Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

[MrHempstock]

I searched and got no results, but, even so - sorry if this has already been posted.

If you have not watched it, you should do so. Its topics vary, but the overall theme is our monetary system and what's wrong with it. The other topics are covered in an attempt to understand the main subject - money.

http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w

[1713587276]

1713587276

[1713587276]

1713587276

[LightRider]

Yes! Thank you for investigating the ideas and premises of the Zeitgeist film series!

In fact, this forum has had a fairly extensive discussion about a resource based economy on this thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373.0

[MrHempstock]

Lol I figured as much. NoScript is sometimes a crapshoot for me ;}

[jamesc760]

Nothing new, move along people. Another worthless conspiracy theory.

[LightRider]

Nothing new, move along people. Another worthless conspiracy theory.

Shifting the global culture to one that has positive life sustaining values if worthwhile. Perhaps you are ignorant of what the film is about.

[MrHempstock]

 He's probably confusing Moving Forward with the Zeitgeist movie that came before it, which although I haven't seen, I understand to pretty much be about conspiracies.

[LightRider]

He's probably confusing Moving Forward with the Zeitgeist movie that came before it, which although I haven't seen, I understand to pretty much be about conspiracies.

It's an interesting film. Highly recommended.

[vokain]

at around 2:20. thank  you for sharing this. I think I see our endgame now. If we get to the point where we don't have to work for goods anymore, via this resource based economy, we can afford to work on each other. All the aberrant folk, we can work on them rather than send them to jail or death.

[herzmeister]

If we get to the point where we don't have to work for goods anymore, via this resource based economy, we can afford to work on each other.

Except it's a fallacy. The Luddite Fallacy, to be precise, and it's old. Folks like you have been saying that since machines and factories were invented. We've already long reached "the point where we don't have to work for goods anymore". Agriculture in Western Culture accounts for maybe 3% of occupations.

But we've come up with other ways to spend our time, our professional lives. How would explain your alter ego of 300 years ago the job you're maybe doing today, like e.g. sitting all day in front of crystal screens all day, to earn a living, instead of just letting the factory machines feed you? Your alter ego of the past must think you're crazy and insane to be doing this.

What a non-corrupt economy should do indeed is to increase efficiency and drive prices down for every-day goods. It is happening, just slowly; someone on the dole today may already be "richer" than a king of a famine-struck land of the middle ages, but of course there is always a lot of corruption in the way due to middle-men sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and holding up artificial barriers to keep new disruptive ideas from entering the markets. But eventually things happen, just not as fast as they could be.

So there will always open new fields of occupation, because humans' desires are endless, but we're also inventive, so there is always room for progress. Where are the flying cars we've been promised a few decades ago? Why aren't there colonies on the moon and Mars yet? When can I go spend my holidays on the Outer Rings of Saturn?

I doubt a centralized managed planned economy can reach such goals faster and more definitely than a market economy; it's been tried many times already. In fact Chile's Allende already tried to implement an automated, cybernetic society in the 70ies, very akin to Venus Project ideas. Didn't work so well, and people rather chose to help themselves via black markets.

[vokain]

If we get to the point where we don't have to work for goods anymore, via this resource based economy, we can afford to work on each other.

Except it's a fallacy. The Luddite Fallacy, to be precise, and it's old. Folks like you have been saying that since machines and factories were invented. We've already long reached "the point where we don't have to work for goods anymore". Agriculture in Western Culture accounts for maybe 3% of occupations.

But we've come up with other ways to spend our time, our professional lives. How would explain your alter ego of 300 years ago the job you're maybe doing today, like e.g. sitting all day in front of crystal screens all day, to earn a living, instead of just letting the factory machines feed you? Your alter ego of the past must think you're crazy and insane to be doing this.

What a non-corrupt economy should do indeed is to increase efficiency and drive prices down for every-day goods. It is happening, just slowly; someone on the dole today may already be "richer" than a king of a famine-struck land of the middle ages, but of course there is always a lot of corruption in the way due to middle-men sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and holding up artificial barriers to keep new disruptive ideas from entering the markets. But eventually things happen, just not as fast as they could be.

So there will always open new fields of occupation, because humans' desires are endless, but we're also inventive, so there is always room for progress. Where are the flying cars we've been promised a few decades ago? Why aren't there colonies on the moon and Mars yet? When can I go spend my holidays on the Outer Rings of Saturn?

I doubt a centralized managed planned economy can reach such goals faster and more definitely than a market economy; it's been tried many times already. In fact Chile's Allende already tried to implement an automated, cybernetic society in the 70ies, very akin to Venus Project ideas. Didn't work so well, and people rather chose to help themselves via black markets.

what?

