Poll: Zeitgeist Movement
- Thread starter NotR
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dumb is not the same as sheep. I have yet to meet ANYONE who has never, ever done or said anything massively stupid in their lives. Catch it on tape and it becomes confirmation bias.WurmD said:
I really don't want to discuss anything about the first movie because it has no relation to the movement. I will only point to responses of said issues:Owyn_Merrilin said:
As if she was trying to imply that: "PLAY ON WORDS" [http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4835#p4835]
"proof by works of highly credentialed authorities" [http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/378-horus-is-the-sun-god ]
These and more are responded in great lengths at this thread. [http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2609]
ZEITGEIST Part 1 & The Supportive Evidence [http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997]
She is a Egyptologist, not a librarian [http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2640]
So these reviews about her books don't exist? [http://www.truthbeknown.com/index.html]
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf
Since I am not a Egyptologist. Please respond at their forum, unless you view it as enemy territory.
---
Also it is often claimed that because the first part of the first movie is somehow anti-religious, then the movement is anti-religious. The whole fiasco was about authority over religion, not religion itself.
I'm going to quit arguing here, because you're one of the brainwashed "true believer" types, which I have had the sad misfortune of running into in the real world. But I'd like to point out that your citation is a forum post which makes no citations. Real reliable, there.Pendrokar said:
Edit: Also, you must not have watched the version of the movie that I did, because there was no play on words going on with the God's Son/God's Sun thing; they were literally saying that one led to the other.
I've heard of it. Some ideas are good, however they are grossly misinformed about others, or grossly misrepresent facts. In theory, its good, however humanities nature, and the general things they fail to grasp, such as basic economics convince me that they are doomed to fail.
Found this on another forum:
Dang man, if only I had had some alcohol on that bus trip where some zeitgeister managed to get the DVD on for the first third of the movie. He actually started it out with "this movie will change your life," even though the few who knew about it were saying "no, put on V for Vendetta instead" and everyone else started saying to put V on after they realized what the movie was about, and just how wrong it was.The Zeitgeist Movement drinking game! said:
Now this thread has the Movement mostly equaled to the first Zeitgeist Movie, with any opinion posted by a random individual on the main global forum as a representation of the movement.
Don't take this as an ad hominem, but since you post 7 posts a day on this forum alone means you don't look deeply enough.
"...D.M. Murdock/Acharya S, like all authors on controversial subjects, has many critics. But they all share one commonality: They don't know what they're talking about. Murdock understands many languages and has a breadth of knowledge her critics cannot match. This fact irks the uninformed. Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their "rebuttal" videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny...."
- David Mills
Author of "Atheist Universe"
---
Lastly define Zeitgeister, from your point of view. Since members are only those who are active in real life. Just posting on some forums doesn't make anyone a representative. Unless they are a coordinator of regional chapter.
If I remember correctly the only sentence on it was "The son of god is in fact the sun of god.". So you're exaggerating.
Don't take this as an ad hominem, but since you post 7 posts a day on this forum alone means you don't look deeply enough.
I don't even need to ask from where.
"...D.M. Murdock/Acharya S, like all authors on controversial subjects, has many critics. But they all share one commonality: They don't know what they're talking about. Murdock understands many languages and has a breadth of knowledge her critics cannot match. This fact irks the uninformed. Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their "rebuttal" videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny...."
- David Mills
Author of "Atheist Universe"
---
Lastly define Zeitgeister, from your point of view. Since members are only those who are active in real life. Just posting on some forums doesn't make anyone a representative. Unless they are a coordinator of regional chapter.
You sir deserve a cookie.JMeganSnow said:
I think this movement is really stupid and will never work, at least as long as im kicking.
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.SakSak said:
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.
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.SakSak said:
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.SakSak said:
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.
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.
Also their motives we're suspect. But beyond that their ideals were kind of naieve.
No, people elevate inequality. You are mistaking a single tool used, out of many, as the cause.NotR said:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GoreTuzk said:
Case in point.SakSak said:
I leave for your entertainment:
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.SakSak said:
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.SakSak said:
It can be looked upon as a note of debt from a very accurate point of view:SakSak said:
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".
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.SakSak said:
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.
No, I am not.SakSak said:
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.SakSak said:
Within a system upholding distinctive competitive functions any distinctive element therein (ie information) can serve as an asset within this functionality.SakSak said:
Once again - if you intend to take everything as an infringement on your validity - there really is no argument is there.SakSak said:
Zeitgeist is about information. If you have a broader view you might actually, with a certain degree of discernment, learn something of value.SakSak said:
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.NotR said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Interesting...So far, I've only met Americans who seem to argue a similar position.
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.
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.
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.
Well, badinformation. Sometimes warning examples can be learned from, I'll grant you that.
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.
I agree that removing money from the equation doesn't solve inequality. I just want to go off on a tangent here.SakSak said:
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):
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.NotR said:
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).
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"?SakSak said:
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..