Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 07:26:54 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project Travesty  (Read 6028 times)
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 02:30:02 AM
 #1

I happened upon this thread and just don't have it in me to keep fending off the contradictions and lack of understanding regarding economics. Instead, I'm posting a rebuttal of the entire 2-hour (yes, it's ridiculously long for the message they convey) film released early this year.

Newbie status sucks or I would've replied to the thread. If you don't know what the Zeitgeist Movement or the Venus Project, keep your unwarranted enthusiasm in check. The dreams are nice, but the advocacy toward a centrally-planned society is no different from existing forms of totalitarianism and could be as dangerous as the National Socialist party was in pre-WW2 Germany.

A Dangerously Outdated Zeitgeist
1508398014
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508398014

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508398014
Reply with quote  #2

1508398014
Report to moderator
1508398014
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508398014

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508398014
Reply with quote  #2

1508398014
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Auspician
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 04:46:54 AM
 #2

My dozens of hours of research, debate and discussion of the ZM/VP have come to the same conclusions of the OP.  If you're not already aware of this, think communism clad in high technology sprinkled with utopian pipedreams on a plate of economic delusion.  Yet the fantasy is so pervasive and apparently desirable that it has suckered in many who should have known better.  Beware.
flailing Junk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 06:32:41 AM
 #3

I have yet to have a rational discussion with a Zeitgeister. If you bring up the empirical evidence of the consequences of their ideas they assert that their ideas are completely new and unprecedented. If you try to argue from first principles they dismiss your arguments as the result mind-lock indoctrination or cultural bias and never get around to addressing your actual argument. You will be stuck defending the soiled remnants of the free market on the sole of the statist boot and they will forever be defending the polished gem of the ideal society that only exists in their mind.



myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 09:43:43 AM
 #4

I'm probably going to regret doing this in the Newbie forum, but here it is:
Zeitgeist boils down to one thing, pure and simple:

Population control.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 09:53:29 AM
 #5

I'm probably going to regret doing this in the Newbie forum, but here it is:
Zeitgeist boils down to one thing, pure and simple:

Population control.

Okay. Can you document this with information from the official website?


Count the number of times the movie says "Live within our means" and "what the planet will bear"

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
kerogre256
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
 #6

I'm probably going to regret doing this in the Newbie forum, but here it is:
Zeitgeist boils down to one thing, pure and simple:

Population control.

Okay. Can you document this with information from the official website?


Count the number of times the movie says "Live within our means" and "what the planet will bear"
"According to a new report released last week from the United Nations, one-third of all food produced for human consumption on the planet -- about 1.3 billion tons -- is lost or wasted each year."  And no "Live within our means" and "what the planet will bear" its not the same as population control....
otomo5240
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
 #7

In my opinion an efficient resource administation should be enough to make food production available for all population. This doesn't means that population have to decrease.
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 10:56:02 AM
 #8


You don't seem to understand what a Resource Based Economy (RBE) is since if you did your critique would probably make more sense.


Jacques created a tautological farce. Any economy is based on resources. Dressing up an inane concept does not make it revolutionary.

The world has progressed along the lines of his vision from the early 20th century, only in a realistic manner instead of an idealistic and unfeasible fantasy world that assumes everyone thinks the same way. These efforts would be better utilized by solving problems that actually exist instead of tilting at windmills.

Call me when these organizations start putting their engineering concepts into practice instead of hawking activism in an effort to make the world build a pipe dream.
Auspician
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 02:17:42 PM
 #9

An RBE is not centrally planned at all.

Untrue.   A RBE is centrally planned by an omniscient supercomputer, programmed by humans.  The sheer amount of programming required makes it a certainty that certain programmers with basic human economic self-interest will include code which allows them and theirs access to greater resources than someone else.  Strip away the technology involved, and you have an oligarchy.

An RBE is all voluntary like open source projects today. Projects can CHOOSE to collaborate with each other or not. If you don't want to participate, then just don't participate. There is no centrally managed police force to force you to participate.

A RBE requires access/control of all resources on the planet.  If it lacks these resources, it cannot efficiently run (short of its inhabitants living in poverty/starvation compared to the rest of the world who can buy what they need through the traditional economy).  If a RBE is truly voluntary, it is doomed to fail simply on the merits that you need nearly 100% buy-in to make it function.  Fortunately, there are enough people who understand economics alone who will speak out against the project to the point that you will never reach that goal. 

This means that the only way a RBE would have any hope of success is by coercion and the forming of monopolies over natural resources, just as governments/states do today.  If this is the case, then a RBE is immoral because it operates in opposition to the principles of free will, voluntary exchange and peaceful coexistence.

tl;dr: If a RBE is voluntary it can never reach the support it needs to succeed, if a RBE is coercive it is immoral and unfit to exist.

ALL projects can use schematics and drawings for ALL products produced by ALL other projects, which raises living standards for more people much faster. There is no incentive to produce products that have artificial short lifespan. There are no patents that artificially increase prices.

THIS is a fantastic idea and can be done on the open market without the need of a RBE.  We simply need to realize as a society that the idea of owning someone else's brain cells and the data they store is immoral and a violation of their rights.  Once we achieve this realization, we can do away with the fanciful yet immoral concept of 'intellectual property' and the benefits you suggest we will derive from this choice will naturally manifest in the world without any other more dramatic changes to society required. 

Rather than building 10,000 competing text editors interested people work together to build one or a few flexible and extensible text editors and spend the thousands of person-hours you save on something that has more value.

If the history of economics has taught us anything it is that competition inspires excellence and quality far more than cooperation does.  The motivation for excellence is obviously higher when success or failure has a tangible effect on your standard of living. 

That said, I'm not remotely against open-source or cooperation.  As long as these methods are willing to compete with private companies in the marketplace.  If the open-source product is truly better (or perhaps almost as good but free) this will manifest in widespread acceptance and use of that product.  And that is a wonderful thing, all achieved without having to remove the profit motive, money, and changing the world's entire economic system. 


The key to success in any endeavor is learning how to make the smallest move have the most maximal effect.  We'd be better off tweaking our existing economic system and removing interferences to free exchange (ie: governments and the parasitic corporations that couldn't exist in their absence).
LightRider
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1495


I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 01:38:05 AM
 #10

Quote
How can the addictions that might arise in an individual be prevented from causing disruption in society? Where is this explained?

We don't prevent it. We mitigate it, minimize it and help people with such afflictions, not put them in a cage. Current disruption is the result of the profit motive reinforced by government institutions.

Quote
Government is the core problem.

Government is made up of people. Are you asserting that only a certain type of people are the problem? The reason governments have vast authority and power is due to the monetary systems that have been employed, and the distorted values they engender in the population. Eliminating the monetary system and associated profit motive will render government unnecessary.

Quote
There is a difference between fiat or paper money which is no more of a commodity than the paper and ink which represents it, and metals that are used for coin as real money; the former relies upon confidence in its exchangability whereas the latter have practical purposes when not in a form used for money.

The idea of money can be made manifest in anything. It is dependent upon people to promote the idea in the first place. Gold is not money, it is simply a natural resource. Imbuing anything with extra-physical properties is the real religious threat to our continued well being. The Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project promote science, objectivity and ecological sustainability.

Quote
Capitalist economies approach maximal efficiency; governments interfering with business through legislation and regulation cause increasing inefficiency; gov’t is the problem, not a sound financial system. The current financial system of fractional reserve banking has been created by and for banks, legalized by gov’t, and enforced by police/military under authority of that government.

There are no capitalist economies, because they could not operate without a government or other authority to protect their operation. When everyone is out for themselves, what limits do you impose on people's actions? Choosing to work together for the benefit of everyone is less likely to generate the corrupt government that you demonize so readily and frequently.

Quote
Businesses can scale back during slow times by reducing employee hours, laying off, moving production to cheaper areas, diversifying, etc… gov’t is nearly impossible to cut back once it has spread out, mostly due to increased societal dependence on gov’t.