1)  We clearly have not reached this point yet where we do not need to man the factories and till the fields any longer.  Did you even watch the video and get to the part about the Venus Project? I guarantee Chile, corrupt as it is, did not come close to accomplishing what they set out to do. They couldn't. automatic processes and cybernetics in the 70s were barely even functional let alone affordable, for one. Two, energy still has costs. a centrall managed economy like this has to have a unitary makeup that voluntarily agrees to work together. clearly chile didn't.  Think more along the lines of Finland. Their homogenous society is probably closest to being able to work together in a way required by such an undertaking.

and 2) I don't know about you..but if I was free to live life for all it was and not have to work because more energy is collected  than used, i would not squander it away watching TV etc all day. I'd spend time with my friends and family, do fun things, figure cool shit out, solve problems, help people, educate myself, etc etc etc. so that I can invest in society. This is what I'm doing now, partially thanks to Bitcoin. I'm utterly offended by your comment about "the job you're maybe doing today, like e.g. sitting all day in front of crystal screens all day" Yeah I've made some money off BTC appreciation, so what that I no longer have to grind at a minimum wage job and I'm free to invest more of my time in my interests? Did you ever think to wonder how I got the initial capital? Did you ever think that through my discourse on these crystal screens, that I'm perhaps making a positive impact on others and myself in the sharing of ideas such as this? Why are you even here?

[herzmeister]

1)  We clearly have not reached this point yet where we do not need to man the factories and till the fields any longer.

Everything is relative. The manned factories largely create cars, computers, phones, etc, i.e. goods that satisfy rather advanced than basic needs. The human work force that would be required to satisfy our basic needs today is negligible. That's what I wanted to say.

Replaced jobs on the assembly line will migrate towards more sophisticated ones in the research, design and testing process, there'll be Mechanical Turk tasks etc...

Did you even watch the video and get to the part about the Venus Project?

I did, trust me.  

I guarantee Chile, corrupt as it is, did not come close to accomplishing what they set out to do. They couldn't. automatic processes and cybernetics in the 70s were barely even functional let alone affordable, for one.

FYI, Jaque Fresco's ideas reach well back into that decade, young man. But well, fine, so they couldn't. What makes you think we could today? And who would you put in charge to implement? What alternatives would we have if it failed? What about those who wish not to take part in this "experiment" of a global "resource-based" (i.e. monopolistic, centralistic) planned economy because they're too well aware of the risks and dangers of a Single Point of Failure in this technocratic dystopia?

Two, energy still has costs. [...] because more energy is collected  than used

Another fallacy widely purported by your ilk. Read up on the Jevons Paradox.

a centrall managed economy like this has to have a unitary makeup that voluntarily agrees to work together.

"centrally managed" vs "voluntarily work together" is, at least for me, a clear contradiction, or wishful thinking at best.

Their homogenous society is probably closest to being able to work together in a way required by such an undertaking.

I agree a society should be more "homogenous" (i.e. more equitable) in order to be able to optimally utilize its capacity inherent in the talents of each individual. We may differ on the means to achieve this end. About Finland and Scandinavia, things may work out well to a degree so far for them because they're small and cozy countries. It's like with a monarchy. It also may work well as long as the king is wise and benevolent. But if Finland had a Pentagon, you'll quickly see the investments shift away from schools and public education to propaganda and military assignment abroad to "bring democracy" and secure "vital" resources.

and 2) I don't know about you..but if I was free to live life for all it was and not have to work because more energy is collected  than used, i would not squander it away watching TV etc all day. I'd spend time with my friends and family, do fun things, figure cool shit out, solve problems, help people, educate myself, etc etc etc. so that I can invest in society.

Unfortunately, humans are different, and not everyone in the world will adopt or be cured by your or my values.

This is what I'm doing now, partially thanks to Bitcoin. I'm utterly offended by your comment about "the job you're maybe doing today, like e.g. sitting all day in front of crystal screens all day" Yeah I've made some money off BTC appreciation, so what that I no longer have to grind at a minimum wage job and I'm free to invest more of my time in my interests? Did you ever think to wonder how I got the initial capital? Did you ever think that through my discourse on these crystal screens, that I'm perhaps making a positive impact on others and myself in the sharing of ideas such as this?

I'm quite amused you took this so personal. I did not accuse you of sitting in front of crystal screens all day. I'd rather wanted to show in context how hard it would be for, in general, e.g. a programmer today describing someone 300 years ago what the hell they're doing and how they'd earn a living for typing numbers and letters into a machine all day and why someone would pay them for that so they could earn their bread. Similarly, 300 years from now, jobs will be unimaginable for us. I sincerely hope there will no one be starving anymore, but there is just no guarantee.

