Basic income and other ways to fix capitalism | Federico Pistono | TEDxHaarlem


Translator: Michele Gianella
Reviewer: Robert Tucker Goedenavond Haarlem.
[Good evening, Haarlem] Feeling good, yeah? So, who here, today, of you, had lunch or breakfast
or any meal whatsoever? Great, we’re lucky. Because there is about
a billion people on the planet who live in absolute poverty, and they don’t have this privilege. Getting a meal
is maybe a fanciful thing. And even industrialized nations,
with very developed countries, there is about 15 percent
who live below the poverty line, like in the United States, or even Italy. Now, the story that we tell ourselves
to justify these kinds of things doesn’t really – it’s compelling to hear,
because it’s reassuring, but it’s not real. And it’s no surprise that we like stories,
we evolved by listening to stories, and that’s how our brains have developed
for hundreds of thousands of years. And some of these stories
became bestsellers, one of them was the great epic
of capitalism versus socialism. And of course we all know the story – well, depends whom you ask
or who told you the story. And it also works the other way around. (Laughter) And these stories, if you really
dig deep, they’re just fairytales, because the reality is very different: There is not a single truly
100% capitalist country in the world, as there is no truly
socialist country in the world. They’re all many variations
of the two and other ideological systems and other types of societies. But the wealthiest
and the healthiest of countries are those that have learned
to actually combine the best of them by looking at the evidence and the results instead of just sticking to an ideology
and telling themselves a reassuring story. We have some of the
prime examples of these in the Scandinavian and some of
the more continental European countries, and I could even include
the Netherlands to some respect. It’s important that we tell ourselves
credible stories, and not fairytales, because fairytales are very dangerous and can lead to unnecessary
suffering or deaths of hundreds of millions of people
as we’ve seen in the past. Now we have many challenges,
and one of them is unemployment. But instead of telling you
a story, or a fairytale, let’s have a look at the data. So here is a graph showing the employment to population
ratio in the US – and in the OECD countries
the statistics are very similar. And this is corporate profits
over the same amount of time. Now, if you put the two things together,
and you look at the recovery rate – the gray lines are recessions, and [from] the recovery rate
you see the degree of recovery – you see very, very astonishing results. We have corporate profits
at an all-time high, unemployment is at a multi-decade low, and if you take into account that women entered the workforce
only around that period, we’re actually at the lowest point ever, and we’re in the shallowest
period of recovery. We are in what, in economic terms –
it’s almost called the jobless recovery. Now, there is some studies coming out from the Oxford Martin School,
and MIT, from my colleagues, that suggest
that half of all jobs in the US are subject to automation – robots and other artificial intelligence
and smart programs. And research just coming out in Europe
also suggests the same results. Now I’ve actually performed
the same thought experiment, and I’ve done my own research two years before the Oxford
Martin School and MIT, and I had the exact same predictions. And one of the big criticisms
that I received was: Sure technology displaces jobs,
robots steal jobs, but in the end
you always create new jobs because you have
new opportunities, new sectors, and there is always time to recover
and find new ways of doing things. I said: “Okay, that might be true,
but let’s look at the data, let’s look at the historical perspective
and the timeframe.” So I took all the occupations,
and I listed them by number of workers, from the top to the bottom. And I asked myself
a very simple question: What kind of occupations
were invented within, let’s say, the next fifty or sixty years? Because if technology
only displaces temporarily jobs, then there should be
a bunch of new occupations that are invented in recent times. Actually I had to scroll down quite a lot:
number 33, computer programmers. It was invented actually 65 years ago. So the reality is
that new jobs are very few, highly skilled, very sophisticated,
very difficult to do, and very few people can do them. And certainly not
the 45-year-old truck drivers, maybe 70 or 80 million of them, who are going to be totally displaced
within the next five to seven years. And other hundreds of millions
of people in other professions. So think about a 45-year-old truck driver having to compete
with a 17-year-old Ukrainian whiz kid who writes four apps a day
on his computer. Not very credible. And if you look at another trend, the multi-billion dollar
companies of today employ fewer and fewer people, and they have
a bigger revenue per employee. If you take Apple, Google, Facebook
and Amazon, and you combine them, they are worth more
than a trillion dollars together, but they only create 150,000 jobs. And the newest companies
create even more revenue per employee because they’re worth
billions and billions in a very short amount of time, and they employ a few dozens
or at maximum a few hundreds of people. So this is the new economy,
this is the reality, and what it leads to is more inequality. Now, I’m not stating that this is
the only reason for inequality, but it certainly exacerbates whatever level of inequality
you might have. And if you look
at the global picture of inequality, the situation is quite dire. You divide the population
in 25 percentiles, and you see that the 75% on the bottom
owns less than 20% of all the wealth. And the richest 2% has
about 55% of all the wealth. And the richest 85 people, not 85%
or 85 million, 85 people, own as much as the bottom 3 billion. This is the reality, and it’s only
getting worse and worse. This is worse than the medieval time
during the feudal era. This leads to the disappearance
of the middle class, which is very bad because a thriving
society has a very strong middle class, for example in the Netherlands. And we know from Thomas Piketty’s
