Zeitgeist: Addendum - your thoughts?

[syk0saje]

hey everyone.

i've been reading around the forums recently and it seems that quite a lot of you have already seen the "Zeitgeist: The Movie" and i would have to agree, it's kind of a stretch on the conspiracy side. however, i've come here to ask LOR about a second film, "Zeitgeist: Addendum", which i find to be much more coherent and believable. don't worry, if you haven't seen it, rest assured that it's not about conspiracy anymore. XD

here's a link to the google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

and here's a link to the torrent, in case you want to download it:

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/56275165/addendum?tab=summary

in a nutshell, the movie deals with the problems posed by the monetary system and actually goes on to present comprehensive solutions for these.

anyway, i hope you can find the time to check it out if you haven't already and then post your reactions here. i would greatly appreciate it

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We've got several LONG threads here dealing with the economic silliness coming out of the Zeitgeist cult. You should do a quick search for those threads, read the objections, and come up with a couple of specific questions based on the things people have already posted. That way, you're not wasting our time or yours on rehashing the issue yet again.

 

[Digitised]

Zeitgeist addendum again is nothing but conspicy theories and lies.

I watched the first 40 mins of the film once, and really got annoyed at its dshonest and tail-chasing references.
It gives hardly any concrete sources for its claims (i still cannot find the Robin Cook Al Quaeda quote anywhere... except on conspiracy theory sites which also give no source).

The economic conspiracy i watched about 'hitmen' are single handedly based on one mans book and interview, on a guy called John Perkins.
A man who claims to have been involved in the downfall of several states, yet he has no evidence for any of his claims.
I cannot find anything to back up his story either, which makes you wonder why the Zeitgeist team can base an entire portion of their feature on the work of one mans claims and public 'truth' novel.

John Perkins also writes books on other subjects which worryingly include shamanism and outerbody experiences obtained through LSD, as well as shapeshifting and psycho-navigation. This man is clearly not all-together with reality, so trusting him on faith alone is your call.



And i can tell you as someone who has studied 2 years of economics at university that the current monetary system is not a scam, but it is very easy to convince lay people that it is a pyramid scheme of money creation due to its 'basic' mechanics...as long as you leave out all the bits about contractionary measures....which conspiracy theorists always do.


If you have any questions on the econ topics let me know and i will try to answer your questions.

 

[Niocan]

And i can tell you as someone who has studied 2 years of economics at university that the current monetary system is not a scam, but it is very easy to convince lay people that it is a pyramid scheme of money creation due to its 'basic' mechanics...as long as you leave out all the bits about contractionary measures....which conspiracy theorists always do.
If you have any questions on the econ topics let me know and i will try to answer your questions.

^.^ Tell me, why does the US/Canada choose not to coin their own currency?
Why is interest applied to these loans from the central banks, when the payment due exceeds the principal?
Why does printing money as a 'service' insue that land/items will be paid to them? (Connected to the question above)
Why is it fair that newly printed money is worth more then the old, based on inflation?
Why is the income tax being used not as a government income but as a deconstruction means of deflating the currency?
Why is money based on debt? Or rather, why *is* it debt?
Fiat money is horrible, and is used as nothing but a means of control in of itself; It's the current big game being played and everyone has grown up to expect it's normal. It's disgusting.

 

[scalyblue]

And i can tell you as someone who has studied 2 years of economics at university that the current monetary system is not a scam, but it is very easy to convince lay people that it is a pyramid scheme of money creation due to its 'basic' mechanics...as long as you leave out all the bits about contractionary measures....which conspiracy theorists always do.
If you have any questions on the econ topics let me know and i will try to answer your questions.

^.^ Tell me, why does the US/Canada choose not to coin their own currency?
Why is interest applied to these loans from the central banks, when the payment due exceeds the principal?
Why does printing money as a 'service' insue that land/items will be paid to them? (Connected to the question above)
Why is it fair that newly printed money is worth more then the old, based on inflation?
Why is the income tax being used not as a government income but as a deconstruction means of deflating the currency?
Why is money based on debt? Or rather, why *is* it debt?
Fiat money is horrible, and is used as nothing but a means of control in of itself; It's the current big game being played and everyone has grown up to expect it's normal. It's disgusting.

