Poll: Zeitgeist Movement

[GoreTuzk]

Take money for example. It is an instrument of trade, meant to facilitate easy valuing of goods and services in relation to one another in an accesible way. Instead of having to carry your entire fortune with you and check exactly how many kilos of fresh grain and litres of milk a new pocketwatch is worth, we use money to indicate the value of all three. If money didn't exist, we'd have to invent it like we've done on at least 5 different, unconnected times and locations in ancient history.

Going 'back' to gold standard wouldn't help any - instead of simply having a piece of paper, you'd have a gold coin and instead of international exchange rates as well as variation in prices of goods, you'd have international exchange rate and variation in the price of gold - except you'd also have all the problems connected with metal-based monetary system in additiuon to the problems in the fiat system.

And yet, money is supposedly intrinsically 'bad' according to Zeitgeist and all our problems would be solved by abolishing it and exchanging resources directly.

What TZM advocates is that a monetary system was useful to manage scarcity but can easily be made obsolete by using technology and especially automation to create abundance. Instead of asking "do we have the money to do something", what matters is "do we have the resources and know-how to do something" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvBKR5GPCWc]. That this statement even has to be made should show how off-track we are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

The first video explains how monetary incentive is counterproductive in creative work; the second and third explain in terms that a 10 year old could understand how production, distribution and consumption are manipulated in a monetary system in a completely unsustainable way and how money is a modern form of slavery. Please tell me if you still maintain that opinion about money after being exposed to that information.

Also, their religious history sucks badly and they've apparently never heard of correletaion not equalling causation. Their explanation for christianity is plain nuts and the connection with older sun-based religions circumstancial at best. You almost get better information from creationwiki - and I'm saying this as an atheist.

Honestly, supposed 'controversy' is the only reason anyone is talking about this piece of crap.

I won't comment on anything related to the first movie (religion and conspiracy theory stuff) as I don't agree with most of it anyway.

 

[NotR]

Have watched all their films.

Laughed all the way, except until I started crying that some people actually are misinformed enough to believe the BS.

Classical conspiracy nuts, along with people with their heads on the clouds.

Take money for example. It is an instrument of trade, meant to facilitate easy valuing of goods and services in relation to one another in an accesible way. Instead of having to carry your entire fortune with you and check exactly how many kilos of fresh grain and litres of milk a new pocketwatch is worth, we use money to indicate the value of all three. If money didn't exist, we'd have to invent it like we've done on at least 5 different, unconnected times and locations in ancient history.

Going 'back' to gold standard wouldn't help any - instead of simply having a piece of paper, you'd have a gold coin and instead of international exchange rates as well as variation in prices of goods, you'd have international exchange rate and variation in the price of gold - except you'd also have all the problems connected with metal-based monetary system in additiuon to the problems in the fiat system.

And yet, money is supposedly intrinsically 'bad' according to Zeitgeist and all our problems would be solved by abolishing it and exchanging resources directly.

Also, their religious history sucks badly and they've apparently never heard of correletaion not equalling causation. Their explanation for christianity is plain nuts and the connection with older sun-based religions circumstancial at best. You almost get better information from creationwiki - and I'm saying this as an atheist.

Honestly, supposed 'controversy' is the only reason anyone is talking about this piece of crap.

What you said about money - true. Money isn't supposedly "bad" - that is a crude simplification. Money distorts human needs in a global sense. Financial indicators are equated to indicators of a country's well-being and overall progress. Within the system we have today it elevates inequality. Last of all, you call it BS, but I studied economics and the stuff you call "money" is actually (as the film accurately points out) a note of debt. It is an investement into a nation's economy. But I suspect you have a preconditioned sense of rebellion to these ideas, which I will not attempt to derail.

To all:
Moreover, many comments about how BS this whole thing is I see here lack any sort of substantial conviction. But before you instinctively throw me in with the "others" and the "fanatics", reactionary distinctions of your social awareness, I do not endorse every single little thing the movie states. In fact, nobody should. If you view information as an asset for your identity's validation - you hence become very limited. That is actually one good thing the movie mentions: intellectual materialism. And I assure you that if one were to watch these movies with a much broader view and whilst being less inclined to impose one's insecurities on the information the films have to offer - one would find oneself able to provide constructive criticism and analasys, and not the stuff I see being written here.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I watched them, liked the notions put forward... but called bull. Did my own research and didn't have to look hard to find solid flaws in their ideals.

Also their motives we're suspect. But beyond that their ideals were kind of naieve.

 

[Zacharine]

Within the system we have today it elevates inequality.

No, people elevate inequality. You are mistaking a single tool used, out of many, as the cause.

If you remember your Hayek...
"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."
Friedrich August von Hayek

Last of all, you call it BS, but I studied economics and the stuff you call "money" is actually (as the film accurately points out) a note of debt.

Funny enough, I'm writing my Master's Thesis on uni, to the department of Industrial Engineering And Management. Major: Industrial Economics.

So unless you've got a PhD on the subject, I'd stay out of the qualifications game. I happen to have decent good understanding of how money and economics works. But it's not like an Argument From Authority ever helped a case, so I suggest as friendly advice to drop the qualifications game. Let the arguments stand on their own merit.

so...It can be considered a note of debt if looked at from an extremely limited point of view, but it doesn't have to be done so. In fact, it often isn't. Because above all else, money represent effort and value, as determined by the society. Now, in a purely capitalistic monetary system you would be closer to home - however no such system exits. Perfect market, like Ideal gasses, is a theoretical construct only.

Certain work is valued more than others, certain goods more than others. Basic supply and demand and societal values. Money represents that as salary and cost. Some people are willing to pay more for something than others. Their purchasers basket ends up looking different thank others, because they have individual preferences. If given two baskets of equal monetary worth, there may be a difference in the contents as far as raw materials are considered - this is the effect of labour costs, manufacturing know-how and relative value of ingredients and availability. Combined with the first law of economics, that of scarcity (there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it), we get the basic descriptive models of macroeconomics.

Otherwise, we would have to value work either as non-valuable (nothing is paid), or value it in terms of resources. Bringing me back to the example of how many liters of milk is one pocketwatch worth.

It is an investement into a nation's economy.

Let me guess, you are an american? Because you do realize there is a world of difference between the American FED and European central banking systems?

Markets co-ordinate time, money and interest, as based on the past and predicted future, as well as the individual needs of the market participants. In essence, the entirety of macroeconomics can (simplistically) be considered a large market version of microeconomics.

This means that money cannot be generated from nothing - to claim otherise is to completely misunderstand the fiat system and very basics of economics. What do you suppose would happen if a country decided to simply 'invest into a nation's economy' by just printing money? Easy: The value of goods, as represented by that particular currency would plummet. But a kilo of cheese would still be worth 2 liters of milk or whatever. It simply changes the decimal place at the nominal price-tag and export receipts.

How does an economy then grow? Simple. More people, doing more jobs, more efficiently, producing more and increasingly valuable goods and services. The monetary systems is there to facilitate this growth by seamlessly and periodically matching the money in circulation with the increase or decrease in the value of that country's economy as dictated by the value of the goods and services it provides in both international and domestic markets.

But before you instinctively throw me in with the "others" and the "fanatics", reactionary distinctions of your social awareness, I do not endorse every single little thing the movie states.

I don't assume so, when it is much simpler to ask should I wish for a deeper discussion. That you assume, that I would assume, speaks volumes though.

If you view information as an asset for your identity's validation - you hence become very limited.

I personally view good information as an important aspect of life in modern society. But it has nothing to do with personal validation as far as I am concerned.

And I assure you that if one were to watch these movies with a much broader view and whilst being less inclined to impose one's insecurities on the information the films have to offer - one would find oneself able to provide constructive criticism and analasys, and not the stuff I see being written here.

Again, that you assume that I haven't already actually done that, speak volumes. As does the word choice "insecurities." I would have much preferred to use the word "education" or possibly "facts", but that would have made you final words much less superior and more intellectually honest.

But since Zeitgeist is about propaganda and not truth, intellectual honesty in proponets is understandably somewhat harded to come by than an average Joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

Please tell me if you still maintain that opinion about money after being exposed to that information.

except until I started crying that some people actually are misinformed enough to believe the BS.

Case in point.

I leave for your entertainment:

 

[NotR]

No, people elevate inequality. You are mistaking a single tool used, out of many, as the cause.

