Compare text

Find the difference between two text files

Real-time diff

Unified diff

Collapse lines

Highlight change

Syntax highlighting

Tools

Untitled diff

Created 9 years agoDiff never expires

49 removals

1 line

50 additions

1 line

For my next guest we bring you a completely different perspective on the economy. Now Peter Joseph is a filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which is a sustainable advocacy organization. Now the movement believes that social issues such as poverty corruption pollution and war are all a result of an outdated and inefficient social structure They advocate for new socio-economic model: a natural law resource based economy. I sat down with Peter earlier this week to talk about his ideas, and I start off by asking him to explain what he thinks is wrong with our current banking system.Take a look! — The story with the banking system in the financial sector which I would say is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of capitalism the system itself isn't designed to cater to what we would term technical sustainability or social stability. In other words you have something called market efficiency which as we all know, has to do with the movement of money and the acquisition of efficiency for profit attainment, the need to have economic growth to keep people employed all of these attributes require service seen in truth, require technical inefficiency. So the more we improve society the more we have technology that can be used for extended periods the more we adapt our technology, the more we're able to create sustainable products the more we able to solve problems in other words. The less fuel there is to drive market efficiency and keep the economy going. The market economy was basically creating the sort a sixteenth-century handicraft premise. Adam Smith, for example, never would have fathomed that we would have the largest industry in the world today be in the financial sector and people trading in a gambling and having a gambling casino economy that we have today with equities and futures and currencies. This is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of seeking the widget gain as it were from economics 101. So it's completely outdated in other words and it's not gonna handle the problems we have today with billion people starving three billion poverty the huge water stress that is rising the energy crisis in demand we'll have another billion people on this planet in other 15 years. These stressors will not be resolved by a system that actually wants inefficiency to keep it going. — Right! Now can you explain to our viewers what The Zeitgeist Movement is. — The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability advocacy organization and insured we get to the root of what is underlined most the social problems that we see in the world today from the conflict and social instability that we see on a daily basis to again the core ecological crises that we also see amalgamating continuing and what we find is that the route premise of the social model is at fault. Now I wanna make one distinction because when you talk about to criticize capitalism, people are very quick to point fingers. Capitalism did not start in the 16th century even though was formalized as such. The premise of capitalism, the premise of the market itself is the sphere of scarcity and the necessity to compete and gain advantage over others because of that fear and this has amalgamated into this complex system that we have today that is literally decoupled from itself where people are out trading in gaining without any regard for what actually is relevant to social progress. So the movement sees this and we also see that we have immense problem solving capacities and technological solutions out there that are going unused because they are simply too efficient to be up applicable to keep market circulation going. So we recommend what I term in Natural Law Resource-based Economy and this idea simply says that we need to use the scientific method we need to get down to the root of what actually creates life-support, creates public health, insures security environment, insures social and ecological sustainability, and to do so we need to install a complete different social system that actually has that interest in mind and that is an elaborate conversation that we can go into at length but I must stop right there. — And I do wanna go into it at length at some point but thank you for somebody never was. But my question is... — Sure! — What happens when economic growth