Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Hello, and welcome.

  • I'm Emma Alberici the host of Lateline on the ABC,

  • and I'm here with Rutger Bregman

  • who has a fairly radical proposition.

  • [Laughs] So imagine everyone gets an income

  • and you don't have to work for it.

  • Awesome. [Laughs] And on top of that, if you do work,

  • you only have to work 15 hours a week.

  • And all the borders are open.

  • So you go wherever you like and no one questions you about it.

  • That's apparently Utopia for Realists.

  • I'm not sure that it's Utopia for politicians.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So Utopia for Realists examines a different approach

  • to economics and to life and it challenges us all to think

  • in a way that modern politics wouldn't dare allow us to,

  • certainly not with Donald Trump in the White House wanting

  • to build walls, and Brexit and Guilders in the Netherlands

  • and Marine Lapen in France and Colin Hanson indeed here.

  • Rutger Bregman is a Dutch historian who started writing

  • about this idea of a basic wage back in 2013 long before many

  • of the concepts he espouses could ever be called mainstream.

  • The book is an international bestseller.

  • We're lucky to have him here.

  • Welcome. Join me in thanking him for being with us.

  • [ Applause ]

  • We're just going to be in conversation for this hour.

  • So I'll open it up and then I'll start the questions

  • and then we've got two microphones at either side here

  • and I'll invite you to participate

  • in the conversation shortly.

  • So I guess we'll start by just the simple question

  • of what is a universal basic income?

  • Give us the concept.

  • >> It's a very simple idea.

  • So everyone would receive a monthly grant that is enough

  • to pay for your basic needs, food, shelter, clothing.

  • So that's it.

  • Basic income is really a floor in the income distribution.

  • So it's not the same as communism.

  • It's not that everyone will receive the same amount

  • of money.

  • It's sort of you could see it as venture capital

  • for the people, right?

  • For the first time, everyone will have the freedom to decide

  • for themselves what to make of their lives.

  • And say for example everyone could say no to a job

  • that they don't want to do.

  • It's a very simple idea with quite radical implications.

  • >> But it is the same amount for everyone?

  • >> Yeah. Yeah, it's the basic income

  • that everyone would receive it.

  • Whether you're employed or unemployed, whether you're poor

  • or rich, man or woman, it doesn't matter.

  • Everyone gets it.

  • >> And how is it calculated?

  • And how on earth do countries afford such a thing?

  • >> A big part of my book is

  • about how would this work in practice?

  • That is the realist part of the title.

  • When I started researching this subject in 2013, it was --

  • well, in the first place it was completely forgotten

  • and what I could find about it was quite abstract.

  • So a lot of people thinking about what is human nature like,

  • what will you do with a basic income?

  • What would I do?

  • Will we all be lazy?

  • Et cetera.

  • And I was really interested in the practical question,

  • you know, has it ever been tried?

  • And it turns out there have been huge experiments,

  • forgotten experiments in the '70's in Canada and the US,

  • and since then in other places as well

  • where they actually tried it.

  • And it turns out that it works very well.

  • I even discovered, which is probably one

  • of the craziest stories in the book, is that Richard Nixon

  • of all people almost implemented a basic income

  • at the beginning of the '70's.

  • >> In fact, it was very popular.

  • I recall something like 90% of the population were in favour.

  • Republicans were on board generally en masse.

  • >> Yeah. At the end of the '60's, almost everyone in the US

  • and in Canada believed that some form

  • of basic income was going to be implemented.

  • So for example, John Kenneth Galbraith the left-wing

  • economist, he thought it was a great idea.

  • But also Milton Friedman, you know, the neo-liberal economist.

  • They actually agreed on the need for a guaranteed annual income.

  • Martin Luther King, he was in favour of it.

  • So it's not that Richard Nixon was suddenly a great philosopher

  • or utopian thinker.

  • He was just saying, "Oh, everyone wants it.

  • Let's do it then."

  • >> And it's interesting because back then also it united the

  • unions, the corporate sector, churches.

  • And I was just getting in my notes here,

  • because there's a quote from Nixon

  • where he says it was the most significant piece

  • of social legislation in our nation's history.

  • So why didn't it go ahead?

  • >> It's a pretty bizarre story full of crazy coincidences.

  • >> US politics?

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> What happened in the first place is that, well,

  • everyone was in favour of basic income.

  • Richard Nixon had a proposal for a modest basic income and it got

  • through the House of Representatives twice.

  • But then it hit the Senate floor and Democrats started to think,

  • "Well, if this is going to be implemented anyway,

  • we want a higher basic income.

  • So let's just vote against it now

  • and then it will probably get higher in the second round."

  • Didn't really work out that way.

  • So it was basically killed by the left in the Senate.

  • The idea finally died in 1978 with an experiment in Seattle,

  • one of the big basic income experiences

  • with a lot of positive results.

  • So crime went down.

  • Kids performed much better in school.

  • You know, healthcare costs went down.

  • Basically it turned out that basic income was an investment

  • that pays for itself in the long run.

  • But there was one big problem.

  • The researchers found out that the divorce rate went up by 50%.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So you can imagine at that point all the conservatives saying,

  • "We can't have basic income.

  • This will make women much too independent.

  • You know, we really don't want basic income."

  • >> Was there a connexion drawn

  • between the basic income and the divorce rate?

  • Was there an obvious kind of thread there?

  • >> Well, that's what they thought, yeah,

  • that it was really caused by a basic income.

  • That suddenly a woman can say, "I want to leave him.

  • Now I've got the freedom to do so."

  • The thing is that years later they found

  • out that it was a statistical mistake.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So in reality the divorce rate did not go up at all.

  • But back then we were already in the era of Reagan and et cetera

  • and the idea was forgotten.

  • >> How is a basic income any different to welfare?

  • >> I think in a few important ways.

  • The most important way in which it's different is

  • that a basic income is absolutely unconditional.

  • What we've seen in the past 30 years is that the welfare state

  • from Holland to Australia has become more

  • and more conditional, actually quite humiliating for the people

  • who have to rely on it.

  • Time and time again, the assumption is

  • that government bureaucrats know better what the poor should do

  • with their lives than the poor themselves.

  • The idea behind basic income is that poverty is not a lack

  • of character but just a lack of cash.

  • And you can cure a lack of cash pretty easily with cash, right?

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> How novel.

  • >> Yeah. Once you've seen the light,

  • it's very simple actually.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • But it actually works.

  • I think that's the most important thing.

  • My book is I believe a very evidence-based book.

  • And I believe that's also the way forward,

  • is to do more of those experiments.

  • And that's actually what's happening

  • around the world right now.

  • I mean, Finland is just doing a big experiment.

  • Canada has just announced one.

  • A lot of people in Silicon Valley are enthusiastic

  • about this idea.

  • So yeah, it's really spreading around the globe.

  • >> But isn't there also evidence that when people come

  • into money, they often squander it?

  • That when they haven't had to work for it,

  • they make poor decisions?

  • >> Well, if you watch a lot of reality television,

  • I can imagine that you'd believe that.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • One of the stories in my book is about a pretty crazy experience

  • that happened in London in 2009.

  • And this was a social organisation that worked

  • with chronically homeless men.

  • And there were about 13 of them

  • and they had tried pretty much everything at that point

  • and nothing really worked.

  • So it was simply time for something new.

  • And one of the people who worked there said, "You know,

  • why not try something really new?

  • Let's just give them money.

  • 3,000 pounds, and let's see what happens."

  • Now even at that organisation,

  • obviously most people were quite sceptical,

  • but they were wasting money anyway,

  • so let's see what happens.

  • Now a year after the experience, 7 out of 13 of the men --

  • and some of them had been living on the streets for 40 years --

  • but 7 of the 13 of them had a roof above their head.

  • Two more had applied for housing

  • and all had made significant decisions

  • to invest in their lives.

  • So what did they use the money for?

  • One of them bought a dictionary.

  • Another bought [inaudible].

  • One of them took gardening classes.

  • It was pretty incredible to see

  • that the money really empowered the men

  • and for the first time they felt like society trusted them

  • to make their own decisions.

  • Now the twist comes at the end because that's when you look

  • at the financial side of the story.

  • You could say, "Well, we've got to do this because we've got

  • to pity the poor or pity the homeless.

  • It's the moral thing to do."

  • But it actually also makes financial sense.

  • The project in total cost 50,000 pounds.

  • That's about seven times less

  • than what they would normally spend on these homeless men.

  • So even The Economist, you know, nota very utopian,

  • left-wing magazine, right?

  • Even they wrote, "The best way to spend money

  • on the homeless might be just to give it to them."

  • And to be honest, I think that is almost always the case.

  • That if we want to help the poor,

  • just solve the problem, you know.

  • Don't try to manage the symptoms, but solve the problem.

  • And the problem is the lack of cash.

  • That's it.

  • >> There's a talk in your TED Talk about the other approaches

  • of people thinking they know what's best

  • and buying certain things for them

  • and giving poor kids teddy bears in countries and so on.

  • >> Yeah.

  • >> Things they don't need.

  • >> When I gave the TED Talk, I had one line in my talk.

  • I said, you know, we should get rid of the vast industry

  • of bureaucratic paternalists and simply hand over their salaries

  • to the poor they're supposed to help.

  • And the TED audience was really like clapping and laughing

  • and I was a big confused because I'm talking about you guys.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> So you mentioned this right at the outset,

  • that one of the instincts people have is,

  • "Doesn't this create kind of a bunch of lazy sloths

  • who don't work anymore and just collect the money?"

  • That's kind of instinctively what you think would end

  • up happening.

  • >> Yeah, yeah.

  • >> A bunch of people would say, "Well,

  • what am I going to go to work for.

  • I'm getting paid anyway."

  • >> Exactly, exactly.

  • I think we have a very mistaken image of human nature.

  • I mean, if you watch a lot of the news as most of us do --

  • I believe it's one

  • of the biggest addictions in our society.

  • >> Thank God.

  • >> Well, good for you.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • It's a big problem for me, actually.

  • I mean, the news is always about exceptions, right?

  • It's about things that go wrong,

  • about corrupting, crises, terrorism.

  • So if you watch a lot of the news,

  • at the end of the day you know exactly how the world

  • doesn't work.

  • Because you've only heard about these weird exceptions.

  • And you'll have a quite negative image of human nature.

  • You'll think that most people, again, the yare probably going

  • to be lazy or want to be free riders, et cetera.

  • So I think the only way to combat that misperception is

  • by telling stories about what actually happens

  • when you give people something like free money.

  • And the book is full of those kind of stories.

  • >> A lot of people on the surface would look at this

  • and say this is a bunch of socialist tripe because apart

  • from anything else, it would seem to run entirely counter

  • to capitalism and the notion of kind of small government.

  • >> I think it's completely the other way around.

  • I believe the basic income would be the crowning achievement

  • of capitalism.

  • It would give everyone the freedom to start a new company,

  • move to a different job, move to a different city.

  • It will make capitalism much more dynamic.

  • I mean, if you think about it, just the incredible amount

  • of talent we are wasting right now in two ways.

  • So still, around the developed world,

  • millions of people are withering away in poverty.

  • That's just a very bad use of resources to say it

  • like an economist would.

  • And I think one of the biggest taboos here is

  • that about a third of the workforce according

  • to recent polls is now stuck in a job

  • that they think is completely meaningless, right?

  • So there was a poll in the UK two years ago,

  • found out that 37% of British workers have a job

  • that they think is just useless, doesn't add anything of value.

  • Now we're not talking about teachers

  • or garbage collectors or nurses here.

  • We're talking about consultants and bankers

  • and lawyers, et cetera.

  • So people who are very successful

  • in the knowledge economy, who have great resumes,

  • great salaries, who still at the end of the day --

  • well, maybe you need to give them one day or two,

  • but they'll admit it's not very useful what they're doing.

  • In fact, in the book you talk --

  • I think you've called them bullshit jobs.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • Am I quoting you correctly?

  • >> Well, it's a very scientific concept.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • It was originally coined by David Graber,

  • an American anthropologist who wrote a fascinating essay

  • on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs.

  • And it's just astounding.

  • You know, when I started researching it, I first thought,

  • you know, "How big can this be?"

  • Right? I mean, we've got capitalism,

  • we've got the invisible hand that is supposed to get rid

  • of all bullshit, of all jobs that are not very necessary.

  • I started researching it more and more and when I wrote

  • about it people started sending me emails and tweets

  • and you know, connecting on Facebook

  • and saying, "Yes, yes, yes."

  • >> I have one of those jobs.

  • >> Yes, obviously this is about me.

  • Actually, I've done a few events, one event just

  • after the election of Donald Trump.

  • It was probably also because people were really rethinking

  • our lives, you know, that week.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • And I was doing an event, and the chair asked the audience,

  • "Who has a bullshit job?"