If you remember your Hayek...
"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."
Friedrich August von Hayek

Money does elevate inequality. I do not mistake it for a cause - it is an element which promotes inequality. How? By distorting human needs. A system which, in abstract, allocates resources from people dying from hunger to people who want a car - an exampe you might appreciate.

Funny enough, I'm writing my Master's Thesis on uni, to the department of Industrial Engineering And Management. Major: Industrial Economics.

So unless you've got a PhD on the subject, I'd stay out of the qualifications game. I happen to have decent good understanding of how money and economics works. But it's not like an Argument From Authority ever helped a case, so I suggest as friendly advice to drop the qualifications game. Let the arguments stand on their own merit.

As for your thesis I can only wish you good luck and congradulate you on your achievements. I am not playing any sort of game, the origins of which lie within your perception of our current discussion. If you felt somehow "pressed upon" by my stating the source of my understanding of modern day economics - I can only relate that to a preconditioned tone of aggression.

so...It can be considered a note of debt if looked at from an extremely limited point of view, but it doesn't have to be done so. In fact, it often isn't. Because above all else, money represent effort and value, as determined by the society. Now, in a purely capitalistic monetary system you would be closer to home - however no such system exits. Perfect market, like Ideal gasses, is a theoretical construct only.

It can be looked upon as a note of debt from a very accurate point of view:

1) Money multiplier effect as seen in any fractional-reserve banking system, wherein the extended loans within the margins of the reserve ratio requirements repeatedly increase the moneteray supply base.
2) The emission of an unbound currency in order to "cover" the accumilated national debt, virtually supported by the distorted "capital".

Markets co-ordinate time, money and interest, as based on the past and predicted future, as well as the individual needs of the market participants. In essence, the entirety of macroeconomics can (simplistically) be considered a large market version of microeconomics.

This means that money cannot be generated from nothing - to claim otherise is to completely misunderstand the fiat system and very basics of economics. What do you suppose would happen if a country decided to simply 'invest into a nation's economy' by just printing money? Easy: The value of goods, as represented by that particular currency would plummet. But a kilo of cheese would still be worth 2 liters of milk or whatever. It simply changes the decimal place at the nominal price-tag and export receipts.

How does an economy then grow? Simple. More people, doing more jobs, more efficiently, producing more and increasingly valuable goods and services. The monetary systems is there to facilitate this growth by seamlessly and periodically matching the money in circulation with the increase or decrease in the value of that country's economy as dictated by the value of the goods and services it provides in both international and domestic markets.

Money is generated from "nothing" (see 1) and 2)), and to regulate the balance of payments - that is to manipulate the money supply and demand to stimulate import and export.

This said, it is you, who seems to uphold the ideals of the "Perfect market, like Ideal gasses, is a theoretical construct only". An easy example of a currency created out of thin air is - Special Drawing Rights implemented by the IMF. A currency which "speaks volumes" of the purchasers baskets you spoke of on a macroeconomic scale.

Let me guess, you are an american?

No, I am not.

I don't assume so, when it is much simpler to ask should I wish for a deeper discussion. That you assume, that I would assume, speaks volumes though

Yes, my assuming that people would immediately scoff at someone who supposedly got swallowed in by a "concpiracy theory" is very surprising, taking into consideration the tone of this topic as seen so far.

I personally view good information as an important aspect of life in modern society. But it has nothing to do with personal validation as far as I am concerned.

Within a system upholding distinctive competitive functions any distinctive element therein (ie information) can serve as an asset within this functionality.

Again, that you assume that I haven't already actually done that, speak volumes. As does the word choice "insecurities." I would have much preferred to use the word "education" or possibly "facts", but that would have made you final words much less superior and more intellectually honest.

Once again - if you intend to take everything as an infringement on your validity - there really is no argument is there.

But since Zeitgeist is about propaganda and not truth, intellectual honesty in proponets is understandably somewhat harded to come by than an average Joe.

Zeitgeist is about information. If you have a broader view you might actually, with a certain degree of discernment, learn something of value.

 

[Zacharine]

Money does elevate inequality. I do not mistake it for a cause - it is an element which promotes inequality. How? By distorting human needs. A system which, in abstract, allocates resources from people dying from hunger to people who want a car - an exampe you might appreciate.

Removing money from the equation does nothing to solve that inequality. Nor does the introduction of it to a system where the preciding did not exist lead into it. That people are unwilling to allocate their money to charity, and instead buy a car, is a fault of society and speaks of it's values. It has intrinsically nothing to do with the monetary system, if any, the situation happens in.

Because the situation is the same if a tribal leader will rather spend a day to create an elaborate walking stick, rather than helping out other tribesmen in the fields. The tribal leader, the not-hungry one here, did not use his resources to directly help feed the less-fortunate ones.

Conversely, we did have an attempt where everyone would have equality as far as resources go. If gone far enough, money might have gotten totally abolished in former USSR. Unfortunately, the greed of men stepped in, along with personality politics, and reduced Soviet Union to the mid-90s Russia.

Failiure of men, not an intrinsic property of money.

I am not playing any sort of game, the origins of which lie within your perception of our current discussion.

True. But on the internet, the moment someone brings out their qualifications, they are setting up themselves as superior authority of knowledge. In any remotely interesting discussion I feel it better to nip it down right from the bud, allowing for the cases where I have to apologise (like now), rather than take the chance of the argument degenerating into logical fallacies.

It can be looked upon as a note of debt from a very accurate point of view:

And as seen, you are looking at it from a limited point of view. Top-down only, with focus on balances and securities between banks. That is not all there is, and those are hardly the only contributing factors to the health and (in)firmity of an economy. The capital structure for one is a key element your view seems to overlook. The distortion of it is hardly static accross the board for all types, and the wealth tied down on that capital on company-basis (as well as naturally their productivity) have a significant effect on the debt-repay value of the nation they are in.

Money is generated from "nothing" (see 1) and 2)),

If you call expected future wealth-accumulation from production as well as interest in domestic investments 'nothing', then yes.

It is, relatively speaking, the same as with valuing a company. The purchase value is not just land and the machinery minus debts, but predicted production as well (discounted to present day to account for time), along with intellectual (or person-based) value and goodwill.

One also has to remember inflation. If I loaned from you 1000 euros, we agreed my payment back should be 1200 euros, but due to money losing it's value it is actually today 1400 euros. Am I creating wealth from nothing, if I have printed out 200 euro to match for the time value of money? Or am I in reality representing my wealth and debts as their actual current day value, accounting for the time-value of the currency they are represented in?

An easy example of a currency created out of thin air is - Special Drawing Rights implemented by the IMF. A currency which "speaks volumes" of the purchasers baskets you spoke of on a macroeconomic scale.

No currency is created - this is a example case where money is treated as a debt. The SDR represents a potential claim for funds. Note that it was created under a fixed foreing currency exchange rate system, to facilitate for real currency valuation/devaluation. Once those were freed for direct comparison between currencies, the system became mostly obsolete. Of course, it has risen in importance in the last couple years due to obvious reasons.

As a sidenote, I personally believe that system which no longer serve a clear-defined function should be taken out of use. I grant that the SDR is a valid example of a symptom marking a broken banking system. Facts are to be recognized, and fact is that European and American banking systems have some severe problems.

But again, this very top-heavy stuff. Limited view and all that. Also, I hope we can agree that this has nothing to do with inherent properties of money like Zeitgeist would have us believe. The problem lies elsewhere.

No, I am not.

Interesting...So far, I've only met Americans who seem to argue a similar position.

Yes, my assuming that people would immediately scoff at someone who supposedly got swallowed in by a "concpiracy theory" is very surprising, taking into consideration the tone of this topic as seen so far.

Then it seems we both have made some erraneous assumptions about the other.

No, my disagreement with Zeitgeist comes not from any kind of personal conviction. It comes from facts and education. Of course, the latter is no guarantee of getting things right, so the former count more. Zeitgeist simply seems to have very little true facts and valid logic connecting them and almost all of their conclusions are non-sequiturs once one studies the issues.

A side example from aliens. I do not discount the vast, vast majority of Alien sightings because I somehow think the proponents are crackpots. I discount them because of lack of evidence and falsified information. The alien visitor proponents simply do not understand that my rejection of their claims has nothing to do with my personal biases and everything to do with the contradictiory, poor or missing evidence provided by said proponents.

Same with Zeitgeist.

Within a system upholding distinctive competitive functions any distinctive element therein (ie information) can serve as an asset within this functionality.

I do not deny that. But we were talking of personal validation, were we not? As in, 'confirming the value (or truth) of a person'?

I do not see the value of a person tied down to the information they possess. Not directly, at least. Everyone has intrinsict value irrespective of their ability to contribute to the society.

Once again - if you intend to take everything as an infringement on your validity - there really is no argument is there.

I do not see it as an infringement. I see it only as erraneous logic and false information. Since lies of these types serve nothing except the agenda their creator is pushing, I feel that information should be challenged if it becomes a topic.

Truth is never afraid of inquiry.

Zeitgeist is about information.

Well, badinformation. Sometimes warning examples can be learned from, I'll grant you that.

If you have a broader view you might actually, with a certain degree of discernment, learn something of value.

Just having an open mind lets an awful lot of garbage in.
An open, critically thinking mind, however does not.
A closed mind lets inside nothing.
Sadly, the middle is often mistaken by the first as the last.

 

[tsb247]

Having less demand on the same amount of finite resources would have a much more positive effect than trying to eradicate the nature of greed within humanity.

I believe what you meant to say was it would be easier to do so.
"Greed" is essentially the continuous increase of the human sense of need, or the continued persistence of it. The sense of need is in deep correlation with the sense of conflict an individual has with the environment (example: I want an apple. I am without an apple within the environment in which i perceive myself to exist. My perceived identity within the environment is in conflict with the environment). On the other hand, one who is in harmony with the environment can be identified as the one who has no need (or has it satisfied). One of the neglected conflicts of the identity is the need of an identity to feel "validated" by the environment. The identity inherits certain elements of distinction and functions within the environment and can see itself within the environment only by recognizing these elements. Otherwise, the identity does not "exist" (or is "unperceiveable"). It is a common existential crisis of the mind. Hence, the needs are dependant on the distinctive elements and functions within the environment. Here it becomes only a question of ability (or technology) to change the environment.

I LOVE this explanation. I am going to write this down later.

 

[Manji187]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

 

[NotR]

Removing money from the equation does nothing to solve that inequality. Nor does the introduction of it to a system where the preciding did not exist lead into it. That people are unwilling to allocate their money to charity, and instead buy a car, is a fault of society and speaks of it's values. It has intrinsically nothing to do with the monetary system, if any, the situation happens in.

I agree that removing money from the equation doesn't solve inequality. I just want to go off on a tangent here.

Basically, money is liquidity. It's a systematic instrument which alows fluidity of resource flow. It is a way to quickly aquire goods or services (hence "paralyze" them, sacrificing fluidity for stability). The advent of this 3rd party (money) removes a certain degree of informational symmetry from the market. It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it. We have a system where a person born in a developed country spends money to fulfill his need to go watch a movie whereas a human born in some much less developed part of the world is in need of money to barely support his biological existence. And it shouldn't come down to that person's choice not to see the movie and donate the money instead. The informational assymetry money (as an element which liquidizes needs (in abstract)) instills is one of the elements under which that person's needs and understandings have been formed. Its a systematic flaw which should be adressed, in my opinion.

In my opinion it comes down to needs. Something I talked about before (allow me to quote myself):

"Greed" is essentially the continuous increase of the human sense of need, or the continued persistence of it. The sense of need is in deep correlation with the sense of conflict an individual has with the environment (example: I want an apple. I am without an apple within the environment in which i perceive myself to exist. My perceived identity within the environment is in conflict with the environment). On the other hand, one who is in harmony with the environment can be identified as the one who has no need (or has it satisfied). One of the neglected conflicts of the identity is the need of an identity to feel "validated" by the environment. The identity inherits certain elements of distinction and functions within the environment and can see itself within the environment only by recognizing these elements. Otherwise, the identity does not "exist" (or is "unperceiveable"). It is a common existential crisis of the mind. Hence, the needs are dependant on the distinctive elements and functions within the environment. Here it becomes only a question of ability (or technology) to change the environment.

To extend this in an example: in a painting - if one were to paint a flower - it would "exist" only by the distinctive elements of color. It would not exist if you were to adress the smell or taste of it.

Noting that in the complex society we have today the amount of "colors" on the "canvas" of society is constantly increasing, members of less sophisticated societies (or microsocieties) are put into danger. I think they are being "crushed" by the evergrowing consumerism culture of developed countries, given that money (and processes of globalization) ties these consumers into a single ecosystem.

Going on, the crisis of the identity can be solved by simply realising the overall perceptive nature of reality. Any depression or insatisfaction anyone might experience is just an involantary need, imposed on one's self whence one had not yet reached a certain level of intellectual maturity..

I don't wish to go on with this because it is getting a bit off-topic. But with this in mind I have found the Zeitgeist films fair. Given that they do not provide fullness of information - I do not think that they aim to. They make a strong point on the need of fluidity within social institutions - which they lack as a result of the competitive nature social interaction. By the way it is this competitive nature that brought about the fall of the USSR socialist model (from the very start, of course).

And as seen, you are looking at it from a limited point of view. Top-down only, with focus on balances and securities between banks. That is not all there is, and those are hardly the only contributing factors to the health and (in)firmity of an economy.

I agree. But my point of view isn't limited. It's focused on the flaws (aka "realistic idealism"). But isn't that a very important element of the notion "progress"?

Zeitgeist does "pull" some of their argumentation regarding economics, in terms of some of the conclusions the movie makes. I think the existing flaws it does point out are enough to validate the conclusions. I see it simply as information to contribute into my worldview. The conclusions they make are harmoneous with some of the ideas I harbour. I do very much agree with the points Zeitgeist makes on psychology (3rd movie) and design of future systems (2nd and 3rd).

It is almost 01-00 here, gonna trail off..

 

[laol1999]

no clue what it is but ill probobly look it up some time when im bored

 

[Nimcha]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

 

[NickCooley]

Please, they're interesting ideas but I have a better chance of taking over the world than any them actually happening.

 

[dvd_72]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

 

[GoreTuzk]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

@dvd_72

Free choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BAXswgpVmM (I don't agree with the fundamental conclusion of this video that life is mechanistic, I believe it's more like organic, but the point stands).
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30938165

 

[Korolev]

A lot of the stuff in their films is downright wrong. They have this really weird conspiracy theory surrounding Christianity, and while I am not a Christian, I also don't believe that Christians are trying to control the world (well, they aren't trying harder than any other group of people).

Skeptoid had a really good episode on this - most of their stuff is garbage. Some of their future goals are nice and I agree that we could all use more science in our lives, but again, a lot of their films are filled with bizarre nonsense that really sticks out to anyone who has studied even a little history.

Essentially they are modern day conspiracy theorists who believe that bankers are behind everything. They are not behind everything, nor are they the most powerful forces in the world (although bankers are very powerful, they are just one interest group among many).

 

[NotR]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

 

[Zacharine]

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Which is a far cry from the position you originally defended. It's an entirely new goalpost.

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Of course it doesn't. It isn't intended to. Like you said, money a systematic instrument which alows fluidity of resource flow. It is the representation of wealth as created by goods and services and available resources.

What part in that is supposed to create equality?

You are disparaging a pine tree for being inherently a very poor meal. It isn't the fault of the pine tree, it's the people trying to eat it. You're trying to use skateboard for watersurfing, and then wondering why you don't stay afloat.

You see, I don't agree. Information asymmetry is an inherent part of the goods and services available, regardless of if there is money or not. Cronies will be cronies, fraudsters will be fraudsters and and marketing personnel always have and always will present their product in the best possible light.

We have a system where a person born in a developed country spends money to fulfill his need to go watch a movie whereas a human born in some much less developed part of the world is in need of money to barely support his biological existence.

That isn't a problem of the monetary system, it's a fault of human condition, of social and biological influences within our behaviour patterns. The fact that a 'first worlder' gains a greater amount of satisfaction from watching a movie than helping build infrastructure for a 'third worlder' is not a monetary problem but a cultural and psychological one.

We humans are not perfectly good, perfectly just and perfectly charitable. That the flow of money within a monetary system reflects this is not a fault inherent in the monetary system.

The informational assymetry money (as an element which liquidizes needs (in abstract)) instills is one of the elements under which that person's needs and understandings have been formed.

Partially agree. However, notice the keywords there: "Ome of the elements". I disagree with it being a major or even important element, with cultural and societal values playing a far, far bigger and important role.

In my opinion it comes down to needs. Something I talked about before (allow me to quote myself):

...Hence, the needs are dependant on the distinctive elements and functions within the environment. Here it becomes only a question of ability (or technology) to change the environment.

With the bolded part I agree. However, money only describes the creation and flow of wealth. It does not prescribe that flow. The problem of inequal wealth prduction, raw materials use, availability and quality of farmland etc are problems of geography, government, location and so forth. It is hardly the monetary system that causes parts of Spain to be good for wine production, placed oil deposits on the Norwegian coast, made Sahara a desert or ensures semi-regular rainfalls in Uganda.

To extend this in an example: in a painting - if one were to paint a flower - it would "exist" only by the distinctive elements of color. It would not exist if you were to adress the smell or taste of it.

Noting that in the complex society we have today the amount of "colors" on the "canvas" of society is constantly increasing, members of less sophisticated societies (or microsocieties) are put into danger.

And that is a sociological and cultural problem.

Going on, the crisis of the identity can be solved by simply realising the overall perceptive nature of reality. Any depression or insatisfaction anyone might experience is just an involantary need, imposed on one's self whence one had not yet reached a certain level of intellectual maturity..

Yeah, no. Hunger is not an involuntary need. Nor is, for a consult, the requirement to have a computer working to pay for that food by providing a service in modern society.

It's focused on the flaws (aka "realistic idealism"). But isn't that a very important element of the notion "progress"?

It is just as important to understand what exists beyond the flaws, as it is to understand how and why those flaws exist. If one looks at flaws all the time, and in a manner the mixes the sources of those problems (sociology v money, cultural issue v monetary issue), one will get a very flawed world-view.

Given that they do not provide fullness of information - I do not think that they aim to.

Zeitgeist does "pull" some of their argumentation regarding economics, in terms of some of the conclusions the movie makes. I think the existing flaws it does point out are enough to validate the conclusions.

I'm taking more of a logical approach here, instead of holistic one.

A conclusion is valid and known to be so, only if the premises are correct and all logical steps between those premises and the conclusions are valid.

That is why I call Zeitgeist propaganda. They begin from their conclusion, and then attempt to (poorly) justify it. A legitimate way of doing it would have been to look at the flaws of society, identify them properly and then ask 'how do we fix this', following evidence wherever it leads.

I see it simply as information to contribute into my worldview.

Much like I see the story of Little Red Ridinghood. Doesn't mean I accept the story as true or the childish logic within as valid. It does teach something however.

The problem is that Little Red Ridinghood, unlike Zeitgeist, doesn't profess to contain The Truth (tm) and solutions to all life's problem. It also doesn't pretend to be a true story. Like I said, I agree that warning examples can be learned from - by the virtue of showing us what does not work. Same with flawed ideas - they show us where truth is not.

The conclusions they make are harmoneous with some of the ideas I harbour.

Now what was it that you said about personal convictions and preconditioned sense of rebellion...?

 

[Zacharine]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

 

[NotR]

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Which is a far cry from the position you originally defended. It's an entirely new goalpost.

No, I said before that it elevates inequality, and I stated how later on in my post. My saying that it does not cause inequality was a direct response to you stating that "Removing money from the equation does nothing to solve that inequality."

Going on, the crisis of the identity can be solved by simply realising the overall perceptive nature of reality. Any depression or insatisfaction anyone might experience is just an involantary need, imposed on one's self whence one had not yet reached a certain level of intellectual maturity..

Yeah, no. Hunger is not an involuntary need. Nor is, for a consult, the requirement to have a computer working to pay for that food by providing a service in modern society.

I was not speaking of the need to satisfy hunger, nor thirst, nor sleep. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a more substantial list of needs in relation to social diversity.

The conclusions they make are harmoneous with some of the ideas I harbour.

Now what was it that you said about personal convictions and preconditioned sense of rebellion...?

What I was speaking of was the discernment of information. You immediately talk of the unwholesomeness of information. But that is not the purpose of the film. You seem to think that the movie aims to educate people on how the whole economic structure works. As absurd as it might sound to you - it does not. It points out the flaws within the the system, provided that people who are intersted in the subject conduct their own research. All of this is done to adress a general statement: "The system we have today is outdated in relation to our ability to support life, our understandings about the illusiveness of distinction, our understandings about the nature of causality concerning the forming of the human mind, the free flow of information."
You adress the unwholesomeness of the argumentation regarding the economic imperfections - hence the conclusions made as a result of that argumentation are invalid. The economic conclusion made was a resource based economy. Then the film proceeded to adress the economic and social flaws of the system we live in, whilst realising their combined nature. What you are saying is that the problems do not soleley lie within the argumentation provided - but that does not mean that the whole thing should be discarded into some essense of fact manipulation, which you suggest. The economic fact is that there are instances wherein money is emitted with no solid basis. And the analsys of cost predictions you've mentioned are in no way valid within the informational assymetry we have today. The political causes of this assymetry - yes, a barrier which exists today. Geographical - with the advent of information and other technologies it is quickly becomming irrelevant.

Notice how (as a recognized cornerstone of modern day economics) Stuart Mill implemented the abstract term "homo economicus", within which he states that he "does not treat the whole of man?s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth". I understand that within the scientific method such an approach is valid, as it is a means of research. But upon being implemented into reality and combined with the perception thereof it appears as a distortion of the emergant nature of all the elements therein. I believe that in this core fallacy of the understanding of human nauture many of our problems lie today.

The problem is that Little Red Ridinghood, unlike Zeitgeist, doesn't profess to contain The Truth (tm) and solutions to all life's problem. It also doesn't pretend to be a true story. Like I said, I agree that warning examples can be learned from - by the virtue of showing us what does not work. Same with flawed ideas - they show us where truth is not.

I do not see The Truth and solutions to all life's problems in Zeitgeist either. I see at as positive stimulus for research and self-educating activity. The fact is that Zeitgeist propses nothing but that. It does not make conclusions such as "donate now" or "take violent action" or anything. It pushes people to seek within themselves to realise the illusiveness of competitive identification. It brings forth an ideal of common good (historically on practice much perversed, yes) in clearly identifyable guidelines (resources) in combination with the basic analasys of social well-being (which appear to correlate directly with social equality). And the fact that money does not provide social equality -> social well-being is a valid basis for the conlusion made - that money is irrelevant in relation to the enstated goals.

We have a system where a person born in a developed country spends money to fulfill his need to go watch a movie whereas a human born in some much less developed part of the world is in need of money to barely support his biological existence.

That isn't a problem of the monetary system, it's a fault of human condition, of social and biological influences within our behaviour patterns. The fact that a 'first worlder' gains a greater amount of satisfaction from watching a movie than helping build infrastructure for a 'third worlder' is not a monetary problem but a cultural and psychological one.

We humans are not perfectly good, perfectly just and perfectly charitable. That the flow of money within a monetary system reflects this is not a fault inherent in the monetary system.

It is a problem of the monetary system, as the moneteray system focuses on resource distribution. Either we implement an objective guideline for "good" and "just" within the system, or we do not and suffer the consequences as humans form within a system that does not set such quantifyable guidelines.

 

[dvd_72]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

I'm seeing quite a bit of misreading of what I wrote, weather willfull, intentional, or simply accidental.

Socialism and communism are two different systems. Comunsim wants to distribute all resources and work equally ammongst everyone while socialism strikes a balance between Capitalism and Comunsism, meaning that while you are free to run your business how you want, buy what you can and want, and make as much money as you can, some of that wealth you generate will be used to improve the lives of the less successfull. At least that's my understanding of it.

I never said there was one static state of the enviorment that makes us human. I said it was one large -part- of what makes us human. If we are no longer free to choose to do as we think best, then we will be nothing more than slaves, or animals, or machines. I don't care if I would be more comfortable like that, I would not want to loose my ability to chose for myself what I do with my life. I will gladly bear the consiquences of my actions, because I believe that is one of the fundimental things that make us human.

again, -one- of the fundimental things.

Please don't twist words to suit your needs. It's unbecoming.