slows today as compared to what would happen when economic growth slows in this more sustainable society that you envision ... Zeitgeist Movement? — Well that's a very interesting idea because you're premising economic growth in the market context there would be no economic growth in the same theoretical understanding in a Resource-based Economy. Economic growth is basically to find about the acceleration of money moving through consumers and producers and laborers. Excuse me, consumer producers and laborers, and it's money that circulates, and this is what keeps growth going and keeps people employed, of course, employment is the ultimate foundation of an economy. If people are employed and they don't get purchasing power they can't buy into the system they can't keep this... this highly contrived cycle going. In a new model it is socially sustainable model based on the scientific method we don't have economic growth you have actual tangible production to meet human needs and you use the higher propensity (excuse me) the highly optimized sustainability and efficiency protocols you can call that we have derived from nature that says: okay you shouldn't overuse this resource 'cause it's scarce, we should use a high propensity resources that have a good abundance rather than deplete, say... say... rare earth metals for arbitrary purposes such as cheap cell phones that you can buy for 99 cents that end up in a landfill and never recycled, 'cause they're not designed to... So economic growth is a contrivance of thought coming from the monetary economy and I can't even think of a way it would exist in a new system. Other than the concept of simply producing to meet human needs in an access type of society rather than a propertied society; which is another point that we can touch upon as well. So I hope that makes sense. It's a market contrivance economic growth. — It does, but my follow-up to that is: How would a non-monetary society be more sustainable? — Because it would be based on actual technical premises of sustainability: things that we don't do in the monetary system because market needs turnover market needs inefficiency. Again, if you want to have a very robust market economy you need immense amounts of things to service. I give you an example: Cancer. If we resolved cancer, if we're able to actually go up the lifestyle factors the genetic propensities and stop this massive growth of cancer which is continuing on the planet, there would be billions if not trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost tomorrow if this actual resolution was put forward. So if you if you can extrapolate axiomatically that example to what of mean to make a car that last a hundred years... imagine for example if we had advanced housing structures that had advanced production of produce in our own homes and we also had a 3d printing machines that were based on nanotechnology that can produce the basic housewares, basically capital goods becoming consumer goods in other words. What would that mean if we each of us could go, say, a month without buying anything? The entire economy would collapse. So the system is not predicated on saving conservation or anything that you can get a classical sense would deem sustainable. and I'll add one more thing to that because I think it is adjacent to it, and that's the idea social sustainability. This system produces conflict. Its core driving mechanism is in balance. I mean, it's hard to use the word exploitations and everyone thinks you're a Marxist. But it's very, very true, if you're going to cost efficiency, which is the core driver of saving money in this type of economy, meaning that if I start a business, I need necessarily to maintain competition. To pay my laborers the least amount I possibly can so I can stay afloat and be competitive. Outsourcing in the Third World labor and what have you. This is inherently destabilizing, because you're creating immense wealth gaps, and again it's this carcinogenic incentive system that's where we are today with one the largest wealth gaps in human history and it's only going to get worse, I'm sorry to say it, especially when the stressors of the environmental crises really hit. The wealthy are going to continue to compound their greed, which greed is based on fear, continue to secure their positions and you're gonna continue to see larger and larger wealth divides and tell, of course, as history has proven, you end up with probably a revolution of sorts which we are seeing periodically around the world right now for similar economic reasons.

