Zeitgeist

Flamed Diving

Just watching the latter half of the addendum there. Why do they support a proposition that this style of society (class stratification, greed, the powerful attempting to maintain status quo, etc) stems from capitalism/monetarism?

Are we to believe that these characteristics didn't exist prior to Adam Smith?

Prior to the existence of money?

Isn't this the way things have always been, once our societies grew bigger than a couple of thousand people?

Thoughts?

King Mob

Trust me, that film has a lot more problems than that.

Mainly the whole film is a giant non sequiter.

Flamed Diving

King Mob wrote: »

Trust me, that film has a lot more problems than that.

Mainly the whole film is a giant non sequiter.

I know that, particularly the economics element of it. But that can be hard for people to get who don't have some formal qualifications in the field (im not being high and mighty by saying that, its just a fact). But anyone should be able to pitch in a discussion with the questions I just posed.

Isn't this just some long-run phenomenon as opposed to being a symptom of The Fed, et al, itself?

Flamed Diving

I must say, I do agree with the technology element of it. It does have the potential to create a infinitely better world, and unfortunately it is being held back by corporate interests. Finally, one thing I can agree with in this movie!

EDIT: Moving on, I find the argument regarding incentives incredibly weak, and they seem to sidestep it entirely. Why wasn't more time dedicated to this?

Also, this Venus Project sounds very... communism-y to me. Haven't we heard all this before, some 150 years ago? Didn't the problems of incentives arise back then, via the lack of a price system?

Mahatma coat

I'd agree aboutr the venus project, didnt seem to be a very well thought out solution, there are better alternatives tho, the transition town model being one of my current contenders as best alternative to what we have now

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd agree aboutr the venus project, didnt seem to be a very well thought out solution, there are better alternatives tho, the transition town model being one of my current contenders as best alternative to what we have now

What is transition town?

Mahatma coat

www.transitiontowns.org

still a bit wishywashy but better than the Venus project, basicly its about local solutions to a global problem.

Time Magazine

I prefer the concept of the Pigou Club.

A simple solution to a global problem.

Monsoon26

Saw the movie a few weeks back, thought it was very good. Some of the alternative energy stuff was interesting, wave power and geothermal etc

Nick_oliveri

Surprisingly, there is a great thread over @ randi about this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125650

And if anyone wants to speak to "Peter"
Heres an email addy:comments@zeitgeistmovie.com

He replied to me, even though my context was way out in my original email.

Hello,

the money multiplier is exactly what i am speaking of and the 9x is a possibly...
it doesnt mean every deposit is expanded to that amount.

In any case, it is still pure inflation and a fraud.

There is NOTHING in part 1 of Addendum that isnt 100% factual.

See the book "web of debt" by ellen brown for more info.

These bloggers are not seeing the point of the argument made and they are building straw-men.

Peter

Flamed Diving

I sent him an email, here is what I said:

Hi, I have been quoted this email response in a debate I am having with someone, apparently it is from you, I apologise if this is not the case. Find below the said email:

Hello,

the money multiplier is exactly what i am speaking of and the 9x is a possibly...
it doesnt mean every deposit is expanded to that amount.

In any case, it is still pure inflation and a fraud.

There is NOTHING in part 1 of Addendum that isnt 100% factual.

See the book "web of debt" by ellen brown for more info.

These bloggers are not seeing the point of the argument made and they are building straw-men.

Peter

I'm not sure what he said in the email he sent, but I guess he is referring to a point I made. I think that it is quite misleading that you make use of the money multiplier model without revealing the number of restrictive axioms that exist in the mathematical model for it to be 'proven'. I will spare you the details of these axioms, as I am sure you know what they are. Of course, simplified mathematical models cannot be used as a mirror image of what is happening in reality, for they are a mere guide in helping the understanding of a system itself. Therefore, to say that 9bn becomes 90bn (i think that was the assertion) through the MM, in reality, simply because the model says so is highly misleading, to say the least. You state in the above email that it is possible for this to happen, well of course it is possible, but it is incredibly unlikely that ALL of the axioms in the mathematical model would be satisfied over a given period of time, in reality. It would be a probability so low, that it would be as close to impossible as you get without saying it is.

I have no problem with your interpretation of the monetary system (though I disagree with it), it is simply an extension of The Von Mises Institute's core beliefs (which I also disagree with), adapted for a layman audience with a conspiracy twist thrown in, for good measure. But to state that something is 100% factual, displays an ignorance of what scientific investigation is all about. We know that there are no 100% facts in anything, except mathematical models, which I have already stated are not reality. This is something that I believe you have trouble grasping, and I might suggest that you read the works of Karl Popper for a guide on how to disconnect a mathematical abstraction from empirical 'reality'. There is no 'straw-man' in this argument, I see the point in the argument you made, I just think you are concealing vital information from your viewers, simply because it would dilute the impact of your argument. That is the point of my argument.

Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nick_oliveri

I wouldnt put in what i originally posted in the email because it was all over the place. It was either yourself or the Economists post i was quoting though. I hope he doesnt get pissy for me posting that here. (peter not the Economist)

Flamed Diving

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I wouldnt put in what i originally posted in the email because it was all over the place. It was either yourself or the Economists post i was quoting though. I hope he doesnt get pissy for me posting that here. (peter not the Economist)

Its not like you know the guy, is it?

:pac:

Kama

Why do they support a proposition that this style of society (class stratification, greed, the powerful attempting to maintain status quo, etc) stems from capitalism/monetarism?

Are we to believe that these characteristics didn't exist prior to Adam Smith?

Prior to the existence of money?

Heh, my 2c on that its easier to throw some blame at someone than construct a workable solution; mind you, tis not just CT is guilty here, libertarians do it with the state, Marxists do it with capitalism, FemiNazis do it with men, chemists do it periodically on tables and so forth.

As a first approximation, when someone says all evil comes from X, you can usually assume its a partial explanation at best. People tend to run with the ball and throw stones heehee...We also seem to likely 'complete' stories rather than a messy melange that may be closer to actuality...So dimestore Mises + Masons + Holographic Alien Lizards + Freke and Gandy Gnosticism > 'boring', uncertain, messy reality, or spreads better memetically anyway. Challenge there would be to make something with the accessibility of Zeitgeist that was less....tendentious.

Twas what liked with TT, its pretty pragmatic stuff, and they actually implement something, which is +9 in my books. That and I have a (presumably misguided) faith in community resilience and Open Space organization.

Agree with Economist on Pigouvian taxation of environmental externalities for same reasons as a policy tactic, but dont see connection with monetary stuffs...

Dino_Might

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

For those of you who have never heard about Zeitgeist, I'm not going to tell you what it's about. I want you to watch and find out for yourselves. Make your decision.

15 March - Zday

Wake up

sceptre

Moved from Politics, though I suspect this has already been the subject of a long long thread in CT so CT mods can make their own call on whether to retain it or loose the hounds.

Nerin

Zday?! The zombacalypse! :eek:

King Mob

Zeitgeist is bull**** condensed into film form.
I'm suprised so many people take it seriously.

Serenity Now!

Dino_Might wrote: »

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

For those of you who have never heard about Zeitgeist, I'm not going to tell you what it's about. I want you to watch and find out for yourselves. Make your decision.

15 March - Zday

Wake up

lol! :rolleyes:

Dino_Might

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I must say, I do agree with the technology element of it. It does have the potential to create a infinitely better world, and unfortunately it is being held back by corporate interests. Finally, one thing I can agree with in this movie!

EDIT: Moving on, I find the argument regarding incentives incredibly weak, and they seem to sidestep it entirely. Why wasn't more time dedicated to this?

Also, this Venus Project sounds very... communism-y to me. Haven't we heard all this before, some 150 years ago? Didn't the problems of incentives arise back then, via the lack of a price system?

The Venus Project aims to get rid of monotonous and hard labor jobs and replace them with machines. Any jobs that need to be done by humans will be done by the people who truly want to do it. Like artists creating not for money but for the joy of sharing their idea with the rest of the world (Real artists). 90% of jobs will be done by computers, even doctors but people will still have the choice to become doctors or to help advance medical technology. So incentive will still be there. It all comes down to education

The loss of jobs will give people the time to do whatever they find fulfilling instead of having to work 9 to 5. People are free to spend time with their family (improving a child's environment while growing up), travel the world at no cost and just generally enjoy life,

it's not like communism because there is noone in charge. all humans are equal. Through the quality of life and the education system, 99.9% of criminals will no longer exist. So we don't need any leaders

In 100 years, people will look back in shock at how primitive our society was.

http://www.thevenusproject.com

Mahatma coat

threads merged

Flamed Diving

Dino_Might wrote: »

The Venus Project aims to get rid of monotonous and hard labor jobs and replace them with machines. Any jobs that need to be done by humans will be done by the people who truly want to do it. Like artists creating not for money but for the joy of sharing their idea with the rest of the world (Real artists). 90% of jobs will be done by computers, even doctors but people will still have the choice to become doctors or to help advance medical technology. So incentive will still be there. It all comes down to education

The loss of jobs will give people the time to do whatever they find fulfilling instead of having to work 9 to 5. People are free to spend time with their family (improving a child's environment while growing up), travel the world at no cost and just generally enjoy life,

it's not like communism because there is noone in charge. all humans are equal. Through the quality of life and the education system, 99.9% of criminals will no longer exist. So we don't need any leaders

In 100 years, people will look back in shock at how primitive our society was.

http://www.thevenusproject.com

So the computers will fix the computers, and the computers will fix the machines. The computers will also somehow have the imagination to create new computers and machines. Also, many people enjoy having something constructive and creative to do, that doesn't involve travelling and artistry. What do you suggest these people do?

Nick_oliveri

Oi, Captain Bringdown.....NOOOOOO!

humanji

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So the computers will fix the computers, and the computers will fix the machines. The computers will also somehow have the imagination to create new computers and machines. Also, many people enjoy having something constructive and creative to do, that doesn't involve travelling and artistry. What do you suggest these people do?

Have you not seen Star Trek? It worked out well for them.

Dino_Might

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So the computers will fix the computers, and the computers will fix the machines. The computers will also somehow have the imagination to create new computers and machines. Also, many people enjoy having something constructive and creative to do, that doesn't involve travelling and artistry. What do you suggest these people do?

Yes the computers will fix the computers. People have the freedom to do whatever they want to do that they feel is fulfilling. Improving technology will be a big part of life and everyone will have a part in it. The more you give the more you get.

I'm sorry, dude but you said to Peter in your email that you understood his argument and had done your research. If you didn't bother looking past the Zeitgeist movies and don't actually know these things that are even in the movies then you weren't paying attention.

Time Magazine

Dino_Might wrote: »

Improving technology

How?

Flamed Diving

humanji wrote: »

Have you not seen Star Trek? It worked out well for them.

But people have jobs, in that world.

Flamed Diving

Dino_Might wrote: »

Yes the computers will fix the computers. People have the freedom to do whatever they want to do that they feel is fulfilling. Improving technology will be a big part of life and everyone will have a part in it. The more you give the more you get.

I'm sorry, dude but you said to Peter in your email that you understood his argument and had done your research. If you didn't bother looking past the Zeitgeist movies and don't actually know these things that are even in the movies then you weren't paying attention.

There is nothing on that website to learn. I had a good look through it and saw nothing but lofty ideals with no solid proposals of how the problems I raised could be solved. In fact, they appeared to be ignored. Oh, Peter never got back to me. Funny, that.

WhaLofShi

humanji wrote:

Have you not seen Star Trek? It worked out well for them.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But people have jobs, in that world.

They never went into any real detail in the Star Trek episodes. In The Next Generation, Picards brother made wine, and some relation of Ben Sisko's in Deep Space 9 owned a restaurant. It seemed to imply that he ran the restaurant as a labour of love. It was interesting that as people left they didn't seem to pay. (I know, I know, RFID chips etc, etc. :rolleyes:).

The other thread going at present (re: the unabomber) questions this as well. In a world where people didn't have to do anything, what would they do? High levels of boredom and a reduction in social interaction could not be good for people.

GhostInTheRuins

Dino_Might wrote: »

Improving technology will be a big part of life and everyone will have a part in it. The more you give the more you get.

Why would we need to improve technology? If machines and computers are doing all the crap that people don't want to do, and are also fixing each other if they breakdown, what's to improve?

Serenity Now!

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Why would we need to improve technology? If machines and computers are doing all the crap that people don't want to do, and are also fixing each other if they breakdown, what's to improve?

The way they do it, the quality of what they do and the cost of doing so...:rolleyes: