ZEITGEIST 3: Moving Forward

[ClairvoyantCat]

To be honest I haven't actually seen it yet, but the third of these was released for free digital viewing in it's entirety on youtube not long ago.  Anyone else have any thoughts on these?  I'll probably watch it soon and then post my thoughts. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[Perpetual Change]

I like watching movies that don't make me feel like I'm being hypnotized.

[orcus116]

Can someone explain this movement in a nutshell?

[7thHanyou]

Can someone explain this movement in a nutshell?

The Zeitgeist films I saw (1 and 2) were basically a collection of conspiracy theories.  2 was capped off by the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard of for an economy ever (resource-based, ha).  Basically, they're films that don't have much to them but people like them because they propose unconventional ideas.

I like them because they're amusing.

[ClairvoyantCat]

The ideals revolve around a resource-based economy.  That means it is currency-free, you could call it mostly an an anti-capitalist system.  Decisions are made through "Social Cybernation" which is in other words relying on scientific process in a way to determine important things, therefore eliminating the motives and faults of human ratiocination.  The aim is for an equal system in which most ownership and class is obsolete.


I'm not sure if I buy into it at all, but it makes for interesting perspective.  

[7thHanyou]

The ideals revolve around a resource-based economy.  That means it is currency-free, you could call it mostly an an anti-capitalist system.  Decisions are made through "Social Cybernation" which is in other words relying on scientific process in a way to determine important things, therefore eliminating the motives and faults of human ratiocination.  The aim is for an equal system in which most ownership and class is obsolete.


I'm not sure if I buy into it at all, but it makes for interesting perspective.  

Zeitgeist 2 dwelt on a resource-based economy for some time.  Is 3 even more dedicated to it?

Either way, I'm not a fan because I'm a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist because capitalism is the only economic system compatible with human liberty.  This resource-based shit, though it was introduced in part 2 as a "new idea," looks like an even worse idea to me than popular socialism because it relies on even more intensive regulation, and human liberty is restricted to the point that cities and residencies are built strictly from a utilitarian perspective (or at least, what fans of this resource-based economy think is most pragmatic).  And I believe part of the objective is to have the whole system eventually run by computers.  Good luck with that.

[William Wallace]

Can someone explain this movement in a nutshell?

A guy stood in front of a camera and said things that aren't true, and Boom! Zeitgeist was born. 

[ack44]

The Zeitgeist films I saw (1 and 2) were basically a collection of conspiracy theories.

Wat? I just watched most of 2 and I don't remember there being any conspiracy theories. Care to back up your claim?

There was a lot I didn't agree with (in 2) but the part about the economy was very well done. The part where they were pointing out the problems, that is. Not necessarily the solution part lol.

[Riceball]

I'd be interested in watching that movie about the resource-based economy just to see how they reckon it will work.
 





Because it won't. We tried that, it was called communism.

[orcus116]

I wonder if it takes human nature into account. Most theories are incredibly sound if everyone plays nice but you know that's never true.

[ack44]

Yep, the part about human nature wasn't that great in the film.

But I'd add that whether we like it or not, our economies will become more and more resource conscious. Oil wars are only the tip of the iceberg. Shit runs out.

[Riceball]

Yep, the part about human nature wasn't that great in the film.

But I'd add that whether we like it or not, our economies will become more and more resource conscious. Oil wars are only the tip of the iceberg. Shit runs out.

That's true, but the market is still applicable in this instance in two stages; initially the market price responds to reduced supply by raising the price, thereby allocating it efficiently to those who are more willing to pay.

But, the secondary impact of this is that it provides an incentive to innovate and develop a new solution to the problem. Oil wars are, unfortunately likely, but the market *should* enable the development of new, better technologies.

Man, I'm probably earning myself a reputation as a neo-classical nutcase...

[ClairvoyantCat]

I agree that it is sort of the idea that sounds great in concept but would be incredibly unlikely.  In fact, I will say with fair certainty that this could never be close to a reality from where we are now. 

However, I don't think there is anything in human nature suggesting that we couldn't live in a way such as this.  Greed and ambition aren't "in our blood," they are matters of chemicals in someones brain, and it's not like they are impossible to eliminate.  Communism was not a bad idea in principal, but people even then were just too greedy to use it right.  Not because they were born that way, but because they were made that way.  Society creates us a lot more than we create it now.  It has nothing to do with whether humans are naturally greedy and cannot share. 

The problem is, of course, that we've already dug ourselves too deep of a hole.  I'm sure the poor would be happy to give this kind of equal system a try, but the rich have too much and would not be inspired to give it up for a chance at fairness, not because they are human but because they are a part of this capitalist, "free" society.  And all the power is with the rich. so the change would have to originate from them, and that's not going to happen. 


