Jeremy Rifkin on the Fall of Capitalism and the Internet of Things | Big Think

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@devonkairo1258]

You all prolly dont care at all but does someone know of a tool to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot my account password. I appreciate any tricks you can give me

[@keanudawson8657]

@Devon Kairo instablaster =)

[@devonkairo1258]

@Keanu Dawson I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.

[@devonkairo1258]

@Keanu Dawson it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D Thank you so much, you saved my ass !

[@keanudawson8657]

@Devon Kairo happy to help xD

[@nirnaya13]

Gradually you realize, no one knows what's happening.

[@milky_toast_]

Yes. Our systems are far too complicated to be predicted and are only going to get more complicated faster and faster.

[@MaruAdventurer]

Bingo. Fact much of this futurology is to market 'intelligence' by creating a label and slapping some marketing around it. Another words taking observations of what is already happening and attempt to make a buck off it.

[@john_dren]

MaruAdventurer Most of those who have talked about it did indeed attempted to make a buck off of it. . Except.. Jacque Fresco. A human with a background in a wide variety of disciplines which he combined to propose a new holistic solution. A solution where profit would be removed altogether. A solution where the sanity of the earth and the wellbeing of people are core. . A system where freedom would finally be a reality, not an illusion.

[@DanielYountMusic]

Spot on about everything, but most importantly net neutrality. We MUST keep the net open and uncensored by ISPs and governments if we hope to transcend capitalism completely. Capitalism is not dead, but I say it's high time we put the nail in the coffin. In a capatalist world the driving force is profit, but that is not the only thing worth chasing. Health, well being, sustainability, the environment. All things things are tossed to the side today because they just aren't profitable. That's not the future.

[@rockhuddy]

If things aren't profitable, they aren't worth doing. Capitalism is the best known economic system because it distributes scarce resources to where they are in highest demand. For example, a firm that produces a product or service that others don't buy needs to go out of business so that the labor and capital they employ can be used by others. Pure capitalism benefits the consumer, but it shouldn't be confused with the "crony" pro-business capitalism that we often see today.

[@Tinseltopia]

generationutena "Hey you fancy building a park with me" "Why? That means I have to do something for someone else...Bummer" "But your kids would enjoy it, people would thank you, you'd be doing the world a service" "Nah, screw em" - People can do things selflessly, and don't always need payment. I can easily see a time, when people work and perform services because they enjoy contributing to the well-being of others. Call it what you will, but humans are extremely adaptable to whatever environment they grow up in. Just depends on what environment we choose to create for the future

[@HighLighterlines]

Chris H Do you mean if child abuse is profitable it is worth doing it?...you se thats wjat happening today we are making the rope which we will hang ourself because is profitable. I think it should be the other way around things that are worth doing are the one we should be making.

[@HighLighterlines]

Tinnyalla agree. Imagen a world like that we all have resources and we produce goods for the sake of sharing because there is no necesity or the worry to feed your family, where there is no poverty and everybody have the right to enjoy all thing and not just the one with money. We have the technology and the science to do that. Where the earth is not politically divided. Where the government is really for the people and for the greater good. It is an ideal, maybe a dream but I hope our children's could live in a place like this. Where every individual is truly a person and count

[@rockhuddy]

HighLighterlines That is not what I said- some things might be profitable but are immoral. And the biggest problem with your logic is who decides what's worth doing? In a market economy, businesses decide and are guided by a profit motive. If consumers agree, the firm succeeds, and if they don't, it fails. What alternative system do you propose to distribute resources? And without profit and loss, how will you know if a given venture is successful?

[@KingThallion]

That mustache fits his face so well, its pleasing to me.

[@genocidejoe]

you are wierd

[@stephennielsen8722]

This is one of the most Millennial to Gen Z comments I’ve ever seen. A boomer would never say something like this. I approve.

[@PabloRiosCZ]

it pleases me as well

[@luiscader]

Everytime I hear Jeremy it blows my mind on how advanced is his Vision and Knowledge of the World, he said this in 2014, 6 years laters you can see the development of everything he is saying, Complex and exciting new world we are building!!! Overwhelmed!

[@juststartit2027]

The more we go on, the more internet is premium, don't you think ?

[@MayoKaraage]

My family had this guy over for dinner once, really nice, smart dude.

[@ADyingFaith]

The Zeitgeist Movement Moving Forward.

[@Nirvana7734]

Last night I watched Rifkin's much more recent and expanded 1.7 hour discussion of the Third Industrial Revolution. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4mWfmuBlp6pi6M As I was watching it, I thought exactly what you said: "This sounds like the Zeitgeist Movement coming to fruition."

[@NeoNine10]

And freeworldone.com

[@AlltimeConspiracies]

Pretty interesting ideas.

[@ameremortal]

Watch more of his stuff. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4mWfmuBlp6pi6M

[@ameremortal]

Jay Paul the idea here is that energy is free because you already own the solar panels and the sun doesn’t bill you monthly.

[@blackmore4]

I'm a musician and I remember a session in the early 90s when the engineer came in one morning with all the new information about napster/downloading/file-sharing etc. "That's it!" he said. "Anyone not involved for the art may as well go home home now!" How we laughed. And personally, along with the realization that this was going to involve big changes, financially for the worse, I remember smiling at how I thought old Karl Marx would be laughing in his grave. Still, despite the varying politics of the musicians that day and the personal financial compromise this new technology would entail, we all agreed that they - the corporate record companies (and the sickening machinations of their unbelievable greed) - really had it coming. I'll tell you how I sold my house and put the proceeds on a winning horse at a later date. :)

[@meltingEyeballs]

KZbin videos are not free, they come with ads.

[@meltingEyeballs]

It's only free if your time is worthless.

[@meltingEyeballs]

The price you considered insignificant does add up. Commenting is not free either because I've to tolerate replies from fools. So yeah, you get the point.

[@GenerationX1984]

Not necessarily. You can choose which videos you wish to monetize with ads on your channel. When KZbin first started the videos had hardly any ads.

[@Terrantulla]

...which come with your data. You pay with your data

[@ameremortal]

The future is free. Freedom! Free information, energy, technology, food. I can see it, I just wish it came sooner. A life of contemplation and exploration instead of exploitation. I hope our youth is able to fight off the resistance that is coming.

[@XSilvenX]

The amount of people whose head this went completely over--judging by the comments--who lack the required backreading on many of the concepts he's talking about, is truly remarkable.

[@MrDostoeyevsky]

Yea i too felt this strongly. It's amazing how in our current world where knowledge is so abundantly and readily available that there are so many misinformed individuals. The 21st century will remembered as a time when there was just so much information out there most human beings didn't know what to do with it.

[@Borzogo]

This guy knows his stuff!

[@naybobdenod]

Yes FNA he certainly does, and is also a pleasure to listen to.

[@neptunesdreams]

The problem with this is that we still haven't solved housing and food insecurity. So no matter what technology we have, we still need a social ethic that would eliminate poverty. Here's how to do it: Here's how to solve inequality, poverty, unemployment, welfare AND the minimum wage issue all at once, and reverse the recession almost overnight. It's the 'Third Way' that can break the Left/Right ideological impasse. Trying to manipulate banks and corporations into creating jobs is an economic ideology that has proven itself futile. This new 'Third Way' supports innovation by allowing corporations (including small businesses) to focus on profit and frees them from having to provide social services and jobs. It also frees people from living under the thumb of government-run social programs such as welfare or oppressive work situations. The 'Third Way' is called an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). A UBI is an adequate amount of basic income that gets automatically deposited into everyone's bank account every month (roughly the equivalent of a US $10 per hour job). The same amount to everyone, rich or poor, working or not, and with NO MEANS TESTING, so NO new government bureaucracies. People can choose to work and can make as much money as they want to ABOVE the UBI so capitalism remains intact. Switzerland is holding a referendum on this. If it passes, every Swiss citizen will receive an Unconditional Basic Income, rich or poor, working or not. The simplicity of the idea is it's beauty. It has been supported by both left and right leaning politicians as a way to eliminate poverty and avoid violent revolution. Both Milton Friedman and Martin Luther King supported the idea of a Basic Income. It can be funded by diverting most present social service funds into this more efficient model and then shutting down large numbers of government departments except education and medical. (Theoretically, the UBI can be run on a single computer that transfers the UBI into everyone's bank account automatically every month.) Another source of funding could be a Financial Transaction Tax (a tiny percentage taken off every stock market transaction). (This would also address the out-of-control microsecond computer trading issue on the stock markets.) But either way, businesses would not have to pay for for the UBI. A UBI is different than a minimum wage because employers do not pay for a UBI. It is funded through taxes. Employers in low wage industries could retain those low wages because people would no longer NEED high wages if they are just working to add to their Basic Income. There would be no inflation as long as the UBI is funded through taxes and not through 'printing' money. (Inflation is caused by money creation in excess of demand.) Employers also won't need to inflate prices because they won't have to increase wages. In fact, a UBI would be better for business as there would be more people buying products. Business would increase overnight. Instant consumer demand and instant stimulation WITHOUT government intervention! Wherever a UBI has been tried, people worked more, not less, and started small businesses. That's because the money was adequate enough that they didn't need to go into debt to the banks to ask for a startup loan. For instance, in Dauphin, Canada's "Mincome" experiment and in Omitara, Namibia, crime decreased, health care costs went down, and the overall economy improved. Two basic income pilot projects have been underway in India since January 2011 resulting in better food, better healthcare, better children's school performance, a tripling of personal savings and a doubling of new business startups, all leaving the overall economy much healthier than before the UBI. Because there is NO MEANS TESTING, no extra bureaucracy would be needed. We have many unpaid workers in our society. Volunteers, artists, musicians, homemakers, grandmothers, etc. It's now time that they were valued monetarily by society. Most of them are shut out from being consumers because of poverty. It's time for REAL change - an Unconditional Basic Income! But politicians won't do anything this radically positive without a grassroots uprising from the people DEMANDING a UBI. So tell your friends (copy and paste this blurb) and help make the UBI go viral!

[@RavensEagle]

To bad people aren't perfect and we don't live in a perfect world. Because there will always be people who are jealous are greedy , ambitious or want more then the actually need. So they will undermine this at all costs. And currently those types of people currently rule the world by trowing around allot of money. Yes a single country it wouls work but entire world, sorry buddy.

[@tomchatterton419]

interesting but where would the taxes come from if people didn't have to work? and who would do all the menial jobs like cleaning, waiting on etc? To pay for all that the taxes on any form of work would be so high that it wouldn't be worth working.

[@neptunesdreams]

Frank Rabbitt The people who would live on the UBI alone are already below the tax threshold, so there would be no change in taxation except for the top 10% who would pay more. There are also other ideas for funding such as the Financial Transaction Tax I mentioned above. The UBI represents a redirection of the trillions of dollars we are spending to bail out banks and fund corporate welfare toward giving the money back to the people. Savings can be found if we target useless, paternalistic, degrading government programs such as welfare which can largely be shut down. As for menial or objectionable work, it would have to pay higher wages to get anyone to do it. Instant meritocracy! Most people would still work at something to top up their income. The only change would be a total elimination of poverty and a serious reduction in crime and disease.

[@tomchatterton419]

Well you have me convinced that this will work. I will try and spread the idea. It would make society much more productive in my view, as people would be working because they wanted to, not because they had to. Down with ideological austerity!

[@vonkruel]

I believe this simple idea of UBI has a great potential for positive impact. The most common objection is that too many people will collect UBI & choose to do nothing of use to anyone else. As if all jobs people do are really useful anyway! The thought of someone sitting at home staring at the wall (and getting paid) is much more pleasant to me than the thought of someone toiling away in a crappy low-paying (or even absurdly high-paying) job that really does nothing good for anyone. Most people who are _well_ are still going to do some paying work under UBI, by any combination of wanting more income (for whatever purpose) or just wanting to be involved in worthwhile projects. We naturally want to do stuff & the idea that we'll all do nothing unless forced to do something is dumb. As for the "less in-demand" work, I like the idea of people being paid a proper premium to do that stuff. Let the guy who works in the sewer make $150K or even more, when there aren't so many lining up for that job anymore. Maybe the greatest power of UBI is to give people real power to choose what they'll do. Take away the coercion, and then see how the value of various kinds of work is adjusted. The thought of radically simplifying government apparatuses is also really appealing. Useless jobs abound in the private sector as well, and I think UBI can help there also in time. Eventually (as in later this century), I think we can even stop "keeping score" and do away with all jobs that only make sense if we're keeping score Markets can still have a place for awhile yet ; we just need to calm down the craziness attached to money, so that we're not all running around like maniacs trying to get an income just to "earn our living" or else be destitute.

[@KerrieRedgate]

The costs from TheInternetOfThings to human, animal, bird, and insect health will be huge. Already, we have way too many children with leukaemia from exposure to microwave radiation. I used to live in a top floor wooden apartment in Sydney with the output from 9 full-strength modems, in the surrounding buildings, running through my body and brain 24/7 (most people don’t even turn their routers off at night!). I was so debilitated. I’m now living on the ground floor of a solid concrete building with no common walls, in a less dense city of Australia, with trees around me. The difference is huge. Smart meters are only the very beginning of this. No one is focusing on the real cost of all these invasive frequencies from our new technologies. We need to find frequencies that do as little harm as possible, or we need a different kind of technology. I believe there will be massive class actions about this during the decade from 2023. It will be bigger than tobacco. So, please, at least turn your routers off while you’re sleeping and your brain is focusing on healing itself, especially if you have little children, or neighbours with children.

[@AL_THOMAS_777]

You´ re so b l o o d y right Kerrie ! My sister lost all his hair thru these MW-attacks ! The most stunning thing is: He never e v e r cared about this technology! And I heared about death cases in the US in connection with smart-meters ! And What do you think the coming 5-G-net is for ? Its all so terribly dangerous - but noone wants to hear about - so stupid are the masses . . .

[@AurumLuxuria]

It's sad to read how many people confuse capitalism (free market capitalism is a good thing) with corporatism (what we have today).

[@SaliamonXP]

free market capitalism is like communism. Beautiful ideas, sadly both were never realized and never will be. Ps Corporatism is direct consequence of capitalism. Its ultimate form so to say.

[@DmGray]

SaliamonXP Indeed, a business operating in a free market, following the motivations they're supposed to, essentially MUST act to dominate the market. If they don't, then competition eats into their bottom line. This is why regulations are necessary. No regulations: no "good" free market. Case in point: patent law. Private individuals/companies patent an idea or process and rely on the government to enforce their ownership. Without the government, they couldn't protect their intellectual property, and a competitor would have no obligation not to steal it, all the benefits with none of the investment. The trouble is we have business that relies on and benefits from government but consistently attempts to control it, or avoid obligation. I really do not understand why governments don't simply show large corporations that they're the one over the barrel, not the nations they operate in (because a business is not going to give up all of its profit out of spite; they'll take whatever money they make)

[@GenerationX1984]

They need to see Death of a Salesman. Hard work stresses you out and often doesn't lead to longterm success.

[@twistedoperator4422]

They are one and the same. Money buys influence. That influence then moves the profit motive along, business as usual. That's capitalism. #continuumfallacy

[@iamnot8931]

You know all you guys talk about what capitalism inevitably leads to, but did you ever open a history book and see what communism and the alternative leads to?? I encourage you to explore the alternative outcome - it is hell. Besides the usual genocidal statistics and human rights violations we see in most communist countries, there is also no freedom to pursue your happiness, lack of options, indebtedness to the state (the means of production are not owned by the "masses" as claimed in a previous comment on this page, they are most definitely owned by the state - a relative minority group of power drunk people which inevitably become corrupted by the power over the masses), and a lack of individuality and the existence of the ideal of the individual. Free Market Capitalism, like Communism, in theory may be based in a utopian, impossible world which will never exist, and therein possibly lies the flaw in both. I'm inclined to believe that a combination of free market principles with *some* regulation may be the best we pathetic moron humans can do in this world.

[@cybersphere]

The one thing Rifkin doesn't address is the skyrocketing price of real estate. there's only so much land on earth and the ownership of that land is becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The concept of zero marginal cost does not apply to land. What good is it to have almost free goods if you cannot afford to buy a home?

[@casonhuffman4466]

cybersphere Natural resources such as land, water, air and energy will become basic human rights. Some may choose to live self-sustainably and wall themselves from the world. Some will choose to collectively pool their resources and manage them democratically. Maybe technology will reach a level of access abundance and everything will be truly free, infrastructure being entirely maintained by volunteers. Isn't high-tech Anarchism wonderful?

[@Levora]

cybersphere In a non capitalist economy we could jsut abolish normal agriculture and grow all plants in skyscrapers under electric light. Technological it is already possible just a tad expensive (About 10 to 20 Dollar per produced Pound of Food) But if zero marginal cost applies to the production of energy and the goods needed to construct such farms this would free up nearly all agricultural space on earth nearly instantly. With growing wealth population grows will level out slowly over all of the earth and a sustainable level of population will be reached. Most people want and will want to live in cities thus yea megalopolisses will grow but the freed agricultural spaces will be reclaimed by nature over time. This kind of foodprodution also is independent from weather and climate change; the only ingredient needed to guarantee this is fusion energy (it is conceivable without on todays technologies but fusion basically does guarantee that this will happen)

[@casonhuffman4466]

Hygswitch Instead of harvesting energy and turning it into artificial light, I think it would be more efficient to make the hydroponic towers narrow enough in which crops can be automatically rotated and grow entirely or mostly from sunlight alone. Some crops, most leafy greens for example, only require an hour or two of direct sunlight per day, preferring to be shaded for the rest of the day. If we're strategic enough, we may not even have to produce any extra light.

[@Levora]

Cason Huffman I think there is an experimental facility at a Dutch university if i am not mistaken, that is doing just that, Rotating the plants in front of the open sunlight. A breed of Salad in that case. Anyways more High-Tech ways of producing food can go long ways to make our lives more efficient and sustainable. To be independent one could also build the way that the facility can do both: When weather is fine use sunlight, when there is a bad year or week use artificial light. Thus making Foodproduction safer

[@Levora]

***** finally someone who gets it. Also the quality of life this brings about will raise education world wide and what always follows education? Emancipated women and those lead to lower rate of childbirths so that the population will level out. Overpopulation has always been bullshit it's about distribution and good stewardship of our shared ressources. Capitalism is just the wrong model to do so.

[@brolylss91]

As a trucker myself. A self driving truck in a controlled California route is 1 thing. Driving though a snow storm in the Upper peninsula of Michigan is something else. I'll worry about my job when they get driverless trucks in winter in Montana.

[@computronium8]

It's practically a society based on Wikipedia system. Share and get information without any cost of production, thus people will move forward through a collaborative knowledge

[@jaskbi]

Brilliant talk it, im currently working on a project and have got really lazy about it, they way he gave his presentation on future models and e-commerce has got me hyped to kick start it again

[@neonsilver1936]

This was one of the most interesting talks this channel has had in a long time, and I'm not an economics guy, either! Seriously, great stuff, and very thought provoking on many levels! I'll probably end up going to look up more stuff on these topics, actually...

[@gargelensis]

The real cost of our modern day society is very high - but that seems to be ignored in modern economic theory, as resources and energy are viewed as limitless, and the environment which we use as a dumping ground (but which in reality is the fundamental structure of everything we depend on) is viewed as an 'externality'.

[@WordsRuinMusic]

Thank you for stating this so clearly. I agree with your statement.

[@Jaytraveler2]

This lecture is so clear and precise, maybe a few years off, but a great wealth of knowledge. thank you

[@laomark9583]

Brillant speach Mr Rifkin, as well as your seminar talk to the European Central Bank in Germany on 27 Jan 2017 and I agree with you fully. Comgratulations! I am a American-Brazilian with 4o years of a multi- displinary scientific and comercial experience, deligently built up studying ( MSc + MBA) and working in 7 countries ( including USA, Japan and China) and visiting/ dealing, academically and commercially, with about 50 other countries. Have book and scientific papers published and am very hands-on familiar with the cultures and decisions-making thinking minds of the "developed" West, Asia, Australasia and Latin America. I am very conscious of the actual dramatic climate change and have an urge to help changing our current "blind egotistic business-as-usual" track and mind sect. I wouuld love to be in touch with you and hopefully join your team in help carrying your very important and civilization-saving objectives/ teachings, worldwide. Can I communicate with you and share my thougths and 40-year global hands-on experience with you and you team? Kindly contact me @ [e-mail] or provide me your contact information. Thank-you kindly. Lao

[@VincentPride1986]

But you can't produce your own food for free - you still need basic resources for that: chemical solutions, etc. Same with 3D printing - materials and production time will cost money. Nothing will become cheaper - you'll just get more personalization for you money.

[@erykahsundance2807]

Resource Based Economy - Venus Project - Zeitgeist Movement

[@SwamiNetero]

thats literally a copy of what marx meant by socialism/communism, but most people dont know that cuz Lenin fucked everything up

[@scally4A]

Am I the only one who sees that this guy simply describes a more fair and integrated way of laissez-faire capitalism?

[@Neuralatrophy]

And don't forget 3D printing technologies. The transport system to get product to the customer will be the internet itself. 0 marginal cost to the producer and a nominal cost for materials at the printing end.

[@GoldenMoments100]

one of the best big think videos I've seen!

[@StefanGruber]

Ok, I don't know if this is "Not understanding economy 101" or "Using technology buzz-words for beginners"... If you want to save yourself 10 minutes, here's the message of the video: ZOMG! New efficient technologies took our jobs!

[@jeremygreer4039]

Totally. I know most of the tech and it sounded like nonsense. Not if the econ stuff was the same.

[@TheJaredtheJaredlong]

When the population realizes that progress is limited by profits; capitalism collapses.

[@nonenope886]

TheJaredtheJaredlong no it's not and that's not the nature of humanity to be a monolith if everyone thinks something there will always be people who will rebel that's the only truth to human nature is that we bend all natures to our will

[@FEV369]

Possibly the dumbest thing ever said about economics ever. Prior to capitalism the world sat near stagnated in poverty... Then America opens up and in record time we have this new term called "the middle class" and people abandoning their countries to start a life in America where they no longer live in a home with dirt floors and straw roof. You are typing on capitalism.

[@kylehill3643]

​@@FEV369 It was the industrial revolution that made the middle class. Shift to cities that made a consumer economy. Without a middle class no consumer economy. When phones came online we needed more infrastructure. Inside of building it their haggling over rationing bandwidth. Either government or industry needs to step up to the plate. The elites are choosing to go the cheap way out. Duh! It's an end game for losers.

[@FEV369]

@@kylehill3643 He's an idiot, you will not be getting your utopia.

[@makeahalo]

Incredible. This video alone, is one of the most positive and insightfully forward looking (and present looking) videos I have seen in the last year, Jeremy's view point has really helped me to feel better about where humans could really be going, as most of the news is just fear peddling, childish nonsense and a waste of time. Great! I hope we can just make it through the current political, social and environmental upheavals, so we have a chance at taking our civilisation, and hopefully much of the remaining wildlife on our little planet, in to a more stable, enlightened, healthy, peaceful and equal future.

[@superhund14]

Pretty cool. But the fall of capitalism will also mean the fall of banks and the stock markets, and these institutions are not known for falling over easy. They ingeniously implemented themselves into every corner of society (banks at least), and we need to come up with a new system to handle money before we raze the old ones. I don't think anyone (except bankers) disagrees with the fact that it is becoming patently absurd to continue to operate an economic system created in the 18th century in the age of the internet. We need a new one. And we needed it yesterday. To start, we at least need to acknowledge that.

[@johnbush5325]

Co-operative enterprise is a good start.

[@ntnnot]

I think that's a fair point. I'm curious why Rifkin didn't note the money/funding sector as one element of an economic system. He noted that in past societies the economic systems consisted of three platforms: communication, energy and mobility/logistics. Surely money has been the central element of an economic system, especially if you think about the stock markets and financial sector. They're at times only about making money out of money. Lately though, I've seen more critique e.g. towards the power position/mandate of private banks to create money. People have been questioning whether they should have the right to basically create money out of thin air (digital bank transfers) and then lend it to states. Saying states should have this power and directly fund its citizens, basically trying e.g. to eliminate the debilitating force of interest rates. I think that's an interesting question. I've seen people critique this saying that 'basically states could have a money printing machine, which would result in inflation'. Still, at the moment, the banks have the money printing machine, since there's nothing that is needed to back up fiat money. There should be some way to control the creation of money by monitoring the level of activity in an economy. Surely we are nowadays learning more and more about economic crises and creation of inflation and bubbles, so I can see this as a possible scenario in the future. edit. Saying that states could create money, I mean central banks, instead of private/commercial banks, should have this mandate, and directly fund states. 'Positive Money' movement is one that is talking about this.

[@julsius]

we dont have to come up with a new system to handle money because someone already did. it is called BitCoin. we just need everyone to adopt it.

[@LuisCamargo19]

Julius Sky I just saw the video, I'm glad you said before I did.

[@iurieceban126]

how can marginal cost be zero, if to manafacture one unit extra of something you have to input materials.

[@Caniballe]

Like... if i'm a writer and my followers on Instagram want my book, i'll send a copy of my e-book for them after they pay me for that... no printers, no editors, no transports, no physical mail... that's it! I read this book and I, like you, do not agree with all of the examples... but the one I gave you is the only one I can think about - non-physical stuff.

[@Eduardude]

Basically, if you combine almost unlimited energy with AI and automation, you approach unlimited ability to manipulate matter, hence nearly infinite wealth. Energy is not yet unlimited, but in ten to twenty years it will be due to technological advance, unless civilization collapses for some reason. That we are approaching something like infinite physical wealth should not be particularly surprising if one brings in just a bit of historical perspective. The physical wealth of human societies has been expanding at an accelerating rate for a few centuries now since the Industrial Revolution. Go back just a few generations, and the average person was dirt poor compared to the average person today. Go back a few centuries, and the change is even more stark.

[@Dominic_Muller]

"Near-zero" and "zero" are two VERY different things. One implies that you can do an infinite number of things at once, the other does not.

[@neotoss]

iota does zero transaction fees

[@PaulDickson7]

Love intelligent people who have the passion to change the world for the better

[@bryan23271]

The first half made some sense when he talked about the marginal cost of information. The internet gave everyone the tools to create and share their ideas with anyone in the world. But this is not really analogous to his "information of things" where he's just ranting about how there will be sensors everywhere and isn't making much sense at all. It doesn't require physical property to create ideas. It just requires a functioning brain. The nearly infinite supply of ideas being shared through the medium of the internet is what drove down cost of information based goods. No matter how many sensors you place on stuff, you still have a finite amount of physical resources to create physical things out of.

[@Rensune]

There's nothing that reduced it to near zero. Machines still need fixing, Servers still need maintenance, new websites need building

[@MrDostoeyevsky]

This went completely over you

[@JD2jr.]

This guy sounds like he's from either 300 years in the past or 300 years in the future and just got a 15 minute summary of the past two decades. An "internet of things"? He first described the internet (pretty well) as where information went to have near-zero marginal cost. Physical goods still have marginal costs, and connecting sensors to things is not going to change that. Until *everything* consumers want and need becomes zero marginal cost, we will still have a capitalistic system.

[@verodamacc9497]

Finally some reason

[@christophsorg]

He elaborated on exactly this: his theory is that the internet of things means the logic of the internet being spilling over to energy, logistics and other sectors via decentralized renewable energy efficiency, the diffusion of sensors, automation etc. In other words: he's saying even physical goods face dramatically decreasing marginal costs within a timespan of 50+ years.

[@ThomasBorghus]

It's quite amusing to read all these frightened comments about how capitalism will prevail. Rest easy, little blue smurfs, bartering isn't going away - but the game is changing, which is a good thing - for all of us, unless you like the growing inequality and poisoning of the earth, of course..

[@nonenope886]

Thomas Borghus we crushing poverty at an astonishing rate more than ever before

[@nonenope886]

mat kantinos which was made because of capitalism

[@Azurian123]

God satan No, it was profitized and commodified because of Capitalism, not created because of it. This is a common misconception that Capitalists love to use. Much of the technology was invented in the public sector and subsequently handed off to the private sector to be profitized.

[@iLLixer]

Libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism comes to mind when this is talked about. Rojava and ezln is a great real world example of this already happening.

[@cylovetube]

Internet did wreak havoc on the industries of newspaper, publishing, etc that we can deem it as the fall of capitalism in these industries. But some falled down and some rised up (like these Internet giants). In the era of IoT, the scenario could be the same. Some will be disrupted, and some will benefit with the wealth transfer. But I hope the new technologies can at least benefit most of the people in some sense even though the distribution of wealth will not be even.

[@albertrogers8537]

The marginal cost of publishing misinformation and even disinformation is at least as low as that of good information. The cost to the person who reads it can be quite high, and is worst if that person's level of useful skepticism is low.

[@slowpainful]

Really good point. There's little advantage to more (democratized) information, if the information (or book or music, etc etc) is of poor quality.

[@mastertheillusion]

Great talk

[@VideoMagician77]

Jeremy Rifkins thesis is the following - We are moving towards a (near) zero marginal cost world in three important areas. Information with the internet, energy with renewables, and transportation with autonomous logistics, vehicles, and drones. Once this happens, these 3 near zero marginal cost sectors will quickly converge into a single platform called the internet of things where sensors will monitor and optimize every single part of the value-chain. I agree with his thesis, and I think that the proliferation of these 3 forces will lead to the greatest economic boom that the world has ever seen. I am very curious however how the world is going to react in response to these technological and economic forces. Here are a few of my own predictions 1. Mountainous and inland areas have always been more impoverished than flatlands and coastal areas since it is more costly to transport goods and services on a per mile basis. With the rise of near zero marginal cost transportation however, these areas of the world will see a massive rise in their living standards and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth across the world. Countries like Iran, Chile, Japan, Switzerland, Nepal, Ethiopia, Peru, and Mongolia will be the biggest beneficiaries of this technology. 2. The Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Russia could all collapse since they are overly reliant on fossil fuels as a source of energy. The US, Canada, and Norway won't collapse but will suffer economically in the short-term as we transition to a renewable network due to the billions these countries get every year from fossil fuels. The biggest winners will be those who are resource-rich in Lithium. These countries are Australia, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, and the Congo to name a few. The U.S will become extremely involved in Latin-American affairs and ignore the Middle East entirely in response to the changing technological world. 3. As energy hits zero-marginal cost, the price of energy on a per kilowatt basis will plummet. This will make a bunch of high-energy applications economically feasible such as force fields, laser weaponry, space manufacturing, space mining, affordable space-travel, and many more things we have yet to consider.

[@williamflores7800]

That's really interesting. I'm glad to see more and more people realize that our current system is obsolete and that technology will enable us to enhance the standard of living for everyone. How knows? Maybe we'll be able to eradicate poverty, have smarter cities and be healthier.

[@BevenSpangenberg]

I like the new way that you explain...

[@SturFriedBrains]

What this guy doesn't realize is that that's still Capitalism. Capitalism is simply the willful exchange between individuals or groups of individuals. Its a different shade or hue of Capitalism, but its still the freedom to choose a career path, its still the freedom to choose what you want to buy & basically freedom & wealth gained through privet, nonviolent means.

[@hallabalooza]

Spot on.

[@dalawdog]

I agree, the problem though is that many people confuse capitalism with "new age capitalism". Which by definition doesn't follow traditional capitalist behaviours. Such as "the credit crunch", it's hard to call your country capitalist when it doesn't exchange capital.

[@efortune357]

A medium of exchange becomes obsolete if there is an abundant resource. And as he wrote about in "The End of Work" automation, AI are making more and more jobs obsolete as well. Our socioeconomic system is evolving and we're moving towards a system that requires fewer and fewer people to have jobs. Without jobs people have no means of buying goods and services. Our system will eventually evolve beyond money as exponential growth in technology thrusts us into the future.

[@CampingforCool41]

I'm sure he perfectly understands what capitalism is, they should have said instead "the fall of capitalism as we know it".

[@KalabWashburn]

StirFriedBrains - I like your description of capitalism, however, I don't think it's a matured understanding, and that's not necessarily saying you're wrong or personally immature, but merely saying your description isn't the reality of what capitalism really is or ever has been. What you're describing is sort of a Utopian capitalism where ALL people have capital (wealth, land, etc) and they themselves produce the goods or services that are to be sold in the market. I will presuppose your overall goals would be for an egalitarian society of freedom and independence. If that is the case then the goal cannot be met through a capitalist system in modern society. Using the theory of public choice it's clear that with capitalism in a hyper-productive society it inherits corporate fascism which underscores all democracy and marginalizes the vast majority societal members. Because the only incentive is to increase capital, by which the vast majority has none, they are illuminated from public discourse. This commodifies everything, including people, as they have no voice over their own wages or societies structure. Wage labor and capitalism in the modern industrial world does not allow for total personal freedom or financial independence. People say our economy is bad because we don't have "real" capitalism, well those people would have to explain how we got in this mess because capitalists are the ones that applied the current rules. Free markets don't just happen you understand. As far as Rifkin's ideas; I think he's sort of right but he assumes a lot. I don't think we're all going to be printing our own goods and bartering for services in the near future, if ever, but he's a lot more educated than me, so I guess we wait and see.

[@wildlifestationsbundanoon9689]

As 2017 turns into 2018, this is spot on! :-)

[@DrunkVegan]

He peripherally hits on something that really should have been the crux of the argument - 3D Printers. The "Internet of Things" will undoubtedly resemble the real Internet - in that a giant portion of it will involve piracy, but now it will be of actual objects. Why would you pay a thousand times more to order something from a manufacturer, when you can go to the3dpiratebay or whatever it's going to be, and download the leaked molecular blueprints for, say, the newest iPhone, or a piece of furniture, and then print it using your 3D printer at home? Once 3D printing takes off the traditional models of capitalism will collapse, because the only things left with intrinsic value will be 3D printers and raw materials to feed them. Money will cease to be a meaningful concept.

[@bornburied]

This is exactly where I thought he was going-but never coalesced.

[@k.squared]

3D printers of today are somewhat similar to what has been promissed by nanotechnology twenty years ago, i.e. manufacture out of almost thin air. According to some, we were supposed to have that already btw ;)).. Anyways, nanotechnology is supposed to bring us capabilities next to which modern 3D printers will look primitive to say the least. I doubt anyone can give a good prediction of how (such a dumb being as a human) will react to these new possibilities. The same questions applies to the possibility of a human-like AI that can improve on itself very fast, super cheap energy, etc. Whatever good stuff you can think of, all of it seems like something we are not ready for ;)

[@SOSLICK22]

He hit on a few key things, that are central to his idea. Things like automated cars and intelligent robots will have as big an impact as 3D printers. Imagine a robot farmer, who is 100% energy independent(meaning he never needs a human to change his batteries) growing our food and putting it on automated trucks to ship it...wherever. Food becomes free to produce and ship.

[@nonenope886]

DrunkVegan food .. water .. power .. real estate ..

[@ruslan-pe3wx]

How you will produce food in 3D printer? Can you explain it to me?

[@ACleverName17]

the third industrial revolution has the potential to make each individual largely self sufficient, within the global network as paradoxical as that sounds. definetely huge. the labor v capital fight that has been ongoing for a thousand years will be disrupted. everyone will be an owner of capital, as well as a producer of labor.

[@wotan237]

In the 80's he was known for his idea to go slow on technology....

[@viracocha2021]

This will change the world in so many ways... really interesting talk. Thanks!

[@SwamiNetero]

in grundrisse, karl marx talked about whatd happen if commoditys reached a production cost of 0. itd literally collapse capitalism. he didnt say itd be guaranteed to happen, but that if it did then the system literally couldnt sustain itself anymore

[@jorgeestebanmendozaortiz873]

Ok, so as many others the first thing that comes out for me is skepticism. Nevertheless, the zero marginal cost, the decentralized energy production and the possibilities that Internet offers for communication and acquiring knowledge are simply undeniable and they must not be ignored. I optimistically think that this elements may proximately converge in an economic revolution, at least at a small scale.

[@SirAmicVarze]

Most of this is a pipe dream. The notion that we'll be able to create so many things so quickly that everything will cost near zero is pretty ridiculous and unlikely to happen. So long as the profit motive exists there will be people who will use it to extract money for themselves - it's what our culture is based around.

[@BLACKSPLINTER90]

Paul Mason says something very similar to this as well, in his post capitalism book,

[@mbanana23456]

capitlism isn't gonna go away any time soon it's a system that works, and i support it

[@eskoelmwood5936]

I wrote an article similar to this two years ago.

[@ShassaMMO]

I fail to see how sensors in my appliances leads to the end of capitalism. Also, he tries to tie renewable energy into "zero marginal costs", but in my neck of the woods, renewable energy is much more expensive than conventional energy.

[@jaskbi]

With current technology constraints it maybe be, but with more money being put in to renewable, we will find productivity increase with cost lowering, Michio Kaku breaks down the energy problem down in one of his vids here on Big Think

[@MercenaryKal]

The idea is though that once you have built the system which taps into the renewable energy (which will become cheaper and more efficient) then you don't need to do anything more with it, eg: all you need to do with a solar panel is build it and then put it in place to start generating energy, whereas with things like oil we need to continually build drilling platforms, drill it, transport, refine it and then transport it to the places where it needs to go (which is a big problem since we'll soon reach the 'double line', where it costs as much and uses as much resources to drill the oil as you would get from the oil)

[@limitless1692]

By fallowing this line of thinking... Amazon is decimating the marginal costs of selling and buying crap to almost zero.. Cool I learned something new.

[@azeremen12]

Big nope here. Even if people are producing things for free marginal cost is never zero. People are paying money for the computers they're using, for the wifi that allows the connectivity, and the server hosting their websites. There is simply a shift in the market paradigm from selling service to charging for information (think how google makes its revenues). No matter how advanced things get EVERYTHING requires resources and production. The "sensors" (whatever the hell that means--the amount of vagueness here is astounding) still have to be made. In the end, people need real food, and real, tangible things. Again, big nope...

[@ThePiggyPatrol]

Keynes (One of the grandfathers of modern economic theory) pointed out that technological unemployment (robots taking peoples jobs) while vexing in the short run, is a great thing in the long run because it means that mankind is solving its economic problem... that is the need for human labour, liberating the human race from hardship and freeing the human mind from preoccupation with strictly pecuniary interests to focus more on the 'arts of life' and the quest for transcendence. Keynes believed that as a result the human race can devote its further energies for non-economic purposes.

[@timothybeebe6382]

3D printers Maker Bots and Laser cutters and etc here are really revolutionizing the world. It feels more inevitable in some ways then forced through ideology.

[@mrzack888]

im going to share this on my facebook

[@schaughtful]

Localized manufacturing from 3D printing also will have an effect.

[@rogerdeanwine2866]

I've just become aware of Rifkin and haven't had a chance to read him yet, I've just read his bio and watched a few videos. The first thing I notice is that he seems to address economics exclusively, as if political power structures don't even exist. Capitalism is a political-economy, not just an economy. As capitalism develops through its later stages this is more and more true, as Sheldon Wolin aptly pointed out. Corporations are becoming more political; "Citizens United" is an obvious example. A relatively small group of people and groups are expoiting capitalism to increase their power and wealth (see Philips' "Giants: The Global Elite"). Does Rifkin think these political-economic Giants are simply going to to away? Does he think that they won't seek ways to exploit the new economic avenues? In fact, we're already seeing this exploitation with the end of net neutrality, and it seems likely to get much worse before it (hopefully) gets better. What is the basis of Rifkin's apparently boundless optimism?

[@CentrifugalSatzClock]

Very interesting and energizing. What would be a good adjunct would be to have many examples of specifics. Connect to the ideas more to the real world.

[@HonzaBenes1]

Thank you for this super interesting talk.

[@OTHERVERSETCG]

yes! continue to grow. my ideas slowly coming to fruition. makes me happy that others take action.

[@OTHERVERSETCG]

stable constant survival --> flow --> everything is connected.

[@OTHERVERSETCG]

Sam T life is NOT about money (says someone who is surviving). this talk. so true. so realist. so exciting. my heart is overjoyed hearing these ideas, similar to mine.

[@OTHERVERSETCG]

Sam T HUMANITY! GET READY TO SMILE MORE!

[@GonzoTehGreat]

6 years later and we're still not much closer to the IoT, as described in this video. It's indeed coming sometime in the future but technology takes longer to realise than to conceive.

[@ericpreston8877]

It isn't coming at all. What's coming is absolute surveillance capitalism.

[@Lunarek]

Everyone is connected

[@mathaiasrevalis6658]

I like that this topic is being mentioned but I am curious, even though there would be almost no marginal costs there has to be an initial investment so as to be able to put on place the capital resources for the production of a product, and because businesses and most other organizations will most likely not have the necessary profits to fund them, who will provide the necessary funds? Also this concept of zero marginal costs only applies to renewable resources and not to limited resources(I highly doubt that diamond will ever be free) and who would be able to afford these resources when most people will most likely not have money(and would money even be worth anything then?)

[@venture3800]

once all manufacturing, shipping, stocking, cooking, cleaning and energy production roles, and even sales can be fully automated at lower cost, what will we be doing for work? its not even a question of if, just a question of when

[@AndreiSamiir]

Why is the video called the fall of capitalism when this man is actually speaking of more capitalism?

[@crimron]

I agree, just because the capitalists got a hit because of the internet doesn't mean the entire economy suddenly isn't capitalist anymore.

[@laitho90]

Because capitalism is defined by more than just consumerism and production. He's talking about the fall of capitalism in the way that we understand it today.

[@CrusaderDom3]

He is talking about an economy without money. An economy where everything is free because people will have the technologies to produce their own goods. This immediately reminded me of Star Trek, where food,communication and transportation are all free because of the technologies they had (will have). I wish he would have called it post-capitalism instead of the 'fall of capitalism."

[@AndreiSamiir]

crimron Capitalism got a hit because of the internet? That is hilarious. As long as people have needs capitalism will never go away. It may evolve.

[@crimron]

Andrei Samiir Yes it did, during the internet bubble. Look at my first two words: "I agree".

[@Shack]

Wait, I dont get the middle when he starts talking about sensors being connected to people and nature to share transpiration and energy. Physically connected? Can someone clarify the internet of things part?

[@arori4]

Sensors such as trackers that keep data on what purchases you make in the supermarket so that advertisers know what better ads to give you (think about that story about a store figuring out a girl was pregnant just by her purchase history.) Also sensors on energy consumption, phones/location, etc.

[@Shack]

arori4 Ah ok, makes sense. Getting information from people and things. I thought he meant there was some kind of free energy and transportation people were producing. Thanks!

[@sd4dfg2]

Sensors are one way the Internet connects to the real world. At first the Internet was just (people using) computers talking to (people using) computers, now it's phones and xbox and entertainment systems and your car and sports equipment and....

[@B8kdazbro]

A key point he raised was dependant on the Internet of things being allowed to maintain its neutrality.

[@MobBossPenguin]

Simply the heroic nature of capitalism.

[@thegreatmonster]

He shouldn't have called this "the fall of capitalism ..." but rather the dumping of pricing mechanisms and economic models based on scarcity. You'll always need capital, cash, money in one form or another.

[@beatles7798]

Is it just me, or will this system be a problem when the power gets in the wrong hands? If there is one centralized power in the middle of life itself, couldn't things go horribly wrong if someone with too much power tampered with the system? This system would have to be so secure, it just seems hard to believe it would be manageable. Any thoughts?

[@nonenope886]

beatles7798 yep that's exactly why Communism never works because there's always someone who will take the power and abuse it to meet his own means

[@rippinsteo]

I guess I do not yet see how new technology will allow us to abrogate the laws of supply and demand--nor to realize a change in basic human nature.

[@SevenRiderAirForce]

While it's true that new tech is pushing costs way down, one should never take predictions on distant time horizons too seriously. Popular Mechanics and Popular Science have done this forever.

[@GUILT50]

I heard that this man is one of the most disliked man in science, because he criticized gmo without any evidences at all but with his made up stories. What a imaginative man.

[@Lowmanification]

The main problem that I see with this thought process is that it overlooks some of the base assumptions of capitalism. The idea that everyone can become a "prosumer" as he calls it, while compelling, just is not true for a large majority of society. Let's take a basic example of two people, Bill and Ted. Sure both at a marginal cost of 0 would be able to produce the same amount of goods for the same cost, but that does not take into account the time that it takes for each to produce the same amount of goods. Ted may be able to produce 1000 computer circuits in the time it takes Bill to produce 100 and therefore Ted is a better producer of computer circuits. Now lets say that Bill is able to produce the shell of a computerized drone more efficiently than Ted. Bill will then specialize in making the raw drone shell and so on. The two could combine skills and make functioning drones and then hire someone to make a program which will run the drones to power a package delivery industry which now can expand and hire more people to produce more drones more efficiently or create better code to increase efficiency and thus output making a corporation even in a society of 0 marginal cost. The other assumption he overlooks is that everything requires an input to produce. Looking back at Bill, no matter how he tries he will never be able to make the raw materials for a drone come out of thin air. Sure he can use a 3D printer in the assembly of those materials, but he still needs the material itself to be assembled by the 3D printer. So someone has to make the materials to then provide him so that he may make his product and thus there is a non-internet based person required. You cannot just download iron/polymer/whatever from the internet to create your product, someone else is required to sell you that material or you would need to make it yourself, which again leads back to specialization described above. tl;dr, due to specialization based on efficiency, there will not be a collapse of a capitalist system because some people are just better at doing some things then others. As much as I fear this example will destroy credit in my post, look at PewDiePie. Despite any personal feelings on the man, he produces videos that view wise are "better" then others on KZbin which shows that even in a world where anyone can make and post videos there will still be those that due to their innate abilities will garner the lion's share of the views and money while others may only hope to achieve flash in the pan success.

[@xentryst]

I also wonder at what point will algorithms reach a limit with data in regard to how people use it. We only know so much about human psychology and personally I dislike being told what i might what i am to unpredictable .

[@ioianthe]

any ideas how to fit local, sustainable food production into this model? Food Justice is my passion and I feel like there should be a way to apply the internet of things to the production of organic food...

[@eliasath]

the world changed from the middle ages to Renaissance with the invention of typography, knowledge become accessible and so the truth. The same thing is happening now with the internet. But during and after all this revolutions of big ideas still there are poor people, wars, injustice and many bad things. Everything is possible, even a new failure, if We continue to thing new things with the same way of thinking.

[@HRH.Charming]

I want to see him, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro together!

[@JoeWolsing]

Very interesting thoughts. But I fear the industry and the wealthy will be warned by what happend to the information industry by the internet. So it's likely they will take steps to prevent the rest of the market against comparable developments, not only look at it and say it can't happen! I'm looking forward to seeing the further development of the "internet of things"!

[@JoeBetro]

Thank you Jeremy! x

[@BETAmosquito]

I only understood half of that, but it sounds like I am getting the sci-fi future I always wanted. Yay?

[@10K2HVN]

I don't disagree with the analysis, but I do disagree with the definitions. It's NOT "the fall of capitalism". It's the fall of crony-capitalism, cronyism, and/or crap'italism. What he is describing is Free-Market Capitalism (no pun intended). No central-planning could've planned or coordinated this merging of these markets. It's automatically done by millions of individuals pursuing their own personal goals, and other individuals learning from those successful pioneers, and using those techniques to strengthen and refine them. This is like neuroplasticity. Building new pathways in the brain. New synapses being created and strengthened. This is taking away any moral hazard from arbitrary authority, and allowing individuals to naturally fine-tune any pathways in their own lives, making the overall picture more harmonious.

[@crazieeez]

Near zero marginal cost does not mean capitalism is going to end. It is written in capitalism that every company wants to achieve economy of scale. I don't see how driving the cost of food, transportation, housing, healthcare, apparel, cell phone, entertainment, financial services, and the likes to zero is going to end capitalism ... in fact that's the nature of capitalism to make markets competitive enough to have everything near zero marginal cost. Food make up 11% of a consumer total spending in 2016. In the 1700, food make up 70% of a consumer total spending. People spend their entire day working to survive. Today, over 60% of consumer total spending goes to food, transportation, and housing. We have a long way to achieve "near zero marginal" cost to improve the lives of the common. Until total consumer spending on food, transportation, and housing is down to 1%, then I will be impressed with this so called "near zero marginal cost". You talk about a specific sector that's easily be disrupted with technology. Sectors like food, transportation, and housing are a bit harder to disrupt with technology.

[@venture3800]

WHEN that day comes when every mine, every power plant, every store, every restaurant, every construction site, every business involving human hands is cheaper to do with robots than with humans.... what we gon do

[@chocomalk]

Zero cost = zero need for labor = no consumer. Unless I messed the part where there is free energy, free transport, free money and no pollution, there is no "free". How could he miss the part where we are entering into an almost fully automated society and have nothing to offer but "free" stuff in a market of free stuff? And big data needs access. Some is classified, some comes with cost because it is a specialty service. And I am not sure about the internet of things being a good thing, at least the extent of its distribution.

[@JapanAlex01]

This 'sharing economy' is basically socialism. Socialism is an economy based on worker/common ownership of the economy.

[@spyder629]

He seems to have forgotten that materials can't be created thought the internet. Generally, I believe that many people seem forget the huge market in physical transport, mining, drilling, food production and so on. He is going to replace all this with robots or what? And who is going to do that? Its a purely theoretical idea.

[@spyder629]

Maybe we can find alien slaves to do it for us for free. Maybe then we could have free products...

[@phoenix11994466]

*_The man is stating the obvious, it's called progression, economics 101... The consequence of which, everything is becoming faster, more efficient, and cheaper - But that's a positive thing, not a negative... But I guess it helps to sell his books, right?_* 👀😎💰😜

[@midnightwatchman1]

a little bit simplistic, but internet communication is not exactly free, it does cost for the internet to exist, the cost is some what fixed and does vary with the products and services being delivered on it but does have a cost and some cast pretty large costs.

[@CANNOTDIEFILMS]

Lots of cool stuff here