For my next guest we bring you a completely different perspective on the economy. Now Peter Joseph is a filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which is a sustainable advocacy organization. Now the movement believes that social issues such as poverty corruption pollution and war are all a result of an outdated and inefficient social structure They advocate for new socio-economic model: a natural law resource based economy. I sat down with Peter earlier this week to talk about his ideas, and I start off by asking him to explain what he thinks is wrong with our current banking system.Take a look! — Starting with the banking system and the financial sector which I would say is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of capitalism the system itself isn't designed to cater to what we would term technical sustainability or social stability. In other words you have something called market efficiency which as we all know, has to do with the movement of money and the acquisition of efficiency for profit attainment, the need to have economic growth to keep people employed all of these attributes require service seen and in truth require technical inefficiency. So the more we improve society the more we have technology that can be used for extended periods; the more we adapt our technology, the more we're able to create sustainable products, the more we able to solve problems in other words, the less fuel there is to drive market efficiency and keep the economy going. The market economy was basically creating the sort a sixteenth-century handicraft premise. Adam Smith, for example, never would have fathomed that we would have the largest industry in the world today being the financial sector and people trading in a gambling and having a gambling casino economy that we have today with equities and futures and currencies. This is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of seeking the widget gain as it were from economics 101. So it's completely outdated in other words and it's not gonna handle the problems we have today with a billion people starving, three billion in poverty, the huge water stress that is rising, the energy crisis in demand we'll have another billion people on this planet in other 15 years. These stressors will not be resolved by a system that actually wants inefficiency to keep it going. — Right! Now can you explain to our viewers what The Zeitgeist Movement is. — The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability advocacy organization and, in short, we get to the root of what is underlined, most the social problems that we see in the world today, from the conflict and social instability that we see on a daily basis to again the core ecological crises that we also see amalgamating continuing, and what we find is that the route premise of the social model is at fault. Now I wanna make one distinction because when you talk about or criticize capitalism, people are very quick to point fingers. Capitalism did not start in the 16th century even though was formalized as such. The premise of capitalism, the premise of the market itself is this fear of scarcity and the necessity to compete and gain advantage over others because of that fear, and this has amalgamated into this complex system that we have today that is literally decoupled from itself, where people are out trading in gaining without any regard for what actually is relevant to social progress. So the movement sees this and we also see that we have immense problem solving capacities and technological solutions out there that are going unused because they are simply too efficient to be up applicable to keep market circulation going. So we recommend what I term a "Natural Law Resource-based Economy" and this idea simply says that we need to use the scientific method, we need to get down to the root of what actually creates life-support, creates public health, insures security environment, insures social and ecological sustainability, and to do so we need to install a complete different social system that actually has that interest in mind and that is an elaborate conversation that we can go into at length but I must stop right there. — And I do wanna go into it at length at some point but thank you for somebody never was. But my question is... — Sure! — What happens when economic growth slows today as compared to what would happen when economic growth slows in this more sustainable society that you envision ... Zeitgeist Movement? — Well that's a very interesting idea because you're premising economic growth in the market context. There would be no economic growth in the same theoretical understanding in a Resource-Based Economy. Economic growth is basically defined about the acceleration of money moving through consumers and producers and laborers. and it's money that circulates, and this is what keeps growth going and keeps people employed, and of course, employment is the ultimate foundation of an economy. If people aren't employed then they don't get purchasing power they can't buy into the system they can't keep this... this highly contrived cycle going. In a new model it is socially sustainable model based on the scientific method we don't have economic growth, you have actual tangible production to meet human needs and you use the higher propensity (excuse me) the highly optimized sustainability and efficiency protocols, you can call, that we have derived from nature that says: okay you shouldn't overuse this resource 'cause it's scarce, we should use a high propensity resources that have a good abundance rather than deplete, say... say... rare earth metals for arbitrary purposes such as cheap cell phones that you can buy for 99 cents, that end up in a landfill and never recycled, 'cause they're not designed to... So economic growth is a contrivance of thought coming from the monetary economy and I can't even think of a way it would exist in a new system, other than the concept of simply producing to meet human needs in an access type of society rather than a propertied society; which is another point that we can touch upon as well. So I hope that makes sense. It's a market contrivance economic growth. It does but my follow up is: How would a non-monetary society be more sustainable? — Because it would be based on actual technical premises of sustainability: things that we don't do in the monetary system because market needs turnover, market needs inefficiency. Again, if you want to have a very robust market economy you need immense amounts of things to service. I give you an example: Cancer. If we resolved cancer, if we're able to actually go up the lifestyle factors the genetic propensities and stop this massive growth of cancer which is continuing on the planet, there would be billions if not trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost tomorrow, if this actual resolution was put forward. So if you if you can extrapolate axiomatically that example to what it would mean to make a car that last a hundred years... imagine for example if we had advanced housing structures that had advanced production of produce in our own homes and we also had a 3d printing machines that were based on nanotechnology that can produce the basic housewares, basically capital goods becoming consumer goods, in other words. What would that mean if we each of us could go, say, a month without buying anything? The entire economy would collapse. So the system is not predicated on saving, conservation or anything that, in a classical sense, would deem sustainable, and I'll add one more thing to that because I think it is adjacent to it, and that's the idea social sustainability. This system produces conflict. Its core driving mechanism is in balance. I mean, it's hard to use the word exploitations because everyone thinks you're a Marxist. But it's very, very true, if you're going to cost efficiency, which is the core driver of saving money in this type of economy, meaning that if I start a business, I need necessarily to maintain competition, to pay my laborers the least amount I possibly can so I can stay afloat and be competitive, outsourcing in the Third World labor and what have you. This is inherently destabilizing, because you're creating immense wealth gaps, and again it's this carcinogenic incentive system that's where we are today with one the largest wealth gaps in human history and it's only going to get worse, I'm sorry to say it, especially when the stressors of the environmental crises really hit. The wealthy are going to continue to compound their greed - which greed is based on fear - continue to secure their positions and you're gonna continue to see larger and larger wealth divides until, of course, as history has proven, you end up with probably a revolution of sorts which we are seeing periodically around the world right now for similar economic reasons.

