So living systems – one of my teachers is
Sally Goerner. She was our science advisor until she retired
and we still draw on her work extensively. She taught us that living systems have what
are called healthy hierarchies. So it’s not that hierarchy is bad; it’s
that hierarchy where the top extracts from below is definitely bad and unsustainable. So take the lion in the forest or in the jungle,
the lion is at the top of the food chain, but the lion sits around sleeping most the
day rather than eating and killing all day. And the lion therefore serves a very healthy
purpose, hierarchical purpose in the food chain keeping the balance between smaller
animals and large animals. But when the king of the jungle decides to
extract as much as possible for its own benefit you have a very unhealthy system, and unfortunately
that pretty much describes how the modern capitalist system works where there’s benefits
of scale. They bigger get bigger, they get more powerful,
they get more political influence, but their intention is to maximize shareholder value
because that’s what we do. So the cycle of growing inequality is sort
of locked into the system design. Now how we deal with that in a human economy
is not trivial: the oak tree “knows” in a forest that it serves to support a lot of
life. I suspect the only answer in the short-term
we have in a human economy is an enlightened regulatory regime that understands these principles
and has incentives and disincentives that cause the market players to move toward a
more healthy hierarchy. So for example, in the banking sector—and
this actually exists post financial crisis, it’s just not extreme enough—there are
disincentives to becoming big and complex, they’re just not strong enough. They should be, in my opinion, be strong enough
that it would force the J.P. Morgan’s and the Goldman Sachs’ of the world to, on their
own the volition, become smaller and less complex and become more in alignment in service
of the economy. So things they do that are extractive should
get penalized and the things they do that are in service of the real economy, which
they do do, should he get incentivized. So you don’t need to “break up the banks“,
you need to create an incentive system that causes them to behave in such a way that they
would be aligned with the principles of living systems, which by the way are fractal. Every living system, again going back to your
body, your cardiovascular system is fractal. You have a few large veins, a lot of medium
sized veins and tons and tons of the capillaries. That fractal system exists in oak trees and
in humans and in river systems and in lightning bolts. So it’s a strong argument in favor of not
allowing the banking system or any sector of the economy to be so concentrated with
a few massive firms that then end up undermining the health of the small ones, which is essentially
what’s happened across our entire economy. So, my work around this idea of regenerative
economics started through this journey of discovery trying to wrestle with what’s
actually at the root cause of our modern economic system. And that’s a bit of a long story, but I
can’t really jump to the conclusion without giving a little bit of context. So the first level is that I think we’re
in a much bigger shift than most of us yet realize. We’re in a shift in an understanding of
how our economies actually have to work. And we’ve been in what is called the modern
age since the scientific revolution, and the secret to the modern age or the magic of the
modern age was the scientific method and reducing what’s complicated into buckets that could
be understood. And that reductionist method has been the
driver of great progress in many, many areas. An iPhone or a bicycle or a car are all products
of a reductionist mindset, and since we’ve been in that mode for 400 years it’s literally
baked into our DNA at this point. The only problem with a reductionist method
is that it’s not the way the universe actually works. You as an individual are not the sum of the
parts of your body and you know that you’re only healthy if those parts are all working
symbiotically together as a whole. The reductionist method, what people refer
to as the mechanistic age, doesn’t allow us to keep track of the whole. And many of the problems that are manifesting
in our economy I believe have a root cause in the limitation of the reductionist method. So for example, we discover oil, we burn oil,
we have all this great growth and all this great progress, but we didn’t know burning
oil would create releasing gases to the point that we would heat the climate, so it’s
an unintended consequence that only a holistic understanding of how gases in the atmosphere
effect the weather systems that is linked to our energy use could one have seen that
problem. So now we’re trapped in a system that is
burning fossil fuels at greater and greater rates, and yet we have already the consequences
of climate change with predictions that are literally dire for humanity and other living
species on the planet. So, to get to a regenerative economy you first
have to say, “Well that system is fundamentally unsustainable, it cannot go on forever. And we will either burn up the planet or on
the social side we will increase inequality to the point that we have civil strife and
civil wars.” And so my search was really for how could
one design an economic system that didn’t have those outcomes? And I know I’m not smart enough to figure
those out so the idea is really very simple: living systems that sustain themselves in
the natural world work in accordance with certain patterns and principles. Your body does, an entire rainforest does. And so the work we’re doing at Capital Institute,
which is building on the shoulders of many, many people that have been thinking this way
for literally centuries, this holistic approach to understanding systems is really the root
or the source of what this idea is we call regenerative economies. So, think of a regenerative economy as the
design principles that work in sustainable living systems, it’s the process that allows
a system to be sustainable. As opposed to sustainability, which is kind
of a goal, which is—boy if we could just reduce these problems we can get to sustainability. We believe you only have a sustainable system—whether
it’s a human person or an entire ecosystem or a business or an entire economy—if it
follows the same patterns and principles that living systems work in accordance with. And what’s magical about it is that it turns
out those principles and patterns are very aligned with the wisdom traditions, eastern
in particular, but eastern, western and indigenous that have been around for many, many thousands
of years. So at the end of the day my argument is either
make the case that the human economy is the ONLY example of a system that doesn’t need
to obey the same patterns and principles that all other living systems (that sustain themselves)
follow, or we better figure out how to get the human economy in alignment with those
principles. And regenerative economics is the beginning
of an inquiry into what that looks like and how one might actually manifest that in the

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

100 thoughts on “Capitalism 2.0: How natural laws can create a more equal economy | John Fullerton”

  1. The oak tree know? The ordinary worker's pension money is invested in stock and bonds. It is nonsense that only the rich benefit from capitalism. A business should strive to not outdo the competition and become bigger? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard! This fool want to dictate to business what they should do? He takes his principles from children stories, what a dangerous man. Lots of knowledge with no insight at all.

  2. The problem with nature is that it doesn't care. It really doesn't care about fairness or if you're successful or not.
    Help those who can't help themselves. Don't help those who can help themselves, but choose not to.

  3. Using that same metaphor of a natural hierarchy, with the lion at the top, we can easily see why capitalism is inherently evil. We cannot settle for disincentivizing the top from overconsumption of the bottom: even keeping them in check, the system still involves the powerful eating the vulnerable.

  4. Navel gazing cr*p. The current system is an abnormal system which ensures MILLIONS of humans are alive specifically because its outside natural systems. Just what would happen in society if law of the jungle aka anarchy be allowed to unfold? Oh that's right, kings and serfs. This isn't think big.. its think deluded. I know lets get rid of medicine and allow natural laws of nature.

  5. Then there is Pareto and Price, if you want to talk about natural laws. Equal distribution is elusive at best, more likely a futile pursuit.

  6. I would like a Zen-capitalism. Where people get the freedom to explore their potential whilst respecting everyone and everything around them.

  7. The lion is trying to benefit itself all day. It's not being "supportive" to the deer it eats. It's just that the deer also are trying to benefit themselves and make it hard for the lion to eat them. TRANSLATION: Allow companies to compete and consumers to choose and STOP TRYING TO REGULATE. Just get out of the way and let people prosper.

  8. While I agree with some of this, there are some rebuttals to be made, I think:

    1. The top 10 richest people in the US are almost all first generation wealthy. Even the Koch Brothers' and the Walton's wealth started in the 1900's. The idea that there's an impenetrable ceiling for an underclass just doesn't seem to hold water. It's like if a Meerkat decided to make a poison dart gun and go after the lion to claim the title as king of the jungle. Yeah, not everyone can do it, and people get lucky, but it's not a conspiracy.
    2. Banks and financial institutions – there is a ton of competition here, so while the CEOs get rich, people aren't losing double digits of their wealth to banks in fees and interest each year. Plus, making all banking and lending free doesn't seem like it would really move the needle for most people, anyway. Not in a way that would drastically level the playing field from a consumption standpoint, anyway. Also, he says that complexity and size are bad, yet we would scream if our bank was small, and couldn't afford a call center, or the network wasn't set up to easily pay with credit card. I personally love the fact that my bank is huge and isn't going anywhere and is worried about losing thousands of customers if it messes up.
    3. People can own very large companies. Fractionally, anyway. If you want to invest in any of the largest and best performing companies, call Vanguard. You can open an account with relatively little money, and for an extremely small fee, you can get as much as you care to have, including dividends and capital gains. Yeah, you don't get to be CEO, but you also don't have to show up at Apple HQ or go to Harvard, or whatever.
    4. His last point seems to be focused on negative externalities. Yes, these have been an acute problem with industrialization. Until you have the ability to hold other nations accountable for their impact on the globe, it's going to be hard. The vast majority of the plastic waste in the oceans comes from a handful of rivers in Asia and Africa, yet we're declaring war on straws in a nation with good waste management infrastructure. The ozone hole is growing again because some country in Southeast Asia is using the critical refrigerant that was banned in the first world long ago. Something tells me that neither of these problems are going to go away just by taxing the 1%.

  9. Great theory … yet shouldn't we at the same time investigate and understand the human condition of 'greed'? My guess it has something to do with the struggle to find meaning and self worth in ones life.

  10. This never works, the minute one places regulations on capitalism they start working to undo it. We need a different economic system.

  11. This makes no sense. The lion doesn’t just sleep all day, the pride hunts, and kills those beneath it. The reason he’s the king is cause he earned it. Period.

  12. Not to complain, but I seriously didnt understand a thing this dude said. It's like I was hearing English but nothing coherent. Can someone summarise his garble?

  13. I just subscribed to the CapInstitute on YouTube as a starting point as I feel all great visions like this one also started out as just ruminations and small thoughts until it reaches what needs to be, balance and harmony. Just like the smallest particles in nature spoken of here on BT.

  14. Do away with shareholders. Replace them with the true stakeholders of the company – the working bodies of the company. The workers themselves should be the ones to elect leaders for their company, and indeed should have in general more direct control over their immediate workplace.

  15. Capitalism is NOT a 'natural state' unless you are a lone predator. Everything else survives co-operatively whether grass, forest, herds of buffalo or human society. Survival of the most cooperative. The very concept that it is 'natural' for persons to hoard resources and deny access to others is fundamentally sociopathic. The greedy narcissistically assume that everything was created for THEIR benefit. Historically we know how this ends and it's never pretty.

  16. I see two glaring problems with Fullerton's argument: first, comparing capitalists to predators in a natural system. Equating capitalism with greed. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics sans Marxist ideology understands that capital is, in essence and theory, money saved rather than consumed which is in turn transformed through exchange or production into devices or services that produce or serve more efficiently. Of course, the fact that human beings are animals and the most successful predator on the planet tends to influence and distort the model. Ideally, in a market, force and fraud, the primary means of consumption in nature, are eliminated and he who satisfies the most needs and desires most efficiently goes to the top of the economic hierarchy.

    Which brings me to the second problem in Fullerton's argument: mentioning the crux of the problem with the modern economic system, which is not capitalism as I understand and describe above, and completely ignoring that crux. Political influence is what decides who is at the top of the social hierarchy. Political influence is the problem with the modern economic system and instead of fixing that problem, anti-capitalists make the problem worse by making the target of political influence more powerful and desirable. The target of political influence is the sanctioned use of force by government.

    Through their political influence, anti-capitalists, instead of reducing the scope of the use of force by government to eliminating the use of force and fraud between citizens, extend the use of force by government to telling people what to do. Government does not just draw and enforce the limits to human action, basically at the use of force and fraud in our dealings with each other (as it should), it starts forcing individuals to do what some people think is right or expedient. If you eliminate the use of force and fraud as means of obtaining what we want, either individually or through government coercion, the easiest avenue open to us is exchanging goods and services for what we want. If government goes beyond this basic mandate of limiting the use of force and fraud, political influence becomes exponentially more desirable. And, yes, that is why many people strive for political infuence.

    Why strive to serve and produce if you can get what you want by government mandate? That is through force. Just like the king of the jungle, where the gazelle has no say whatsoever in it. What Fullerton is suggesting is that some of us need to play the role of gazelle, docilely accepting the law, to government's pick of king of the jungle, which of course is going to be government itself and those with the most influence on it. Please, let's pay attention to those perverse incentives!

    What needs to be at the top of the political hierarchy is an, already existing, institution that prevents the legal use of force by government if all of the people do not agree beyond a reasonable doubt that it is just to do so. That has been, until recently, the role of trial by jury in the common law tradition. The jury enforces the law that is common to us all, limiting the use of force, and of political influence on it, to that which substantially all of the people think is just. Otherwise, it's back to the jungle, which is what this maniac or ignoramus is suggesting.

  17. Another hack trying to prop up capitalism by cherry-picking scientific concepts.

    Ascribing any "purpose" to living things other than survival to reproduce shows a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. And it's a ploy that's always used by the scientifically illiterate to sell their argument.

    If you really want a sustainable economic system, TZM has already figured it out. It's called a resource based economy.

    But I suspect you are more interested in owning your own "ideas", rather than learning someone else's.

  18. The biggest barrier to widespread adoption of this kind of economy is simple.. GREED. We are greedy. We hoard food in our overweight bodies. We hoard clothes and shoes in our closets. We hoard houses into McMansions..yards in our gated suburbs with stupid grasses and swimming pools. We hoard our planet with every kind of oil extraction there is.. you can see the destructive results everywhere.. but greed does not care.. it will invade until there is nothing sustainable left.

  19. The only proper Hierarchy is the one where Yahweh is at the top. Any other is a false diabolical hierarchy imposed through violence and coercion. The natural order is in a fallen state and is a very bad example of Absolute (Good) Hierarchy. The natural order of things is trapped in a relative state (and a state of inertia) and is opposed to the Absolute, being ruled by Satan. The best we humans can hope for when it comes hierarchy is a Godly one. A relatively Holistic Holy) one, a nurturing one, more approaching the Absolute Hierarchy and not one based on competition and resource extraction. Christ drove the Capitalist out of the Temple as His first act after arriving in Jerusalem.

  20. Only "sustainable people" can create and maintain a "sustainable system".Just like cancer, there are some destructive people making the system more destructive, hence producing more destructive people. You cannot expect cancer cells to comprehend the concept of "sustainability".

  21. I agree the economy is evolving this is totally in line with marxist theory and im happy that big think agrees with a marxist economic analysis of the capitalist system.

    I would be happyer if there would be a line about the need for capitalism to exploit, well it Begins with wage slavery but, hell who am i kidding.

    American media would never have a honest debate but hell you only get the strawman, Venezuela is socialist.

    Hahaha, i can play strow man too.
    USA Warcrimes
    USA carrier groups
    USA millitary interventions…
    And the USA doktrin of containment

  22. A smart businessman gives himself a nice piece of the earned money to live from, and spend the rest on either making the company bigger and better, or making prices lower in order to keep making more money, in order to keep making prices lower.

    Many businessmen just keep the money. Greedy bastards

  23. While I agree with this guy's motives and overall message that we need to put better regulations in place to manage the economy, I couldn't help but notice that he was very wrong about the ecology he cited. Living organisms are BRUTALLY capitalistic, to the point that whenever an organism gets the chance, it will consume all the resources it relies upon for survival and cause either its own extinction or near-extinction, while also disrupting just about every other organism in its environment, often leading to a series of extinctions all across the food web. This is why invasive species can be such a problem – whatever checks and balances had been placed on them in their local environment are often removed in their new environment, allowing them to get a monopoly on their niche and possibly expand into and take over other niches as well.

    If the lion's prey did not have such good defenses (horns, speed, hooves, working in groups, etc.), lions would not need so much rest in-between hunts. Not having to work as hard each time they hunted, they would be able to hunt more often. More food would mean lion numbers could rise exponentially as they could afford to raise more cubs, which would in turn mean the lions would eat more prey, and so on. This would continue until the amount of prey in the environment could no longer sustain the number of lions in the environment, at which point lions would begin to die of starvation and compete more and more fiercely with one another for the increasingly scarce resources. If the lions are lucky, their numbers will reduce so fast that the prey animals get a chance to recover, but the more likely scenario is that the lions will hunt their prey to extinction, at which point all the lions starve and go extinct. Of course, without the lion's prey or the lions, other parts of the ecosystem will be disrupted, too. Grasses will not be fertilized or regulated by the prey animals, and animals who are not the prey of lions, but who competed with the lion's prey for resources will find themselves with an overabundance of resources. This could lead to a cascade effect with various plants and animals throughout the ecosystem struggling all because the lions' prey had no way to protect themselves from the lions.

    If the scenario I outlined above sounds familiar, that's because it's basically what has happened in the US economy. Companies have gotten so good at extracting money from people – particularly poor and middle-class people – and at protecting their own wealth and the wealth of their top executives, that consumers and workers have very little recourse against them. This has led to the vast majority of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of people who, in a purely capitalist system (or a poorly regulated one like we have in the US), cannot be competed with. The 2008 financial crisis showed us that the foundations of these massive companies have started to crumble, and when they are finally toppled, they'll bring down the rest of the economy with them. Eventually the economy will probably recover, just as a devastated ecosystem will eventually recover, but that won't help the millions if not billions of people who will suffer as a result.

  24. Predators can only choose from the weakest of the herds, rendering Natural Selection toward a more robust herd of more difficult prey. A herd that travels only as fast as its weakest members is ultimately doomed. The instinct for self-service and self-preservation ultimately supersedes altruism, which is why socialism and communism failed. It's why Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson were booed out of Flint, Michigan and why Bernie Sanders suddenly stopped drawing thousands of supporters after the Democratic National Convention in 2016: They put their support behind Hillary Clinton, who called young black men "Super Predators." They did it to stay in the good graces of the power-elite.

  25. Natural laws are antagonistic and self-prophetic. If there were a species which didn't keep up with the lions it would die out further predators are satiable and there is significant repercussions to the predators if they eat all of the prey.

    This is not the case with our economic system. Not only is not satiable but it doesn't stop at death. Prey control their own destiny but following this out to conclusion means we can have things like slave labor as long as slaves are having kids. This guy is full of terrible ideas.

    Equability in an economic system requires substantial investments in the individual and a commitment to realizing their potential.

  26. The big companies do not negatively affect the small ones. Obviously if a small company will try to do what the big guys are doing they will not get anywhere. I'm speaking of the small companies that do stuff that the big guys don't. The blood vessel to the brain.

    Capitalism is a system that is very well self-sustained because if you do good you grow, if you screw up you fall. That's true for everybody. Warren Buffet or the Ice cream truck driver.

    I do agree that systems work together and should be sustainable, but everybody wanting what the big guys have is everything but sustainable if they do not intend to do as much as the big ones have done is everything but sustainable.

    Equality means everyone gets the same amount of everything. You cannot ask for equality and say the big guys should give way for the smaller ones. If you ask them to help out, maybe, but consider this, Would a small company say Medifast help Microsoft with some sort of growing scheme if it had nothing in it for them? No. So why should Microsoft help Medifast with repaving their pavements when they get worn down?

  27. This guy is so full of crap… Government picking winners and losers that's the problem not the solution, they pick the rich at the cost of the poor. The only Monopoly is a government sanction one in this way. They cut competition to protect their winner. Look into Austrian economics. That will show you a true natural way of solving the problems.

  28. LMAO is this a SNL skit. We need a stronger government, like we need more CowBell… Stop my ears are bleeding, oh that must be from the guitar… We just need more COWBELL!

  29. no economy policy will work if the ecosystem is unbalance, just too much human on top of the food pyramid. just wait for the nature balance it out over hundred or thousand years, nature not get hurt by human activities, human and other living thing alive now get hurt by human activities, nature will heal over time.

  30. If people actually want a just system, we all need to stop judging each other by the amount/kind of stuff we have and amount of influence we each have over others which is difficult because this is the principal method by which females of many species, including our own, select males with whom they mate.

    Males work and take from others so they can impress females. That's a biological fact.

  31. The ideas are great but they are only that. This speaker seems more like a thinker and not a doer. Modeling it after nature sounds great but what have you done to change anything? Just as this comment achieves nothing, all that matters is what am I doing in the real world to make change?

  32. How can anyone make any form of argument "for" capitalism in any form with the wealth inequities of this time period? The evidence is overwhelming. Capitalism and corporations are killing us literally, and ruining the world in their quest for never ending profits. It is time we tax them into submission or we will forever be their slaves.

  33. Get rid of limited liability, patent and corporate protections and it will all fall apart. The government literally holds together these institutions with law, these organizations are not able to exist naturally at this scale.

  34. Oh boy, another leftist trying to fix what is not broken. How do we know he is on the left? Because as usual the left is all about using government force instead of innovation. When you take government out of things they work better. Why? A business is much harder to lobby as it profits from doing what its customers want more than a cash grab that would bury it from consumer backlash. It quickly responds to changes in profits because you voluntarily exchange money for its services. We are getting Get Woke Go Broke stories from companies that do not cater to their customers. Lions do not eat everything in sight because they evolved not to do so. Let the market evolve free from government interference and it will be healthy too. You think you need money for power and that shows you think small. Let even half of Amazons customers buy from somewhere else and you would see a big change.

  35. A not so minor point is that fractal geometry never ceases recursion into smaller seemingly repeating patterns, but capillaries have a well defined limit in the diameter of a corpuscle.

  36. You don't have to draw that analogy from the nature, it was always evident to economists that when limited means of productions are privatized or seized by particular group of individuals, chances would be formation of economic classes and divisions.

  37. We cannot all be lions. Companies who get bigger and bigger are able to capitalize on opportunity the most efficient way available at the time. As time goes on the market's demands change and supply evolves to meet the demands of others, this is probably the correlation of big business complexity observed in the ability to make a profit from many aspects of a given complex market, the bigger they are the more able they will be to tackle larger complex problems in the future-including potential global catastrophes. Commercializing medicine, communication, transportation, services, and goods made it more accessible to improve lifestyle to more and more people and their profits grew and grew.

    Lions eat live animals, animals eat plants, lions die and they become the grass… yes I saw Lion King. It is a harsh truth to stomach at times when we evaluate how expendable we are POTENTIALLY and HYPOTHETICALLY to others, thankfully there are aspects of life who hold you at great value to preserve one's existence. I would advise that people avoid to perpetuating a victim mindset and become proactive and avoid paranoia that the big companies are out to get you. Buy shares of big companies, learn their needs, adjust your skill set to serve big companies and get paid. You know they have the cash! How else did they get so big. I bet you don't even have to adjust your mores. Then your can build a more fulfilling experience with your given existence, rinse and repeat if necessary or until you transcend. Heck, if you solve global warming it would be a big payout!

    Have a little more faith in the system and the PEOPLE who run it. In this video's metaphor, big companies ARE acting like the giant veins distributing wealth among the poor. Food, water, goods, services, knowledge, and medicine is more accessible to more people than ever. A part of a company's value is based on how many PEOPLE they employ who build better lives and provide service for more and more people and on and on. Yes some of the pitfalls were terrible, but I do believe we are progressing. Again, companies are ran by PEOPLE and PEOPLE make mistakes. Personally it frustrates me when people demonize someone, or something, on a global scale level because of a moral grudge… ANYWAY!

    Take inventory of your self worth and give it some credit. Humanize companies and see how much is on their plate FOR A REASON. Alleviate that reason, get paid and provide more for yourself if you desire more-don't demand more without putting in more useful effort. As far as becoming more equal in the aspects of accounting and who is entitled/responsible to what, block chain technology holds promise to provide a potentially 'fairer' compensation, but for now, I'm glad these lions are more interested in how I like to spend the money I work by bum off for rather than try to take a bite out of my actual bum.

  38. Yeah, I'm sure people will give up power…… you and me live in a dream world buddy. We're the worst of the worst of all species on this planet.

  39. The market has strong diminishing returns to scale. Regulators and regulations are among the strongest reasons for behemoth companies.

  40. Its called freedom of choice.

    Dont want Apple to make billions? Dont purchase Apple products and services.

    We dont need government to interfer with free association.

  41. THANK YOU! I was starting to wonder if anyone else saw the problem or the solution, instead of playing whack-a-mole / chasing symptoms and not going after root causes.

    Copying nature is a fantastic starting point and a good shortcut…but evolution doesn't stop.

    We'll need to view things as organisms or machines and employ the scientific approach to fixing and optimization… study the world as it is, borrow what works, extrapolate new ideas and then try and test things in simulations then for real and measure effectiveness along the way…rinse and repeat this evolution process.

    Its amazing how few people can understand this and all the fallacies in the comment section…

    To people who don't understand a problem…a true solution is a problem because they feel it will make things worse or just do nothing.

    America really needs solutions to problems…chasing symptoms has led us down a self destructive path that needs to stop immediately…while there is still time.

  42. Wow… so basically what he is saying is. He wants the narcissistic elite to regulate the economy for us common people… Riiiiiight.

  43. No capitalist company forces anyone to buy it's products. If there's abuse, it's self harm. If you want to point a finger at "big banks" look no further than the government that bailed them out. That's NOT capitalism.

  44. In nature lions kill each other to prevent over killing of food supply. Bad analogy. The thing driving our economic situation is sex. Well at least it starts as sex before we come up with other reasons to keep going, but the initial motivating force is sex. It's about being able to showcase your value in order to attract the best mate possible.

  45. In a nutshell, for capitalism to work the elite must use restraint and common sense. News flash, the elite don't understand constraint or common sense only greed which is why the current system to starting to become unsustainable and heading to collapse through revolt.

  46. "Since we've been in that mindset for 400 years it's literally baked into our DNA at this point"
    clicks dislike button

  47. The assumption in the statement made at 1:50 is that businesses cannot influence or bypass regulations that are once put in place. Why are we not considering the influence of capitalist money on coercing government policies?

  48. Cockamamey plan, the system is alright it's just not well regulated as a result criminals and big banks in wall street gamble the economy.

  49. Does anyone else who actually knows history get frustrated when people talk about capitalism 2.0. We are already in capitalism 2.0 it started with the FDR and the new deal today's capitalism is massively different from that of 120 years ago

  50. I want a incentives for big companies and and little companies to hire more people instead of pushing for overtime and overworking depleting their workers of energy and creativity and passion. Encouraging overtime is different from pushing it.

  51. A major problem with the economy is companies are never full, satiated, or satisfied. Power and profits can be pursued without any check. The economy is very effective for us as autonomous individuals, but there are inherent problems. It does not guarantee equality, fairness, ethics, love, and kindness, but I don't think it is evil. We get what we put in it. We need to encourage good values in our youth the economy is a system that we all play a part in.

  52. People laud the free market and with good cause but the free market produces as a natural consequence a race to the bottom and a vast disparity of wealth. There's the argument that if an employer pays less than it's employees need to live then those employees can withdraw their labour (look how that is frowned upon) but this is a fantasy used to justify appalling conditions. Workers often simply cannot afford to withdraw their labour and so don't and end up having to put up with demeaning pay and conditions.
    I am a firm believer in the ability to trade freely but I also believe that their needs to be socialist principles as a foundation to that system in order for it to benefit people in a less extractive way.

  53. It is clear. Anything that refuses to follow the darwinian laws, sucumbes under it. Our current fictional economy is doomed as it is based on unnatural rules from us arrogant humans.

  54. I love this concept of organisational biomimetics. It creates great examples of how things like diversity and sustainability aren’t buzzwords but are actually measures of survival.

  55. I am amazed how even "progressive thinkers" sill think anyone but small businesses should ever be incentivized. Like why would anyone need to incentivize a bank to take my money. Not getting penalized for doing harmful stuff should already be an incentive enough in itself.

  56. There is NO FOODCHAIN. Get that straight! Everything on this planet is an ecosystem.

    Who eats the lion when he dies… Answer it and you will understand that the foodchain is a hoax and that it must be called foodecosystem

  57. 5.20 its animal holocaust that causes climate change even more than burning co2

    Why is this not in this video?!

    Use doughnut economics and be vegan… Done!

  58. Harmony with nature is really important, i feel like with these new emerging sustainable industries production will become more localized. There's so much we could be doing in terms of resource optimization disaster preparedness, experiments and exploration. Lets not forget having fun living in the moment the human experience, embrace all forms of art and we can have something really nice here <3

  59. A lion extracts from the lower levels of the food chain hierarchy only what it needs to feed its family. Locusts eat absolutely everything within a large area but only once every decade or so. Capitalism works on a whole different scale, but bears much more similarity to the locusts.

  60. wow with this idiots philosphy then its ok that we should not be civilized anymore ( not that we really are) it will be ok to kill for someones money, someones body, someones home or just anything we want when we want it wheather we already have it or not. hey mister fullerton you want to know what unsustainable is. money in any form! the day is coming when people will say that any type of government that uses money is nothing more that a dictatorship. give me a new admendment to the american constitution banning all forms of money and i will give you a government that will be for the people and by the people. and they will be happy to do the work that needs to be done no matter what the job is because they will realize that they can go to any store and get what they want when they want at no cost. and no this is not something that can work right now because we have all been brained washed since toddlers about the need for money when it is just a lie that has been being spread for thousands of years and so its all people know. we will need to say it starts with this generation of young people and we teach them why the old system does not work for a species who wants to be civilized you know war , greed, crime at all levels of social standing, run away costs of products. but if we teach the younger generation that for them what is coming is all the things you need and want you can have all that you need to do is get your educatin and work so many hours per week then it is yours. and yes i know this is a very simpliyed version of what it will take to set up but consider that the system of money has been around for thousands of years and it does not work we still have war ,crime, poverty, soaring health care costs, and a government that bows to the rich and gives to the lower middle clas just enough so they stay brainwashed and lets not forget the working poor or even the nonworking poor we have a system that has to have them in order for it to work and that is capitolism it must have rich middle class and the poor as a way of stabilizing the economy. wages go up too much a recession hits brings a slow done and layoffs this can and does have the effect of people losing their houses, cars, and savings but hey then the economy starts up again and we take jobs back again at lower wages. gee the only ones who win are the very upper middle class who can afford to have savings and of course the rich came thru with flying colors. the proof is in our history that this system does not and will not work in a modern society where machines are doing more and more work that people did and creating more of a gap between the haves and have nots. yes this sounds like fear mongering but it is the truth stroll thru the internet and see all the new type of robotics that are being made and planned and if we do not get rid of money our children will be left out in the cold and hungry while a few will live in tall hi rises and have their robots guard them and make them what ever they want. and that is when we will see the real natural laws of the jungle come back.

  61. “How could one design an economic system that didn’t have these outcomes?” What outcomes? Who decides what outcome is not desired? Who benefits from your “enlightened” regulation? And who bears the cost? You talk as though you’ve never heard of Public Choice Theory. The “healthy hierarchy” you want – who decides on that? We can infer two things from this 8-minute brain fart: Whatever it is you’ve studied in economics and political philosophy, the best stuff of the last 100-250 years was not part of it; and your “I’m humble” schtick is just that, a schtick. You imagine that you can design an economic system. Clue: no human designed the living systems you are so enamored of. What makes you imagine you can design an economic system patterned on them. Leave it alone.

  62. There are no natural laws. And anything You day is such that, Gravity.

    Greed is a beast; hard to annihilate & tough to satisfy

Leave a Reply

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