Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Good morning,
This video number 3 "bis" is a direct complement of videos 2 and 3
and will focus mainly on the Basic Income, whom I will call "B.I."
simply because this concept is growing up
and as an active member of TVP, I would like to present to you my point of view.
For those who do not know me, my name is Thierry Desesquelle.
Usually, I communicate in the form of reflective observation without necessarily give my opinion.
This is what we called the "Communiqué Here & Now"
that anyway in my view, as all opinion, is more based on the affect than on the reason
and therefore, can not provide "the" solution.
But in any case, I hope,
tries to make people want to search, to learn more
and not swallow and repeat mindlessly what peddles
and which we have generally little knowledge of.
For those who have never heard of TVP (The Venus Project)
his name has nothing to do with the planet Venus, or any imagery on a project about love,
Venus being attached to love,
or at extraterrestrials, "yes, Venusians would have delivered a message to us(...)"
Not at all,
It is the name of the city where the project came into being 50 years ago,
in Venus, Florida, United States of America.
So that there is no particular animosity,
I want to clarify that there is no personal attack upon anybody,
because I think, after study, that there is neither good nor bad people
just that everyone is a product of his environment,
of his social references and values that were inculcated in to him
and that it is the system, in which we live, that is out of whack
and everyone tries to get "out of the game" as best as possible.
We tend to believe that this is all the fault of the "rich"
but take the time to question this and you will see that we are all the "rich" of someone and we only perpetuates habits.
For example, I often cite the case of the African who have no access to water and which can not understand that we
found it normal, usual, and that we do not question, here,
the fact of urinating into consumable water and evacuate it with a minimum of 5 liters of clean water.
While it would be so easy, at least, to couple the toilet tank to the evacuation of the sink.
Whilst, moreover, the water becomes a very scarce commodity.
I do not even talk about dry toilets.
For him, we are the wealthy who do not care at all (!) about the others. And how could we blame him ..?
Refer this example by social stratum and we all become "the rich of someone".
In the same way, I do not consider holding "the light of the divine knowledge", of the instruction,
but I am trying to tend a maximum toward a reasoning of applied methodology
the less passional possible.
Reason rather than passion.
Usually, I speak without a linear (because here, as you can see, I am reading a text)
to be in the rush of the moment, as when discussing with friends.
But here, I am reading my text just to be sure to not forget anything and to not scatter me. That's it.
Cause i will comment on the text of someone else, so I wanted to take notes.
So, what did I do in relation to this basic income?
I went on youtube where I found a video which had been relayed, which is called "a basic income for all" by Christina Lambrecht, representative for Belgium. Length 51 minutes.
- Of course, the link will be under this video.
Knowing that this video has been promoted, cited as an example, relayed many times and, among others, by major informative actors such as Mr Mondialisation (Globalization°)
(Still more than 114,000 followers on facebook, 'apologize for the few')
I visualized this document carefully to know what I was going to talk about...
- So, presentation of the document.
A lecture by Christina Lambrecht, (excuse me if I mispronouncing, she is a Belgian lady) Performed on November 8, 2012, on the Basic Income.
Christina, citizen, explains the reasons which led her to question the needs of society and to put in place the a Basic Income.
All this through an excellent and objective reflection on the problematic situation that we are experiencing.
A basic income for all, and quick.
1330 "views", including 9 "I like", dated March 4, 2013 on youtube.
Summary: We have the first 38 minutes. Those are statements of current global issues, where the demonstrative support of conclusion is,
I quote: "Gains in productivity undermines employment, a Basic Income would certainly be one of the few measures to come out by the top of this crisis.
This quote is from Stanislas Jourdan, a freelance journalist, president of the French network for a Basic Income, quoted by Christina Lambrecht who continues on defining the Basic Income.
"Income paid by a political community (so we need politics, she precise),
to all members (to all "its" members) on an individual basis without a control of the resources, nor a counter-party requirement "
then she concluded with: "Like you, a simple citizen, my path towards the Basic Income is neither academic nor economic or political, I would say it is a journey of heart and logic.
Of heart, because I think to the future of my little children and all the children of the generations to come.
Of logic, because i think and i am convinced that to break deadlocks in which the successive crises have pushed us
we must now today, change our orientation.
