Thread: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward online release

At long last, this ridiculous and nonsensical film has been released to the internet public. View it here:



I'm trolling in the comments section on the video right now.

Really, if these guys want to more or less deny scarcity and abolish money, and thus drag themselves into the Stone Age, they can go for it, so long as they don't drag the rest of us with them.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm trolling in the comments section on the video right now.

That's just wonderful.

Originally Posted by Supernova

That's just wonderful.

It's nearly impossible to have any form of civilized argument on YouTube, mainly because the comments section is hard to follow. Might as well pull a Fox News and conduct a trolling experiment.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's nearly impossible to have any form of civilized argument on YouTube, mainly because the comments section is hard to follow. Might as well pull a Fox News and conduct a trolling experiment.

Actually, I agree. 95% of people you talk to on there are extremely opinionated, and the debates never go anywhere meaningful.

I gave up expecting my youtube comments to be taken seriously some time ago

Originally Posted by Supernova

Actually, I agree. 95% of people you talk to on there are extremely opinionated, and the debates never go anywhere meaningful.

I gave up expecting my youtube comments to be taken seriously some time ago

I never started! I noticed the quality of the discussions and have to this day never bothered to participate in them (well, except for poking fun occasionally).

A troll on YouTube? Noooooooo.

Originally Posted by Bonzaii

A troll on YouTube? Noooooooo.

You've been registered for two years and this is what drove you to make a post?

Really, if these guys want to more or less deny scarcity and abolish money, and thus drag themselves into the Stone Age, they can go for it, so long as they don't drag the rest of us with them.

Did you actually watch the film? It doesn't deny scarcity, infact it promotes recycling and sensible management of the worlds finite resources, something that the current system epically fails at.
Whether the proposed solution would work or not isn't something i've looked deeply into and so can't argue about, but the film itself does a good job of highlighting how screwed up the current system really is, something that more and more people are becoming aware of. Life really could be so much better.

Originally Posted by RooJ

Did you actually watch the film? It doesn't deny scarcity, infact it promotes recycling and sensible management of the worlds finite resources, something that the current system epically fails at.
Whether the proposed solution would work or not isn't something i've looked deeply into and so can't argue about, but the film itself does a good job of highlighting how screwed up the current system really is, something that more and more people are becoming aware of. Life really could be so much better.

I'm watching the film now. So far I've been bored to tears listening to something about genetics and parenting (I dozed off, I shit you not). Now it's finally getting into the economic side of things, and, lo and behold, they're calling the current economic system "free market," and rattling off some nonsense about money. How dull can they get?

How they plan on managing the world's finite resources without money is beyond me. Jacques Fresco says it's possible due to advanced technology, but without money, I wonder how in the world he'll develop it. He blames scarcity on money. I mean come on, lern 2 economics.

40-50 years ago socialists like these were saying the world was running out of resources. Now they're saying we live in such abundance that we don't need money to rationally distribute goods. Mind-boggling.

Sounded pretty good to me...

Well money doesn't develop things, money can't build technology or cure diseases, people do that. The argument is that its actually this reliance on money that STOPS things from getting done. For instance many Aids related deaths in countries like Africa could be prevented easily with drugs, but as people can't afford these drugs (not because theres a lack of the drug), people die. I think the vision is for people to care about each other and the environment more than they do money and profitz, for the benefit of current and future generations. I don't see it ever taking off however, but i do think a better system can be created than the one we follow now.. especially as this system is simply unsustainable in its current form.

@ Blueline..

About the whole idea about developing stuff without money, ey..

Are you currently studying for something / in a profession?

Originally Posted by RooJ

Well money doesn't develop things, money can't build technology or cure diseases, people do that. The argument is that its actually this reliance on money that STOPS things from getting done. For instance many Aids related deaths in countries like Africa could be prevented easily with drugs, but as people can't afford these drugs (not because theres a lack of the drug), people die. I think the vision is for people to care about each other and the environment more than they do money and profitz, for the benefit of current and future generations. I don't see it ever taking off however, but i do think a better system can be created than the one we follow now.. especially as this system is simply unsustainable in its current form.

