information your trying to find, it is not explained in the most clear and concise way sometimes, but everything is relevant that is covered it is important to take it in before making up your mind if you find yourself disagree with a statement or idea if you keep listening or reading it will make sense when the systems combine or the value systems are gone through. the information all connects but you have to go through the details for each part till you get the bigger systems combining and overviews

  134. John Jacquard

    sorry if i insulted you. the information is above.

  135. John Jacquard

    there ARE things almost all humans can agree upon. your own survival, a healthy body, loving your friends and family etc. this system will be one of them because the priority is help each person raise there quality of life, why? what could yield you better results with the functioning of society than feeing and helping people this is natural evolution of black rights women right free slaves. "in the future , people will get their kicks from making the world a better place" -Jacque Fresco

  136. John Jacquard

    what if there was a way to examine our society find the areas where corruption can sprout from and redesign to be impossible? what if there was a way to take a system's approach (like building a laptop) for the utilization and monitoring and distribution of the world's finite resources using the type tech we already do in things like networks cell towers communications electronics sensor systems ?what if there was a way to remove prices and costs that are only psychological today and replace that with a new concept of unlimited access on demand? what if there was a way to let go of tradition and utilize tech to specifically improve the lives of all people as much as possible?

  137. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    this will be my last post to you at this time as one of us (maybe me) is not getting their point across clearly and i feel we will either go in circles and resort to semantics. the Venus project and the like make assumptions based on no actual real world trials. that is my problem they can claim that their practices will have certain results but without performing a scale test over an extended period of time all that they present are assumptions. while we have finite resources we in no way can we satisfy infinite desires so there will always be some who do not get everything they want. and in many cases people confuse wants as needs . also jealousy, greed and selfishness are contained within all of us to varying degrees and i do not see these instincts that are responsible for our survival up to this point going away in time for this movement to "save" us. right or wrong it took humans millions of years to evolve these survival traits and in no way are they going to be pushed aside in a couple of generations. if a solution is to be found it has to incorporate all human behavior and base a society on discouraging/punishing such behavior but accepting that it will continue for at least the foreseeable future.

  138. John Jacquard

    what if there was a way to examine cause and effect to find the cause of crime and redesign society to remove crime, police, and laws with one swoop? what if there was a way any human could contribute to anything in the world if they have to provable ability to improve a system because all copyrights were removed?
    how would all these examples effect human behavior? can you picture yourself in such a world? no limitations ,personal development and advancement one large family of humanity?what if there was a way to look at every failure and flaw of every civilization that ever existed ancient Rome Greece Egypt and all the rest, and learn from their mistakes by redesigning the world to be truly free? do you know the history of ancient Rome for example failed in the very same way we are now? when America was established it modeled it's country off this ancient empire and now history has repeated itself with no investigation into the cause and effect relationship of why monetary systems have failed for thousands of years!

  139. John Jacquard

    what is your definition of exploitation?
    as a exercise, examine the world around you make a list of individual cases of exploitation and see how many examples you can find, then trace the root cause using( cause and effect) logic . any time there is a interception with another area follow that one as well. try to go as deep as you can within the entire world as we know it.

  140. John Jacquard

    all of what your saying is your opinion not fact. take this last paragraph you wrote and list all the facts regarding what your saying.
    your lying if you say you researched it because you wouldn't be confused like you are now all that and more is answered

  141. John Jacquard

    " also jealousy, greed and selfishness are contained within all of us" what exactly do you mean by this? that they occur without no reason or cause? the rest of the world works through cause and effect but these don't? comon!

  142. John Jacquard

    i don't get where the disconnect is? is it just cause the people around you told you this was true when you were growing up so you wanna stick with what other believe? or are you willing to put in the effort to investigate and trace it all the way back to the answer?

  143. John Jacquard

    the upsetting thing is that your questions and concerns are answered way before getting into the real interesting part details engineering internal structures as far as the research goes. take your biggest concerns and make a few fact statements using them for me in a response where you remove opinions as far as validity and feasibility of RBE please.

  144. John Jacquard

    this will prove to yourself that it comes down to effort. make a fact statement for me about human nature and it's details or some the other ones jealousy etc.

  145. John Jacquard

    make a list about the differences and similarities with your family life and society at large for example.make a list of the things you know of that effect YOUR behavior ex having you r meets met or someone robbing you the way things that are setup as a system how effect you

  146. John Jacquard

    make a list of differences if someone is imprisioned in isolation for 20 years , or the same person having free eduction food time to spend with loved ones, make a list of difference between having 20 best friends or feeling all alone on the world no home no money. let's begin to examine human behavior and the cause and effect relationship of reality, if that is a concern for you.

  147. John Jacquard

    lets examine jealously. what makes you jealous? someone dominating you? not having the things you feel you deserve? not getting treated fairly? being denied the respect you know you deserve while some one else gets what they want? denied access to the things in life that you need?

  148. John Jacquard

    these exercises allow you to dig deeper than the subconscious unquestioning conditioning the world has given you and allows your true opinion to surface.

  149. over the edge

    John Jacquard
    DO NOT accuse me of lying. do i make myself clear? if i lied show it and back up such an accusation or do not make such accusations. i will not tell you again or respond to you again.

  150. John Jacquard

    give an example of a person the was born with an accent. give an example of a human creating something from scratch that the world never had that did not evolve from something else. give an example of something unaffected by it's environment under any conditions.

  151. John Jacquard

    how many thing in your life if changed (from the environment) would make you a happier person?

