The Problem of Ownership in Capitalism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2024
- Peter Barnes, the entrepreneur, and author of the recently published book, "Ours: The Case for Universal Property", talks about how new conceptions of property - a universal commons - could fundamentally transform capitalism to make it more ecologically and socially sustainable.
I love these old socialists. They are always spot-on! Our economic dystopia has concrete solutions, and these guys know what they are.
Conservatives couldn't stop them from gaining power.
The only solution is decentralism and the system we are proposing at Decentria Country.
Great video and discussion. Sounds like a good book. There are a lot of other authors also writing on this subject. If we could only get these guys together and their messages out there we could have fundamental reform of the system.
Listening to Mr Barnes has been very soothing. He doesn't have everything worked out but he's dreaming of ways that people can organize toward a greater good and of benefit to humanity. I'm reminded of myself as a young student and the immense imagination I had. A notion of equality is the basis of his thinking. As he sits in Marin County--which has one of the greatest concentrations of wealth in the country--demonstrates how thinking outside the box leads us forward. Kudos to Ron Johnson for his patience.
I think I rowed Mr. Barnes and his son down the Yampa river many years ago. 1980's? He was forward thinking even back then. Can't wait to read the book.
As a Salish person the concept of ownership is sociopathy . The belief of actually possessing something/ someone is predatory to say the least. Attitude is everything to these people
So then slavery should not be a problem for you? ( as in if "ownership" is "sociopathy"
then you are not claiming to own the fruits of your own labor...and this has always been
an immediate self-contradiction for those making it, and such a fundamental error that it
conflicts with reality and the demands of life, itself.
why is this insight related to being Salish, don't Salish have a long history of slavery and castes?
I hope to see that we ever get a resource based society, all poverty gone and almost no crime, free open information for everyone to study art, philosophy,science, agriculture etc etc, everyone has his basic needs, we have the resources and the people to give everyone a home and food.
money is an interference it holds us back as a species, it holds us back intellectually and technology to make sustainable homes and technology etc. When most people are educated and understand how things really work you don't need a government, that's why they don't tell you in school how economics, banking, politics really works because most governments would be out of business because most people are good.
talk one on one to people, but they are really ignorant of how things really work, if people understand that most people they follow just use them for power money control, the fake gurus, politicians, religious leaders even fake intellectuals, celebrities etc, people will understand that everyone has the power to create new things, only people think they need to look up to some intellectual or Elon musk to safe them, no one is gonna safe you, everyone on this planet is creative and could have been a genius, but we on purpose limit/condition peoples abilities.
So people think about themselves they are not smart enough and need to be lead, but that's not true it's conditioned it's hard for people to see out of their conditioning, but real education could help and we have 8 billion geniuses who can solve problems real individuals not as Jordan Peterson s individualism who wants to divide people. no government no bullshit jobs, but educated people.
And most of all free people, and free of thought out of the cultural bounds. i find it always funny when people talk about free speech they cannot see that they are physically not free but a work slave, who invented that we still need to work 9/10hours? For little money. People think also that they have free speech, but people cannot even think freely, you're language and thoughts are not your own you got it from you're culture, and than we have thought manipulation by big businesses, the way how we act and think is mostly conditioned.
We have a solution at Decentria. Join the revolution to change the system.
This was a pretty good one. I like that they communicated well and had a unique solution.
They should define capitalism though.
Capitalism = Life
@@jgalt308 Thats cute, is that why 60% plus of life on Earth has died off?
@@jonahsingh5645 I guess when you can define capitalism correctly, then
you can advance the argument that you seem to be suggesting.
Did capitalism cause the Permian Extinctionor the other four major e.l.e.'s?
@@jgalt308 Do you think humans are responsible for modern climate change?
@@jonahsingh5645 Of course...but that doesn't answer the question.
Are you saying that the causes of climate change could have or would have been
avoided by what exactly?
The law of unintended consequences has accompanied every aspect of the human
condition since the agricultural revolution of the late neolithic.
Mr. Johnson always cites a tune; he's tune-struck.
Popular activism! Labor movement!
I love new economic thinking! Humble poor man here thirst for knowledge.
Ta-da! You're a Georgist! Great video.
markets don't produce anything, workers do. markets are where priorly produced goods are swapped.
but they can produce an incentive to produce
@@seadolovcic6086 the demand for goods also comes from workers
@@BOZ_11 yes but therefore also from the traders which are actually the marketing department
I am not sure if it is correct to say that markets do not produce anything
@@seadolovcic6086 It is workers who perform logistics, wholesaling, marketing, advertising and distribution, in addition to making everything. An equity trader adds no value, since the equity trader didn't create the value inherent in the stock
Do whales, trees, lizards, bacteria... have any claim to "ownership" of the sky?
talk about landlords?
Co-inherentence of nature's gifts are invisible in the markets. Yes they are! Thank you.
Mother's unpaid labor is also invisible in the markets. Where would we be without it? But the idea of paying mothers a basic wage is outrageous. Instead, religious forces under the auspices of government is trying to force motherhood and reduce the citizenship of women in relation to men by seizing the property rights to their own reproductive systems.
Our economy is not objective or interested in our spiritual or humanitarian evolution. Let's call it as it is. Powerful people want to disempower sources of life itself so they can profit as much as possible. Our current economy is and always was disgusting to conscious mothers, mother earth and the more-than-human world.
A relatively jargon-free episode but rather abstract...
These 'old socialists' have not lost the idealism necessary for socialist society. I hope.
Why is ownership linked so strongly with power? Why do have one share = one vote, instead of one worker = one vote? We have to break the link between ownership rights and power. Yes, let some humans own more "capital" than others, but that should not give them proportional power over the usufruct of capital. The doctrine of proportionality must be abolished and replaced with a new legal doctrine. Let us call it Power by Equal Sentience, meaning one human gets one voice, one vote, irrespective of the size of their ownership. There, this is how we dismantle capitalism, in a legal way.
I like worker democracy. I think of voting as a right of ownership. If shareholders/board of directors vote, that is exercising ownership. If workers are the only ones who can vote, then only they could be said to own the company.
I've often said that if conservatives want to get rid of abortion they need to financialize pregnancy and child rearing. Meaning the child accrues debt and pays back all the investment the parents made with interest.
This isn't so weird, it's actually human nature to take care of your parents when you can work and they cannot.
Interesting that the problem of socialism and external costs can be approached through financialization, too.
I've been listening to various folks and in hearing these 'smart' people just now understand what Natives and Aboriginal people knew all along, I do become angered.
It's a shame they were incapable of knowing Until they'd pushed the earth and atmosphere to its breaking point.
Only to sell a solution
So you consider being "ignorant" a form of "knowing"?
@@jgalt308 you mean like believing sarcasm is a good form of communication?
@@KeturahTori You must...as you equate knowledge with ignorance...I just
made note of it.
@@jgalt308 your presumption that my____ is tied to what you think & use of I says all one needs to know of your understanding of ignorance. If you're looking to get schooled-I require payment.
Math.. let's make it simple. Corporation pays 10 dollars to pollute. 10 people receive 1 dollar, the cost that is passed on to consumer is 1 dollar. The people use the dollar they got from payment to pay for extra cost. Brilliantly pointless.
I'd like to share a few of my views with you on why I think it's not pointless.
1. Rich people emit more carbon due to their lifestyle. Applying this on your example: rich consumers may pay $1.30, while middle class and low income groups may pay $0.70. While they will both receive $1. This will contribute to reducing inequality.
2. A higher price for pollutive products will encourage consumers to choose for clean alternatives.
3. The price of (highly) pollutive products becoming (much) higher would be a significant incentive for corporations to innovate and bring non-pollutive alternatives to the market because they will be cheaper than pollutive products and therefore more appealing for the consumer.
Jari, someone must have heard/read You. They decided to start with gas n diesel !
@@davidrouse7941 interesting, where did you find this news?
@@jarihazelebach2687 1) the vast majority of people fall into middle class. The difference in carbon is in this group is negotiable. The hyper would not be affected and not car. Why does anyone think inequality is a bad thing? If you do, every time the central planners attempt to fix this so call problem only increases the difference between the rich and poor. A blatant example is being played out in front of our eyes. During the pandemic we basically had basic income, made Elon and jeff outrageously more wealthy. Those that had assets, houses for example seen their net wealth explode. Those that rented for destroyed.
2) there are no solutions only trade offs.
3) cleaner tech like evs? Destroying the environment to produce toxic batteries. Economic colonization of third world counties. Companies already invest in new tech. Cars for example, the new engines use less gas however can not lay as long. Causing a higher rate of replacement. It takes a lot of carbon to produce new cars and is much more expensive. All meaningless crap that really only benefits the investment class and hurts the poor and middle class.
Nice try but IT'S TOO LATE!
I must say I absolutely disagree
Then I would ask - what is driving massive income inequality, poverty, climate change and the threat of nuclear war (either intentional or otherwise)?
Ownership is a game of life rigged by the owners 😜
Ours - please give up your house and all your books, we shall burn them for the betterment of man kind. we have a simple 28 sqm room for you to live in now with no books. real solution is change the law so only allowing 1 house/apartment per person / couple..... instead of rich owning 10.