- Ok, interesting.
So far, we are all in agreement. No need for a half hour to realize that this system does not work and creates misery.
Only one notable disagreement for my part "the need of the politicians."
In what do these people help us? I don't know.
But.. I look for more so i can hear the proposals of the Basic Income.
'Fortieth minute':
Here's my personal history: "I've been too long mother at home and have therefore not paid enough social contributions that would have given me the right to a dignified retirement.
I depend on Philip, who, of fact, is my basic income and I would even say "unconditional" because for 36 years this year we share the best and the worst.
So i have not worked enough to make turn the machine of economic growth and i have not contributed enough to be entitled to a decent income for my old age.
In other words, I do not count into society because i was not producing enough market value.
When I received the letter of pension service I did not know whether to laugh or cry. " Mrs. we have the honor to announce that (etc. ..) " to tell me that the amount of pension that I was going to perceive at the retirement age was 19 euros per month...
(...) We live well from his retirement and we lack nothing.
His income has allowed me to make free choices, both for our privacy and for my professional life.
Nobody ask me if I did not produce different values than market values.
Like: "educating my children, maintaining my house or cultivating my garden, do some volunteer work, be culinary creative for my children and my husband so that they can eat a balanced diet,
help my old neighbor, shopping with an elderly gentleman (and continued and continued ...),
translations for Jean-Paul, etc.
All that informal work I do it with pleasure to help my children, so that i can see my grandchildren grow
in a equilibrated and fulfilling way, to help my neighbor because couples are forced to work
both full-time to arrive at a reasonable end months.
Personally, I do not see the relationship between:
"help the old lady, shopping with the old gentleman, and prepare a healthy meal."
In what all this requires a basic income..?
But, let's be nice, I wait for more.
I want to know how we are going to implement this basic income.
Forty-three minutes',
Ms. resumed an inventory of what does not work, to get to the forty-seventh minute '
Are we ready?
Personally, i don't think so and it has nothing to do with the document we will present to Europe
it has to do with, "are we ready on the ground?"
Because in fact, if the initiative is accepted, Europe said: "You can start to collect a million signatures. For Belgium, it will take 16,500.
It is necessary to reach all that public but I see every day that people still do not know what the basic income is.
So, there is still a large field work to do.
I think we should introduce this initiative, but at the same time continue the work on the ground.
I hope that tonight, even if you talk to one or two people, well (it goes, it goes ...), " End of the lecture."
talk about what?
"To keep it that way, ( it continues, it continues ... )"
Concretely, if i want to talk about the basic income following to the forty-seven minutes. I present what? what do i speak about? What argument? What proposed functioning?
Besides, "nothing works anymore, but we keep the policies because it is needed."
For the moment, i know nothing more.
Forty-eighth minute, promotion of the website and the documents of the Basic Income.
So. After fifty-one minutes of viewing a official belgian video conference for the promotion of the Basic Income,
before presentation of a project to Europe. What have we learned?
38 recapitulative minutes of world problems, 3 minutes of personal history, 4 minutes of global problems , 1 minute of "Spread the information, talk about it around you,"
the rest in internal promotion. website etc ...
I have not heard any concrete proposal. (Where do we take the money?
What repartition of the levy?
What private portion?
What public portion?
No presentation of realization and / or implementation.
No overall thought of realization.
No background reflection.
(Are the people willing to accept this upheaval?
Do they want this type of income?
How to present them a reality without paid work?..)
No pathway of feasibility, nor of transition ...
Surprising for a video that is as much relayed.
Those who militate in favor of the Basic Income (and are not anti-RBE '(resource-based economy, I will come back to it in time))
they often reproach to us, active people of TVP, a vision of too long to bring, a utopian thought, sweet dreams of illuminati ...
We are often asked, as TVP: "How we count to put our project in place concretely and what transition we plan so that all of this is not only an utopian wishful thinking."
Following this video, the urge is strong to say: "You are proposing the Basic Income such as the applicable solution for today, but from what I've heard, for almost an hour anyway,
it is impossible to obtaining, even if it is the primer, the beginning of an implementation. "
So certainly that we would refer me to other sources, other videos, readings, etc.
Yes, but here, i prefer working on the concrete support proposed by TVP, rather than viewing and reading
hours of inventories from what is not working.
that, we all know it, can be seen anyway every morning by going out and going to work or by going to look for work.
That said, I agree that the idea of a the Basic Income might seem tempting.
Which is why I propose to consider, from a pragmatic point of view, the viability of a basic income.
Here is the statement that i would do of it.
Basic Income: We can due to financial tax profits made the last few years, both by the state than private corporations,
and under cover of a "no" to the reimbursement of a debt that, by the way, does not exist, provide a basic income to every person.
This would enable: 1) Obtaining a financial minimum that would ensure the vital needs. These are: food, shelter, protection.
2) To overcome the lack of employment due to the relevance of the technology (which would avoid perpetuating the technological unemployment.)
Logical evolution, but nonetheless revolutionary, due to the abundance of financial profits, to a working time in perpetual decreasing and to a non-need for post of "human-work" that on the other hand is growing up.
On this subject, see the files of the INSSE.
Ms. Lambrecht also announced that by 30 years, 2% of the global workforce will be sufficient for the entire world production.
it makes you think.'
And the OECD (Organization for Economic Coordination and Development), in a 2009 report, announced that 1.8 billion individuals are active
in the informal world economy, against 1.2 billion individuals in the salaried employment market.
So, armed with this information, we indeed think: "We must change our relationship to work, our relationship to consumption, our relation to our civilization."
So, how to put it in place?
First observation, with the the Basic Income.
1) At the population level:
That concept is ethically applicable if, and only if, it concerns the entire world population.
Cause: How can we consider as a scalable system, one that would allow some (due to their place of birth) to have access to basic needs,needs,
indispensable to the survival and without work, while others are still enslaved to working conditions to access the same survival.
1) Although this is currently an observable reality (through inheritance or the income levels of some)
it would only exacerbate this states of fact and in this case,
this advantage seen as a development would be affected, or even a ignominy pronounced by the very people who sees an advent in this status.
2) Humans that can ensure their survival due to profits made by over-exploited people, largely underpaid,
would bring us back to the border of the great hours from the time of slavery. This is also not what we want ...
3) If this is not globalized, immigration can only explode (logic of survival) and along with it,
the wars of territoriality (each B.I. country defending its borders). It would be normal ...
So, unquestionably: Basic Income for all,
so that all humans in the world can have access to survival in "his home", otherwise this project is an additional amplification element putting to death people for the benefit of others.
A supplementary injustice between poor and rich countries and one more reason for the peoples tear each other apart.
The finance based economy can only exist if,
and only if , the cost of a product is high enough so that not everyone can have access to
(functioning of the market; also explained among other on videos 1 & 2 of the communiqués "Here & Now" and that you can find in a lot of online videos or in a whole bunch of books.)
Then and only then, the profit takes place if the rarity appears.
- Then, same thing, for a fairly quick definition of scarcity you can see the video No. 2 about the money.
To summarize this thought upon the cost of things,
imagine that you were to sell sand to a Bedouin in the Sahara.
This is ridiculous, we certainly agree. Why?
Because of the availability of this sand, of this product, the abundance.
Abundance = gratuity (or almost), just like scarcity = higher cost.
(a small stones, a diamond it does not have the same cost because the scarcity is different.)
For the existing abundance, see the reports of the UN
announcing the possibility to feed 11 billions of people (we are only 7 billion today). (REPORT OF ZIEGLER http://itinerairesud.unblog.fr/files/2007/10/ rappjanv07onujeanziegler.pdf)
Therefore, the problem is not to feed the world but to give access to food to all
which would have the direct consequence of bringing the market economy down,
therefore our standard of living.
So if everyone had access to basic foodstuffs,
the economy linked to this products would collapse.
No scarcity = no profits.
As profits no longer exist, in a very short term, the B.I. (based on financial surpluses) could no longer be paid.
Since there would be no more financial surpluses ...
By following the same logic, the necessary products not being sufficiently costly,
since accessible to everyone through the B.I. and, by the same, profit is no longer occasioned,
It is a whole piece of the financial economy that collapses. What happens to the payment of B.I.?
Bonded directly to the financial economy and its profits.
It could be argued that 'as everyone is not "only" living from the B.I.,
the economy would rebalance (principle of communicating vessels) due to other more expensive purchasing products (second necessitated and deluxe)
to which the persons enjoying from the B.I. but also having a salary, would have access more widely.
- Okay.
So, the ethic that is taking shape in this reasoning is:
So that everyone can eat his fill, have shelter and benefit from a basic protection,
it is necessary that some consume products called "luxury goods (and therefore rarer)" so that the economy maintains a balance of profit that allows the payment of the B.I.
Beyond the fact that the middle class would be lower until excinction (due to the lack of work) and that we would end up with a stratification of two or three levels:
1: people with the B.I., 2: Workers who have access to their basic needs due to B.I. and which could pay with their salary,
some additional products called: products of envy,
3: "rich people" having BI + the best of services and innovative technologies. We find that the gap between the base and the rich is digging even more.
Is this the evolution we are looking for?
Beyond that, what about the overexploitation of foodstuffs and objects that we call "second necessity" and "deluxe"?
Because on this principle, where is the reflection and implementation of safeguarding the planet's resources?
Also what about the number of employees, knowing that paid work disappears and does not return? (See video # 3 if you need more info.)
Who do we become without wages in an society of monetary based economy?
The B.I. alone guarantees a security related to the essential but access to paid work is rarefying exponentially,
only some will have access to better care, better nutrition products, better security ...
Today, given the rapid growth of technology and their possible,
the gap will only get more and more acute. In this system.
From a health point of view it would give us something like:
The person living only with a basic income, remain visually impaired if she has a problem in the eyes,
the employee will have an implant of the cornea and the richest will have a biologiquo-bionic eye.
As stated above, this already exists today, but here,
we endorse this principle under the pretext that access to the basic needs is already a sacrifice on the part of the richer and that they must remain their advantage 'still' ...
In this system, the root causes leading to envy, jealousy, crime, war is not minimized but accentuated.
One could reply me that there has always been rich and poor.
Yes, it's true.
The financial system carries it in him.
It is more than its reason for being, it is his "being", but now it is developing to its paroxysm.
Surprising for humanists thinkers looking for improving life.
With the B.I., we institutionalizes a global society at several speeds, to several rights to different "Good living, good condition."
this, was the observation at the group level.
2nd observation: At the level of the individual.
Today the misery can be defined by two criteria often linked: the so-called financial misery and called cultural misery.
currently, the vast "cultural" misery (social and environmental) produces people with a lack of individual recognition
People seeking to overcome this lack of recognition through the acquisition of goods "displayed and displayable" and money.
(See in this regard the investigation from the "spirit level" (Richard Wilkinson - Emeritus Professor of the University of Nottingham) available on the Equality Trust website, about the attachment given to the notion of "respect" to the poor (to the financial sense) and among prisoners).
this will give you an idea of what is cultural misery in a financial system.
What will happen to these people in a society that will guarantee them a B.I.?
What need, in their values,
to go study, knowing that they will never have access to paid work that would provide them the opportunity to access to certain goods?
What will they do of their time if they do not have to earn a living to survive and that a maximum of goods inaccessible to them are touted constantly?
I let you think, I do not answer to avoid orient your thinking.
What will happen to all those persons over 40 years who have been inculcated for numerous generations
that the principal value of success in life "is" only a paid work salary
when one tell them they no longer have access to paid work and that they will live from what they will not fail to perceive as a humiliating subsidy?
Some will have the right to work, others not.
If unfortunately you lose your job you become buffered "only" B.I. with the near certainty from never again being an employee.
It may be argued to me that "well led"
it is possible to integrate that with the B.I., our creative time is completely released
it is possible to integrate that with the BI, our creative time is totally free and that it is a incommensurable wealth to be able to get up without having to worry about "earning a living" to provide for our basic needs.
Certainly. Let's be positive and non-partisan. The imagination is unleashed, the mutualisations from knowledge blend together and combine, the groupings are creating ideas. Ok
In a financial world, if monetary resources are not to appointments, how do we achieve these new desires?
It abounds of extraordinary projects today, both in the suburbs than by individuals or in scores of associations, etc.. What about it concretely?
If you want to see succeed this type of projects, it must depend either on public money
(which implies, more or less, some negotiations, consensus, promises or servages)
that to each electoral deadline sees the project stopped to support the partners more in line with the views of one party or another.
Or, it must depend on private money which will see the good idea, to a minimum, benefit the individual donor and, at worst, patented by him.
We can also expect a bank loan to develop a project but do you think the bank will lend you money knowing that you can never pay it back?
Since you are "basic income".
So, Why and how would it work out there?
Criticism being easy, I must now propose better.
As seen above, in the three releases (1, 2 and 3), it is possible today to live in a world without money.
It is difficult for our "cognitions" to imagine this possibility and its consequences.
And yet ... A reflection on an economy based on resources (RBE) and not on money (Exchange, barter or any other symbol implying a value)
makes it possible to skip all the locks of the points listed so far:
I develop.
Regarding the application of a novel process of access to needs of basic necessities on a global level,
we saw that a part of the economy would collapse and could only bail out (to maintain B.I.) on the condition that the principle of communicating vessels involve a gain on other market values.
Therefore, acceleration of the intensive exploitation of certain resources
with inaccessibility for the largest part of humans and accentuation of envy, jealousy, etc ...
On one side the planet is howling, on the other humans tear each other apart in frustration.
In an RBE (without money), where all natural and technological resources would be considered as the common heritage of all,
1) Everything is accessible to all, which allows to remove the social stratifications that are sources of envy, jealousy, war ...
2) The resources are not overexploited seeking financial gains but managed to better respond and at closest to the needs and desires of each.
The question no longer being "do we have the financial means to acquiring or realizing, but do we have the knowledge and necessary materials for this achievement.
From a human point of view, no more social stratification (the prestige of living standards being currently calculated on purchasing power)
no more "citizens" second class (no exploitation of man by man possible because there is no more relation to money)
no more immigration (each one having what he needs where he is)
no more wars (Since wars are due to the will to "own" what the other holds as a resource.
Therefore, the financial misery disappears, since the finance disappears.
Regarding the cultural poverty: From the moment the envy is no longer needed to be, what interest to steal (who steals sand in the Sahara, to take the example of earlier?)
What about the need for recognition linked to the image of the purchasing power knowing that this notion disappears?
We solve here, 90% of civic problems that, directly or indirectly, are related to money.
There remains the problems called "sentimental / passional."
Crimes of passion, jealousy, etc ...
On the other hand, as explained in the video No. 3, every child on this planet is born artist and scientist.
(all children love to dance, sing, draw, paint, etc ... and are curious and searching for understanding why flies fly, why it's called mustard, why the tomato is red? they have a lot of questions ...).
If we let grow these two factors and that there is no longer need to "format" an individual child
to respond to the needs of a remunerated work society, to what kind of adults do we reach?
In this regard and for lighting, I suggest to watch the conference of Marc Giget
(Who is the president of the European Institute of Innovation and creative strategies) on the culture of innovation in the Nordic countries (HYPERLINK "http://vimeo.com/60213107" )
For the adaptability of people over 40 years (on the notion of paid work)
Do you find it more cognitively easy to see you all on equal in a cashless society where all you could not do or have access is now realizable
or in contrario you end up with enough to survive in a financial society where you are almost certain that everything other than your basic needs will not be within your reach?
For the realization of your projects, do you prefer to have as partner, a banker, sponsor, the State,
or be able to think and to act alone or with selected individuals without constraints or barriers of financial cost?
- So I have already answered the questions that I had stated, earlier, with the basic income.
You can clearly see the difference immediately, with the "resource based economy " and the "basic income". And this is only the visible part of the iceberg.
So: As long as to working for a change, better choose the one that will bring a positive real rather than a ersatz that continues to accentuate frustration.
In reflection without analysis, BI seems to be a good idea but it does not apply in the light of the reflection and methodology applied to certain aspects.
Then the word "transition." comes back to us frequently.
How to switch from a finance based economy in place for 9000 years (which is not anything ...) to a resource based economy (which existed for about 350,000 years but lacked the current technological inputs)?
What would happen to the transition into a resource-based economy?
Is the basic income not a step, a stage which would tend towards a future even better , in short: the necessary step towards a resource-based economy?
1) I just demonstrate that the B.I. is not a transition to a resource-based economy, it is even the extreme opposite.
The B.I. is the logical result of the degradation of the individual facing the power of money, it will accentuate the current problems of background (jealousy, envy, war ...).
This is not more an evolution than a devolution, it is the denial of the human being as an autonomous individual and respected.
We kills the pride of the creativity and therefore that of the development.
Under sincere reflections for some and under pedantic demagoguery of superiority for others, one speaks of aid to the poorest , of dignity regained ... and they buries the large majority when it could be taken to ensure its positive hand.
nothing good will turn out of this concept as the dice is rigged in the financial market.
With finance, we can not have people who are not in envy, jealousy, possessiveness war, etc ...
It's just that the market is set like that.
Basic income, no basic income, it changes nothing.
In this time of transition where consciences awake, showing the B.I. like a wellness is the same as channeling spirits by offering them a bunch of grapes when the vines could be ours.
In addition, this cluster, if implemented, we will pay it a hard price , a very expensive price..., much more expensive than the amount provided for the B.I..
For the transition, the best is to read and view the work done by Jacque Fresco
and the multitude of professionals and amateurs who have worked in a holistic reflection to promote a new civilizational paradigm,
in other words: the Venus project. it makes a lot of things to read and watch.
So, at least, I suggest you read the FAQ on the website of Venus project and view the 48-minute documentary, "Paradise or ." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL091t5xvHs
All references will be at the bottom.
Then, you can very well say, "Yes, but in all that, you referral us on the site, on the video but you still not talked about transition? Really, concretely?
OK.
This transition, I will even propose you step by step.
Moreover currently, at the level of TVP, various projects are in progress:
A mainstream film will help soon to popularize, to understand and conceptualize the key ideas and direct applications of an RBE system.
A university coupled with a research center, both dedicated to Venus Project, are being put in place and a showroom will display the realizations both in applied science and human sciences.
Gradually, parks demonstrations will emerge as well as pilot cities will begin to emerge.
But for now, in the financial system, it takes money to achieve this.
We have the technology resources and knowledge but only the people of the world can make faster progress this inevitable change that we need quickly
if we dont want the bearing capacity of the planet (ie, its ability to renew its resources) to be far too damaged.
We already live in our world by credit (Just for that go to wikipedia and type in "the day of global overshoot").
There you will learn that we already live 4 or 5 months on the possibility of renewal resources. Therefore, we live on credit of our planet.
The most optimistic experts ensure that in around 2100 we will be at maximum before the inevitable.
The most pessimistic agree around 2025/2030 and many are those who proclaim 2050 as the deadline.
One thing is certain, our Earth, our planet is an island in the ocean of the universe and if the necessary resources for our survival
(which require time to renewal) disappear or are too hypertrophied, like the inhabitants of Easter Island (Rapa Nui's) we will disappear.
This, is just a fact.
To begin to think about it and to conclude this statement, I give you this writing of Jacque Fresco, the pioneer of the RBE reflection:
As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high-technological resource based economy of common heritage
would it be necessary to utilize the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc.
They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people.
Their job will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea.
They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production.
This too is always in the process of modification and updating to fit the needs of an ever-changing civilization.
There are no final frontiers.
End of Citation.
In this good sense necessary for our survival, it is not a question of money but of responsibility.
The change does not start tomorrow, it is here and now.
Thank you very much for listening to me.
It was certainly less pleasant and a bit more colorful than the other three videos, but it's just that I wanted to respond to that basic income which makes me fear that we re-enters something that will lead us at around 30-40 years of servitude,
given the scarcity of wage labor, the basic income will not be sufficient and will not be the right answer.
I'll let you think about it, of course everyone has their thinking. I'm not here to convince you, I wanted to explain.
I'll meet you for a video No. 4 communiqués "Here & Now" which will try to focus on beliefs and religions.
it'll still be a "hot, hot, hot" topic.
Until then thank you very much for listening to me, and I tell you "see you very soon"
Goodbye and thank you.