  152. John Jacquard

    this is where you lied. "i have gone to the websites and read/watched most if not all the supplied material " your comments questions and concerns are that of a individual that has not yet covered the material. not even 10% of the way into the research are these all clearly covered in provable testable ways obvious to every individual that made it that far.
    it is the equivalent of saying "yes ,i'm math major .why does 2+2=5? you can't prove that 2+2=5? where is the evidence?

  153. John Jacquard

    all i want is you to make factual statements regarding human nature and jealousy regarding how they effect humanity and or RBE.

  154. John Jacquard

    let's see if your lying or not regarding "i have gone to the websites and read/watched most if not all the supplied material "
    how would children be treated and or raised by society in a RBE?
    if your not lying, how would jealousy be obsolete in a RBE?

  155. John Jacquard

    what concept would be the evolution of people like Martin Luther King Jr. ? if what he did was possible, should we be able to evolve those concepts further today?

  156. John Jacquard

    we are told today that democracy exists and freedom exists. name 5 examples of things you can do in public with no restrictions or monitoring that do not involve money at all.

  157. dmxi

    to much emotions blend the true cause..........

  158. John Jacquard

    well, regardless of opinions or gut feelings when the first RBE city is built we can judge it on it's own merit.

  159. Rolando Alberto Marquez Benite

    The statement about "the invisible hand" was made by Adam Smith but he thought about a society with moral and ethic values, Adam Smith has just been misunderstood, the statement about a free market that will create solutions for all the problems is possible in a society that cares about the others, a society capable to understand the importance of the nature, I´m agree with almost all the information in the documentary, but "the modern economics" is not the whole knowledge about economics, the classical economists like Adam Smith, john Stuart Mill, Karl Marx and others made a huge effort in order to understand the dynamics of the reality of the economy, they never approved the capitalist system, that´s why they where called the "lugubrious economists", because they where able to see the future of the system that only cares about profit and nothing else. I think we are better than where we are right now, but this is only because of a very few people that is polluting the knowledge of economics just to serve as base for policies or measures that are in favor of the ones that have almost all.

  160. 9875

    The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected, like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected.
    Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. -Chief Seattle

    Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught, will we realise that we cannot eat money. -19th Century Cree Indian

  161. John Jacquard

    the problem with monetary system's is that you can't take out the built in exploitation, because barter and trade itself is a manipulator process. i agree about them being misunderstood, however they were unable to comprehend how finite the resources really are, the tech needed for extraction etc. they were unable to comprehend that automation would bring down the system, because goods are being made in larger quantities and cheaper than ever (automation) however if nobody has jobs because of it ,there is no purchasing power. most jobs can be automated. these few fundamental details they could not have been aware of at the time, make the monetary system obsolete today. and if they were aware of these flaws they wouldn't have thought the system itself was valid.

  162. John Jacquard

    well spoken.

  163. John Jacquard

    "society with moral and ethic values" then why did not not include it in the system in a way where THOSE behaviors are rewarded instead of socio-pathic behaviors that are rewarded today?

  164. John Jacquard

    name a way to become wealthy in this society while being honest, without exploitation, without taking money from someone else, without lying, without taking away from the less fortunate, without compromising the very product or service.without benefiting the top elite, without causing harm to the environment.

  165. Ivar Nielsen

    A BIG CADEAU for the contents in this video!It is a wakeupcall for all of us.

  166. KsDevil

    It would seem that it will take more than 30 minutes to provide more than entertaining information to explain the true depth of his research.
    But I think that is the point. To truly understand the current economic system it will take several pieces of information before a cognitive connection can be made.
    We poor apes and our limited abilities, quite inconvenient.

  167. krishna kumar pookat

    Arguments aside there is something terribly wrong with the way we lead our lives. we are too damn bloody respectful . and probably we just think of it as an easy way out .

  168. Rudy Paul

    Yeah, bro. But their world was entirely different from ours

  169. John Jacquard

    pretend binary digital numbers in your bank account determine your survival.

  170. John Jacquard

    what is the ratio of effort from a human to money ,to the exact resources that the earth produces so everyone alive gets their fare share in the monetary system?

  171. John Jacquard

    name 5 things bill gates cannot do in his life or his children cannot do in their life.

  172. John Jacquard

    what is your method of deciphering between the beliefs established by culture versus valid information?

  173. John Jacquard

    why should we have some systems like computers, that evolve quickly and regularly but keep other systems hundreds or thousands of years in the past?

  174. cezy

    this man has no idea of what modern economists do. If you wish to learn something, just watch any of the undergraduate classes on yale courses. Or listen to the nobel prize lectures. This documentary is stupid and this guy is too arrogant to understand how ignorant he really is.

  175. Carmen Johnson

    nice post

  176. Unity

    "Stupid is, as Stupid does." - Forrest Gump


    Just because you insult someone and call him ignorant doesn't make him so. YES he is arrogant, but so are many of your "Nobel Prize Winners"... which being "Nobel Prize" doesn't really make them a great person. Barrack Obama is a "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" and has declared war and is personally accountable for several kills. Don't you think Nobel Prize winners in Economics might be compromised as well???

    If you don't like an argument, then make reasonable points, create an intelligent and well based discussion. Take apart separate comments he makes and debunk them. ANYBODY can be a critic. One could say exactly what you said right back to you, but it wouldn't be decent to say so.

    Help yourself and help others... Create REASON based arguments and use constructive criticism. Stop being a Troll

  177. cezy

    I said "the documentary is stupid" and "this guy is arrogant". you called me stupid and troll. Is this what you call constructive criticism?
    I said the documentary is stupid because this guy said that he read all macroeconomic text books and decided it was b**shit.
    This is highly insulting towards people who devote their entire life to a social science, which may not have been as rigorous 200 years ago, but it is now, since economics is based on either mathematical proofs or empirics.
    I said watch nobel prize winners just because they give interesting lectures, accessible to everyone and I do not think I can do better than them at explaining what economics is about or what economists do.
    Barack Obama is not an economist, so why do you bring him in the conversation?

  178. Unity

    It was never in my intention to call you stupid, if it was understood so, I apologize. Your previous comment was Troll-ish, though i meant no disrespect.
    I agree that a person who has devoted their entire life to economics might feel uneasy with this information, but i bet the guy in the documentary wasn't trying to insult anybody. If there are 1 million people who believe in the Tooth Fairy, and you say it's b**shit, all you are doing is spreading the truth, even though some might feel their entire life was a lie... it's nothing personal.
    Economics is indeed a mathematical based science, which takes into account several factors such as supply and demand to establish prizes and priorities in a BUSINESS WORLD (Capital letters are rude if used too much or all the time, I use them to highlight key words only)... BUT the physical planet we live in is not only business, economics does not take into account the efficiency or health of the system (The word Economy implies efficiency).

    Efficiency is the ratio of energy input and output, having better efficiency means less waste of energy. There is absolutely no efficiency in importing copious amounts of fruits and vegetables when your land can probably grow food perfectly... So, for you to eat a couple of Calories in an apple, huge amounts of energy were used to harvest and transport that apple. The Input (petroleum based fuels) is a thousand times bigger than the energy Output, which is the Calories of an Apple.
    Economy doesn't take into account the number of times an object may be used, for example it is cheaper to buy a new computer, than to fix/replace a burnt micro-chip.
    Economy is therefore a problem since "money makes the world go round", yet money doesn't take the world into consideration... Economy is just math.

    PS. Forget about Obama, I only used him as an example. If he gave a lecture about peace (Nobel Peace Winner), I wouldn't buy a single thing he said.

  179. cezy

    I think there's a little confusion between what businesses do and what economists do or study.
    1. The tooth fairy studies "the optimal allocation of scarce resources". It does not impose it as this documentary implies.
    - Economics does not take into account supply and demand to establish prices, it merely records it. Or rather, it studies the elasticity of supply and demand to a price variation.
    2. If businesses want to import stuff that can be produced at home, it means that it is cheaper for them. You might disagree on ethical principles (we are polluting the world, putting local farmers out of business etcetera) but again, what has this got to do with economics as a social science?
    3. So, because Obama won the nobel peace prize, and you don't think he deserved it, fine. This is totally unrelated to other nobel prizes, not just economics, but physics, chemistry, medicine, literature awarded to people who have excelled in their field. If you want to learn something about economics, maybe listening to people who have excelled in their field is more fruitful then watching a documentary made by someone who obviously does not have a track record in economics.
    But of course, that would require a bit more effort.
    4. Lastly, the lack of financial/economic literacy is partly responsible for the big financial crisis, and on a micro level, people who do not understand economic concepts on average end up poorer and with more debts. So the consequences of economic illiteracy are far more dangerous than you think.
    This is why I got upset with this documentary, forget about the tooth fairy and silliness of a wasted life. I am talking about real matters.
    Sorry if this is too long.
    But seriously, if you wish to know more, on youtube there are lots of free undergraduate courses on channel. They are more boring than a fancy doc, of course, but might prove more useful.

  180. John Jacquard

    give a specific example.

  181. John Jacquard

    "...since economics is based on either mathematical proofs or empirics." --
    is that so huh? what is the proportion for human effort to money, to the resources on the planet? give me the equation for that.

  182. John Jacquard

    " I am talking about real matters."
    are you kidding? give the definition of the word economy. now does that match a monetary system?
    money is the farthest thing from real. real matters are the things all life needs for survival not printed paper or ones and zeros in a computer bank record. you fail to comprehend the meaning of this video. it pertains to the definition of the word economics , meaning the real thing. not the fake system of debt based money used to enslave humans.

  183. John Jacquard

    economists in the current system are contributing nothing to the real world and will be obsolete , if we develop a system evolved from the mindset of individuals like martin luther king jr. meaning to free ALL people,

  184. John Jacquard

    a civilization would be free of war, poverty and exploitation, these things are built into the monetary system, if you think they are not give examples of how money does not inevitably lead to these.

  185. John Jacquard

    civilized people are not a by product of money.

  186. John Jacquard

    name a person that could either a) be put in prison for 50 years or b) be put in a healthy environment with access on demand to necessity's of life. and not be effected either way and the mechanism that makes them impervious to such a contrast. if you cannot than apply that logic to the rest of humanity.

  187. John Jacquard

    "who is running the science and technology in society if the general public is unaware how it works?" -carl sagan

  188. John Jacquard

    "a lot of the competing doctrines are after what feels good, not what is true." -carl sagan (a REAL scientist)

  189. John Jacquard

    what is your method of deciphering between the beliefs established by culture versus valid information?

  190. Herr_Lehmann77

    The documentary says some crap but also some good things. It's wrong to blame economists. Economists didn't invent prices, interest or greed, they study it. Economics is more like a way of thinking, a way how to tackle problems, and it is a very rational way. Also a very social way because of the concept of social welfare. So it's always about maximizing social welfare instead of maximizing utility for just one party (consumers or producers ...).