The well being of business is not the utmost concern in a resource based economy, but the well being of individuals. Sacrificing the individual for the business is what the monetary system does vigorously and repeatedly at an accelerating rate. Government monopolies derive their social dependence by the use of force, again supported and encouraged by the monetary system.

Quote
There is a continuum/range of product type and availability in any arena; the best/most effective balance of cost and quality, not just the ‘best’ of everything. As a point of contention, who determines what ‘best’ entails?

This is one of the reasons a monetary system is so wasteful. A wide range of products to support a stratified population is antithetical to a resource based economy. Why produce increasingly shoddier and unreliable products except to sell a newer one to the same person next year? Efficiency and efficacy are determined using the scientific method, measuring results and updating methodologies and concepts according to new found knowledge. The monetary system promotes using ancient methodologies until such time as it becomes unprofitable not to, increasing the amount of waste and inefficiency in the system.

Quote
Cost efficiency approaches limits of efficacy at which point there is a drop in profit, indicating that some aspect of the product or service is on a decline. This is a feedback mechanism in the same way that blood pressure and heart rate are indicators for circulatory system performance in the body. If I have no heart rate, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine my cardiac performance and respond or treat accordingly.

Poor metrics can be replaced with better ones. Using an inefficient and destructive monetary system as your metaphorical heart beat does not give you any information regarding true resource supply, human necessity, goods durability or efficiency of production. These are all distorted in favor of maximized profit and do not promote the well being or people or the planet that sustains us. Knowing all these things objectively will prove to make for a much better circulatory system for everyone involved.

Quote
Universal business and consumer objectives are to find a quality good or service at a reasonable price; this is not always the cheapest nor the most expensive.

You are correct. The monetary system forces people to compromise. A resource based economy does not serve an arbitrary, artificial and destructive money interest, so there is no need to compromise.

Quote
Planned obsolesence is not an objective; case in point - IBM Thinkpads: they developed a reputation for being so durable and reliable that they sold like hotcakes; I’m still using a 7 year old Thinkpad which, as anyone here can easily attest to, is generations for a computer product; meanwhile, cheap old chinese knockoffs that fell apart after a few months during the same era didn’t garner repeat sales. Without return in the form of profit, IBM would not have known the level of success generated by the series.

Yet the resources were spent on such knockoffs, and such companies continue to produce such products today. Their motive was short term profit, which is increasingly becoming the only focus prevalent in business today. In  an RBE, people would collaborate and design long lasting high quality products, not compete for diminishing profits.

Quote
It is absence of competition that prevents new ideas and greater efficiency from taking hold, particularly through new legislation instituted by gov’t; until established big businesses, mostly with assistance from and pressure on gov’t for enforcement, can implement these new ideas and efficiency measures, they will not be brought to market. Thus, it is government collusion that needlessly slows progress.

The monetary system discourages competition and innovation. It is human ingenuity that produces newer models, products and ideas. It has been shown that people do better at creative tasks when they don't have a profit motive.

Quote
The lifespan of a product is the result of a balance in quality and cost; if an item outlives its usefulness for one person, but breaks before another has finished making use of it, is that planned obsolesence or waste?

Cost is an imaginary, arbitrary opinion based concept. It forces people to compete for a diminishing pool of currency by producing cheap wasteful products in mass quantities. As stated before, the monetary system discourages competition with artificial and intrinsic barriers to the market. If the item was not designed to be produced sustainably, function well over many lifetimes and be recycled easily, then yes, it is generally wasteful.

Quote
Money is a proxy for resources, particularly services and finished products. Money has many functions, including incentive and feedback. Run a business and you’ll certainly understand.

It also hides the true cost of such products and services. What cost is assessed to the people who will die from working with hazardous materials in a developing nation? What cost is reflected by the untold amounts of environmental destruction? What is the cost of an entire generation of people denied education, health services, food and water for the benefit of a few businessmen? What cost is reflected in entire countries being invaded, destroyed and ransacked for the benefit of a few multinational corporations? Monetary cost is a poor metric of anything meaningful.

Quote
Economic sustainability is synonymous with life sustainability, but this video uses subtle fear tactics to misdirect on that point. An economic system can apply to a single cell or an entire planet. A better term might be a logistics system.

