/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2417382
Oh, my gosh. :3

Zeitgeist is an abomination against science and reason.

>>2417394
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, OH, WOW, GOOD SHOW, GOOD SHOW, INDEED. 0/10

>>2417394
Ironically enough making it the ghost of the times.

>Zeitgeist

>>2417402
It is. It is a travesty. Are you a 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theorist?

>>2417423
You need to go DERPER. 0/10 Also, watch it, maybe you'll find something troll about. :3

>>2417423
Addendum was relatively good. First one was shit.

>Zeitgeist.

>>2417441
>First one was shit.
That is the problem. And the entire "movement" is tainted by such bullshit. Taking viewpoints just BECAUSE they are controversial, rather than warranted by evidence.

>>2417446
You can't generalize the WHOLE movement, I hope you don't consider yourself a man of science, since you, clearly, dismiss it's basic principles.

As previously stated, watch the movie, before making yourself a fool.

You need to go DERPER, 0/10.

>>2417468
Be more reasonable. It is a voluntary label. If that label involves serious worldview aberrations that are not justified by data, and a given person self-identifies by that label, am I not justified in assuming he is aware of what that label entails?

Of course, I understand that it is not a package deal. But I wouldn't say I'm a Freudian if I only agree with parts of Freud's psychology, for instance.

Pretty much everything nowadays which has a market for conspiracy theories will be jumped at. I'm sure there are legitimate conspiracies out there. However, the question is: Which ones? We will probably never know for sure. At least not in this lifetime. Shit like this, as well as that fat fuck Alex Jones, just feeds that machine. I seriously want to assassinate that fat fuck. And if I do, the conspiracy theorists are sure to jump on that bandwagon as well, claiming it was the government trying to keep the truth from the public. Here's just one short sample of his idiocy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_UZietfVQ

>>2417445
>>2417418
glorious harald lesch

7:00
This makes a LOT of sense. A LOT. I'm a physicist, and I tend to think in terms of actual resources and flow of energy. People being unemployed in the Great Depression makes. no. sense. When the factories and all the materials are still there, empty and unused.

This is how new religions start. Elaborate persuasion rooted in a system of fiction. It's like the new scientology.

>>2417476
If you want real conspiracies, there is Enron, Goldman Sachs, and Bernie Madoff. The financially-based "conspiracies" generally ring more true with what I've seen and known of human history and nature, as well as available data.

Not that I want to give credence to any theory that uses greed as the motivator for its given group of "conspirators".

>>2417497
What are you talking about, did you even watch it?

>>2417382

That shit is nearly three hours long.

TLDR version.

>>2417486
You have unemployment in the great depression because there is a lack of demand because people are unemployed and/or scared, and the money supply is deflating. The economy is a dynamic system with positive and negative feedbacks.

>>2417511
Let them who are deceived be deceived.

I saw Addendum premier live in theatre in Vancouver XD

>>2417503
> Enron, Goldman Sachs, and Bernie Madoff
What kind of left-wing wacko lumps GS in with enron and madoff?

>>2417512
People who need food and clothing is demand being unfulfilled bro. But they don't have a job, so they don't have money to buy, so there's not buyers, so there's no jobs... It's a chicken-and-egg problem that should be completely done away with.

That said, the mechanism of money and free-market pricing is very, very useful. Just not so sure about the mechanisms for how much money goes to whom.

A new version of dumb conspiracy movie is out.
Cool, thanks for sharing

>>2417547
They were major contributors to the economic crisis, and made sure they would profit from it.

>>2417547

Goldman Sachs pretty much fucked up Greece telling their retarded government for years that they are not in trouble.

>>2417567
GS told Greece that Greece wasn't in trouble, or GS told Greece that GS wasn't in trouble. Either way, that makes no fucking sense. The only reason people are butthurt at GS is because they were smart and bet against mortgage-backed securities, and made money when everyone else was losing it.

>>2417555
>>2417555

Rofl, you mad sis?

>You go to work 8-10 hours a day, and someone gives you "paper" to be their bitch for 8-10 hours.
>Nice self-respect you have there
>Propaganda, making you think by working 10 hours a day will give you the "American Dream"
>You believe everything on TV? Nice parenting by the television.
>You have a brain, use it.
>Without money, this is slavery. All you need to survive is food, water, and shelter.
>You're inhumane for making human beings (Part of your organism and race) die with your contribution to capitalism.

/endrant

You're the plague.

>>2417550
Yes, it's a chick and egg problem. It's positive feedback. It's an problem inherent in trade. There's a need, but no demand, because the people with the need have no money. That's what you get if you want to be anything other than a subsistence farmer or hunter/gatherer.

We have many tools now that we didn't have in 1930. There is no panacea, but we now have the tools to stabilize the money supply, and the government is generally willing to supplement demand, and take extraordinary measures to prevent large businesses from collapsing and putting more people out of work.

If you have a better idea, there's an economics nobel prize with your name on it.

>>2417617
Are you always a deep and edgy teen or is this more of a hobby

>>2417617
Time to move out of mom's basement and get yourself a job.

Also, fucking /new/ shit in /sci/. Save us, janitors.

>>2417595
That would be true if they were in to way involved in the crisis itself. But they were.

It's even worse than telling people the ship isn't sinking so you can get a lifeboat first. They helped poke holes in the hull.

Although I agree that they draw more ire than other offenders because they were smart enough to make money off the crisis.

>>2417617
>having a job is for faggots
Sure, kid.

Twilight, Zeitgeist...

All those ruined words.

>On Jan. 15th, 2011, "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" was released theatrically to sold out crowds in 60 countries; 31 languages; 295 cities and 341 Venues. It has been noted as the largest non-profit independent film release in history.

wtf is theatrically to sold out?

>>2417640
>>2417643
Not the one you're replying to, but hahahahahahahhahahahahah.

>>2417617
What a retard. You probably think I'm 'brainwashed' - don't you? I don't believe in the 'American' dream or support US in any conscious way. When I work, I contribute to the society, therefore I'm OK with it.

>>2417625
>If you have a better idea, there's an economics nobel prize with your name on it.
Temporary socialization. Keep everyone fed and working - the government breaks the chicken-and-egg deadlock of everyone being destitute and jobless. Then transition back to a freer market, since it is more efficient.

We did this in the New Deal. It isn't welfare - you're giving people jobs, not just food.

>>2417655
Not many theaters.

>>2417653
LOL

Good thing that words are immaterial, and not a scarce resource you can commoditize OH WAIT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

This world is insane. At least the different types of insanity seem to balance out, and we seem to be moderating and globalizing. It will work out eventually.

>>2417661
>>2417640
>>2417643
>>2417651

Fools like you continue to drive the nail into the wood.

Continue breeding your stupidity and forcing your offspring into the "system".

You have no choice over life, 18 years of education, followed by 50 years of work.

Slavery.

Dumb fuck, if you don't do that, you're dead.

I can tell you have LOTS OF FREEDOM TO DO WHAT YOU WANT

>>2417661
>>2417651
>>2417640
>>2417643

Enjoy being a brainwashed robot, have a nice life.

>they believe in free will
>laughingwomen.jpg
Is causality a lie?

>>2417696
Do you even know how the economy works? Do you really think most of the people will magically work for free, performing high qualities of labor?

>>2417691
>>2417696
LOL

You're just being butthurt and irrational. What do you suggest anyway? That people DON'T use their time productively? That we DON'T have a free system for trading resources and labor? Because that's really all a job is - you spend your time productively, so you can trade for things you want/need.

If you're going to reject that, I suggest you detail the alternative very carefully or just get used to the sound of mocking laughter.

>>2417712
>>2417729
Seriously, watch the movie.

>>2417741
I am (in increments), but I'd like a reply to
>What do you suggest anyway? That people DON'T use their time productively? That we DON'T have a free system for trading resources and labor? Because that's really all a job is - you spend your time productively, so you can trade for things you want/need.

>>2417751
What do you mean what I suggest? I suggest you watch the movie, that's all I suggest.

Calling "work" = "slavery" is fucking retarded. Working is an inescapable fact of life, no matter your economic system.

It's like calling having to breath "air slavery".

>>2417760
So, am I wrong in suggesting that the movie supports the idea of "fuck da man" and "jobs are for faggots"?

>>2417760
There's a bunch of factual errors in all of these movies. look it up properly.

>>2417761
Sure. If there's any slavery, it is that we must work to preserve our bodies. Hardly slavery though - more like symbiosis.

>>2417729

If you had watched the video, you'd understand that the reason you are thinking this way, is because that is the way you're brought up.

If you bring a human up in slavery, he/she will think it is alright, and necessary.

The catch is, they get you when you're young, and you don't even know it.

You're being subdued for 8-10 hours a day (Adding to 30% of your entire lifetime on this planet) of being someones bitch.

Not only that, you're forced into having a positive attitude or face being kicked out of your job. All of this was taught to you at a young age and has been molded into a fake plaster image ever since.

Sure, trade was great 100 years ago, but now that we're moving forward in technology, we can replace the labor workers with machines, so we can focus on the more scientific endeavors.

Aren't you upset that you're forced to work 50 hours a week having another male tell you what to do? Aww, poor man, thought you were the "BIG TOUGH MALE" who "BRINGS HOME THE DOUGH".

Alpha males don't get told what to do, you aren't even close to being leader of the pack.

Find some integrity, and teach your children the truth.

>>2417762
It matter, what do you mean by that?

Zeitgeist truly does contain all the wrong reasons to be an atheist.

