Zeitgeist Addendum

[TheGodDamnMaster]

If you don't know what I"m talking about, then:

 

For those who have seen it, what are your thoughts?

 

I personally found Mr. Joseph's simplified view on economics very refreshing and helpful to a newcomer such as myself.

 

I wasn't aware that there were such things as "economic hitman", but it certainly explains why all of these dictators keep popping up.

 

Mr. Fresco's Venus Project seems interesting in theory, but I don't think something like that would ever get by in the real world.

 

[sivispacem]

I've seen some of the Zeitgeist stuff before. I can see how it appeals to people with limited exposure to economics but much of what I've seen is incredibly ill-thought-out and misleading. They in essence suggest replacing a monetary system where a market of individuals decides the value of goods and services using their own purchasing power with exactly the system, just with none of the protective ability of comparative currency and no reward for long-termism. It sounds all utopian and wonderful for one simple reason- it's idealistic hogwash. Plus I seriously question the credibility of any organisations who gain their primary base of support through the distribution of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I've seen some of the Zeitgeist stuff before. I can see how it appeals to people with limited exposure to economics but much of what I've seen is incredibly ill-thought-out and misleading. They in essence suggest replacing a monetary system where a market of individuals decides the value of goods and services using their own purchasing power with exactly the system, just with none of the protective ability of comparative currency and no reward for long-termism. It sounds all utopian and wonderful for one simple reason- it's idealistic hogwash. Plus I seriously question the credibility of any organisations who gain their primary base of support through the distribution of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Yes, I'm well aware that almost all of what is presented in that film is likely to never happen. I just think it's a very interesting watch because it provides such a bold viewpoint on what can be done to prevent economic collapse.

 

I don't like the first movie because of the fraudulent 9/11 de-bunking myths. I chose this one because it seems a little more time went into its' production and it shyed-away from the conspiracy movement it once promoted.

 

And Mr. Joseph actually has a strong background in economics.

 

 

[sivispacem]

Oh, I'm not slandering the fact that there's an economic theory behind the movement- after all, there are economic arguments in support of pure Communism. I more object to the Fisher-Price presentation and the fact that, as a theory, it doesn't actually answer many of the problems that the movement highlight to be an intrinsic part of Capitalism but which are actually the social implications of having a free or largely free market. Basically, it critiques Capitalism for having flaws becoming of any market economy and then suggests a different market economy that would theoretically be susceptible to the exact same flaws.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

I personally found Mr. Joseph's simplified view on economics very refreshing and helpful to a newcomer such as myself.

That's how they've reeled so many people in with these movies. They know the average person (more specifically Americans) have little to no understanding of economic and financial matters due to it being a "non-core subject" or an "elective" in our education institutions. They capitalize on this by oversimplifying the convoluted role of markets, banks, governments, and the public so they can shape the audience's understanding and sell them on the project's philosophy.

 

 

Don't believe that bullsh*t. I've seen all 3 of them with an open mind. It's obvious that the films are pretty coherent on scientific and sociological issues; but when it comes to the economics these documentaries are rubbish. They use facts to "back up" ridiculous claims that aren't really related the evidence. It seems like an attempt to explain the global economy from perspectives that are purely anthropological and sociological.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I personally found Mr. Joseph's simplified view on economics very refreshing and helpful to a newcomer such as myself.

That's how they've reeled so many people in with these movies. They know the average person (more specifically Americans) have little to no understanding of economic and financial matters due to it being a "non-core subject" or an "elective" in our education institutions. They capitalize on this by oversimplifying the convoluted role of markets, banks, governments, and the public so they can shape the audience's understanding and sell them on the project's philosophy.

 

 

Don't believe that bullsh*t. I've seen all 3 of them with an open mind. It's obvious that the films are pretty coherent on scientific and sociological issues; but when it comes to the economics these documentaries are rubbish. They use facts to "back up" ridiculous claims that aren't really related the evidence. It seems like an attempt to explain the global economy from perspectives that are purely anthropological and sociological.

Well, both you and sivi seem to think so, and you seem like smart enough guys, so I'll side with you on this and stop watching these movies. Perhaps it was just the visual presentation of his films that drew me in; the quotes, the surreal visual effects, etc.

[Cheat]

I don't know much about economics but the thing that really irritated me about the Zeitgeist movie was how ridiculously emotional it got. Just like every other anti-something message, most of it the movie is just blatant audiovisual presentation trying to influence your opinions without focusing enough on the actual point or addressing it objectively enough. It was kinda like watching a combination of a Michael Moore document and a FOX news broadcast. I have to admit, though, that they did a good job at influencing my mind as it got me thinking a lot but it never really changed the way I see the world.