Why are you even here?

Most folks here are market-libertarian, in case you haven't noticed. Well, I'm neither that nor a Zeitgeist-collectivist. Today I'd rather describe myself as being somewhere inbetween Syndicalism, Mutualism and Agorism, i.e. I find a mixture or synthesis of those would be the natural and balanced order how humans would self-organize given there was no (state) authority.

[LightRider]

We live on one "centralized" planet. Of course our resources, at first, are centralized in that sense. But the intelligent distribution and utilization of resources for the benefit of all people is something that is possible without engaging in the destructive value system of an invalid monetary game. People will value what their culture tells them to value, because people are not born with preconceived notions of how to live. Creating an environment in which we care for eachother instead of engaging in false competition will allow for wider adoption of better values, enabling a better world for all people.

[Impaler]

This Zeitgeist film is a bit less conspiracy driven then then the first which is good.  

I often make the analogy that a 'conspiracy nut' is someone who says the national obsession with sports is wrong...because the outcome of every game is rigged.  Thus they reach the nominally correct conclusion but for the wrong reason, and in a way fall into the trap of the conventional wisdom, as if sports WOULD be important if it wasn't rigged.  Attention is pointlessly deflected towards an irreverent point that is virtually impossible to prove and the big picture is neglected.

The discussion of 'structural violence' in this film is thus a very encouraging because it moves the focus away from some mythical cabal and onto the undeniable reality that stares us in the face everyday and which is on its face deplorable and worth of our anger.  But at times I think the film throws the baby out with the bath water when it concludes that money and markets are the root.  From their the Venus project basically rehashes standard Communist doctrine with the 'central planning' being done by computer and with a higher emphasis on ecology and sustainability.  But computers must be programmed by people, and computers will only give the responses thouse people have programmed them for, thus people are still the ultimate decision makers and can not be removed from the loop either practically or morally by this 'slight of hand' we would still be left with imperfect people making imperfect decisions even if they utilized computers as proposed.

From my perspective as an adherent of the theories of Silvio Gesell, it is an INCORRECT money system that is the root, and the marketplace is simply a tool that utilizes money (or not if its a barter market), bad money simply makes for a bad market.  The flaw in money is that it is hard, correct this and you eliminate interest which drives virtually all inequality and poverty.  Hard money also causes the inevitable and structural undervaluing of nature, this is quite a well established mathematical tool, business and government use it all the time in whats called a net-present-value calculation, the higher the interest rate the lower the value of nature and renewable resources and the greater the incentive to over harvest.

[vokain]

It was under my impression that this would not start out as a new world order and plan out resource management for the entire world, but rather, as a small voluntary trial run that might scale, made possible only by investors and a truly committed base. I thought so because I signed myself up on this list that collects people that are interested in working together on such a project. They are also looking for funding.

I apologize for the unintentional discord, Impaler. I too live by agorist ideals in this world we have now as the best ways to conserve resources. However, our  system now does not allow us to actualize real cost.

Any way, the goals of the Veus Project does fit in line with my belief that something like this is possible, and achievable by agorist ideals, yet extremely extremely difficult and likely not yet possible given our current human condition. There is a serious chicken and egg problem in structuring such a society, but perhaps it would have to disseminate in a manner like bitcoin is right now, via voluntary opting in to a system that might be "better" by virtue that it is more profitable for them to do so either in the long run (like how we are with bitcoin now) or because it is the better system (by the time the Venus Project matures).

[MrHempstock]

...  But at times I think the film throws the baby out with the bath water when it concludes that money and markets are the root.  

I took from it that inequality was the root of structural violence in societies. It does then attribute the inequality to the money system, but it doesn't really make sense in the re-telling if you neglect the bit about inequality. Of course, if the monetary system (and the interests that control it) didn't create such unabashed inequality, we wouldn't have such a problem with it.

I argue on a regular basis with "Mericans" that think I'm a commie if I advocate a wealth limit. They think that because they make $100k+ I'm somehow referring to them, when I'm really talking about $5mill+ earners. They DON'T contribute much to society. Unless you're into the Banking Collapse sort of thing.

And taxing the wealthy at a higher rate? Effing Socialist. 
It's funny how when they were little and watched Disney's Robin Hood, they didn't root for the Sheriff of Nottingham....even though he was obeying the law...

[Impaler]

I don't disagree that inequality and structural violence are manifestations rather then the root of the problem.  But zeitgeist falls into the very stale Marxist thinking when it calls capitalism and markets the same thing.  These are completely separate social systems.  Markets are simply the exchange of goods and "free markets" simply mean that all market participants are free to set their own prices and determine how much to bring to market for sale or conversely how much to buy.  Markets even free markets predated even money and you will have about as much success removing them as you would have at banning sex.

Capitalism is a very different thing from markets, capitalism is a system in which productive activities are financed by interest bearing debt.  Capitalism requires money (aka capital) and most importantly it requires HARD money.  Only when money is hard can it demand interest and thus support capitalism.  Gold backed money has thus always been the form of money championed by capitalists.  The overall effect of capitalism is that a structural fixed percentage of the productive value of all economic activity is transferred from produces to the holders of existing money, the more efficient the capitalism the more is transferred.

Marx failed utterly to make this distinction and saw capitalism and markets as one and the same, and further failed to see that it was the HARD nature of money that was the foundation of the system and instead misidentified it as 'ownership of the means of production'.  Thus a hundred years of wasted effort trying to 'cease the means of production' began and ended fruitlessly while the money problem was ignored.  Perhaps we can forgive the confusion in Marx's time, Industrialists and factory owners were stronger then due to their high profitability many were not in debt to banks and thouse that were did not grovel before them.  Note that capitalism has done it's work, extracted its pound of flesh and gone on its merry way as soon as the debtor has turned a profit, the debtor need not even be selling in a free market or even a market at all, prices can be fixed or subject to state regulation and nothing would be different for the lender or the borrower.

But in out modern day anyone who thinks that factory owners and "Titans of Industry" rule the world is a fool, the power of finance and banks over ALL industry both large and small is manifest every day, the thin profit margins of industry resemble much the life of a person with student debt, nominally 'wealthy' with lots of money flowing 'through' them but virtually none for themselves.  The hyper efficient capitalism of our day extracts all but the bare minimum necessary to keep the worker alive (and in the 3rd world even that limit is breached).

[MrHempstock]

...  The hyper efficient capitalism of our day extracts all but the bare minimum necessary to keep the worker alive (and in the 3rd world even that limit is breached).

Then I for one am against hyper efficient capitalism. 

[Adrian-x]

Capitalism is a very different thing from markets, capitalism is a system in which productive activities are financed by interest bearing debt.  Capitalism requires money (aka capital) and most importantly it requires HARD money.  

Capitalism is not a very different thing from markets, it is a natural evolution.  It is the result of those with recourses, (either by voluntarily pooling, taken by force, or fraud) leveraging scale and taking risk to bring to markets something new.  

Those productive activities are not dependant on financing by interest bearing debt, but by the Profits they create, financing by interest bearing debt is a further evolution (prevention) of the system, as the interest bearing debt is to be repaid regardless.

Where Marx failed was in combining 'ownership of the means of production' as in Titans of Industry (factory owners) the result of capitalism, with 'ownership of the means of production' ( as in land lords) denying peasants  the right to work the land in effect denying one the ability to converting ones labour to something of value free of the ability of land lords to tax through commerce one into perpetual servitude leaving no mechanism through markets to break the cycle.

Our short 5000 year history is about monopoly (the ability to exist as a necessary parasite off the productivity of others) it is about controlling the means of production.  At first controlling the land by force Feudalism; to be usurped by Innovations that sparked the industrial revolution Titans of Industry control through markets; to be usurped by centrally controlled Banks and control over productivity by implementing and manipulating the medium of exchange; to be usurped by this awakening as highlighted by Zeitgeist: Moving Forward and the like of Bitcoin.

[Impaler]

It is the result of those with recourses, (either by voluntarily pooling, taken by force, or fraud) leveraging scale and taking risk to bring to markets something new.

No your describing ENTREPRENEURIALISM, aka the risk and reward of any productive venture.  You don't even need to be participating in a market, the venture may be for your own consumption the defining characteristics are initiative and risk.  Obviously markets are often something people intend to sell into when they conduct entrepreneurship but that's secondary.  

You might also be confusing a bit of INDUSTRIALISM with your references to 'scale' as large scale is generally a hallmark of industry along with mechanization and division of labor.

The point is that these are all separate descriptions and while they often occur together they are not fundamentally related or even dependent on each other, so none can be called the 'evolution' of any other.  But in the 20th century all these terms became hopelessly confused largely because of Marx's sloppy use of the terms and his lumping of all the multiple societal changes at the time as 'capitalism' which is a mix of industrial entrepreneurial undergoing catalytic growth in a free-market and under an interest bearing monetary system.