>>2417768
>You're being subdued for 8-10 hours a day (Adding to 30% of your entire lifetime on this planet) of being someones bitch.
I don't feel this way. I can see how this thought appeals to some people. But why should I? All you need to do is find something that is valuable, that you are good at doing, and that you enjoy. Then do it! That's all it takes. It's not easy, but life isn't easy.

>we can replace the labor workers with machines, so we can focus on the more scientific endeavors.
That's what I'm doing. I'm a scientist, and I haven't had to shovel rocks or grow my own food in quite some time.

>Aren't you upset that you're forced to work 50 hours a week having another male tell you what to do?
Forced? You sound really beta and butthurt. Your post seems to confirm that you're projecting:
>Aww, poor man, thought you were the "BIG TOUGH MALE" who "BRINGS HOME THE DOUGH".
>Alpha males don't get told what to do, you aren't even close to being leader of the pack.
lol. I just try to spend my time in ways that are useful, so that I can be a contributing member of society and receive society's benefits in return.

Again, LOL. You're dripping with angst. Why are you so unhappy? No one is forcing you to accept the "slavery" you seem to think that everyone lives under. I'm sure not.

inb4 you say I'm brainwashed to think I'm not in slavery
LOL

>>2417768

>"Fuck the man, I don't want to do what society tells me to do, everybody is a slave. Except for me, of course. I'm special because I know DA TROOF! Conformism is for faggots."

Sounds like somebody is still an angsty goth kid. Come back when you've grown up, little boy.

mfw watching zeitgeist

>>2417787
>scientist

Hahahaha. Enjoy being a circle-jerking pretensious scientist who only is a 'scientist' because of fictional STATUS in society, did you find a cure for cancer yet?

about an hour in, so far I've only cringed twice so far, I feel much more are coming this hour, but we will see. I think they toned down the alarmist bullshit in this one a bit, unless I just haven't gotten to it yet.

I'm actually watching this.
They suggest Native Americans had little/no violence.

>>2417797
what if he did find a cure for cancer?

>>2417805
Then they suggest wrong.

>>2417804
>>2417805 here
The American Indian violence thing made me wince some. That said, do you recall what irked you?

I'm only 40mins in.

>>2417810
Well, to be frank, there is already a cure for cancer, he wouldn't even find it if he tried, because he isn't a real scientist...

>>2417768
Zeitgeist: The dumbest movie of the year

How is this science related?

>>2417847
Search and you will find.

>>2417820
Yeah the American Indian thing for me as well. Indians were most definitely violent is some way shape or form. I agree with a lot of the beginning of the movie, about human development and environment being a greater influence than genetics. But, what bothers me is the tone they take with "economy" and "the system", we all know it sucks, but there's just not really anything I see that is attainable as a substitution, even though I would LOVE to see a huge huge change in the way humans live in my lifetime but I doubt that will happen.

So many children in this thread, including the OP

>>2417861
We are all children.

>>2417858
That "huge huge change" could just as easily be a negative one. A worldwide nuclear war would certainly change our society, but I don't wish for it.

>>2417873
Same here, but, in my opinion, some huge cataclysm would need to happen for us to CHANGE.

>>2417873
This is true. Let me re-phrase. I would love to see a huge POSITIVE change in the way humans live in our lifetime. If that takes a disaster for it to happen, so be it, but I would much rather it come from a place of reason, science, technology, and the betterment of other humans.

>>2417858
>I agree with a lot of the beginning of the movie, about human development and environment being a greater influence than genetics.
Yeah, exactly. I was glad to see a reasonable explanation of the term "genetic predisposition." Hell, I was downright amazed, considering the source...
>But,
Yeah. I'm getting there now. The whole "money only has the value you ascribe to it" attitude is a big "no fucking shit." The same is to be said for everything. Money is just an agreed upon medium to display "value." That in itself is the point...

>>2417886
Change quickly and violently, you mean. The Industrial Revolution wasn't started by a cataclysm, was it?

>>2417894
&
>>2417820 here,
Just going trips, for the conversation of this thread.

>>2417870
No
Reported & underage ban

>>2417889
>I would love to see a huge POSITIVE change in the way humans live in our lifetime.
Ideas on what things that could be that? I'm thinking a permeation of efficient solar power would be chief on that list.

>>2417918
That and reliable, cheap fusion power.

>>2417805
LOL, oh wow. I watched a few bits and pieces in the economics section. Every time the main dude starts talking I rage so hard I want to tear my eyeballs out, so I stopped watching.

>>2417937
Yeah, but I do absolutely agree with some parts, such as the previously mentioned actually competent discussion of "genetic predisposition" and the talk ~0:55 of "Why would they cure a disease, when they can treat it continually?" or the slighting of our disposable culture (paying $100 for $10 products because of brand, etc.)

Those parts I definitely agree with.

But goddamn some of the parts in between really hurt.

Just got to the part where they show graphs comparing more equal countries to less equal countries. And just about everything is better in more equal countries. Yet, our current system and way of life does nothing better than promote inequality. Very interesting.

Simply, beautiful.

bump

>>2417382

Zeitgeist == neo nazi propoganda

go back to /new/

>>2418100
You need to go DERPER, bro. 0/10

~1:27:00
It talks about unequal socities leading to a lower life expectancy, more drug abuse, more mental illness, lower trust in society, lower educational scores, higher homicide rates, more crime and imprisonment, higher infant mortality, higher obesity, higher teen birthrates...

And then says that more equal societies have more innovation. That's pretty interesting. I'd like to see numbers on that, especially innovation.

>>2418106

-9999 / 9999999

>>2417975
Sure there's bits of actual science an obvious fact mixed in with the pure inanity.

>>2418117
:3

hah, start at 1h30s.
It discredits using politics or religion to run society. Guess what it advocates?

Zeitgeist is a fucking joke to science.

>>2418128
Go DERPER.

>>2418113
Social Democracies like Sweden, Denmark, Finland etc. are among the most equal in terms of representation and income. They were also found to be among the most innovative by the Global Innovation Index.

So is this Zeitgeist shit still peddling the imaginary Venus Project?

>>2418197
DERPER.

>>2418205
Seriously. You're making me want to stop watching.

>>2418205
Reported for underage.

>>2418205
Derpest?

>>2418213
Then do it, seriously.

>>2418228
No, by "DERPER" i mean "DEEPER" .

Some good points in this movie so far.

but FFFUUUU billion starving people etc etc, and no mention of overpopulation. Why are americans so afraid to say this in public?

>>2418197
Yup. Personally, I'm all for it. But I think it's stupid they don't just call it "socialism." That's what it is.

>>2418249
>overpopulation

You know how they say, you need to start by yourself first. Seriously, if you think Earth is overpopulation you should kill yourself, I'm not even joking. Have a nice life.

Yeah yeah, I get the world is a chaos right now. I agree with the movie, but some points are from difficult to impossible to make, even as good as they are.

We just need a huge catastrophe or something to stop this. A huge asteroid would work.
People would stop and think for their lives for once. Shit's gonna change.

Just my thoughts. Anarchy and all that bullshit doesn't work.

Reading this thread, my faith in humanity died. Watching Zeitgeist cremated it, and scattered the ashes to the four winds.

>>2418252
Not really, since socialism is based on a monetary system...

>>2418260

fail
0/5

>>2418273
Seriously, bro, have you seen those open areas on the ground when flying on a plane? Pretty overpopulation, right?

>>2418249
>but FFFUUUU billion starving people etc etc, and no mention of overpopulation. Why are americans so afraid to say this in public?
Because Americans don't live it. Look at OUR population and our size. So far as we can see, we have plenty of room.

>>2418241
Derp.

>>2418184
It's bullshit. Those are tiny, rich, homogeneous countries. That's not very hard to govern, and they're not rich because they are homogeneous. Kenya is also homogeneous.

>>2418269
>We just need a huge catastrophe or something to stop this. A huge asteroid would work.
Or a terrorist attack? Eh, it worked for about a week.
>People would stop and think for their lives for once. Shit's gonna change.
I think that's a very optimistic view.

>>2418293
DERPER

>>2418293

Pick a state that can compete in that list then.

THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT ADVOCATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO HUMAN CONCERNS.

NO, SIR. I DON'T THINK SO. THIS WILL NEVER WORK. IT MUST BE UTOPIAN MARXIST PROPAGANDA. TEAR YOUR EYES AWAY FROM THIS NASTY BEAST MY BRETHREN! WE ARE BETTER OFF NEVER SEEING ITS UGLY FACE!

It starts off good, expressing commonly accepted views, interviewing professors, it even contains a cartoon; but it soon derails to journalists and conspiracy theories, to pictures of babies and nature to the background of nervous music, getting more and more ridiculous and annoying, until I skipped the middle part to land on an apparent proclamation of 3-D private printing as a substitution to industrial goods. Then I stopped, tyvm.

Also, people who follow these ideas seem to press "like" before they even watch the thing - something of admirable honesty there.

>>2418334
You need to go DERPER.

>>2418323
>THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT ADVOCATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO HUMAN CONCERNS.
If it were, it wouldn't be so counterfactual in many of its claims and worldview.

>>2418345
Just what do you intend to accomplish by such posts?

>>2418349
such as?

>>2418355
Ask yourself this question.

>>2418355
Derp?

>>2418358
Read this thread. Or, let me pick a few example posts:
>>2418118
>>2417975
>>2417858
>>2417820
>>2417818
>>2417805
But honestly, if you think the Zeitgeist movies are trustworthy, you haven't done any fact-checking. They have some good points, some obvious points, and then batshit insane bullshit.