    But I agree with many of the problems mentioned in the documentary: uncontrolled growth, exploitation of natural ressources. However, I think only economic thinking can solve these problems. It doesn't make sense to just say: we have to buy locally made food. Or we install a law that regulates our consumption, or anything else along these lines.

    But we need to understand that natural ressources are not free. The reason why the apple from spain is cheaper than from your local farmer (made-up example) is because energy costs are too low. That means, the earth has to bear the costs. We should include the earth as an entity in the equation, the same as suppliers and consumers. As of now, much short-term surplus goes at the expenses of the earth. If we include the earth as a firm with benefits and costs in the social welfare analysis, the apple form Spain is likely not cheaper anymore ... But economic thinking is still the way to go.

  191. Ryan Holdren

    I think this documentary has the wrong answers to the right questions.

    While our world economy is far from efficient, I'm not sure why it has become so fashionable to hate on capitalism for giving us exactly what our "distortion of priorities" lead us to desire. If you want low-footprint products designed for longevity, then stop buying "iPoops".

  192. afkors

    The topics od this doc.are the main problems of main stream economic theory which is all the time debated within economic schools. As i understood, the creators of the doc. would like to live in stone age and do not participate in any "modern economic activity" they`ve explained.

  193. wald0

    You say- "If you want low-footprint products designed for longevity, then stop buying "iPoops". The problem with that statement is that it requires each consumer to become completely and correctly informed and all corporations, financiers, and manufacturers to be completely transparent. Once you have accompished this, which is really an impossibility in my opinion, each consumer has to place environmental, moral, and economical concerns above his or her convinience, economical needs, etc., etc. Lets face it the morally and environmentally correct product is almost never the convinient, cheap choice. Now is this a reality you see coming to pass in the modern world of globilization that we live in? Or is it just possible that capitalism is an outdated economical concept incapable of truly serving the needs of a scientifically proficient species living on a finite planet?
    That said this model, the resource based economic model, makes a rather large assumption, that human needs and wants can and will be based on sustainability and be informed by science instead of arising from what most call human nature and being informed by culture, society, etc. Just as the idea of consumers efficiently regulating markets through purchasing power seems unrealistic to me this idea of everyone all the sudden letting go of cultural, political, religious, and societal influences and concerns to listen to logic and scientific reason seems a bit unrealistic as well.
    Ask yourself this though, if we are goig to put forth an ideal- however unachievable in reality it is something to aspire to, which would you rather see promoted? There is no question in my mnind that I would rather see a resource based economic model promoted, whether we achieve it or not.

  194. Ryan Holdren

    I agree that asymmetric information is a problem and that we need to make some major strides towards transparency to address this. I see this as a good place for government involvement.

    Externalities are likewise hindering sustainability. Here again is an opportunity for government to perfect the market with careful regulation (e.g. carbon taxes).

    These and other issues of market efficiency aside, you raise a valid point in that capitalism (like liberalism) denies me (in theory) the means to force my values on other people. Instead I must rely on them to share my values, which can be frustrating when they do not, as with sustainability. I still think this is better than the alternative of having other people's values forced on me.

    We don't need to throw out capitalism, we just need to fix it and get people to care about sustainability.

  195. Samuel Gallop

    Well, Peter Joseph's usual nonsense talk. Another example of a failed social engineer wannabe who disrespects individual's free will expressed in an unhampered free market.
    Every time he uses the word "we" I get the shivers down my spine. Just another m*ron advocating mass murder ( that's what he really means by social overhaul ) by the enlightened ( which he claims to be but he's not ).
    Don't get me wrong: there are massive dislocations in the predominant philosophical view of the world that need fixing. It's just this mix of half baked truths and downright stupidity aren't gonna cut it.

    Look elsewhere. Educate yourselves.

  196. Hazxan

    One huge problem came when it became more profitable (and a whole lot easier) for producers to manipulate our wants, than for them to fulfill our needs.

  197. John Jacquard

    if you disagree with peter, what do you suggest? where is the non-sense? what evidence do you have for it? what do you mean by " individual's free will expressed in an unhampered free market."?
    "Just another m*ron advocating mass murder ( that's what he really means by social overhaul )" where do you get to make that assumption based off of?
    "It's just this mix of half baked truths and downright stupidity aren't gonna cut it." in what way? what will cut it? you have not incorporated any information within your whole rant. which makes the statements useless please include the information part as to what your referencing as most of us here are terrible mind-readers and clairvoyants. actually treat us like a 7 year old and go step by step with your logic and the relevancy of each idea and how it ends up a symbiotic system.

  198. John Jacquard


  199. John Jacquard

    money and capitalsim (all the rest "isms" are just monetary-ism) where okay at the time when developed but they are not evolved to a point to fit our modern needs like most of the resources being used up by 2030's and 30's because of waste population growth etc. human basic needs being met relevant education, food ,shelter,transportation. culture beliefs are more of a priority in monetaryism than the real issues. for example could any person look at the world and think politics are anything other than soap opera? examine history what change has come from politics? nobody that disagrees with a RBE brings up the point of corporation ownership of the world in a monetary system. the people with the most money "owns" everything on this planet. who wants to live in that world? what about the truth that it is impossible to keep going like this for 50 years or longer humanity will go extinct at the very least that is inarguable.

  200. Samuel Gallop

    John, please next time use punctuation signs so that your readers can follow your "thinking", otherwise it just adds to your incoherent rambling, making it even more unbearable.

