Money for Free

2015, Economics  -   121 Comments
Ratings: 6.74/10 from 155 users.

Money for Free makes the case for a new economic system intended to minimize financial inequalities by introducing viewers to the concept of a guaranteed basic income. By highlighting social experiments currently taking place, the filmmakers introduce viewers to some of the people working towards a large-scale redistribution of wealth.

Michael Bohmeyer, a young entrepreneur from Berlin, first experienced the benefits of limited financial stress upon quitting his self-made company. Earning €1,000 per month in his semi-retirement, Bohmeyer noted a significant drop in anxiety as well as improved health thanks to having a reliable basic income. Bohmeyer was inspired to create a crowdfunding project as a social experiment. Each time the fund reaches €12,000, one raffle winner receives an annual basic income of €1,000 per month. The raffle is unconditional in that no one is restricted from competing for it.

In its fifth cycle one lucky winner was an eight year-old boy, whose parents were quite happy to have not only rent money, but also funds to take a family trip and purchase books for their children each month. Bohmeyer explains that in order to succeed people need to feel safe and secure, not unlike children who crave closeness to their parents and unconditional love. By providing a basic income, he feels citizens are given this sense of security, which enables them to enjoy greater peace of mind, improved well-being, and heightened productivity.

Being of a similar mindset, economist and basic income advocate Guy Standing conducted an experiment in India where 6,000 participants were given a guaranteed, unconditional cash income for 18 months. Standing traveled to Groningen, a province in the Netherlands, to encourage the undertaking of income experiments there as well. Standing voices his concern that income tax and social security are failing, and that there are too many people living on the edge of debt. As with Bohmeyer, Standing believes a new way of thinking about money and the value of people is overdue.

These are just two of the subjects profiled here, as Money for Free takes viewers through parts of Europe, India and the United States to investigate different models for providing guaranteed basic income. The audience will be left with several perspectives to consider with regards to how the scales of wealth can be rebalanced in a way that is beneficial to all.

121 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Janeen Clark

    this is the future.

  2. Janeen Clark

    money can only be used as a tool if it is unconditional , because otherwise corruption is the root of the system if it based on punishment and reward.

  3. CapnCanard

    Money has to change. We need to fire the falied banking system that has brought on this pending world economic collapse.

  4. GuitarG0D

    This is propaganda for the Cloward-Piven strategy.

  5. Janeen Clark

    go play some scales

  6. datastrain

    what would the solution be for people that are lazy, or have an addiction?

  7. Daniel Quincy

    This is possible if we begin cleaning the **** out of earth orbit and begin large mining operations to bring the wealth needed to accomplish this. It would only work well if we can move on from internal combustion engines for the most part.

    What do you think billions of people with loads of money and free time are going to want to do? They are going to want to travel and party it up in ever more remote and beautiful places at least the few that are left.

    I don't know if you have been to most parts of the world but some people are just straight up criminal, looting, polluting savages with no respect for public lands or often even private property. I see the rivers and creeks and the cities here in Washington state with litter and trash up and down them. Hell I just found a large garbage bag of old cannabis stems from an illegal grow just clogging up the creek I swam in as a kid. People need to learn to respect themselves and the environment or honestly they have zero business getting guaranteed minimum income until they understand that concept.

  8. Janeen Clark

    give them money for free with no conditions

  9. Janeen Clark

    in a world where you exchange your money for labor you never get paid enough hourly rate to give much a crap or do a good enough job (laziness) but in a world where your effort is not tied to income people will automatically change that and do what is needed.

  10. Janeen Clark

    its like prostitution how much per hour for the prostitute to care about you and offer up a back rub and free tug? most feel like they dont get paid enough. but people that dont exchange sex with money do those things.

  11. Janeen Clark

    the druggie part they need to get help for any part of their life to be healthy of course otherwise any part of their life can possibly be messed up as a result.

  12. Odogg51

    "I just found a large garbage bag of old cannabis stems from an illegal grow just clogging up the creek." Yeah well people do very dumb things in the name of profit, making a buck. "some people are just straight up criminal". The key there is the word some, correct some are, but most are not. I would also again point to things done in the name of profit. When a person has noting they will do almost anything to get something. It is the same as when you have nothing you will fight with all you have to defend that nothing. Really this is very simple psychology.
    As for resources there are plenty of those to go around, you have to be kidding me if we lack any of that. Money in particular, shoot we just create that out of literal thin air, and to think of how much some people have, it's ridiculous. Also think of this simple situation. Currently the global population is growing faster then ever, so there are more and more people in the world who need to work (otherwise they literally can not survive). While at the same time technologies are making it easier and easier to produce the things we use. This is a huge problem that will only get worse. There are an ever increasing number of workers in world and there is an ever decreasing need for workers.

  13. Janeen Clark

    thats the point when people are unable to get what they need they resort to being like that, think about people with good parents vs people with crap parents and how they turn out. people that are treated less than human act less than human, having every human being able to meet their needs changes those people for the better that is what the results of these experiments have shown in the doc here.

  14. dixi3150

    Yes, sure, lala land. You work, you eat. BASTA. Money for free without effort? That is a bullshxt concept and can never work. Capitalism is pasè, but make no mistake, the basic principles are sound.

  15. GuitarG0D

    Wrong, this will create a completely dependent and entitled group of people with no concept of self reliance, responsibility or consequences. If people have no purpose in life to build, create or produce anything, they will turn to only satisfying their emotional needs and desires.

  16. dixi3150

    There have ALWAYS been the haves and the have nots. That is life.The hard working, frugal man, will always have more than the liberal socialist that wants to sit on his arse all day long "contemplating" life. Who will "earn" the money if there is no one to do the work? Who will pay the money if there is no wirking?

  17. Janeen Clark

    reward and punishment creates laziness.

  18. Janeen Clark

    there is no connection between money and effort. money is paper and ink or ones and zeros in a bank account nothing more nothing less.

  19. Janeen Clark

    here another way to think about it. say a job needs to be done , which yields better results, the person doing it because they want to and are passionate about that field , or a person that hates it and doing it for money that is not even enough to meet their basic needs?

  20. Janeen Clark

    did you "earn" it when you get access to fresh air, cable tv ,internet, electronics like cell phone computer etc.? no by your logic only the guy that invented the cell phone has a right to it and no one else, only the guy that invented tv can use it only the people developed the internet can ever use it for rest of mankind because no one else "earned" it. there is no scientific evidence that the word "earned" has a meaning other than what human beings have invented and agree upon in a real life board game called "money,barter,trade" these are mental creations , games. that separate humanity into boxes. the rich have access to all the best and 95 percent rest of humanity has recycled sh*t designed to break in 6 months because money system requires cyclical consumption just to keep the board game dice rolling. take a look at an image of earth from the viewpoint of the moon on Google images that tiny spec is what is real and what is true.

  21. Hodd

    Teach psychology in school so people can understand how their behaviour is driven by impulsive, unconscious drives.

  22. Hodd

    Your assumptions have no basis in reality. Did you not watch? As counter intuitive as it seems, humans become more productive when you eliminate the desperate need to acquire money to survive.

    Those who are only interested in satisfying emotional needs are operating from a state of ignorance. This has nothing to do with money, and all to do with education.

  23. Hodd

    My god, your logic is painful.

    There has always been the haves and the have nots? Yeah, no s*it. There has always been a class of people exploiting all the rest. So that shouldn't be questioned? That's just life is it?

    What makes you think there would be no one working? Are people actually narrow minded enough to not even be able to comprehend the idea of people working without concern for monetary gain? If this is the case than society has certainly regressed.

  24. Odogg51

    There is really no point in even bothering with this discussion. If your limited understanding of human history leads to the conclusion that there has always been different classes, then you obviously have no understanding of human history. There are mountains of evidence that say just the opposite. There has not always been haves and have nots. Human history is a poop ton more then just ancient Greece. HUmans existed and prospered for tens of thousands of years before the concept of civilization. Then the discussion becomes about what is civilization and we can go on with that, but really why bother. So there have always been people with more then others and that's the what makes the earth spin so why think of anything different. I get it.

  25. nextstopjupiter

    Money is nothing more than numbers printed on paper.

  26. Philip Fong

    Current fiat economic system have been exploited by the minority who created overvalued speculations, gambling with confidence beyond the limit based on future wealth generation.

    Job creation is much slower than population growth hence, widen the gap between the rich and poor, countries in the verge of bankruptcy since all progress are debt that has no ending.

    Helping a small group is just charity far from equality that no one will feel proud doing dirty hazardous jobs let alone passionate about it, imagine sports, the 4th is the same as last, how does that feels? Blame it on luck / fate or destiny?

    All these arguments are thinking inside the box (problem), until you can think outside the box (solution), you are just another slave.

  27. Janeen Clark

    please show the connection between dependency, entitlement, self reliance, responsibility, consequence, and money . i have never seen any way they could be tied together somehow as you are suggesting. do you mean my grandad told me to be a hard worker and only freeloaders wanna get paid for free? what about people doing hard work for free? if everyone gets unconditional money ?

  28. Janeen Clark

    could you expand on that some more?

  29. Janeen Clark

    a sociopath does something in order to get something in return, a good compassionate empathetic person does something because it needs to be done in order to improve things.

  30. Janeen Clark

    there does not seem to be any evidence that humans should care less about others as they do about their loved ones and best friends , we just been programmed that way as the rule set for money barter and trade. it is a tool of division, always get the better hand the "winners" and "losers" this is a sickness and we die off just like other ignorant ways of thinking like racism and slavery. money is where the slaves feed and house themselves.

  31. Janeen Clark

    what are you ALLOWED to do in this world? your allowed to go make money go spend money go to a little box called your "home" or go to someone elses box called their "home" try doing anything else and see if the police stop you and ask you "where are you on your way to sir?"

  32. robert elliot

    Anyway, a basic income floor doesn't mean that the rich won't continue to be rich.

  33. robert elliot

    That's how we've been trained to think (by the rich for their benefit). It's going to be a big readjustment to realize that competition isn't the only or even the best way to get things done.

  34. Folix St-Lolrent

    in the current mindset yes, in a different mindset where at an early age the community helps the individual toward IS, here the ''is'' is important, not theres, desires and aspirations, people would always be glad to do what they like to do and want to do, instead of feeling worthless in a job they dont really like, hearing rich people saying ''you can be rich too if you want to'', F,off ''we can all be rich'', wi'll be rich in regard to what if there is no poor, fortunes are always made on the back of the poor, never on the back of the rich, what we need is to do aways with this individualistic point of view i always find absurd how human tend to view there self as lazy worthless sack of ... how come all animal on earth lives with out a pay check and still go along doing what they have to do in order to survive and flourish.

  35. tic cat

    Money are just numbers on paper. Some people use this numbers to establish the social hierarchy and are the basis in classist ideologies like capitalism and communism. I prefer something like smart cards with no numbers on it, who can give the full acces . The cards should be received only if people work as a guarantee for those who think that some folks are lazy.

  36. Janeen Clark

    reward and punishment are the seeds of violence and the method of domination. "lazy" is a way of getting the slaves to work harder.

  37. Janeen Clark

    "lazy" has been thrown around a lot, lets think a bit about that word , who is lazier the man who inherited billions form his fathers oil industry and has thousands work for him while he going to strip clubs and doing lines of blow ? is lazy the owner of a business who does 1 percent of the work for 80 percent of the income while the rest his employees are literally owned by him. what they eat how much they see their children is dictated, he controls what hours of the day they are there how they allowed to speak to him if they have enough to take kids to hospital or not . who is lazy? is lazy the bank owners and the people who work on wallstreet who contribute nothing but make money off other money? is lazy those who have drivers butlers maids garden men multiple homes ? is lazy the government officials that accomplish nothing but send us to war to rib resources and exploit other countries and murder human beings for sport? we dont know what lazy is because it only means what the brainwashed think it means . is lazy doing what has been done for thousand off years or updating our social system to match our tech and knowledge about human behavior and it's consequences?