[Mr.Mister]

Sorry if im about to hijack this discussion, but on the subject of "alternative documentaries", one video series thats gaining lots of traction is Spirit Science. My friend keeps talking about it and I keep telling him hes mathimatically and scientifically illeterate, yet he claims that people ignore it because their views are rigid and not open to new ideas. Its all New Age hocus pocus and I tell him we dont even understand the brain but yet he spouts things like reincarnation and crystals and chakras. Then he says me pursuing things like wealthy is whats cancer to the whole world. He speaks calmy and tries to act rational, but hes so narrow minded it seems and thinks im overly skeptical.

 

God damn

[EscoLehGo]

Sorry if im about to hijack this discussion, but on the subject of "alternative documentaries", one video series thats gaining lots of traction is Spirit Science. My friend keeps talking about it and I keep telling him hes mathimatically and scientifically illeterate, yet he claims that people ignore it because their views are rigid and not open to new ideas. Its all New Age hocus pocus and I tell him we dont even understand the brain but yet he spouts things like reincarnation and crystals and chakras. Then he says me pursuing things like wealthy is whats cancer to the whole world. He speaks calmy and tries to act rational, but hes so narrow minded it seems and thinks im overly skeptical.

 

God damn

Your friend sounds like a hippy asshole to me and I thought the New Age movement was done with back in the 90s? Is your friend watching old VHS tapes or is it actually making a come back?

[sivispacem]

The default argument of a conspiracy theorist is always to claim that those more educated than themselves are either "blind" or working for whoever they're casting as the demon in whatever yarn they're spinning. Usually starting with the former, and then transitioning to the latter once a competence in a particular subject is demonstrated. It's a scientific phenomenon (and Ig Nobel prize winning theory), demonstrated in numerous studies, called the Dunning–Kruger effect, which basically says that people constantly and dramatically overestimate their own understanding of subjects they're ignorant on.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

The default argument of a conspiracy theorist is always to claim that those more educated than themselves are either "blind" or working for whoever they're casting as the demon in whatever yarn they're spinning. Usually starting with the former, and then transitioning to the latter once a competence in a particular subject is demonstrated. It's a scientific phenomenon (and Ig Nobel prize winning theory), demonstrated in numerous studies, called the Dunning–Kruger effect, which basically says that people constantly and dramatically overestimate their own understanding of subjects they're ignorant on.

So, pseudo-intellectuals basically?

[sivispacem]

 

The default argument of a conspiracy theorist is always to claim that those more educated than themselves are either "blind" or working for whoever they're casting as the demon in whatever yarn they're spinning. Usually starting with the former, and then transitioning to the latter once a competence in a particular subject is demonstrated. It's a scientific phenomenon (and Ig Nobel prize winning theory), demonstrated in numerous studies, called the Dunning–Kruger effect, which basically says that people constantly and dramatically overestimate their own understanding of subjects they're ignorant on.

So, pseudo-intellectuals basically?

Sort of. It's not conscious; they don't know how little they know about the subject. That's part of the ignorance. They genuinely believe they're much more knowledgeable than people who are much more knowledgeable than them. Hence why you get early-world creationists who argue with scientists about the empirical evidence of life existing on earth over 100 million years before it was meant to have been created.

[Clem Fandango]

 

Basically, it critiques Capitalism for having flaws becoming of any market economy and then suggests a different market economy that would theoretically be susceptible to the exact same flaws.

I know nothing about the ideology of this movement or the nuances of the system it proposes, but is that true? I've only seen a ten minute or so youtube clip from Zeitgeist Addendum, and their main contention is that cartel economics in for-profit Capitalism blocks innovation and progress- in essence, Capitalist markets and unresponsive markets.

 

Huge corporations that have to deliver short-term profits to shareholders can't exactly adapt to new technologies on the fly, that's why we have trains that can traverse the earth in a few hours, hovering pod-like cars that drive themselves with highly advanced censors and most importantly: green energy sources, yet nobody is running out to get them and governments aren't building the needed specialised infrastructure. Other forms of free market may not rely on economic planning (which would be the easiest way to facilitate this adaptation) but they do utilise the optimal sized firm, and have the ability to prioritise long-term stability and efficiency over short-term gain. Essentially, a small car manufacturer that didn't have shareholders to worry about could hold off on seeking profits, sell their old fuel burning cars at sub-market prices, buy a load of new cars, undercutting the less adaptive competition... and the rest is basic economics.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

*REGARDLESS* of all of the debunkings and fraud surrounding the series, I still do find some sort of comfort/entertainment out of this video.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2013 by whatsstrength

[El Dildo]

 

Perhaps it was just the visual presentation of his films that drew me in; the quotes, the surreal visual effects, etc.

people who don't have a lot of substance need to rely on a lot of style.

 

 

Irregardless

also, that's not a word.

you were looking for "regardless" or "in spite of" or "irrespective."

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

Zeitgeist is a fail. Almost as bad as that Ancient Alien show.

[Mr.Mister]

Sorry if im about to hijack this discussion, but on the subject of "alternative documentaries", one video series thats gaining lots of traction is Spirit Science. My friend keeps talking about it and I keep telling him hes mathimatically and scientifically illeterate, yet he claims that people ignore it because their views are rigid and not open to new ideas. Its all New Age hocus pocus and I tell him we dont even understand the brain but yet he spouts things like reincarnation and crystals and chakras. Then he says me pursuing things like wealthy is whats cancer to the whole world. He speaks calmy and tries to act rational, but hes so narrow minded it seems and thinks im overly skeptical.

 

God damn

Your friend sounds like a hippy asshole to me and I thought the New Age movement was done with back in the 90s? Is your friend watching old VHS tapes or is it actually making a come back?

Lol hes not a hippy asshole but yes its making a come back. I tried explaining that it started in the 60s by abunch of druggies. Stupidity really is spreading rapidly, people see half truths and they think about the other half instantly and think it all makes sense.

[Chunkyman]

Zeitgeist is a fail. Almost as bad as that Ancient Alien show.

Zeitgeist is worse. The History Channel is likely aware that Ancient Aliens is nonsense scientifically, but it's popular so they air it. Furthermore, even if people buy this Ancient Aliens stuff it doesn't really affect anyone else.

 

The economic message of the Zeitgeist movement is just repackaged communism for a modern audience (now with 50% more magic robots!). This makes it dangerous as it's encouraging an ideology that, besides being immoral, is economically retarded (seriously, these people are the creation scientists of economics) and tends to result in centrally planned nightmares like the Soviet Union.

[Clem Fandango]

The economic message of the Zeitgeist movement is just repackaged communism for a modern audience (now with 50% more magic robots!). This makes it dangerous as it's encouraging an ideology that, besides being immoral, is economically retarded (seriously, these people are the creation scientists of economics) and tends to result in centrally planned nightmares like the Soviet Union.

While I haven't seen the movie in its entirety, I'd like to say first off, that sivis' post led me to believe that they are advocating some form of market economy. Communism, by definition, operates under communal cooperation rather than market forces.

 

I also don't think a society that discourages self interest is inherently immoral, since what is frequently described as "pure communism" by the political novice is a voluntarist affair, though I would never want to live in a communist society, I like my competition and consumer choice. I should also point out that communism doesn't always rely on central planning, and the more prime historical examples of communism were only small pockets lacking planning bodies, or really any kind of economic supervision.

 

But I do like how western Capitalists defending wage slavery and inequality sound exactly like Soviet Communists defending political repression and wage-standardisation: "I won't hear of this, these foreign ideas are immoral and devilish! Raise no questions, our's is a glorious system comrade!"

[Chunkyman]

 

I also don't think a society that discourages self interest is inherently immoral

 

 

When you phrase it like that it sounds like mere social pressure. The reality is that 99% this stuff has to be forced (at least on a large scale) because people simply don't act against their own self interest. This economic view /philosophy works great for ants, but it's borderline incompatible with humans.

 

 

Communism, by definition, operates under communal cooperation rather than market forces.

 

 

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact communal cooperation is often the result of market forces, like how friendly societies formed as a means to provide healthcare to it's members.

 

 

 

 

communism doesn't always rely on central planning

 

 

True, but typically only on a small scale. Family units operate in a sort of communist fashion (with wives and husbands often mutually owning the items as opposed to distinct individual ownership).

 

 

inherently immoral

 

 

I have no problem whatsoever with 100% voluntary communism (like in the marriage example). I do have a severe problem with forced communism (which relies on severe violations of people's property rights). Since large scale communism basically has to be forced, I therefore consider it immoral.

 

Besides that, the economics of communism make it rather horrible. The economic calculation problem alone makes any sort of efficiency impossible due to a lack of price signals.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Chunkyman

[sivispacem]

Basically, it critiques Capitalism for having flaws becoming of any market economy and then suggests a different market economy that would theoretically be susceptible to the exact same flaws.

I know nothing about the ideology of this movement or the nuances of the system it proposes, but is that true? I've only seen a ten minute or so youtube clip from Zeitgeist Addendum, and their main contention is that cartel economics in for-profit Capitalism blocks innovation and progress- in essence, Capitalist markets and unresponsive markets.

As a viable replacement they propose an international free-market barter system which is in essence exactly the same. It's equally as prone to profiteering and corruption, or the development of corporate monopolies. It's just that it's people with non-perishable, valuable goods and services control that monopoly, as well as those who can accumulate the largest wealth of natural resources on which all other goods and services depend.

[Chunkyman]

 

As a viable replacement they propose an international free-market barter system which is in essence exactly the same. It's equally as prone to profiteering and corruption, or the development of corporate monopolies. It's just that it's people with non-perishable, valuable goods and services control that monopoly, as well as those who can accumulate the largest wealth of natural resources on which all other goods and services depend.

From my understanding the economic plan advocated by these people is The Venus Project, which is a resource based economy centrally planned through (non-existent marxist) computers. At least that's what every one of these people I've talked to have said.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

The economic message of the Zeitgeist movement is just repackaged communism for a modern audience (now with 50% more magic robots!). This makes it dangerous as it's encouraging an ideology that, besides being immoral, is economically retarded (seriously, these people are the creation scientists of economics) and tends to result in centrally planned nightmares like the Soviet Union.

While I haven't seen the movie in its entirety, I'd like to say first off, that sivis' post led me to believe that they are advocating some form of market economy. Communism, by definition, operates under communal cooperation rather than market forces.

The key problem with the Zeitgeist movement is that it reels in followers who are usually educated on economics through the manipulative film itself. Then it sells the most naive followers on it's concept of a "resource-based economy" (which is essentially every economy to begin with). This term is their buzzword for bridging the feasibility gaps in the communism.

 

 

Coming from a "natural science" perspective, the film makers seem to divorce the human experience from the forces of the market much like many communist philosophies do. The "forces of the market" - supply and demand affecting prices for a given quantity - run every system. Even in a classless and moneyless society that communists seem to fantasize about, humans must rely on price signals that are essential to recognizing value. Their philosophy isn't a hard one to sell given that most Americans picture physical man-made institutions like the Fed, NYSE, NASDAQ, or our media's dramatized version of cigar-puffing CEOs when they think of the "market". In reality, markets are just our means of exchanging goods and services. We can't escape the forces of the market because we are the market. We are essentially tasked with manipulating and responding to the market if we wish to avoid it's perils. Economics isn't a game that we choose to play. It's a science with principles that humans have to educate ourselves on in order to raise our global standard of living - happiness.

 

Capitalism isn't the best system; but a hybrid of systems that includes a significant capitalistic influence is widely considered moving in the right direction. The inherent problem with critiquing the various economic systems is the lack of a consensus definition for each. As economic thought progresses, it seems that we will have something to borrow from virtually every system.

Edited February 14, 2013 by canttakemyid

[Clem Fandango]

 

The reality is that 99% this stuff has to be forced (at least on a large scale) [...] True, but typically only on a small scale.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion. If you're from a Communist farming community it's not like you'll be itching to start your own business and make loads of money- not even sure where you'd find start-up capital or employees or what you'd even be accomplishing by doing so. Why would people need to be forced to work cooperatively within their community?

 

Also, there is no large scale Communism, because Communist societies are stateless.

 

This economic view /philosophy works great for ants, but it's borderline incompatible with humans.

I disagree. The ant analogy is silly because a lot of people want simple lives and would be more than happy to work in their communities towards a collective goal. I think Communism would work great for rural, agricultural Communities, as it has done historically. If I got to design my own country right now, the rural areas would have something akin to Communism and the cities would rely on markets, and people who feel constrained (as certain people no doubt would) you could simply move to a city.

 

These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

They are because in this context I use "communal" to mean pertaining to communes rather than communities. Obviously I'm not trying to make a point about markets being divisive (as I'm sure Communists would) because as I've pointed out multiple times, I'm a believer in markets and one of my biggest objections to Capitalism is that it undermines them.

 

I wasn't inviting you to go off on a tangent about health care either.

 

I do have a severe problem with forced communism

Oxymoron.

 

The economic calculation problem alone makes any sort of efficiency impossible due to a lack of price signals.

Wait, why do we need price signals if all "firms" cooperate completely? If everything belongs to the commune it has no need to be "priced."

 

[...]

Not sure what your contention is here, but I'll respond to the things that jumped out at me as misconceptions:

• They aren't advocating Communism, they are advocating (according to what I've read in this thread) a centrally planned, technocratic Capitalist economy without fiat currency.

• There are no differing Communist philosophies, there is only one model of a Communist society. If it has a state it isn't Communism, if it has a market of any kind it isn't Communism. If there's any disconnect between the wider populace and power, it isn't Communism.