groundbreaking research that the return of capital – essentially, money that you’ve
just sitting there because you have it, or you have real estate
or other properties – makes a lot more money than labor. So those who have more capital will only
make more in this kind of system. And it’s a problem
that works at the structural level. This creates structural inequality, which is very different from temporary
inequality or cyclical inequality; it means that it’s in the system. So the story we tell ourselves,
or better yet the fairytale, is that this process
is not only inevitable, but it’s the nature of capitalism,
and there is nothing to do. Because things are just the way they are. Now, of course, we all know
that this is nonsense because there are countries that have
successfully redistribute wealth through policies and through
all sorts of innovations, such as Germany and South Korea, who have redistributed
quite successfully wealth, and have a very strong middle class, but they’re doing also quite well
financially and in the global market. So it’s not impossible,
but it’s very difficult. Even so, nobody has a long-term solution
for structural technological unemployment, which is just on the horizon, and actually we are already experiencing
some of it in some countries. One of the proposed solutions
is an unconditional basic income. So, first of all, what is it? Well, very simply,
it’s free money for everybody. That’s the simple version. The more elaborate is a lump sum of income that is distributed unconditionally,
without any strings attached, to every person in a country, every month. Now, I realize that we might be
plagued by selection bias – this is a TED crowd – but I’m going to ask
this question anyway. So if you think having a basic income,
giving free money to everybody, is a good idea, raise your hand. Okay, perfectly 50/50 almost. Great. Now, there is a lot of public debate,
luckily, on this subject, and it’s good because
this is a very old idea, and now it’s been
rekindled in the imagination and in the spirit of the people. The problem with the public debate
that I’ve noticed is that it’s very much based
on ideology and the moral argument. So whether you agree or not
– I’m not very much interested in that. I’m interested in the fact
that nobody is having a real discussion, very few are having
a real discussion about this topic. They either agree
because of some ideological reasons, some idea that they have
about what people might do, or whether its morally right; or you might disagree because you think
it’s atrocious, not going to work, or you can’t just give people money
for whatever reason. We are all forgetting
the most important thing, which is asking the right questions,
questions such as: How much will it cost?
and: How will you pay for it? How can you finance it? Would people stop working
if they just receive an income? and: Will it actually solve the problem? This is the main question. And, what is the problem
that we’re trying to solve? Because we should focus on the goal, not the story or the fairytale
that we tell ourselves, and we are very attached to,
and we defend. We should think about what the goal is. So: What is the goal? Otherwise it’s going to be just like the discussion
with capitalism and socialism all the way round
for another hundred years. We don’t have that time. So what is the goal? It’s difficult
to reach a consensus, but I think a good starting
point is to start from Article 25 of the International
Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations, which states that everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being
of himself [and] his family, including food, clothing,
housing, medical care, and necessary social services
and so on. So the question is: Does a basic income
fulfill this goal or not? Because if it does, I don’t think it really matters,
your ideology, because you’re actually
fulfilling the goal. And if it doesn’t, it doesn’t matter
how good the idea sounds: If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work! So the only way to know
if it actually works is to look at the experiments, and nobody actually cites
the experiments or the results, they just pass it along and say, “Oh, we’ve done the experiments, and we know that it works,
and it’s settled.” No, it’s not settled – because these are the countries
where we’ve run the experiments, okay? It might sound promising,
but [it involved] 14 countries, [while] there is actually
200 countries on the planet, so that’s a reality check
for everybody. Only three of those were actually
an unconditional basic income, and only two had more than
1,000 people in the study. Okay, so this is the reality: We don’t have a lot of evidence
either for or against the basic income. We just don’t know, because we haven’t
done enough experiments. So let’s have a look
at these two experiments. In Canada, in the 1970s, for five years, about 10,000 people
received around $500 a month. They wanted to know
if people would stop working. And it turns out: Not really,
no, people worked just as much. Only two categories worked a little less: Women who took extended maternity leaves, which I think is good,
spend more time with your kids; and young boys worked less, but there was a higher completion rate
in high school for young boys, meaning they stayed more in school
instead of going to work right away, which also I think is good. And then an unexpected result:
a lower hospitalization rate. This is one of the things
that you discover when you actually – run the experiments and see
what happens in the real world, instead of just making
everything up in your head. The second experiment was in India,
much more recent, three years, 2011-13, about 6,000 people,
with a control group of another 6,000, received about $4 a month. May not sound like a lot, but in rural India this is actually
40% of your subsistence. Yeah, not everybody has 1,000 euros
just laying around like that. Results were very promising. There was improved food nutrition,
food sufficiency, improved livestock, there was no increase in public bads
like alcohol, prostitution and drugs, there was reduced illness, a lot more people were going to school, especially girls, who are usually