A brief history of OP, the retarded underage Zeitgeist bullshit spreader:

>>2417382
The original post, made at 11:36

>>2417385
OP, instantly replying to it, saying 'Oh, my gosh. :3' - please note the use of the retarded and childish sentence structure, as well as the use of the ':3' emoticon.

>>2417394
A rational person replies at 11:37, saying that Zeitgeist is an abomination against science and reason.

>>2417402
OP replies at 11:39, using the same retarded sentence structure. This time, he replies 'HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, OH, WOW, GOOD SHOW, GOOD SHOW, INDEED. 0/10' to the post made by the previous rational poster.

2 other posters reply.

>>2417423

Another rational poster replies at 11:42, saying 'It is. It is a travesty. Are you a 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theorist?'


>>2417435

...to which, the retarded OP replies 'You need to go DERPER. 0/10 Also, watch it, maybe you'll find something troll about. :3'
Note the same retarded sentence structure and ':3' emoticon usage.

>>2418367
Checking whether there is any glittering bit of something worthwhile to salvage or not. I was asking for clarification of motive.

Anyway, I suppose not.

>>2418368

do not confuse being clever with mindless copying of a meme

>>2418380

>>2418380
You're so clever and smart, I would give you a medal, I bet you have the highest IQ and your family praises and loves you.

>>2418334
>an apparent proclamation of 3-D private printing as a substitution to industrial goods. Then I stopped, tyvm.
I will say that I think technological advancement is a large cause for the increase displacement of people in the workforce. Today 100 farmers can produce more food than 1000 could in our ancestors days. One day, the food that take us 100 people to produce will only take 10 people. That's technology. That's science.

Now, do I think we're ready for personalized 3d printing to replace mass manufacturing? Naaah. Not yet, anyway. But we're working toward that end. I think it's perfectly fine to start having conversations about what will happen when we get there.

Also, I just hit 2:12, where someone interrupts the film; hilarious.

Just finished watching it. Feels far more refined, but I am still concerned with the logistics of organizing people to build the starting automated infrastructure. All in all, I liked it. And I definitely had a big smile when there was the classroom bit at the end. That's what I'm talking about.

>>2418379
That's nice to point to all those posts and all but I was sort of looking for solid sources.

It's easy to say it's all bullshit. And I'll believe that after seeing concrete evidence against its validity. But you expect me to be satisfied with sourceless posts by anonymous nobodies?

Why do I even come here? I'm guilty of occasional stupidity i suppose.

We seem to be more preoccupied by the way the film is made than by its contents.

Ok, so we destroy currency and then what happens?

I can survive from eating vegetables... but most people don't even know how to plant.

What is represented at the end of the movie just screams for more chaos. I do not like that solution.

>>2418380
Huh. You're right.

Let me try to point out what are likely OP posts, based on similarity to the original OP posts:
>>2418368
>>2418345
>>2418302
>>2418241
>>2418205
>>2418134
>>2418122
>>2418106
>>2418024
>>2417870
>>2417797
>>2417769
>>2417760
>>2417741
>>2417659

The very beggining made me stop and say "aw, fuck", with the weary old man reciting his story in a monotonous voice. Srsly? Why should I give a fuck? Give me facts and numbers, or fuck off. Socialists are always very looong on rhethoric, short on evidence. Same reason "Shock Doctrine" is a pile of garbage.

Now, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Hayek, Doug Casey, Stephan Molyneux... Those are the guys that got it right almost to the letter. And all this without using heart-wrenching images of homeless children to hide the fact that they have virtually NOTHING of worth to say.

>>2418402
>Today 100 farmers can produce more food than 1000 could in our ancestors days.
The magnification is already far, far greater than that. Once, most people had to farm. Now it's about 1 in 400, going from the statistic that there were about 751,000 US farmers out of a population of about 300M in 2008.

>>2418407
Do your own fact-checking. You should be anyway. Don't adopt a worldview just because you like it. That isn't rational.

>>2418380
gsrgfada

Although i agree with them our current economical and social system is the worst game ever played...
I think thier analysis on how and why it is wrong are far-fetched and weak.

ZEITGEIST is just another poor expressed attempt to interpret the discomfort of society.

Surprisingly they seem to gain at least some group of support. Just like neo nazism, anarchism and Leninism.

>>2418434
DERPER.

>>2418438
You're a retard.

>>2418380

DERPER

>>2418445
Well, Gods peace to you sir.

>>2418438
I'm actually impressed, 3 hours of replying "DERPER"? You have no life at all, congrats.

>>2418445
GOGOGO KEEP TROLE TROLE! DERPER. DERPER.

>>2418461
You are an idiot, hope you get banned.

>>2418454
Gods peace to you to, sir. Sadly, you're, clearly, delusional, since you don't know me, nevertheless, have a nice life.

:3

>>2418424
... Point taken. But that technology (often, and to varying degrees,) diminishes the needs for human labor isn't up for debate, right?

So, what happens when the US economy (which I use because yes, I'm American, and it's an easy example for me to use,) only takes 80% of the jobs it has today? Fewer people able to achieve the same level of work, and yet there will be far more people out of work, poor, and unfed. And that's with the same amount of work being done.

I'm certainly not saying "hey, let's trust this movie someone put online!" but I am saying "that's a reasonable problem and we need to consider ways to handle it."

Personally, I say institute a "guaranteed minimum income" using a "negative income tax." On top of that you could even institute a flat tax, and tie the minimum hourly wage to inflation annually.

At least, that's what Milton Friedman suggested. (Well, he advocated the erasing of the minimum wage. I'm not that sold, yet.)

Let's mimic OP and see where his thread goes.

I'll start:
GO DERPER DERPER.
I have a life and a girl and we even kissed many times. :3
I can also play guitar and I always hang out with my friends. Oh my gosh you guys are nerds. :3

------
Doing good so far?

>>2418429

Actually, I'm more fascinated with the development of the idea itself. How people are reacting to it--- a resource-based economy.

I'm not in economics, but I've studied it in undergrad. Most(if not all) of the stuff relating to markets and monetary systems is UNCONTROVERSIAL in mainstream academia. I think people are giving too much value to Zeitgeist because all it really does is dress everything up. It's like theater. But that doesn't make it intrinsically false. What I'm saying is that only people who haven't explored these subjects will have their minds seriously provoked. I don't mean this as an insult either, it's just a statement of fact. Some of us know less than others. Also, some of us have more free time.

So yeah, I think we're going to disagree on the little details. And that's fine! Still, there are some rather big chunks of the subject matter that is not based in conspiracy or speculation.

Disregarding something because we don't agree with it 100% is irrational.

>>2418489
You seem to be upset, bro. :3

>>2418473
We have to socialize more. That, or recognize a broader definition of "gainful employment".

Right now, I'm mainly worried about the fact that most corporate profits are going straight into the pockets of executives.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

>>2418495
Yeah you seem upset you stupid tiny nerd. xD I bet you never kissed a girl cuz well you're a stupid nerd. :3

>>2418511
I love you, bro. :3

>>2418494
>Disregarding something because we don't agree with it 100% is irrational.
Sure. It's the counterfactual or irrational bullshit that makes me angry, not just views I don't agree with. And there's far to much of it mixed with the obvious or reasonable parts.

>Zeitgeist..

>>2418515
I want your derper inside me. :3

>>2418530
:3

>>2418536
:3

>>2418520
Wow DERPER DERPER. Go troll something else like the 9/11 commission website. :3

>>2418540
>:3

>>2418520
He need more pipes. :3

Fuck Zeitgeist... Look into Technocracy... No price system, Scientific Government, lots of new a ideas, AND a lot less sensationalized bullshit.

In Depth Explanation of Technocracy:
http://www.technocracytechnate.org/technocracystudycourse.pdf

Durr I have 40 minutes to watch videos explanation of technocracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM

>>2418509
Oh trust me, I'm with you there. That's the problem. And as jobs dry up, and there's fewer people to pay, the few "haves" will take even bigger chunks, rather than giving it to those who actually work, further destabilizing things...

My problem with Zeitgeist is I just don't see people willingly moving into a post-money world. Too many people, oddly especially the "have nots" think that they're giving up their opportunity to be a "have." People still believe in the American Dream. And of course, the past three hours could've been saved if OP had just linked to George Carlin instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Watched this movie, was interesting. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. Then felt hungry. No food in apartment, so I went and bought Wendys.

>mfw I am what's wrong with society.

>>2418553
"Created by elites, for elites"

ITT: individuals that need lessons in economics.

>>2418560
Thinking bad about yourself may cause cancer, also, eating shit may cause cancer to, be careful, bro. :3

Ok, I'm gonna make it REALLY easy for you faggots.

So the basic premise of the Zeitgeist solution to world problems is: "Lets just assure everyone's needs are met, so that nobody has to work to survive. Then we can devote our energies to higher pursuits."

And I call bullshit on this.
Item one: human needs are infinite.
Item two: no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise, resources ARE finite, and will be finite no matter the advancements in technology. Even if its "just" human knowledge, expertise, and most of all, ambition that is finite.

Which gets us to the most important point of all.

Have you ever seen people on welfare? Their needs are met, aren't they? Fuck, in most western nations the bums on welfare still live better lives then KINGS did in the times that produced Aristotle and Socrates!

They don't work to sustain themselves, do they? They have shittons of free time and energy, right?

Then why the fuck aren't they doing something productive, like the Zeitgeist crowd says we all will if those conditions are met on a global scale? Why they spend all their time sitting around, drinking beer and bitching about life?

Economic incentive. It is not PROFITABLE for them to do anything. So they don't.