    "if you disagree with peter, what do you suggest?" Peter ? Nothing. Like you, he can't be helped. To the readers ? I already said: look elsewhere for real education. Start with Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Easy read, short and to the point. Good to stop believing in the economic fairies.

    "where is the non-sense?"..... Everywhere. When dealing with a steaming pile of garbage, I must admit I have difficulties deciding where to start.

    "what evidence do you have for it?"..... all of it, actually. You just have to stop listening to pseudo intellectuals and start reading real philosophers. You should then be able to appreciate the difference.

    "what do you mean by " individual's free will expressed in an unhampered free market."?"....... sorry mate, if you can't read basic English then no wonder.... Not your fault though. Maybe that school where they didn't teach you how to punctuate.

    "he's advocating mass murder...where do you get to make that assumption based off of?".... just google him, the zeitgeist project and Jacques Fresco. I'll offer a hint. Every time they use the euphemistic " we'll have to deal with the excess of population to bring it closer to that of the "Earth's carrying capacity"...... that's code for " I advocate mass murder but I am too coward to say it ". Don't you think so ? You think I'm overreacting ? Possibly, but if he is serious I would suggest that he starts putting a bullet in his own head and so set an example.

    "go step by step with your logic and the relevancy of each idea and how it ends up a symbiotic system."..... Oh dear. You must have thought I'm not busy. tututututu. Do your homework instead. I've given you the leads. And please, please, please.... stop using analogies you don't really understand ( like human body and cells and symbiotic systems hahaha ) to describe the works of "society" and the Economy ( by the way, it is basic philosophy that society doesn't exist, because it is only a mental concept, an abstraction of the mind ).

    Therefore stop making a fool of yourself and first understand what Economy is.... not a body, not an ecosystem, not a cell..... but what INDIVIDUAL MEN do to sustain their lives, more like a web of relationships.

    I am for FREEDOM and RESPECT. You ? Well, you're just another deluded social luminary.

  201. CatePerson

    It was an uneconomical use of my time to watch any portion of this in the hopes of learning anything substantial about economics.

  202. Devon Griffiths

    Not that I'm supporting all the hot air in this documentary, but advocating population reduction doesn't imply "mass murder". Ironically, it would be hugely counterproductive to do so. Many species respond to crisis by ramping up births, and humans are definately one of them. This is why most wars are followed by huge population booms - usually reflective of the scale of the war. WW1 caused the largest loss of life in history at the time it happened, and was followed by a boom which did more than replace the losses. WW2 topped it, and was followed by an absolutely massive increase in population. It's true for smaller conflicts too. War has been an epidemic in Africa for decades - but their population is always booming, out of control, just like their wars.

    But we do have examples of countries where population is falling and the workforce has to be supplemented with immigration. These are the developed countries (with the exception of the US, which is always at war). Even though the death rates are low, the birth rates are even lower in these countries, such that most are below replacement levels. There is no warfare to cause booms, and the high levels of wealth and education force the birthrate down.

    So far, this is the *only* example of sustained population reduction that works. War most certainly does not.

  203. Terry Beaton

    Sometimes he speaks in rather too dense conceptuals. Like that sentence. Still I find he is dead on about all the important ideas he brings forward. The future is not likely to catch up to his idealism but I like the world better knowing he's out there sowing the seeds of sanity. To be so dismissive of these shows tells me more about you, cowboy. Get hippie with it, you'll know you're growing when when those Italian leather shoes don't fit anymore.

  204. Devan Evans

    Vacuous statements which do not amount to anything followed by a number of condescensions and logical fallacies. You refuse to point what is advocated as wrong, you point to buzz words to insinuate mass murder by using the equivocation fallacy, you don't provide any follow up evidence other than your interpretation (which is opinion) and expect to be taken seriously by an organization which pride's itself on the scientific method? Why don't you stop making a foll out of yourself and stop using fallacious argumentation in your rhetoric.

  205. Devan Evans

    "Another example of a failed social engineer wannabe who disrespects individual's free will expressed in an unhampered free market."

    Unhampered Free Market's is a delusional religion for all intents and purposes. All societies require markets to be regulated in one degree or another. All societies require what they believe to be basic human rights to come first before the interest of a business owner. Because of this very fact, the wet dreamer of anarcho-capitalists will never be realized and thus are pissing against the wind hoping to change its direction.

    "Just another m*ron advocating mass murder ( that's what he really means by social overhaul ) by the enlightened ( which he claims to be but he's not )."

    Of course, because he can't be advocating that we orient society to something more scientifically based like he has been since he started TZM and people abandon irrational religious ideas for rational scientific understanding and base as the direction for running a society in a technological spectrum. Of course you couldn't be using an appeal to fear fallacy... (sarcasm).

  206. Devan Evans

    Economists can be just as much propagandists as social theorists can... thus you can blame economists.

  207. Coldbeats

    Sure, but that has not much to do with the debate. Economists are often portrayed as blind free market proponents, which is simply not true. First, there are different economic scholars with different views on that matter. Second, concepts like public goods, externalities or even simply taxes are all developed by economic thinking. These concepts consider market intervention and most economists agree on that.

    If more people in particular politicians would read and understand the books he presented at the beginning of this film, the world would be a much better place. I doubt very much that the author did read them.

    I assume the bad image of economists stems from stupid undifferentiated clichees along the lines: economy = money = capitalism = large corporations exploiting poor consumers = greed = economists

  208. Coldbeats

    Don't you think that it is a very poor argument to accuse somebody or some company to be responsible for the fact that you want the "wrong" thing?

    If you really think humans are this manipulable then what would be the solution? Install some kind of an absolute single ruling world institution that tells us what are the right things to want?

    If your friend tries to convince you that going to the club tonight is the right thing to do, then what is wrong with that? It is still your decision to do it or not and the same counts for companies.

    It's just an easy way out of your own responsibility to say: "they manipulate us"

  209. Coldbeats

    Try to think a bit further than just repeating the same old vague generalising populistic statements like: the bad rich guys exploit us, the good poor guys and all ressources; politicians are all stupid and cooperate with the bad rich guys; capitalism is some evil alien moster that has nothing to do with us and wants to eat us etc. pp.

    This is just pure populism that helps nobody. Maybe it fuels one's ego because you easily fish some sympathy points from like minded people who like to simplify things not taking the effort to think through the suface.

    Read some statistics and you will learn that today we (in particular countries with strong political systems based on economic thinking) are better off than at any time in history regarding food, shelter, safety, transportation, wealth, health, education, peace. All these improvement are a result of politics. just check the statistics instead of some stupid media articles.

    Don't get me wrong, there are many many things that have to be improved. These are the details we should debate about. But just blaming the rich and the politicians with some vague accusations without any empirical or even logical back-up is not much contribution.

  210. Tom Towle

    Excellent. Keep it up. The other responses to this prove that the Machine is doing its job very well. I like it.

  211. Devan Evans

    "the bad rich guys exploit us, the good poor guys and all ressources; politicians are all stupid and cooperate with the bad rich guys; capitalism is some evil alien moster that has nothing to do with us and wants to eat us etc. pp."

    Simplistic strawman arguments Coldbeats, got an actual argument?

    "Read some statistics and you will learn that today we (in particular countries with strong political systems based on economic thinking) are better off than at any time in history regarding food, shelter, safety, transportation, wealth, health, education, peace. All these improvement are a result of politics. just check the statistics instead of some stupid media articles."

    That's irrelevant to the amount of corruption inherent within our socio-politico-economic system. Also no, a lot of the stuff you name are the result of new advancements of technology and furthering of the methods used in medical sciences, engineering, etc... Just because these things had to flourish in the realm of politics does not mean politics is to credit for its inevitable success. That's like saying Nixon got us out of the Vietnam War when in reality his goal was to keep it going and he only got us out because of popular opinion.

  212. Devan Evans

    "I summarised the arguments from John Jacquard and basically marked them as in your words "simplistic strawman arguments". So I don't understand how that fits into your point of view as these "arguments" are not mine but John's, apparently a supporter of your opinion."

    So tell me where exactly did you find the statement that "money and capitalsim (all the rest "isms" are just monetary-ism) where okay at the time when developed but they are not evolved to a point to fit our modern needs like most of the resources being used up by 2030's and 30's because of waste population growth etc. human basic needs being met relevant education, food ,shelter,transportation. culture beliefs are more of a priority in monetaryism than the real issues. for example could any person look at the world and think politics are anything other than soap opera? examine history what change has come from politics? nobody that disagrees with a RBE brings up the point of corporation ownership of the world in a monetary system. the people with the most money "owns" everything on this planet. who wants to live in that world? what about the truth that it is impossible to keep going like this for 50 years or longer humanity will go extinct at the very least that is inarguable..." translated into the summary you gave as "the bad rich guys exploit us, the good poor guys and all ressources; politicians are all stupid and cooperate with the bad rich guys; capitalism is some evil alien moster that has nothing to do with us and wants to eat us etc. pp." Unless you justify your "summary", I do not see him making any such argument of outrage.

    "The political system does not invent anything, it provides a framework that offers incentives to invent. Obviously, this worked quite well according to the technological progress Western countries with strong capitalistic systems had in comparison to countries with a more communistic system."

    I did not make the argument that political systems invent anything, are you even responding to the right person. I stated that "Just because these things had to flourish in the realm of politics does not mean politics is to credit for its inevitable success. That's like saying Nixon got us out of the Vietnam War when in reality his goal was to keep it going and he only got us out because of popular opinion." Please address my argument as I make them, not create some weird strawman.

    "Also, corruption in our systems is by far smaller than in most other systems. There is proper research measuring corruption

    Allow me to make this perfectly clear, unless this measurement comes from a peer-review source of information that is not connected with the CATO Institute (a propaganda firm of the Koch Brothers) or various other free market fundamentalist places then I will regard the information as essentially propaganda.

    As for your CPI issue, I would like to point out that the data it presents while highly valuable still does not in any way undercut what I said. Just because we are "less" corrupt than other nations does not indicate or justify the level of corruption that is within our system currently. You are attempting to justify the corruption that exists by doing the "its a wash tactic."

    "That is exactly what I meant.Where does your assumption come from that corruption is "inherent in our socio-economical-system"? Your own personal experience? Debates with your friends? Try to base your opinion on well researched facts and nothing else."

    Interesting tactic of poisoning the well here. Before I can even answer the question you already have a number of answers for me. The reason of what I derive of my knowledge from is the social study of game theory and how money tends to play its in the corruption of the system itself. There is also the issue of current events and how corporations have nearly unlimited reign in the united states. Also private and political getting rid of and manipulating laws/regulations which would have prevented such disasters from happening. Like eliminating the fairness doctrine or getting rid of Glass-Stegal, or businesses influencing public opinion via media (only possibly through the elimination of the fairness doctrine) of getting rid of social safety nets like unemployment benefits, social security (basically lying about how its going bankrupt and creating propaganda about the history of social security), attempting to filter into the public a historical narrative that paints an ideological of free market fundamentalism as good, and a whole host of things I can continue to list off until I'm 80 years old. For every instance and source you can give me about how we are not corrupt or less corrupt than other countries, I can give you 50 reasons why the U.S. is corrupt.

