http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9174000/9174738.stm
The work of manual scavengers in India was featured of BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning. The next time someone mentions the importance of work to you, here's an example to counter them. This job entails taking away human waste from customers' toilets. The only equipment provided is baskets for the waste, and these often leak. The work is so disgusting and demeaning that the woman interviewed said that if she had daughters she would rather they died of hunger than do this work. The woman is supposed to be paid by individual customers, but some days she gets no pay at all and her and her seven sons go to bed hungry. Sons are not expected to work in this "job" - in this case their job is cleaning out sewage tanks. That counts as a better job.
The demeaning nature of the job is reinforced by the caste system. The woman is only allowed to point at the vegetables she wants in the market, and the trader will put them on the floor for her. If she touches any vegetables no-one will use the stall at all.
The interviewer asked the woman about politicians and elections. Her answer is something we can all relate to - there is no way of making them keep their promises.
Of course human waste needs to be dealt with, but it is hard to think of a problem that merits a better solution more than this one - and one that involves humans as little as possible. To make people do this to get money is utterly disgraceful, but the argument that any human should do a job that could be done by a machine just to get money does not stack up. This job is just an extreme example.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Motivation, profit, big pharma
The big pharmaceutical companies are trying to make profits for their shareholders. That's part of the profit system. Have a look at "Big Pharma Big Bucks" on YouTube - US based, with more direct advertising than UK, but you'll get the idea. They can effectively relaunch drugs under a new name, and we all know how generic drugs can often be much cheaper than branded ones. They also 'invent' lifestyle diseases - "disorders" that don't really have any pathology, but play on people's desire to be/feel better, in an effort to sell more drugs. The companies can't really get out of this. If company A starts marketing a new product, company B has to compete.
These companies are selling powerful chemicals, whose unwanted side effects they will want to play down, and the more they sell (ie we take) the higher their profits. Which is supposed to be better. This provoked a thought about motivation. Critics of TVP/TZM claim that without money there would be no motivation. But do you really want pharmaceutical manufacturers / sellers / pharmacists / GPs that are motivated by money if money comes from selling more pills and potions? Plainly we ideally want people motivated by making people better, and it we can't have that we must harness the motivation that money provides to that goal, and not the goal of selling more drugs.
Of course people aren't actually motivated by money - only by the goods and services that they can use it to obtain. Even the power money brings can only be used to obtain goods and services in the end. Because of the monetary system, we have an advertising industry that tries to make people want goods and services, so that they buy them and keep the profits coming in. That's the system - we have to keep that money on the move.
If we step back and look at what we actually want for ourselves, our fellow humans and our planet, a different picture will emerge. What we want from our pharmaceutical industry is good health, for example.
These companies are selling powerful chemicals, whose unwanted side effects they will want to play down, and the more they sell (ie we take) the higher their profits. Which is supposed to be better. This provoked a thought about motivation. Critics of TVP/TZM claim that without money there would be no motivation. But do you really want pharmaceutical manufacturers / sellers / pharmacists / GPs that are motivated by money if money comes from selling more pills and potions? Plainly we ideally want people motivated by making people better, and it we can't have that we must harness the motivation that money provides to that goal, and not the goal of selling more drugs.
Of course people aren't actually motivated by money - only by the goods and services that they can use it to obtain. Even the power money brings can only be used to obtain goods and services in the end. Because of the monetary system, we have an advertising industry that tries to make people want goods and services, so that they buy them and keep the profits coming in. That's the system - we have to keep that money on the move.
If we step back and look at what we actually want for ourselves, our fellow humans and our planet, a different picture will emerge. What we want from our pharmaceutical industry is good health, for example.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Monetary reform, interest
Some critics of the current system see monetary reform as a key way forward. TVP/TZM advocates (or at least some) think it may be a help in the transition to an RBE.
Interest is a problem in the current system. If you've got money, you can lend it at interest. If you haven't, you have to borrow it at interest. Thus it is a mechanism for making the rich richer. Also, the money to pay the interest has to come into the system. In effect it is simply created and lent - at interest. Thus more money is owed than actually exists, and there must be default on debts by definition.
But if someone has a bit of money to spare, it does make sense for them to lend it to someone who needs it. This leads to us asking why they should lend it without interest. Of course the money is no good to them stuffed under the proverbial mattress- the only real use of money is to pay for goods and services. It has no intrinsic value. For this reason, an increase in the amount of money that exists should correspond to an increase in the amount of goods and services available, but that is hard if not impossible to quantity - hence prices (the trade off between supply and demand) are set by markets.
I am still looking around / trying to understand how the true advantages of money (or apparent advantages) can be gained without the disadvantages.
Interest is a problem in the current system. If you've got money, you can lend it at interest. If you haven't, you have to borrow it at interest. Thus it is a mechanism for making the rich richer. Also, the money to pay the interest has to come into the system. In effect it is simply created and lent - at interest. Thus more money is owed than actually exists, and there must be default on debts by definition.
But if someone has a bit of money to spare, it does make sense for them to lend it to someone who needs it. This leads to us asking why they should lend it without interest. Of course the money is no good to them stuffed under the proverbial mattress- the only real use of money is to pay for goods and services. It has no intrinsic value. For this reason, an increase in the amount of money that exists should correspond to an increase in the amount of goods and services available, but that is hard if not impossible to quantity - hence prices (the trade off between supply and demand) are set by markets.
I am still looking around / trying to understand how the true advantages of money (or apparent advantages) can be gained without the disadvantages.
Barter and profit
One criticism levelled at TVP/TZM ideas (by people not familiar enough with the ideas) is that without money we would have to return to barter. They have apparently missed the point that if there is abundance, there won't be any need for trade, nor will it be possible. If there's more than enough tomatoes (say) for everyone's need, why would anyone need to trade anything for them? It is only in scarcity that the profit system can operate, so it creates it where it does not exist.
Can we have abundance in all necessities? TZM/TVP says we can. Obviously, we could stop creating artificial scarcity so that we can monetize things, but to do that we'd have to stop putting profit at the top of our list of priorities.
Can we have abundance in all necessities? TZM/TVP says we can. Obviously, we could stop creating artificial scarcity so that we can monetize things, but to do that we'd have to stop putting profit at the top of our list of priorities.
Psychwar
http://www.vimeo.com/14368259
My previous post was prompted/inspired by the film Psychwar, which documents amongst other things how Psychops operations developed in war are deployed to manipulate public opinion. It's well worth a watch.
My previous post was prompted/inspired by the film Psychwar, which documents amongst other things how Psychops operations developed in war are deployed to manipulate public opinion. It's well worth a watch.
Profit; Democracy
A key point made by Jacque Fresco and others is that companies/corporations have a legal duty to maximise profit. In the 1920s productivity had become so high that it would have been possible to increase wages and reduce working hours and thus have a higher standard of living, but this would have been at the expense of profit. To 'solve' this problem, consumerism was developed, using advertising to persuade us to buy the stuff that was being produced, so that profit could be maintained.
Early advertising was product centred - it was informative about the product, but as it developed, it started more and more to tap into actual human desires, by depicting healthy, happy, leisured people using the product being sold, or depicted alongside the product at advertisement level. Thus the psychology is that the product the viewer sees depicted will bring, or help bring, the health and contentment that is portrayed by the people in the advert.
If companies and corporations were legally bound to maximise the fulfillment of human need, things would look very different - not to say better, so why did profit win out - it seems illogical?
Well, those in positions of power did not want ordinary people to have more leisure time as a benefit of increased productivity, as this would give them time to think, become better educated, and potentially threaten the positions of the rich/powerful. This would lead towards true democracy, instead of the limited, circumscribed democracy that we have now, which works on the basis that ordinary people should not directly participate in decision making as they are insufficiently intelligent/educated to do so meaningfully. Many critics of the current system would of course point out that the best education is reserved for those with wealth to pay for it and therefore the people in power are creating the problem that the limitation on democracy is apparently aimed at solving.
TVP/TZM does not take such a high view of democracy as some critics of our current system do. They do see education as extremely important, and done properly, education would help people to make informed decisions, thus removing one of the objections to untrammelled democracy. But as Peter Joseph points out, nature is not a democracy: there is no point voting against an earthquake. TVP/TZM argues that opinion is pretty much meaningless in the face of scientifically acquired knowledge. Expansion of that idea is for another posting.
Early advertising was product centred - it was informative about the product, but as it developed, it started more and more to tap into actual human desires, by depicting healthy, happy, leisured people using the product being sold, or depicted alongside the product at advertisement level. Thus the psychology is that the product the viewer sees depicted will bring, or help bring, the health and contentment that is portrayed by the people in the advert.
If companies and corporations were legally bound to maximise the fulfillment of human need, things would look very different - not to say better, so why did profit win out - it seems illogical?
Well, those in positions of power did not want ordinary people to have more leisure time as a benefit of increased productivity, as this would give them time to think, become better educated, and potentially threaten the positions of the rich/powerful. This would lead towards true democracy, instead of the limited, circumscribed democracy that we have now, which works on the basis that ordinary people should not directly participate in decision making as they are insufficiently intelligent/educated to do so meaningfully. Many critics of the current system would of course point out that the best education is reserved for those with wealth to pay for it and therefore the people in power are creating the problem that the limitation on democracy is apparently aimed at solving.
TVP/TZM does not take such a high view of democracy as some critics of our current system do. They do see education as extremely important, and done properly, education would help people to make informed decisions, thus removing one of the objections to untrammelled democracy. But as Peter Joseph points out, nature is not a democracy: there is no point voting against an earthquake. TVP/TZM argues that opinion is pretty much meaningless in the face of scientifically acquired knowledge. Expansion of that idea is for another posting.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward
Message from Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement
"Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", which is explicitly about a Resource-Based Economy, to going to be opening theatrically through independent (Chapter) groups starting Jan. 15th 2011. As most know this arrangement is non-commercial and I am not requiring any monetary return. Any proceeds that are obtained from these screenings will be applied to each respective ZM Chapter's work, specifically for ZDAY 2011 - which we hope to be larger than ever.
If you are not in a Chapter but would like to host a screening, special arrangements can be made depending on your circumstance. Ideally, you would need to start a Chapter or join one in your area to qualify but there is some flexibility. Please email zmf@thezeitgeistmovement.com if you have any questions.
*The Official Press Kit is now available for download:
*Also, please view/re-view and spread (embed/email) the ZMF YouTube Trailer far and wide. A viral recognition is important. [It is also now in 30+ languages.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLLFpNn4lMfeature=player_embedded
Thanks for your help. Again, this work is a tool to create public awareness/response which will reverberate across the world, as the current system continues to deteriorate. People are looking for change and I suspect by Jan. 2011, the western decline will be at a new low due to the ongoing/inevitable global debt collapses; the mass unemployment paradigm emerging."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)