Economic sustainability refers to business perpetuation, not life sustainability. Business, profit and money do not concern themselves with the well being of people, just the amount of profit can be generated, usually at the continually deplorable conditions that it subjects them to.

Quote
None of the economic points in this video cut down to the core of why things are the way they are; why businesses find incentive to waste instead of gear toward efficiency and quality. The culprit is government, but the focus is on the symptom (monetary system disruption) rather than the cause (gov’t).

No government can be sustained without a monetary system. Your blind adherence to fantastical economic theory does not let you see the natural consequences of the monetary system, which is centralization of authority.

Quote
Status symbols have been present throughout mankind’s history; does the ZM think it’s going to just stop what seems to be an inherent predisposition?

It is not an inherent predisposition, but reinforced by the culture that people develop in.

Quote
A business that kills its clients or does not provide a worthwhile and quality product or service will not remain in business. There is no debate on this in any realm of economics. Cigarette and alcohol producers neither directly, nor immediately kill users of their products. Users find an appeal to using the products and the companies obtain returns so long as their customers make use of them. There are some short-sighted businesses that do cause rapid harm, but they quickly lose a customer base and fail.

You seem to switch stances here, praising those industries that have garnered government support for their murderous products. Interesting.

Quote
This video attempts to do away with any sense of personal responsibility; history has already seen this in the catastrophes that have been government-managed economies. Even reliance on automation through robotics has its own dangers that have been debated ad infinitum for the past century. Who repairs the robots? What if the repair mechanism breaks down? Is there supervision? What if the computer system concludes that humanity has become an ‘inefficiency’? And so on.

Please define what you mean by personal responsibility. People like to use that phrase, but don't understand what it implies. The legitimate questions that you bring up pale in comparison to the questions generated by our current monetary system. What happens when we run out of potable water for people? What happens when we can no longer rely upon plentiful fossil fuels as a source of energy? What happens when nuclear war breaks out? The assertion that machines will decide to attack humanity is a popular fiction used to cause sensationalism and sell entertainment products. It is unlikely that computers will take any meaningful negative actions against people.

Quote
This is another version of creating equality where there never has been, and attempting to do so will destroy the productive capacity of society. This is the result of socialism. Providing for the base needs of human life (food, potable water, shelter) is no guarantee of either equality or success.

No one is creating equality or even promising such nonsense. When we value the individual, we allow them to reach their highest potential, so that they contribute to society to the best of their ability. Millions of people who could potentially help change the world are sacrificed to the monetary system in order to keep the few comfortable.

Quote
Money itself is any commodity used as a proxy for other forms of wealth, therefore money is not debt; credit is debt.

Money is an idea, and in our current dominant paradigm, it is debt.

Quote
Individual businesses need to compete, innovate and excel in their respective fields in order to survive and thrive. Any grand ideas may be all well and good, but the natural order of things will eventually take its course. Rather than fighting those forces, working with them provides the best results.

Why should we confine such competition and innovation to businesses? That seems contrived for the benefit of the monetary system, not people. Businesses do not adhere to natural order, they attempt to ignore it in their pursuit of profits, always with negative effects.

Quote
Figuring out the logistics requires plugging the numbers into a computer and interpreting the results? Yeah, time to catch up - that’s so 20th century. Every automobile manufacturer, steel production facility, energy generation utility and countless other businesses have been doing this for decades. Before that, it was done by hand in ledgers.
‘Proximity strategy’ already takes place. It’s a natural process of civilization. Cities don’t magically spring up near major sources of water for no reason. This has been a natural principle since before the Sumerian civilization.
Shared use? How is this a new concept? Perfect case: Zipcar. In general, any rental by whatever name for the past… millennium. This kind of service fulfills a need. Once again, forcing individuals to adhere to this is no different from government mandates.

Scaling such systems out for the benefit of everyone and not just private interest would allow for much better resource management. That is the whole point of the film. We have the technology to reach these goals, but the influence of the monetary system inhibits such actions.