If we put every single person the world over on friggin welfare, it WON'T result in utopia. It will result in a world full of bums, which I'm sure, appeals to many viewers of this movie, especially those still in high school and college.

>>2418567
What is there to learn about? It's simple consumption and demand based on a monetary system with no respect to the Earths resources e.t.c. ...

>>2418564
Sure, "Elites" will be operating the Technate, but every one will receive the same amount of Energy Credits.... so regardless of your position you will have the same quality of life aside from work.......

There's not really a benefit to being at the top of the Technate unless you have some desire to improve the Technate, because a lot of responsibility will be placed on your shoulders...

AND fuck you.... Democracy is for Elites. Except Democracy's Elites are just good at lying to the public and have shit ideas.

The constant use of cutefaces in this thread are having an effect on me.

I just imagine borderline trap/effeminate-guys begging for it...

>>2418582

>>2418588
:3

>>2418590
Don't tell me you really wasted your time studying economics.

>>2418603
>implying I had to study.

A resource based economy is just post-scarcity, which is not technologically feasible. Even if it were, goods would still technically be finite. Products would just be so abundant that cars would cost 10 dollars, highlighting the continued necessity for a medium of exchange (money).

Until someone thinks of a better idea, I'm sticking with capitalism and well-designed public programs.

>>2418595

>>2418610
You should go DERPER.

I would like to get back on discussing 3D printers. While the technology is in it's infancy right now, and I don't see houses and communities being built by 3d printing them, I do think they could easily increase the rate at which technology advances. Imagine jut downloading schematics off the internet, uploading them to your printer, and bam you have a part for something you're trying to build, possibly maybe the entire thing. Soon 3d printers will be able to print circuit boards and things of the like, and I think it's then that the technology will really be embraced.

>>2418640
Imagine, at some point in time, people building stuff with the help of holography, like bridge, when it's not needed they simply remove it with one click, or houses, cars etc...

>>2418640
Don't they print using plastic?
>oil prices

>>2418553
Dumping the concept of money is a really, really dumb idea. How else do you manage supply and demand, and the relative values of various types of resources, products and labor?
Don't say central management by a bureaucracy.

>>2418654
I'm not sure if you are mocking me or not. This is 4chan, after all.

>>2418621
Filter'd!

>>2418670
I'm not, bro, but still, from your perspective I could still be mocking you.

>>2418661
For now. But there is working being done to expand the ability of them to print from a broad range of materials.

Post-scarcity, in the idealistic sense, isn't possible.

Sure, the prices of food, clothing and housing can all tend to zero. Great. But you still need to manage finite resources, like space on Earth's surface, and Neodymium. As long as there is scarcity of ANYTHING, you need something like money to communicate value.

>>2418610
>Until someone thinks of a better idea

Have you guys ever though about a combines the good aspects of capitalism with the good aspects communism.

There would just be a maximum of how much wealth one can possibly own and earn privately like max 4000 euro a month.

The remeaning money that one owns goes not directly to the state !
But to a second bank account on a bank that`s formally owned by the state.

One can use the money on that state-bank account for economical investments only.
All things one buys with that money again are formally attached to that state-bank account.

People would still be able to build a reputation and "own" huge companies, even multinationals.
Basically everything would be possible as current day exept the property distribution is more honest.

don`t come with bullshit like "it won`t work because people will have no profit out of working hard."
People are willing to literally spend months "mining" or "hunting" just for the credit of a rare (virtual) sword in World Of Warcraft, and really feel proud about it.
Note that game developers and psychologists could have a special role in this scociety, they`ll figure out what keeps people motivated.

>>2418665
Ooooh, they might not say it, but basically it all boils down to this. Either you have a free market, where people decide what to produce and at what prices to buy (money is just a medium of exchange, you could use blowjobs as money), OR you have central planning to at least some degree, and a monopoly on violence held by some sort of a state.

>>2418691
I stopped reading when I found out paper with fictional value was involved, you should still go derpier.

>>2418703
Stop it. See
>>2418665
>>2418695
What would you do to manage these issues, without some concept of money (a unified unit of value)?

>>2418731
Stop right there. Thats currency. Money is JUST a medium of exchange. Two people can decide to use marbles as money. It in no way needs to be "unified". A common misconception, stemming from generations of governments using violence to push fake currencies as "money". What money needs to be, is be valuable in itself. Never should it be enforced by the state, like it is now.

>>2418731
To be fair, we're all in stage of development, at some point in time, if nothing global happens to Earth at that time, people will adapt the resource based economy, when enough of so called jobs will be mechanised, after that money will, simply, become useless if, only, if people will start to intellectually manage the Earths resources... e.t.c. Or simply creat a hivemind and do it...

>>2418779
>What money needs to be, is be valuable in itself. Never should it be enforced by the state, like it is now
False dichotomy, and wrong conclusion. Money has no primary value. It is only as valuable as what you can trade it for. Even for gold coins, this was the case. Also, fiat currency doesn't have to be enforced by any state. It can simply be adopted by consensus. The problem is: who adjusts the money supply to track general wealth? Otherwise, you get inflation or deflation (money itself is too scarce or too abundant).

Going back to trading seashells, salt, or gold is not a good idea. The barter system was vastly inefficient, even if you pick one physical scarce resource to be the conversion unit.

And you can't just go to "energy credits" either, because you don't just need energy. You need other resources and services. And how do you mediate the relative value of these things? Money.

>>2418780
> after that money will, simply, become useless
And if I want to build a battleship out of pure Neodymium? What's to stop me? Because it's clearly not in the public interest to give me such a huge share of a scare and valuable resource. But how scarce and valuable is too much to give me? We're back to price, and money, and "credits" are just dollars again.

Why are some of you so unapproachable and downright instantly angry as fuck about this? I just don't understand. You say you're not brainwashed but it's really hard to believe you're actually critical thinkers and have formed your own opinions when you act like that. I mean I just can't believe you can really sit there, look at the world and say "Eh it's fine." You REALLY don't care about all those suffering in the world with no hope in the system we have now? And you have no problem with the undeserving rich hoarders laughing over their corpses.. Really..? That's the best humankind can come up with? Well alrighty then.

1. It isn't new
2. Religions (especially the more "modern" religions) adopt beliefs from other religions as they go through conversion ect.

>>2418822
>>2418832
Fuck money. Love matters and friends.

What they say about hunter/gatherer societies being less violent is pure bullshit. The present world we live in is by far the least violent we have had. If u want exact details:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

>>2418849
Sure. I hate materialism as much as you do, i.e., valuing making as much money as possible as the primary goal in life.

But that doesn't mean the money is the problem. It's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.

>>2418858
It's a matter of perspective.

>>2418838
You're preaching to an imaginary choir. Really, you're manufacturing the people you're talking about. Let's characterize these people.
>Why are some of you so unapproachable and downright instantly angry as fuck about this?
Angry and belligerent
>I just don't understand. You say you're not brainwashed but it's really hard to believe you're actually critical thinkers and have formed your own opinions when you act like that.
Defensive of preconceived notions
>I mean I just can't believe you can really sit there, look at the world and say "Eh it's fine."
Apathetic
>You REALLY don't care about all those suffering in the world with no hope in the system we have now? And you have no problem with the undeserving rich hoarders laughing over their corpses.. Really..?
Don't care about the suffering of the poor or the abuses of the greedy
> That's the best humankind can come up with?Well alrighty then.
Now you're just despairing.

Anyway, I agree that some of these people exist, and some ITT act that way. But please, don't pretend you're the last sane human. I agree with you. I care about the poor, and I hate that the rich have taken all the recent economic growth as their personal property.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220
And a few of your major talking points aren't even represented ITT, so you brought them in with you (referring to not caring about the suffering of the poor, or the greed of the rich). I deplore those things as well. But you know what? I want to find a real way forward. Something that really works. Not pipe dreams and hate-inspiring dogma based on warped half-truths. Zeitgeist is the latter.

>>2418872
Violent deaths per capita is not a matter of perspective.

>>2418822
I always aks the question:

Inefficient compared to what?

Fiat money? You've gotta be kidding me. Fiat money is the reason we have all those distortions in the economy in the first place!

Any political body that controls the fiat money supply will use this power to pay off their beneficiaries, buy votes, and pay off oppossition. Its been done in France after the revolution, in Weimar Germany, in Zimbabwe, and is being done now all over the world, most notably the US. The results will be the same as they always were, that is hyperinflation and MASSIVE misallocations of resources. Ultimately, economic meltdown. That will then be, of course, blamed on the "free market"...

>>2418945
>Inefficient compared to what?
Centrally planned economies. Like early communist China, or the Soviet Union.

On principle, I favor systems that are self-correcting and which do not require drastic changes in human nature as a prerequisite for success. Pure capitalism isn't it. Neither is communism. I favor regulated capitalism. A degree of socialism, but not as a basis.

>>2418858
>>2418858
>>2418858
Oh, this bitchslaps Zeitgeist and Avatar so damn hard.

>>2418956
Did you just say that centrally planned economies were more efficient than the relatively free market economies that predated them?


Dude, I feel like I just hit a brick wall right now. Facts are obviously proving you wrong. The "early" communist regimes had a lot of wealth to burn through left after they killed and/or interred the productive classes. When it came to producing goods and services that people actually needed, they ALWAYS, invariably failed in an epic style.

Peruse Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman on Youtube for gods sake, you're killing me!

What you are talking about got us in this mess in the first place. Its called Keynesianism. It doesn't work.

>>2418972
I know, and *drumroll* it's backed up by actual numbers and studies, not just some vague claim made by a professor

>>2419009
No, the opposite. He was asking what I was comparing market economies too when I said they were "efficient".

Don't worry bro, I'm on your side.

>>2419009
Ah, I see how the confusion started. I assumed he was talking about how I called market economies (the use of currency to determine value) "efficient". But what he was replying to was
>>2418822
>The barter system was vastly inefficient
Which is also true, compared to a market economy with a unified fiat currency. Sorry about the confusion.

Centrally planned economies are incredibly inefficient. And if the leader is retarded enough, they can be disastrous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

>>2419009
So, pray tell, how does one explain China?

Ohshit.jpg
My bad, sorry.
for reference, that was me
>>2419009
>>2418945
>>2418779
>>2418695
>>2418571

The problem with anonymous discussion, you don't know who the fuck you're talking to ;P

Still, we disagree. You say regulated capitalism is the way to go. I say that "regulated" in fact means a coercive, violent redistribution of goods from prodctive people to state beneficiaries, which results in massive missallocations of resources. Coupled with fiat currency it leads straight down the shithole.

A very brief summary, becouse I really need to GTFO soon.

>>2419062
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

>>2419062
China's economy stopped being so retardedly and extremely centrally planned. The age of things like the Great Leap Forward (worst misnomer ever) are gone.

China's business is remarkably capitalist now.

>>2418838
Zeitgeist is made for people like you.

Good intentions, emotionally invested, and very defensive of those who pick at those heart strings. They coax you with half-truths and rationed facts between definitive "chocolate cakes for everyone" solutions to serious issues that bother most of us, in whic are far more complex for a 2 to 3 hour long film to deal with.

>>2419062
MUCH more free market then todays US?

Economically, they have a VERY free society. Little central planning, even less welfare. The communist party is just a scam they've been running for the last 30 years to crop the cream off the top. In America, they kill the sheep instead of shearing it.

Huh. This thread certainly devolved. Kinda tl;dr, but I got an overview.

So what's the controversy? Are some here actually arguing that the status quo is sustainable? The every ecological sector on the planet ISNT in decline? That social stratification produces societal aberrance? That structural violence is the main cause of behavioral violence? That the world is corrupt as shit? Epigenetics?
ect ect

Or are we simply outraged at anything that moves beyond a critic and attempts (even poorly) to field some new direction to address these and many more issues?

Lets be a bit more rational about this.

>>2419125
Well YOUR position isn't clear.

I'm not happy with the status quo. I want some very strong and meaningful changes. But movies like Zeitgeist do more harm than good.

>>2419161
>YOUR position is clear
fix'd. Sorry.

>>2419161
>Zeitgeist do more harm than good

How?

>>2419176
>>2419161

No worries.
And I suppose that's a start- Im curious how you find documentaries (or is that taking zeitgeist too far in your estimation?) do more harm than good?

>>2419204
>>2419206
You see, that's the problem. You called it a "documentary". As though they were just reporting impartial facts. But all the zeitgeist movies contain blatant untruths designed to manipulate you. The entire movie is about manipulating you. It also contains many true things, but that is not an excuse.

For instance, compare what they say about the "non-violence" of tribal peoples (about 40 minutes into the movie) to the TED talk linked in
>>2418858

The Zeitgeist position here is complete bullshit. Avatar did this too.

>>2419251
>>2419251

Manipulate me in what way?

>>2419313
Ah. I'll let you look for those. I wouldn't rob you of the experience, nor pretend to have an omniscient view of the situation. The process of asking "What does he want me to think or do" is very educational. A step further is "WHY does he want that?" If you don't like both answers, don't trust the source.

I started doing this when we learned about commercials and media in elementary school. Commercials, for instance, are essentially about manipulating people into buying a product. There are many strategies, and some are simultaneously very subtle and very effective. Not everyone wants money, or even something selfish, but everyone who ever made a piece of media did it because he wanted to have some certain effect on the viewers. Keeping track of that motive and goal is important. It's what shows you are thinking for yourself.

As you watch pieces of Zeitgeist, ask, "What does the filmmaker want me to think?" When you can see the answer, you'll know what's going on. I'm not saying there's some uber-dark conspiracy. Just that this movie, like much of media, is all about manipulating what you think.

>>2419251
Okay, not going "noble savage" here, but comparatively, the organized violence of the first world in recent history pales whatever comes to light in that of tribal societies. Yes, some were un-appologetically savage, but the documentation shows that social structuring also produces the highest grade of egalitarianism as well, at a much more consistent rate.

>As though they were just reporting impartial facts

Im sorry, I have to ask, have you actually watched Moving Forward yet?
Obviously facts are presented in a certain light, as they are every time you turn on the tv or radio. Nothing is free of the bias of human perspective, and it turns out human perspective goes in every direction imaginable. This should only make one examine the facts presented all the more carefully.

>>2419373
>the organized violence of the first world in recent history pales whatever comes to light in that of tribal societies.
Have you watched that Steven Pinker talk?
Even including the world wars, violent deaths per capita are far lower than the previous centuries. By a lot.

This horribly backwards misconception is EVERYWHERE in society today. And we begin to yearn for living like the "noble savages".

>>2419373
>it turns out human perspective goes in every direction imaginable. This should only make one examine the facts presented all the more carefully.
Oh, agreed. And I am watching the film, which has some things I agree with. But I sure as hell am not going to condone it as a whole, not with such blatant falsehoods in it. "Perspective" is no excuse for false information.

>>2419393
I look forward to discussing with you the matter of false information after you watch it. Im interested in what you uncover.
>srsly, no sarcasm

>>2419353
Well, I agree that any picture has a message, it's only a matter of perspective, sometimes they want you to buy the idea to, like most of the mass media, I understand your view point, I, also, understand that everything has two polarities, the positive and the negative, love and fear... I prefer Zeitgeist movement, because I feel it's the best we can get right now.

I was nearly in tears at the end of this documentary. It would be awesome if something like this ever happened.

>>2419416
I'd have to do a lot of fact-checking, and I would probably only do it for assertions I considered worth checking. But if this thread is still around I'll post something.

temp-trip just in case.
I'm these posts:
>>2419393
>>2419385
>>2419353
>>2419251
>>2419176
>>2419161
>>2419088
>>2419056
>>2419022
>>2418972
>>2418956
>>2418937
>>2418868
>>2418920
>>2418832
>>2418822
>>2418731
>>2418689
>>2418665
>>2418516
>>2418509
>>2418429
>>2418414
>>2418384
>>2418355
>>2417787
>>2417767
>>2417729
>>2417651
>>2417556
>>2417550
>>2417503
>>2417474
>>2417446
>>2417423
>>2417394

>>2419447
Same here, brother, I feel that everyday it comes closer and closer... I can feel it in the air...

>>2419467
excellent, will you be about this evening?
I have some running about to do, but I can likely be back around 11pm Eastern.
Whats good for you?

>>2419486
I'll be up until 10:30 central. So, 11:30 eastern.

>>2419385
Yes, I've watched that Pinker video. Love Pinker.

However, the bulk of that presentation addresses organized violence, that of ancient states and religious organizations, moving forward through time. He addresses tribal violence in a brief segment with a reference to a single researcher, and takes his death rate ratios from statistical analysis of jungle-dwellers, who are characteristically more "savage" due to their surroundings (this is debatable, but its a positive correlation).
And this doesn't address, and nor do you, why tribal social organization consistently relates to egalitarian structure.

I love Pinker, but you may be mischaracterizing the spirit of his talk to suit your argument. The argument is there, but it's so tied into a wider spectrum of analysis you almost have to cherry-pick to get the conclusions you're reaching for.

>>2419503
Sounds good, I'll almost certainly be back by then.

>>2419573
>jungle-dwellers, who are characteristically more "savage" due to their surroundings (this is debatable, but its a positive correlation).
Well, in the absence of any data on Native Americans at this instant, it may be hard to say. But I know for a fact that the native Americans were often at war with each other, and that European settlers used that to their benefit. You'd often have Europeans and members of one tribe attacking another tribe.

>And this doesn't address, and nor do you, why tribal social organization consistently relates to egalitarian structure.
Sure. I'd guess that it comes from being in a small group that you know personally. That's a legitimate criticism of modern society - a lack of egalitarianism.

I'm all for the Venus project, but Zeitgeist is just fucking retarded.

>>2419614
Well, your first example is really a matter of cultural perspective. In many cases, "war" was largely a competitive game, not a matter of the utter destruction and subjugation it is in modern times. There is ample evidence to back this up.

Secondly, I know you've got some research on your plate, but you should log this and read it when you get the chance.

http://www.endgame.org.uk/2008/12/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political
-structures-after-the-collapse/

It's an excellent article examining the nature of egalitarian structures in the face of what many consider a collapse of modern infrastructures.

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor

People with certain kinds of brain damage may make better investment decisions. That is the conclusion of a new study offering some compelling evidence that mixing emotion with investing can lead to bad outcomes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112190164023291519,00.html
all you need to know to learn economy.

>>2419677
lol
psychopathy is a lucrative disorder?
such well-adjusted societies we have these days

The human nature bit was good, but they've lost me now that they're discussing the economy under false assumptions.

Straight away, they discuss the stock market as an example of the pursuit of money decoupling from actual productive labor, they claim that stock trading has zero productive value to society. Unfortunately, this claim is false. It should first be noted that stock trading is sort of a zero-sum game, that is, for every winner, there's also a loser. It's not exactly zero sum, being as that the market itself increases and decreases in overall value, but that's beside the point. All that means is that sometimes you have more winners and sometimes you have more losers. In addition to that, the movie completely ignores the notion that the stock market provides the entire incentive to invest in a company in the first place. No stock market means no stock sale, which means companies would have to rely solely on bonds, which are much, much harder to sell when the company is still young.