marginalized in society. So it’s great that a lot of girls
were going to schools. And people, very counterintuitive, were three times more likely
to be entrepreneurs and start their own business. So people were actually working more,
and they were taking more risk, and there was more innovation. So this is reality. Now, these results are promising,
but in no way conclusive. Because they are very small
and very few, these experiments. And to reach our goal we actually
have to ask some other questions, and answer them. For example: What happens with rent? So let’s suppose that starting tomorrow each one of us receives
1,000 euros every month. So 1,000 euros just magically pops in your
bank account, every month, the same day. Well, what happens to rent? If you’re not a homeowner,
you have a landlord or a landlady. What’s stopping them,
other than policy or other mechanisms, to raise the rent exactly 1,000 euros? Because that’s what the market dictates, you’re just going to [ask]
as much as possible [for] rent, as much as people can afford. If you [raise it] the same for everybody, well, that actually
only increases inequality because you’re moving more capital
to those who already have capital, because of Piketty’s research. So this basic income would actually
increase inequality and increase poverty, and destroy the middle class even faster. Then, if you are getting rid
of most social programs, and you just kind of say people are free to do
whatever they want with their income so we don’t need all this bureaucracy, there might be a drive
to privatize a bunch of things, because you don’t need
so much social programs and government involvement. Well, we know what happens
when you privatize healthcare. It’s a very bad idea,
quality goes down, prices go up, and everything goes to the bin. So whatever solution we come up with, we have to remember
that it’s not going to be a panacea, because things need to be contextualized, and if they’re implemented,
they must be comprehensive, in a comprehensive package
of larger reforms, to look at the whole ecosystem and the larger implications
of what you’re doing. And they must be different
in every country, because different countries
have different social contexts, social adaptations, and social norms, and not everybody
[has] the same cultural level. So it’s never going to be
a one-size-fits-all solution. And the problem is
that we don’t have enough experiments. We need more data, but most of all
we need better data. In particular, we need experiments, and I make out a call for everyone who’s a policymaker, or is working at university who has
any power whatsoever to influence things, to start trials, talk to me, talk to other people
in the basic income community. And let’s do them,
with at least 10,000 people, with a control group so you know
what you’re accounting for. It must be truly unconditional: Everybody receives it,
no strings attached whatsoever, otherwise it’s not going to work. It needs to be for more than two years, because what people do if they know it’ll be
in the long term is very different – they make plans about the future. If they know it’s just going
to last 6 months, you’re not going to see
the social dynamics that actually unfold in a complex society. And it must be a true basic income, not a fraction of a percent,
of like 10% or 40% of the poverty line; it must be, many economists suggest,
about half the median income, or somewhere around that number. And finally, we need
detailed feasibility studies, because there are now
some preliminary studies that suggest that it might
work financially, but we don’t really know because no one
has actually done a thorough research looking [at] all the implications,
all the way down, in the economic activity
in the larger sense, looking at the broader picture. So we need to get
in touch with universities, with professors, with economists,
with policymakers, with experts, and with entrepreneurs,
yes, with entrepreneurs, because there are
new technologies and new innovations that can help us simplify bureaucracy, because now it’s easier than ever
to run a basic income experiment thanks to technology such as
the block chain and cryptocurrencies. And in developing countries
mobile payments are very successful, like in Kenya. There are now lots of groups that are trying to implement
basic income through cryptocurrencies and the Swiss in Switzerland
are going to vote this year on a basic income in a public referendum. Now, I have a feeling
that it’s not going to pass, because they haven’t done
a feasibility study, and the discussion
is at the ideological level. So a lot of people
are rightly not convinced because no one has actually taken the time
to run an experiment or do a proper study. So there are some worrying trends
that we need to think about. We have aging population,
with fewer people being able to pay taxes and more people
requiring a pension; rising inequality; we have the prospect
of technological structural unemployment; and the disappearing middle class. All of this is very worrying. And if we just tell ourselves
stories and fairytales, that this is the way things are, and nothing’s going to change,
and we can’t do anything about it, it’ll just be like
the climate change debate, where we just run around in circles, and there’s not really a debate, the facts are out the window,
and it’s just ideology. It’s going to be a disaster
if we treat it in the same way. So we need a serious, real public debate, looking at the data,
looking at the evidence, getting in touch with experts,
civil society, policymakers, everybody, to have a real public debate,
so we can find together solutions, so we can reach our goal to give
a high standard of living to everybody, all 7.2 billion of us, who are sharing this amazing experience
for a very brief moment, in this pale blue dot,
floating above the sky. And there is, in the words
of the great Carl Sagan, there is perhaps no better demonstration
of the folly of human conceits than the distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility
to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish
the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Basic income and other ways to fix capitalism | Federico Pistono | TEDxHaarlem”

