So a critcism of TVP/RBE is that people won't work without the motivation of money. Well we know this is not true of everyone at all times - we know that people do voluntary work, give to charity, and undertake all kinds of recreational activities in their own time and often at their own expense. But there remains a logical possibility that there will be those who if given their fair share of the plantet's resources for nothing, will input nothing from their own resources to the maintenance of an environmentally sustainable, socially just and peaceful planet for the benefit of humanity.
To overcome this problem, basically everyone has to work. Access to resoures is tied to money and money to work. Therefore, it is in the workers' interests that there is work for them to do. Police need crime, doctors and nurses need people to be ill, firefighters need fires, and so on ad infinitum.
This artificially created need to work is supposed to capture those people who would not contribute without being rewarded, but how many of those people are doing work that is actually productive for society and the planet now? Some, like many people, may be doing a job because they have to, and some may be doing jobs that involve clearing up the mess created by the system - to quote my favourite example, they may be employed mitigating or solving the effects of smoking to counterbalance the cigarette promotion industry in which people are paid more the more people smoke. Or they may be doing "jobs" that are unequivocally anti-social, even by current standards - acquistive crime, drug dealing, or whatever.
So, the naysayers' claim is that we can't risk a moneyless society just in case there are enough people who currently do something socially productive but will stop if no longer paid to mean that the required human work in an RBE - work that is increasingly encroached upon by automation - won't get done.
Well look. If we in fact found it to be a problem that the human work needed to have a successful RBE was not being done because people felt there was nothing in it for them and were not motivated (even though they would benefit from the successful RBE), we could re-introduce money. We would see it though for what it is - a claim on the planet's resources over and above one's fair share.
If there truly is abundance, this wouldn't make sense. It would surely be a rare person who would seek to deprive someone else of something of which there is plenty for all, just because s/he could.
So these are the issues: Will there be motivation to do the human work that needs doing, and will there be abundance so that people will not try to reserve resources for themselves to the exclusion of other? Maybe this is a risky experiment, but I don't think it is. We can easily switch back to our current system if the RBE doesn't work, but if anyone can stand up and say that the financial collapse, war, starvation and servitude that the planet currently faces is clearly better, then I would like to hear their arguments.
Showing posts with label The Venus Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Venus Project. Show all posts
Friday, 5 August 2011
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Monetary reform
From my limited knowledge of particular monetary reform proposals, I would say they are a stepping stone to an RBE. The reforms proposed by Positive Money are very inviting. The obvious one is its proposal to eradicate the fractional reserve system, and I'm going to agree and set that to one side.
One of my rerservations centres around the control of money supply. They propose to wrest this from the hands of bankers and politicians - yay - and give it to n independent body. OK, but how is this independent body going to decide by how much to increase money supply, and in whose interest will they do so? Their own, presumably. And will they be inccorruptible?
My other observatiion is that most ordinary people will still have to work to get hold of money, and therefore there will be pressure to create work so that people can do it, which leads us straight into the idea that problems (say disease and disorder) are s good because they create work/jobs for people to solve them. This does seem to be a weakness of money that these reforms have not addressed, unless I'm mistaken.
Under Positive Money you would enter into a bond, actively allowing the bank to use your money for an agreed period during which you would not be able to take it back. You also get to decide which projects your capital will be spent on. Logically fine, and on the second point you can already choose ethical investments.
The problem as I see it, though, is that some people will still want the maximum return on their investment, so even if the projects invested in aren't sociilly constructive, and/or if they liquidate natural capital and call it income (to quote Natural Capitalism), they will still attract investement because they give a high return on the money put forward.
As I understand it, posiive money is itelf undecided on how it will quantify money supply. And he point is that even if we willingly put a brake on money supply, the limiting factor is still real resources and not money.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore this stepping stone. The looming finacial crisesmay be alleviated by a system which uses positive money.
One of my rerservations centres around the control of money supply. They propose to wrest this from the hands of bankers and politicians - yay - and give it to n independent body. OK, but how is this independent body going to decide by how much to increase money supply, and in whose interest will they do so? Their own, presumably. And will they be inccorruptible?
My other observatiion is that most ordinary people will still have to work to get hold of money, and therefore there will be pressure to create work so that people can do it, which leads us straight into the idea that problems (say disease and disorder) are s good because they create work/jobs for people to solve them. This does seem to be a weakness of money that these reforms have not addressed, unless I'm mistaken.
Under Positive Money you would enter into a bond, actively allowing the bank to use your money for an agreed period during which you would not be able to take it back. You also get to decide which projects your capital will be spent on. Logically fine, and on the second point you can already choose ethical investments.
The problem as I see it, though, is that some people will still want the maximum return on their investment, so even if the projects invested in aren't sociilly constructive, and/or if they liquidate natural capital and call it income (to quote Natural Capitalism), they will still attract investement because they give a high return on the money put forward.
As I understand it, posiive money is itelf undecided on how it will quantify money supply. And he point is that even if we willingly put a brake on money supply, the limiting factor is still real resources and not money.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore this stepping stone. The looming finacial crisesmay be alleviated by a system which uses positive money.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
A cult and a fetish
Critics of environmental sustainability often seem to portray it (negtively) as some kind of religious belief . I recently heard about something - economic growth probably - being "sacrificed on the altar of sustainability".
An article in The Week gives a precis of newspaper articles on energy reform, and most notably Matt Ridley in The Times refers to a 'carbon fetish'. He argues not only that the increased cost of using non renewable energy will destroy jobs, but that (as paraphrased by The Week I take it), 'energy is the elixir of economic growth'.
It is economic growth that is the cult and fetish here. We need energy and we need to conserve the energy we have, not use as much as possible to maintain 'economic growth'. And if we don't stop putting carbon into our atmosphere we are heading for climate catastrophe. Are we not prepared to "sacrifice" economic growth on the "altar" of our own survival as a species?
Let's set out the lie that continued economic growth is here again. We have limited, not unlimited resources. As we have limited resources, we need to conserve them if we wish to survive and prosper as a species. If we don't wish to survive as a species, we can carry on using resources as quickly as possible and lying to ourselves that they will never run out, or not caring on the basis that they won't run out in our lifetime. We can carry on competing for and fighting over the resources, making them more scarce and thereby getting more 'economic growth'.
An article in The Week gives a precis of newspaper articles on energy reform, and most notably Matt Ridley in The Times refers to a 'carbon fetish'. He argues not only that the increased cost of using non renewable energy will destroy jobs, but that (as paraphrased by The Week I take it), 'energy is the elixir of economic growth'.
It is economic growth that is the cult and fetish here. We need energy and we need to conserve the energy we have, not use as much as possible to maintain 'economic growth'. And if we don't stop putting carbon into our atmosphere we are heading for climate catastrophe. Are we not prepared to "sacrifice" economic growth on the "altar" of our own survival as a species?
Let's set out the lie that continued economic growth is here again. We have limited, not unlimited resources. As we have limited resources, we need to conserve them if we wish to survive and prosper as a species. If we don't wish to survive as a species, we can carry on using resources as quickly as possible and lying to ourselves that they will never run out, or not caring on the basis that they won't run out in our lifetime. We can carry on competing for and fighting over the resources, making them more scarce and thereby getting more 'economic growth'.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Population control
Somewhere on the internet some twit commented that TZM/TVP "boils down to ... population control". The vast majority of comments on discussion forums don't merit any response, and this glib and ill-thought out (un thought out) one doesn't either, but it's another in to explaining the tenets of TZM/TVP.
TZM/TVP point out the undisputable scientific fact that the earth has a carrying capacity. Undeniably, this is the limiting factor on the human population. We might not be able to enumerate this, but it is certainly there. We can keep using resources faster and faster, but we will reach this absolute limit.
TZM/TVP say that the only sensible response to this is to use the resources efficiently, to give us the maximum chance of true prosperity as a species.
As to population control, what do you call starvation in the third world while in the first world people die of lifestyle diseases such as those related to obesity? What do you call sending young men (mainly) to death in wars? What do you call leaving curable diseases uncured to preserve financial profit? TZM/TVP calls to an end to all population control, but accepts that there are natural limits.
TZM/TVP point out the undisputable scientific fact that the earth has a carrying capacity. Undeniably, this is the limiting factor on the human population. We might not be able to enumerate this, but it is certainly there. We can keep using resources faster and faster, but we will reach this absolute limit.
TZM/TVP say that the only sensible response to this is to use the resources efficiently, to give us the maximum chance of true prosperity as a species.
As to population control, what do you call starvation in the third world while in the first world people die of lifestyle diseases such as those related to obesity? What do you call sending young men (mainly) to death in wars? What do you call leaving curable diseases uncured to preserve financial profit? TZM/TVP calls to an end to all population control, but accepts that there are natural limits.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
jericomovie
Have a look at jericomovies contributions on Youtube about the Venus Project. Nothing fancy, but well explained and wry. He starts from standard economics ideas and argues and explains his way to TVP ideas. He has three episodes, I believe - I'm looking forward to the 4th.
I also listened to one critique of his "Supply and demand" episode, but I must say I thought it largely added to what he said.
I also listened to one critique of his "Supply and demand" episode, but I must say I thought it largely added to what he said.
Friday, 19 November 2010
People must have jobs - ?
This is a councillor being quoted on a council's website:
"Breaking the cycle of unemployment where generations have not known work or wages can be very difficult. Apart from job availability, the barriers may be the lack of skills, fear of starting a job in a new environment, a need for childcare, clothing and perhaps social skills.
"If a suitable job is available, we want to help identify factors that would prevent a jobseeker from getting and keeping that work.
"It's important the cycle of worklessness is broken, particularly where children are concerned, so they can learn to embrace the world of work and aspire to a more varied future."
Apart from the "aspire to a more varied future", this gets a big thumbs down from me. Let's not indoctrinate children to 'embrace the world of work' - at least not with our current understanding.
TVP/TZM approach (as I express it).
"Breaking the cycle of unemployment where generations have not known work or wages can be very difficult. Apart from job availability, the barriers may be the lack of skills, fear of starting a job in a new environment, a need for childcare, clothing and perhaps social skills.
"If a suitable job is available, we want to help identify factors that would prevent a jobseeker from getting and keeping that work.
"It's important the cycle of worklessness is broken, particularly where children are concerned, so they can learn to embrace the world of work and aspire to a more varied future."
Apart from the "aspire to a more varied future", this gets a big thumbs down from me. Let's not indoctrinate children to 'embrace the world of work' - at least not with our current understanding.
TVP/TZM approach (as I express it).
- What needs doing? (Only things that are socially constructive, and preserve and improve us and our planet for our continued existence as a species should be done.)
- Can it be done efficiently and sustainably by machine(s) / technology now, or in the future? If so deploy/develop the technology as soon as possible.
- What is left has to be done by humans, at least until the technology can take over.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Planetary list of things to do
Jeremy Hardy, with whom I often agree, scoffed (on the News Quiz, I think) at the idea of comparing economies to households (despite the Greek oikonomos, meaning rules/laws of the house) presumably because of Mrs Thatcher's predilection for it. I still think it's illustrative.
The excellent Brandy Hume of the Zeitgeist Movement, in her series of videos called "Take the venus project challenge" compares a planet that lets 1 billion of its 7 billion population starve, with a household that lets one of its seven members starve. Not OK.
In a household, do you (say) deliberately use more crockery than necessary to create work washing it up? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? In fact, you might even get a dishwasher as it will save labour and free up your time for something more rewarding than the drudge of washing up. Sounds sensible?
Severn Suzuki in her ?1992 speech to the UN (as a child) pointed out that adults teach children to share and co-operate and not to fight, yet she saw adults competing and fighting.
So is there a fault with the household model as a model for the planet, or are we living wrongly as a planet? TVP/TZM would say the latter.
If we were a giant household / family on this planet (as I argue we are), what might our household list of things to do include?
Make sure everyone has enough to eat, make sure everyone is well, settle the dispute between X and Y, Make sure the 'house' is well maintained, make sure the 'house' is efficiently run (ie best outcomes for least effort). I don't need an exhaustive list to make the point
The excellent Brandy Hume of the Zeitgeist Movement, in her series of videos called "Take the venus project challenge" compares a planet that lets 1 billion of its 7 billion population starve, with a household that lets one of its seven members starve. Not OK.
In a household, do you (say) deliberately use more crockery than necessary to create work washing it up? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? In fact, you might even get a dishwasher as it will save labour and free up your time for something more rewarding than the drudge of washing up. Sounds sensible?
Severn Suzuki in her ?1992 speech to the UN (as a child) pointed out that adults teach children to share and co-operate and not to fight, yet she saw adults competing and fighting.
So is there a fault with the household model as a model for the planet, or are we living wrongly as a planet? TVP/TZM would say the latter.
If we were a giant household / family on this planet (as I argue we are), what might our household list of things to do include?
Make sure everyone has enough to eat, make sure everyone is well, settle the dispute between X and Y, Make sure the 'house' is well maintained, make sure the 'house' is efficiently run (ie best outcomes for least effort). I don't need an exhaustive list to make the point
Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/nov/12/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story-tv-review
The Guardian (link above) has a discussion about this TV programmed and an article about it in the guise of a TV review.
Presenter Martin Durkin set up the private sector good, public sector bad dichotomy early on, and said more than once that the public sector is now BIGGER [his emphasis] than the private sector, as if that was inherently bad/wrong/stupid. He made repeated reference to 'the productive economy', giving me the impression that it was identical with the private sector, but later in the programme he visited the NE for a nostalgic look at how it was an industrial powerhouse in the 19C. He was appealing for a manufacturing led recovery.
He didn't address the point that the technological advancements of the 19C and since have increased productivity wildly, reducing the need for work. We can't possibly as a planet keep consuming more and more to generate enough work for people to do so they can get money to spend on consumption. This isn't a moral imperative - there is a physical upper limit to the planet's resources.
The documentary's cartoon, parodied civil servant was seen taking money out of a restaurant's till to pay his wages, and then using the same money to buy himself food in the restaurant. Thus taxation was demonstrated as being 'theft' - one of the refrains of the programme is that government is spending OUR money. But this is just money circulating. It has to do that to work. In the private sector you may go into a coffee shop (these seem to be held up as the pinnacle of private sector achievement) and pay for your coffee. Some of the money will go to workers in the shop and some to the owners. The people who receive that money will go to other shops to spend it by the same process and so on. Why no shouts of "they're spending MY money" here?
I think we're supposed to be quite happy handing over money in the private sector as we do it willingly and have a choice, but this is disingenuous. You might have a choice of where to buy your food, but you have no choice but to buy food. You'd rather not have to pay it - free would be better - but you accept (grudgingly perhaps) that you have to. Rather like taxation, in fact.
I'm not saying tax couldn't be simpler, fairer, or lower, but paying for goods and services is part of the system we live in.
Durkin's point that pretty much everyone should have a job in the "productive economy" is standard fare, but let's examine it. You need to have a job to earn money so that you can buy things to keep companies in business so they can employ people. This is the cycle of consumption and it's one of the big problems of the monetary system.
Another key problem Durkin didn't really touch on is where "our" money comes from. The answer is that it is created by banks, and as you know they don't give it away, they want it back with interest - ie more money - but as they are the sole purveyors of money (ultimately) you can only ultimately get the money to pay the interest from them - at more interest. It is of course impossible to pay this back.