See this? you fail at it.

 

[Digitised]

Tell me, why does the US/Canada choose not to coin their own currency?

Because they decided to move over to a system of fiat currency whereby they could control the quantity of money in circulation.
The benefits of which allow for the creation of loans, which can be used to finance growth in the economy not offered by alternative standards such as gold based standards (or any other precious commodity). Loans allow for investment, which enables job creation, alleviating unemployment and crime, which also leads to faster economic growth increasing living standards. GDP as you may be aware is the primary focus of government economic policy, since GDP is proportional to quality of life.

The added benefit of this system is price stability, something which is highly valued since volatile prices cause enormous disruption in consumption habits.
Being able to control inflation, as well as the quantity of money in circulation means that prices are less volatile.

Boom bust cycles can be managed more efficiently by manipulation of the interest rates, which have a huge impact reigning in consumption and investment or stimulating it by respectively increasing or lowering the base rates. These mechanisms control the growth of money creation, keeping inflation within safe limits and catering to the needs of the economy.

Why is interest applied to these loans from the central banks, when the payment due exceeds the principal?

Which loans? Your question is horribly vague.
Central banks loan to banks and governments, and when they do so that money decreases in value do to inflation of prices.
Quite simply the money loses value over time and repayment must make up for this shortfall, else the loans nominal amount has been repaid, but the actual worth is less.
It would help if you clarify what you meant by 'these loans'.

Why does printing money as a 'service' insue that land/items will be paid to them? (Connected to the question above)

Again this is horribly vague...paid to who?
Money creation happens when people simply want to borrow on credit, or as quantitive easing for government projects or as recently, bailouts.
The interest charged on all debts should be in line with that borrower having the means to pay back that loan. After all you would not lend $10,000 of your money to a friend on minimum wage who says he will pay you back in 10 weeks. You know he cannot earn it that fast, but a rich friend who earns $150,000 a year probably could, and also pay you interest to entice your cooperation.

Again though i really dont know for sure what you are referring too.

Why is it fair that newly printed money is worth more then the old, based on inflation?

Newly created money is not worth more than the old.
It is identical in value until it saturates the market, at which point the total quantity of money has increased, whilst the same quantity of goods the money it is chasing remains constant. Which causes inflation and the value of currency to decrease.

For e.g

M0 = $1,000,000,000 (total money supply)
At this stage 1 apple costs $1.

If we inject $10,000,000 of new currency into the economy, we can increase loans and investments through the financial sector.
Then once spent and included, money supply becomes -

M0 = $1,010,000,000
And 1 apple now costs $1.01

As you increase money supply prices raise relative to that amount.
In this case total money was increased 1% which devalued the currency by that amount, since everything else remained constant.

Why is the income tax being used not as a government income but as a deconstruction means of deflating the currency?

I think you are mixing 2 completely different concepts up here, which i can almost forgive, if i didnt feel you were completely lazy and willing to accept other peoples conspiracies as a fact. Seriously you have it all so backwards and mixed up.

Currently the US is suffereing from deflation, prices are decreasing and the value of assets and wealth is increasing.
Income tax is used an a inflationary measure during times of rampant deflation, since central bank interest rates cannot go lower than 0%.
Once you have hit 0%, how else can you curb deflation of your currency? You cannot encourage people to spend by making the rates any cheaper....other than asking banks to give money away....

So everyday the money you hold is worth more and more, so you dont spend it. You tighly hold it, so you can reap the benefit. The government has to fix this otherwise people will not consume, they will store money and you get 'stag-deflation'.
Income tax is a useful short term tool for achieving this by hammering income and decreasing purchasing power, which drives prices back up.

Income tax is being used for revenue (as per normal) but its role is centred around the issue of deflation.
Here is a good paper i found which if you have a genuine interest, or doubt my words

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=432400

although i warn you its technical and over 90 pages.

Why is money based on debt? Or rather, why *is* it debt?

It isnt.

Maybe you would like to enlighten me with a well presented argument supporting why you claim money is based on debt?

Fiat money is horrible, and is used as nothing but a means of control in of itself; It's the current big game being played and everyone has grown up to expect it's normal. It's disgusting.

Well you do seem pretty keen on accusing the banking system of basically enslaving nations in debt...so i guess thats a statement i would expect.
But then again based on your questions, you probably have little to no real experience in this subject.

 

[syk0saje]

alright, i note that both movies were full of highly questionable material. however, with regard to the movement, would you not agree that it is a direction worth pursuing, the change in human values?

 

[syk0saje]

nevermind.

i think i've read enough to see your convictions.

sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

nevermind.

i think i've read enough to see your convictions.

sorry for the inconvenience.

Yeah, we're pretty enamored with reality... I know how inconvenient that can be for pie-in-the-sky types.

 

[Digitised]

Well the guy is pretty much prescribing communism as the solution to what he percieves is a greedy corrupt system of capitalism.
Communism cannot work with our current and seemingly immutable mentality, since you remove the incentive to produce and progress under communist systems. If i paid you a fixed rate to do any job you would never want to work harder or do a better job since it would cost you more effort to do so.
You would tend towards doing the least in your role to maximise your utility.

He proposed giving all humans equal share of wealth and resources which shockingly would end allocative efficiency.
Such a system would assume everyone needs resources such as copper, magnesium, wood, meat etc


What would a vegetarian do with their meat allowance?
TRADE for a better deal!!


Inefficient allocation leads to trade and bartering, which creates free markets based on supply and demand (basically capitalism).
Resources are distributed by need under free market conditions, people get what they need and jobs are filled with people who recieve better market pay for their efforts, as their productivity increases. Higher productiviy and effieciency lowers prices, increasing quality of life and technological progress.

Capitalism is currently the best system we have because it focuses on inherrent selfishness in our nature.
Until we are creatures willing to sacrifice our effort for the needs of all, communism (or the zeitgeist solution) will simply not work.

 

[Aught3]

Dammit where's that 'prop' button already!

 

[scalyblue]

Communism is a perfect system until the human element is introduced into it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Capitalism is currently the best system we have because it focuses on inherrent selfishness in our nature.
Until we are creatures willing to sacrifice our effort for the needs of all, communism (or the zeitgeist solution) will simply not work.

Capitalism is a failed economic system as well, because it focuses on inherent selfishness. The only thing that works is blended systems, where good intentions are backed by regulation, and greed is tempered with concern for the common good.

 

[5810Singer]

Capitalism is a failed economic system as well, because it focuses on inherent selfishness. The only thing that works is blended systems, where good intentions are backed by regulation, and greed is tempered with concern for the common good.

I agree,....we definitely need a props button.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Capitalism is currently the best system we have because it focuses on inherrent selfishness in our nature.
Until we are creatures willing to sacrifice our effort for the needs of all, communism (or the zeitgeist solution) will simply not work.

Capitalism is a failed economic system as well, because it focuses on inherent selfishness. The only thing that works is blended systems, where good intentions are backed by regulation, and greed is tempered with concern for the common good.

all a blended system does is trip over its own feet. as i heard it put once, the effort to regulate capitalism always fails bcause pockets of spontaneous organization upset the careful planning of the regulators.

honestly, in my opinion, the biggest problem with capitalism is not human selfishness, but human stupidity and shortsightedness. people will work towards a short term interest and in the process sacrifice their long term interests... and honestly, government intervention just seems to encourage it... a la bailout....

if everyone really acted in their *best* interest, all the time, never even considering other people except how they would be expected to react to varying actions towards them.... i think we would have a lot fewer problems than we have today.

idealistic? maybe... but i think a lot of times people fail to distinguish between idiotic selfishness and rational self interest. murder, pyramid schemes, stealing, etc etc etc.... idiot selfishness. its not in one's long term interest to do such things given the interdependence of modern society. in my opinion true selfishness would have those long term interests in mind......