  1. Great talk, but if in your example of climate change (an even bigger problem) we've already got the facts and have since devolved into ideological sides, how are we not going to succumb to the same devolution on this topic?

  2. Do you pay tax in UBI? If not and all will just rely on it, then the economy will be bankrupt soon.

  3. He says that less govermental health care intervention, leads to worse quality of the health care system. This is wrong! Yes the price might be higher with more privat ownership – but to concoude a less efficient health care system is wrong! All in all, a great video.

  4. If UBI works in Canada and India, why stop the program? UBI will attract more immigrants, more anchor babies. UBI will create more problems than ending it.

  5. capitalism hasn't been truly tried. that IS the problem. Too much bureaucratic input and controls on the free market. wake up!!!

  6. My suggestion is this: Pass a law that if a person's job is replaced by automation, the company that had employed them is required to pay that person 33% of their former income, for the rest of their life. This allows the companies to benefit from automation, and provides a sound, consistent reason for the former employee to get paid. This, combined with the option that the person can receive more than one such payment, if they worked for more than one company and were outsourced by technology in both (or more) companies.

  7. I very much doubt that certain interest groups who heavily invested in capitalism, want to change the current system in any way shape or form. How else will these insecure, malipulative power hungry, emotionally shallow and weak people, survive. They have a "if we go down, we all go down" attitude to life, driven by superstition, greed, and paranoia.

  8. look at who is going to oversee this a fuckin child give me a break, has no understanding of human nature, humans are lazy, if guaranteed a free meal why work. this well always fail and it did in finland the country went belly up, its broke.

  9. What I afraid is the inflation. In a village if there are only 100 eggs and only $100 of total money, an egg costs only $1. But if you distribute free money and total money supply is now $200, you must pay an egg for $2.

    If you distribute $ without increase of the real goods and services, you end up with pay more.

  10. Capitalism: "Let's create and produce stuff"
    Socialism: "Let's confiscate the stuff the creators produce"
    Result: Places like Venezuela where you run out of the stuff that was produced.

  11. The standard of living in the US is the highest ever, it was achieved not by socialism, but by capitalism. So to then tell us that we have too many rich people defies logic. Our standard of living is a direct result of the success of these rich people.

  12. Poor Americans, unlike poor Indians, are poor not because they are oppressed, but because they make really bad decisions. This is why you have to give them a Wik card instead of cash. They'll spend their money on foolish things instead of food. You can't eat 22 inch car rims.

  13. Privatization would not be an issue since you would be eliminating most " welfare " programs not privatizing them.

  14. Give $10,000 a year to everyone and the cost of living will increase by $10,000. NO sample experiment will show that. No model not accounting for money supply truisms and human nature will work as predicted. Period.

  15. really it is a reverse tax. money from the state to the individual.
    maybe the robot that takes your job also needs to pay the federal income taxes your job allowed you to pay.

  16. And now we have some one in the US running for president on UBI and actually getting a lot of people behind him. His name is Andrew Yang, just in case he wins 2020.

  17. Hmmm—-In the USA, it seems as though we have run and are running this experiment. It`s called welfare. Not to mention, social security which we have funded ourselves. I can see UBI for India and other impoverished nations, not the USA. Because of health issues, my sister has not worked for the last 38 years, but she gets a check every month from the government. Isn`t that basic income?

  18. This idea is predicated on the fiction that there is only a finite amount of productive activity (work) that can be performed. That is nonsense.

