Zeitgeist

[DRMProd]

Let's talk about Zeitgeist, shall we?
I think that this "documentary" its just a bunch of conspiracy theories tied up in a nice way.
But I want to talk specifically about the first part, the one that deals with religion...
What do you think about it?

 

[IBSpify]

It makes a few large errors early on in the video which taints the rest of the video into non-credibility

 

[DRMProd]

Exactly my thoughts! And a few large errors in the third part too...

 

[MachineSp1rit]

agreed. i didn't get third part entirely to be honest, never been into economics, and nor do i have any knowledge in that subject to judge it, but first one is more interesting.

just to review some of the simple dates given, they are terribly misleading. and the point there would look lovely if not the major errors. i would give it 7 or 6 points, still interesting.

 

[DRMProd]

Oh, of course it's interesting, I give it at least that. But it has so many errors... It makes you wonder, are they just stupid or are they lying to prove their point? It sounds a bit like the creationists to me....

Oh, and about the third part, money is not debt.

 

[felixthecoach]

is that the video on youtube where the guy says he's going to explain exponential growth, then says how this will destroy the world economy in 2 years? Or something like that...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Let's talk about Zeitgeist, shall we?

Let's not, shall we? :lol:

The problem with it isn't just that it is deeply flawed, or even "fractally wrong"... it is that each incorrect statement takes up a minute or two of screen time, and requires a half hour or more to dispute. It just wears a person out!

 

[DRMProd]

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I totally agree with you, but you know... there's people who actually believe this shit! Without questioning it! :shock: There's a guy in YouTube that goes by the name of LeoTPred, that it's having a discussion with me about this Zeitgeist bullshit... Check his channel and mine if you want...

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

Oh, and about the third part, money is not debt.

an explination, i demand one! (lol)

ive watched zeitgeist btw

 

[electronicka]

Zeitgeist

Part 1: deals with a very possible history of religion, (it is very likely that religions leeched off eachother (Hindusm & Buddhism).Still hard to come to a conclusion

It shows how it leads masses of people by faith and can have a huge affect on the world. I agree with this

I'm an atheist so the first part is not of much concern.

Part 2 & 3: almost all nonsense

I will give the first zeitgeist this though, it touches on the fact of how at times Religion,Politics and Economics still to this day intertwine unfairly.
It is also a thought provoking film. 9/11 stuff is bullshit


Zeitgeist 2

Part 1&2: Modern money mechanics document is used raises an eyebrow for legitimacy
Economic Hitman part would be hard to confirm as you would have to see documents from the CIA.


Part 3: This is interesting, Resource based world economy working for all of humanity
something like this would be great and I believe is possible but would require a massive change in the world

 

[PsycoDad]

Educated talk, really.
Of course only CT nutters come up and state that money creation is based on debt.
Of course it,´s all imagined and central banks don,´t sell treasury,´s to private corporations to raise capital for governments.
Perhaps some more insight is required for raising eyebrows and disqualifying other opinions as absurd idiocy.
I especially refer to improbable Joe who seems so worldly-wise to refute the process of money creation. I,´m looking foreward to a fruitful discussion so mere ad hominems won,´t do this time.

 

[MachineSp1rit]

who made the film and who why do they need the 9/11 lies?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Educated talk, really.
Of course only CT nutters come up and state that money creation is based on debt.
Of course it,´s all imagined and central banks don,´t sell treasury,´s to private corporations to raise capital for governments.
Perhaps some more insight is required for raising eyebrows and disqualifying other opinions as absurd idiocy.
I especially refer to improbable Joe who seems so worldly-wise to refute the process of money creation. I,´m looking foreward to a fruitful discussion so mere ad hominems won,´t do this time.

"This time"?

Which one was your screen name the last time we discussed this? :lol:

 

[richi1173]

Of course only CT nutters come up and state that money creation is based on debt.
Of course it,´s all imagined and central banks don,´t sell treasury,´s to private corporations to raise capital for governments.

What your talking about here is shrinking the money supply, not expanding it.

Foreign individual, firms, or governments hold about 4 trillion of the US debt while the American public holds about 6 trillion. So the ratio that a domestic individuals and firms buy bonds is about 3/5. Im not sure of the exact figures.

If a government sells a bond for 10,000 dollars that means (about 3/5 of the time) that a private individual/business has to give up 10,000 dollars from his/her bank account. Thus, it shrinks the money supply by 10,000 dollars. The US government can thus use those funds to raise construction projects.

As you can see, the effects of fiscal policy counteract the effects of monetary policy. It is therefore preferable, in a deep recession when monetary policy has failed, that foreign governments buy our bonds, and not domestic firms or individuals.

 

[PsycoDad]

Forget about tring to contruct a national money supply and a closed ceteris paribus enviroment. The 2 trillion/day speculative wave in the currency markets diminishes your poor government stats (which,´re flawed anyway).
So as your general argument holds true the implications,´re the opposite as china goes shopping in the US or at least used to.
Besides the major problem in this system is that foreign investors shy away from US treasuries hence flooding only the US with quantitative easing money which even accelerartes the $ decline.

Returnig to Zetgeist and the money creation there....
As one must be aware of the fractional reserve: the 10.000 $ lend to the FED by , let,´s say JP Morgan Chase, didn,´t exist as a deposit. Only 1.000 $ existed on it,´s balance sheet previous to this transaction. The 1.000 $ asset may originate from an earlier Bond trade. So where,´s your contraction?
As this game takes place in different countries at different exchange rates this expansion can and was hidden. Being scientist you should know how easy it is to manipulate stats with minor changes to the basics.
As economic history has proven continously (about 20X last century) monetization of debt is the last scene in the monetary obliteration play. Everytime the central banks began buying it,´s own debt aka"quantitative easing" hyperinflation was around the corner.
Com,´on guys there must be more to your towering intellects than this.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Let's talk about Zeitgeist, shall we?
I think that this "documentary" its just a bunch of conspiracy theories tied up in a nice way.
But I want to talk specifically about the first part, the one that deals with religion...
What do you think about it?

Most of what it states on religion and part 3 are true (reincarnation never means to be reincarnated as you were; this is the most common argument that is done which makes it seem inconsistent). I have also read that specifically people have been either forced to resign, or even fired for making such claims towards Jesus. So their is obviously something going on their (and even Flavious Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews in the James Reference was an admitted forgery and then their is the O bleke reference; and nothing else beyond the O bleke reference because of Christian pyromaniacs burning books and literature and anyone who would oppose that Jesus existed.)

As far as part 3 goes, that is all declassified information really and I asked my father among numerous others to confirm it who had lived and have had information of those and they all agree. Their are a few points I can disagree with like the tower falling in 10 seconds (that was a report given by NIST originally so therefore the entire statement can be put forth as either a typo gone viral or people not understanding it).

Also, because something specifically is wrong in it and everything else is right does not make the entire film invalid. That would be like saying Piltdown man was a forgery so evolution must not exist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Forget about tring to contruct a national money supply and a closed ceteris paribus enviroment.

How about you forget that you have any idea about how to spell, or the meanings of the words you use? Try whatever our native language is, instead of misspelled English, and misplaced Latin?

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Oh, of course it's interesting, I give it at least that. But it has so many errors... It makes you wonder, are they just stupid or are they lying to prove their point? It sounds a bit like the creationists to me....

Oh, and about the third part, money is not debt.

Are you kidding me? Then what is with the Federal Reserve loaning money to the government at Interest (this has been explained by politics, economists and even former employees at the Federal Reserve. It never stated that money in and of itself is debt, but our current form of money which has to do with the reserve banking practice is a money form of debt.

I want to know an explanation of what you state.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

who made the film and who why do they need the 9/11 lies?

The person who made it is Peter Joseph. He has since backed away from the whole 9/11 and the whole religion thing. His current video Zeitgeist: Addendum covers most of what he states about the whole money system. I think the point of the whole 9/11 thing was to show people that their is some fucked up shit going on in this country.

 

[richi1173]

Are you kidding me? Then what is with the Federal Reserve loaning money to the government at Interest (this has been explained by politics, economists and even former employees at the Federal Reserve. It never stated that money in and of itself is debt, but our current form of money which has to do with the reserve banking practice is a money form of debt.

I want to know an explanation of what you state.

Well, I cannot explain it any better myself so I will let yahoo debunk your statement for me:

From NGC6205:

"The Federal Reserve does not loan money to the government. That is conspiracy theory nonsense. Also, the Federal Reserve DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. Only the Bureau of Engraving and Printing can print money. What the Federal Reserve does do is buy U.S. Government securities on the OPEN MARKET. This is also called the secondary market. The U.S. Government borrows money by selling securities AT AUCTION. Practically anyone can buy these securities, even you. The Federal Reserve does earn interest on the U.S. Government securities that it holds, however, once expenses are paid, the Federal Reserve returns excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. On average, about 85 to 95% of the interest collected is returned to the U.S. Treasury. In 2006, the Federal Reserve collected about $36.5 billion in interest and it returned to the U.S. Treasury $29.1 billion. This can clearly be seen on the audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/audits.pdf

BTW, the Federal Reserve is INDEPENDENT of the government, but it is NOT PRIVATE or privately owned. In fact, if the Federal Reserve were to be dissolved, once the debts are paid, and the member banks are paid back their subscriptions, all assets would revert to the U.S. Government. This is specified in the law which governs the Federal Reserve.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000290----000-.html"