Quote
What empirical evidence and testing can be pointed to with economics?

None, because it is a contrived fantasy that has successfully fooled many people into believing its tenets. It cannot be subject to scientific inquiry.

Quote
If every system than can be tested, should be tested, doesn’t it stand to reason that a free market without government interference would be a good test? It is a system that hasn’t been formally attempted on any long-term basis without external interference.

Bitcoin seems to be engaging in such a test to a limited extent. However, there is no such thing as a free market. Everyone and everything is subject to the laws of nature, and there is no freedom from that.

Quote
Profit and loss are the measurements that a business uses to determine its success and accuracy of its predictive assumptions or ‘math’. Without this feedback, endeavors with useless or destructive tendencies would last far longer than normal. Note the existence of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions.

Basing your success on fantasy is not going to give you accurate feedback. Abusing math to your own benefit does not free you from the physical reality on which you truly rely on.

Quote
Mundane actions are not the only things compensated for by monetary reward. Nor is money in and of itself a reward, yet it is an incentive and feedback mechanism which maintains a significant level of economic and societal stability.

Stability is not the same as sustainability. We can see that with the coming unrest due to the recent severe financial instability. Trading long term problems for short term stability is a poor way to conduct human affairs.

Quote
By any other name, capitalism has been the only system to pervade throughout history.

Due to use of force.

Quote
Natural gas can replace oil. It’s mostly a matter of reconfiguring existing infrastructure. It isn’t a final solution, but it could push collapse out by about 50 years. During that time, a transition might occur to a more sustainable platform.

It certainly appeals to established interests, and its promotion and widespread production is also induced and encouraged by government collusion, which you supposedly oppose. Not to mention the environmental destruction and natural resource poisoning associated with its extraction. This is only the result of putting business concerns ahead of people and environment.

Hopefully you realize that the idea of money is obsolete and its associated power structures will no longer be necessary to provide a high quality of life for all people, both now and in the future.


Bitcoin combines money, the wrongest thing in the world, with software, the easiest thing in the world to get wrong.
Visit www.thevenusproject.com and www.theZeitgeistMovement.com.
Auspician
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
June 30, 2011, 01:15:08 PM
 #11

To previous poster:  Correlation does not imply causation.  The economic problems caused by government and the economic parasites created by government taxes, regulations and subsidies would simply not exist in the absence of government.  Corporations could not exist without state charters allowing them to destroy whatever they touch without liability. 

Just because most of us now live under an oppressive state conjoined with a capitalist economy doesn't mean that both are inherently corrupt, any more than the family unit is corrupt simply because it interacts with the State.  If I pour poison into water, the mixture is certainly toxic.  But if I chemically remove the poison from the water, the water becomes once again pure and drinkable.  Statism mixed with capitalism is certainly an unhealthy brew; but if we remove the toxin it will quickly become apparent that on its face laissez-faire capitalism isn't the problem, Statism is.

Lets stop blaming the economic problems caused by government on the economy itself.  Money, free exchange and capitalism are not the problem, the problem is manipulation (taxation, regulation, subsidization) of capitalism and monopolistic control of the money supply by the State.  Stop calling the victim the perpetrator.
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 06:03:31 PM
 #12

@ Auspician: Nice summation.


We don't prevent it. We mitigate it, minimize it and help people with such afflictions, not put them in a cage. Current disruption is the result of the profit motive reinforced by government institutions.

Is it? Conflating correlation with causation is a common mistake made without rigorous study and analysis. Assumptions can be dangerous.

Where is an exact procedure for mitigating and minimizing? There are for-profit establishments that specialize in substance abuse, despite government mishandling of the topic. They provide a safe location for use and means to kick habits while also making headway in finding employment. In return, other businesses contract for quality employees vouched for by the drug addiction management firm, alleviating the catch-22 of needing to have references before working, but needing to work to have references.

Although I am not fond of Soros, this does a reasonable job of outlining current issues and progressive methods of management.

Quote
Government is made up of people. Are you asserting that only a certain type of people are the problem? The reason governments have vast authority and power is due to the monetary systems that have been employed, and the distorted values they engender in the population. Eliminating the monetary system and associated profit motive will render government unnecessary.