  • And I think about a third of all hands went up in the air.

  • >> So define a bullshit job.

  • >> I don't know, that's not for me.

  • That's the brilliant thing about --

  • >> Yeah, but what makes it a bullshit job?

  • >> People can define it for themselves, right?

  • So if people say about their own job that it doesn't add anything

  • of value, that they're basically just sending emails

  • to other people all day or writing reports no one reads,

  • or inventing financial products that only destroy value.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> It sounds like politics.

  • >> Trying to get people to click on ads all the time.

  • I mean, that's basically what a big part

  • of the economy is right now.

  • There's some interesting research from when we look

  • at what graduates of the Ivy League universities

  • in the US do.

  • You know, just 30 or 40 years ago they all went to work

  • for NGO's, the universities, government, et cetera.

  • Nowadays they go either to Wall Street or Silicon Valley.

  • What do they do in Wall Street?

  • They start rent seeking.

  • They start actually destroying value.

  • If you don't believe me, read the recent reports

  • from the International Monetary Fund.

  • I mean, they're basically saying the same thing.

  • And Silicon Valley, well there's a great quote from someone

  • who worked at Facebook for a few years.

  • And he said that the best minds of my generation are thinking

  • about how to make people click ads.

  • And that's pretty sad, isn't it?

  • >> There was also, you write about the strikes

  • and different classes of workers going out on strike.

  • Talk us through that.

  • >> Well, I was just thinking,

  • there is one other way you can find

  • if you have a bullshit job, yes or no.

  • I mean, just stop doing it, right, and see what happens.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> Another scientific experiment.

  • >> Yeah, exactly.

  • I'm just going to look throughout history

  • at what happened when different professions went on strike.

  • So at first I thought, you know, I want to look at a profession

  • that is really, really important, that if they go

  • on strike, it's a disaster.

  • I thought the doctors are probably a good example.

  • So I looked it up, and actually when doctors go on strike,

  • life expectancy goes up.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So that was probably not a very good example.

  • But I thought, well, probably garbage collectors.

  • They are probably a good example.

  • And throughout history, you know, whenever they go

  • on strike, it is a disaster.

  • So in the book I tell the story of a strike

  • of garbage collectors in New York in 1968.

  • It lasted for just six days

  • and the emergency state had to be declared.

  • And it turns out, you know, a big city like New York,

  • they really cannot do without garbage collectors.

  • And then I wondered, you know,

  • has it ever happened throughout all of world history

  • that the bankers went on strike?

  • I was really curious about that.

  • So I started researching it and researching it

  • and I started actually, I don't know, 3000 BC with the rise

  • of finance, et cetera.

  • And I found only one example in all of world history,

  • and this was in Ireland, 1970.

  • The bankers were angry that their wages were not keeping

  • up with inflation, so they said, "You know what, you'll have it.

  • We'll just stop working and then you'll see just how important

  • we are."

  • And at that point, all the experts, all the economists,

  • they all predicted this would be a heart attack

  • for the economy, right?

  • We really cannot do without these bankers.

  • The strike started and nothing much happened actually.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • The garbage collector strike was six days

  • and this strike was six months actually.

  • And then the bankers came back and said, "All right,

  • all right, all right."

  • [ Laughter ]

  • "We'll go back to work this year."

  • >> Who would have thought that bankers have bullshit jobs?

  • >> Who'd have thought, yeah?

  • [ Laughter ]

  • And I think what actually

  • in reality happened was even more interesting,

  • is that what the Irish did is they immediately invented their

  • own financial system.

  • So they started writing IOU's to each other you know,

  • on the backs of cigar boxes or on toilet paper or whatever.

  • >> This is the Irish.

  • >> Yeah, yeah.

  • And what's also important here were the pubs.

  • So there were 15,000 pubs at that time in Ireland.

  • And the owners of the pubs basically became the

  • new bankers.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> That's so harsh.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> There's one economist who later wrote that you know,

  • if you sell liquids to your clients,

  • then you probably also know something

  • about their liquidity, right?

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So that is what happened.

  • They invented a new financial system.

  • The economy just kept growing.

  • Businesses just kept operating.

  • It wasn't a huge deal.

  • And actually, when one journalist wrote

  • about this event, 20-30 years later, she said, "Well,

  • people don't remember much about it, probably because you know,

  • it didn't change much."

  • And that's probably why so many people have forgotten

  • about this, the one and only strike of bankers

  • in all of world history.

  • And I think it also shows that sure, I mean,

  • we need a financial sector or we need a money system.

  • The Irish immediately invented a new one.

  • But we can do without a lot of the bullshit

  • that is in the current one.

  • You know, all the speculation and stuff.

  • >> So if it makes as much imminent sense as you say

  • and so well articulate the idea of the basic universal income,

  • why hasn't it been more widely adopted?

  • >> I don't know.

  • As a historian, I don't believe in big historical laws

  • or reasons or whatever.

  • But if you really delve into the history of basic income

  • in the '70's, that you'll just be astonished

  • by the coincidences and that it could easily have gone the

  • other way.

  • What I think is fascinating is that if you look at these kind

  • of utopian ideas, crazy ideas you could say,

  • is that they always start on the fringes of society.

  • They always start with people who are dismissed

  • as unreasonable and unrealistic, et cetera.

  • And then they start to move towards the centre.

  • So if you look at the basic income debate, you know,

  • it started in the '60's and then at the end

  • of the '60's everyone thought it was going to be happening

  • at the beginning of the '70's.

  • Or Nixon said, "Sure, let's implement it."

  • And I think we can sort

  • of see history repeating itself right now.

  • I mean, just a few years ago, in 2013 when I first wrote

  • about basic income -- well, you should know that the Dutch word

  • for basic income is [Dutch word] which sort of means base salary.

  • And we only used it in one context back then,

  • as the base salary of the bankers.

  • So when I wrote about basic income, people thought,

  • "You want to have base salaries for bankers?

  • What are you talking about?"

  • And now, I mean just a few years later you see all these

  • experiments popping up

  • and actually sometimes even politicians are debating it.

  • But I think it also shows you

  • that it never begins with politicians.

  • It only ends there.

  • Just like it almost ended with Nixon,

  • but it will never start there.

  • >> Is it now gaining currency and a certain inevitability

  • because of the rapid pace of automation and the talk

  • of artificial intelligence,

  • meaning robots are going to take all our jobs?

  • You know, some of the predictions of 50-60%

  • of all jobs done now won't exist in sort of 20 or 30 years --

  • is that just going to necessitate this conversation

  • where we have to find a way to survive one way or another?

  • >> Well, again, as a historian, if you look at that debate,

  • that the robots are going to take all our jobs,

  • you sort of have the feeling like, "I heard this before."

  • And then you go back to the archives for the '60's

  • for example, or also

  • in the 1920's people were saying that as well.

  • This is a very old story.

  • So if you are a journalist right now working for, I don't know,

  • Wired or something like that, or a tech magazine,

  • I really recommend go to the archives, copy, paste,

  • publish again and you're done for the day.

  • So I think what we underestimated is

  • that capitalism has a quite extraordinary ability to come

  • up with new bullshit jobs, right?

  • This can go on for a very long time.

  • And that's really something

  • that people didn't predict in the '60's.

  • They thought, "You know, if the robots are going

  • to take all those jobs, which they did, you know,

  • then we'll just start living the good life

  • and boredom will be the great challenge of the future."

  • But they never thought that capitalism would be so adaptive.

  • And I mean now it's 30% or 40%, could be 60% in the future.

  • Could be 100%.

  • I mean, it's theoretically possible that we'll live

  • in a society where everyone is just pretending

  • to work while we're all in reality browsing Facebook.

  • I mean, many workplaces are already like that, right?

  • >> Exactly what I was thinking.

  • Yeah. Look, one of the other issues you raise

  • in the book is the concept of open borders,

  • which we've actually talked about on this stage before.

  • It's a radical concept and for most people,

  • especially the Parliament, they think chaos.

  • You only have to look to Germany they would say and what happened

  • with a million people flooding in.

  • >> Well, it's not chaos there.

  • I live quite close to Germany

  • and they're doing quite well actually.

  • >> It's certainly the story the politicians want to tell us.

  • >> Yeah, yeah.

  • You know, the idea of open borders

  • around the globe is definitely the most radical idea

  • in my book.

  • But it might also be the most important one.

  • Because I believe that Utopian thinking always starts

  • with thinking about what is wrong

  • with our current society or the current world.

  • It always starts with the injustices in the hear and now.

  • So a basic income is the answer to millions of people

  • in meaningless jobs, millions of people in poverty,

  • the idea of a 15-hour work-week is the answer to you know,

  • so many people that are completely stressed out

  • and have no time to devote to things

  • that they really care about.

  • And open borders is the answer

  • to probably the biggest injustice in all of the world,

  • is just the incredible inequality that still exists.

  • And meanwhile, we've got a mountain of evidence.

  • And I go over all that evidence in the chapter

  • about open borders that shows that so many of the things

  • that we have against immigration are simply factually incorrect.

  • So they're not lazy.

  • They don't take our jobs.

  • They actually create more jobs.

  • It's not true that they're all violent criminals,

  • et cetera, et cetera.

  • If you look at the actual data, it's simply not true.

  • So I felt I had to talk

  • about that most utopian of ideas as well.

  • >> What happens to the countries left behind?

  • So the countries that are not wealthy or prosperous

  • and in conflict and so on?

  • If everyone flees, what happens?

  • They just become failed states.

  • >> I think the evidence shows that home countries benefit

  • from immigration as well.

  • So if we look at something like the amount of money

  • that immigrants send back to their own country,

  • it's triple the amount of official development aid.

  • So that's pretty huge.

  • And if we have actually breathing borders,

  • so people are able to get into a different country

  • but also get back, then you know, almost everyone wants

  • to get back to their home country at some point.

  • There's some fascinating evidence about the border

  • between Mexico and the US here.

  • So in the 1970's and in the 1980's, hundreds of thousands

  • of Mexicans moved to the US,

  • and it was very easy to get to the US.

  • And about 80% of them moved back again,

  • because it was easy to get back as well.

  • Now, still hundreds of thousands of Mexicans go to the US,

  • but they don't go back anymore.

  • So that's what you do when you build walls.

  • People still come, but they don't go back anymore.

  • So they're very, very counterproductive.

  • So the same thing is happening in Europe right now.

  • The higher the walls, the more illegal immigrants you're going

  • to get.

  • >> Is there likely to be any political appetite

  • for open borders anytime soon?

  • >> I don't know.

  • I mean, I think that the real politicians are not in places

  • like Cambara or Washington or Westminster

  • or something like that.

  • I think that real politics with a capital P is

  • about changing the zeitgeist, right, talking about new ideas,

  • what we're trying to do here.

  • And if more and more people recognise

  • that the status quo is simply infeasible, you know,

  • that we need new ideas, which is I believe happening right now --

  • I mean, after 2016 with Trump and Brexit,

  • I mean it's obviously clear to so many people

  • that we can't go on like this.

  • So yeah, I always say that I'm not an optimist or a pessimist.

  • I'm a possiblist.

  • You know, I believe that things can be different.

  • But if we want it to be different, you know,

  • we've got to get up and do something, right?

  • >> With the issue of open borders,

  • just in a very pragmatic sort of logistic sense,

  • if everyone floods into a country at the same time,

  • how does the state cope?

  • Where do they sleep?

  • How are they fed if they haven't got any money?

  • What do they do?

  • >> Now don't get me wrong,

  • the idea of open borders is a utopian vision for the future.

  • I think that the road to utopia is always about a lot

  • of small steps that you can take in the direction.

  • Like taking a little bit more immigrants

  • and a little bit more, et cetera.

  • Experimenting along the way and seeing what you can manage.

  • I think that is what we should be striving for,

  • and maybe in the future, you know, in the year 2200

  • or 2300 we'll look back on our time and wonder about you know,

  • what a crazy, unjust system it was, that people were not free

  • to move wherever they wanted.

  • >> Underlying a lot of what you talk about as being utopia is

  • about trying to address inequality.

  • And I'm wondering what you thought

  • of the Occupy movement coming as it did

  • after the global financial crisis.

  • It seemed sort of very well-timed

  • to capture the international anger about inequality

  • and the mood would have seemed to have been right for change.

  • Did you think the Occupy movement was a bit

  • of a lost opportunity?

  • >> I think so, yes.

  • What I've always been really fascinated by is the huge role

  • that crises play in world history.

  • So if we look for example at the rise of neo-liberalism,

  • it's quite interesting that it all started at the end

  • of the 1940's with Milton Friedman the economist,

  • Fredrick von Haag the philosopher coming together

  • with a few other guys.

  • And they were very lonely back then.

  • They said, "You know, everyone is a socialist right now.

  • Everyone is a Keynesian right now.

  • But what we are going to do is we are going to try

  • to build a movement, develop ideas, you know,

  • start new institutions, think tanks, et cetera.

  • And there will be a time at some point in the future,

  • and it might take years and years, but there will be a time

  • when the current economic system or the current body

  • of it just breaks down."

  • And they were right.

  • I mean, in the '70's with stagflation and the oil crisis

  • and the inflation, et cetera, it was suddenly clear

  • that it was time for something new according

  • to many people at least.

  • And they really grabbed that opportunity

  • and they injected those new ideas, neo-liberal ideas

  • that they had been inventing and developing for so long

  • into the public debate.

  • So it wasn't Reagan or Thatcher

  • that started this revolution, you know?

  • They inherited these ideas from other people.

  • The problem with 2008 with the financial crash

  • and the Occupy movement was that there were no new ideas.

  • I mean, I think that is still the problem so often

  • with the left these days,

  • is that it only knows what it's against, right?

  • Against austerity, against the establishment,

  • against homophobia, against racism, against everything.

  • I mean, that was even a title of a book recently published

  • by a New York intellectual, Against Everything.

  • First chapter, Against Exercise.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • I'm against it all as well.

  • But you also have to be for something, right?

  • We need some vision of where we want to go

  • because that is what progress is always like.

  • It is always, as Oscar Wilde once wrote,

  • "The realisation of utopias."

  • So we need some vision of utopia.

  • >> So you mentioned in the book that back in the '70's,

  • this was trialled in Canada, the basic income.

  • >> Yeah. Yeah.

  • >> Talk us through that and why it was abandoned.

  • >> This experiment started in 1974 and it was

  • in Dothan, a small town there.

  • What they did is, well,

  • they basically eradicated poverty there.

  • So everyone that fell below the poverty line, his income

  • or her income was immediately topped up.

  • It was called the town with no poverty.

  • >> How many people in the town?

  • >> A few thousand.

  • So the amount of families

  • that received support was 1,000 families.

  • Now what happened is that for four years there were a lot

  • of economists and sociologists and anthropologists

  • who all descended on the town and did their research,

  • did interviews, collected data, et cetera.

  • Now, after those four years,

  • they wanted to start analysing the results.

  • But you know, it was 1978

  • and a new conservative government had come to power.

  • And they thought, "You know,

  • this is a really weird experiment.

  • What are you doing?

  • I mean, you're just giving free money to people and now you want

  • to analyse the results?

  • Well, we already know what the results are.

  • It was a disaster, I mean, obviously."

  • So there was no money left to analyse the results.

  • What they did is they put all the interviews, all the data,

  • they put it all in the archives, 2,000 boxes

  • and everyone forgot about it.

  • It was only 25 years later

  • that a Canadian professor Evelyn Forgier found the records,

  • did the analysis and discovered that it had been a huge success.

  • Healthcare costs went down.

  • Hospital admissions went down by 8.5% which is huge if you think

  • about just how much we're spending on healthcare

  • in developed countries these days.

  • Again, crime went down, performance better in school,

  • domestic violence went down.

  • And mental health complaints were down.

  • And you know, what people worry most about or often is

  • that you know, was everyone lazy?

  • No. Like total work hours declined by about 1%

  • and almost every time this was compensated

  • by people doing more volunteer work or going to school longer

  • or that kind of thing.

  • So this is one of the most thorough basic income

  • experiments that was ever done,

  • but we had forgotten about it for so long.

  • >> Why was it abandoned if presumably,

  • anecdotally at least, they knew it was working,

  • they would have felt that it was working?

  • >> I think it was really the zeitgeist

  • that was shifting back then.

  • So I mean, it was in the '70's

  • that obviously neo-liberalism took off, right?

  • And a conservative government came into power in 1978

  • which was already incredibly influenced by these ideas.

  • I mean, it was only a few years later that Reagan

  • and Thatcher took the stage.

  • So yeah, I think the basic income sort

  • of missed its opportunity to become real.

  • >> If you want to start making your way to the --

  • it's very hard for us to see over here,

  • but if you've got a question for Rutger,

  • just hop over to number one or number two over here

  • and I'll draw you into the conversation.

  • Go ahead.

  • >> Hi.

  • >> You're quick.

  • >> Hi, I'm Dani.

  • I'm actually part of the Basic Income Network.

  • >> Cool.

  • >> We're a global group that are trying

  • to promote basic income around the world.

  • And part of the challenge that I'm having in Australia

  • at the moment is that the conversation isn't being

  • taken seriously.

  • I think you saw the idea very much,

  • that a lot of people were nodding their heads.

  • So I think that's a really good sign.

  • But what's your advice for getting corporations,

  • getting politicians to actually start listening and to listen

  • to people like me and not think I'm just some leftist young

  • person who doesn't know what she's talking about?

  • >> What I've discovered in the past few years is

  • that it's really effective to use right-wing language

  • to defend progressive ideas.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • So what I'm saying all the time to these business leaders

  • or politicians, I'm saying,

  • "Well maybe you don't have a heart,

  • but at least you have a wallet, right?"

  • >> Yeah.

  • >> So it simply makes financial sense.

  • I think it's no coincidence that so many people

  • in Silicon Valley are now interested.

  • If we sort of point out that basic income is an investment

  • that in the long run pays for itself,

  • and in that sense it's literally free money,

  • that is probably much more convincing to people

  • on the other side of the political spectrum

  • than if you just keep on saying, "Oh,

  • the current system is so unfair.

  • And we need to pity these poor people, et cetera,

  • and it's immoral to let them live in poverty."

  • Which I think is true.

  • But it will only appeal to a certain part of the population

  • and we need to get bigger than that.

  • >> And when you're talking about the financial benefits

  • and it paying itself back, you're talking

  • about the lower health costs

  • and all the other things that accrue?

  • >> Exactly.

  • There was one study in the 1990's, actually sort

  • of a natural experiment.

  • What happened is that a casino opened in North Carolina

  • and it was operated by the eastern band of Cherokee Indians

  • and they were allowed to just distribute the earnings among

  • their members.

  • So suddenly thousands of people, many of them left in poverty,

  • received $8,000-9,000.

  • And there's an economist from UCLA, his name is Randal Aiki

  • who later calculated that the savings again

  • in lower health care costs, kids performing better in school,

  • lower crime rates, these savings were bigger

  • than the cash grants themselves.

  • Now just think about that.

  • That is really radical and really fascinating.

  • It has huge implications for what we should do about poverty

  • and about this whole debate.

  • Because normally the debate goes like this.

  • The left says, "We've got to help these poor people."

  • And then the right says, "Yeah, maybe, but it's too expensive."

  • End of debate, right?

  • But you can really flip it around if it's like,

  • "We've got to do this because it makes sense.

  • I mean, this is an investment.

  • It's just a good business decision."

  • >> Does it end up harmonising what everybody says?

  • So it in itself is more equalising?

  • >> That's a really great question.

  • And it's also one of the most overlooked effects

  • of a basic income.

  • So just imagine, if you are a garbage collector, a teacher

  • or a nurse and you suddenly receive a basic income,

  • well it is also a universal strike fund, right?

  • You can go on strike all the time.

  • So you'll have a lot more bargaining power

  • and your wage will probably have to go up.

  • Now if you are a banker or consultant or a lawyer

  • or whatever, and you go on strike,

  • well nothing much happens.

  • So you don't have extra bargaining power

  • and your wage will probably go down a little bit.

  • So if we implement the basic income,

  • in the long run wages will start reflecting the social value

  • of different jobs much more.

  • And we could move towards a society

  • where cleaners earn more than bankers.

  • And I'd like to live in that society actually.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Hi. I'd like to know where will the money come from?

  • Will it be like a tax of the multinationals?

  • And also, who are your staunchest critics

  • and how do you navigate them?

  • >> Okay, so this is obviously a very important part

  • of the whole basic income debate.

  • Like how are we going to finance it?

  • And I believe that the devil is really in the details.

  • So there are many, many ways to do it.

  • There are some forms of basic income out there

  • that I believe would be a disaster.

  • There are some neo-libertarians on the right who say,

  • "Let's just get rid of the whole welfare state.

  • You know, let's get rid of universal healthcare,

  • let's get rid of public education

  • and just give people one cash grant transfer and that's it."

  • That's not what I'm arguing for.

  • I think that basic income should be the crowning achievement

  • of capitalism, but also of social democracy.

  • It should really be implemented as a supplement

  • to universal healthcare and public education,

  • which are incredibly important achievements

  • of the 20th century.

  • Now I'd like to finance the basic income in a way

  • with taxes, so not just print out money, but with taxes

  • from the welfare state right now.

  • I'd like to fund it in a way that it will reduce inequality.

  • And well, there are probably different sources you'd need,

  • but the most obvious thing to start with is wealth.

  • Just if you look at the incredible inequality

  • that is growing around the world, you know,

  • in the western world as well, I mean everyone has heard

  • of Thomas Beckett, right?

  • We didn't actually read his book, but we know his argument.

  • That's probably the most logical lace to start.

  • But there are many versions out there.

  • So we should be wary of --

  • well, it sometimes happens that people say, "Oh,

  • everyone is in favour of basic income,"

  • but we're actually talking about different things.

  • So that's something to look out for.

  • >> And the second part of your question was,

  • who are your staunchest critics and how do you navigate them?

  • >> I think that like the biggest criticism that comes up time

  • and time again is that people basically say, "Well,

  • this all sounds very nice and well,

  • but you've just got a misguided view

  • of what humanity is really like."

  • That is something that people go back to all the time.

  • Like in the end, humans are just corrupt and we want

  • to be free riders and you know,

  • deep down we're just monsters or animals.

  • And civilisation is this very thin layer

  • and you're just being very naïve about all this.

  • What I think is that that vision

  • of human nature is very unrealistic and very naïve.

  • That is something that the evidence actually shows us.

  • But deep down or fundamentally,

  • the debate around basic income is a debate

  • around what we are really like.

  • Are we nice and creative?

  • Do we want to contribute to the common good?

  • You know, are we essentially social beings,

  • or are we all freeloaders, free riders that just are selfish

  • and want to get as much for ourselves.

  • That is the big debate that is behind basic income.

  • >> Thank you.

  • Yes?

  • >> Hi, Rutger.

  • Thank you for putting forth your thoughts this afternoon.

  • I'm a fan of the universal basic income as an initiative.

  • I've come across it and read a bit

  • on it the last couple of years.

  • I think it's important for it to be understood not

  • as a new concept but rather as something

  • that has been around for a while.

  • Maybe it's just gotten lost a bit in the last generation.

  • I guess my thoughts on it is that there seems to be a lot

  • of distrust from both sides of politics as to how it's

  • to be administered on a government level.

  • So I suppose my question is this:

  • how best can it be administered on a government level?

  • Yeah, that's basically my question.

  • >> What will probably not happen is

  • that a basic income will be implemented in one stroke.

  • We will probably get there gradually, you know,

  • one small step after another.

  • And there are many roads to utopia.

  • So one of the roads is the roads of experiments.

  • You know, just doing more of those experiments

  • and seeing what works along the way.

  • I mean, that's happening in Finland,

  • in Canada and in other places.

  • The other thing you could do is

  • to make our current welfare system more basic income-ish,

  • you know, to move it in that direction,

  • make it a bit more unconditional,

  • make it a big more universal.

  • Make it a bit more individual.

  • >> But the political problem with that --

  • pardon the interruption --

  • the political problem with that always is

  • that society generally doesn't want

  • to give wealthy people more money.

  • >> It just really depends on how you frame it.

  • So with a basic income, if you would finance it

  • with the welfare for example or with progressive taxation, sure,

  • the rich will receive a basic income, but they'll pay

  • for five basic incomes or ten basic incomes or whatever.

  • If we compare different countries now internationally,

  • it's actually the countries with the most universal systems

  • where for example also the middle class

  • or even the rich benefit from free childcare or whatever,

  • free public education, it is those countries

  • that are best at reducing poverty.

  • And the reason is very simple:

  • if everyone benefits it's just very difficult to get rid

  • of a certain policy or system.

  • The problem in the UK and the US is

  • that they are very targeted systems of welfare.

  • Then if a politician comes along and is looking for money,

  • you know, it's very easy to get rid of those policies

  • or that kind of very small, targeted welfare state.

  • And these people are not really able to defend themselves.

  • They'll lose a lot of votes when they do that.

  • Now if you have a very universal welfare state

  • like in northern Europe or in Australia as well,

  • especially when you look at universal healthcare,

  • it's nearly impossible to get rid of.

  • You know, in many countries, as a politician, if you really want

  • to touch universal healthcare,

  • I mean you're finished as a politician.

  • Now, we've got one state

  • that has implemented a small basic income.

  • That's Alaska.

  • They finance it with oil money and it's about $2,000 each year.

  • Now if as a politician in Alaska you want to touch that money,

  • which some politicians have tried,

  • it's the end of your career.

  • >> And that operates throughout Alaska?

  • >> Yeah. Yeah, so I believe if you've lived there

  • for a few years, you'll get it.

  • >> And does it cancel out other welfare payments?

  • >> No, no.

  • >> It's in addition to other specific welfare measures?

  • >> Yeah. And the framing is also again very different.

  • So a basic income is a right.

  • It's not a favour.

  • It's just something you deserve simply because you exist.

  • Now the language we use

  • around our current welfare system is really one

  • of conditionality.

  • Like only the deserving poor can get it and you really have

  • to prove time and time again that you're sick enough,

  • that you are depressed enough,

  • that you are really a hopeless case

  • that will never get anything done in your whole life.

  • And once you've proved that,

  • then you'll get a very small amount of money.

  • Now just imagine what that does to people.

  • If you've got to fill in thousands of forms

  • and interviews, et cetera,

  • where all the time you're basically talking yourself down,

  • well is it really surprising

  • that then people become depressed

  • and find it very hard to get a job, right?

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Hi, Rutger.

  • My name's Mark and as a bureaucrat

  • in a bullshit job I take a lot of offence at what you said.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • But as you know, the modern welfare state has indexation

  • regimes that keep the rate of payment in line

  • with things like inflation.

  • >> Yeah.

  • >> So what kind of indexation regime are you envisioning

  • for a universal basic income?

  • And if you give people that base level of income, won't the price

  • of products just rise in accordance with that level?

  • >> That's a good question.

  • So it really depends again on how you finance it.

  • If you just fund the basic income with printing a lot

  • of extra money, then you're obviously going

  • to get inflation in the long run.

  • Now there are some economists right now who say we should do

  • that because there's not a lot of demands in the economy.

  • And Milton Friedman called this helicopter money,

  • like just throwing money out of helicopters.

  • Other people call it quantitative easing

  • for the people.

  • Like we're now doing it only for the banks, but for everyone.

  • But obviously, in the long run, that's not a solution, right?

  • Because you'll get mass inflation.

  • So what we have to do is

  • to finance the basic income with taxes.

  • Now this means that the money supply,

  • the amount of money will just be the same.

  • But inflation is still a risk, but only if people will turn

  • out to be massively lazy.

  • Because then you'll have the same amount

  • of money chasing fewer products and services

  • and then you'll get inflation.

  • Now a big part of my book is obviously about showing

  • that that is simply not the case,

  • that actually it would probably make the labour market

  • more dynamic.

  • Now if inflation is locally for example still a problem,

  • then there are side policies you can use

  • like indexation, et cetera.

  • And we've got a lot of great researchers around the world

  • that try and answer the question, you know,

  • how much money do you need to live a proper life,

  • you know, without poverty?

  • And it differs from country to country.

  • But I always say the basic income has to be high enough

  • to get people out of poverty and just support the basic needs.

  • >> Okay, go on.

  • >> Thank you.

  • Did you want to ask a follow-up question?

  • >> Yeah. I mean, poverty is a relative concept.

  • There are five different measurements of poverty

  • that I know of off the top of my head.

  • It's like a relative concept you're talking about.

  • That it has to be set at the poverty level, I don't mean

  • to be offensive, but it's almost a meaningless statement.

  • >> To be honest, I get that remark a lot.

  • Like, "Oh, there will always be poverty there

  • because we've defined it in a relative way."

  • But I mean, if you live in poverty, even in a rich country,

  • you simply cannot participate on a proper level in society.

  • And there's not much relative about that.

  • And there's a lot of research out there that shows

  • that we can eradicate it, you know?

  • We can have a society in Australia or in Holland

  • where I'm from where everyone has the means

  • to make their own choices.

  • Where no one has to worry about being able to pay their rent

  • or feeding their children or whatever.

  • And every society should obviously have a discussion,

  • a democratic discussion

  • about what the definition of poverty is.

  • And sure, when we get richer,

  • then probably the poverty line will go up.

  • But that's what progress should look like, right?

  • >> Thanks, guys.

  • >> Yes?

  • >> Yeah, hi.

  • My question is about how do you see this working in countries

  • of different income levels?

  • So middle income, low income?

  • And how do you also see this as a possibility

  • of maybe changing how our economic power is concentrated?

  • >> Right now in India, there's a lot of interest in basic income.

  • Actually, on a high political level you could say

  • that they are ahead of other countries.

  • Why? Well the reason is very simple.

  • India has hundreds or maybe thousands

  • of anti-poverty programmes that are very ineffective.

  • I mean, there's a lot

  • of corruption, a lot of bureaucracy.

  • And the actual amount of money that reaches the people

  • that really need it is little compared to the amount of money

  • that is sent in the first place.

  • So it's probably true that basic income is a more promising idea

  • for the developing world than for the developed world.

  • It could really make a huge difference there.

  • And the thinking behind it is already making a

  • huge difference.

  • In the book I talk about an NGO called Give Directly.

  • Well the name says it all.

  • They just give money directly

  • to extremely poor people in Uganda or Kenya.

  • >> On a per capita basis rather than channelling it

  • through the government.

  • >> Exactly.

  • Exactly. Just $500 or $1,000 in huge cash amounts.

  • They're also doing the biggest basic income study

  • that has ever been done with 10,000 participants.

  • >> In Uganda.

  • >> Yeah, and in Kenya.

  • Really exciting.

  • And what's also very interesting about this organisation is

  • that in the first place,

  • technological breakthroughs have made this possible.

  • So what they can do is just give people a sim card

  • and transfer the money to it and that works very well.

  • That as simply not possible 30 years ago.

  • And the second place is

  • that they do incredibly thorough scientific research

  • on the charity that they do, which is a big exception

  • in the world of NGO's and charity NGO's.

  • And again, these randomised controlled trials time

  • and time find that it's just a really effective way.

  • I mean, it's pretty crazy if you think about it

  • that we are sending white people in SUV's

  • to incredibly poor countries, where if we just sell the SUV

  • and hand over their salaries, I mean it's going

  • to be a lot more effective.

  • But we are such incredible paternalists.

  • We always believe that we know what's best for the poor.

  • We know what's best for them -- well, we don't.

  • We really have no idea.

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> It's the same basic concept around micro financing

  • in developing countries.

  • >> Exactly.

  • >> That you give them a loan.

  • >> It's just that the cash transfers --

  • I mean, they come out as much more effective

  • in recent scientific research.

  • It's just much more -- yeah, if you look at the outcomes,

  • there's quite a lot of --

  • there's actually hundreds of studies right now,

  • especially in the global south, where NGO's

  • and governments have experimented

  • with just giving free cash.

  • Or sometimes with small conditions such as you've got

  • to have your kids vaccinated or send them to school.

  • But it's a very different kind

  • of welfare state than we are used to.

  • >> How long has Finland been doing it?

  • >> Oh, just since the 1st of January this year.

  • >> And how's that going?

  • Is it the whole country?

  • >> Still waiting for the results.

  • No, it's just an experiment with 2,000 participants.

  • But it's interesting to see what will happen.

  • >> Yes?

  • >> My name's Ava and I'm a well-known local stirrer.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> Indeed.

  • >> And I'm part of a group that's trying

  • to get the basic income going in Australia.

  • We are spending a large amount of money on the opposite

  • of a UBI at the moment, spending it particularly

  • on something called the cashless debit card.

  • Where we're persecuting the poor by taking away their cash.

  • I reckon that we need to ask our government, and I'm interested

  • in your viewpoint, to put some of that cash into an experiment

  • by giving the same indigenous groups,

  • mainly indigenous communities that have been put

  • onto a highly conditional card where they have no control

  • over their cash, or only 20% of it,

  • maybe 50 in the Northern Territory.

  • To actually experiment and give the same people a two-

  • to three-year break on an unconditional card.

  • Because I think given the evidence you've put up here,

  • it would provide evidence for a country

  • which is extremely means-test oriented

  • and extraordinarily paternalistic,

  • that we could actually show that that particular way

  • of paying money is much more productive.

  • What do you think?

  • >> Well, I completely agree with you.

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> There's a whole story in the paper today

  • where the minister's come out delightedly saying, "It works.

  • I've been going through the data."

  • And I used to teach research methods and he's wrong.

  • It doesn't work.

  • His data is all wrong.

  • >> Well, there's one small problem

  • that I've encountered a few times, is that you know,

  • when you talk about experiments, you really have

  • to be a barbarian to be against experiments, right?

  • We've always got to try new stuff

  • and see what works and what doesn't.

  • I mean, every big company is doing experiments all the time,

  • but somehow governments are not experimenting.

  • But that's what you should do.

  • I mean, that's the way you learn new things.

  • Now what I've had a few times -- I actually had a conversation

  • with a conservative politician a few months ago in Holland.

  • And he said, "Yeah, experiments are interesting,

  • et cetera, et cetera.

  • But the problem is that it might work."

  • [ Laughter ]

  • >> I think that's what they're scared of here.

  • That's probably right.

  • >> That seems to be what you're actually seeing right now.

  • So that is I think what some politicians are afraid

  • of with the basic income experiments.

  • They are really afraid that it might work very, very well.

  • >> Thank you.

  • >> Why would they be scared of that?

  • >> Well, then their whole ideology would crumble, right?

  • You'd have to revolutionise the welfare state.

  • So that is something that people don't like changing their minds.

  • That's something that we find very hard as individuals.

  • And that's also why these crises play such a big role

  • in world history, because these are moments

  • where everything breaks down

  • and no one knows what's true anymore.

  • And that's the moments that things change.

  • >> And some good opportunity for things to change.

  • >> Exactly.

  • >> Thank you, Ava.

  • >> Thank you.

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Hi, Rutger.

  • Just getting back to financing again,

  • you touched on automation previously,

  • so given the possibility

  • that we'll have perhaps nearly all human labour wiped

  • out by robots in the long-term,

  • and given that in the tech industries, you know,

  • generally the activity is dominated by single players --

  • Facebook, Google, Amazon.

  • Do you see the possibility

  • that half a dozen companies could be controlling the bulk

  • of the world economy?

  • And how are we going to get the money off them?

  • Do we socialise at all?

  • Do we tax them 90%?

  • What do we do?

  • >> Well, you know, I gave a talk

  • at Google X a few months ago while I was

  • on a book tour in the US.

  • And it was quite shocking actually.

  • Someone said to me, "You know,

  • basic income, that's a great idea."

  • Alphabet could finance that, you know,

  • the parent company of Google.

  • "We could give about $100 to everyone

  • in California, no problem.

  • We'll get basic income."

  • And I thought, well,

  • maybe Google should start paying taxes first.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • That would be a great start, right?

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Did you say that to them?

  • >> Yeah, it was sort of laughing it off.

  • Like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."

  • [ Laughter ]

  • They thought it was very unrealistic of me to assume.

  • >> To assume that they should pay taxes.

  • >> Yeah, or that they ever will.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • But yeah, I completely agree with you that one

  • of the great challenges of our time is that there is

  • so much power now concentrating in a very small number

  • of these huge companies.

  • And yeah, that is a challenge we've seen before

  • in the 19th century and we came up with solutions back then.

  • We broke up some of those countries.

  • Some of them were even nationalised

  • or taxed very heavily.

  • I mean, there is lots of stuff you can do about that.

  • But it's obviously that democracies will be threatened

  • if you don't do something about that kind of power accumulating.

  • >> To ask a follow up, so if we're talking about these kind

  • of measures, at the moment these players are relatively --

  • you know, they're relatively small compared

  • to what they will be in the future.

  • Therefore, they're not the same vested interest today

  • that they would be when you actually needed

  • to have these measures in.

  • Do you think these measures need

  • to be implemented sooner rather than later?

  • >> Oh, we should have done it 40 years ago.

  • I mean, some people say we need basic income

  • as an insurance policy for the rise of the rowboats.

  • We've already got the evidence.

  • We've got the means.

  • We can't waste much time on this, I believe.

  • I mean, there are now millions

  • of people withering away in poverty.

  • We are now wasting a huge amount of talent

  • of people doing completely useless jobs.

  • That is going on right now.

  • So this is not just some abstract future I'm

  • talking about.

  • It is a very practical idea that we can do tomorrow.

  • It's actually probably the least radical idea in my book.

  • I mean, really rethinking work or open borders,

  • much more radical and utopian.

  • >> I'm so sorry, everyone, we are out of time.

  • I need to wrap up the session.

  • But you can continue chatting to Rutger

  • when he signs your books out there.

  • Do continue the conversation.

  • But for now, please join me in thanking Rutger Bregman.

  • [ Applause ]

[ Applause ]

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it