Not Business As Usual

Not Business As Usual

2014, Economics  -   60 Comments
Ratings: 8.20/10 from 231 users.

The traditional form of capitalism is putting a product or service to the market and making money. However, some businessmen contemplate that the real entrepreneurship is to figure out how the world is better off because of your product or service and bring that into the marketplace.

Business is a kind of construct for people to get together to achieve some kind of result, so why not take business as a tool to achieve more progressive result. Instead of seeing capitalism as an evil which's destroying humanity on the planet you can take capitalism and use it with a conscience to create a purposeful result... adjust and equitable society.

Twentieth century model of capitalism has one rule in its operating system which is: The purpose of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value exclusively even if that means that there are significant, for the benefit of the doubt, unintended consequences.

But new communications channels, like social media primarily, are driving transparency into companies. They can't get away with careless behavior anymore. They need to be very, very diligent about how they serve the community. That's driving corporate social responsibility, it's driving better governance and it's certainly driving sustainability. That's has been constant trend over the last 15-20 years.

The baby boomers' generation grew up in a world with one motto "If I have stuff I am successful." This shaped the minds of that generation, so by the time the baby boomers got in control of the economy, in the 1980's, excess was everywhere. It became all about stuff. Corporations became about adding book value for shareholders, not adding societal value for all stakeholders.

In the last 50 years of business companies are rewarded based on success of one metric and that's profit. CEOs who are successful deliver profit to shareholders. Our entire stock exchange is founded upon that so it's hard for us criticize the CEOs for forsaking other things like supplier relations or social impact or other causes.

More great documentaries

60 Comments / User Reviews

  1. arto

    japan taiwan hong kong were examples of economies subsidised by US tech and capital to recover and to serve as a bulwark against capitalism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no need to preserve these economies and they were actively undermined (see Plaza Accord, end of bubble economy, 1997 collapse of tiger economies etc.)

  2. kahron

    This is really good tells you a lot of the world and what goes on and how these things are done

  3. TheeKruger

    I love that there are so many comments that know what capitalism is and whom watched this despite the creators shallow understanding of economics.

    The documenary was awesome, most people wont spend thousands of hours reading economic texts from both capitalist and socialist ideology.

    Those people mistakenly think we have capitalsim today, thats okay. Thats what they have been told and taught. People began to hijack it almost a century ago.

    Its amazing that the power of the people (the free market) is coming back around to original capitalism, and its using new words to define old ideas and to return to ideas from people like Hayek and Mises.

    The sooner we shake off this socialist big government corporatism the better.

    Keynes, you clever politician... You turned the tides!

    I'll never get over how fascinating hegemony is, truly. You just change somethings name, or its definition, and with enough time and effort, society just goes with it.

    So excited to see classic/true capitalism returning.

    Away from corporatist, socialist, marxist ideologies. Marx was a great thinker, but he made one fundamentally incorrect presumption: people do not define value from work.

    They define value from creation, life, invention, and many other things. Toiling is not the purpose.

    Keynes believed the same thing, Hayek believed the opposite.

    One group of people (EG: Marx and Keynes) believe:

    People live to work.

    Another group (myself, Hayek, most entrepreneurs) believe:

    People work to live.

    This is the primary ideological seperation which changes the foundation from which people reason. It's okay for one to believe either, people should be free to choose either. But the totalitarian nature of Marx set the tone for most of socialism. I've recently read a lot on anarcho-socialism, and in all honesty, that is the best sociaist ideology ive ever read, and I was a marxist back in highschool!

    Thank goodness I kept reading and became an austrian economist.

  4. DustUp

    From the storyline: "Twentieth century model of capitalism has one rule in its operating system which is: The purpose of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value exclusively..."

    That is a false premise. Has nothing to do with Capitalism. It is CORPORATISM having corrupted govt to its will. A political corruption problem which is even worse under Progressivism or Socialism.

    Capitalism, the ability to trade with your neighbor without interference, especially from govt. is an economic system that would occur without any govt what so ever. GOVT IS the problem. Govt facilitates corruption. Much more so with Socialism. Proof is that the USA is far more socialistic than when I was young ...and far more corrupt.

    Sadly the lazy minded people fall for the Progressive Socialist Communist propaganda.

  5. DustUp

    @mike m: good thing to have happen. How are YOU going to get that "simple" thing of removing personhood status of corporations to actually happen?

    Until you stop corporations from being able to donate to political candidates which would require finding enough political candidates that the people will vote for that will also sign a contract to remove the personhood status of corporations, your solution may be simple but unlikely to occur.

    It seems the only time people become less lazy politically is when enough of them don't have enough to live a decent life, for an extended period of time. Then the risk is them believing the lying progressives who caused that, blaming it on capitalism and conservatives.

    1. michael j mathwig is working on it trying to change laws state by state

  6. Ian

    To see all the controls (volume, etc.) click the paper plane icon at the top-right of the video, it will show you the vimeo page link this video comes from.

  7. jerry mcquired

    The control of the video leaves a lot to be desired. 1 hour long - and no way to come back and start from another point in the video. Lame with a large L.

  8. mike m

    Take away legal personhood from corporations and it becomes manageable, simple!

  9. DustUp

    Corprogovtmedia complex indoctrinated ignorant bliss. If there is ANY finger pointing to be done it is at the masses, especially the ignorant progressives = socialists.

    With Capitalism, a company will not survive if people stop buying what they are selling.
    With Socialism (or progressive if you prefer) or any other type of collectivism, the govt crony company will continue on, you will have no other CHOICE and be told to like it or protest your way to prison (or gulag if you prefer). If you don't like what a company is doing, you will be the enemy of the state because that company is approved by the state. If you haven't figured it out yet, govt is all about protecting corporations from the people, not the people from corporations, despite the titles of various agencies.

    When the former USA was founded, corporations had few rights and were nothing like today. How did that happen? Corrupt judges = govt. No one in congress nixed that since your ancestors didn't see to it they did or else fired; then straightened out with the next crop of congress.

    What exactly is corrupt capitalism? USA Capitalism has been corrupted by incremental Socialism via a populace hell bent on staying ignorant, limiting their input to emotional socialist major media propaganda, which of course is nothing but lies to lure you in, just as Saul Alinsky (what Obama and Hillary follow) and his predecessor Karl Marx described: Lies and more lies until the Socialist agenda is achieved! March on all you red coat goose steppers!

    If you think things are bad now, wait until the lying Socialists take over dictating the winners and losers, mostly by payoff. Socialism is all about getting rid of the COMPETITION.

    A person would be close to the truth in saying that the ultimate corrupt capitalism is Progressive or Socialism.

    So while you progressives are whining, educate yourself by looking in the mirror to see who is to blame for what you don't like.

    It is much easier for a labor union to whine and carp and strike in an attempt to extract more pay than to start their own company. SAME for progressives. If you don't like it start your own MUCH better responsible company. However, time is running out, all your progressive sisters and brothers will summarily determine your company is just another also ran and not worth giving a permit to exist after asking their corporate friends if you are any danger to them while stuffing their pockets.

    It is a simple matter to correct a Capitalist ship. Get the word out and stop buying what you think is bad. I can hear it already, "Oh but it is the system, I'm locked in to buying bad stuff because that is all that is available..." Anyone but you believe that? Start your own company. "Oh I don't have the money." Really? How did all the other people with no money start their companies?

    I'm all for a clean environment and people knowledgeable enough to realize corporations are shoving as many costs onto the people as they can to improve their bottom line. Pollution, eminent domain, etc. How many letters have you written to your representation to stop that?

    How many have you gathered together to stop an evil corporation from doing bad things? I have so piss off and stop throwing the freedom of choice out with capitalism and work to correct ALL the corruption which will only get WORSE the more Socialism we get.

    Or you can wait until your shelves are bare like in the old Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.

    Better yet just move to a Socialist utopian country rather than being fooled into voting this country into one. Don't let the screen door hit your backside, please.

