Zeitgeist: The Movement

[scythe]

I'd actually support TZM on this one, I think we're wasting (or not exploiting) many potential resources taht could be used to help out humanity instead of a single company's profit. This is because profit is driven by scarcity. The less of something there is, the more it costs. A company makes more money by heightening sale costs and/or lowering production costs, it's a pretty simple formula. Say x is sales cost, y is manufacturing cost, and z is profit: X-Y=Z. Pretty simple. So if X doubles, and Y stays the same, Z (profit) increases substantially. Many corporations withhold resources (diamonds are a classic example) to create scarcity, drive up costs, and maximize profit. This is a corrupt system and one of the reasons monopolies have been banned in the U.S..

You're missing the point. The technology you claim exists does not, in fact, exist. Screw doctors, I defy you to find something that comes close to what my friend does: buy about four ounces of cannabis from a high-level dealer, and sell it to people in 1/8 to 1/2 ounce portions. It is not close to existing. There is no current research that aims to replace most jobs, and there are no researchers who think this is possible in the near future. The popular unpalatability of faster and faster supercomputers isn't the main cause; it just means that it's unlikely that a massive amount of research will spring up in the near future. Even in a planned economy, it wouldn't happen because it's not what the people want to expend effort on, and this is a democracy, after all.

[blue_tetris]

There's an online movement that will get rid of pain, suffering, cancer, AIDS, the need to eat, the need to drink, the need to breathe, and confusing things, and also money.

Oooh! Oooh! I know this one! The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, right?

I actually own a stamped button of theirs, at my old place.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

True, your equation is much more accurate; for the sake of simplicity I used the equation I used.

You do realize that there's, like, an entire science built around exactly this subject? Reducing all of economics and business administration to a single extremely basic algebra equation "for the sake of simplicity" is not going to help you make your point, or even look like you could.
I mean, you're giving an incorrect... summary, I guess, of economics, and then trying to make a point by appealing to your faulty reduction of it.
"I never got the hang of multiplication, so if we say for the sake of simplicity that the force of gravity is F = m + g, we can clearly see that gravity doesn't follow this equation and science is wrong about everything."

[blue_tetris]

True, your equation is much more accurate; for the sake of simplicity I used the equation I used.

You do realize that there's, like, an entire science built around exactly this subject? Reducing all of economics and business administration to a single extremely basic algebra equation "for the sake of simplicity" is not going to help you make your point, or even look like you could.
I mean, you're giving an incorrect... summary, I guess, of economics, and then trying to make a point by appealing to your faulty reduction of it.
"I never got the hang of multiplication, so if we say for the sake of simplicity that the force of gravity is F = m + g, we can clearly see that gravity doesn't follow this equation and science is wrong about everything."

"I lied. The truth was complex."

[PsychoSnail]

For those who haven't heard of it, The Zeitgeist Movement is sweeping the internet. The Movement is basically an attempt to completely rid the world of money, which would in turn get rid of the following things.

A) 90% of jobs. They argue that the current monetary system enslaves the world's population into working the majority of their adult lives. Basically, money is debt and debt is money. Without either, the other disappears. For example, if every debt in the world was payed off, there'd be no money in circulation and it would be useless. And if there were no money, there'd be no debt to pay off. People work to pay off debts, and without money there'd be no debts for them to work to pay off.

The problem is, debt is not necessarily money. If there wasn't any money to be owed, there would still be resources such as food, water, and property that people would owe to other people. Taking away money doesn't take away the problems associated with money; it only shifts the problems to other things.

B) Greenhouse gases. Because gas companies are the only reason we haven't begun switching to clean fuel, getting rid of money/profit and then the corporations that thrive to make profit, would eliminate all resistance to tidal, solar, wind, wave, and geothermal energy. Estimates and MIT reports put available geothermal energy at 4,000 years worth of clean energy. But because the earth constantly renews its energy, the supply is virtually endless. Without money, corporations would be nonexistent, so clean fuels would be pushed and embraced.

I doubt taking away money would make corporations become nonexistent, because, as I said above, there will still be debts, payments, etc. in the form of other materials. Besides, I doubt that gas corporations are the only reason we haven't switched to clean fuels yet.

C) Poverty. If money was nonexistent, we could harness technology to create an abundance. It is a fact today that we have the technology and ability to create an abundance of food and resources. Example: Tap water and air are in such an abundance, they're free. It would be pointless to charge. What if food, and other resources were in such abundance they'd be free and open to everyone, with no cost? Businesses currently are artificially creating demand and keeping down supply by such tactics as storing diamonds in warehouses or burning them into carbon to avoid prices dropping (Diamonds would cost mere dollars if they all were released).
Secondly, many companies act unethically and corruptly. To act corruptly is to set aside moral and ethical values for monetary gain, and so sweat shops are just that. They put aside ethics and workers minimal wages that they cannot live on, simply to maximize profit. Without a profit to be made, corruption, and thus cruel inhumanity against humans, would be eliminated.

Even without money, some people will manage to obtain more resources than others, creating an unequal distribution of resources, which creates poverty, since poverty is essentially having less resources than what is considered to be normal. I don't see poverty going away by abolishing money (Communism didn't exactly work out in the Soviet Union, did it?).

Essentially, debts and other problems associated with money are not caused by money, existed before money existed, and will continue to exist even without money. While the current monetary system is not perfect, abolishing money is not the solution.

[Amadeus]

True, your equation is much more accurate; for the sake of simplicity I used the equation I used.

You do realize that there's, like, an entire science built around exactly this subject? Reducing all of economics and business administration to a single extremely basic algebra equation "for the sake of simplicity" is not going to help you make your point, or even look like you could.
I mean, you're giving an incorrect... summary, I guess, of economics, and then trying to make a point by appealing to your faulty reduction of it.
"I never got the hang of multiplication, so if we say for the sake of simplicity that the force of gravity is F = m + g, we can clearly see that gravity doesn't follow this equation and science is wrong about everything."

Well for that matter, DLB didn't quite hit it on the head either. Unless you want to hire a top economist to write 40 pages on exactly how the economy works, I think we all don't know entirely (or wish to express entirely) how capitalism and profit works. The equation I used was simply an element of the system, not the entire system, because to prove my point I didn't need to show in minute details how every portion of the economy worked, nor did I have to even state more major elements such as number sold, or customer satisfaction, or quality of goods, or convenience of vending locations. I simply pulled out an equation that worked and was accurate to fit my example of De Beer's diamond companies, and a monopoly selling a necessary (or advertised and believed necessary) product can ramp up prices, lower production costs, and maximize profit. This, according to The Zeitgeist Movement, is doubly corrupt. You sacrifice ethics by underpaying workers just as you sacrifice ethics by overcharging customers.

For those who haven't heard of it, The Zeitgeist Movement is sweeping the internet. The Movement is basically an attempt to completely rid the world of money, which would in turn get rid of the following things.

A) 90% of jobs. They argue that the current monetary system enslaves the world's population into working the majority of their adult lives. Basically, money is debt and debt is money. Without either, the other disappears. For example, if every debt in the world was payed off, there'd be no money in circulation and it would be useless. And if there were no money, there'd be no debt to pay off. People work to pay off debts, and without money there'd be no debts for them to work to pay off.

The problem is, debt is not necessarily money. If there wasn't any money to be owed, there would still be resources such as food, water, and property that people would owe to other people. Taking away money doesn't take away the problems associated with money; it only shifts the problems to other things.

Although I don't agree with The Zeitgeist Movement's plans, for the sake of exploiting the pros and cons of such a movement, I'll represent them as best as possible. You'll see it mentioned (though scantily so) that TZM essentially is proposing a ban on all trade, which includes currency and bartering. A central government would create machine run factories to create an abundance in food that would be distributed to everyone.

B) Greenhouse gases. Because gas companies are the only reason we haven't begun switching to clean fuel, getting rid of money/profit and then the corporations that thrive to make profit, would eliminate all resistance to tidal, solar, wind, wave, and geothermal energy. Estimates and MIT reports put available geothermal energy at 4,000 years worth of clean energy. But because the earth constantly renews its energy, the supply is virtually endless. Without money, corporations would be nonexistent, so clean fuels would be pushed and embraced.

I doubt taking away money would make corporations become nonexistent, because, as I said above, there will still be debts, payments, etc. in the form of other materials. Besides, I doubt that gas corporations are the only reason we haven't switched to clean fuels yet.

Actually, this is one of the few points that I personally agree with TZM and disagree with you. General Motors has discontinued electric cars because they don't control the fuel supply for such vehicles. So much money (think trillions, not billions) is invested that such a drastic change would be heavily opposed by oil companies backed up by wads of cash. However, I do agree that's not the only element slowing down an energy revolution. The change in the economy, the huge initial investment, and massive job spaces to be filled (which requires training and manpower) also slow attempts at change.

C) Poverty. If money was nonexistent, we could harness technology to create an abundance. It is a fact today that we have the technology and ability to create an abundance of food and resources. Example: Tap water and air are in such an abundance, they're free. It would be pointless to charge. What if food, and other resources were in such abundance they'd be free and open to everyone, with no cost? Businesses currently are artificially creating demand and keeping down supply by such tactics as storing diamonds in warehouses or burning them into carbon to avoid prices dropping (Diamonds would cost mere dollars if they all were released).
Secondly, many companies act unethically and corruptly. To act corruptly is to set aside moral and ethical values for monetary gain, and so sweat shops are just that. They put aside ethics and workers minimal wages that they cannot live on, simply to maximize profit. Without a profit to be made, corruption, and thus cruel inhumanity against humans, would be eliminated.

Even without money, some people will manage to obtain more resources than others, creating an unequal distribution of resources, which creates poverty, since poverty is essentially having less resources than what is considered to be normal. I don't see poverty going away by abolishing money (Communism didn't exactly work out in the Soviet Union, did it?).

The reason it didn't work in the Soviet Union was because
A) The government was corrupt and didn't evenly distribute resources and
B) There weren't enough resources to evenly distribute, due to actions described in point A.

[PsychoSnail]

Although I don't agree with The Zeitgeist Movement's plans, for the sake of exploiting the pros and cons of such a movement, I'll represent them as best as possible. You'll see it mentioned (though scantily so) that TZM essentially is proposing a ban on all trade, which includes currency and bartering. A central government would create machine run factories to create an abundance in food that would be distributed to everyone.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Assuming that does work out (which would be quite an accomplishment in itself), I wonder what would happen to things such as the entertainment industry.

Actually, this is one of the few points that I personally agree with TZM and disagree with you. General Motors has discontinued electric cars because they don't control the fuel supply for such vehicles. So much money (think trillions, not billions) is invested that such a drastic change would be heavily opposed by oil companies backed up by wads of cash. However, I do agree that's not the only element slowing down an energy revolution. The change in the economy, the huge initial investment, and massive job spaces to be filled (which requires training and manpower) also slow attempts at change.

Yeah, you have a good point there, and I agree with you. I just think there's a more practical way to accomplish this than to get rid of money.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Well for that matter, DLB didn't quite hit it on the head either. Unless you want to hire a top economist to write 40 pages on exactly how the economy works, I think we all don't know entirely (or wish to express entirely) how capitalism and profit works. The equation I used was simply an element of the system, not the entire system, because to prove my point I didn't need to show in minute details how every portion of the economy worked, nor did I have to even state more major elements such as number sold, or customer satisfaction, or quality of goods, or convenience of vending locations.

You are exaggerating. Understanding of supply and demand was all that was required to discuss the objections made to TZM's proposition, and that is the first thing you learn in Economics 101. Most people who know anything about economics do not learn anything new in the first few weeks of such a class.

I simply pulled out an equation that worked and was accurate to fit my example

The objection to your equation was that it was inaccurate and not representantive of a business acting functionally like an otherwise amoral business.
A few minutes on Wikipedia is all that's necessary to understand the points being made, not 400-page post-doctorate publications.

[Amadeus]

I was referring specifically to monopolies and scarcity, not the economy in general. When you have a monopoly, there's no competition with lower prices. When the product sold is a necessity (or advertised and believed to be such) then no matter how high prices rise, people will still purchase the product. I still believe my equation was fairly accurate when considering the circumstance it refers to.

...Many corporations withhold resources (diamonds are a classic example) to create scarcity, drive up costs, and maximize profit. This is a corrupt system and one of the reasons monopolies have been banned in the U.S..

[Amadeus]

TZM wants to rid the world of money for the following reasons (major reasons):
1. Corrupt companies sacrificing ethics for profit
2. The population slaving away to make money by working

Point number one includes:
-economic sabotage run by government and private agencies in foreign countries
-pollution, sweat shops, and other morally wrong but profitable acts
-overcharging (which forces people to make money by working, see the second point)
The second one is fairly explanatory. TZM believes much of this work is unnecessary by exploitation of technology.

[SlappyMcGee]

These don't sound like ethos of the zeitgeist movement at all; they sound closer to Marxism.

[capt_weasle]

TZM wants to rid the world of money for the following reasons (major reasons):
1. Corrupt companies sacrificing ethics for profit
2. The population slaving away to make money by working

Point number one includes:
-economic sabotage run by government and private agencies in foreign countries
-pollution, sweat shops, and other morally wrong but profitable acts
-overcharging (which forces people to make money by working, see the second point)
The second one is fairly explanatory. TZM believes much of this work is unnecessary by exploitation of technology.

First, corrupt companies can be removed without taking money out of the equation. Second, we still need people to work. Without money, you can expect the majority of people to just stop working. Many people (i.e. the entire teenage work force) don't have any other motivation to work besides making money. How do you expect to dish out resources to people? It would be very difficult to amass a bunch of volunteers to grow food and distribute it among people. Not to mention the fallout the would occur after telling everyone that money doesn't have value anymore. I would be willing to bet that a ton of people would freak out and loot grocery stores or what have you, because if we don't need money, everything would be free. Right? Unless you want to go back to trading, and as I believe someone mentioned earlier, that is just an unnecessarily complex version of the money system.

[Amadeus]

TZM wants to rid the world of money for the following reasons (major reasons):
1. Corrupt companies sacrificing ethics for profit
2. The population slaving away to make money by working

Point number one includes:
-economic sabotage run by government and private agencies in foreign countries
-pollution, sweat shops, and other morally wrong but profitable acts
-overcharging (which forces people to make money by working, see the second point)
The second one is fairly explanatory. TZM believes much of this work is unnecessary by exploitation of technology.

First, corrupt companies can be removed without taking money out of the equation. Second, we still need people to work. Without money, you can expect the majority of people to just stop working. Many people (i.e. the entire teenage work force) don't have any other motivation to work besides making money. How do you expect to dish out resources to people? It would be very difficult to amass a bunch of volunteers to grow food and distribute it among people. Not to mention the fallout the would occur after telling everyone that money doesn't have value anymore. I would be willing to bet that a ton of people would freak out and loot grocery stores or what have you, because if we don't need money, everything would be free. Right? Unless you want to go back to trading, and as I believe someone mentioned earlier, that is just an unnecessarily complex version of the money system.

In the topic, and further up the thread is mentioned Zeitgeist's plan concerning this issue. They envision technology taking over 90% of the world's jobs, and creating an abundance in food that would be evenly distributed. Grocery stores wouldn't exist, and would instead by something like a distribution center, run by machines.

EDIT: The more I argue for TZM, the more I see how incredibly problematic everyone of their plans are. Although even originally I didn't support them, so many of their plans are revolutionary and incredibly difficult to follow through, their goals seem just short of impossible.

[Amadeus]

The Movement believes our system is flawed in that to survive in our current economic system, a business must be corrupt, to some degree or another, that this is inevitable. Because in these cases, profit as an incentive overthrows morals and ethics, they believe this incentive must be rid to prevent this form of corruption. The only way to change this is through a complete reform of resources, employment, and trade.