    So yes, thank you a--hole for misrepresenting someone, not engaging the argument being made and essentially attempting to assume my knowledge by poisoning the well. Why don't you go back under the bridge where you belong scum f--k?

  213. Coldbeats

    Your last paragraph tells your story. No more comments needed.

  214. Matt Lantz

    Yeah, OK, I apologize but you haven't, in 15 minutes, or in fact in either of your three most popular two to two and a half hour segments you call films (I call it dribble) made one single argument. You have stated no statistical facts, CITED ANY SOURCES, nor reasoned inductively to make your point, only made claims. While I agree with you that there is a foundational flaw in our culture (the root of economics), the simple idea of you prescribing how people should live is absolutely hypocritical. Apparently you don't understand THE absolute root of economics, existentialism which posits that we all have a chocie in every matter, including the choice of whether or not to take that next breath. I'll put it to you this way: if a product, lets say a widget is made, in fact, lets say that a dildo was gifted to a straight dude, he probably will not appreciate it correct? (He'll probably punch the gifter in the face). Given TINSTAFL, and that this dude will not appreciate the product, was that product not wasted? Furthermore, If a public park is built, and less than 50% of the population uses or even cares about said park, then 100%-the percentage of people who voted for the park have WASTED their money, hence the fundamental flaw of socialism. Now, back to existentialism; I would rather take the time to write this inane blog post than patronize any more of your films.

  215. WomanofReason

    This site is full of propaganda that pushes an thinly veiled agenda. There is an absolute truth that while you can sit back and wish and hope was different, it is proven again and again in our culture and around the world. Human beings look out for their own best interests. While people of faith understand the nature of man and know the solution, You thumb your nose at people of faith, believing them to be ignorant, however, the reason and rational of atheism requires as much if not more faith than any religion. After all, you believe all this order and design in the universe came from a random and chaotic series of events. Out of nothing, nothing comes! if there was ever a nothing, that is all there would be today. and if you believe the universe always was, why has it not run out of energy?

  216. WomanofReason

    why must you be wealthy, you can be happy without monetary wealth

  217. WomanofReason

    Who defines ignorance, am I ignorant because I disagree with you? Am I ignorant because I believe in a young earth. Are you ignorant because while Darwin's theory has been proven false by his own standard yet it is still held up by atheists as the answer to where we came from...

  218. Unity

    I'm not getting out of discussion.

    -You talk about competition between firms so that ¿"more income" people are hired? I talk about how that competition encourages companies to build factories in poor countries, with poor wages, so that they have an edge in that ridiculous competition. (And what about the hard working people who lost their jobs in the "1st World", only because the company will pay less for their employees in other countries?)

    -You talk about putting food on the table, being productive. I talk about humble people who produce all day, work their butts off in a "3rd world" country and barely have enough to eat. When the food they produce, is to export? and feed cattle??

  219. Cash Daugherty

    Those are good questions. A quite remarkable ability of human beings is that they can organize information, think about it, and then form a conclusion. In doing this, it is vital that no biases are in place;Filters decrease the quality and quantity of information. Therefore, we must assess all information with open minds and critical thought.

    I will admit that I am no expert in physics, cosmology, or any other relative field of study. Given the ubiquitous understanding of the meritorious methodology of science, I think we can both be safe in assuming that just about every expert in those fields has more of an understanding of what "reality" is than we do.

    As far as I have researched, your argumentative statements contain several fallacies:

    1) "Human beings look out for their own best interests"- Sure, however sometimes it is in a person's best interest that other people are doing well, not just the person him/herself i.e. survival of the group increases the chances of survival for the individual. This means that humans are not intrinsically void of altruism.

    2) "People of faith understand the nature of humans"- This is a very ambiguous statement. You would have to clarify exactly what information "people of faith" have and why it is relevant to the topic of discussion.

    3) "the reason and rational...requires as much if not more faith than any religion" - Hmm...a couple of issues here:
    a) You're essentially saying that a method of ascertaining truths about reality requires a more substantial position that lacks EVIDENCE. That is quite contradictory and nonsensical.
    b) If being faithful is a laudable position respecting religions, then wouldn't your assertion that "atheism requires more faith than religion" actually be a compliment to atheism??

    4) "You believe all this order and design in the universe came from a random and chaotic series of events."- Well, atheism says nothing about beliefs; does your lack of belief in Satan Clause indicate what you do believe? no. Likewise, you asserting that atheism dictates a belief system is also erroneous. Your contention regards science, not atheism-they are two different things. And if you have any issues with science, you can go about discussing them with experts :).

    5) "If there was ever a nothing, that is all there would be today"- That is a statement about the way the universe works. As discussed earlier, experts in this field have more credibility than we do (presuming you're not an expert), so I will have to take their word over yours, unless of course you can persuade me with evidence.

    6) "and if you believe the universe always was, why has it not run out of energy"- As far as I have researched, what we call the universe hasn't always been as it is today. It allegedly had a beginning. So, if that is the case, then we can assume that it may run out of energy. In fact, there are many thesis' that explain that the universe will run out of energy, one day. Look up "the heat death of the universe."

  220. runnysplack

    I agree with you now. The problem is government sanctions and tariffs and taxes, not free markets. The government creates chaos not solutions. When people are left to govern themselves through mutual and voluntary means peace is achieved not disorder and murder. The root cause of all violence is power disparity. Thanks mista wong!

  221. Your Name

    Where can I get the iPoop?

  222. gippy

    "thumb your nose at people of faith", Yes, it is a guilty pleasure of all people that are thoroughly certain in their convictions to mock others. I laugh at theists, feel guilty, and tell myself to be more empathetic. Sorry.

    "reason and rational of atheism requires as much if not more faith", No! a+theist is a person who hasn't been convinced of the existence of god. We're skeptical of the God explanation, and that is all the label means. Please don't think we're all snooty and ironically preachy about it.

    "universe came from a random and chaotic series of events", Maybe. I'd say, instead, something happened, and so far, our intellects are too puny to understand it. I applaud people for trying to explain things rationally, but I abhor those who display arrogant certainty, either through theistic faith, or scientific hubris. Sadly, we tend to fall in line behind those who behave with belligerent conviction, and, particularly when we're young, tend to bend our worldview easily to those dominant figures of our childhood... not unlike stockholm syndrome. In short, its ok to not understand, remember that you're a mostly insignificant spec in a thin film of organic material coating part of a tiny rock orbiting a star that will inevitably expend it's fuel and explode.

    "why has it not run out of energy?", because all energy, as far as we've been able to detect so far, is never "spent" the way gas in your car is spent, rather the energy is transformed into something else. Light turning into heat, motion turning into friction (like an asteroid burning up in the atmosphere). This is referred to as the first law of thermodynamics.

    "Out of nothing, nothing comes!" I'd advise you to use fanciful slogans with care, just because something sounds all poetical doesn't make it any more or less correct. Looking at this statement I'd point out that we have limited senses, we can only see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, most sounds in the universe are too quiet for us to hear, or so loud they'd rip our bodies apart. We're just very limited, so, while it doesn't sound nearly as good, I'd rephrase your statement to "out of nothing we can detect, some things we can detect, and a lot more that we can only deduce, came.

  223. Tizzaman

    Very good documentary. It shows in a satirical way the absurdity and irrational features of the modern economic system. Worth the watch.

  224. Roy Faust

    Conclusions are radical and lacking foundation. Good coverage of the economic system as an overview only. It is a thought provoking video which makes it well worth the watch. Well, I have to go. I stepped in some ipoop and have to go clean my shoes with some iwash. And you thought I was an intellect?

  225. Thinker

    "This site is full of propaganda that pushes an thinly veiled agenda."
    What, and who's agenda are you referring to?
    I'd say that this site is full of all kinds of information, some of it might be propaganda, but I don't think the site itself has an agenda of pushing propaganda.

    "Human beings look out for their own best interests."
    Of course, but the overwhelming majority also care about what other beings experience, do they not?
    There has been many factors that has inhibited us from fully expressing and acting on our compassion and empathy for others, but it exists non the less.

    "While people of faith understand the nature of man and know the solution"
    What nature are you referring to, our imperfection? If so, what is the solution you refer to? Mine would be something like drastically upgrading/advancing our methods of education, to name one.

    "the reason and rational of atheism requires as much if not more faith than any religion."
    Actually the dictionary definition of atheism is simply the "lack of belief in a higher power", not the "belief that there is no higher power".
    Whether it's theism or atheism, in my opinion it's always foolish to believe (accept as true) something for which there is no conclusive evidence.
    If one has gathered some personal evidence of a higher power, then perhaps it might be more logical, reasoned, and rational to simply think that there is a chance, however small or great, that there is a higher power, than to just accept is as true?

    "Out of nothing, nothing comes!"
    I have to agree, I can have to conclude that something must be eternal, because something cannot come from nothing, and yet there is something.
    Creation itself (I refer to not just this universe) could be eternal, on some kind of eternal loop of causality, without there even being something that created it, I can't think of why that would be impossible, can you?
    If everything is created by an eternal creator, then wouldn't it be more likely than not that it would create something that is also eternal?

    I have many questions and many things to say, but I guess I'll have to end it here.


  226. Lz_erk

    I'm embarrassed that I hadn't heard of this series before today; I thought I'd have to wait another year or two to see something like it. The satirical attacks to all sides have been a delightful change to the usual gloomy forecasting, despite not being that far removed from it.

    The implication that a new, necessary economic system should be based around redefined, sustainable desires and products is becoming more reasonable every day, and it's a pity it wasn't discussed in detail and practice. [And first-past-the-post voting wasn't attacked in episode 1, nor was the term direct democracy ever mentioned: oh well, maybe next time!]

    The documentary Waste = Food is a terrific example of how things can go right, or at least less wrong- and for that matter, permaculture isn't all about anarcho-primitivism. The fastest, most viable, and least constraining solutions will work even within a market economy, or even within a plutocracy. Money and power are not immune to progress, and no blood or material sacrifices are needed. You can have your iPoop and eat it too.

  227. Rodrigo

    The commentator is completely wrong when he states that economic core argument is that humans are irrational and thereby cannot be organized in an efficient manner. It is exactly the opposite, the free market without central planning is the best and most efficient way to organize economy. The Nobel prize winner Hayek explained a long time ago that aggregate information that comes from each individual deciding to buy or not to buy product generates greater than the knowledge than the set of the brightest people deciding about economic production in a room. It is like a bee colony that is very smart when it works as a whole organism even though no bee is sufficiently smart to dictate what each bee should do.

Leave a comment / review: