Peter Joseph on the Market Paradox [Full Interview, BoomBust, 2014]

[@Th3S0n0fLiberty]

Peter, you handled that interview like a champ!!! Your an inspiration to those who are spreading this research. Peace brother.

[@buzzardsbass1137]

In my 60 years on this planet Peter Joseph has been the most intelligent person I have heard speak on the topics that he does. A Resource Based Economy is the only answer. It takes into account EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on the planet. Everything else destroys everyone and everything.

[@hitssquad]

Buzzards Bass > Everything else destroys everyone Who is being destroyed by market economics?

[@buzzardsbass1137]

You need to be more educated. If you cannot see the divide between the classes and the destruction of the planet and people by way of the current system then there is no talking or amount of typing here that can fully explain it better than Peter Joseph. I'm sorry, I just do not have that kind of time. Watch Peter's videos please.

[@hitssquad]

Buzzards Bass > All you have done is bad mouth someone It sounds like he's criticizing *TZM*. *TZM* isn't a person.

[@hitssquad]

Buzzards Bass The poor benefit more than any others do from free markets: mises.org/library/how-truly-free-markets-help-poor

[@buzzardsbass1137]

***** You haven't an ounce of brain in your head. Get off my thread.

[@melexdy]

Since his last interview I ve managed to read the movement's manifest and I have to say its very insightful. I can only see that our society will stay in decline as long as the main rule around is competition and profit making instead of cooperation and social contribution. If there are people that make billion every year there is no excuse for kids dying anywhere on the planet.

[@jasongray2051]

There is an excuse. GREED! The good thing about the extreme lack of equality and structural violence we see today is that the system is not very far from collapse.

[@melexdy]

Jason Gray​​​ but with what cost. . There is nothing good in a collapsing system. Especially for those who suffer. We can't even predict what will happen or even foresee a worst case scenario. Those that claim that the system will survive, as it did in the past, must know that the system dies in every crisis but never gets reborn. Everything lasts until the next crisis. .. And It just drags down countless souls with it. The same people that oppose any change, claim that greed is justified because it's inside every man. . And that's half true. We are complex beings. In our behavior we can see greed, competition and selfishness but also altruism cooperation and compassion. I'm not referring to you sir in any negative way :)

[@jasongray2051]

I hear ya. As far as at what cost, inevitable economic collapse of our current unsustainable system we have will probably lead to a societal breakdown on levels never seen before. It will most likely make the great depression seem like a training op. It's going to suck and there will be much suffering. It's what happens in the aftermath that will determine whether or not we have learned from our mistakes or whether we want to return to the same insane patterns that took us over the brink in the first place. And from the looks of things, especially if you look at this latest budget just pushed through in Congress we just got fast tracked by the easing of regulations on Wall Street and the Banks and the increasing of $$$ ten fold into politics. A Democratic Republic was an awesome idea but I think everyone is beginning to realize we no longer have one. And as far as Capitalism it's proving unsustainable as an economic model. I kinda welcome the collapse. Time for a clean slate and a do over.

[@melexdy]

Jason Gray Ατ least people are waking up.. No one buys this success story anymore.. It kinda becomes our responsibility to push things for a change. And Im not talking elections or anything... Oh boy , lets see whats next then...

[@sterix_gg]

Be the change u want to see in the world, right? If every human being out there was to wake up and see things clearly, we could, in a considerably short period of time, alter the world into something that people today would refer to as utopia. And since u mentioned greed, u have to understand, people aren`t born greedy or selfish or stupid or smart or good or bad. Their consciousness is being shaped according to their social being so these qualities, being good or bad, are simply a reflection of their background and their background is being determined by the system. Knowing this and that you can agree that the system is enslaving people by forcing them to focus most of their lifetime on simply surviving and making a living but what most people don't realize is that this is just the aftermath. People's very minds are what's actually being enslaved for from the day you were born, there was this world, driven by a system and this was the only thing that was shown and promoted to you, directly and indirectly by everything and everyone around you, eventually restricting and even imprisoning your mind into the so called "box". Things get much deeper than what the Zeitgeist movement will ever show and if u seek further u will eventually understand why.

[@kraka2oanIner]

I wish more people listened to this guy. You CAN: the Revolution Now! series. Check out the Zeitgeist Trilogy. WELL worth while. The non-monetary resource-based economy is brilliant, if only we weren't practically TRAPPED by our non-economy ("economy" being defined by MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD), based on SCARCITY rather than ABUNDANCE.

[@technatezin]

Last part nails it: "We have an echo of a very dark system with no basis in modern scientific, causal evidence based reasoning."

[@technatezin]

axe863 Human actions and motivations are largely based on emotions while plans to go about solving problems can be based on logic. If you don't have any emotions to drive your motivations then there's no reason for empathy or self preservation. If I'm emotionless I can just as well look at somebody as literally a source of raw material much like what the Nazis did to exterminated human bodies which could still be considered "economic" and an efficient method in getting physical wealth. In other words, what you say about emotions is meaningless since without that governing our actions and morality we would be little more than ants with no morality and drive for self preservation.

[@technatezin]

axe863 RBE is not yet a system. It's a proposed system that's yet to be tested experimentally and optimized for maximum effectiveness. The same can't be said about the current market system that you advocate. Further, there's no meaningful metric to judge what is "better" or "superior" in your advocated market system. Try to tell me what is considered superior or better according to market system metrics? You can't since the unit of money itself as well as the profit motive in the market system is just as Peter Joseph says. At this point it's nothing more than a video game with arbitrary game points "earned" from money being exchanged. Just as an example, international arms sales during "peace time" which inevitably gets used for killing millions is considered positive economic growth. The legal narcotics industry such as alcohol and tobacco with billions in sales for toxic substances which causes addiction and health problems as well a mental dysfunction leading to violence is just as well considered positive economic growth. The examples given just goes to show that there's no meaningful way for the current market system to evaluate the goods and services which it sells as being "better". It's not scientific.

[@Mitjitsu]

technatezin RBE has been tried before, and has failed spectacularly every time. It was tried in 500bc in Plato's republic. Lenin tried to implement it, but even he abandoned it after 4 years. It was even tried in the state of Indiana, but failed. All of them led to mass starvation and totalitarianism, due to the misallocations of resources.

[@technatezin]

Mitjitsu RBE isn't a rebranding of communism and no it hasn't been tried before. Lenin never implemented an RBE. What he did implement was a state capitalist theocracy complete with cult leader worship and unquestionable ideological dogma similar to that of a religion. The upper ranking party members took the role of the board of directors for a nationwide corporate entity. Even in social property it wasn't a communist system which explicitly specifies that workers have political decision making power over production and social policy let alone an RBE type society where decision making power is entirely removed as a subjective human activity, but is arrived at algorithmically through a variety of environmental feedback sensors and computer systems. Money is also replaced with direct resource calculations which is another property of an RBE that is radically different from classically defined communism. Further, Lenin wasn't a technical expert, but his original profession was that of a lawyer which means he's much more familiar with politics and social relations than technology. He didn't have much confidence in technical solutions, so he didn't concentrate on making the Soviet Union an efficient technically run society of experts, but emphasized the political power of the disenfranchised working class which in reality he used as his useful idiots and political goon squads to get himself and his close circle of "revolutionaries" into power. Besides, he couldn't have implemented an RBE type society even if he tried. The social, scientific and technological conditions which were needed to make RBE functional just wasn't there even in the most advanced industrialized countries at that time let alone the peasant backwaters where he found himself in. Reasonably efficient computer systems based on digital electronics didn't even exist until the mid to early 1960's and 1970's which only then allowed for the first attempt in experimenting with cybernated decision making in Chile which built the cybersyn system under president Allende.

[@carlomango407]

Peter Joseph is brilliant, intelligent and ahead of his time. His ideas are well advance to our archaic capitalist system.

[@alexandresaoghal1761]

"To have business leaders talk about how to adapt to something like climate change and all of the ecological problems on hand is like having slave owners get together to talk how to improve the welfare of their slaves. In other words, the system if the problem. It's not that we can alter business; business is the problem. The very mechanism of business is what is generating this. Yes there can be improvement, yes there's thing that will happen to improve, as we seen, we've seen a lot of great things; we stopped the ozone depletion a while back with a huge pack of of business leader to stop the chlorofluorocarbons, these things will improve, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem and that's why I can't emphatically express this issue enough because as much as people are gonna try in the business community to help, the very structure they participate is actually the culprit. " -Peter Joseph This is spot on! [21:30]

[@hermenutic]

It was during the Iran Contra affair I came to the conclusion that the most patriotic duty a citizen of the U.S. has is to continue making purchases. This guy has cut through the BS to what is actually on the end of the newspaper spoon.

[@BruceBurk]

When he says the market is based on consumption, he never really unpacks that idea. The market is based on consumption because many products have a shelf life, meaning you have to keep producing more of them. Food is consumed and that is not going to go away in the future therefore any economic design by definition will have to be based on consumption to deal with goods that perish. For goods that do not immediately perish but depreciate, such as a car, that is also based on consumption because things wear and tear. Constant consumption of goods is not a factor of the market economy it is a factor of nature.

[@i.kaminskiy7563]

great interview

[@GhostsonAcid]

~Another good interview.

[@你好中国-e2j]

can you add subtitles？because i am a chinese man， i can't understand what the hosts to say. my english is so bad !

[@GTEN]

Advancements are solutions. Solutions are problems viewed from a different perspective. Therefore, the more f*#@ed we are, the more likely we are to enjoy rapid advancement. From chaos comes order because entropy necessitates ingenuity. The unfortunate part, as Peter correctly points out, is that the system (corporate consumerism based on manufactured scarcity and its associated linear waste, etc.) is the problem. And this means it's time for a ground-up rebuild of the system, which is a significantly greater challenge than incremental change.

[@Callinder]

Marx predicted the downfall of Capitalism, in Das Kapital, because of its inherent flaw which is the never ending need to increase profits. As Peter described in this interview no Capitalist corporation is ever going to say enough is enough.

[@carlomango407]

Bill Callinder-Scott Correct

[@buzzardsbass1137]

Erin, you need to NOT interrupt anyone presenting their complete train of thought. You stopped Peter on a few instances where I, for one, wanted to hear everything he had to say.

[@models344]

someone please tell me her name

[@2darker]

Champion

[@2darker]

Nice read. He is a champion for what he does. His propaganda will make people think, you link says money has value so all is okay. I'll add that I'm Anarco-Capitalist, I'm also pro RBE. Peace

[@GershonWolf]

In the book The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" (which I love love love!) you said that 65% of the world's land is used for agriculture. is this true?

[@stevebottrell9154]

In 2005 it was about half (news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html). So sure, I can see 65% today.

[@rowanessence]

Well done at the end there PJ. That was kind of a bitch move on her end.

[@lelandshennett]

rowanessence what she did there at the end was actually good. she say she was playing devils advocate, she knows that the number 1 question that is going to be asked by trolls is "oh yeah what makes you so smart?!" so she asked it for them to allow Peter to address it and shut the trololoolols up. Plus she probably knows that the movement is leaderless and it's about an idea not a person or structure so i think she was really just setting him up with the perfect ending. which it was

[@MadLocustRising1]

21:30 - 21:47 exacly

[@titusadeodatus674]

Better then the first short cut version. I do get the impression that Peter Joseph tries very carefully not to say anything that might upset the media and it's funding (investors who pay for interview). Short don't say anything that explains the foundations, just tell them "look it up ". This will get though TV, the rest will not. If there was only this, nobody would understand. It is publicity for TZM; and yes we need it. But it won't explain anything to nobody. Jacques Fresco was mush more precise, when he was on TV, and that was why, he did not get much media attention. I have no intentions of down talking Peter Joseph, I admire him; it's only a small comment, so that people know that after hearing this, they know nothing, and should look it up.

[@gezam31]

If it is so, then he is not honest. You either believe and not only preach knowing well of the consequence of one's action. The Media is the Prostitute for the Worl Globalisation. This Globalisation has for Task to eliminate the small competitors by agressive Corporate Bulldozing!

[@jasonfry9340]

Finally! the show cut off the full interview...can't stand that..

[@vdubs4life1964]

Would a RBE be a voluntary society or a governed society?

[@TZMOfficialChannel]

Both

[@CyanDreamSeller]

TZMOfficialChannel i think he meant that will be RBE voluntary or you will need to be part of it if you live in "x" place.

[@Randomness65535]

I won't be able to give a good enough answer but this is how I understand TVP's *(not TZM!)* position on government. With capitalism, borders and the monetary system out of the way, government wouldn't really be necessary. There could be an automated system overseeing all sorts of dynamics which would make any outstanding issues more apparent. After that, the nature of the issue would be observed to decide which group of people(scientists in their respective fields) would be best suited to deal with whatever problem arose. In other words, instead of having political parties, politicians, or investors(for example) making impacting decisions, we could have people who are educated in the necessary field do that instead. The important question is, "how to deal with a problem in the most efficient way?" If someone doesn't like someone else's decision, an alternative should be provided, revised and possibly implemented instead. But this requires the majority of the population to be rational, which although cynical is a distant dream, in my opinion.

[@vdubs4life1964]

I always wondered since I was introduced to an RBE if one would naturally gravitate and eventually evolve from an anarcho-capitalist society.. Trust me, I'm all aboard with this idea, I think its great and necessary for the survival of the human species and the planet... But its the transition is what gets me.. And I love the idea of the Non-Aggression Principal..

[@CyanDreamSeller]

Idea of non aggression principle is good but principle itself is bad. You can kill people without breaking that principle (not selling them food.)

[@drusha1]

it is not paradox. cheap electricity makes robots affordable hence the automation that displaces people. it cannot go on forever however.

[@technatezin]

Alternative energy sources (solar, wind, tidal, volcanic, etc...) have the potential to give adequate energy to run mechanized society for at least 1000 years into the future and probably much longer with no problems caused by shortages. This is confirmed by sources available online.

[@hitssquad]

drusha1 > automation [...] displaces people ,,,They why does anyone have a job?

[@hitssquad]

technatezin > wind [has] the potential to give adequate energy to run mechanized society for at least 1000 years into the future [...] This is confirmed by sources available online. ...Like this one?: stopthesethings.com/

[@hitssquad]

technatezin > Alternative energy sources (solar, wind, tidal, volcanic, etc...) have the potential to give adequate energy to run mechanized society for at least 1000 years into the future You forgot nuclear: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html Why was that?

[@technatezin]

hitssquad Nuclear power: drawbacks are cancer deaths and birth defects from radioactive release and meltdowns, pollution of environment leading to death of wildlife. Fossile fuel power: drawbacks are release of greenhouse gases leading to global warming leading to destruction of environment, ocean acidification, flooding from sea level rise and increased weather disasters. Side effects of these disasters also leads to loss of human and animal life. Wind power: drawbacks a small amount of dead birds that are killed in far greater numbers by other factors such as domestic cats. Slight noise from wind turbine that sound proofing materials would solve. Scale of problems are not comparable and wind power do not cause major disasters.

[@informationwarfare]

Moral relativism is a huge problem in society!

[@emlillthings7914]

Good thing that "free speech" didn't find this vid