The programme's contributors mention "creating wealth", without really explaining what wealth is. We might understand it as making money, but as the programme commented, creating money ("printing money") is pointless and wrong if there are no goods and services behind it. Exactly. This applies to all money in both sectors, not just the public sector.
Wealth is not money. Wealth is the beneficial resources we have available to us.
The Guardian (link above) has a discussion about this TV programmed and an article about it in the guise of a TV review.
Presenter Martin Durkin set up the private sector good, public sector bad dichotomy early on, and said more than once that the public sector is now BIGGER [his emphasis] than the private sector, as if that was inherently bad/wrong/stupid. He made repeated reference to 'the productive economy', giving me the impression that it was identical with the private sector, but later in the programme he visited the NE for a nostalgic look at how it was an industrial powerhouse in the 19C. He was appealing for a manufacturing led recovery.
He didn't address the point that the technological advancements of the 19C and since have increased productivity wildly, reducing the need for work. We can't possibly as a planet keep consuming more and more to generate enough work for people to do so they can get money to spend on consumption. This isn't a moral imperative - there is a physical upper limit to the planet's resources.
The documentary's cartoon, parodied civil servant was seen taking money out of a restaurant's till to pay his wages, and then using the same money to buy himself food in the restaurant. Thus taxation was demonstrated as being 'theft' - one of the refrains of the programme is that government is spending OUR money. But this is just money circulating. It has to do that to work. In the private sector you may go into a coffee shop (these seem to be held up as the pinnacle of private sector achievement) and pay for your coffee. Some of the money will go to workers in the shop and some to the owners. The people who receive that money will go to other shops to spend it by the same process and so on. Why no shouts of "they're spending MY money" here?
I think we're supposed to be quite happy handing over money in the private sector as we do it willingly and have a choice, but this is disingenuous. You might have a choice of where to buy your food, but you have no choice but to buy food. You'd rather not have to pay it - free would be better - but you accept (grudgingly perhaps) that you have to. Rather like taxation, in fact.
I'm not saying tax couldn't be simpler, fairer, or lower, but paying for goods and services is part of the system we live in.
Durkin's point that pretty much everyone should have a job in the "productive economy" is standard fare, but let's examine it. You need to have a job to earn money so that you can buy things to keep companies in business so they can employ people. This is the cycle of consumption and it's one of the big problems of the monetary system.
Another key problem Durkin didn't really touch on is where "our" money comes from. The answer is that it is created by banks, and as you know they don't give it away, they want it back with interest - ie more money - but as they are the sole purveyors of money (ultimately) you can only ultimately get the money to pay the interest from them - at more interest. It is of course impossible to pay this back.
The programme's contributors mention "creating wealth", without really explaining what wealth is. We might understand it as making money, but as the programme commented, creating money ("printing money") is pointless and wrong if there are no goods and services behind it. Exactly. This applies to all money in both sectors, not just the public sector.
Wealth is not money. Wealth is the beneficial resources we have available to us.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Coming to terms with cuts
http://www.kable.co.uk/vega-round-table-efficiency-staff-5jul10
Well into this article, with classic understatement, the writer says:
"It will always be difficult to provide an incentive to employees to suggest measures that might result in the loss of their jobs, or those of colleagues."
Quite. More inefficiency means putting in more work to achieve the same level of output. More work = more jobs. So is inefficiency good or bad?
The ideas of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project address this fundamental flaw of our economic system by decoupling work from access to life's necessities. Everyone gets access to life's necessities - you, me, and the 1 billion starving people. Using the best technology, we obtain the earth's resources sustainably for our survival. Only work that directly improves our lot as a species (is socially relevant in Peter Joseph's terminology) gets done, and that gets done as efficiently as possible - ie by maximising automation and minimising human labour.
Technological unemployment? Yes please!
Well into this article, with classic understatement, the writer says:
"It will always be difficult to provide an incentive to employees to suggest measures that might result in the loss of their jobs, or those of colleagues."
Quite. More inefficiency means putting in more work to achieve the same level of output. More work = more jobs. So is inefficiency good or bad?
The ideas of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project address this fundamental flaw of our economic system by decoupling work from access to life's necessities. Everyone gets access to life's necessities - you, me, and the 1 billion starving people. Using the best technology, we obtain the earth's resources sustainably for our survival. Only work that directly improves our lot as a species (is socially relevant in Peter Joseph's terminology) gets done, and that gets done as efficiently as possible - ie by maximising automation and minimising human labour.
Technological unemployment? Yes please!
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Zeitgeist Movement Newsletter
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/July2010NL.pdf
Edition 1, 10 pages. It's laid out for reading off paper - so quite a bit of scrolling up and down the doc to read all the articles - and it looks like they could use a proof reader!
Those cavils aside - it is an excellent primer into The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project.
Edition 1, 10 pages. It's laid out for reading off paper - so quite a bit of scrolling up and down the doc to read all the articles - and it looks like they could use a proof reader!
Those cavils aside - it is an excellent primer into The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
ZM/TVP from first principles
Why does The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) appeal to me and so many others:
(1) It recognises that the creatures on this planet have to live within the finite resources of this planet. This is a plain, unalterable fact, though you wouldn't think so from the waste we produce and the lie that is continual growth and continually increasing consumption. This is the starting point of the idea of a resource based economy.
(2) It embraces technology. We were all told that technology would give us more free time. Hmm. Some are unemployed because of technology - and therefore poor. Those working in the information economy are working just as hard, if not harder, but just producing more. The idea of technology freeing us up to do what we're good at and want to do is - frankly - wildly exciting. Jacque Fresco and thus TZM refers to cybernation - a slightly quirky word meaning computerisation, automation, mechanisation combined (probably).
(3) It clearly denounces the perversity of money. People have to have it. If you go into a shop to buy something, it is unlikely that the shopkeeper will tell you that you can get a better and/or cheaper equivalent in another shop. If you work in a tobacconist's you want more people to take up smoking. If you work in the arms industry, you want more war. [I say "you want" in each case - more precisely I should say "it is in your interest for there to be"]. I'm not sure that this perversity can be cured by monetary reform, even if the problem of money supply and money as debt could be. All the while we have to compete for the necessities of life through the proxy of money we have a problem.
(1) It recognises that the creatures on this planet have to live within the finite resources of this planet. This is a plain, unalterable fact, though you wouldn't think so from the waste we produce and the lie that is continual growth and continually increasing consumption. This is the starting point of the idea of a resource based economy.
(2) It embraces technology. We were all told that technology would give us more free time. Hmm. Some are unemployed because of technology - and therefore poor. Those working in the information economy are working just as hard, if not harder, but just producing more. The idea of technology freeing us up to do what we're good at and want to do is - frankly - wildly exciting. Jacque Fresco and thus TZM refers to cybernation - a slightly quirky word meaning computerisation, automation, mechanisation combined (probably).
(3) It clearly denounces the perversity of money. People have to have it. If you go into a shop to buy something, it is unlikely that the shopkeeper will tell you that you can get a better and/or cheaper equivalent in another shop. If you work in a tobacconist's you want more people to take up smoking. If you work in the arms industry, you want more war. [I say "you want" in each case - more precisely I should say "it is in your interest for there to be"]. I'm not sure that this perversity can be cured by monetary reform, even if the problem of money supply and money as debt could be. All the while we have to compete for the necessities of life through the proxy of money we have a problem.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Take the Venus Project Challenge
http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:take%20the%20venus%20project%20challenge
I really recommend the three short videos made by Brandy here. She makes some powerful arguments in favour of the tenets of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
Two have stuck out in my memory.
(1) The change to an RBE will probably take more than our lifetime, but if we never start something that can't be finished in a lifetime, it'll never happen.
(2) Whichever way you look at it, the "9-11" attacks were human beings killing other human beings (both in the planes and in the twin towers). Brandy says that's an 'inside job' whoever planned it and/or carried it out.
I really recommend the three short videos made by Brandy here. She makes some powerful arguments in favour of the tenets of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
Two have stuck out in my memory.
(1) The change to an RBE will probably take more than our lifetime, but if we never start something that can't be finished in a lifetime, it'll never happen.
(2) Whichever way you look at it, the "9-11" attacks were human beings killing other human beings (both in the planes and in the twin towers). Brandy says that's an 'inside job' whoever planned it and/or carried it out.
How to help people into employment in rural areas
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=19225665
I only saw the header for this article and it prompted me to write to Idea about Resource Based Economy and the ideas of The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM). I'm writing my response here in the public domain, rather than just on the closed discussion boards of Idea.
My first point is practically verbatim from The Venus Project (TVP): It is not jobs/money that people need, it is access to the necessities of life. Peter Joseph, founder of TZM says that if a job does not have a 'social return' it should not be done. A 'social return' is something that benefits humanity / the planet - that is it helps us in - or at least does not hinder us from -living sustainably on this planet within the resources available to us as we quite plainly must do - hence Resource Based Economy (RBE).
I only saw the header for this article and it prompted me to write to Idea about Resource Based Economy and the ideas of The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM). I'm writing my response here in the public domain, rather than just on the closed discussion boards of Idea.
My first point is practically verbatim from The Venus Project (TVP): It is not jobs/money that people need, it is access to the necessities of life. Peter Joseph, founder of TZM says that if a job does not have a 'social return' it should not be done. A 'social return' is something that benefits humanity / the planet - that is it helps us in - or at least does not hinder us from -living sustainably on this planet within the resources available to us as we quite plainly must do - hence Resource Based Economy (RBE).
In an RBE, it's only jobs with a social return that get done - and they get done the most efficient way possible, which means automation / mechanisation as much as possible - 'Cybernation' in TVP language. Remember, it's not jobs/money that people need but access to the necessities of life - so we must access 'the necessities of life' as efficiently and sustainably as possible. Such jobs as can't ever be cybernated- which would be few - would be done by humans.
In the current system, people have to get a job to get money to access 'the necessities of life'. This may take them away from doing something with a social return - bringing up children, say, to doing something with no social return, say giving out leaflets at the station. In our value system the second is worthwhile as it's a job earning money but the first is undesirable as it's not (unless it's a paid child carer, paradoxically). It's plainly nuts.
To step it up several levels, does anyone really accept that it's OK for millions of people to be starving - even die of starvation - because they haven't got enough money to buy food, because they haven't got a job? This is an utter disgrace. Some people argue that the planet is overpopulated - but who says it's the people with the money who get to say who lives and who dies?
Or take it from a political stance. Working in the armaments industry is a job, but to use arms, we need wars. Therefore there's an incentive to start or escalate wars to generate jobs in the arms industry. How sure are we that the fighting our forces are carrying out is entirely to rid the world of 'evil dictators' or 'terrorist organisations' and not at least in part to generate work in the arms industry?
The need for people to work to get money to access the necessities of life is completely opposite to the need to be efficient as only 'cybernation' can bring efficiency - look at automation in the car industry and agriculture for obvious examples. Also the need to keep people in work means that companies need to compete with each other to sell things. Those things must not be as reliable and durable as possible because that won't keep people in work repairing or replacing them. This means they land up as waste - maybe even in landfill - but no matter, the waste industry creates more work.
If you work in a company that produces anti-cancer drugs, you need people to get cancer so that you can sell your product and stay in work.
On a more human level, people doing jobs with no 'social return' are wasting their lives "Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers" as Wordsworth put it. People doing jobs with a negative social return are wasting other people's lives.
To add to all this, the money system is totally broken. Practically every country owes money and not enough money exists to pay back all the debts. Therefore one or more countries have to go bust.
To add to all this, the money system is totally broken. Practically every country owes money and not enough money exists to pay back all the debts. Therefore one or more countries have to go bust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)