• The market isn't a permanent fixture of human relations, to see this we only have to look at the large number of examples of successful Communism. Communism doesn't stem from a warped view of the world or any kind of misunderstanding- there are a number of arguments against Communism, but a lack of feasibility isn't one of them. I for one would never in a million years want to live in Communist society because markets are preferable, and the whole ideology of Communism seems terribly contraining suffocating.

[Chunkyman]

The economic calculation problem alone makes any sort of efficiency impossible due to a lack of price signals.

Wait, why do we need price signals if all "firms" cooperate completely? If everything belongs to the commune it has no need to be "priced."

 

I apoligize for over-simplified nature of this video, but it's still a decent explanation of why price signals are important.

 

Basically, prices convey information. They are not arbitrary numbers attached to products, they are a reflection of the various things reflecting the supply of a product and the demand of a product which has been condensed down to a single data point, the price. Without prices, the only way to get the info needed to determine where resources should be allocated would be to examine the billions of constantly changing data points (with a huge number of them being completely unquantifiable) related to the supply and demand of a product. Since this is impossible to do, resource allocation without price signals is extremely inefficient.

 

Since items, resources, and services under communist societies are treated as internal transfers (as opposed to objects people trade via money and free markets), they lack the only method of effectively conveying information necessary for efficient resource allocation (which are price signals).

 

Even if a communist society could find a way to obtain the info necessary without price signals (like non-existant Marxist super-computers), the best they could hope to achieve is being on-par with what price signals accomplish naturally.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

• There are no differing Communist philosophies, there is only one model of a Communist society. If it has a state it isn't Communism, if it has a market of any kind it isn't Communism. If there's any disconnect between the wider populace and power, it isn't Communism.

• The market isn't a permanent fixture of human relations, to see this we only have to look at the large number of examples of successful Communism. Communism doesn't stem from a warped view of the world or any kind of misunderstanding- there are a number of arguments against Communism, but a lack of feasibility isn't one of them. I for one would never in a million years want to live in Communist society because markets are preferable, and the whole ideology of Communism seems terribly contraining suffocating.[/color]

The "it" you are referring to is an economic system. Give me one example of a marketless society. A marketless society isn't feasible for humans in the foreseeable future. I was just pointing out how these films try to divorce the human experience and market forces. That's just silly.

[Clem Fandango]

• There are no differing Communist philosophies, there is only one model of a Communist society. If it has a state it isn't Communism, if it has a market of any kind it isn't Communism. If there's any disconnect between the wider populace and power, it isn't Communism.

• The market isn't a permanent fixture of human relations, to see this we only have to look at the large number of examples of successful Communism. Communism doesn't stem from a warped view of the world or any kind of misunderstanding- there are a number of arguments against Communism, but a lack of feasibility isn't one of them. I for one would never in a million years want to live in Communist society because markets are preferable, and the whole ideology of Communism seems terribly contraining suffocating.[/color]

The "it" you are referring to is an economic system. Give me one example of a marketless society. A marketless society isn't feasible for humans in the foreseeable future. I was just pointing out how these films try to divorce the human experience and market forces. That's just silly.

Numerous agricultural (some industrial) communities throughout history?

 

Chunky: I'm not sure why you're going off about price signals, because I agree with your. However that is not a fatal flaw in Communism, it's not like a moneleyless, marketless ecnomony would be unable to function because nobody knows where to put what... I'm pretty sure Marxists have a saying about that... something about "to each according to his need"?

 

Also, if anything, price signals and supply and demand are an argument against Capitalism, not for it, given how Capitalism perverts and undermines both of those concepts. Bloated firms don't rely on price signals or supply and demand, neither do white collar wages (read:efficiency wage). And that's not even touching on artificial value (I'm sure you know a diamond is actually worth like $2).

[GrandMaster Smith]

Zeitgeist movie's were pretty interesting but they failed alot in some departments. The religion part of the first one has been torn to pieces, it's simply alot of farce's compiled into one.

 

 

If they couldn't even get their facts straight for that I'm not sure I could trust much else of what they say. Though I do remember first watching that really sprung an interest in how economics work and why we're so far in debt, even though I'm not sure how much of it was actually true.

[Clem Fandango]

Though I do remember first watching that really sprung an interest in how economics work and why we're so far in debt

And why is that? Let me guess: America has a huge national debt because every time a dollar goes into circulation, they have to pay back the federal reserve, even though it doesn't exist DUN DUN DUN!

[GrandMaster Smith]

Exactly. If we owe more money than what's actually in circulation wouldn't debt and ultimately a full collapse simply be inevitable?