This whole notion of money decoupling value from the system is ridiculous in general. Excluding a post-scarcity society, money cannot and never will go away. It may change forms, in the sense of an underground barter economy in a true socialist state adopting bottle caps or signed checks or something similar as currency, but you simply can't eradicate it because it creates objective measures of value.

>>2419700
I also love how they try to disassemble the economy based on the presence of landfills. "Economize: To conserve, reduce waste" with pictures of landfills in the background. Yeah dipshit, those landfills exist because either that stuff is too difficult to reprocess, or because the consumer is too lazy to recycle, in some cases. Mostly the former. Maybe the makers of this video should get into the recycling business and figure out how to turn landfills into goldmines - they'd be rich, for sure. Rich enough to change the way things are.

>>2419700
Perhaps you're right.
On the other hand, its difficult to argue that the monetary incentive hasn't created its own, conceptually unique value system, unto itself, and quite detached from the wider, real life value system of the world and it's people.

Not bad.

Don't understand all the hostility.

>>2419752
I will argue that that's the case in some people. With other people, it's drugs, or 4chan, or sex, or whatever. My dad couldn't give less of a shit about making more money, his passion is running. He risks injury in his quest to do a double marathon before he turns 50. Addiction to money, craving that thrill of power, is just as bad, but to state that society in general worships it is ridiculous.

If you want a better answer from me, define what you mean by conceptually unique value system. I had to stop the video by the time they started talking about broken cell phones, it was just too retarded.

>>2419614
It is recorded with due pride by the Iroquois, who actually had writing at the time. They smashed the Algonquins all the way back to the Mississippi, and laid claim to vast swaths of Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. Then the consumed or eradicated most of the tribes toward the Eastern seaboard.

When the French created a fort system along the Mississippi to box the British Colonies in the British Allied with the Iroquois and the Algonquin with the French, one long hated enemy against another. And when the American Revolution began the Iroquois remained staunch allies of the British, whom they hoped to become a partner or if that was impossible protectorate. But the backed the wrong horse, so the British pulled out when the war wasted to much money and the French in the South and the Americans in the North smashed the Iroquois and drove them west or into Canada just as they had done to the Algonquin. Then they had a war with the established Algonquin and French/American homesteaders and then they were all finally routed by the US army nearly 80 years latter.

Humans fight, it's what we do. There is no shame in a defeat hard fought, there is only shame in being unwilling to fight at all.

The one hypothetical explanation they missed for the decline in interstate wars is not trade or some peaceful attitude, but the fact that the weapons have become so powerful, that the great powers can no longer afford to fight. So it is easier just to threaten with the weapons. Peace through brotherhood is impossible, but peace through MAD works.

>>2419726
>>2419700
I'll dump pieces of the commentary I'm compiling.

47:00 They claim that "financial trading, or so-called investment, ... holds zero productive merit to society". This is flatly stated without support, and it is wrong. I agree that something is wrong in the current implementation, but saying that investment is literally worthless to society is a mistake. If I have resources I am not using, I want to lend them to people who can make good use of them, in exchange for a small portion of the produced benefit/wealth. But I also want to let someone who has specialized in finding a good use for my resources take care of it, so I can focus on my specialized work, and naturally he gets small fee for his services as well. There, you have investment. The alternative is waste - the axe I'm not using anymore sits and rusts. This process is all abstracted to money, which is much more efficient than actually trying to move my extra axe around. Financial trading shouldn't be as ludicrously profitable for traders as it is today, and something is wrong, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.
"Money is pursued for the sake of money, and nothing else." This sounds appropriately ludicrous and worthy of scorn, but it is because no one does this. Money has no primary value. It's only value is what it gets you. Then he goes on to deny that working for money helps anyone. I'm beginning to sense a general vilification of money itself, rather than the single-minded pursuit of money. This is patently ridiculous. Materialism is wrong. Money is not.

>>2419761

>Don't understand all the hostility.

w8 you were talking about theism here right ? ?

>>2419799
They say GDP is a poor metric of the success and well-being of society. They phrase it by saying that the "money sequence of value" is not the same as "the life sequence of value". I agree with this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
49:30 WELCOME TO THE MACHINE
They take it too far. They talk about health care being 17% of US GDP at one point. Then they say "The more unhealthy people there are in America, the better the economy. Now, that is not an exaggeration or a cynical perspective."
This is a blatant fallacy. They make a totally unasserted assumption that the ONLY effect of sickness is to increase the use of healthcare. One thing blatantly ignored is that these people have diminished capacity to CONTRIBUTE to the economy, through labor and services. They just consume more healthcare. That isn't a net benefit. This is disingenuous, and the authors' true intent becomes clear. It is to vilify money itself. They actually go on to say, not that GDP isn't perfectly correlated with things like Gross National Happiness, but that the relationship is INVERSE. That higher GDP actually *means* lower wellbeing. Wow, fuck you Zeitgeist. That's just not true.

I can see how this is going to go. We're straight to all the conspiracies where medical science is a self-perpetuating scam. This is a gross insult to all doctors and medical scientists everywhere. Show me the doctor who feels this way. This is the general problem. Zetigeist has general views that I agree with, but then they go full retard, and spout fountains of vile lies to make the point punchier. Fuck you, Zeitgeist.

>>2419761
>Not bad.

>Don't understand all the hostility.

w8 you were talking about theism here right ? ?

>>2419805
Wait til you get to the cell phone part. You're gonna fucking love it. I had to turn the video off after they discussed all the rare earth metals used to make cell phones that sit in the landfill.

>>2419799
fair

>>2419805
overexerting, but understandable. I found that a rather striking example actually; and your assertion of those "leeches" who use medical services they have no right to or some such, I can't help but disagree with.

> not that GDP isn't perfectly correlated with things like Gross National Happiness, but that the relationship is INVERSE
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/social-dysfunction.pdf

> We're straight to all the conspiracies where medical science is a self-perpetuating scam
um, no, I don't think so...

>>2417382
>>2417382
>>2417382
Fuck this Zeitgesit shit. Why watch this crap on Youtube when you can watch SNSD music vids instead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBxW22JLUmg

Watched the whole thing.

Once again, this series provides no new perspective on any subject. I suppose the youtube 10 year olds will watch it and think its the most enlightening movie of all time. I'm starting to get sick of that douchebag who makes these movies. He parades this smug perspective on economics and trade as if he fucking though of the whole thing. So quick is he to undermine the entire system that he grew fat and happy on.

>>2419726
Damn stait it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new stuff, unless you want to make brown paper only. So you should burn it or put it landfills to rot, which releases methane which they also burn. Pennsylvania starting taking NY trash and now produces 2% of it's electicity from landfill methane.

Plastics are only good to recycle in certain cases, or when you want to just make a general filler plastic so you don't have to sort the components.

Metals are almost always profitable to recycle, and 92% of all steel is recycled.

Glass is sort of pointless to recycle since it is just artificial pure silicate rock. smash it up and dump it, there's always more sand. Unless there aren't local till deposits.

And since most plastics take a while to decay we can just dig them up latter if we need them. But we won't sind Dupont already figured out a way to make all the plastics we need by using bacterial sludge to make a hydrocarbon base. Although it is 35% more energetically expensive than making it from oil.

Recycling is good when it saves energy, otherwise it is a waste of fucking time.

>>2419805
56:00
Now they're bringing up the common concern that capitalism encourages "planned obsolescence", as well as products that break ASAP so you can sell more. I think this is a valid concern. But in some cases, building something cheap really *is* the best idea. Let me explain.

If the technology used to produce a given product is in rapid flux, you don't want to make it last forever. You want to make it last as long as intended, and by then the technology has changed very significantly, and you replace it with something not just new, but better. This is especially true for electronics. Just look at smartphones over the past decade. It would be *wrong* to make a smartphone that lasts 20 years. It would be *wasteful*.

But once a technology has stabilized, you want to build to last. In other words, you minimize the cost per year of lifetime, or the utility cost, since the product itself isn't undergoing much improvement anymore. There's probably a word of this "cost per utility", but I'm not an economist.

So, very quickly developing techs should have cheap, short-lifetime forms. Once a tech stabilizes, you build to last, but no so much that the cost/yr of lifetime goes up. Simple. And we can argue how well capitalism and monetary self-interest work into this. It works great if consumers care primarily about "cost per utility over time". But this is glossed over, and capitalism is the Big Bad once again.

>>2419831
>rare earth metals

Rare describes the chemical properties not the actual rarity of the metal.

>>2419832
>your assertion of those "leeches" who use medical services they have no right to or some such
huh?

All I said is that sick people can't work very well. Not that they shouldn't have healthcare.

>>2419882
But they're rare (scarce) anyway, so the point is moot. I'll comment when I see the cell phone section myself.

>>2419832
>> not that GDP isn't perfectly correlated with things like Gross National Happiness, but that the relationship is INVERSE
>http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/social-dysfunction.pdf
GDP has nothing to do with income distribution. Besides, that's completely avoiding the point that Zeitgeist made - the planned obsolescence of products in general, healthcare being one of them, as an example of capitalist waste. For the healthcare point in particular, their statement that people being sick is good for the economy was demonstrated to be fallacious by the poster you responded to, in that sick people don't contribute as much, being as that they're sick. On that point, Zeitgeist is 100% incorrect. He's not calling them leeches, he's just pointing out that you can't work if you're too ill to leave the bed, so the notion that the economy benefits from people being sick is ludicrous.

>>2419832
>http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/social-dysfunction.pdf
I looked over this. It doesn't contradict my claim. In fact, it supports it. The paper focuses on adverse affects of income inequality. But guess what? Richer people have better health. But at every length scale, the graphs in the paper show better health for better wealth, as measured in per capita income.

I fully agree with the paper's main thesis: That income inequality is a bad thing.

>>2419887
Not really their only uncommon compared to say Silicon or other extremely common element.

The minerals they form have very low concentration of the mineral in the ore. But most of them have fuckhuge ore reserves that are economically viable to extract. They usually only exploit one lode of the minerals a a time wihin a region because they are not really worth very much per ton of refined metal.

>>2419875
Agree completely. To bolster your arguments, let me comment, especially on the cellphone bit. Their argument is that there are plenty of phones that are almost perfectly functional sitting in a landfill, that most of them could be cheaply repaired and brought back to full quality.

My question: If there's so many technological components of value in landfills, then why don't the zeitgeist producers start a company that goes in, salvages them, repairs them, and turns them for profit?

Answer: Because most of the phones in the landfill are old technology. They don't carry the same functionality, and thus their value drops below the actual material value used in making them. The most efficient thing you could do with those phones is reprocess them, but as >>2419858 points out, even that would be a waste of resources.

I swear, it's like the people that made this movie aren't familiar with the limitations on modern recycling tech.

>>2417416

'Geist' can actually also mean "spirit" as well as "mind".

Interestingly enough, and this may be new to you, words can have multiple meanings.

>>2419883
quite right, sorry.

>>2419892
isn't that an example of a further disconnect?
and Im not certain I entirely agree. Simply by the numbers, a rise in disease and condition relates to treatment, marked by a rise in spending. How is this arguable?
For the matter of contribution... that may be the case, but I find it more likely that a host of conditions created by hedonistic-oriented lifestyles (high cholesterol, diabetes, ect) are treatable, but only consistently. Not to mention that western work isn't largely a matter of requiring a healthy person to do it.

So what's it saying?

We'd be better off without an economy because we'd all be equal and stuff? I don't have time to watch it all but I'm really interested.

>>2419941
>Simply by the numbers, a rise in disease and condition relates to treatment, marked by a rise in spending. How is this arguable?
It's not. But there's a false premise here, that Zeitgeist actually opposes - that the source of wealth is spending.

No. The source of wealth is WORK, and sickness prevents work. Education and technology are multiplying factors, but you must have work.

>>2419831
1. Bury cellphone full of desired metal.
2. When old deposits exhausted, mine the strata of the landfill. Which is probably richer ore than that which the metal was originally processed from.
3. Laugh at the guy who bitched about the landfill
4. ???
5. profits

>>2419941
>Simply by the numbers, a rise in disease and condition relates to treatment, marked by a rise in spending. How is this arguable?
Because even with high health care costs, treatment is still cheap. If I catch a flu and can't go in to work for a week, I go to the store and buy some ibuprofen and nyquil and chill for the whole week. If I break my arm, I'm out for a couple days at least, and while I may have to pay $200 to get it fixed up, I'd earn more than that much money at work. If I earn $250 at work over three days, that means that the market value of my labor is $250, which means I've contributed $250 to the economy. If I'm paying $200 to a doctor, then it's clearly more beneficial to the economy for me to be at work, rather than sick. The really expensive diseases, things like cancer, or critical surgery, will often leave the person disabled for an extended period , or cause them to die much sooner, thereby reducing their productive output to the economy.

>Not to mention that western work isn't largely a matter of requiring a healthy person to do it.
Most people aren't accountants. Even then, even if you can work, you're definitely not contributing as much if you're sick. The point still stands.

>>2417655

I understand that reading can be hard for some Americans, and parsing a sentence properly based on its grammar is quite the difficult task, indeed. In case you do not understand what this getting at: you are reading it wrong, stop being an idiot.

ok im bringing my discussion here because i tried to start a thread and failed hard.

Theres been a lot of discussion lately about NASA, and increased funding for NASA, etc. I think I have a huge problem with this, for the same reason I have a huge problem with our enormous military budget; there are more pressing issues humanity needs to deal with. How about we solve the problems on earth before we go exploring other planets? We'll just take the problems there with us!

I'd have to qualms about halting (superfluous) scientific progress for a while if it means a higher quality of life for everyone on the planet, to put it frankly.

I say we go to space as a classless global culture, or we dont go at all.

Thoughts/Discussion?

Also- Zeitgeist= Conspiracy bait.

>>2418434

Just like every '-ism' word that represents a system of belief.

>>2419988
>How about we solve the problems on earth before we go exploring other planets?
NASA is relatively cheap, compared to the defense budget, and they bring advances that are helpful to society as a whole. Gotta have a space program if you're going to have satellites and the Hubble and things like that. It's not like anyone is proposing a bloated $400bn space budget.

The issue that really needs to be addressed is income equality. We can make it fine with a huge bloated defense budget as it is if income equality is addressed. That's the originator of class warfare that spawns so many issues. How do you propose that's addressed? You can force it via the government, but that would require a global agreement, being as that the rich would simply leave the country and take their money with them.

yawn

>>2419988

>enormous military budget
4.5% of GDP
half of which goes to NATO
another quarter goes to supporting contracts with alliances
1/6 to R&D
The rest to recruitment, maintainance, and black projects

Troll harder bro.

>I say we go to space as a classless global culture, or we dont go at all.
I say we go as awesome space imperialists.
Also SPACE BATTLESHIPS PROPELLED BY NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, fuck yeah!
http://web.archive.org/web/20071022133749rn_1/www.mfbb.net/nuclearrockets/nuclearrockets-about12.htm
l

>>2420045
>NASA is relatively cheap
ok good point.

>How do you propose that's addressed?
Ah, thats the tough part. I agree you couldnt just force it through the government. So how then?
I only see two options-
-Halting scientific progress/economic expansion until we have equality may be a big enough motivator.
-Or, revolution. No, really. I've heard people on /sci/ say we need a huge catastrophe to eliminate population/ refresh the page. A global or at least national revolution would do it.

>>2420064
>>2420064
donthinksotim

>>2420064
For the Emprah!
>>2419217
>>2419199
>>2419185

>>2420076
>revolution
Ah, the R-word. The problem with revolution is that things don't really change in the end. In the words of Assange, "modern power structures are fiscalised", meaning that it's corporations and their relationships with political parties that hold the power. If you want to decouple their power, then you're facing the situation of eliminating forty years worth of economic growth, just as a ballpark figure.

Frankly, I like playing around with the idea of passing a law whereby the difference in pay for full-time employees couldn't exceed 100x. That is, the highest paid employee could only be paid 100x as much as the lowest paid. That means, for example, if you pay your lowest-paid full-time employee $20k per year, the highest paid worker, probably the CEO, could only make $2m per year. While that's still a lot of money, it pales in comparison to what people currently earn. If they wanted to earn $100m per year, then they better be willing to pay their employees damn well.

>>2420121
I've always had the hypothesis that the flashier the shop the more the author wants to disguise his own bullshit.

Also discretionary the budget used by the defense department is counted toward the defense departments expenditure at the end of the fiscal year. The prospective defense budget is almost alwasys lower than the final, which usually includes discretionary funds. But the expenditure that is recorded at the end of the year has been between 3.5-4.7% of GDP Nominal ever since 1992.

>centralized power is bad
>so give us all the power

This is communism all over again.

Fuck zeitgeist.

Bring back capitalism.

>>2420121
Um your numbers are shit their buddy SS, medicare alone outspend defense by almost three times.

If you think to much money is allocated to defense that is debatable, but don't make shit up. Defense hass been less than 25% of the budget since the 80s.

>>2420213


Watch it before you make a claim like that

>>2420183
>But the expenditure that is recorded at the end of the year has been between 3.5-4.7% of GDP Nominal ever since 1992.
You're avoiding the point that 3.5-4.7% of GDP is fucking huge. Please stop that.3.5-4.7% of the US' GDP is, in fact, larger than the GDP of most nations in the world, there's no reason we need to drop that much money into the hole, save to exert hegemonic NATO dominance over the world at large, dominance that's not only unnecessary, but creates the problems that we have to use the military budget to solve.

>>2420239
well said

>>2420221
>Um your numbers are shit their buddy SS, medicare alone outspend defense by almost three times.
You don't understand how the budget is made. Social Security, Medicaid, etc., are mandatory spending that's not directly controlled by Congress. The chart you saw is only concerned with discretionary spending, the stuff that Congress actually gets to decide on.

That being said, the point is that most defense spending gets a very poor return on investment. Great, so we've built these fantastic airplanes, when the only people who want to fight us have a miniscule air force that hasn't been updated in decades. What are we going to do with those planes? Fly them around in circles until we get bored and build bigger ones. We could be using that money to, oh, I dunno, bring down the cost of college tuition.

This movie stayed away from BS the first movie incorporated and actually brought factual legit points to the table. Obviously some were well OBVIOUS, but none the less I think it provided a descent view of the direction of this planet with it's current system structure.

Their "plan" to solve issues really won't help, it's probably past the point of return and our collapse will be a certainty soon enough.

>>2420239
>NATO dominance over the world at large
Says that like it's bad thing.

Look since WW2 the great powers have not gone to war with one another directly. Thanks to their large standing armies and nuclear arsenals capable of killing everyone on the planet 12 times over, we have had the longest period of peace between great powers in history. NATO counterbalanced by Russia and China keeps regional wars regional. Because one side gaining to much ground would result in NATO stomping on their heads. The whole point of NATO was to be make the Nations in it untouchable by anythign sort of Strategic Nuclear War. That was alwasys the point, and I don't have a problem with it. It's not even hegemonic because the Russians have a larger total arsenal of ICBMs.

>We could be using that money to, oh, I dunno, bring down the cost of college tuition.

Fuck that to much money involved with getting gets into dept with the interest

>>2420309
>Look since WW2 the great powers have not gone to war with one another directly.
That's a fine point and all, but it doesn't address the facts that:
1) The great powers, NATO nations in particular, have been at war constantly ever since anyways. Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, the current quagmire, etc. Sure, we're not fighting Russia, but who cares when we're still fighting someone else, anyways. The only difference is what language the enemies are speaking in.

2) Global standards of living have improved, but not at nearly the rate that technology and production have. We could be doing a lot more things so much better than we are now, but instead, it's fallen on the US Taxpayers to finance peace between the US and Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

When our GDP outstrips every other nation in the world, why is it necessary for us to spend twice as much on defense as the rest of them? We spend ten times as much as Russia does, do we get ten times the return? No, we instead go fight wars with people and make enemies. Maybe we wouldn't have to have such a huge military if we focused on making friends instead of keeping enemies at bay.

>>2420387
And you are absolutely sure that everything you just said is 100% factual?

>>2420407
Of course not. I'm not bothering on sourcing all of my information because it's a mere argument on 4chan. If you'd like to point out my mistakes, I'd be glad to clarify or adjust my position.

>>2420273
Well I'll catch some flak from this from the faggots that are socialist or anarchist idealists, but here it goes. The Military Industrial Complex you all hate so much is a socialist institution(ie the government owning production for a perceived greater good than if it was left to a private individual) . No really and I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It is the government essentially owns companies like Lockeed/Martin and uses them to develope new technology that eventually makes it's way into the private sector but also provides weapons that are superior to all others. Those aircraft are useful in completely outclassing older planes and radar systems, but they are also their to discourage all parity powers like Russia and China to keep the current power balance.

The US/Europe strikes on see and in air, Russia threatens with nukes, China holds ground. With this combination and the specialization of each Great Power into it ensures that the regional and non-power states can never defeat any of the Great powers in there respective elements and ensures that the entire world will always be inferior to an alliance of any two. This way it prevent anyone from ever challenging them through military or revolt and ensures the Pax Nuka is maintained.

If you want a 2.5-3% military budget for the US fine, but then Europe will have to increase its budgets up to 2.5 from the current 1.5 average. Since the US is currently subsidizing European NATO members in practice. In order to keep them martially strong but not to appear utterly overwhelming itself, like it would if it dropped NATO and used all the military spending internally.

>>2420278
Ya, this movie had a lot less "Fuck You" in it. I also agree that their "plan" will not work.

Thank god for the internets.

Technologically speaking, we could easily develop a system that would become a foundation for a better society.

There HAS to be a strong focus on individualism though.

Empower the individual by intelligently combining social networking and interconnected human knowledge with industry, creating a new phenomena known as open industry, leading to open government. I have another post with more details on how such a system would function >>2418847.

>>2420387
>why is it necessary for us to spend twice as much on defense as the rest of them?
We don't we spend as much as the rest of them combined, not twice as much.

The whole point of the US army remains, as it has been since the Cold War, to be able to completely gut any great power or even alliance of all the great powers if they threatened US interest. The US would loss but so would everybody else. If the point was conquest they would focus and infantry and holding ground with less emphasis on deep striking.

If it takes a crazy old man that's completely obsessed with his project and a douchebag with a pleasant voice to get the general public thinking about what really matters in our modern society and its more then "BUYBUYBUY"

So be it, I'll accept it

RBE is a bit far fetched, but getting people talking logically about issues is good thing no matter what way you look at it

>>2420450
>We don't we spend as much as the rest of them combined, not twice as much.
Let me clarify that. I meant that in terms of % GDP. Using 2008 data, the US spent 4.3% while the rest of the world, on average, spent 2.7%. Removing the US from the calculations means we spend close enough to the neighborhood of twice as much, relatively speaking, as the rest of the world.

>The whole point of the US army remains, as it has been since the Cold War, to be able to completely gut any great power or even alliance of all the great powers if they threatened US interest.
That's exactly what I meant when I said "hegemonic". The US is armed well enough to take on any individual nation, and many alliances. Throw the rest of NATO into the equation, and remove nuclear weapons, and no force on earth could possibly stop NATO. This isn't good because maintaining that power means redirecting resources from other possible allocations, ones that would arguably be far more beneficial.

Look at it this way: Who's gonna fuck with Russia? Nobody, because Russia is a big dog. We spent ten times as much as Russia in 2008. We can hold up peace without having to spend so much goddamn money.

It's really just like healthcare - Americans have to spend vastly more on healthcare than pretty much every other nation. You can argue that it's higher quality healthcare, or whatever, but the fact remains that we aren't really getting a very good return. We need to cut programs that don't have a good return on investment.

>>2420121
That graph is incredibly deceptive. It only lists "federal discretionary" spending, not *all* spending. It ignores state and local spending, and federal non-discretionary spending.

If you look at *all* government spending, the military is only a small fraction.

>>2420064
>>2420141

Continuing my commentary on the movie.

They're ripping on Milton Friedman, which I don't particularly oppose. But they're pretending that poverty and malnutrition in the third world is *because* of capitalism, implying they wouldn't be malnourished if it weren't for capitalism. This isn't the case. I'd argue that capitalism has not helped very well in many cases, but blaming capitalism as the source of the problem is a little disingenuous.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

1:11:00
Now they're basically claiming that the net worth of the world is negative, by saying that if all loans were immediately made due, there isn't enough money to go around. They said, "If all outstanding debt was to be repaid right now, there would not be one dollar in circulation."

what

I'm not an economist, but something is wrong here. Can anyone help me understand this section, and whether it is bullshit?

1:30:00
This is getting more more pragmatic. Organization based on resources and on results-based methods. It makes sense. But I don't like how centrally-planned it is. I don't trust the central planner. Distributed and self-correcting systems with many inputs are smarter than any one person. There also does not seem to be any room for competition between ideas in solving problems. There's just a faith that science will immediately find the single global optimum, with not exploration or competition between different methods.

You need separate groups of people trying to solve problems, and then select the best available solution. If you only have ONE group, presenting ONE solution, and pretend it's the optimum... this is a recipe for bureaucratic waste. We've seen it over and over again. Group X has the solution. Group Y tries something new, and it's better. If they're lucky, they become the new method. But what if there *is* no Group Y? Where is the room for it in this model?

BONUS. Then he goes on to detail the "perfect" city layout. LOL. Where in his hypothetical society is there room for someone to prove him wrong? That there is room for improvement? He's not describing a progressive society, but one which has already stagnated. Just at a level higher than our current level.

Vertical farms? Oh god. He has NO IDEA what he is talking about. You don't even get enough solar coverage. You'd have to run huge arrays of grow-lights. How is this more efficient than growing wheat and soybeans in fields outside of the city? And wind can't power cities. And he ignores nuclear. Even solar, it seems.

I do agree that increased automation makes increased socialization necessary. Pure capitalism doesn't work very well.

He's right that money does not serve as a good motivation for creativity. In fact, it causes problems.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

2:13:00
Towards the end, he really turns strawman arguments into an artform. And he disguises it with a Monty Python reference. Nice.

Now he busts out George Carlin. Awesome.

He's right that famine/starvation in the past century has been totally unnecessary. We have enough food.

I don't think these guys have a clear proposal of what to do next. They have a goal, but not a path. This seems fairly typical of idealists. I agree that the goal is good, and even that the model and form they imagine ebodies that goal is better than what we have. But I think there are systems that are even better. The system described is too stagnant, rigid and centralized. By far. But I feel he's closer to the optimum than we are now.


The one great thing I agree with in this movie, is the horrible evils of income inequality, both within countries and globally between countries. That has to stop. It *must*.

Well, I've mainly played the part of the critic. I'll say more about what I agree with.

Income inequality is a plague on the planet. The rich get richer, the poor stay about the same, and the truly destitute starve at the first unfortunate political, economic, or ecological downturn. Poverty is the problem. And a system that only values GDP and material acquisition is a large part of the problem. The problem is materialism. Not capitalism, really, though there might be a better model now. Materialism. The greed and inhumanity of man. It's not fundamental, but we've made it cultural. And that culture needs to end.

But that doesn't mean money should end. Money is a decentralized, flexible, and self-correcting mechanism for communicating the relative value of resources and labor, as dictated by supply and demand. Handing over that system to a rigid, central governing body is a bad idea. We've done it before, many times. And saying you have a perfect computerized set of equations to do it for you is a goal... but not a transitionary solution. What do I do now? Hand control over to a bureaucracy? Why should it be centralized?

Why can't it be decentralized? Is it because the system is immediately overwhelmed by robber-barons again?

The problem isn't money. It's what we do with income distribution. How about we just go for gradually increasing levels of socialism, but with perfect autonomy in how you choose to spend your income? You can get all the efficiencies and benefits of capitalism, without all the abuses and inequalities.

There's a gradual and common-sense path to get there. And I think it will happen anyway. It's happening right now. The cries of "socialist, socialist" will die down once unemployment keeps going up.

>>2420687
Dunno, in that pie chart it looks as big as any other part and should be just as open for cuts.