[Abby Martin]: Peter Joseph is the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement - the grassroots worldwide organization -
that advocates an alternative economic system based on sustainability cooperation and human need.
His most recent book New human rights movement delivers a startling expose
about the violent oppression that defines our economic order,
while issuing an urgent call for global activism tonight to replace it.
I sat down with Joseph to talk about the contradictions and crises of capitalism,
and what he advocates to save the future of the planet from catastrophe.
[Abby Martin]: Peter, you have a very interesting background.
Having worked both in advertising and equity trading,
Let's talk about advertising first.
What function does this industry serve in today's society?
[Peter Joseph]: The best way to explain that is to look at the fact,
that our economy is based on consumption
and advertising is the arm of creating artificial demand.
And without that arm and it's so polluted as you know,
I came and imagine what the world be like without advertising,
but without that arm you wouldn't have people aspiring to things
that are highly irrational, abused by our social inclusion.
When advertising presents something in the community,
that seems to be something that some people want,
it spreads like a virus and then everybody wants it,
because it's an issue of social inclusion, which is a part of our biology,
because that's how we identify.
We identify and define ourselves by how others see us
and how we are included in the group.
So it manipulates our most primal sense of humanity in order to sell things.
And again back to my original point.
If you didn't have that arm in our consumption based society since the Industrial Revolution,
the economy would collapse.
That's a very unique point to make,
because we first start an economy of this nature like an agrarian society
and the handicraft industry you're meeting demand right?
That's the point. And that makes sense.
But at some point this kernel seed had to change,
because we have such a highly efficient productive society, that we have now,
at least in a technical sense not in distribution sense, because we have poverty and all that.
At least in technical sense of what we can create the efficiency and abundance.
You have to have demand created now.
And that's basically the the kernel seed of one of the central flaws of market economics capitalism,
that has come to fruition today.
Not only destroying human psychology,
but destroying the environment simultaneously,
because you have an insatiable culture, that's been literally generated.
Now thy detail in my book in the National Association of Manufacturers, the 20th century ...
They were actually arguing, that consumerism was the best defense against communism and totalitarianism.
They have this incredible PR campaign when on for what it still goes on really,
but echoes of the original intent to transform society into one, that just wants to buy and consume,
and then progress of course being defined by what we produce
more stuff we produce, the more you buy, the more you own,
that must be progress now.
[Abby Martin]: It's an incredibly disturbing.
Just realization, that this does nothing to benefit society in fact, it's just literally ...
created to keep society afloat, the economy afloat.
[Peter Joseph]: It's a kind of cultural violence.
The more people promote consumeristic values - vain, materialistic values,
the more they want one more, you know, this and that.
The more they flaunt that kind of phenomenon
the more they create, what is termed by Johan Galtung cultural violence.
Because if you create a society that thrives in this type of self-identification,
you're basically also promoting not only the destruction of the environment,
but the diminishment of others.
Because you're saying that I can afford this I have the status and I'm better for that and this person can't.
And we see that, you know, phenomenally amplified today in the modern world with the the winning community
and our lovely president and his at rhetoric.
It also carries over in masage in everything else as I'm sure, you know.
Fairly recently he said: "Well, we want to have rich people in charge of the economy, because clearly they must be good at it."
So never completed absence of, you know,
where's the sympathy, where is the actual binding purpose of an economy,
which to provide for everyone ideally,
No, so the signesis become increasingly more palpable.
I often wonder, what a world would be like without advertising,
which would be a world without marketing and markets.
And it can tell you would be a whole lot different
and far more peaceful and sustainable and amiable and just humane
than what we see today.
[Abby Martin]: From an insider's perspective how exactly does the stock market work?
[Peter Joseph]: Stock market is a proxy system that was developed,
it was contrived out of the original foundation,
which were board of directors for a company,
so a bunch of people each have a million dollars to get together,
they invested ten of them ten million dollars into a company
and then they get dividends right.
That was the made basic sense, you know, years ago.
But someone said: "You know, what I want to sell this stock."
And this guy's buy from me for a little bit more make money off of that.
And then suddenly the exchange system began
and slowly but surely the idea of selling artificial shares of nothing effectively
became a means of making money. I call it drone warfare economics.
It's just like people that drive drones, they don't see any kind of humanity,
as they drop bombs across the world.
The people, that trade the stock market, have no idea what they're doing,
when they're shorting, say, the currency of some small country,
effectively contributing to that country's decline.
But back to your question. It started off as an innocuous kind of investment strategy
and then moved into this thing.
We have people artificially trading things for no other purpose.
83% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population.
It is one giant money-making machine for the elite.
And it the financialization of it all,
because financial services become so large and the money only 5% of the US population
is in financial services yet. 30% of all GDP is taken by that.
That doesn't even count for all the growth over the years,
that is attributed that we know to the upper 1% upper 10%.
So this is one of those powerful political centers now simultaneously,
and it's truly despotic that you have effectively the most powerful and profitable system on the planet now,
one that creates nothing.
It's there to simply make money out of money, so it's a cancerous disease.
It's what happens in financially mature nations,
that have pretty much run out of the angling required to keep
as maximizing profits in a given industry.
So instead they move to financialization
and it moves in all sorts of other despotic things like dead peasants insurance.
These are companies like Walmart that would take out insurance on their employees
and get paid when they die, things like that.
So it's just this commodification of everything.
Put a dollar sign on it no relationship anything any more abstraction to come reality once again.
[Abby Martin]: And high-frequency trading is almost just done with computers ...
[Peter Joseph]: When I was in trading it was the start of artificial intelligence
and the traders around me like oh and this is it's over,
once Goldman Sachs gets their supercomputers together.
Most of these companies, when they trade ... it's but little details some will find interesting.
The amount of time they're in a trade has been finished seconds,
because they're fronting other orders, because that's what these companies can do.
In other words, their training title spreads of pennies,
but with heavy amounts of shares in front of other orders.
And then they use computers to do this.
And then they can generate literally millions of dollars of fractions of time,
spent in and out of the market on a Mac giant micro processing level.
Anyone that thinks today especially, that the Wall Street is intrigued needs to wake up,
because there's no way artificial intelligence isn't dominating.
It's pretty much all the big bank, investment banks
with their artificial intelligence
versus other people's artificial intelligence at this point.
There's no rhyme or reason to when it comes to human perception.
So in effect you have this giant money-making machine,
that the public has been roped into,
such as their retirement and the, you know, all the things the IRAs,
that for some reason are now connected to the market.
The market is inflationary driven which gives it its artificial sense of progress.
Meaning the more money that we pump into our society,
the more it goes into the market, the more it keeps rising.
So yeah, if you put in your retirement into the stock market,
it will probably rise or crash periodically
and then people will make a fortune off of that too.
So anyway the whole society has been coerced into this nonsensical participation,
that effectively holds up the most giant powerful political sub class the financial sector.
And if anyone wanted to see another level of sanity emerge on this planet,
in a step-by-step process rather than complete structural change,
I am suggest the abolishment of Wall Street.
It is ... there's nothing positive about what this institution doesn't knows.
That say there, is still the help investment you can invest in anything
with direct money without the need to go IPO.
700 billion dollar float of Apple has nothing to do with
what it actually produces at all.
It's just, what the people are trading and buying and moving the stock around.
It's just the game.
And it's too bad that people are so ignorant about that.
It's a siphoning machine that is taking basically money
from the lower class and bring it to the upper class two different mechanisms.
[Abby Martin]: A lot of people, who are middle class and lower class, don't invest in Wall Street,
because it's just completely too abstract for them.
But everyone participates in debt based currency and the way the currency, I´m operates.
How does it make sense that there is more debt than current currency?
[Peter Joseph]: Good question.
Mainly does the interest that's charged.
In capitalism every product has to have something that makes money ...
excuse me, that makes a profit and then, when the sale of money,
which is a banks still - they create and sell money effectively,
when they lower and raise interest rates,
they're changing the price of what it's going to cost you to get money and a loan,
and then they produce interest obviously and that interest doesn't exist in money supply.
So you have today about 200 trillion in debt in the world
and about 80 trillion in currency.
So what does that mean?
It means, that those that are holding the bag in a lower class
are the one that gets screwed when you have economic declines.
There always to be bankruptcies and things like that, that happen -
in a kind of classism the structural classism, that I call it,
that effectively hurts the lower class.
And the fact that people don't see that either. I mean, that goes back 5,000 years.
It has been in lockstep of something else that we're familiar with called slavery.
So debt peonage slavery convict leasing
the even today in certain areas of Asia,
they have debt that's passed through generations -
from farmer to child
and that child has to continue working off its father's debt
and effectively a kind of post-neofutilism.
So these phenomenon is there.
And it's unfortunate that more people don't see the actual intrinsic problem of debt.
And the solution to that?
You can argue that you could get rid of a debt based currency and so on,
and I've had many conversations people about that,
but the question is why hasn't it happened?
Because it's intrinsic to the function of capitalism.
And it's not even that they act insidiously,
it's just what their job is, their job is to make money on nothing and sell it to people
and then when the people can't pay it, they take their property.
And that property goes ... it's just another funneling system ...
Here's nother thing I'll mention.
All the money that's made in the world comes from the lower-class taking loans.
So right now that lessens 63% of Americans had a thousand dollars in savings.
Yet the lower class, that same subclass is, what takes on all the major loans -
home loans, car loans, that money comes in, that people buy all this stuff
and then that money, that's spent, goes basically right back up to the upper class again,
because we all we know, that the growth of the ten years - all of the the major income -
has gone to the upper ten, five to ten, percent.
So it's even worse now, so leads to my point, so we ...
The people take on all the loans of the entire collective money in society
and then that money is extracted through them, through various forms of structural classism
and goes right back up to the upper 1%.
People, should be enraged by that. But they don't see it, because it's a structural phenomenon.
It's something, that's happening under the surface, that isn't readily apparent.
And that's why to the ignorance no one really reacts on.
[Abby Martin]: It seems like no matter who's in the White House - Obama, Hillary or Trump -
Goldman Sachs turns out to be the winner, and even Trump, you know,
based his whole campaign saying: "I'm not, I'm not a Goldman Sachs, Shell ..."
and look, what his cabinet is stacked with.
I mean, how powerful is Wall Street in terms of controlling the political spectrum?
[Peter Joseph]: It's very covert, but it's definitely an enormous power,
because the financial sector is like the the polluting force, that underlies everything.
And it's very difficult for people to understand that,
that, you know, the major corporations have to be in bed with these major banks,
and do the financialization, they ultimately bleed over into investment banks.
So much money is made by major corporations,
that people even know about have nothing to do with goods and services.
They have to do with this recycling financialization and reinvesting, on this and that.
There's a whole subclass of all major corporations,
that reinvest everything that they've done and they employ Wall Street to do so.
Wall Street, as people have talked about since the American Revolution,
the banking system has been given this privilege. I'll say this way.
There's a privilege that banks - invested banks, commercial banks
and effectively the financialization has had,
and it's been unquestioned and that's basically the control of money
and artifacts that relate to money, but have no intrinsic value.
Again, what's why I advocate the abolition of Wall Street and the entire thing.
These derivatives upon derivatives. And so we create this housing bubble, right?
So the housing market abusing the people, that are in need and
basically triggering the systemic crisis
that these people at the top made a fortune off of.
But didn't contribute to public health outcomes such as 500,000 people,
that were died of cancer, they couldn't get treatment.
And just the tip of the iceberg of the financial relationship to public health.
[Abby Martin]: Let's talk about Empire.
Of course we see US military presence in over 70% of all the nations on Earth.
When you look at military personnel, it's almost every single country.
But beyond military hegemony there's the hegemony of US capital.
Of course this is more hidden.
But how does this financialisation underpin the empire?
[Peter Joseph]: Since the fall of Soviet Union and the development of the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, NATO -
underlined all of these higher structure institutions
is neoliberal globalization and financialization.
Those three words have to kind of go together, because it's once synergy.
And since the attempt at a different type of social order has been officially squashed,
The World Bank and the IMF have gone out of its way to make sure neoliberal policy.
Is employed everywhere in any country, that doesn't have that interest
such as Iran, such as Iraq, such as Syria, such a long list of countries as Libya,
that have tried to do something different or have been on the outs for whatever reason,
but usually have economic roots that go back in history to some degree.
In any country, that tries to step out of the way, gets hit with the idea, that they are
violating human rights, because in this world at least in the perception of democracy, that we have,
neoliberalism is supposed to be right next to it the idea of free markets ...
Of course it's not really free at all.
That's the thing about it's not really neoliberalism,
because that would mean everything would be open.
That's the true idea of neoliberalism,
That when the people that came up with this word decades ago,
they said well we need some kind of philosophy to counter communism,
we want to promote open free markets across all borders.
Of course, no one actually did that.
So it's that war of neoliberal thought,
but it's really just a function of the wealthy class gets the socialist support as usual,
and the lower class countries or individuals are the ones,
that to suffer through neoliberal free-market outcomes.
They're the ones they get to fight and lose.
But the upper class states, like the United States and Empire
it's not susceptible to any of this.
Because it's just the bully in the room.
It's the big Empire and it has its vassal states that help.
And it has its arm of NATO and has its all full bank I'm that's institutions
to support its economic worldview,
which eventually leads to its territorial and geopolitical control of other nations.
Because that force won't tolerate anything else.
So it's really insidious and we've had now an Empire,
that's built really on economic coercion more than anything else.
And I mean the military bases are still powerful. They're there and then they're clearly functional.
But the economic power yielded in the ideology of neoliberalism has been the true driving force of control.
But I would definitely argue that their fear of communism
and their fear of losing American Western and effectively kapitalism hegemony
brought in this idea of neoliberalism and the idea, that
if we don't employ and force this old Adam Smith invisible hand idea across the world,
then we're going to lose our seat of control ultimately.
[Abby Martin]: Expand more on the notion that all wars are class wars.
[Peter Joseph]: You can look at society as a stratified structure both in any domestic society the United States,
where you of course have the rich and the poor and the dwindling middle class,
then you can apply that exact same of macro view to the nation states of the world.
And it's amazing to see how close and resemblence they are.
After World War II any country that simply wanted to do something different
outside of the in the neoliberal order had to suffer the same fate,
so the World Bank one day didn't oppose austerity.
They keep those countries poor and destroyed and that's a great way, you know.
If there's no infrastructure in these countries to start to develop, new ideas or new patterns,
then there's no threat so.
And of course there's the grudge.
There's always going to be an element that is an echo of our economic dominance,
US economic dominance, or just, you know, this pattern of economic dominance,
that builds in other forms of bias.
And I have no doubt, you know, that Western society with its increasingly jingoistic views
and this reversion back into the xenophobic presence whether it's, you know,
claiming that Mexicans are stealing their jobs or that the Arab communities
and Muslim communities are now the hub of this terrorist ideology and so on.
These things foment after the fact and create long-term patterns of bias and bigotry.
[Abby Martin]: I like that you brought up a macro and micro in terms of the classism in America and also the global classism,
because people talk about the developed world and the underdeveloped world
as if that's just the way it is.
Instead of the underdeveloped world actually giving way to why we have a developed world today.
[Peter Joseph]: Well, I mean colonization as you know very well,
is effectively a sprawling class antagonism. It's a subjugation.
You know, the poor of the world are not poor,
because they've been left behind and market capitalism.
They're poor, because of these years of colonization of destroyed Africa in areas of Latin America ...
[Abby Martin]: You call your new book a logical train of thought from a social psychology perspective.
And let's start with the notion that poverty is violence, right?
Go over some of the casualties that arise from the structural violence that exist today in this system.
[Peter Joseph]: The big word, I use, is socio-economic inequality, which poverty falls under the umbrella of.
Socio-economic inequality, basically class stratification, has been held up
as some kind of innovator force, some force of innovation.
That's about the only defensive that you'll hear.
They'll say, well, you know, you got to have poor people that aspire to be rich people,
and that will create the engine of innovation, more nonsense is produced by industry.
That's effectively the only defense I've ever heard of stratification.
Other than people claiming it's a biological reality
and there's no other choice than for us to be these primitive primates that stratify.
And therefore the bottom rungs will suffer.
It's not just poverty, is the worst form of violence, as Gandhi stated.
To be in a stratified system is against well-being public health.
That's been proven by a lot of different theorists in Epidemiology,
where they measured all these artifacts, such as a level of violence.
In fact dr. James Gilligan which I've interviewed,
he's the former head of the study of violence at Harvard.
Extremely brilliant man who studied this as a prison psychologist and his core statement.
You want to reduce violence in society, reduce inequality.
There's also the psychosocial stress,
that we are killing each other through plaques in our arteries
from the release of certain stress hormones,
that are directly attributed to socio-economic inequality, as well.
In other words, the more you're involved in a class based aside, where you witness, the haves and the have-nots,
the more it messes you up and there's a it's biologically associated.
So this is an unnatural state, so poverty and socio-economic inequality
kill about 18 million a year based on one estimate,
so that is a couple holocausts in one year.
They say the Soviet Union killed a hundred million people in one century of its existence.
We are killing in capitalist inequality, capitalist generate inequality that many in six years.
So the defense of a class stratified society is no longer existent in the public health research.
[Abby Martin]: Under capitalism there's always going to be people who are poor, right?
Why is this notion, that this is just a constant inevitability, that we have to accept
poverty, unemployment in the system booms and busts -
this is the most odd thing to me about capitalism -
is the acceptance that these things are natural?
[Peter Joseph]: That first of all the mass of view because of class war.
Every time there's a bust. It doesn't affect.
The wealthy can endure that. So they can find ways to work around it.
But that creates cheap labor boom - better for the owners of the country
and the others of big business and finance -
and they take foreclosures the financial services sector effectively booms during this,
because they're the ones to get to grab up everything the lower-class can't pay for anymore.
And then, when the boom starts happening again, the QE or all the things, that the central banks do,
invariably go into the powerful corporate and financial sectors
because we still have that philosophy of trickle-down.
We still have the idea that you have to pump money into big business
and effect with the stock market in order to generate more activity,
that will float down to the lower class.
So, it's really transparent and no it doesn't have to exist.
[Abby Martin]: Let's talk about the inefficiency to the capitalist model
versus the possibilities, that exist today with modern technology -
painted pictured juxtaposing this crazy comparison from food to energy.
[Peter Joseph]: The greatest inefficiency would be the fact, that we have poverty at all.
So we talked about this advancement of society and this great productivity.
The most powerful force, the most positive force, we do have of the whole of human civilization is
since the Industrial Revolution we're able to do more and more and more with less and less and less.
And that is the driving force that can create equitable distribution and peace on this planet.
So the fact that you have five people now with more wealth than the bottom half of the world
and you have close to a billion people not going nutritian that
and you have what inin by Peter Edwards of Newcastle University put out what he called
„The ethical poverty line", which is based on lifespan not the metrics put out by the UN
and when you use this ethical poverty line, you find that 60% of the world's actually in poverty.
That is lunacy from an efficiency standpoint. No one can sit there and claim,
that this is an efficient system. And that's the outcome on the social level.
Now we can talk about the efficiency of a factory and all the great fruits of technology,
that people will claim or associate to capitalism, which is nonsense too.
It's our ability to design and our ingenuity through science and technology, that's created this,
not some weird mechanism that's a tribute to capitalism.
[Abby Martin]: And what about food and waste?
[Peter Joseph]: The waste is absolutely insane. You have 40% of all food being wasted,
because of inefficiencies in the distribution pipeline, which is staggering, you know.
We have globalization moving food all around you.
The average American food plate moves about 1400 miles.
There's no reason for any of that, especially now.
If you go down the line of what's possible, you remove the the chaos of human society
and it's strange beliefs and everything else
and you actually look at what we can do,
then there's no reason for anyone to be hungry obviously.
There could be an incredible state of efficiency and abundance across food and energy and production.
So we talk about abundance, it's so confused with people because like.
I get attacked all day long with the world is finite it, you know.
You can't make an abundance what's ...
It's obviously, it's a relative notion.
I mean the Sun will eventually burn out. Its abundant to us in the long terms of time,
So it's not about, you know, suddenly there's a magical amount of everything.
It's about using the efficiency and of course focusing the economy on the interest having abundance,
because in our current society it's the antithesis of what's rewarded.
We reward scarcity. We want things to be generally scarce. The corporate construct does.
Business doesn't want there to be abundance of anything.
So the pollution of the water supply - that's great for the water bottling companies.
So we're rewarding the exact opposite.
So you can't have sustainability, preservation, efficiency and it's decided a towards the opposite.
And therein lies the great contradiction the capitalist system.
[Abby Martin]: And in terms of energy - I mean, what is possible right now?
I remember reading, that just such a small area in like Africa
can power the entire continent plus part of Europe, I mean.
[Peter Joseph]: I do an analysis in the book, that just looks at ...
It looks at all the basic renewables and each one of them has the capacity
to create a global abundance and meet the current needs.
And you put them all together in a synergy then make basic
what's called mixed youth systems.
It's a little bit technical, but we don't have any kind of systemic incorporation in our cities.
Not like they should be.
Every single ... Everything the house today should have solar panels,
that not only power the helm as much as possible,
but they run the energy back out into a central grid.
Suddenly everything becomes an attribute of energy development, it's shared.
And you do that. If someone created society that there's a few smaller cities in Europe,
that are doing that with outrageous efficiency potential.
So when you put all that together, there's ... it's absurd it's absurd.
You know, everyone in small pockets and these entrepreneurs are doing their best, you know,
even like Elon Musk and the battery technology and they're trying to do something,
but there's no concentrated focus.
There needs to be a basically a Manhattan Project to figure out,
what the best solution is globally to unify the synergies of all of our renewables.
And to make them all work.
And if we did that, if we actually got the minds to say all the universities together right now
<i>and the other university project across the entire world said</i>
and we're going to focus on this problem right now,
what is the combination of renewables, how do we distribute across the world
and how do we make it, create an abundance at zero cost effectively
and I guaranteed he did that it would happen probably in six months.
The intent of the did the business class isn't that they willfully want to repress
sustainable abundant resources and products.
It's, that they know deep down just like everyone knows about a lot of things in their subconscious,
but if they did that they make themselves obsolete.
And no business on this planet isn't try and make itself obsolete.
No matter how green it claims to be.
But that's what it leads to.
If anyone really wants to improve the ecological state - specifically the type of transformations required -
would effectively Germont ... would cut energy in an industry back by half at a minimum.
There would not be that many people employed, money would not be made anymore,
because we have that ability in technology now to create things,
that last, that will work, that will be modular, updatable, without that need of the service scene
and constant over turnover, that we see in the current energy industry sector.
[Abby Martin]: Really quickly let's go back to just what's possible.
Can you explain a notion of vertical farming,
because I don't think a lot of people realize what that is in the potentiality.
[Peter Joseph]: So I did an extrapolation in the book regarding vertical farming
based on a study out of Columbia University
and what I've calculated crudely
and I did this deliberately to show the extremity of it if you apply vertical farms
to the existing agricultural land.
Just in theory, headed that he goes a 15-story,
you would produce enough food for 34 trillion people.
Now people say „well, we can obviously have different regional things and in irrigation" and so on,
but yeah, but it makes moot, when you look at that type of number of potential.
And the reduction of energy ... Basically vertical farms allow for extreme reduction any fertilizer,
the needs for light and energy the need for water.
And there ... The study ... The the examples of this that exists in different places ...
Granted, you're producing - the obviously not producing meat - I mean and in truth
human society has to get away from animal agriculture anyway it's supposed to be sustainable.
You have an incredible potential for abundance
and you put these in localized areas.
You know, in New York they've been converting some warehouses to start doing this.
Very small amounts of investment is slowly being put into this,
but it needs to be amplified rapidly, because with the loss of topsoil.
With 70% of our fresh water going to agriculture?
In the midst of what is effectively a water crisis?
By 2030, I think it was the stat, was 60% of the world would be in a water stressed area?
There's nothing positive in those trends at all.
So that's one great potential way to not only feed local populations well,
but also to remove the incredible ecological footprint that agriculture is doing today.
[Abby Martin]: Automation is also used constantly as a talking point against the rise in labor standards, right, against wage increases,
because it will take away these skilled jobs, we saw this in the 80s
with car manufacturers, we see it today, with restaurants as fast food industry, stores, right, CVS etc.
You encourage automation, because you say that it will liberate people. How?
[Peter Joseph]: Well, there's a few levels do it first.
What has been the greatest source of oppression on this planet since recorded history?
[Abby Martin]: Labour. [Peter Joseph]: Yeah. So not only do, is it iresponsible for us not to apply automation -
because it's more efficient, it's safer, we can create more of an abundance, with more, you know, with less resources -
it's also dramatic shift in the way human relations, has been!
So, if we can finally remove that ownership labor an old classist duality with the use of automation,
that would be profound just on that level.
I mean, if you people say silly things too like „if you could increase abundance,
have just overpopulation people keep reproducing". It's actually the opposite now.
That was the case at the end of the Malthusian trap.
We had a huge burst of thought of ... huge burst of population when we found, you know,
hydrocarbons and then the technology boomed,
but when you look at stats now in countries that have overpopulation, they're poor countries.
And when you have countries they actually have descent affluency,
they they're not reproducing rapidly anymore.
So, if you want to stop what people perceive as apparent of overpopulation,
which is a dubious word, because it's not quantifiably viable, you know,
There's only overpopulation in our society, because our sight is so inefficient.
It's not overpopulation, because, you know, suddenly we're at map out doing the resources of the planet.
But if you create equitable playing field and you meet people's needs the population issue will not be an issue.
It, would completely created ...
I came and then emphasize enough what it would do to the psychology of people,
to be free of that drudgery and that sense of exploitation at each other.
[Abby Martin]: How is intellectual property prove to be one of the biggest flaws of this system?
[Peter Joseph: The main reason is that intellectual property restricts the open flow naturally
and it allows it restricts people's contribution to given ideas.
So intellectual property ... The whole of industry is pushed by sharing, one way or another.
So, some cellphone company makes something, they invent some proprietary something or another.
Another cell company .. you release it under, you know, a spice level secrecy, then finally another cellphone company experiences that,
it imitates it and suddenly in a little competitive war, that people call innovation continues extremely wasteful including unnecessary.
So why not just open source all intellectual property across the entire sector of non across business in general.
You would see exponential increase in efficiency.
If I could sit back and design my own camera along with millions of others in open-source community collaborative Commons,
you would see the efficiency of that given technology far transcend,
what any given boardroom or any even small group of technicians could ever come up with.
That's the wisdom of crowds.
And that's happening. That's what drives our industry in the long run,
but it does it in such a slow way, because we're not sharing it directly.
So, you want to see a dramatic innovation in this world, then drop capitalism,
because it's inhibiting innovation more than anything else. Especially now.
[Abby Martin]: Yeah, completely inhibiting the medical field as well just all these patents on medicine it's disgusting.
[Peter Joseph]: Let me think about the people that want to make generics.
I did the dokument this in the book as well.
There are people suffering from tuberculosis and HIV related diseases
and they were looking to make their own generics.
And the Western pharmaceutical industry including all the way up to the White House said nope,
Intellectual property restricts you from producing this. You have to buy it from us.
And finally they gave them like a, you know, a little bit of a discount, because ...
[Abby Martin]: Hundreds of dollars, not thousands per pill, per cancer pill.
[Peter Joseph]: You bring up a good point the medical industry and it's is the best example of artificial scarcity.
The idea that these pills cost ...
I have family member, that cancer and they gave her this little thing and stuck it on her arm
and it was seventeen thousand dollars for this little piece of plastic,
that simply injected too fluid into her.
17,000 dollars!
There's no way.
[Abby Martin]: You're paying for yacht, you're not paying your plastic.
[Peter Joseph]: This is made by a machine in some pharmaceutical company in about five minutes.
With chemicals, that are being mixed, that are far from rare or scarce.
If they had to go all in the Amazon and find something and ... you know.
It's the biggest fraud industry out there.
[Abby Martin]: I think another fraudulent fundamental basis of the whole system is competition,
because, you know, we're all in Grain with the notion that all these technological advancements
come from competition incentivizing - of course the development of these ideas,
You discuss the need to move from competitive to collaborative.
Why is competition not all it's made out to be?
[Peter Joseph]: The first problem the competition in a market system, everyone's competing from market share, meaning money,
there the competition becomes ... the innovation, that's produced is artificial.
It do not trying to improve on something to meet a human need.
They're trying to improve on something to sell.
A healthy industrial system isn't trying to artificially create demand once again!
It's there to meet demand.
In fact you don't want artificially create demand,
because that means you're going to be reducing your sustainability.
You want a minimalistic culture.
You don't want, what advertising is driving now. So, that's an aside of what you're asking,
but it's a very important point, that people miss, when they talk about innovation through competition especially.
So competition has been proven in many academic journals to be hideously hindering and neuroses producing.
There's little evidence to say that the competitive industry of capitalism
actually innovates in a way that's somehow superior to a collaborative system.
Especially if people have the same intent.
So you can imagine, you know, anyone can sit and imagine the building of something once again,
and like an open-source collaborative Commons. And they know what they want?
They can infer, what the next stage would be?
It doesn't take this sort of imposition built on the competitive coercion effectively to impose the demand upon them.
So, if we know, what we want and we can infer the next stage of things,
why do we need companies competing against each other?
Now we have the technology to work together.
Again, it would be that much more innovative, if we did that.
[Abby Martin]: Yeah, now, I mean, when you look at just even your childhood development,
I mean, in school people are incentivized to cheat, to get ahead.
And there's always going to be way more losers
and what does that do to the psychology of humanity.
[Peter Joseph]: Oh yeah. The general competitive neuroses incentives.
It reinforces, once again, the in-group out-group, underline, hierarchy enhancing tendency.
Because if you have a society, that believes in this type of competitive ethic,
you have a society that says winners and losers are a part of the system
and I want to be a winner. Then suddenly you can justify walking over homeless people industry.
You can justify the bombing of this or that country,
you can justify just about anything, that hurts another human being
under the guise, that it's just the competitive nature of our world.
[Abby Martin]: Our whole system today is based on the idea of scarcity,
but the opposite of course is true. We have an overabundance as you're explained so clearly.
Talk about how the development and stages of market capitalism got us to where we are today.
[Peter Joseph]: There's a geographical determinism that has talked about enough.
When people talk about markets capitalism, they tend to go back to Adam Smith
and say well some, you know, theorists got together and realized that we should have specialized labor and so.
It's not how it happened at all.
You go back to the agrarian revolution 10 - 12 thousand years ago
and once people decided it was more efficient for themselves to start to settle and create farms
and the slight scientific advance for the hackle of tools.
Suddenly you had all the prerequisites for things like property and protection, labor specialization and trade.
And within trade, trade strategizing dominance.
And that's the core characteristic in the book, I refer to, as the route socio-economic orientation of our society,
which again is based on that scarcity and it's also based on competition
and it's based on trade strategizing dominance, which leads to oppression and deprivation and so on
as a competitive outcome.
So, the Neolithic Revolution happened and suddenly society started to build in these structures
with all of those things into it.
So, there hasn't been much of a shift.
There have been pockets of people, that have lived differently at original cultures, Native American culture and so.
The geographical determinism has to be taken into account.
And you see the force of this dominant kind of desert based culture
and then the stratified societies taking hold and slowly eradicating all the other groups
trying to live a little bit differently.
And suddenly it's manifested as we have today - with trade strategizing dominance
as the virtue of our existence to need to compete and win
and of course development of countries borders and empires.
Empires - if was not the United States in this type of climate, it would be someone else -
because it's simply the most efficient state for any group dominance
to maintain as much total global dominance as they can.
You have to break it.
And the only way to break it is to start with route changes in what started all this,
which is effectively the economic perception.
Your perception of your survival in your group.
And if you change that, then you'll be able to slowly morph society back into
what was really a pre-neolithic kind of worldview, which was all based on community, gift-giving.
If you look ... 99% of human society existed without money and markets and electrical forget that too.
So, this isn't some inevitability the way we live.
What is the Silver Bullet, that can possibly transform this negative trajectory, that we're on?
And that is structural change of the economy.
Morality is not going to do it, our free will is not going to do it, our rational sense is not going to do it in and of itself,
because we are so inhibited dominated by the structural psychology generated from our social system.
[Abby Martin]: And reforms aren't going to do it either, which is ... One of the main points of your book is,
that 21st century activism has been far too localized.
[Peter Joseph]: Yeah, I don't like to be one to criticize all the well-meaning people ???
I think, it's a constructive conversation to say, if we don't focus on the root
and we keep sparsely drawing attention and this or that protest or this or that activist initiative
to certain pockets and effectively problems, it just ends up right in place.
The activist initiatives, that are required now, have to grass for that
and realize that now, it's time for galvanization towards removing the foundation of our social system and hence the market.
We have to restart to be move away from market economics as rapidly as we possibly can,
to save our ecology and to save the stability of our society in terms of group relationships.
The antagonism, that's created with our class system, build into all the other antagonisms we see
whether it's gender, whether it's race with its nationalistic.
So, it it's like that central kernel, that keeps amplifying the worst of our group or anti group associations.
[Abby Martin]: How do we socialize and localize the enterprise and who is standing in a way of this being done?
[Peter Joseph]: And obviously, the forefront of it are the ownership classes historically called.
The power structure is defined by the ownership class.
And when going back to the state, the state has always been comprised of the heavy business interests
of any given society and have the economic interests.
They have before business was a thing so speak.
And who ... what incentive do they have to want to alter their position?
That's why it's going to take a galvanized force - the fact that this does the world probably has never seen -
in order to overcome this hurdle.
And I'm not, you know, promoting any kind of violence or anything, but there has to be something,
that stuff stops this thing in its tracks, before the ecological ...
The ecological crisis, if it is allowed to materialize in the way of the trajectory, show
between climate change, between the water scarcity, between all the other levels of pollution,
that are coming from the incredible amount of waste, more plastic in the ocean by 2050,
more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050, the general destruction of the oceans, you know,
overall because of various factors that are happening.
If this is allowed to materialize and this is why at the end of the book,
it will just create that much more class antagonism
and make it that much more difficult for us to pull out
of this horrible in-group out-group phenomenon and the oppression, that we see.
So there's a time limit ticking down, because if things start getting literally scarce?
Remember, the first and second world war were dominant Wars.
They weren't based on scarcity.
The kind of wars in the future of scarcity hits like it's going to?
If we don't change, is there good to be cataclysmic.
The human society hasn't seen that yet.
Hasn't seen an actual resource war not a real one.
Not, when water is now limited and people are going to go to war over it.
It's ridiculous to even think that would happen.
Frankly, because we have all the technology to resolve it,
but the arrogance of the people that are in power
and the myopic view of the business community is such that ...
Again, they blink are these things out in favor of the general structure
and they're willing to forego the well-being of others in euphemistically in order to preserve their positions so.
No more respect needs to be placed on the billionaires of this world or the political establishment.
I'm not saying, that people should be just arbitrarily ridiculed,
but we have to break the cultural violence, this need,
this incessant impulsive thing, that's happened in society,
where we worship class and status and billionaires.
And it hasn't gotten better. It has it's gotten much worse.
As again, I think the Trump selection signifies.
And we can't ... We should loathe people.
Anyone that's a billionaire, that doesn't say „I'm sorry, I'm a billionaire,
but I'm gonna do my best". That's someone you would respect.
Anyone it doesn't question the fact, that doesn't raise the issue,
that it's wrong for even to be possible, that a billionaire can exist in this planet,
it's just as it's wrong, that if someone should be sleeping on the street in their life.
If that isn't pointed out, then the neuroses will continue it.
[Abby Martin]: Certainly is not going to last and your book is incredible again everyone ...
check it out the New Human Rights Movement.
The end vision for this book is a beautifully democratized symbiotic ecosystem almost,
where people are collaboratively growing society.
Talk about how you lay that vision.
[Peter Joseph]: Well, in terms of transition there are five steps, so I try to be as direct as I can,
because it's very easy to just bring up the theory.
So the five steps are: The application of automation, that we've talked about;
the access of things as opposed to property - which doesn't necessarily mean that selling a property exists -
it means that the society is incentivized to share, what it has;
Then there's open source, which builds into the access phenomenon - open source is, what will create the innovation;
Then there's the localization phenomenon, that's where we finally realize, we keep a global sense,
but we realize, we don't need to have all of this industry spread all over the world,
in order to satisfy community and other side of the world here, I mean.
So that's that one then the other one is this more difficult thing to bring up called digitized networked feedback,
which all that really means ...
you track all the transactions that are happening - economic transactions.
And it can be within a monetary system without.
And you have all the feedback, that you need to know what's happening in an industry.
So you put all these together and you end up with a system,
that incentivizes people working together, incentivize people sharing all those Kindergarten things,
that were taught remember, all those things that we're supposed to have in our values,
that are completely robbed of us as we grow older,
and we realize that all the things we were taught as children,
that are so ideal values were apparently wrong, because no one ascribed to them anymore.
And you have a non-competitive society obviously. And you have a society,
that's actually sustainability focused, because we're understanding, what we're doing.
So, the it creates peaceful coexistence, more peaceful coexistence
and peaceful coexistence with nature. Meaning, we're not over exploiting.
And the only caveat to that. I want to bring this back up.
Because this isn't a totally deterministic mechanistic view.
Is that we have to have a mature culture, that doesn't thrive on this over-consuming materialistic vain idealism.
That is the great argument, I hear from people.
But, you know, this is I envision a world, where people are actually able to to get, what they need,
it becomes a social reality as opposed to a material and vindictive and status based reality.
It doesn't mean that hierarchy doesn't exist in the future or an ideal a society,
because there are other things of you. I'm not a visual artist, you're a visual artist. I'm a musician.
There are natural hierarchies that happen and we respect those hierarchies,
because we appreciate the talents of people.
Not because they're ... they had more money, than you, therefore you supposed to glamorize them look up to them as well they're better than you.
That is a complete contrivance.
So there's going to be a natural hierarchy, which is good,
because that proves our group mind, it proves our collaborative sense,
that you can do things, I can do and so on and so forth.
That's what motivates the collaborative sense and the power of our society as a civilization.
And if we can bring those form that formula together, we could give everything back on track.
Transcript/Timing/TranslateCZ: Ing. Petr Taubinger Project: 201708180000 Version: 201709051845 www.zeitgeistmovement.cz
For more infomation >> 🔆 El Cuerpo Emocional o Astral ¿Qué es? · YOUTUPEDIA ESPIRITUAL 🔆 - Duration: 1:44. 
For more infomation >> THE UNIVERSE HAS A MESSAGE FOR YOU. By Diana Dahan. - Duration: 31:29. 
For more infomation >> ¿Por qué debes evitar las harinas refinadas? Descubre sus 7 efectos negativos - Duration: 7:08. 
For more infomation >> Meghan Markle et Kate Middleton ont un point commun | Nouvelles 24 - Duration: 2:12. 
For more infomation >> Especifica tus páginas de aterrizaje (Specify your landing pages in Rank Tracker) - Duration: 1:26. 
For more infomation >> Organiza tus grupos de palabra clave (Manage keyword groups in Rank Tracker) - Duration: 1:47. 
For more infomation >> Crea tu primer proyecto en Rank Tracker (How to create a project in Rank Tracker) - Duration: 1:53. 
For more infomation >> Consigue nuevas ideas para tu lista de palabras clave (Get new keyword ideas) - Duration: 2:11. 
For more infomation >> Configura los ajustes de búsqueda segura (Set Rank Tracker safety features) - Duration: 1:19. 
For more infomation >> The Mick on FOX - Kaitlin Ols...
For more infomation >> 黃曉明當年砸兩億「高調娶Angelababy」，如今高級豪宅照曝光...比皇宮還奢華！ - Duration: 2:48. 
For more infomation >> 侍ジャパン小枝監督、清宮の一発に安堵「追い込んだ方が良いタイプかも」 - Duration: 4:07. 
For more infomation >> Pa. 'Dreamer' Scared Of Being Deported: 'I'm Going To Be Lost' - Duration: 1:36. 
For more infomation >> Ma Super Vie de Freelance - ÉPISODE I : les RDV au café - Duration: 1:18. 
For more infomation >> Toyota Verso 18 VVT-i Business Navigatie - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Hyundai i20 1.2i ActiveVersion - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> 【日本語字幕&掛け声】BOYFRIEND-I yah - Duration: 3:40. 
For more infomation >> THE CLAWS COME OUT: Hillary Clinton attacks Bernie Sanders in new book on 2016 and it's awesome! - Duration: 1:45. 
For more infomation >> Love On Top - O que se passa com Kika? - 5 de Setembro de 2017 - Duration: 6:51. 
For more infomation >> Marcos Roberto "Será?" - Duration: 2:49. 
For more infomation >> Monitoriza los resultados de búsqueda universal (Track Universal search results in Rank Tracker) - Duration: 1:20. 
For more infomation >> Dwaj Afgańczycy ukryli się w tirze pełnym wina. Chcieli wjechać do Polski - Duration: 2:14. 
For more infomation >> Heather O'Rourke (09 06 2017) - Duration: 1:27. 
For more infomation >> GALATASARAY | 6 EYLÜL 2017 | SPOR SERVİSİ | MEHMET DEMİRKOL & FUAT AKDAĞ | Youtube - Duration: 36:43. 
For more infomation >> 『超可愛單曲』♪我愛上了一個來自北京的女孩 (Official Audio) CC歌詞 - Duration: 3:26. 
No comments:
Post a Comment