The adoption of money allows modern industrialization, technological advances, and the standards of living across the board to rise significantly. Instead of searching for what is known as a double coincidence of wants in a barter economy (e.g. I trade my shirt for your pants, or a cow for a pig), where I want something and have to find another person who has what I want and wants what I have, money acts as a medium of exchange. If one wishes to trade or buy something, they just have to hand over the product and get money in return; rinse and repeat.

One can not possibly attempt to accumulate the capital, the means of production, and the incentive to keep up a modern technological society without money. I'm not discounting the proposition that people will do so out of the good of their heart, of course, as many people work and work hard simply out of love of their work. But we cannot possibly rely on such a proposition as a foundation for an economy. So while, yes, people are the ones developing technology and curing diseases, it would not be possible in a barter economy, which is what would exist in a world without money. Money eases the process of trade, allows for proper accounting (and accounting in general, really), and allows prices to exist, which then tends to lead toward a rational distribution of resources.

An argument could be made that certain practices with money (and especially with the type of money used) and various policies stops thing from getting done. But attacking money alone is incorrect.

As for AIDS-related deaths, this again is not the fault of money's existence. For one, there's no cure for AIDS, so I think its fair to assume that drugs given to victims after the fact of infection won't particularly do much in the way of keeping them alive indefinitely. I'm not very knowledgeable on AIDS, so I'm not sure how effective preventative medicines are. I will say that billions upon billions of dollars are funneled into countries with AIDS problems, and while some of that money reaches its destination, far too much of it gets hung up in the corrupt governments of said countries, and thus never reaches the people.

And to be quite honest, people don't necessarily need to care about each other and the environment (as a whole) instead of money and profits. I'm reminded of an essay by Leonard E. Read entitled, I, Pencil. Contrary to popular belief, making a pencil is not as easy as painting a piece of wood and shoving a graphite stick down the middle of it, and attaching an eraser. Resources need to be gathered (wood from trees, brass, synthetic rubber, etc.) for such a product to be made. And all of this production goes down by people all over the world, who don't know each other, and generally don't care either. You can apply this to any product or service as well.

One would also do well to understand the significance of profits in a market system. It's usually used as a boogeyman term to signify some sort of evil occurring, but profits are a signal of success or failure in a given market. It's not so simple as Profit = Revenue - Cost.

Anyway, I just wrote far too much, lol.

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

@ Blueline..

About the whole idea about developing stuff without money, ey..

Are you currently studying for something / in a profession?

I'm a Poli Sci major at the moment, although thinking of switching to something in the sciences. Poli Sci isn't exactly a goldmine for lucrative professions. If I end up switching my major, Poli Sci might be my minor. Economics is a private passion that I'm slowly but surely learning on my own.

Devil's advocate here, but:

The adoption of money allows modern industrialization, technological advances, and the standards of living across the board to rise significantly.

Sure, if you happen to live in a wealthy country. Theres a slight issue with the distribution of wealth however.

One can not possibly attempt to accumulate the capital, the means of production, and the incentive to keep up a modern technological society without money.

I agree to a certain extent, but thats because i have, like many people, a cynical view of humanity and the average persons motives. I think as a species, like most animals, we tend to be self centered and greedy (id love to think it wasn't in our nature as the film suggests).
We're brought up in a competitive world, even in school we're always competing and compared to our peers. We're taught to survive in a money oriented world, I guess its the only system we know and so to a certain extent we're completely indoctrinated.
The first part of zeitgeist 3 (the bit you fell asleep during ), is trying to point out that humans are blank slates when first developing as a fetus. The only way i see a system like the one proposed could even begin to work is if an entire generation of children were brought up from birth to live like that, radical changes in education and social behaviour would be needed.. Sadly i don't ever see humans from across the globe agreeing to a common solution and working together to implement it, it would take a natural or man-made disaster of epic proportions for such a system to be considered.
Maybe such a system could be brought in gradually but im not sure.

If you doubt that a child's mind is malleable enough to be influenced and live successfully in such a world id invite you to take a look at many of the worlds religions and cults. Children obviously learn directly from the environment they're brought up in.

Zeitgeist doesn't propose a barter economy.

As for AIDS-related deaths, this again is not the fault of money's existence. For one, there's no cure for AIDS, so I think its fair to assume that drugs given to victims after the fact of infection won't particularly do much in the way of keeping them alive indefinitely. I'm not very knowledgeable on AIDS, so I'm not sure how effective preventative medicines are. I will say that billions upon billions of dollars are funneled into countries with AIDS problems, and while some of that money reaches its destination, far too much of it gets hung up in the corrupt governments of said countries, and thus never reaches the people.

Drugs have a huge impact on the lives of people suffering from aids:

BBC News | AIDS | Aids drugs factfile

As for money not getting through, thats very true. That simply shows the effects of greed and how money can be put before the lives of humans though .

And to be quite honest, people don't necessarily need to care about each other and the environment (as a whole) instead of money and profits.

But it would be a better world if they did.

One would also do well to understand the significance of profits in a market system. It's usually used as a boogeyman term to signify some sort of evil occurring, but profits are a signal of success or failure in a given market. It's not so simple as Profit = Revenue - Cost.

But on the flip side it can ensure that in many cases the average person gets paid a low wage, jobs get outsourced to sweatshops in india, the cheapest materials are used in manufacturing, farmed animals get treated inhumanely, used materials can be dumped instead of properly disposed of and people don't get the best medical treatment for their conditions. The issue is that in many (if not most) cases the jobs of management are on the line if profit margins arn't met and so people are prepared to cut corners.

I think a big concern for the zeitgeist project (as for the current system) is over population, im not sure how they propose to tackle that.

Originally Posted by RooJ

Sure, if you happen to live in a wealthy country. Theres a slight issue with the distribution of wealth however.

Without money, how did such a country become wealthy, advanced, and industrialized? This isn't simply a case of "well it works in already-wealthy countries." The use of a medium of exchange works everywhere to achieve such goals. Wealth discrepancies are a different matter entirely, and rely not so much on the existence of money, but rather various policies.

I agree to a certain extent, but thats because i have, like many people, a cynical view of humanity and the average persons motives. I think as a species, like most animals, we tend to be self centered and greedy (id love to think it wasn't in our nature as the film suggests).
We're brought up in a competitive world, even in school we're always competing and compared to our peers. We're taught to survive in a money oriented world, I guess its the only system we know and so to a certain extent we're completely indoctrinated.
The first part of zeitgeist 3 (the bit you fell asleep during ), is trying to point out that humans are blank slates when first developing as a fetus. The only way i see a system like the one proposed could even begin to work is if an entire generation of children were brought up from birth to live like that, radical changes in education and social behaviour would be needed.. Sadly i don't ever see humans from across the globe agreeing to a common solution and working together to implement it, it would take a natural or man-made disaster of epic proportions for such a system to be considered.
Maybe such a system could be brought in gradually but im not sure.

If you doubt that a child's mind is malleable enough to be influenced and live successfully in such a world id invite you to take a look at many of the worlds religions and cults. Children obviously learn directly from the environment they're brought up in.

The contention I made about not being able to account gains and losses and even develop and acquire capital without money isn't merely a case of our upbringing or how we're brainwashed or whatever some such psychobabble Peter Joseph had people talk about in the first 45 minutes of the movie. It is a fact of life that people will trade goods they value less for goods they value more. There is no getting around this. As I explained earlier, one of the problems with moneyless (barter) economies is attempting to find a double coincidence of wants. The sort of technology Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph plan to have laying around would be impossible to develop without money, as developing it is simply impossible in a moneyless economy.

Unless you want to get all Marxist/Rand on me and start advocating some sort of new economic man .

Zeitgeist doesn't propose a barter economy.

Without money, what else would they have?

Drugs have a huge impact on the lives of people suffering from aids:

BBC News | AIDS | Aids drugs factfile

Fair enough.

As for money not getting through, thats very true. That simply shows the effects of greed and how money can be put before the lives of humans though .

But surely this is not justification for getting rid of money.

But it would be a better world if they did.

Maybe, but unrealistic nonetheless. The standard of living among most of the world has risen dramatically under such a system

But on the flip side it can ensure that in many cases the average person gets paid a low wage, jobs get outsourced to sweatshops in india, the cheapest materials are used in manufacturing, farmed animals get treated inhumanely, used materials can be dumped instead of properly disposed of and people don't get the best medical treatment for their conditions. The issue is that in many (if not most) cases the jobs of management are on the line if profit margins arn't met and so people are prepared to cut corners.

I think this is where the line between "free market" and our current system gets blurred. I know Peter Joseph and others call our current system free market, which is absolutely ridiculous on its face (it's even better when he lumps Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, and Mises together as free market evil money-grubbers, when only the latter three were actually free market advocates).

People see all these problems, many of which are trivial and stem from a lack of knowledge of how a market economy works and why (although some are justified), apply them to an allegedly chaotic market system, then claim that the current system is such a market system. And then somehow, by extension, they find a scapegoat, namely money, and seek to abolish it and drag us back to the Stone Age.

good show. I agree it's pretty boring in the beginning. Some very interesting solutions offered.

I understand the adoption of a monetary system has allowed for a lot of the things we enjoy today, but I don't think it's the only means. When I imagine about super-intelligent beings and the civilization they have established I can't really see pieces of paper with abstract symbols being a part of it.

We have the know-how and technology to begin serious exploration of space. What's the largest holdback? Funding. The people in the position to do this just aren't interested. If this hypothetical super-intelligent species wanted to do something I can guarantee something trivial like money wouldn't get in their way. If they have the natural resources they fucking do it. That's the way I see it at least.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I understand the adoption of a monetary system has allowed for a lot of the things we enjoy today, but I don't think it's the only means. When I imagine about super-intelligent beings and the civilization they have established I can't really see pieces of paper with abstract symbols being a part of it.

Money doesn't have to be government-decreed, green-paper fiat currency.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Money doesn't have to be government-decreed, green-paper fiat currency.

Alright, but my main point is something like money would not hold them back from accomplishing something. I think their thought process would be something like [We want to travel to planet x - do we have the natural reasources? - yes - let's do it] as opposed to ours where it's more like [we want to travel to planet x - is there substantial profit to be made? - probably not - plan goes to shit]

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Alright, but my main point is something like money would not hold them back from accomplishing something. I think their thought process would be something like [We want to travel to planet x - do we have the natural reasources? - yes - let's do it] as opposed to ours where it's more like [we want to travel to planet x - is there substantial profit to be made? - probably not - plan goes to shit]

If it's not profitable, it's generally not demanded by the majority of consumers. If there's no profit to be made, it's not demanded by consumers, and thus is not in line with the values of economic actors. Throwing money into a plan for which there is no demand is a terrible waste of finite resources.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If it's not profitable, it's generally not demanded by the majority of consumers. If there's no profit to be made, it's not demanded by consumers, and thus is not in line with the values of economic actors. Throwing money into a plan for which there is no demand is a terrible waste of finite resources.

I'm thinking more a long the lines of scientific advancement, which isn't a product that is consumed.

Not seen the new one yet, but I really enjoyed the Addendum film. Im not too sure about the 'solution' they offer. A lot of the film goes on about how The Man controls our lives, but the solution seems to be to get them to control every minute aspect of our lives, right down to cars that drive themselves, food that grows magically and is distributed equally to everyone. Its all a bit sci-fi and silly whereas I think there are important messages to be taken from it.

The points about the banking system, thats where I was interested. After watching this and 'Collapse', it seems we are headed for a second stone age anyway.
I agree with the basic message that 'things need to change or humanity is screwed' but I dont really agree that we need a volcano powered star trek utopia to solve the crisis.... maybe we just need all the Governments of the world to stop BEING EVIL!

Once again the idea put forward by the zeitgeist film requires a radical change in education and upbringing to even have a chance. It obviously couldn't work without a huge change in the way people think. It promotes the sharing and management of resources for the benefit of everyone and the planet as a whole (not simply "what do i get in exchange"). Incentives would have to change massively. Thats sadly why i don't think anything like this would work, small communities fail to work together most of the time, never mind entire species.

Originally Posted by RooJ

Once again the idea put forward by the zeitgeist film requires a radical change in education and upbringing to even have a chance. It obviously couldn't work without a huge change in the way people think. It promotes the sharing and management of resources for the benefit of everyone and the planet as a whole (not simply "what do i get in exchange"). Incentives would have to change massively. Thats sadly why i don't think anything like this would work, small communities fail to work together most of the time, never mind entire species.

Actually in the boring part of the film they kind of debunk what what you just said. If you fully understand the info in the beginning then the rest of it makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Man of Shred

Actually in the boring part of the film they kind of debunk what what you just said. If you fully understand the info in the beginning then the rest of it makes more sense.

Care to go into a little more detail on that?