Economy for the Common Good with Christian Felber
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Economy for the Common Good with economist and writer Christian Felber. Can businesses have both endless growth and be fair and sustainable? Is it possible to conceive an economic model that’s not tainted by our current financial system? Christian Felber’s initiative ‘Economy for the Common Good’ started in 2010 and is now supported by more than 2000 businesses from 40 countries. It aims to create change by awarding legal benefit points to socially responsible companies and encourage their pursuit of the common good. At the RSA, Christian Felber shows how we can achieve this systemic shift.
Subscribe to our channel for our more videos!
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / rsaevents
Like RSA Events on Facebook: / rsaeventsofficial
Listen to RSA podcasts: / the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: / rsa_events
It saddens me that less than 300 people have seen this. I had thought about some of these ways to solve economic issues but he has developed them beyond anything I have come across. This is truly remarkable
Ayar Zeev share it!
Love this presentation. It aligns very well with our work creating industry standards for capturing and measuring Relationship Capital (RC). Great job Christian Felber.
This is one of the most revolutionary lectures I've EVER seen/heard. Spot on! I want to see this common good index implemented worldwide now!
Rommel Rico, "common good"? That is a cold way of saying, if we think your stuff is valuable to someone else more than yourself we will take it. It's for the common good. Don't be sucked into such a foolish idea.
Neoliberalism is socialism for the 1% but rugged individualism for everyone else. It's a failed ideology, a race to the bottom, into neofeudalism.
good video with explanation. learned more from you. :)
Wish they would've shown the slide for his books and links for more information....or at least put it in the description...
Really, each thing that would determine whether or not a product is "ethical" or not depends much on opinion and feelings. Where would a company land on your score sheet that produces the Bible and Christian books?
Mel Rich watch his Ted Talk... It answers your question.
It sounds possible just because if I was a lobbyist for a huge corporation I would be salivating like crazy at this talk thinking about all the ways the rules for this system could be changed to adjust their advantage. Especially since with organisations like the EU when they create papers for defining rules like this they just take something created by a corporation then republish it with EU branding and make it law. "So we are saying that all we have to do is say that most of we do is good and we get 5% tax but all of what smaller businesses do is very bad and they get 500% tax, deal me in." When it comes to regulation and law the larger companies always have a huge advantage in resources for gaming the system.
An excellent and cogently argued case for a new economic settlement that has real resonance in the wake of the Brexit debate, the rise of Sanders & Trump et.al where people are clearly dissatisfied with the current hegemony of capital.
Where can I find a copy of the 'COMMON WELFARE MATRIX 4.0'?
Yes
Intuition/feelings are more important than reality/science. 5:46
Read Adorno, then you'll understand what he means.
Profit maximising is just a rule that doesn't know feelings, it is like a machine. It only knows this one principle and doesn't care if it does good things for the people or the environment as long as the goal is achieved. So why not let people who have an understanding for those things and don't follow one principle like a machine (have 'feelings', or morals) set restrictions? The economy should serve us after all, not the other way around
Democratic is what he proposes. If this is an optional and completely not illegal to implement in any company/organization, leaving it as optional is the most democratic way, as it leaves to the consumer i.e. The people the choice of buying/using the company that they want.
One may argue that corporations are greedy and should be forced to. But how come he proposes we trust the people to put a limit on inequality when these same people have no moral quarrel with buying goods made by children or in exploitative hours from other countries if it grants them a cheap phone.
I am all for the common good and my hope is still up, as was Adam smith's. My country improved greatly with economic growth, it is far far from perfect but better than other countries that didn't have the same development.
Furthermore, who decides what's 1000 in the table? Who checks these things? What if I prefer something the table thinks is bad? Consumers should be educated to choose wisely. This is what Adam Smith proposed. A bad consumer will buy a cheap, unreliable, fragile and bad quality product more often than not.
Do not confuse the economic - oikos nomia - the norms of running home and community with chrematistics - krema atos - the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle
To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment…would result in the demolition of society. ~ Karl Polanyi, 1944
In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today’s standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the insane asylum. ~ Susan George, political scientist
Capitalism is good and right. Those who work hard are to be rewarded for that effort by getting paid for that work. It MUST BE a matter of free choice on what that person does with that money.
Mel Rich why is capitalism right and good (if you still believe that).
James Skinner, capitalism is the basic human right to reap the benefits of your own labor and decisions. It gives the opportunity for a person to work hard and enjoy the natural benefit of gain that comes from it. It also causes those who are lazy to naturally have less. Then, there is no reward for laziness.
In a capitalism system, those who are prospering are able to provide jobs for others and to help the poor and misfortune who can't get ahead because of their difficult circumstances.
What other form of government is there that if fair? None.
Mel Rich I like that, you reap what you sow, like a gardener who tends to the garden and receives its fruits. It's just a shame in my country the UK the land is absolutely owned by the monarch, mortgage and rent for both business and living is highly expensive. Most people don't have the choice (legally) to have access to the land to build by hand an affordable home where they can grow food. Capitalism has no moral ground so anything goes in the market, laws to protect people from abuse is an act of the community (this includes the writing on the back of food packaging to explain what's in the product and where it came from). One of the big forms of abuse now (and there are many) is denying people access to land to develop self sufficient communities (the ones out there had to fight tooth and nail), this then makes people more reliant on money that is owned by the Bank of England, that loans it out. Money doesn't do a good job sorting the wheat from the chaff (those who've worked well and hard against those who have simply stolen). When doing a monetary exchange in the market you have no idea how that person might of received that money (unless if you know them). Capitalism leaves us blind to the money circuits that it creates. Holistic communities we can see the fruits that we have sown and share them accordingly.
This Guy is clueless, "what is the goal of the economy", the economy is not a thing! in so far as it even exists, it is the sum total of all economic activity. Perhaps he should actually study some economics before he criticises it.
The problem lies in money creation and how that new money is directed. The private banks exploited the economy by injecting almost all new money creation into the financial sector and hedge fund speculation bubbles, letting the industrial economy to rot.
All sovereign nations have the authority to issue its own currency. In the US, only 3% of credit creation is fiscal (govt) policy and 97% is private bank (monetary policy) creation through lending, which produced a $200 trillion global private debt. We need a mixed economy, a balance of government spending on public purpose, like all countries with higher living standards practice. Why should fiscal policy be used mostly for multi-trillion bank bailouts and defense spending?
Another problem is that the economic textbooks today are outdated. Neoclassical economics (neoliberalism) has proven to be an absolute failure. Remember when Alan Greenspan had to admit defeat after the '08 crash? Everyone should learn how the economy actually works by researching MMT (modern monetary theory).
bbb695 where exactly is he wrong? Be specific?