Saved diffs

Original text

Open file

For my next guest we bring you a completely different perspective on the economy. Now Peter Joseph is a filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which is a sustainable advocacy organization. Now the movement believes that social issues such as poverty corruption pollution and war are all a result of an outdated and inefficient social structure They advocate for new socio-economic model: a natural law resource based economy. I sat down with Peter earlier this week to talk about his ideas, and I start off by asking him to explain what he thinks is wrong with our current banking system.Take a look! — The story with the banking system in the financial sector which I would say is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of capitalism the system itself isn't designed to cater to what we would term technical sustainability or social stability. In other words you have something called market efficiency which as we all know, has to do with the movement of money and the acquisition of efficiency for profit attainment, the need to have economic growth to keep people employed all of these attributes require service seen in truth, require technical inefficiency. So the more we improve society the more we have technology that can be used for extended periods the more we adapt our technology, the more we're able to create sustainable products the more we able to solve problems in other words. The less fuel there is to drive market efficiency and keep the economy going. The market economy was basically creating the sort a sixteenth-century handicraft premise. Adam Smith, for example, never would have fathomed that we would have the largest industry in the world today be in the financial sector and people trading in a gambling and having a gambling casino economy that we have today with equities and futures and currencies. This is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of seeking the widget gain as it were from economics 101. So it's completely outdated in other words and it's not gonna handle the problems we have today with billion people starving three billion poverty the huge water stress that is rising the energy crisis in demand we'll have another billion people on this planet in other 15 years. These stressors will not be resolved by a system that actually wants inefficiency to keep it going. — Right! Now can you explain to our viewers what The Zeitgeist Movement is. — The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability advocacy organization and insured we get to the root of what is underlined most the social problems that we see in the world today from the conflict and social instability that we see on a daily basis to again the core ecological crises that we also see amalgamating continuing and what we find is that the route premise of the social model is at fault. Now I wanna make one distinction because when you talk about to criticize capitalism, people are very quick to point fingers. Capitalism did not start in the 16th century even though was formalized as such. The premise of capitalism, the premise of the market itself is the sphere of scarcity and the necessity to compete and gain advantage over others because of that fear and this has amalgamated into this complex system that we have today that is literally decoupled from itself where people are out trading in gaining without any regard for what actually is relevant to social progress. So the movement sees this and we also see that we have immense problem solving capacities and technological solutions out there that are going unused because they are simply too efficient to be up applicable to keep market circulation going. So we recommend what I term in Natural Law Resource-based Economy and this idea simply says that we need to use the scientific method we need to get down to the root of what actually creates life-support, creates public health, insures security environment, insures social and ecological sustainability, and to do so we need to install a complete different social system that actually has that interest in mind and that is an elaborate conversation that we can go into at length but I must stop right there. — And I do wanna go into it at length at some point but thank you for somebody never was. But my question is... — Sure! — What happens when economic growth slows today as compared to what would happen when economic growth slows in this more sustainable society that you envision ... Zeitgeist Movement? — Well that's a very interesting idea because you're premising economic growth in the market context there would be no economic growth in the same theoretical understanding in a Resource-based Economy. Economic growth is basically to find about the acceleration of money moving through consumers and producers and laborers. Excuse me, consumer producers and laborers, and it's money that circulates, and this is what keeps growth going and keeps people employed, of course, employment is the ultimate foundation of an economy. If people are employed and they don't get purchasing power they can't buy into the system they can't keep this... this highly contrived cycle going. In a new model it is socially sustainable model based on the scientific method we don't have economic growth you have actual tangible production to meet human needs and you use the higher propensity (excuse me) the highly optimized sustainability and efficiency protocols you can call that we have derived from nature that says: okay you shouldn't overuse this resource 'cause it's scarce, we should use a high propensity resources that have a good abundance rather than deplete, say... say... rare earth metals for arbitrary purposes such as cheap cell phones that you can buy for 99 cents that end up in a landfill and never recycled, 'cause they're not designed to... So economic growth is a contrivance of thought coming from the monetary economy and I can't even think of a way it would exist in a new system. Other than the concept of simply producing to meet human needs in an access type of society rather than a propertied society; which is another point that we can touch upon as well. So I hope that makes sense. It's a market contrivance economic growth. — It does, but my follow-up to that is: How would a non-monetary society be more sustainable? — Because it would be based on actual technical premises of sustainability: things that we don't do in the monetary system because market needs turnover market needs inefficiency. Again, if you want to have a very robust market economy you need immense amounts of things to service. I give you an example: Cancer. If we resolved cancer, if we're able to actually go up the lifestyle factors the genetic propensities and stop this massive growth of cancer which is continuing on the planet, there would be billions if not trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost tomorrow if this actual resolution was put forward. So if you if you can extrapolate axiomatically that example to what of mean to make a car that last a hundred years... imagine for example if we had advanced housing structures that had advanced production of produce in our own homes and we also had a 3d printing machines that were based on nanotechnology that can produce the basic housewares, basically capital goods becoming consumer goods in other words. What would that mean if we each of us could go, say, a month without buying anything? The entire economy would collapse. So the system is not predicated on saving conservation or anything that you can get a classical sense would deem sustainable. and I'll add one more thing to that because I think it is adjacent to it, and that's the idea social sustainability. This system produces conflict. Its core driving mechanism is in balance. I mean, it's hard to use the word exploitations and everyone thinks you're a Marxist. But it's very, very true, if you're going to cost efficiency, which is the core driver of saving money in this type of economy, meaning that if I start a business, I need necessarily to maintain competition. To pay my laborers the least amount I possibly can so I can stay afloat and be competitive. Outsourcing in the Third World labor and what have you. This is inherently destabilizing, because you're creating immense wealth gaps, and again it's this carcinogenic incentive system that's where we are today with one the largest wealth gaps in human history and it's only going to get worse, I'm sorry to say it, especially when the stressors of the environmental crises really hit. The wealthy are going to continue to compound their greed, which greed is based on fear, continue to secure their positions and you're gonna continue to see larger and larger wealth divides and tell, of course, as history has proven, you end up with probably a revolution of sorts which we are seeing periodically around the world right now for similar economic reasons.

Changed text

Open file

For my next guest we bring you a completely different perspective on the economy. Now Peter Joseph is a filmmaker and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which is a sustainable advocacy organization. Now the movement believes that social issues such as poverty corruption pollution and war are all a result of an outdated and inefficient social structure They advocate for new socio-economic model: a natural law resource based economy. I sat down with Peter earlier this week to talk about his ideas, and I start off by asking him to explain what he thinks is wrong with our current banking system.Take a look! — Starting with the banking system and the financial sector which I would say is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of capitalism the system itself isn't designed to cater to what we would term technical sustainability or social stability. In other words you have something called market efficiency which as we all know, has to do with the movement of money and the acquisition of efficiency for profit attainment, the need to have economic growth to keep people employed all of these attributes require service seen and in truth require technical inefficiency. So the more we improve society the more we have technology that can be used for extended periods; the more we adapt our technology, the more we're able to create sustainable products, the more we able to solve problems in other words, the less fuel there is to drive market efficiency and keep the economy going. The market economy was basically creating the sort a sixteenth-century handicraft premise. Adam Smith, for example, never would have fathomed that we would have the largest industry in the world today being the financial sector and people trading in a gambling and having a gambling casino economy that we have today with equities and futures and currencies. This is a carcinogenic adaptation of the underlying premise of seeking the widget gain as it were from economics 101. So it's completely outdated in other words and it's not gonna handle the problems we have today with a billion people starving, three billion in poverty, the huge water stress that is rising, the energy crisis in demand we'll have another billion people on this planet in other 15 years. These stressors will not be resolved by a system that actually wants inefficiency to keep it going. — Right! Now can you explain to our viewers what The Zeitgeist Movement is. — The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability advocacy organization and, in short, we get to the root of what is underlined, most the social problems that we see in the world today, from the conflict and social instability that we see on a daily basis to again the core ecological crises that we also see amalgamating continuing, and what we find is that the route premise of the social model is at fault. Now I wanna make one distinction because when you talk about or criticize capitalism, people are very quick to point fingers. Capitalism did not start in the 16th century even though was formalized as such. The premise of capitalism, the premise of the market itself is this fear of scarcity and the necessity to compete and gain advantage over others because of that fear, and this has amalgamated into this complex system that we have today that is literally decoupled from itself, where people are out trading in gaining without any regard for what actually is relevant to social progress. So the movement sees this and we also see that we have immense problem solving capacities and technological solutions out there that are going unused because they are simply too efficient to be up applicable to keep market circulation going. So we recommend what I term a "Natural Law Resource-based Economy" and this idea simply says that we need to use the scientific method, we need to get down to the root of what actually creates life-support, creates public health, insures security environment, insures social and ecological sustainability, and to do so we need to install a complete different social system that actually has that interest in mind and that is an elaborate conversation that we can go into at length but I must stop right there. — And I do wanna go into it at length at some point but thank you for somebody never was. But my question is... — Sure! — What happens when economic growth slows today as compared to what would happen when economic growth slows in this more sustainable society that you envision ... Zeitgeist Movement? — Well that's a very interesting idea because you're premising economic growth in the market context. There would be no economic growth in the same theoretical understanding in a Resource-Based Economy. Economic growth is basically defined about the acceleration of money moving through consumers and producers and laborers. and it's money that circulates, and this is what keeps growth going and keeps people employed, and of course, employment is the ultimate foundation of an economy. If people aren't employed then they don't get purchasing power they can't buy into the system they can't keep this... this highly contrived cycle going. In a new model it is socially sustainable model based on the scientific method we don't have economic growth, you have actual tangible production to meet human needs and you use the higher propensity (excuse me) the highly optimized sustainability and efficiency protocols, you can call, that we have derived from nature that says: okay you shouldn't overuse this resource 'cause it's scarce, we should use a high propensity resources that have a good abundance rather than deplete, say... say... rare earth metals for arbitrary purposes such as cheap cell phones that you can buy for 99 cents, that end up in a landfill and never recycled, 'cause they're not designed to... So economic growth is a contrivance of thought coming from the monetary economy and I can't even think of a way it would exist in a new system, other than the concept of simply producing to meet human needs in an access type of society rather than a propertied society; which is another point that we can touch upon as well. So I hope that makes sense. It's a market contrivance economic growth. It does but my follow up is: How would a non-monetary society be more sustainable? — Because it would be based on actual technical premises of sustainability: things that we don't do in the monetary system because market needs turnover, market needs inefficiency. Again, if you want to have a very robust market economy you need immense amounts of things to service. I give you an example: Cancer. If we resolved cancer, if we're able to actually go up the lifestyle factors the genetic propensities and stop this massive growth of cancer which is continuing on the planet, there would be billions if not trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost tomorrow, if this actual resolution was put forward. So if you if you can extrapolate axiomatically that example to what it would mean to make a car that last a hundred years... imagine for example if we had advanced housing structures that had advanced production of produce in our own homes and we also had a 3d printing machines that were based on nanotechnology that can produce the basic housewares, basically capital goods becoming consumer goods, in other words. What would that mean if we each of us could go, say, a month without buying anything? The entire economy would collapse. So the system is not predicated on saving, conservation or anything that, in a classical sense, would deem sustainable, and I'll add one more thing to that because I think it is adjacent to it, and that's the idea social sustainability. This system produces conflict. Its core driving mechanism is in balance. I mean, it's hard to use the word exploitations because everyone thinks you're a Marxist. But it's very, very true, if you're going to cost efficiency, which is the core driver of saving money in this type of economy, meaning that if I start a business, I need necessarily to maintain competition, to pay my laborers the least amount I possibly can so I can stay afloat and be competitive, outsourcing in the Third World labor and what have you. This is inherently destabilizing, because you're creating immense wealth gaps, and again it's this carcinogenic incentive system that's where we are today with one the largest wealth gaps in human history and it's only going to get worse, I'm sorry to say it, especially when the stressors of the environmental crises really hit. The wealthy are going to continue to compound their greed - which greed is based on fear - continue to secure their positions and you're gonna continue to see larger and larger wealth divides until, of course, as history has proven, you end up with probably a revolution of sorts which we are seeing periodically around the world right now for similar economic reasons.