    What is the difference between Socialism and Communism? Whether the people are fooled into voting for it or whether it is implemented by force. --Ayn Rand

  10. DG

    These kind of things can only happen in the bubble of a First World economy, with resources and wealth delivered from Third World economies. Capitalism isn't sustainable. Where is the value going to come from to cover things like interest when we start rubbing up against the limits of economic expansion in a closed system? It's no more possible for us to predict what will come after, than it would be for feudal societies to imagine capitalism, but change must come, it's inevitable. Economic systems do not last forever, they just seem like it at the time.

  11. John Defalque

    If corps have no responsibility to society then we should as a society force them out of existense.

  12. darcy_2k

    Good doc. Although a welcome change, I do think this is merely an incremental innovation on the existing paradigm constituting only part of the solution. Consumption based economics is no longer fit for purpose. Most people on the planet will have to become engaged in some form of prosumption. I.e. become prosumers (value creators, not value extractors). Everything an individual does, everything they engage in, must add value to social and ecological systems simultaneously. Furthermore, within this new paradigm, we need to integrate ways of repairing damage already caused to ourselves and our planetary systems. So its not about less impact, its about making sure our impact is so big and so positive that all life on earth benefits. Ultimately, we gain the most!

  13. Brogan

    I feel that this whole documentary is only relevant for a middle class + lifestyle. This type of capitalism will not bring back the well paid jobs for the millions of jobless working class people in "developed" nations. For everyone to jump on the "whole foods" bandwagon - we need to be able to afford to purchase these things. Until that point comes - the struggling majority will continue to buy there not-so-ideal products from the very large retailers.

    Additionally there's something quite sinister I need to warn you guys about this documentary. They're essentially saying with that dynamic business models - there will be a grass-roots-esk revolution in the way we live our lives and the examples they've been using are companies which abide by ethical obligations to the environment etc. Unfortunately there's nothing really different about these companies. It's a well known fact that rich people like to buy things that are currently considered good quality so that they can feel different and good about themselves; it's always been that way and that's who these companies are selling to (perhaps with the exception with the token cafe but even then). There hasn't been any dynamic business model in this documentary that has shown that we will all be better off.

    I know that the demographics of this website will most likely be middle class people but consider that there aren't enough middle = upeer class people around to go to all of the co-ops, cafes and expensive eco clothing shops needed to give all the "have-nots" jobs and financial security. A welfare state that prints more money than it taxes it's nation can do that. I certainly don't think that's a bad thing by the way. I think we should stop believing that capitalism is going to solve the problem with mass poverty and maybe start thinking how we print more money without hyperinflation. Capitalism would still exist.

    1. bluetortilla

      Great observation. It seems as if the consumerist mentality is basically 'OK', we just need to modify the means of production. We can even keep advertising intact.
      What we really need is radically different way of living. It would be awesome to live just one day with a mind clear of corporate branding and free of slogans like 'green'.

  14. geo moses

    coca cola is the hidden face of sprite and other soda's

    1. bluetortilla

      Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it goes far far deeper than that.

  15. gaboora

    This was pretty good, except for the giant windmill idea, for these ugly giants kill birds, cause arrhythmia, and make a landscape look alien instead of green.

    1. bluetortilla

      I bet the birds adapt. Anything's better than millions of spilled barrels in the seas and cancerous chemical seeping into the water supply.

    2. gaboora

      You will never get windmills to compensate for the energy we need by fossil fuels. And it is hard for birds to adapt after they have been killed.

    3. bluetortilla

      Of course you're right. Wind turbines are just one alternative to fossil fuels amongst many others. As I see now that the problem is more serious than I realized, I agree. However, turbines are now being redesigned to make them safer for avians.
      It's not like I'm a huge proponent of turbines or anything (and just look at how hydroelectric dams kill off whole ecosystems!); I just hate oil! Oil dependence is killing more, destroying more, and enslaving more than any economy the world has ever seen.
      Why not frame big nets around turbines to prevent birds from getting in? Time is precious- we need to think out of the box now! We need alternatives and innovation, not dead end thinking. Finally- we can all use far less electricity. That would help tremendously.

    4. gaboora

      Yes, we are gluttons for power. And much of that power is used to make things that we needlessly throw away. And why do we water lawns anyway? We don't even need lawns. And we could do without golf courses too. And we could quit flying unnecessarily. Morality is the real problem.

    5. Tim Chisholm

      I think the term is "outside the box"

  16. Lynley Ruth Butt

    "The Bilderberg Group" by investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, put out by explores the implications of how much influence over our national, regional, global future directions is exerted by our successful ( 1 % top) economic and political elite.
    So- It is good to see this film and follow it's arguments. To have these down to earth individual- community friendly signs and specific examples of
    successful enterprising trends- treading a middle road way towards socially community-considerate/ conscientious materialism.

    We have to ponder how much the existing elite group of influential
    Trend setters are humanitarian ly and socially influenced by this kind of thing. Whether we can take and leave them to their secret confabulations. Or whether Civil Society 's coin of exchange must be recognised and ratified as consistently consisting of Heads (princely elite rulers) AND Tails ( a societally produced elect ...scientifically and conscientiously aware) interaction... For all to have faith in and future rewards out of "the way" the path we tread together, the Boss- workers contractual System of effectual management -governance.

  17. shafawn

    In my opinion it should not be up to government or anyone else to decide what can be presented to the market. Prices rise and fall naturally by supply and demand. If your your product is useless it won't sell. We don't need big brother taking over to decide what is market worthy and that's what it always comes down to.
    That's why global business thrives in communism. Communist people still need toilet paper but the Communist government decides which toilet paper company is (most profitable to government) "best for the people" and that's all they get. That toilet paper company is hugely successful but there is no competition so it's a crappy (no pun intended) product.

    Now multiply that by every product you buy all controlled by a massive government and appointed Czars who alone control ALL profit and production so that ALL commerce is used to feed one central global government. THAT is where we are headed.

    Communism HATES small business and privately owned business because that presents the opportunity for freedom in the market place allowing for natural product COMPETITION in price setting which would slow down their profit.

    It would be nice if we could all hold hands and sing kumbaya and trust that government is like a kindly mommy and daddy that loves their little children but that's not the truth and people should wake up.
    Uncontrolled government bureaucracy NEVER in the history of the world acted in the best interest of the people. Totalitarian simply means government is in total control which is what you people are pushing and swallowing.
    Government places a dollar sign on each individual like a pimp on a prostitute and that prostitute is only worth the net total of it's asset which diminishes over time.
    The ONLY good federal or global government is one on a very extremely short leash. The core of power should NEVER be centralized but should be distributed by each state and that is the only way to discourage power hungry sharks with zero scrupulous like we have in our white house right now.

    1. socratesuk

      The problem in the future is that I dont think there will be enough jobs to support the demand needed to keep the system going. Its like UK super-markets, they have the technology to do away with manned tills, but choose not to, as up to 800, 000 people would be out of work. When cars eventually drive themselves using electric power do we still need 25 different car companies? Presumbly we wouldnt need as many traffic police? I think part of the issue is that technology will eventually put huge strains on our economic system, so much so that eventually profits, and even money itself will have to give way to a points/credits system that will have to be managed by a government. I think this is a long way off, so in the meantime we need a smarter capitalist system.

    2. shafawn

      There would be plenty of jobs if small business opportunity thrives to allow for competitive prices.

      If we all could have electric cars (won't happen) the entire basic commercial dynamic would change. The entire world is based on oil production and consumption now with nearly every product's contents depending on petroleum. Why do you think the global media platform has their lips pressed so tightly to the rectum of the middle east?
      What contributions have the middle east ever given the world, to each other or their own people besides oil and terror? But we want their oil so political correctness is to kow tow.. and that's what our governments push knowing full well they are barbaric, backward and brutal.
      Do you think that is for the good of the people or is it for the profit of their oil? Why do you think it is politically correct to hate Israel who has provided the west with the majority of itel from that part of the world for 50 years? Israel who took a dry piece of sand and turned it into an oasis becoming one of the leading food exporters of the world. Why are we supposed to hate them? Because we want the oil of the middle east and the middle east hates them with ancient hatred since old testament times.

      Listen to me young idealistic person.. it doesn't matter if we trade money or poker chips it's still a system of currency and there will always be those who manipulate it to get more poker chips no matter what you call that system.

      The more power you give ANY government the more corrupt it gets. That is a LONG LONG historical fact of history. Every generation makes the choice of remembering that or forgetting it to make the same mistakes of trusting government that kills millions.
      *****Governments have killed more of their own people than all the wars of the world combined****
      Look it up for yourself. Look at Africa, Korea, Vietnam, China, Germany and all of Europe, Russia x10... all over the world and through out history since it's recording..
      Power corrupts government. Absolute power corrupts government absolutely. That is where we are headed because this generation either wasn't told or has chosen not to believe it.

    3. socratesuk

      Interesting reply, so what are the solutions then? The quicker the west can switch to electric cars the better!. The wests addiction to oil is embarrassing. Tho it does power are military and industrial scale food production...... I agree that historically goverments have done a lot of harm, but there seems to be a growing number of people who are most interested in justice and fairness rather than owning a mansion or helicopter. So are you suggesting their is a conspiracy against producing electric cars? Or that its just been a low priority?

    4. shafawn

      China uses more energy than the United States right now and in 4 years will surpass U.S. oil consumption. On top of that China has ZERO control on pollution and has no monitors or limitations WHAT SO EVER.
      China is presently the largest contributor of emission of greenhouse gases in the world. China gives off more carbon dioxide
      than three United States put together.

      Do you hear ANY environmentalists squawking about ooey gooey loving Communist China? No because China essentially tells the U.N. 'up yours - we will do what we want'.

      Meanwhile the United States is embarrassing? This generation's political correctness is a tragic comedy

    5. socratesuk

      So whats the solution?........

      Also a lot of people in China are getting sick of the pollution, as their incomes slowly rise they will demand more of a say, and thus the government will come under more pressure to move away from heavy industry. (Assuming China becomes more democratic in the future).

    6. shafawn

      That's a big assumption.. (see Tiananmen Square 1989) Did you know to this day authorities still search for every single student involved in that peaceful demonstration and the ones that weren't "disappeared" by the government immediately went into hiding. Fascinating reading on that subject. China doesn't 'feel' pressure from it's people. It has a 6 to 1 male population with mandatory military service. They have bred an army of men that have no means or hope of ever starting a family. China maintains a financial and military threat on all it's neighbors and works constantly to undermine U.S. interest. Not to mention forced abortions and children who are disappeared because there is a one child policy. What do you think happens to families who go and ahead and have another child and want to keep it? The government takes it away and kills it.
      China is a good example of uncontrolled government.

    7. socratesuk

      6 to 1.... I couldn't find any sources to back up that incredibly stupid figure!, of course I have heard of The Tienanmen Square protests of 1989!

      So for the third time what are the solutions then?

    8. shafawn

      If I could post URL's here I would give you a link but I can't so you'll have to do some of your own incredibly stupid research. I suggest "China gendercide" in your search engine. Here is a copy paste from "World Life Expectancy" The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences recently predicted that in the
      year 2020, China will have as many as 40,000,000 more young men than
      women under the age of 20.
      What will China do with 40,000,000 men?
      Do you know anything about Chinese history?

      I already gave you the solution... encourage small business because the middle class is (was) the meat and potato of American finance. (That is the opposite of what this administration does.)
      Also bring industry and manufacturing back into the United States.

    9. socratesuk

      Hmmm the maths doesn't seem to add up. (Yes there is more men than women, buts ts still not 6 to 1) Its more like 6:5, at a push 6:4 Figures I have seen suggest a ration of 130-120 men to 80-100 women. I have seen some more articles that suggest up to 24 million men could struggle to find a spouse but in a population of 1.3 billion+, this is a relatively small number. (Although it is a cause of concern, as there is a lot of evidence that suggests when there is a shortage of women to marry, men can become a bit angry, and more likely to commit crime, riot, or even start revolutions)

      Anyway I am not to sure what this has to do anything, you seem to be suggesting China is secretly building a massive army or something? The west still has enough missiles and nukes, subs and aircraft carriers to keep them in check. Not only that, but the middle-class of China has become much more educated, also the middle-class can typically afford to leave the country and come across educational materials and news that is maybe censored inside China, so this usually creates a knowledgeable middle-class, which slowly voices "alternative political and economic ideas".

      So your solution is to bring back industry and manufacturing? how? Tax breaks for large companies or nationalizing large companies? Part of the problem is that what were once "american companies" are now "global companies". A lot of these companies now seek out countries where wages are cheaper and thus make a larger profit for share-holders. So it would be very tricky to lure large manufacturing investments into the USA. Also the actual net profit margin from manufacturing is typically relatively low. It varies between 4%-8%. Sadly hedge funds, banks, insurance firms, can produce returns often 9% to 15%. Industries like pharmaceuticals and software can vary between 10% up to 20%. Typically most western countries focus on these more profitable industries. Although most have media, telecommunications, and a large banking and finance sector, most also have pharmaceuticals and software. The US for example is very good at pharmaceuticals and software. But these two industries don't receive much attention by the media. But they also reinvest a lot of money into future products, so they typically tend to be more sustainable as its a very competitive market and people always want a better quicker phone or a drug that works quicker, can be made cheaper and with less side effects. So although having a large manufacturing base certainly wouldn't harm a countries economy, sometimes its worth investing in other areas. Another good example is Germany. Which has a very mixed economy, but its very good at precision engineering and making various gadgets that are needed in cars, gps systems, submarines, wind turbines, boats, planes and so on. So the US is probably best at sticking to what it does best!

      America has some very intelligent people, but sadly an over-reliance on huge corporations and short-term profits means there hasn't been the kind of long-term investments and thinking that America typically does best in. For example Defensive programs are typically 15-30 years. NASA being another great example of where long term thinking and long term investments can lead to great things. America put a man on the moon in 1969!. Amazing when you look back it.

      Short-term greed by the 1% is the real problem!

    10. shafawn

      China is already at 37,000,000 more men than women today. Anyway thank you for a lively debate and less hostile in your last post. I will be out of communication for a few days and will check back on my return.

      Briefly, laws would have to change to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
      I know we are headed towards global government for the reasons you stated but we are creating a totalitarian monster with the hopes it won't be and it's ridiculous.

    11. socratesuk

      It has been an interesting discussion. Thanks as well.

    12. jaberwokky

      Paranoia, Myopia and thinly veiled Islamophobia? You should ask your doctor about Rumyodin.

      And where did you pick up the idea that it's politically correct to hate Israel?

    13. shafawn

      Wow wake up

    14. jaberwokky

      As in wake up sheeple and hear my words of wisdom?

    15. shafawn

      If you want to call yourself a sheeple (I didn't) and acknowledge their is wisdom in my words (thanks) then ok

  18. John Defalque

    Crapitalism can never be a force for good, it is only about exploitation, greed, austerity, scarcity, exclusion, keeping everyone down and dumb.It is hostile to community and democracy.

    1. socratesuk

      Did you actually watch the documentary?

    2. John Defalque

      Sure, but this handful of entities are the exception not the rule.

    3. socratesuk

      Yeah but if big companies slowly started to become more transparent and take part in things that benefit the local community it would be a step in the right direction. Capitilism isnt a completely terrible system, we have food in the fridge and 24/7 energy, we also have the internet which is a fantastic tool that means anyone can read up on any subject from greek philosophy and the origins of democracy all the way through to brain surgery. Your house is probably full of various electronic gadgets produced by various companies, in fact almost everything in your home has been produced by a company in the hope of making a profit, so to say its never a force for good is a bit stupid. It has been a force/system that has totally changed how humans live. Is it perfet? No. I doubt there will ever be a perfect system. Can we try and make capilitilism work in better ways? Yes we can.

    4. Hodd

      You should question this assumption. Personally, my views are probably just left of Ghandi, but it's important to realize that we have to work from where we are. If a democratic idealism were to prevail, integrate, and grow in a capitalist society, it would likely create businesses and institutions that reflected such ideals.

      Ultimately, what we have now is a reflection of us as individuals. Democracy isn't as important to enough people right now. We are self absorbed and that is basically the prevailing idealism of egocentricity and its extreme, greed, in society today. As we change, the society at large, its institutions, and structures, will also. Albeit with potentially violent reluctance.

    5. Jacek Walker

      It can be forced actually but it will never work. It is like trying to force someone to be kind or loving or honest. There will be smiles and gestures on the surface but deeper under the ski the same greed, jealousy and hatred remain suppressed but still as strong as ever.
      Looks like middle class entrepreneurs trying to change their image into one of caring and selfless.
      I would love to believe it know one cannot hide one's greed - it is glowing through eyes and skin. Another thing is that not everybody can recognize it - especially those who are equally greedy. It's just like them, nothing wrong perceived, isn't?

    6. bluetortilla

      I agree. Soon these companies will just be branding an image as a market strategy to keep up the consumption, rampant growth, and profits.
      Though Starbucks never claimed to be 'green,' they blasted on the scene with a new kind of cafe and defined a new sort of hip, liberal place where all sorts of people could fit in. Their image was 'warm, spiritual (logo), and kind. Lovers of great coffee. The truth is that they are extremely aggressive gougers second only to MacDonald's in shopping mall and airport establishments. They provide absolutely nothing of value besides some decent coffee at an extremely high price and a few sofas amongst the hard chairs. And yet they are always packed with people wasting their money. Friends are always trying to get me to meet them there. Their tactics are greedy and devious and yet no one complains about them. I boycott them and you should too. Go to a friends house for coffee. Learn your coffee sources and pay more for more ethically grown coffee. Or give up coffee. I've been looking for a worker owned plantation and haven't found one yet. Someone let me know if you do.
      I'm using Starbucks to illustrate how modern companies are manipulating us to continue our spending/debt practices by slick marketing and the manipulation of hip, gentle, and peaceful images. Don't be fooled. It doesn't matter if you wear sandals or jack boots, the reality is in the factory in which they're made and the decisions about buying are yours. If you care about stopping the consumer train ride to the edge, make decisions about buying now.

  19. Janeen Clark

    there are no forms of money barter or trade that can achieve better results than we have seen because the corruption is built into money and barter and trade. its like saying be a rapist or murderer but be polite about it and speak calm and reassuring to your victims while serving them tea and biscuits.

    1. GonChalabas

      I like where you're going with that. The corruption is built into transaction. Always the fear that you're being swindled. Also the uneasy concern that you're not swindling your benefactors appropriately. Fear-based methods mixed with psychological attacks against our sexuality plus the (expensive)cures, plus a completely $-dependent agricultural system that ties us inexorably with the accepted system. I know of no alternative because I was born in 1988 and missed the last whimpers of generational wisdom posthumously echoing in the ether from the b.c.

    2. Janeen Clark

      i have people say to me "you just want everything handed to you being against money barter or trade" but actually it is the opposite in a money barter or trade situation how much effort do people put into what they do?psychologically no hourly pay or salary ever warrants 100 percent effort that then carries out into regular life as well . this is why even though with the advent of the internet each person can self educate equivalent to 50 years or more of college for a few hundred dollars in a laptop .but instead you see they vast majority make assumptions judgments and expectations as a method to deal with their lack of knowledge about the world as a whole. next the mind game called property may be the worst hindrance of progress and advancement to mankind. imagine instead of copyrights you had thousands of individuals working on perfecting a computer car or structural design. imagine if instead of separate companies and corps . all those same people collaborated to make the best society can , while making the item last as long as possible as well as making most products and items modular when ever possible, meaning imagine a 55inch tv with a 25 pin connector cable to a small box that opens up and all the parts snap in and out so each component can be upgraded in the future for many years to come. these couple points are only a fraction of what can be done without money, but these couple things alone would change the world we live in by creating advancement like we have never seen because in a monetary system products slowly get hauled out as to make the most profit and get designed to break making them worthless and eventually pollution. if there was no poor sector of society to make cheap crappy products to , all the saved resources could be used to make on demand production coupled with library style buildings for every product . people need access to goods and services when they want it not "owning" things that take up space when only being used 10 percent of the time. of course without money barter or trade you do not need government, authority police or laws because there are no negative types of behavior in people that have access to the things that allow a high quality of life.

    3. socratesuk

      Interesting post. The only good thing about capitalism tho, is that there is an incentive for companies to invest in technology and create better quality TVs, phones, etc.

      We are also VERY SLOWLY starting to see more and more money being invested into electric/green cars. And google has pumped millions into the technology that will one day allow cars to drive-themselves. In fact the technology is now being used on US roads, but the technology has sadly got bogged down in legal arguments about who is responsible for crashes etc.

      So although I also find having all these different companies a bit pointless, at least it pushes along technology....

  20. Jordan

    Kind of a one-sided documentary; I don't think the makers of this documentary understand entrepreneurship, business, or economics. I'm a libertarian and am well-aware of how evil and destructive big government in bed with big business is to the common man. This documentary would appeal most to big government socialists; therefore its hopes are the false realities of naive idealism. There are more worthwhile documentaries to watch.

    1. Peter

      I'm so tired of hearing this, that humans cannot strive to be better simply because YOU cannot see it happening. The fact is that the status-quo is quickly DOOMING MANKIND. It's not naivety, it's REALISTIC to think that if we do not strive to become better than we ever have been we ALL will suffer.
      We can move mountains, yet our hands are tied by the lame, insufferable people who are so stuck in their ways they dare not dream to hope and are too f--king cowardly to embrace change.

      Naive idealism? No sir, unfettered capitalism is cruel greed blanketed in naive idealism (it has clearly proven an utter global,economic,humanitarian disaster for everyone not in the club)

      I love any documentary that gets us THINKING, and TALKING, about possible solutions. To do nothing is to die.

    2. socratesuk

      Good reply

    3. Janeen Clark

      taking care of people is the real world. money is a mind game , one that people have suffered the greatest losses in history for billions have died from a lack of pieces of paper with ink stamped on .real breathing human beings with blood pumping in their veins just like you are reality denial of this is why the world is falling apart all economies are collapsing all countries and governments are in debt past the point of no return hundreds of years of pollution and dumping into land fills all because of pieces of paper with ink on it or numbers in a bank account.truly disgusting given what type of world is possible to create. we will drive to extinction unless real change is made.

    4. Fabien L

      How would it appeal to big government socialists? What was covered were private enterprises that as far as I know were not bankrupt or highly subsidized. As a libertarian, you should totally agree that an entrepreneur is free to run his business as he likes and can promote any social values he wishes in it.

      "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it". - Thomas Jefferson

      And if they are indeed wrong with their naive idealism, I direct you to that quote :

      “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.” - Mahatma Gandhi

    5. socratesuk

      Dear Jordan, it was not really one-sided. It was very small businesses that were trying a different business model. There is nothing wrong with trying different business models. Also the businesses in the doc, were acting without government help!. Save-on-meats were helping the poor, as clearly the governments approach to feeding the homeless wasn't helping that much.

  21. awful_truth

    When you watch a documentary like this, you find yourself actually starting to believe that maybe, just maybe, there is hope for the future; in particular how the world could do business, in a way that is in everyone's best interests. Although it is just a start, it is a damn fine one. Kudos to those of the next generation who are actually thinking, and are showing all of us how it should be done!

  22. whoopi_goldberg

    this was great!

    definitely a step in the right direction.

  23. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq


    That was a very informative, as well most inspiring doc!

    I really appreciated the explanation of modus operandi in B-Companies. Especially the ones from Vancouver!

    As well the "food tokens" are such an incredibly impressive & heart warming idea + ideal to uphold!

    Many kudos!