 

[Digitised]

Capitalism is currently the best system we have because it focuses on inherrent selfishness in our nature.
Until we are creatures willing to sacrifice our effort for the needs of all, communism (or the zeitgeist solution) will simply not work.

Capitalism is a failed economic system as well, because it focuses on inherent selfishness. The only thing that works is blended systems, where good intentions are backed by regulation, and greed is tempered with concern for the common good.

The problem is joe you are always chasing your tail, the solution is not easy.
The playing field is generally like this -

Governments are the top of the deck when it comes to regulating markets, but they utimately have to serve the interests of select groups such as -
working class voters (the majority)
campaign donators
rich companies
powerful nations (peer pressure basically)

Each group has demands which ultimately distort market forces, for example the working class who vote in the government expect it to raise minumum wages,
increase annual leave, improve job security etc Something the free market would not tend toward on its own.
This makes the market favour the workers, and harms businesses, employment and increases prices for end consumers. It can also increase illegal migration by those seeking to take advantage of arbitrage in wage differentials.

The other 2 really are what governments depend on currently to get elected, since media exposure for candidates and their national tour costs have to be paid for by someone. Most candidates get the majority of their funding from industry. And those industries expect 'help' once that candidate is elected.
So this could end up being a subsidy or exclusive liscensing to produce a good.
Again this makes markets uncompetive, allowing for inferior goods to outcompete or even monopolise markets. Which again harms consumers.


The problem is government, and i dont mean that in the libertarian sense.
I am all for minarchism because some government does help more than no government. There are many positive externalities which taxes, and government intervention can bring which are lost in extreme libertarian and other non interventionalist systems.
Government in the current perspective is flawed from the start since it is indebted and controlled by those who elected it.

Captitalism and free markets do not fully exist, and most failings are due to government intervention.
For example the recent recession was fuled by artificially low interest rates which allowed people to buy real estate with very low earnings.
The banking industry sure as hell took advantage of this to make fast money as the market bubbled, but this arguably would not have happened if the US government (along with the EU) set interest rates to reflect the demand for new money. Basically rates should increase with demand to prevent bubbles...not the other way round.

 

[richi1173]

Fiat money is horrible, and is used as nothing but a means of control in of itself; It's the current big game being played and everyone has grown up to expect it's normal. It's disgusting.

You do know that a hard currency is the same thing: money is worth as much as the government decides that its worth e.g 1 ounce of gold per dollar.


Not only that, putting your currency in that position opens yourself up to other monetary ills.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Fiat money is horrible, and is used as nothing but a means of control in of itself; It's the current big game being played and everyone has grown up to expect it's normal. It's disgusting.

You do know that a hard currency is the same thing: money is worth as much as the government decides that its worth e.g 1 ounce of gold per dollar.


Not only that, putting your currency in that position opens yourself up to other monetary ills.

I was going to mention that. It is redundant to carp about "fiat money" because ALL money is fiat, by definition.

 

[obsidianavenger]

You do know that a hard currency is the same thing: money is worth as much as the government decides that its worth e.g 1 ounce of gold per dollar.

Not only that, putting your currency in that position opens yourself up to other monetary ills.

I was going to mention that. It is redundant to carp about "fiat money" because ALL money is fiat, by definition.

not really. money invented out of thin air is different than money backed by an actual commodity. and its a lot harder to create a ton of it out of nowhere if you can't just print as much as you want... which seems like it probably would have prevented the giant recession, which was, after all, based on unrestrained borrowing. hmmm....

anyways to say they are the same is to ignore the distinction which fiat is supposed to indicate.... created out of nothing vs convenient stand in for a commodity.

as a side note, joe, you haven't responded to a single one of my posts since my first day here, are you going to ignore me forever?

 

[scalyblue]

I don't think that gold is so useless anymore that we can afford to have it backing currency, if there were even enough gold to go around.