  38. Don Duncan

    Children need unconditional love. That prepares them for adulthood. Once adulthood is reached, its up to each of us to find our own "meaning in/of life". Everyone starts out unequal economically. Your starting point is less important than your attitude. That is personal, depending on our selves. We make our future by our thoughts/actions. Motivation comes from within. Hunger/fear may play a part at first but they are just temporary if one works to get past them. After the basic needs for survival are met, freedom puts stress on us to find our passion. That may happen very soon in middle income. Or it may take many years, even decades. But "safe & secure" economically is our first step, our "jumping off" point to self realization. And it is our responsibility. Those who never achieve it may blame failure to do so on society, or culture, or govt. but it is their responsibility to overcome any obstacle. No one owes them economic stability. No one can choose their life path. We can find ourselves, or not, but we die eventually, with no second chances. We can use our time wisely, or waste it.
    No experiment is needed to find out if a financial handout is necessary. For some no amount of money will help, others make it from abject poverty to affluence to happiness. It is up to each of us. There will always be successes and failures. That's free will.

  39. Philip Fong

    I have been struggling for over 26 years trying to understand why hard working is stupid and why the senior / bosses will do anything to suppress our personal growth.

    The ceiling value of most profession can only sustain one person nowadays and won't be able to find jobs after 35 in some industry (men in particular) because it is meant for youngsters in cycles, they tell similar story trying to fool us or make us fooling ourselves.

    Then I read about issues and awaken to reality, a selfish mechanism in survival of the fittest and play the creation game of descendant, I am multi-lingual and multi talented continue to improve despite making only enough to survive but time is running out towards 50, too late to yearn for the dream when I was young, my goal become meaningless.

    Now, I am selling my apartment to counter the so called reality preparing a new business that don't exist with my marketing plan that "has wow factor with feel good content and deliver viral element".

    I decide how much my service worth, how I sell it without being told what to do by silly standards, my action will trash the dictated industry, provide an example for others like me to build their own business never to rely on employment or middle man.

    I failed a few times in the past and know the reasons, we are up against randomness expected to fail by luck & chances, the amount of time and effort needed to gain connectivity though circumstantial but some level of achievement is feasible to ensure it is fail proof regardless of the outcome.

    My solution is, how not to fail rather than how to succeed, while many people still practice need one make one use once approach.

    Thank you for reading, I am one of the awakened recipient of 11:11 prompt.

  40. Don Duncan

    "Breaking the relationship between work and income" already happens with people born into upper income families. The parens must be careful to teach the relationship just as any other life lessons. Bestowing wealth without it being earned is highly destructive. But it is a common mistake. The excuse is: "I don't want them to suffer as I did". The mistake is to not realize that suffering can be a very beneficial character builder. The lesson learned is that actions have consequences, cause and effect also applies to economics. I was very luck to learn that on my own at 4. I was left all alone all day and I went out and picked up bottles to redeem for money for ice cream & soda. If these were gifts, I would not have felt the pride of accomplishment. Later when I was given money for nothing I felt guilty. It didn't seem right. I developed a strong work ethic and it served me well so far (72 years).

  41. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    Excellent Doc!


  42. tic cat

    Giving money for free - 1000E is a type of reward in the same way as dogs receive food for free to obtain certain behavior. The punishment will be when the upper class will raise prices. I don't think that it is convenient for you to work hard in a group and the others to do nothing and have fun - make the experiment. Laziness is a matter of education . It is a fact that children with excessive care from the parents don't work and have a drug habit . Animals who constantly receive food from humans, cease the habit to hunt.

  43. Janeen Clark

    pure conjecture

  44. jerrymack

    In a world where machines are doing more and more of the work it is essential to find a way to distribute wealth in an equitable way that doesn't demean individuals or destroy the environment. Let's start with a big dose of social justice and a step back from techo-gadgetry.

  45. Jordan Camp

    There are so many flaws with doing socialist economics on a large scale that I will just ask those of you who believe in it to answer the following question honestly. If you got your whole years income today would you show up to work tomorrow? If you answered no then I'm sure you would be shocked when the price of everything rose and you are no better off than you were because guess what... I gave everyone else there whole years income too because it was the only "fair" way to distribute the wealth.

  46. Julie Decock

    What if .. There is no more or not enough work that needs to be done like manual labor and administrative work, and much more work that could be done like arts and science but that has no immediate economic value. Productivity is constantly rising but income is not anymore. Simply because there is not enough economical jobs and to much jobless people. People are constantly told to be creative and innovative. Problem is that the current systems don't need so many creative or innovative people. And less and less people are needed to bring those innovations and creation into existence. So the real question is what to do with those people the system doesn't need. Working , feeling useful is more and more a privilege then a requirement in the current system. So maybe it's time to change the system so more people can feel good about their place in it.

  47. a_no_n

    well non socialist economics haven't fared much better at any time in the last fifty least not for the vast majority of people.

    Capitalism is slowly dying because blanket Neo-liberal deregulation has turned almost all of it into a cess-pool of utter corruption.

    The idea of trickle down economics has been proved to be a nonsense, because everything that's supposed to trickle down ends up in some offshore bank account where it will sit until the end of time. (which if you ask me totally undermines the entire concept of a capitalist economy)

    Capitalisms biggest problem is that it's most vocal supporters are also it's biggest underminers.

    I personally think merely regulating industry and markets will have a drasticly positive effect on the overall benefits of capitalism to everyone.

    At this point it isn't even about fair wealth distribution...just scraping some of it back from the bankers and CEO's that have spent the last thirty years stealing and hoarding over 90% of it for themselves.

  48. a_no_n

    the exact same thing can be said for welfare.

    Who's the biggest welfare sponger, the guy claiming pennies a day so that he can feed his family a few measly meals, or the corporation getting given billions each year in government kickbacks and favours?

  49. a_no_n

    Not at all true!

    Many breeds of hunting dogs get fed regularly by humans but still hunt...Most cats also do the same thing!

  50. a_no_n

    you do realise that the vast majority of "have" in the country inherited their wealth right?

  51. a_no_n

    no it just means they will be slightly less rich and so to those greedy few it seems like the apocalypse is being suggested.

  52. a_no_n

    So people need to learn respect...but they don't deserve lives first...I've got to admit i'm having trouble understanding your ideology...It seems to be:
    "I'm alright so everyone else can go to hell, but they had better respect me whilst they're doing it."

  53. Ralph Walker

    Truth is currently there are no we create millions of fake jobs. So China makes millions of useless toy, shoes, etc that break in a day.. on slave labor...destroying the environment..but it makes money. So we have millions of people that sit at phones all day callin you to see if you want a new car or want to change your gas company. So 50% of the starving people in Africa are the same time Africa over produce food. why? There is a lack of jobs for farmers in Africa. why? Most land was sold to big corporations and they use lots of machines instead of manpower. so they buy land from thousands of farmers and only need 100 or 200 people to work and they get minimum wage. Then the person with minimum wage has to spend 100% of his or her pay to just live throughout the month. The company takes home the profits. So the rich person only spends 5 or 6% of his or her pay while the poor spends 100% which makes a big problem.

  54. tic cat

    The context is training and education - "to obtain certain behavior" - hunting dogs vs. pets.

  55. Jordan Camp

    It seems like you believe that the financial crisis that occurred in 2008 was the result of the deregulation of the banking sector by the Clinton administration. Yes, I'm talking about the repeal of the Glass - Steagall Act which I think is what you were alluding to with Neo-Liberal deregulation. I encourage anyone who believes that to examine the Community Reinvestment Act which was passed the very same year. The CRA effectively forced banks to make loans to subprime borrowers in order to promote "equality". I would argue that this law is the prime cause of the the Housing Crisis and it is a classic example of government regulation of the free market and is also a socialist policy. I would also note that Canada has never had a Glass-Steagall like law and completely avoided the housing crisis.

  56. a_no_n

    of course you would, and believe me you have to do some pretty amazing mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion...i'm impressed.

    That's the nub of the problem really isn't it...Conservatives cannot even bear the idea of anything but socialism being to blame for anything and everything, you can't seem to function unless you can finish every statement with some conclusion about how treating the working class like human beings will somehow undo all of civilisation. It's a nonsense, and it only benefits a handful of people, most of whom inherited their vast wealth.

    Equality also had nothing whatsoever to do with what the banks were doing, it was a blatant land grab, one that worked amazingly well and managed to make the richest even richer, and claiming back billions in land and assets that had ended up in the hands of common people.

    I can't help but think that modern conservatism seems to be little more than reworded Feaudalism.

  57. a_no_n

    and cats?

  58. tic cat

    I think you don't understand artificial selection vs. natural selection and why cats are not wild cats and why dogs are not wolves in the prezent time.

  59. Jonathan Roseland

    I believe humans have the capacity of three extremes; good, evil and lazy. Welfare programs always promote laziness and mediocrity, this documentary didn't really make the case that basic income is different from welfare.

    It didn't show any compelling case studies of basic income working at scale, in a century of socialism, if it did work there would certainly be large and small scale case studies of it. Yet, as far as I know, there are none. Instead we have Greece, and the world is on the precipice of financial armageddon thanks to a half century of irrational fiscal policies that encouraged laziness.

    I agree that technological unemployment is a problem but welfare programs will not solve this problem.

    The case study of Alaska is interesting though but it's not even close to being proof that we can create a society were people don't need to work.

  60. Fabien L'Amour

    The Financiers bundled the bad mortgages into toxic financial assets and had levels of leverage never seen before. The credit rating agencies gave safe ratings to these toxic financial assets. Buyers failed to do due diligence. Majors banks failed to hold enough capital relative to the risks. It's not as simple as saying the government did it all.

    Since 2000, home prices have jumped 140% in a survey of 11 Canadian metropolitan markets. Just wait a bit, such a parabolic rise is bound to crash at some point.

  61. Greg Cox

    Correct, it was the false repackaging and juggling of these bad debts as legitimate investments. I don't know if I'd say people did not perform their due diligence, unless it was public knowledge that the rating system was corrupt. Was it widely known? Logic would suggest that the SEC should have been all over those practices a long time before it came to a head. So many people just hitting retirement seem to have been completely blindsided.

  62. a_no_n

    I love it when people get around answering an awkward question by insisting i don't know something...keep on dancing around the point fool, keep on dancing.

  63. Fabien L'Amour

    Giving your complete faith to a credit rating is not performing due diligence.

  64. Jordan Camp

    So you think the Community Reinvestment Act was a land grab? You're saying congress revised a law in 1995 to increase the number of people that would qualify for mortgages because they knew that 13 years later there would be a financial crisis and people would lose their homes.

    Secondly, banks don't win when a mortgage goes into default, they actually lose money. I would think that would be clear after the government forked over 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to privately owned companies that would have all gone out of business. That's how the rich got richer, they used the government to steal from the common man.

  65. Jordan Camp

    Yes, and everyone involved should have gone bankrupt and went out of business, but instead the gov't intervened AGAIN and handed over billions to people who made some bad investment choices. So the people that caused the problems were never removed from the levers of power and now we are poised to enter another financial crisis but this time it will be the bond market and sovereign debt rather than real estate. There would not have been such a huge number of bad mortgages without the Communtiy Reinvestment Act so I still don't see how anybody can blame the Private Sector over the government.

  66. Fabien L'Amour

    The problem was that the private sector was not only financing these bad investments but also perfectly fine companies. If they had let them go bankrupt, it would have collapsed the whole lending market and put serious strain on everybody. The execution was questionable but they didn't have much choice to intervene. Imagine every establishment of Bank of America, CITI and Wells Fargo closed and the chaos that would ensue.

  67. Jordan Camp

    My original point was that capitalism and the free market get blamed for the financial crisis but neither of these two forces were allowed to act before, during, or after the crisis. Instead what we had was a government manipulated market before during and after so the argument that the free market would have been worse than what we have now, doesn't make any sense.

  68. socratesuk

    Is a tractor not a techno-gadget?............

  69. a_no_n

    No i'm saying what the banks did in responce to the recession was a land grab...they DID end up with just about everything, and that never happens by accident.

    Really? The banks don't win when the government hands over 700 billion dollars? Sounds like a huge win to me.

    I love the way that you blame anyone but the people who actually stole all that money...As if you can't even comprehend the idea that people outside of government can be in the wrong.

  70. socratesuk

    There is a small degree of truth in what you have posted. The statistics highly questionable. Some land in some African countries is owned by foreign companies. But a lot of "African people" are not starving. In fact Africa has some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Also shoes are pretty important. Toys are questionable. I agree having people ringing homes all day pestering them to switch providers is questionable from a productivity perspective, although the profit margins are low, they work on volume sales, and sadly there is enough profit to make "cold calling" worth while.

  71. socratesuk

    Within 2 minutes, the narrator suggests there wont be many jobs in the future? This is not true. Simply the nature of jobs change. 70 years ago people would of fell about laughing if you said when your older you would like to be a "web designer". Giving out free money is not the solution. Instead we should be focusing on being more productive. I would actually argue that the problem with western economies is that is some sectors we have become less productive. (Medical, I.T and Agriculture) are very productive but there is a huge amount of population doing questionable admin/account jobs. The NHS seems to be forever recruiting admin workers? What is going on here? To see true productivity sit outside a McDonald's all day, and count how many people are fed by about 10 workers in a typical 8 Hour shift.

  72. Jordan Camp

    Last time I checked Goldman Sachs doesn't have an army and jails to forcibly extract money from the public

  73. Fabien L'Amour

    Ah, you are a libertarian. You have to assume these greedy f...s in wall street would have acted reasonably for that to be true. I think we have sufficient evidence to prove that is not what they would do.

  74. Jordan Camp

    Are you suggesting that banks would give mortgages to people even when they strongly believe they will never be repaid? What possible motive would they have for intentionally losing money

  75. Fabien L'Amour

    That is exactly what they did from 2004 to 2006. It was a risky bet but they had the liquidity and charged much higher interest to compensate for the higher credit risk. As long as the house price bubble kept going, that was fine because the value of the houses would cover the possible rate of default.

  76. Jordan Camp

    So now you have attributed their reckless lending to a market bubble but you don't explain how it began. I'm arguing that the bubble was caused by an artificial increase in the demand for houses due to the from socialist government programs. What is your explanation?

  77. Fabien L'Amour

    Causes of the bubble include the house taxing policy, deregulation, failure to regulate the shadow banking system, low interest rates, speculation that house prices would continue to appreciate, lax lending standards, large inflows of foreign funds and misconceptions about the risks.

  78. Jordan Camp

    Your comment is so writhe with contradictions it's sad. You say that a free market has never existed and then you blame a whole bunch of things on capitalism which is synonymous with the free market. "Will this policy decision increase the overall well-being of most people and life forms?" is the justification various political leaders have given for every genocide I can think of. You say all forms of government are corrupt but then create a special exception for the government policies you deem to be good for humanity. Half the time it sounds like you favor anarchy and the other half it sounds like you favor democracy. I suggest you research what the words capitalism, communism, socialism, and fascism mean as well as examples of each before you declare them meaningless and ban people from using them.

    P.S. it sounds like you might be a zeitgeister, I did some fact checking on that documentary for a project in college and most of the things in that documentary are provably false.

  79. Jordan Camp

    I think you have some good ones in there like low interest rates and lax lending standards. Lax lending standards can be attributed to the Community Reinvestment Act. The low interest rates are more interesting though because the period 2004 - 2006 which you attribute to banks becoming more risky is the period when the Federal Reserve was increasing their funds rate which had the exact opposite effect. It was during that period that people on variable rate mortgages lost their homes and the unraveling of the market began. They were lowering rates from 2001 - 2003 however which encouraged reckless lending.

  80. a_no_n

    they don't need to, the American Government is more than happy to step in and fill the gaps.

  81. Janeen Clark

    good ,evil, and lazy are not real things that have to do with reality in any way, they are words constructed of letters that have some kind of meaning different depending on what a person has been taught or not. people that cannot differentiate between what is reality and what is fantasy world's of their own thoughts are said to be mentally ill.

  82. Janeen Clark

    "being more productive" so what we are not using up the finite resources of the planet and the waste and abuse that comes with that, to a pace of your liking?

  83. Janeen Clark

    the fact is every job a human being does can and will be replaced to a point where no one has purchasing power and the money system will have committed suicide, because money is not based on reality it is a man made concept that has no direct connection to the things that are real and important. no matter what anyone says or does this process of money coming to an end is unavoidable .

  84. Janeen Clark

    the only question now is, are we going to take ourselves out with it? so far it seems yes, we are willing to go extinct for a figment of our imagination ,while all that is real gets destroyed by our adolescence, ignorance ,and servitude to parer and ink, and ones and zeros in a bank account.

  85. Janeen Clark

    why do we think of prostitution so badly ?, yet it is okay to prostitute our labor, our thoughts our inventions for money? we give up time with our loved ones ,every thought in our head every action we take is dictated by money. it is a board game extended onto real life where we are the slaves that feed and house ourselves (the luckiest dice rollers) isn't it slightly suspicious the hardest workers get paid the least? isnt is suspicious that money is no measure of human effort? isnt is suspicious that money makes money off of more money and that itself is the highest profit margins? have you thought this through and a at all? have you researched money as a system with large scale effects going all the wat down to the individual? or do you just roll the dice follow the rules of the game and have every second of your life dictated with your only choices being coke or pepsi ,democrat or republican, chicken or beef? a blue shirt or brown shirt to wear for the day while every aspect of your life mirrors the inside of a maximum security prison, just with bigger cells and a couple more multiple choice pre-selected for you. we are the new slaves. and MONEY is the nu religion.

  86. Janeen Clark

    unconditional basic income is the first step of breaking the chains of servitude. it is the first step in treating human beings as if they are worth more than pretend digits and paper and ink. it gives them a way when all else fails to provide the bare essentials for survival. unconditional money is the only kind of money that does not have corruption built into it's very foundation. look at the world around you with a fresh set of eyes and be skeptical of what you are told about money research it and seek the truth about it whatever that may be .

  87. Janeen Clark

    and what because there where jobs in the past has something to do with the actual reality of the future? how is that connection made?

  88. Jordan Camp

    narrowing your definitions to a couple lines selected carefully from a full page of text doesn't prove you're right it only exposes you for the fraud that you really are. Instead of resolving the contradictions in your arguments you have instead resorted to word games and insults. The contradictions remain however and you have added some new ones as well.

    The definition you provide is still contradicts your theory of "capitalism causes genocide". A defining characteristic of capitalism is private ownership. But private ownership cannot exist without private property laws. For example If I can go into anyone's house or store and take anything I want and everyone else can do the same to me with no legal recourse, how is it possible for anyone to privately own anything? You can't have one without the other. If I'm a person that advocates capitalism then I'm a capitalist. So if I get a bunch of friends together and systematically kill another group of people based on ethinicity I have committed a genocide. But by doing that I have just damaged their property (their body, and life) and thus violated their property rights therefore I'm not following the basic rules of capitalism, therefore I am not a capitalist. What that makes me I cannot say for Luke McDonald has not yet assigned a definition for my actions.

    You point out the fact that a completely free market has never existed and then attempt to deal with the second case of a mostly free market. You conclude the second case isn't the same as the first case and that this somehow means that the definition you have given for the free market is incorrect no longer applies to itself. Great job!

    This one made me chuckle when I read it, admittedly I did misrepresent you and for that I apologize. The same logic still applies as before but you need to change the word "are" with the words "can be". e.g.
    All governemnts CAN BE corrupted
    I advocate a for government which I will not categorize
    Therefore I advocate for a government which CAN BE corrupted



    1. having the character of synonyms or a synonym; equivalint in meaning; OR IMPLYING THE SAME IDEA.

    The term free market and capitalism have a lot in common and are often used interchangibly.

    "I have simply declared the naivete of thinking in these terms" You think in terms of capitalism when you attribute genocide to it, therefore you are naive

  89. Kansas Devil

    A self driving tractor is and also takes a job away from someone who does not live in a rich environment of opportunities.

  90. Kansas Devil

    The US has a system of handing out "free money". It's called Social Security and look what the recipients do with that money. The money follows human nature. Some will fritter it away on foolish things, others will supplement that "free income", and still others will find they need more money and worry how they will survive.
    And then there are the con men...the moment they see someone getting "free money", they will try to grab it with deception.
    Further, there are the ideologues, who will find any opportunity to berate anyone who does not follow their false religion against "free money".
    Society is sick and "free money" can't cure that.

  91. Jordan Camp

    When you have a definition for a free market that includes markets that are mostly free then you have to deal with those cases, you can't ignore them. Please stop embarassing yourself with the whole corruption thing you're not going to talk your way out of that contradiction the same logic still applies, and you support a government which is VULNERABLE to corruption. If that's any better than supporting a government which CAN BE corrupted I don't see it. You should really get away from an ad hominem style of argument, it is very weak and rarely logical. For example you say "I'm right because you're illeterate" but the fact we are having a conversation based on reading and writing proves that I'm not. Now you have wasted your time typing that and also provided an argument against yourself and I haven't had to lift a finger.

  92. Jordan Camp

    Let's try starting over, I assert that socialist economic policies can't work on a large scale. If you think they can then explain why, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this debate.

  93. Jordan Camp

    When you accept Federal Reserve Notes instead silver dollars you are actually working for currency not money. The difference is money has intrinsic value and it's creation is limited by scarcity. Currency has no limitations of creation and when it is created in excess from central banking it gradually loses purchasing power. The economic problems we experience today are the result of central banking, not money, and not from machinery replacing human labor. And yes every currency must come to an end but gold is just as valuable today as it was 4000 years ago.

  94. Erik Benkow

    What pride of accomplishment? What have you accomplished by being born into a wealthy or poor family by sheer luck or bad luck? Your BS about work and income makes no sense at all. It has been tried for hundred of years and proved only one thing that this system doesn't work. The only thing that paved the way for human progress was and has always been new technology. Not stronger work ethics you slave!

  95. Erik Benkow

    Then you are all wrong. We are not only born in economic injustice, but biological injustice as well. It would be quite easy for a white guy to get a job anywhere in the entertainment industry. Try the same for blacks. No matter how hard they ever work, they will never become attractive like the white people. So there goes your free will analogy right into the dustbin. There is no free will.

  96. Don Duncan

    Where does technology come from? You can't take it for granted. Technology is progress, it lays the foundation for more, but it comes from ambition and work. Rich kids who are given everything have no ambition or work ethic. The same for welfare recipients. This explains five continuous generations on welfare. The fountainhead of progress is the freedom to succeed or fail. People have fled the slavery of tradition and culture, enduring danger and the fear of the unknown to become pioneers. They were the future of our species that we owe our progress.

  97. Jordan Camp

    The increases in economic efficiency during both world wars are the result of defecit spending. It's important to recognize that both the wars war largely faught by European countries in Europe and that the United States didn't enter the wars until well after they began. When the US was not in the wars it sold the various countries in Europe consumer goods like clothes and food that they were unable to produce themselves because their land had been devastated and their productive young men were fighting the war or dead. The loaf of bread as it were, did exist, they traded gold for it they had amassed as a result as going through the indestrial revultion decades ahead of the rest of the world.

    All of this I'm sure you already know but the point here is there is a difference between being productive and being efficient. What you really want is both, that is giving people the things they need and want using the smallest amount resources possible. This is were scientific organization comes in and it is a good example of a socialist economic policy and here's why it can't work.

    In order for this to work you need a group of people who are capable of knowing everything the people they are managing want right now as well as what they want in the future. There are two problems with this, what people want is constantly changing and the amount of time it would take to collect and process this information on a large scale, say the United States, is insane. Once you finally did figure it out now you have to alter the production of millions of different workers which will also take a long time. By the time you have achieved both of these some of the peoples wants will have changed and you must begin the process anew constantly lagging by the demand. In short the scientists will end up approximating these values and then the people they manage will experience shortage of some products and abudance of others. At this point the public will start trying to work outside the system to get what they want and this will distort the approximation models even further causing more extreme shortages and abundances thus making the system more unproductive and inefficient.

    how a decreased workday with more time for freedom and creativity, and
    with the same productive output of truly-necessary goods, would be a bad
    thing for a society. Thanks.

    It's the same problem as before, how do you know what the truly necessary goods are and how much time does it take you to figure that out. Time that could have been spent producing things people actually want is spent asking them what they want and trying to coordinate the effort between millions of people. Shortages are inevitable and people will start to work outside the system.

  98. Jordan Camp

    Instead of trying to convince you of my position I will instead leave you with a thought experiment.

    Describe every step involved to make a pencil, down to where to find the resources, how to refine them, how many people are involved, and all the tools required.

    I seriously doubt anyone is capable of doing this and that is a relatively simple item. Some things are just too complex to be known. I would encourage you to read the book Econimcs in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, because I once held a belief system similar to yours and this 200 page book completely shattered my view of that. If you have any recommended reading for me please post them. Thanks for the debate and good luck.

  99. socratesuk

    A normal tractor is worth about 20-40 people in terms of labour productivity. How many people do you know that work in the agriculture industry? I rest my case. Maybe 1 out of 100 friends if that?

  100. socratesuk

    Some interesting points here. I would still argue that any operation that feeds 1000's of people a day is still impressive. **I do agree with your point about current workers working to much. I would also like to see the full-time week come down. You make a good point about how companies seek to maximise profits. Yet in the UK we still see cashiers, shelves are still stacked by humans, tractors still driven by humans, and taxis still driven by humans. (In 5 years from now, it would be possible to do away with most of these jobs) But new jobs should in theory be created in these new-automated industries such as software designer or technician and so on. I think it would be fair to say that basic income tied to basic productivity would never work. As some people are more productive than others. A sales person selling pens is less productive than a brain surgeon. (Though it depends if the brain surgeon is trying to save the life of an inventor or a pen sales person) Personally I think a lot of these new technologies are a great thing? It seems silly that we still insist that a human sits on a till for 8 hours a day or drives a taxi for 8 hours a day, when the technology exists to free these people from boring/relatively unproductive jobs.

  101. socratesuk

    Quick question are you still jobless? Please answer honestly.

  102. socratesuk

    And where would this money come from? Taxes? The tax rate would be astronomical.

  103. socratesuk

    Sorry I am here to learn not argue for the sake of argument. I am not saying Africa is perfect, there is still a lot of development that is needed in some African countries. My point is that some African countries have done well for themselves and that Western Media has been slow to show these changes. I would post links. But comments with links don't usually get posted. Feel free to Google "African development" or "the changing economic landscape of Africa". Ralph has the right to respond this is an open forum. There are lots of jobs one could class as "Fake jobs". Its a very hazy definition. A cold caller is possibly one, but my point is that its not unproductive from a financial point of view, if its a total waste of time then the company wouldn't be able to afford the electricity for the annoying office in the first place. But even so humans require a huge amount of services, and services usually means jobs. I get the point that a toy that is not really needed potentially creates thousands of jobs. (From the design room, to the production line, to the logistics of moving the toy to different countries, to marketing the toy and then selling the toy)

  104. Jordan Camp

    So if I say we need to produce twice as much grain every year to feed everyone, the group that suffers are the grain farmers and the groups that benefit are everyone else. Or more generally in your society, the group that benefits are the scientists designing it or making the decisions, the groups that suffer are everyone else who gets displaced from a job they like or now has to work harder to produce what they decide is necessary. How are you going to get people to change economic roles without threat of violence or improsonment, especially if they are getting the same resources regardless of what they do. I'm looking for a book that can explain how your position can work economically, I'm not looking for a book on animal rights

  105. socratesuk

    Thank you for reply. Some interesting points raised, so thank you. (I am not saying McDonalds is a great place to eat or anything but I have always personally found their operation very smooth from a customer perspective) Clearly there is going to be a lot of pressure put on the current system in the future, and eventually there may come a point (5-10-15-20 years time where we start to see more and more automation). So maybe in the future money will be replaced by a basic kind of "points system", and points enable people x amount of vegetables x amount of electricity and so on. Yet how we work out who gets what points is going to be a bit of a mess. (On the point of super-market automation, it would be possible to close a lot of shops and focus on large super-markets where vending machine type mechanics and conveyer belts system stack shelves from behind) **The tech does currently exist. Google automated supermarkets. (Unfortunately we cant post links on here). It actually sounds like we agree on a few things. I think scrapping Taxi Drives and Cashiers is ultimately a good thing or would you rather everyone pays a bit more and in the process we create more low-wage jobs. Low-wage jobs are better than no jobs?

  106. socratesuk

    Finally we can agree on some things. If you look my previous comments on previous articles you will see I have been very vocal in calling for more direct democracy, and a kind of "e-based democracy". Its sick that we have to pay MP'S £69k + average £35k expenses a year and they mainly take the country to pointless expensive wars, which the people didn't even get a say on. A lot needs to still be done in some Africa countries, but I am just saying some African countries have made a huge amount of progress in the last 10 years. (Some of it has been Chinese Aid). **Its the reason Obama is in KENYA right now, the USA is worried about Chinese influence in Africa. But a lot of it has been internal development. Botswana and Angola have higher economic growth figures than several Western countries combined! . Sadly a few countries are still a complete mess i.e Zimbabwe. Libya had amazing economic growth but now resembles some sort of mad-max film where people are just driving around in heavily armoured cars. But there is a lot more positive African economic stories than 10 years ago.

  107. Kansas Devil

    Appeal to authority? (quantity make's it authoritative) A fallacy, for sure.
    I suppose as long as you support the idea of a social federation, the idea of putting labor out of "business" is OK.
    You know, where everyone shares the wealth even if a few no longer have locational opportunities for employment.
    Most farms are in rural areas...very rural areas since the farm land needs to be uninterupted by houses and towns and roads in order to get the most efficient run of machinery.
    That isolates those who live on the farms from higher population areas where a more diverse set of opportunities exist.
    This leads to more people having less and less to do and less reason to do it.
    That affects people and cultures over time, not always in good ways. That leads to social dependence.

  108. bluetortilla

    The idea of 'fair wage' is part of the slave lexicon. Similarly, 'free money' is an oxymoron. The real problem that one individual's gain must come at a loss for another somewhere along the line is fundamental to an exploitive economic system. We need a government that provides for public security and good infrastructure. It also needs to regulate the economic system. Instead, we have bankers who have taken over our nations and lord over the politicians. The real enemy is the banks.

  109. Eduardo Dryman

    The movie illustrates the pressure even for Fed chairmen steeped in free market principles to put those principles aside when it comes to monetary policy. They are as firmly convinced that the Fed is the best price setter when it comes to money as they are that the market is the best price setter when it comes to everything else.

  110. sushan

    yes, this will be the future

  111. marie

    Look at what is does to people when you give free housing and benefits.You create a bunch of n on-workers because they don't have to.Watch Benefits Street documentary.

  112. KevO

    Seems a few people here are missing the point of what this social experiment is aiming to address, namely that the marginalisation of individuals from society due to nothing more than their inability to find work harms both the individual and society as a whole, and that the expanding global population and contraction in the labour markets indicate that the problem will inevitably become much worse over time. Is it not better to try alternatives now?

    Also there appears to be a common misconception here in the comments that it is the giving of money to those in need that makes them unproductive, "lazy" is the most used adjective here. It could be argued that individuals do not become trapped (as opposed to dependant) on benefits because they just love the free money but rather because they come to believe the overwhelming stream of media led propaganda that the minute they lost their job they became worthless, sponging, lazy degenerates. Take away a persons self respect and you also take their motivation to better themselves.

    Maybe this idea could work on a massive scale, maybe it couldn't but aiming to improve human quality of life regardless of employment status is truly noble and deserves further investigation. Who knows, there may be far more positive outcomes for society than even the inventors of the scheme realise.

  113. Jules Beckers

    This is plain, flat communism! People have been trying to push these ideas into political agendas since the 19th century and throughout history there is not a single, not one example where this concept lead to a higher life standard. When money is free the currency will crash because there is no value to back it up. Everyone will be equally poor.

  114. James Harrison

    The human 'animal' needs to be tamed for about another 100 years before we are capable of being free from more primal restraints. Money and competition forces people to adapt until seeing this futures worth.

  115. KevO

    @JulesBeckers Could you please be a little more specific in terms of countries, dates and key figures involved in this idea being pushed into political agendas, and how it was found to lead to lower standards of living? I only ask as the biog for this documentary asserts that it is a new idea which is only now being tested for the first time, and I'd like to learn more.

    Also, you do realise that since the 70's we have been using fiat currency? This is not anchored by gold or any other commodity of value, but derives value from supply and demand. Every experiment with fiat currency, dating back as far as the Romans, has failed. It ends with hyperinflation and currency collapse every time, no matter how much you redistribute back to the general population. For a scheme like this to devalue the currency as you describe then surely you would need to give everybody as much cash as they want, rather than just enough to cover basic living costs. It seems to me that a far more likely outcome is that the provision of debt-free spending power to the masses would lead to a healthier economy in the long run as demand surges.
    Trickle down economics (i.e. QE) is a fraud at worst, and ineffective at best. Trickle up economics as described in the film seems a better bet for prosperity for all.

  116. sheen blaketon

    Dont even wach this. Itz wrote in some weird language, possibly latin or russian. So stupid

  117. Ballsrog

    People keep using the word "lazy". While am sure there are some who would choose to do nothing, most simply need a reason to get motivated beyond "let me get up today and do some hard, menial labor, for barley enough money to keep from starving or health problems, for no other reason than to give a very few near the near godlike power of a ton of money". Maybe if those of you (probably born into a decent, upper middle class family, with many chances to succeed and the right path in life spoon fed to you) worried about lazy people realized that that was the reality for a greater and greater majority these days, you might think different. Maybe then we can stop... destroying the earth for pieces of paper, and tricking the unintelligent into believe they're free and that this is the best possible society so they continue they're near slave labor, annnnd just maybe rooting out the corrupt, uncaring, sociopaths that make up the majority of those in real positions of power.

  118. lisa

    To answer all those saying GIVING will make people LAZY - What people do you don't do is none of YOUR business! It's their life to what they want just like you have yours to do what you wish! Who are YOU are anyone to decide what is important to anyone's life other than your own. THEY EVIL we have in this world can't be without if FIRST being in the HEARTS of the people. As far as this system - I don't think it will work - the MONEY SYSTEM is OWNED by PRIVATE families and THAT is the problem-UNTIL the people are in charge of the money system and its self it will never change - MONEY is DEBT MONEY is SLAVERY for us all - as designed because EVERYTHING money buys the CREATOR put here on earth for us all - FREE! Its our INSAITY that allows this MADNESS.

  119. Devanshi Ruparel

    I'm only 10 minutes in but I have questions troubling me:
    what if the money is given to those who already have it and not to those who need it? it is a raffle based system after all.
    if "money" is given "for free" and it is sufficient for people to live, they will be demotivated to work. Moreover, since they're getting only the "basic income", they won't spend it on lavish things so eventually, the companies who are "getting more customers" by registering themselves on that German website will withdraw because people are not spending as much.
    Also, I just want to say that the minimum wage in India is (as of July 1st 2015) 160 rupees A DAY. So giving them an extra 200 rupees A MONTH will actually not make much of a difference.

  120. David

    I would be very motivated to work if I would get money for free, it would cause less stress to be on the edge of survival, so that my mind is free to creativity and more energetic for many more activities to be in service of humanity and the world with my own capacities and talents for which I would not have enough time, nor energy if i am only trying to survive the month.

  121. gorb

    GuitarGod What is the Cloward Pivan stragety?

Leave a comment / review:

  Read our Privacy Policy.