So my main point is that there is nothing to laugh at or ridicule here, as it is as damn close as anything could get to an equal and fair society, but we have dug ourselves deep into capitalism and inequality so that people are born and raised with it imprinted in their brain.  This would never work, but it's ideals are fascinating, I think. 

[ack44]

the secondary impact of this is that it provides an incentive to innovate and develop a new solution to the problem. Oil wars are, unfortunately likely, but the market *should* enable the development of new, better technologies.

I don't think simple economic rules would apply if oil production started to fall. Such an event would lead to incentives for lots of things, which includes innovation and oil wars... and probably much more unpredictable things.

The free market assumes that democracy and people's abilities to voice their complaints will help balance things out. If workers are being exploited, they can turn to political activism. If the rich are having too much of their money taken away, they can lobby (or whatever they do). There are people who can't have their voices heard though, the people of the future. The market solution things works in principal - eventually, we get over problems. But when it comes to preventing huge disasters, it doesn't work. Imagine a scenario where oil is already passed peak and prices are about to jump and  no technology is able to replace oil. People fight wars and the quality of life drops. 100 years later, some dude discovers the new cheap energy, and civilization is back on track! If the people of the lost 100 years had a voice while oil was still available, would things have gone any smoother? I think so. Not that I'm offering any solution or anything :I

EDIT: Isn't this ZEITGEIST 2?

[emindead]

The Zeitgeist films I saw (1 and 2) were basically a collection of conspiracy theories.

Wat? I just watched most of 2 and I don't remember there being any conspiracy theories. Care to back up your claim?

There was a lot I didn't agree with (in 2) but the part about the economy was very well done. The part where they were pointing out the problems, that is. Not necessarily the solution part lol.

This is Robert Murphy's Austrian opinion on the so called 'Venus Project' that is portrayed in Zeitgeist 2. Really interesting.

https://mises.org/daily/4636

[orcus116]

The problem is, of course, that we've already dug ourselves too deep of a hole.  I'm sure the poor would be happy to give this kind of equal system a try, but the rich have too much and would not be inspired to give it up for a chance at fairness, not because they are human but because they are a part of this capitalist, "free" society.

Or maybe because you'd be telling someone who earned all of their wealth to simply give it back to people who might not only don't deserve it but won't even try to work to get their own, all in the sake of "fairness". Obviously not all rich people have that situation since some are the trust fund babies and whatnot but you're enabling the poor people who simply want to live to freeload to continue doing so.

[William Wallace]

Would it kill people to learn economics from, uh, economists? We have the greatest resource ever invented at our fingertips, and everybody goes for the least informed sources of information.

[ClairvoyantCat]

The problem is, of course, that we've already dug ourselves too deep of a hole.  I'm sure the poor would be happy to give this kind of equal system a try, but the rich have too much and would not be inspired to give it up for a chance at fairness, not because they are human but because they are a part of this capitalist, "free" society.

Or maybe because you'd be telling someone who earned all of their wealth to simply give it back to people who might not only don't deserve it but won't even try to work to get their own, all in the sake of "fairness". Obviously not all rich people have that situation since some are the trust fund babies and whatnot but you're enabling the poor people who simply want to live to freeload to continue doing so.

Of course it would be about as incorrect to assume that none of the rich earned their spot as to assume that most of the poor only want to freeload.  I would dare to say that there are millions more poor people who are victims of circumstance than anything else.  You also have to remember that people starting out in wealthier backgrounds are also taught in much greater detail the importance of key elements in acquiring wealth, so even though they may be credited for their success they are often still benefiting from circumstance in ways that the poor didn't.  Just because a rich man isn't a trust fund baby doesn't mean he didn't have a massive advantage in becoming rich over someone else.  My point is that taking into account the fact some rich people did earn their money is very conditional (excluding the "rags to riches" tales that are rare in a capitalist society) while concluding that there are millions of poor people who would take any opportunity to work harder and more demanding jobs than the rich for a small fraction of what the wealthy earn is undeniable.  

[orcus116]

I see what you mean but I disagree that just giving them the resources will automatically make them want to work hard and rise up. I've witnessed that mentality first hand and the poor people stayed poor, just with an exponentially growing sense of entitlement while refusing to contribute anything of their own in the process. I'm sorry but all it does is enable.

[XJDenton]

The flaws in human nature need to be addressed before we can implement a resource based economy. Fortunately every day we are advancing closer to a stage where this is possible.

[Riceball]

Would it kill people to learn economics from, uh, economists? We have the greatest resource ever invented at our fingertips, and everybody goes for the least informed sources of information.

*cough* *cough*

This whole resource based economy debate is a bit fanciful, at no stage is it likely to be possible. People like to have stuff, they work for it. Taking away the incentive to work hard to get more stuff would destroy the economy before anything like this could remotely be implemented. Look at the US right now, unemployment is so chronically high that people have give up all together on finding a job (participation rates are down at something ridiculous like 55 per cent!)

While you may find, say, 1% of the population who work purely for altruistic reasons, most people work to live and, if given the chance, would be free riders. I mean free riders in the economic sense too, not like jumping the turnstyles kind of free rider.

[7thHanyou]

Wat? I just watched most of 2 and I don't remember there being any conspiracy theories. Care to back up your claim?

There was a lot I didn't agree with (in 2) but the part about the economy was very well done. The part where they were pointing out the problems, that is. Not necessarily the solution part lol.

You're right.  I looked up a synopsis of 2 and it doesn't have the conspiracy theories.  That's the first one, which talks about how (basically) the whole story behind Christianity is made up and 9/11 was an inside job.  I'm serious.

I got them mixed up, but part 2 is advertised as an addendum so I have a tendency to clump them together.  My bad anyway.

[skydivingninja]

Man, I came into this thread to rage about Zeitgeist 1's completely BS theories with no proof to back them up, and then I find out the person made a second one promoting an essentially communist solution to capitalism?  And now there's a third?  Yup.  No need to even watch it.  It would give me a heart attack from anger.

[emindead]

Would it kill people to learn economics from, uh, economists? We have the greatest resource ever invented at our fingertips, and everybody goes for the least informed sources of information.

This is true. Yet, though I feel somehow dirty by saying this, Zeitgeist 1 was the first movie that made me question things such as Central Banks like the FED.

[Riceball]

Zeitgeist 1 was the first movie that made me question things such as Central Banks like the FED.

Interesting...what did they say about central banks? I mean, they are really the basis of the architecture of a modern, capitalist economy (well...tbh any economy). Not trying to flame, I'm legitimately interested

[7thHanyou]

Zeitgeist 1 was the first movie that made me question things such as Central Banks like the FED.

Interesting...what did they say about central banks? I mean, they are really the basis of the architecture of a modern, capitalist economy (well...tbh any economy). Not trying to flame, I'm legitimately interested

Not to nitpick, but central banks are incompatible with capitalism.

I do credit Zeitgeist for presenting information about the fed, etc. but I agree with William Wallace; learn economics from economists.  The information in those movies is dubious, badly presented, and leads to some totally messed-up conclusions.

[Riceball]

Not to nitpick, but central banks are incompatible with capitalism.

*rocks on chair with corn cob pipe* Explain

[ack44]

Would it kill people to learn economics from, uh, economists?

William Wallace's once-in-a-life-time blurp that listening to experts is the way to go. Golden post.

[William Wallace]

That's the first one, which talks about how (basically) the whole story behind Christianity is made up and 9/11 was an inside job.  I'm serious.

If you ever want a good lol, check out the sources for the portion on religion. Adorably hilarious.

[7thHanyou]

Not to nitpick, but central banks are incompatible with capitalism.

*rocks on chair with corn cob pipe* Explain

Okay.

By central banks, I'm assuming you're talking about government-run and -funded central banks that arbitrarily adjust the value and to an extent the availability of currency.

A truly capitalist economy is entirely free of regulations.  The more regulations you have, the less capitalist it is.  A central bank has such severe implications for the economy at large, and is so blatantly in opposition to a free market (because values are arbitrarily set), that to say capitalism is founded on it is kind of contradictory.  At best, what you see with a central bank is a mixed economy.

[Riceball]

Okay.

By central banks, I'm assuming you're talking about government-run and -funded central banks that arbitrarily adjust the value and to an extent the availability of currency.

A truly capitalist economy is entirely free of regulations.  The more regulations you have, the less capitalist it is.  A central bank has such severe implications for the economy at large, and is so blatantly in opposition to a free market (because values are arbitrarily set), that to say capitalism is founded on it is kind of contradictory.  At best, what you see with a central bank is a mixed economy.

Purely semantics.

Central banks are one of the most important pillars of a capitalist system; the others being well-defined property rights and a system of currency (theres probably more, but that aint the point). A central bank's sole purpose is to provide liquidity and stability for a currency, be it domestically or internationally.

They are also the bank to the banks; banks are able to store their excess funds in their respective central bank and earn interest, subsequently a bank who is short of funds borrows money from the central bank at the same rate of interest. This is how monetary policy, in its conventional sense, operates.

There's much more, but I think I've made my point. A capitalist system, using currency, can simply not operate in the absense of a central bank.

[ack44]

People like to have stuff, they work for it.

This reminded me of this thread.

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=19308.0

People want stuff, but only because it fulfills their needs. If the needs can be fulfilled without buying/owning stuff (through sharing or liberalizing data) then the stuff diminishes in value.

[Perpetual Change]

I want stuff regardless of whether my needs are fulfilled because I get bored. Although it never be the feeling is fleetin, shoppin' like coppin', I constantly need it.

[ack44]

I'm starting to realize more and more that we need more ideas of communities that are able to provide for itself. This guy's model is sort of utopian and inspired by communism, but it doesn't need to be.