People are fallible. Few instances of individuals rejecting temptation exist throughout history, one such being Cincinnatus.

Government does not draw its power from the monetary system alone, or even primarily. It is the will of a population to relinquish personal responsibility by delegating it to a central authority, typically resulting in one that promises the moon but delivers dirt. The real power behind government is the financial sector where accumulated wealth can be misappropriated: bankers and poorly-led corporations.

If the monetary system used is a distortion or Ponzi scheme, yet the population goes along with it... caveat emptor. Choose the right monetary system, i.e. gold or Bitcoin.

Banks and some businesses that insulate themselves from competitors develop overwhelming power. They use government as a conduit to 1) create legislation favoring themselves, 2) rule on the resulting laws, increasingly in favor of themselves and 3) enforce said laws through the government-controlled military and police forces.

Thus, government is a tool - it acts as a central point of failure that rapidly falls to abuse and corruption, mostly due to human participation. For an alternative, Somalia's time as an anarchy is an excellent example of a thriving economy without centralized government.

Central governments and managed economies do not scale well past the familial or immediate community unit. The number at which the situation tends to break down is around 100-300 individual participants.

Quote
The idea of money can be made manifest in anything. It is dependent upon people to promote the idea in the first place. Gold is not money, it is simply a natural resource. Imbuing anything with extra-physical properties is the real religious threat to our continued well being. The Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project promote science, objectivity and ecological sustainability.

The concept of money is an abstract that fulfills a real-world need for resource management.

Balance this equation for X:

Banana + X = Laptop

Without a common method of valuation, there is no fluidity of exchange and trade. Gold was discovered to serve this purpose best due to natural selection over time. The Bitcoin system shares gold's core properties and provides additional benefits that cannot be supplied by physical medium.

This is a practical matter and has nothing to do with religion. Be careful what you promote. The ZM/VP under Jacque Fresco can be classified as a cult and it's proponents easily defined as zealots. Without reason, we have nothing.

Quote
There are no capitalist economies, because they could not operate without a government or other authority to protect their operation. When everyone is out for themselves, what limits do you impose on people's actions? Choosing to work together for the benefit of everyone is less likely to generate the corrupt government that you demonize so readily and frequently.

You're right, there are no true capitalist economies. There are capitalistic economies, but just as with direct/pure democracy, pure capitalism is currently unrealistic.

However, the reasoning suggested again conflates correlation with causation. Capitalistic economies have existed among human cultures for far longer than centralized government has been a major force. Capitalism is a beneficiary of decentralization. It is a natural, self-regulating state in which voluntary participation is the only way it can even come into existence. It is not a human-conjured system forced upon others.

Quote
The well being of business is not the utmost concern in a resource based economy, but the well being of individuals. Sacrificing the individual for the business is what the monetary system does vigorously and repeatedly at an accelerating rate. Government monopolies derive their social dependence by the use of force, again supported and encouraged by the monetary system.

My original statement had nothing to do with business vs. individual.

Quote
This is one of the reasons a monetary system is so wasteful. A wide range of products to support a stratified population is antithetical to a resource based economy. Why produce increasingly shoddier and unreliable products except to sell a newer one to the same person next year? Efficiency and efficacy are determined using the scientific method, measuring results and updating methodologies and concepts according to new found knowledge. The monetary system promotes using ancient methodologies until such time as it becomes unprofitable not to, increasing the amount of waste and inefficiency in the system.

By that reasoning, there is only one of any type of item that should exist. For example, everyone must have the latest smartphone or nothing. What happens when there aren't enough resources to provide the appropriate item for everyone demanding it?

This eliminates choice and trends toward totalitarian dictatorship; it has nothing to do with money. Refer to my comment above on accepting a flawed monetary system.

Quote
Poor metrics can be replaced with better ones. Using an inefficient and destructive monetary system as your metaphorical heart beat does not give you any information regarding true resource supply, human necessity, goods durability or efficiency of production. These are all distorted in favor of maximized profit and do not promote the well being or people or the planet that sustains us. Knowing all these things objectively will prove to make for a much better circulatory system for everyone involved.

How is it proposed that newer metrics be developed if the entire system proposed is so perfect? What can be proven to be erroneous about the current metrics?

Maximized profit only lasts so long as there is no alternative product or service with sufficiently appealing aspects. Logically, the ZM adheres exactly to that prevention of alternatives, relying upon the goodness of people to not exploit the system.

You degraded the comparison I used, then made use of it yourself.

Quote
You are correct. The monetary system forces people to compromise. A resource based economy does not serve an arbitrary, artificial and destructive money interest, so there is no need to compromise.

Yes, you can have anything you want so long as it comes in black and only black.

Quote
It is not an inherent predisposition, but reinforced by the culture that people develop in.

I'm not picking on you directly, as there are plenty of people who use this illogical form of argument. If it isn't an inherent predisposition, how can it be reinforced?

Quote
You seem to switch stances here, praising those industries that have garnered government support for their murderous products. Interesting.

Glad you feel clever. Now we have to temper that.

Most people tend to have a focus that spans days to months, not years and decades or longer. Deferred results don't make as much of an impact as immediate gratification. Cigarettes and alcohol cause serious issues with long-term chronic use, but do not typically kill anywhere near quickly enough to preclude profit.

On the flip side, if there were no demand for either, they wouldn't be profitable in the first place. People demand these things. If they were unobtainable, some would distill their own alcohol and grow their own smokable products.

Will ZM/VP produce cigarettes and alcohol if people demand it? If not, why? If those things won't exist, is it because thousands of years of custom will disappear overnight? Is it because they are deemed bad for consumption? On whose authority? If they are produced, will there be only one type of cigarette and one type of alcohol because they're the "best"? Again, on whose authority?

Quote
Please define what you mean by personal responsibility. People like to use that phrase, but don't understand what it implies. The legitimate questions that you bring up pale in comparison to the questions generated by our current monetary system. What happens when we run out of potable water for people? What happens when we can no longer rely upon plentiful fossil fuels as a source of energy? What happens when nuclear war breaks out? The assertion that machines will decide to attack humanity is a popular fiction used to cause sensationalism and sell entertainment products. It is unlikely that computers will take any meaningful negative actions against people.

Personal responsibility - accepting the results of one's own decisions or actions, whether positive or negative.

Once again, money is not the issue being discussed. Coins don't screw people over, people screw people over. Vilifying the money is like cursing the dirt because you fell and scraped your knee.

Assuming an assertion is another logical error. Anaphylaxis is also a possibility, but not a guaranteed result. That doesn't mean it can't happen.

When potable water runs out, people die. When fossil fuels run out, adaptation ensues. If nuclear war breaks out, life will be a lot nicer on a submarine.

Your questions are haphazard and off-topic. If you want to engage in debate, focus.

Quote
Money is an idea, and in our current dominant paradigm, it is debt.

Debt certainly may be treated as money today, but it is not as such until it is realized - monetized. If a debt is not fulfilled, it does not become money. That's the core problem underlying the whole global financial collapse: all promises, no delivery.

If debt truly were money, gold and silver would not be of significant value and promises would make wishes come true.

Quote
None, because it is a contrived fantasy that has successfully fooled many people into believing its tenets. It cannot be subject to scientific inquiry.

Philosophy and psychology must be a fantasy as well with no practical applicability or measurable results.

Quote
Basing your success on fantasy is not going to give you accurate feedback. Abusing math to your own benefit does not free you from the physical reality on which you truly rely on.

I'm glad we agree on this regarding the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project.

Quote
Due to use of force.

Yes, nature is powerful. You can try to fight it while the rest of us figure out how to work with it.


As for the rest of the arguments, I don't have time to comment on every misconception presented. Instead of accepting the ZM/VP as your textbook, read up on history, economics and psychology. I recommend MIT's OCW as a good start.

If you still feel ZM/VP is so wonderful, go try it. When it fails spectacularly worse than trying to herd cats (it's nothing new and historical precedent shows that it fails every time; computerization only makes the failure more spectacular), come back to the real world and do something productive.

I agree that some of the ideas are nice, but attempting to predict a future is different from dictating what you want it to be and I have yet to hear any genuinely convincing arguments otherwise. Let things develop on their own instead of fighting the progression as the banks and governments are doing; put your effort into a worthwhile field toward that end - engineering, research, etc...
WurmD
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 10:37:02 PM
 #13

If the history of economics has taught us anything it is that competition inspires excellence and quality far more than cooperation does.
The history of economics has not taught any such thing conclusively.

As Red Hat CEO's is fond of saying, any competition in a zero-sum-game scenario is detrimental to the whole of society.

In not zero-sum game scenarios (i.e., competing to create the better song; inside a project, competing to finish their work allotment first), sure, go right ahead.

A tangent, but at least entertaining: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
tl;dr: monetary incentives are counter-productive to non-mechanical tasks, are a detriment to creativity.

The motivation for excellence is obviously higher when success or failure has a tangible effect on your standard of living.
And in a TVP-like society, where an inventor is not limited by profitability, [and so inventions and improvements can be immediately be put into practice/production], the effect of cooperation in creation of new technological advents would be greater and faster to affect your standard of living.
Hippie Tech
aka Amenstop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 06:20:18 AM
 #14

Hi and good day all ! Here is why I believe and know that Zietgiest is just a different shade of nazi.

I first became suspicious after seeing the 2nd "Venus project" version because of the way they dropped the 9/11 and religion truth aspects of the first movie. Then after seeing, Zeitgeist Refuted final cut (I'm pretty sure this was it. heh... downloading it now and will confirm.) and how it exposed the Venus project/nazi/royals/lucifarian ties, things started to make sense. They had to drop 9/11 and religion because eventually the Venus project/lucifarian connections would have been exposed.

I highly recommend Ring of Power by Amenstop Productions. Enjoy !
http://www.federaljack.com/?page_id=6979


miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 10:38:07 PM
 #15

monetary incentives are counter-productive to non-mechanical tasks, are a detriment to creativity.

I agree; it has been proven. I think economics in general today is too concerned with valuation when it needs to focus as much or more on motivational psychology and global capital flows (to be fair, at higher levels economic studies do spend a lot of time on investor psychology [while most schools ignore the general consumer/participant perspective], but those efforts are currently being used by major banks and governments to game the system in the short-term rather than improve stability and sustainability [it is possible to have stability without sustainability] over the long-term). I'm amazed that last sentence made sense.

A better debate might be on appropriate usage of motivational mechanisms. Motivational factors are different between guaranteed or immediate incentive and potential compensation. Ex post facto socially-based reward can take many forms, all of which can be categorized as different currencies acting as money (where money is the abstract concept and currency is a manifestable form of money). In other words, creativity might not do well when incentivized by money, but that same creativity can be monetarily compensated for after its creation regardless of whether there was an expectation of reward or not.

The end result of this is still that money is not to be faulted; rather, inappropriate or poor utilization of money leads to detrimental effects on society. That also has a lot to do with the contemporary monetary system (such as fractional reserve banking).

The ZM/VP makes no distinction between money and a system that makes use of it when they are distinctly separate components, just as the internet (and even below that, electronic computer technology) is the underlying framework upon which Bitcoin is based. Their argument is like suggesting that computers (money; base concept), and thus the internet (fractional reserve banking; system based on money) and Bitcoin (currency; functional manifestation of money within the framework system) by extension, should be banned because some people have been able to manipulate the internet with nefarious intent. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Widespread awareness and education in this respect will largely mitigate the current level of ignorance regarding how money works, trending toward beneficial systems (such as Bitcoin which can both eliminate the fractional reserve banking system and replace the centrally-managed currencies dependent upon that system) instead of negative ones. This is already occurring (Greece and Japan flocking to gold after government ineptitude at preventing and responding to their respective disasters, for example) and will build momentum over time as government-sponsored monetary systems approach outright failure.

Be patient and read some of Martin Armstrong's work on long-term cycles.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!