  19. Oh my. OK, UBI may be necessary to address technological unemployment, but it may also be desirable at a personal level–lots of people choose not to participate or are incapable of participating in the economy.
    Here's the rub–in a democracy, what is to determine what "BASIC" is? …the electorate. So everyone on basic feels it's inadequate, and votes in the folks who promise to increase it. Rinse and repeat. That won't work. We don't have UBI in the USA now, and yet we're spending a $T over our revenue on social programs. Totally unsustainable. …and NOT soluble by "taxing the rich".
    So this can't work in a true democracy. It would require a humanitarian intelligent elite to manage the country well–i.e., a dictatorship. Not a good idea either.
    So we move on to "If you're on UBI–voluntarily or of necessity–you cannot vote." That won't likely happen because it would disenfranchise the political establishment dependent on the takers for power.
    And then think about different countries with different UBI programs, and open borders. That won't work either, because folks will move where they can milk the system the best.
    Be careful what you wish for.

  20. Privatizing is the best thing to happen. Even your noted best practicing countries use it to reduce their cost and improve their outcomes. Plus medicine in america is better then anywhere else. So quit pushing bs. I agree with hybrid ideologies. But you are gonna ruin societies and people.

  21. Say there never should have been any unequal wealth. And world poverty is caused by wage slavery, which is slavery.

  22. In 1923 Upton Sinclair, a socialist, said in “The Goose-Step” that Colleges teach slavery! The Wage! AND folly not wisdom, hate not love, slavery not freedom, greed not sharing. Capitalism teaches “Spend more than you have”! Don’t do what capitalists teach! The MLM CONCEPT (without many products) is for everyone before the JOBLESS FUTURE hits people worldwide.

  23. When the top 10 wealthiest owns more than the bottom Billions with an S, it’s already too late. Those people should recognize, on their own, what a dramatic difference they could make if they exercised their right to return that capital in almost any way they choose, it would be better than if they held it selfishly doing nothing but separating themselves from everyone else. If you have to take it that is corrupt. If you have to keep it that is corrupt. Those people MUST recognize our only chance is TOGETHER. It’s like winning 500 million in the lottery! Who are you going to hang out with. I would want to lift up many around me with that money so my friends and family could still be with me. How much do you NEED to control?

  24. Capitalism doesn't need to be fixed. Communism needs to be destroyed. Any nation with a central bank is not a purely capitalist society. Central banks actually hinder capitalism and promote inequality.

  25. One problem is that many people live with not what they can afford but with what they can borrow.
    Giving people extra money would drive debt up for many.

  26. The only thing id like to add is not only does it look like most jobs will be replaced with robot workers but there will be an economic collapse it is just a matter of time.

    What i believe we need to change our currency before that happens to a non printed modified bit coin model. Also allowing a much better socialistic economy to take place which could not function like it needs before that needs to be tweaked but have capitalistic incentives in beaded into the system to promote growth.

  27. UBI would be the downfall of decent humanitarian society. You can instead create a government Job Guarantee program which gives people a dignified living wage option, you can tax the sh*t out of rentier capitalists and their non-productive unearned income, and institute workplace democracy, and allow workers to machine automate jobs but remain in their workplace get the EXACTLY THE SAME (inflation indexed) ANNUAL PAY while working FEWER HOURS. No f__king need for a dunce headed misanthropist unimaginative UBI. In other words: Get the f__k out of here your dorky nerd Pistono. You completely lack all faith in humanity.

  28. For the inflation argument, let us imagine a closed system with 10 widgets, 10 people each with $10
    Now let say the widgets can now be created by automation ie, basically, there is no limit to the amount of its production.

    In that scenario, there would be no inflation as there is essentially an unlimited supply of widgets, the unit price can remain the same regardless of the demand. The only bottleneck to the number of transactions in this system is the amount of money in circulation.

  29. Does anyone consider inflation?
    Will this be given to citizens only?
    How much is $1,000 worth if everyone has it?

    Yes, We have record high unemployements now. I just wish both sides spoke on this more. Because it can be manipulated if the wrong side does…

  30. Great rundown on the subject! So I think the biggest problem with UBI, is that nobody is attacking the underlying problem of joblessness, which is retraining in sectors that have been hit hard by automation, and providing jobs to those people. It might take a large industry like truck driving being hit to get a program put into place.

  31. Watching in 2019:
    I wonder how/if his arguments have changed given the more recent data showing the recent findings from Scandinavian countries.

    The graph at 3:00 is misleading because he's using total employment/population. Does this include toddlers? Or just adults? If everyone was a nuclear family ~50% would be expected, so his line shows a correction to the mean more than a deviation from it. A better datum point to show would be work force participation/unemployment

    7:55: we don't all know this and it's not obvious… You are explaining a solution to a problem we don't all agree on.

    14:50: I'm gonna need to see the data to back this up…

  32. If you study history, all the way back…there never should have been any unequal wealth, so why debate whether people should have a UBI or not, especially starving women and children.

  33. The "fastest growing industry" (sic!) is human trafficking. Most people think "men need prostitution." Corporations, and probably militaries, even send men working in faraway countries to brothels. ("The War Against Women") Most men worldwide HATE women, so they also hate young women and girls, too. Misogyny, it's called. All men hate children.

  34. Men probably prefer unequal wealth, caused by wage slavery, to force women to NEED marriage for their survival. American women still earn $.88 to every dollar that men earn doing the same JOBS!

  35. Not wealth but income, to temporarily create equity. Wealth remains in the hands of the rich. Teach economics in school, not in collage.

  36. If you replaced my SoSec with $200.00 a month would force me at 72 to get a job and never retire. Forcing people to work till they die is cruel.

  37. Besides I paid in for 53 years. SoSec + UBI would be workable. $500.00 would be too little. More like $1000.00 per plus SoSec.

  38. YOU ONLY GET THE "INCOME" IF YOU KEEP YOUR POLITICAL MOUTH SHUT AND "BASICALLY OPINIONLESS" ….; The Cylons are a race of sentient machines and synthetic organic beings. Their racial nomen and shared characteristics stem from the "Cybernetic Lifeform Node", which was developed by Zoe Graystone. Due to the revolutionary advancement in computer technology Cylons represented, they became widespread over the following decade. They later rebelled against mankind to free themselves of slavery, unleashing a twelve-year genocidal conflict where the total annihilation of the adversary's race was the only chance for continued existence.

  39. Ubi does not solve the most intolerable atrocity, which is that most of the richness of the whole world is possesed by less than 100 people. Political power is heavily influenced by the interests of a very small group of private societies. These interests weigh much more than the lives of the majority of the population of the world, most of which lives in a condition of poverty, and exploitation. So please do not talk about redistribution policies whithout mentioning taxations and limitations to the few possessors of enormous capitals of the world. We can act like ideologies mean nothing and are a bunch of nonsense belonging to the past: this may help us feel a kind of intellectual and moral relief, but we are radicated in these ideologies in our everyday lives. They express a fundamental polarity of the human being, two opposing visions of the world: an evolved civilization focuses more on the development of the single individual or of the whole community? We can argue if it is possible to find a compromise, but do not try to tell this common story (this is, indeed, a story) of the end of ideologies. This is a trick to make you think in the way the dominant ideology prefers. So let people choose on which side they want to stand.

  40. So, as with a lot of Public debate with emotional processes interfering, we stand to loose a lot of necessary time to resolve the situation. If not, perhaps someday, like in our childhood when we use to play the game "King of the Hill" and try to climb up and depose the person at the top, we will be playing a much more bleak version. Imagine a world with 6 or 7 billion humans all picking through land fills and rubbish dumps, fighting for scraps of waste, from the past when affluent countries had excess to waste. Maybe not you, or your children, but maybe your great grandchildren will only have this to look forward to.

  41. If the current crisis shows anything, it's that capitalism can't be fixed. Any "fix" works for a couple of decades, and then capitalism figures a work-around so that the system works properly (i.e. benefits the owner class at the expense of the working class) again.

  42. I dont think the problems is that the rich make too much money. I believe the ‘rigging of the system’ actually lies on the the oppresion of progressive wages paid for all sorts of labor. Lots of private and non profit organizarions are not mandated or obligated to give employees comprehensive salary raises to measure with cost of living. Companies are actually incentivised to reduce labor overhead and costs either by freezing pay or re strcturing to lower compensations when times get tough. Gone are the times where workforce was truly paid their value in experience or skill. Its an employer market now. That is what truly is wrong with inequality.

  43. Quality goes up when healthcare gets privatized, people in Canada who are wealthy (i have heard) will spend the money to travel to the United States and actually receive healthcare quickly, as opposed to waiting in Canada. Where did this guy get that privatization of healthcare is a bad idea? Definitely need someone to explain this to me.

  44. Oh, the United Nations says everyone has a right to be taken care of in all sorts of ways . . What is the UN? Is it the coming together of all the people of the world? Nope, it's just the coming together of the most powerful people in each Country (through representatives that vote as they are told to by those most powerful people in their Country) . So, why didn't all those most powerful people who thought it was a great idea to declare everyone has such rights, give their own people the stuff they said they have a right to?

    I quite sure it's because those most powerful people want people in OTHER Countries to provide what they declared was the right of their people to have given to them. It's very easy to vote for your people to be taken care of in every which way, when you have no intention of providing such care out of your own proverbial pocket, but rather other people's pockets ; )

    The use of the UN as some sort of "neutral" authority on anything at all, should alert the reader to the distinct possibility that they are being addressed by either a con artist, or a gullible person who falls for cons.

  45. Not impressed. Not impressed at all. It amuses me how unbiased the speaker is trying to portray himself and yet is wayyy on the left. His tried to shun idealolgy yet he is preaching is in that same speech.

    What bugs me is when people pretend to be unbiased. Fact: We are all biased.

    Now about this speech, There was no factual evidence presented saying ubi would work. He even said it hasn't ever been tried in full force anywhere. Why? Because no one is willing to shell out that kind of money to provide ubi for a sufficient population for a real study. BECAUSE MONEY ISNT FREE!

    Better idea than ubi is to accept life isnt fair, do what you can to personally change your own circumstances, self educate, find-and-then focus on your own talents, spend time with your family (if possible) get involved with your community with the intent to contribute, foster your spirituality, and prepare for eternity!

    Start with yourself first. If you focus on yourself, you can free yourself up to help others. Compassion cannot be mandated.

  46. Just with any system, UBI can be tweaked around in order to not be able to be abusable in any way.

  47. A "new" job doesn't have to mean a completely new occupation coming into the existence.

    Joseph Marie Jacquard invented a programable loom which put a lot of weavers out of jobs. Because of this automation, weaved fabrics became a lot cheaper, so a lot more people would buy them, creating a need for more programable looms (job opportunity), needing more technicians repairing all the programable looms (job opportunity), in order to win market as the production of fabrics increased so was the need for more designers (job opportunities), need for raw material increased (job opportunity) etc. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY NEW JOBS CREATED.

    Every time something has been automated, the product itself becomes cheaper, competition jumps on the new technology, pressing prices further down, increasing demand of the product, increasing job opportunities.

    There are more people working today than in the 18th century, even with all the automation. There is probably only.. 1 or 2 new occupations since then? Computer science and nuclear physics?

    UBI will force prices upwards, as money loose buying power the more money there is in an economy. So if a car manufacturer only make 20 cars a year and you sell every single one of them the first day, you KNOW that they can charge more for the car. So they do. Until you have trouble selling all the 20 cars, that's when you are at an equilibrium. This is what will happen every time where the market can decide prices.

  48. I love how we are supposed to ignore the stories we tell ourselves and then, by this same individual, listen to him on how bad privatized healthcare is because apparently that's a settled debate. He needs to take his own advice

  49. lets fix capitalism! ….. with socialist policies! ahaaa xD its imoral to take money from those who have to give to those who dont and its also an incentive to lazyness. you have to make people better inside, not implement socialist policies.

  50. Ok, let's not let facts get in the way of his narrative. 1. Self driving semi trucks are at least 15 years out. The government is not going to let 50 ton trucks go unattended because of risk. 2. He is flat wrong about privatized healthcare. Prices are more expensive but care is much better. 3. How about studying the US welfare system and generational recipients. 4. Kids like this think they have it all figured out but he obviously doesn't understand technology adaptation lifecycles. 5. He does not understand the US economy and the percentage of people who work for small businesses. 6. Innovation has ALWAYS created opportunity. 7. Life is not fair. If you want equal outcomes, apply equal effort

  51. As a Swiss I was saddened that this wasn't given a chance. Had more Swiss watched this Ted Talk of yours and had not been scared by those against it, who knows what would have become? We Swiss are a scared bunch, always asking who will pay, bla bla bla. So, am 61 now, I voted for it, but the majority was scared and voted NO. Too bad? I think an opportunity missed. Sad but true. Love your talk Federico Pistono!

  52. He is leaving out something important. Participants in the experiments are getting paid to relay information about their spending for the investigators to monitor. Thats basically a job, or at least a prerequisite (to be willing to have your spendings monitored) and he insists that it should be unconditional. There might be no way around this, but it cripples the credibility of theese kind of studies.
    Maybe whats wrong is the idea that it should be unconditional. If you are paying someone, what´s wrong about asking something in return?

  53. Socialism can't work, won't work, never has worked and will always fail proportionally to percentage of socialism incorporated.
    Free market capitalism with minimal regulation ONLY is what builds wealth.

  54. As a result of expanding capital investment worldwide is poverty is rapidly being reduced everywhere. Moreover, as the market adjusts to the "free money" its buying power will dissipate until it has no appreciatable value. Federico is living the fantasy. Capital deployment is a natural phenomenon not a matter of political policy.

  55. This just popped in my recommendations, approaching four years after this was published. There is just so, so much wrong with this presentation. I'm not necessarily against a UBI, but even in 2019 it stills requires MUCH more data. And I just cringe every time he says 'free money' or 'money just magically appears in your bank account'. There no such thing as free money. SOMEONE is paying for it, always. Nothing is free. It's disingenuous to phrase a UBI this way. It's better to point out the reduction in other government programs and bureaucracy, which he did, but only lightly. Anyone coming across this video should really do a lot of research into this. It is not the pie-in-the-sky deal he's selling here, but I give him credit for repeatedly saying that we need more data.

  56. The major points of this talk that didn't get covered was who will pay for all of this "free" money and under what system will it be collected. We can all make believe that the capitol will simply fall from the sky but if any government system gives to everyone must take from someone that has it to begin with. Hopefully without destroying their incentive to produce services and systems enjoyed by everyone thereby killing the host.
    A very huge requirement would be that we must first win the so called war on drugs and addiction. After tens of billions spent over the last 50+ years, overdose deaths and the number of people addicted to a verity of substances has never been as bad as it is today. So far our drug laws and enforcement have been a total and complete failure. Imagine what would happen to the illegal drug market if suddenly all of these addicts that could no longer hold a job suddenly had more money to spend every month?

  57. Commenting only on the title of this video:

    Capitalism is not broken. Thinking it is reveals lack of understanding on your part.

  58. Another dude with an accent that had no clue about basic economics, and thinks socialism is the answer.

    Pure insanity.

  59. The industrial revolution has ended, and so has the time when a job supplies our basic needs. We presently live in a market economy, where everyone has to trade work, knowledge and skills for what we really need- a roof, meals and friends. This system has, judging by many criteria, is not benefitting many people. One criterion, homelessness. Just look at our city streets. And our financial systems are just trading in IOUs.

  60. We should add to these studies, the GCC countries where there is a kind of UBI and a lot of foreigners working instead of the local population!!!!
    The question is what will a person do with this additional money that is given; will he create more value to society? or the other way around?

  61. Its funny, how nobody pointed this out…. But well, this video is quite old.
    Most recent study found out, that only 10% of jobs are in immediate danger of automation, 40% in severe danger. But its estimated, that for ~86M lost jobs, another ~114M jobs will be opened. Thus automation is even statistically proven to not cause issues.

    Also, skeptics were always with every revolution. People were afraid they'll lose jobs in Industrial revolution. But did they ? No.

    Today version of capitalism, even with few flaws, works really well. Poor are getting richer while rich are getting richer.

    Also…. Norway is Market Economy, there is nothing social or socialistic.

  62. Our ancestors could breath unpolluted air and drink unspoiled water, hunt or gather their own food and create their own housing. Civilised humans can do none of those things, that's human progress! Of course density of occupation precludes an autarkic life-style but somehow we have come to accept that there are no inalienable property rights for humanity just alienable rights for those who can afford them, everything including a right to life is for sale for if no one has an inalienable property right in the Earth they have no right to a life that is not subject to the arbitrary power of better placed humans. There is no right to say no for the disinherited, disenfranchised and domesticated who should be in receipt of consideration for the contribution of their jus soli (interest in the Earth) to those who wish to create a surplus from it. Since humanity in general is denied the ability to provide for their own subsistence because of the appropriation of the land by exceptional individuals, corporates and States, the surpluses they create should provide that subsistence as a consideration for denying them the freedom that their ancestors enjoyed. UBI is that consideration for everyone, not something that is graciously given but the right of a person whose property (jus soli) has been occupied and who requires payment under the law of property from the person or entity who occupies it (ground rent £25 and subsistance).

  63. We need a solution for automation, but I learned nothing from this lecture. The 2 points of data presented were horrible and simplistic. Less hospitalizations? How does that relate to UBI and how can we trust the data? In the future studies, will random people fr the population be selected for the UBI, including millionaires, rich, or middle class, or like all the other studies conducted, will UBI be given to poor and marginalized? Because if it is a redistribution income, then it is not universal and the experiment won't work, bc poor and rich spend it it differently. And 10 k people would not be enough, we need 1/3 of a city, and we need a second treatment for comparison, such as a really good minimum wage, and a combined minimum wage/supplement to draw a conclusion.

  64. I suggest we run a U.S. wide 250+ million sample size UBI experiment at the level of 1000$ per month for the next 50+ years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *