Good evening
Good evening
for starters I will ask you to
leave with me on a trip in the
time and space
we will make a small return of 80
years back and we’ll go to
cambridge in england and we will enter
in the office at King’s College of
the economist john maynard keynes and if
you do a quick calculation
you see that it takes us to the
30s
and you think about the problems that are
pose at the time this is the big
crisis it’s depression in
practically any country
western and kate thinks he
think and ask the question
next question is the following question
is what we can get from May to
to put everyone in agreement is this
that we can really tried basic is
a safe society the consensus where we
would make decisions only to
unanimously and that everyone is
agree on everything and then say no this
is not possible
you know why tastes and
colors there are temperaments
different and people who are more
here at most open more firm etc and
has said no it’s not possible
but what could we do
are we could not think
in the other direction in the other direction
could we not think
or that there are people who are very
unhappy who has a lot of people who
have this resentment vis-à-vis the
system as it is organized and not
for no reason because there is
a lot of inequalities to things
who are they right are we
could not think in the other
meaning and wonder if we could
not minimized in a society the
number of people who are hurting eyes
unhappy downplaying their feelings and feelings
adie satisfaction satisfaction in
a population and said yes that
it’s possible that’s a lot more
feasible than to put everyone
agree on everything he thinks about this
moment there it is said that what is
could in a society like the
ours to get these results from
misfortune fell to his at his minimum and
as part of the depression the
answer would come easily it’s
full employment full employment
we need to mobilize
all resources for the full
job he says it at the time
it’s not the economical solution
optimal but he says to the problems that
we are told that these are problems
economic
the answer is not necessarily
economic it must be political at
meaning of the political word ie the
police the society in which we
live
organize the society that is around
we then if we wanted to solve the
difficulties in our society we
could pick up the keynes solution
and say we’ll try to reorganize to
new full employment
but there is a difficulty there is
by the way he had planned himself
in an article many instructions
now I believe an article from the beginning
of the 30s structural unemployment
there will be more and more people
that will be replaced in their
work by a machine
and this machine is not
necessarily that’s a robot that can
to be software
it can be an algorithm command
the stenodactylo and have disappeared
entirely have not been replaced
by a robot they have been replaced
by the text treatments a lot of
accountant who was doing calculations on
ten on pieces of paper with a
pencil with a slide rule and they
have disappeared they replaced by the by
the spreadsheet there are plenty of trades that
are disappearing the job
disappears in a massive way or
would see his studies talk a lot
who tell us that in the 2030 horizon
30% of jobs in this sector
gone yesterday a study that came out there
few days ago and who tells us that
the horizon of saab 200 years on the horizon
hundred years old no one will be
needed in a job and when one
think about it is something we
we wanted we wanted you
I was a kid in the 50s
50s we were talking about the year 2000
and the year 2000 is a vision
extraordinary it was splendid in
the year 2000 would be replaced by
machines and we had all we would spend
much more time at activities
creative will know all this museum
when I get everything from an instrument
would go for a walk in the nature
with our children
then with our grandchildren on
replacement by the machine and took place
he is in the process of being
but we had forgotten something in the
50’s is that the person who has
replaced in his work
and well do not get money for
to do it on the contrary we do not occupy it
more and more blizz and in our
society where less and less
jobs
people will be more and more
feel guilty and if people who had
another job is to defend
their positions will become more and
weaker because there will be too much
competition
a study shows us when when we
replace on when we introduce a robot
for a thousand in the population there are
four five jobs that disappear
but even worse the salaries of all the
world drop of one percent
why because the competition
increases between those who stay and who
are fighting for jobs so if the
full employment is no longer a possibility
for us as the thing to which
we can dream
what else than what can we
replace because I started to
think a little bit about that and for
me things are nice rent
I am quickly asked to do
lectures I’m thinking about money from
from time to time in the day because
they ask me because there are
bills to settle et cetera and I look
on my bank account and then I can
settle the sums and it’s great
but there is a time in my life in
did there have been several eras in my
gibout talented people I had alone
interested actually nobody was
enough people and there I thought about it
moment there I thought about money
maybe once a minute in the
day because I was asked to
money with four dependent children
and I did not have the money but when I
say once a minute it was
maybe once every 30
seconds
and if you know this situation if
you went through there if you
may not even be in this
situation today you know what
it’s that kind of reflection of
think too much not money it destroys
families destroy families and
it makes young children cry
in a way that we have trouble
stop then I was thinking about that and the
next morning when I got
awake
I had my answer to the question that
to think about the place of full employment of
keynes today a world without money
the nightmare on the left mark
would disappear entirely for
maybe not all of us have
may be lucky but for
many of us a nightmare
would disappear overnight
then we will be told the yes but good
you dream utopia and so on
not rich enough to do that one is
not rich enough to do that
know this figure it is oxfam who the
circulates today in the world
yes nobody in terms of wealth of
heritage the equivalent of half
of humanity
3 7 billion people yes nobody
on one side 3.7 billion you know this
it’s 3 7 me at the first time
that I make a presentation I got
deceived
3 this time a thousand times a thousand times thousand
three times I admit a thousand so much
the figure is huge
yes people who have the same
resources that half of humanity
the amanita and humanity the marrow at the
poorer of course
josemi that because I’m going to read it on
will read it together the greatest good
that she the first object of society
it is to maintain the rights
imprescriptible of the man
what is the first of these rights that
to exist
the first social law and therefore the one
which guarantees all members of the
society the means to exist all
the others are subordinate to that
there the food needed by him
man are as sacred as life
itself all that is indispensable
to preserve it is a property
common to the whole society
there is only the surplus that is a
individual property and that is
abandoned to the industry
traders what is the problem at
solve in terms of legislation
on the subsistence
here it is to assure all members of
the society the enjoyment of the portion
fruits of the earth that is
necessary for their existence to
owners and growers the
their industry and delivered on
superfluous to the freedom of trade I
defies the most scrupulous defense of
the property to challenge these
principles unless declaring
openly that he means by this word the
right to rob and murder his
similar
the problem the legislation of the
supplies
good this puts us in the ear
it’s not now we’re not talking like
what is it that speaks who officiates at
talk like that that’s what made
this speech well it’s a certain
maximilien robespierre to some
maximilien robespierre is a word that
scared one says bloodthirsty that makes
etc.
it’s a word it’s a name we do not
not sure what ‘s the right thing
think
nowadays it may be necessary
put a little bit in
the atmosphere all the same time he said
that the foreign troops had
invaded France by the north and by
parent leaves the civil war
you know it reigning within the
France at different places
everyone did not agree with
the idea of the revolution then
what did he propose
he was naive one must read it was
there a naive he proposed that all the
world devotees to virtue and he saw
unfortunately everyone
could not indulge in virtue and he
imposed
effect terror and he died with the
crowd shouting there we see there the
convention moreau draws withdrawing but
I would still like another one
thing about robespierre you
remember as it was called it was
called the incorruptible but then if a
sublime and newspapers if you listen
the radio is watching television
these days you’ll see it’s a
term that we really have trouble
apply nowadays to a lot of
people and I do not feel
that even in history we wanted
apply this term to a lot of
people then you have to think about it
robespierre he talked about that the
first his rights is that of existing
it seems to me an absolutely
indispensable and you understood him this
what he proposed was what about
the indispensable the indispensable either
free
the rest the superfluous what besides
can leave it with in the hands of the
Trade
so when we talk about free it’s
not something that gives us jobs
we never heard about it ago
a time when education
the instruction was free on
that was normal when
to introduce it we found it great
and then we lost the idea a tiny
little there is a time not so far
we call that glorious thirty where
health and is free well then we
could start by returning the
free on these things there on
the indispensable what allows people
to live
so we ask ourselves the question because he
is really possible to pay for
what free of charge what do you
find your resources that we
would pay for his retirement
more free and indispensable and
that’s where he must return the
reflection on full employment the
nobody the person who was replacing
in a job does not benefit by a
machine be it software that this
either digital computing that
has no importance
the person who is replaced
today by the process of
automation where mechanization does not
not benefit there was a
philosopher in the Swiss at the beginning of the 19th
century when the 1810s
was called sismondi sismondi y
thought about the time when he said
the elected one says it is and the workers who
were replaced by machines and
who was going to destroy the machines
why because there is profit
benefited not from having been
replaced and 6 world says the thing
following he said the mechanization
it’s a benefit for humanity
the whole thing it is necessary that these
benefits are shared and in
particular that the one who is replaced
by the machine profits from an annuity
about the wealth that will be created
now from this machine
so this idea I resurrect them
in 2012
it was in one of his chronicles that
I do for the newspaper the world ago
a candidate in the elections
you know maybe he
is called benoît hamon who has
taken back this is my idea of the tax dresses
or it’s called the roubaud tax because
that’s because it’s easier
to say the tax on mechanization me
I call it called at the beginning when I
introduces the idea of the seismondi tax
so this tax she allows me she
will in my opinion start with
to make the instruction again
free because you know that
instruction when it is not
education when it is not
Free
resume product simply from
generation the
privileges of some and the
difficulties of others we can come back
to free health and then we
can continue we can continue when
was when we think at the local level
local transport
well there is no reason we
can count for that no I was I
had a lecture the other day
will live in glazed and transport in
common opens up are free and then we
can think about housing or housing
elementary not palaces for everything
the world of course we could think
to extend the check system
meal that helps to have the
basic food is not about going
buy ortolans from whiskey with that
United States food stamps food
stamm that hosts ie
sludge to help coupons that you
allow to buy food and
to drink elementary things part of the
whiskey as I just said
15% of the population enjoys its
the free is an idea that we
is actually known we can put it back into
square
we can do that the dividends that this
than what wealth created by the
machines do not just go
to feed the dividends to be distributed
to shareholders
or so these extraordinary amounts that
you can see every day such
corporate boss receives a bonus of
10 million but the journalist you
10.7 million was more correct than these
are we are absolutely
Pharaonic is quite obscene
you should never accept that yes
nobody cost three billion
recipes from each other the question is
not that we are not rich enough
the question is the distribution the
redistribution of the wealth that creates
and not just by a problem by
a classic type of taxation we are going
can take to others to give to
other
the machine the mechanization we have
wanted this we wanted the robots
we wanted the software not
individually but from our culture
our civilization wanted it must
everyone benefits and tomorrow
morning I’ll wake up maybe this
may not be exactly the same
in the coming days and I am
wake up and I would say
chmar is over the money is gone
there is no more money
little children will not cry anymore
because their parents are not arguing
that there’s not enough money to
house this paradise in which we image
the one we often imagine in ourselves
saying you have to put it somewhere else and
much later in another world we
can realize it here thanks
[Applause]
Good evening
for starters I will ask you to
leave with me on a trip in the
time and space
we will make a small return of 80
years back and we’ll go to
cambridge in england and we will enter
in the office at King’s College of
the economist john maynard keynes and if
you do a quick calculation
you see that it takes us to the
30s
and you think about the problems that are
pose at the time this is the big
crisis it’s depression in
practically any country
western and kate thinks he
think and ask the question
next question is the following question
is what we can get from May to
to put everyone in agreement is this
that we can really tried basic is
a safe society the consensus where we
would make decisions only to
unanimously and that everyone is
agree on everything and then say no this
is not possible
you know why tastes and
colors there are temperaments
different and people who are more
here at most open more firm etc and
has said no it’s not possible
but what could we do
are we could not think
in the other direction in the other direction
could we not think
or that there are people who are very
unhappy who has a lot of people who
have this resentment vis-à-vis the
system as it is organized and not
for no reason because there is
a lot of inequalities to things
who are they right are we
could not think in the other
meaning and wonder if we could
not minimized in a society the
number of people who are hurting eyes
unhappy downplaying their feelings and feelings
adie satisfaction satisfaction in
a population and said yes that
it’s possible that’s a lot more
feasible than to put everyone
agree on everything he thinks about this
moment there it is said that what is
could in a society like the
ours to get these results from
misfortune fell to his at his minimum and
as part of the depression the
answer would come easily it’s
full employment full employment
we need to mobilize
all resources for the full
job he says it at the time
it’s not the economical solution
optimal but he says to the problems that
we are told that these are problems
economic
the answer is not necessarily
economic it must be political at
meaning of the political word ie the
police the society in which we
live
organize the society that is around
we then if we wanted to solve the
difficulties in our society we
could pick up the keynes solution
and say we’ll try to reorganize to
new full employment
but there is a difficulty there is
by the way he had planned himself
in an article many instructions
now I believe an article from the beginning
of the 30s structural unemployment
there will be more and more people
that will be replaced in their
work by a machine
and this machine is not
necessarily that’s a robot that can
to be software
it can be an algorithm command
the stenodactylo and have disappeared
entirely have not been replaced
by a robot they have been replaced
by the text treatments a lot of
accountant who was doing calculations on
ten on pieces of paper with a
pencil with a slide rule and they
have disappeared they replaced by the by
the spreadsheet there are plenty of trades that
are disappearing the job
disappears in a massive way or
would see his studies talk a lot
who tell us that in the 2030 horizon
30% of jobs in this sector
gone yesterday a study that came out there
few days ago and who tells us that
the horizon of saab 200 years on the horizon
hundred years old no one will be
needed in a job and when one
think about it is something we
we wanted we wanted you
I was a kid in the 50s
50s we were talking about the year 2000
and the year 2000 is a vision
extraordinary it was splendid in
the year 2000 would be replaced by
machines and we had all we would spend
much more time at activities
creative will know all this museum
when I get everything from an instrument
would go for a walk in the nature
with our children
then with our grandchildren on
replacement by the machine and took place
he is in the process of being
but we had forgotten something in the
50’s is that the person who has
replaced in his work
and well do not get money for
to do it on the contrary we do not occupy it
more and more blizz and in our
society where less and less
jobs
people will be more and more
feel guilty and if people who had
another job is to defend
their positions will become more and
weaker because there will be too much
competition
a study shows us when when we
replace on when we introduce a robot
for a thousand in the population there are
four five jobs that disappear
but even worse the salaries of all the
world drop of one percent
why because the competition
increases between those who stay and who
are fighting for jobs so if the
full employment is no longer a possibility
for us as the thing to which
we can dream
what else than what can we
replace because I started to
think a little bit about that and for
me things are nice rent
I am quickly asked to do
lectures I’m thinking about money from
from time to time in the day because
they ask me because there are
bills to settle et cetera and I look
on my bank account and then I can
settle the sums and it’s great
but there is a time in my life in
did there have been several eras in my
gibout talented people I had alone
interested actually nobody was
enough people and there I thought about it
moment there I thought about money
maybe once a minute in the
day because I was asked to
money with four dependent children
and I did not have the money but when I
say once a minute it was
maybe once every 30
seconds
and if you know this situation if
you went through there if you
may not even be in this
situation today you know what
it’s that kind of reflection of
think too much not money it destroys
families destroy families and
it makes young children cry
in a way that we have trouble
stop then I was thinking about that and the
next morning when I got
awake
I had my answer to the question that
to think about the place of full employment of
keynes today a world without money
the nightmare on the left mark
would disappear entirely for
maybe not all of us have
may be lucky but for
many of us a nightmare
would disappear overnight
then we will be told the yes but good
you dream utopia and so on
not rich enough to do that one is
not rich enough to do that
know this figure it is oxfam who the
circulates today in the world
yes nobody in terms of wealth of
heritage the equivalent of half
of humanity
3 7 billion people yes nobody
on one side 3.7 billion you know this
it’s 3 7 me at the first time
that I make a presentation I got
deceived
3 this time a thousand times a thousand times thousand
three times I admit a thousand so much
the figure is huge
yes people who have the same
resources that half of humanity
the amanita and humanity the marrow at the
poorer of course
josemi that because I’m going to read it on
will read it together the greatest good
that she the first object of society
it is to maintain the rights
imprescriptible of the man
what is the first of these rights that
to exist
the first social law and therefore the one
which guarantees all members of the
society the means to exist all
the others are subordinate to that
there the food needed by him
man are as sacred as life
itself all that is indispensable
to preserve it is a property
common to the whole society
there is only the surplus that is a
individual property and that is
abandoned to the industry
traders what is the problem at
solve in terms of legislation
on the subsistence
here it is to assure all members of
the society the enjoyment of the portion
fruits of the earth that is
necessary for their existence to
owners and growers the
their industry and delivered on
superfluous to the freedom of trade I
defies the most scrupulous defense of
the property to challenge these
principles unless declaring
openly that he means by this word the
right to rob and murder his
similar
the problem the legislation of the
supplies
good this puts us in the ear
it’s not now we’re not talking like
what is it that speaks who officiates at
talk like that that’s what made
this speech well it’s a certain
maximilien robespierre to some
maximilien robespierre is a word that
scared one says bloodthirsty that makes
etc.
it’s a word it’s a name we do not
not sure what ‘s the right thing
think
nowadays it may be necessary
put a little bit in
the atmosphere all the same time he said
that the foreign troops had
invaded France by the north and by
parent leaves the civil war
you know it reigning within the
France at different places
everyone did not agree with
the idea of the revolution then
what did he propose
he was naive one must read it was
there a naive he proposed that all the
world devotees to virtue and he saw
unfortunately everyone
could not indulge in virtue and he
imposed
effect terror and he died with the
crowd shouting there we see there the
convention moreau draws withdrawing but
I would still like another one
thing about robespierre you
remember as it was called it was
called the incorruptible but then if a
sublime and newspapers if you listen
the radio is watching television
these days you’ll see it’s a
term that we really have trouble
apply nowadays to a lot of
people and I do not feel
that even in history we wanted
apply this term to a lot of
people then you have to think about it
robespierre he talked about that the
first his rights is that of existing
it seems to me an absolutely
indispensable and you understood him this
what he proposed was what about
the indispensable the indispensable either
free
the rest the superfluous what besides
can leave it with in the hands of the
Trade
so when we talk about free it’s
not something that gives us jobs
we never heard about it ago
a time when education
the instruction was free on
that was normal when
to introduce it we found it great
and then we lost the idea a tiny
little there is a time not so far
we call that glorious thirty where
health and is free well then we
could start by returning the
free on these things there on
the indispensable what allows people
to live
so we ask ourselves the question because he
is really possible to pay for
what free of charge what do you
find your resources that we
would pay for his retirement
more free and indispensable and
that’s where he must return the
reflection on full employment the
nobody the person who was replacing
in a job does not benefit by a
machine be it software that this
either digital computing that
has no importance
the person who is replaced
today by the process of
automation where mechanization does not
not benefit there was a
philosopher in the Swiss at the beginning of the 19th
century when the 1810s
was called sismondi sismondi y
thought about the time when he said
the elected one says it is and the workers who
were replaced by machines and
who was going to destroy the machines
why because there is profit
benefited not from having been
replaced and 6 world says the thing
following he said the mechanization
it’s a benefit for humanity
the whole thing it is necessary that these
benefits are shared and in
particular that the one who is replaced
by the machine profits from an annuity
about the wealth that will be created
now from this machine
so this idea I resurrect them
in 2012
it was in one of his chronicles that
I do for the newspaper the world ago
a candidate in the elections
you know maybe he
is called benoît hamon who has
taken back this is my idea of the tax dresses
or it’s called the roubaud tax because
that’s because it’s easier
to say the tax on mechanization me
I call it called at the beginning when I
introduces the idea of the seismondi tax
so this tax she allows me she
will in my opinion start with
to make the instruction again
free because you know that
instruction when it is not
education when it is not
Free
resume product simply from
generation the
privileges of some and the
difficulties of others we can come back
to free health and then we
can continue we can continue when
was when we think at the local level
local transport
well there is no reason we
can count for that no I was I
had a lecture the other day
will live in glazed and transport in
common opens up are free and then we
can think about housing or housing
elementary not palaces for everything
the world of course we could think
to extend the check system
meal that helps to have the
basic food is not about going
buy ortolans from whiskey with that
United States food stamps food
stamm that hosts ie
sludge to help coupons that you
allow to buy food and
to drink elementary things part of the
whiskey as I just said
15% of the population enjoys its
the free is an idea that we
is actually known we can put it back into
square
we can do that the dividends that this
than what wealth created by the
machines do not just go
to feed the dividends to be distributed
to shareholders
or so these extraordinary amounts that
you can see every day such
corporate boss receives a bonus of
10 million but the journalist you
10.7 million was more correct than these
are we are absolutely
Pharaonic is quite obscene
you should never accept that yes
nobody cost three billion
recipes from each other the question is
not that we are not rich enough
the question is the distribution the
redistribution of the wealth that creates
and not just by a problem by
a classic type of taxation we are going
can take to others to give to
other
the machine the mechanization we have
wanted this we wanted the robots
we wanted the software not
individually but from our culture
our civilization wanted it must
everyone benefits and tomorrow
morning I’ll wake up maybe this
may not be exactly the same
in the coming days and I am
wake up and I would say
chmar is over the money is gone
there is no more money
little children will not cry anymore
because their parents are not arguing
that there’s not enough money to
house this paradise in which we image
the one we often imagine in ourselves
saying you have to put it somewhere else and
much later in another world we
can realize it here thanks
[Applause]
Please follow and like us: