Metanet Forums

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.

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.

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.

Links:
The Zeitgeist Movement Official Home Page
Zeitgeist Addendum: The Movie

-

Personally, I think this kind of utopia describe is impossible. However I'd love to debate someone on the plausibility of at least one of these elements. Post your views here, and lets open up a debate.

Amadeus wrote: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.

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.

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.

Links:
The Zeitgeist Movement Official Home Page
Zeitgeist Addendum: The Movie

-

Personally, I think this kind of utopia describe is impossible. However I'd love to debate someone on the plausibility of at least one of these elements. Post your views here, and lets open up a debate.

Clearly you've never seen Star Trek.

Sounds a little too Commie for my tastes.

A) I will not abide organized movements to halt productivity. This proposition immediately set my position toward this movement to "hostile".

B) The problem is not the existence of oil companies. The problem is corruption within those companies and in political bodies. In the US, scientific-mindedness and political eligibility seem to be mutually exclusive. This is what needs to change.

C) This assumes that humans aren't, or won't be, dickheads. One of the best ways to turn skilled and intelligent people into criminals is to remove the mechanism that allows them to earn more for being more skilled and intelligent than others. If I and someone of inferior skill and intelligence are being compensated the same for our work, I will either lose motivation to fulfill my potential or, more likely, turn to other means to get what I feel I deserve.

These people sound like naive hippies. I don't like them.

No money means every person would get every single thing he/she wants.

So, an hard-worker guy would get just the same as the other lazy boy.



Hahaha, this is soooo ridiculous.

This utopia is impossible as long as there are minds to corrupt it. The most I could expect, if these ideas were to be made true, is probably the entire plotline to this, only more refined and with smarter people.

Tap water is not fucking free. Where do you live?

...how do they expect to get rid off 90% of jobs? Do they think the need to build and maintain infrastructure, grow food, produce goods and so on will just magically stop if they get rid of money?

Not to mention that even if you did get rid of money, people would start bartering goods and services instead. Money is just a way of keeping track of who has done who a favour, without the need to carry around half a dozen chickens, or to ask the hairdresser to call in his favour with the artist who will in turn call a favour from the farmer so's you can get food for fixing the hairdresser's computer.

Atilla wrote:...how do they expect to get rid off 90% of jobs? Do they think the need to build and maintain infrastructure, grow food, produce goods and so on will just magically stop if they get rid of money?

Not to mention that even if you did get rid of money, people would start bartering goods and services instead. Money is just a way of keeping track of who has done who a favour, without the need to carry around half a dozen chickens, or to ask the hairdresser to call in his favour with the artist who will in turn call a favour from the farmer so's you can get food for fixing the hairdresser's computer.

In Star Trek, the system could be entirely moneyless because of replicators. Having an infinite amount (Well, they had replicator "blocks", but they seemed relatively easy to come by on everything but Voyager.) of simple resources means that things are valued for the skill and effort they take to construct. This means skill and effort still have their rewards, but we're no longer on a who-possess-what-decides-their-power system that plagued Earth during our time.

I love large collections of idiots. They make fun things to laugh at on the internet.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:K, I'd like to emphasize how much I don't like this idea.

For the most part, neither do I. But a few elements below I do support them, and in other sections I feel like I should make sure that The Zeitgeist Movement's goals and plans are clearly shown.

DLB wrote:

(This would get rid of) 90% of jobs. They argue that the current monetary system enslaves the world's population into working the majority of their adult lives.

Having to work isn't an issue of monetary policy, it's just completely necessary. There are a finite number of resources, and everyone needs/wants more of them. Work is necessary to achieve this goal.

The Zeitgeist Movement emphasizes the fact that technology will soon replace human's jobs and take care of work. And resources, they propose, will be in such abundance artificially that it will be similar to the Star Trek Slappy describes, except run by technology.

DLB wrote:

Debt is money, and money is debt.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.

That's not true at all! Do you think all money comes from loans or something? I can't figure these sentences out at all.

Actually, it is. ALL money comes into circulation through loans from the banks and National Reserve. And then that money is used to pay someone else. For what point is money if you don't spend it? The only point of having a currency is to buy things with (please, let's not argue stupid points like the flammability of paper money, or how you can wipe with it). Now, if all debt was erased, money would go out of circulation. Everyone would just hoard their precious wads and money would be useless. Why have money if you're not going to spend it? And spending is creating a debt to someone else.

Interesting fact: The only time the U.S government has not owed money was when Andrew Jackson shut down the National Reserve in the 1830s.

DLB wrote:

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.

1) Have fun trying to make people research and develop the technology for this without paying them. 2) Most alternative energy sources are not profitable to pursue. This won't change by taking money out of the equation, it just means that whoever develops alternative energy will lose wealth in some other presumably more tangible form.

Zeitgeist proposes that money is our current incentive to work, but it is not the only incentive to work. Many people are passionate about their jobs. Though I agree, this isn't very feasible when examining the entire human population, I don't think we should automatically assume that humans are all driven by materialism, a need for money and possessions.

DLB wrote:

It is a fact today that we have the technology and ability to create an abundance of food and resources.

Says who? Citation needed.

If you haven't noticed, practically everything I said in the topic was directly from the video Zeitgeist Addendum or their homepage. Look up the sources yourself.

DLB wrote:

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).

Well, yeah. Overproduction is a serious problem. Putting stuff in warehouses is one way to deal with that problem.

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.

So you want to abolish money because it sometimes leads to immoral actions? That's like wanting to be decapitated because you have a headache.

As I said earlier, TZM proposes that money is a fake, or 'false' incentive, and only interferes. There's some statistic (and don't examine me on this, please) that 40% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population, or something like that. In a very communist approach, TZM proposes spreading that wealth. If profit lost its power as an incentive, people would stop acting corruptly and start acting ethically.

Speaking of corruption, you act as if it is rare and just happens 'occasionally'. But this is false. Our system requires corruption to thrive financially.
Corruption is basically acting unethically to make money. So if a Walmart moves in to town and puts local business in the red because they can't compete that is corruption.
Or if a company deals massive layoffs to save money, that too is corruption. They put aside the workers' suffering and lay them off so they maximize profit.
Corruption isn't the kind of classic bribery, it's any unethical decision that decreases profit. It's claiming your product is better, even though you know competitor's products are superior. It's exaggerating claims to fool or sway a populace, it's convincing people to buy something that's overpriced, and saying that it's a bargain. That's corruption, and it's all drive by one motivator: profit, aka money.

-

Please don't take money too literally. Bartering wouldn't be used either. The Movement claims that profit (whether it be money or possessions bartered) directly leads to corruption, because corruption is needed to survive in the commercial system. With the profit element removed, efforts would be made to do something because it is enjoyable, or because it helps fellow man, not because it makes money.

These guys are slightly nuttier than the anti-sec movement. At least the latter has a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing their goals.

So I just thought it'd be nice to look at this tidbit...

It is a fact today that we have the technology and ability to create an abundance of food and resources.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Hahaha.

The only time the U.S government has not owed money was when Andrew Jackson shut down the National Reserve in the 1830s.

Misleading. There are other governments that do not owe money; deficit spending is a deliberate tradition, not an inevitability.

Anywho, the only thing their ideas would lead to is about four billion more dead people. I like reviving Marx's ideas as much as anyone -- I don't. See Luddite fallacy for a thorough debunking of this brand of whacko collapsitarianism.

Amadeus wrote:The Zeitgeist Movement emphasizes the fact that technology will soon replace human's jobs and take care of work. And resources, they propose, will be in such abundance artificially that it will be similar to the Star Trek Slappy describes, except run by technology.

There are far more jobs that a robot will be unable to accomplish better than a human, including medicine, legal practice, any branch of scientific research, and every form of art. These are all very important parts of society, and will require practitioners. I don't think any of us actually needs me to spell out why a handful of "passionate" people won't be enough to fill these roles.
Hell, even the job of a secretary would be damned near impossible to automate, and for those people "passionate" enough to work the human-cognition-required jobs that require assistance from secretaries, how many people do you think they'll find who are "passionate" about answering phones and making copies.
Like Demonz said, this will cripple or even rapidly destroy our infrastructure. It's difficult to survive as a business if the work you and all of your employees do is regressive; work done is largely progress. If you put a blanket halt on human effort by removing the primary motivating factor, you're halting progress.

Amadeus wrote:if all debt was erased, money would go out of circulation. Everyone would just hoard their precious wads and money would be useless. Why have money if you're not going to spend it? And spending is creating a debt to someone else.

I don't spend because I have debt; I spend because I want life necessities, conveniences, and noisy, shiny crap. If I had zero debt, I would spend more than I do now; my debt is preventing me from spending as much as I want to. And if I had a surplus, I'd be spending far, far more.
But your last (quoted) sentence really took me by surprise, because it's wrong by definition. If you compensate me for a service I provide, then we're even. There's no debt involved. You accrue debt when you don't spend but receive anyway. That's, like, the definition of debt: expected compensation that has not yet been given. Spending is providing that compensation.
In short, this whole quoted block is fucked. I'm not at all convinced that you understand how economics works, because what we have here is a total failure to understand the concept of transacting stuff you own. I've said some pretty stupid stuff in my history on these forums, but you ought to be embarrassed.

Amadeus wrote:Interesting fact: The only time the U.S government has not owed money was when Andrew Jackson shut down the National Reserve in the 1830s.

Didn't we have, like, a surplus under Clinton? And I'm not terribly good with history in general, but I'm sure it must've happened in years before him, too.

Amadeus wrote:I don't think we should automatically assume that humans are all driven by materialism, a need for money and possessions.

The assumption is not automatic; it's something of a behavioral fact demonstrated continuously throughout human history.
People always want more than they have. There are very few people who are exceptions to this, and I expect that even those think the way they do because of some expectation of post-mortem reward for avoiding wealth (which, ironically, still fits the pattern of wanting more than you have). Even before stable and functional economic systems, our ancestors murdered each other for material goods. This behavior, which TZM calls "corrupt", has always been with us. While this may be challenging semantics, isn't it inaccurate to call corrupt something that, with respect to the way in which it is corrupt, has never been pure? If they said "morally deplorable," then fine, whatever. But calling us "corrupt" in an area in which we never lacked that "corruption" implies that they have unrealistic expectations for us.

DLB wrote:

It is a fact today that we have the technology and ability to create an abundance of food and resources.

Says who? Citation needed.

Er... I actually agree with Amadeus here. Humans currently win at agriculture, and many existing farmers in the US are even paid by the government to not grow food. If poorer regions of the world were able to implement our farming techniques, famine would be a thing of the past.
There are economical issues about food becoming so abundant that it's no longer profitable for farmers to grow it, and I don't have any suggestions for how that can be remedied, but the point does remain that food should not be a problem if not for bureaucratic barriers.

Amadeus wrote:Look up the sources yourself.

Ouch. Bad form. Convention of debate is that you bring in evidence from your own sources. What you're suggesting is simply not how formal inquiry works.

Amadeus wrote:As I said earlier, TZM proposes that money is a fake, or 'false' incentive, and only interferes. There's some statistic (and don't examine me on this, please) that 40% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population, or something like that. In a very communist approach, TZM proposes spreading that wealth. If profit lost its power as an incentive, people would stop acting corruptly and start acting ethically.

That is a classic case of treating the symptom. The problem, according to TZM, is that people care about acquiring stuff more than they care about the wellbeing of others. TZM says that this is because money exists, whereas thinking people say that this is because it's a behavioral trait. People want stuff, and money is the promise of stuff, so people work to acquire money. Making money disappear does not address people's willingness to cheat others for stuff.
As for the wealthy people being wealthy... I hate to break it to ya, but money goes where it's deserved. For every rich family, there is someone in their history who deserved all that money by virtue of being able to acquire so goddamned much of it. Their children, and their children's children, deserve that money because it was given to them by their parents and parents' parents.
There is a difference between fair and equal. Paris Hilton, a totally unskilled and unremarkable individual, who would likely be prostituting herself for meth had she been born in different circumstances, is filthy friggin' rich. Her parents' decision to give her the money she has was not a choice you'd call equal, but it was a fair choice. If they wanted to give their daughter, whom they love dearly, their money, but they were forced instead to distribute it among the people, then that would be equal but unfair; it's their money, and they should decide where it goes.
It's natural to want the best for your children. If I'm able to give my son or daughter an advantage in the world because of how awesome I am, I'm damned well going to do it. It should therefore be totally unsurprising that there are people in this world who are wealthy without deserving it. It should also be obvious that this is still fair, no matter how unequal.
As a libertarian and advocate of independent, individual improvement, I hold fairness in higher regard than equality. I think it's silly when people think that believing all people are equal will magically make it so, and I'm offended when forced equality comes at the expense of fairness.

Amadeus wrote:Speaking of corruption, you act as if it is rare and just happens 'occasionally'. But this is false. Our system requires corruption to thrive financially.

I make more money than my friends because I worked for it. I have never done anything unethical for my paycheck. Fuck you.

Amadeus wrote:Corruption is basically acting unethically to make money. So if a Walmart moves in to town and puts local business in the red because they can't compete that is corruption.

No, that's fair competition. Walmart is being awfully belligerent and insensitive, but they are playing by the rules. They'd only cross the line into "unfair" if they sent death squads to the Mom & Pops in the neighborhood. Walmart deservers their glorious golden riches because it was able to thrive as a small business and handle the pressure as it became a national chain. Forcing them to effectively give away their money (a choice in favor of equality) would be punishing them for their success (which is grossly unfair).

Amadeus wrote:Or if a company deals massive layoffs to save money, that too is corruption. They put aside the workers' suffering and lay them off so they maximize profit.

What arrogant people are these who think they have an unalienable right to work for a private company? Why the hell should Walmart, started presumably by the private funds of one or more individuals, be forced to pay a large body of people even when threatened with bankruptcy if they don't?

Don't get me wrong, I think Walmart does some morally deplorable shit, but it does it fairly. You have to realize that you're complaining that they've got what you don't, and the reason they've got what you don't is because they worked for it. If you want to be an equal to Walmart, do what Walmart did (i.e. exert large amounts of effort) instead of sitting around and whining that you don't have what you don't deserve. If you care so much about the masses that you want them to be equals to Walmart, then encourage them to work for it. But if you want Walmart to be equal to you, then that sounds like a personal problem / psychological defect. It's unreasonable to want someone who works hard for what they have to be limited to what you can achieve for working less, if at all.

Amadeus wrote:Corruption... [is] any unethical decision that decreases profit.

Oh, shit. By that definition, Walmart is a bastion of good, isn't it? :p

Amadeus wrote:It's claiming your product is better, even though you know competitor's products are superior. It's exaggerating claims to fool or sway a populace, it's convincing people to buy something that's overpriced, and saying that it's a bargain. That's corruption, and it's all drive by one motivator: profit, aka money.

I whole-heartedly agree that that's morally deplorable. But like Demonz said, the fact that people do evil things for money is no reason to get rid of money. After all, if money disappears, evil people will still be evil, and they'll continue being evil in order to acquire all the stuff they'd otherwise get with their money. It's treating the symptom, and indirectly, at that. in a really stupid and ineffective way.

Amadeus wrote:Please don't take money too literally. Bartering wouldn't be used either. The Movement claims that profit (whether it be money or possessions bartered) directly leads to corruption, because corruption is needed to survive in the commercial system. With the profit element removed, efforts would be made to do something because it is enjoyable, or because it helps fellow man, not because it makes money.

no profit means progress over
stagnation = very yes

Please, please don't insult me as I attempt to accurately represent a side I don't support. I'm just trying to create a little debate here to exploit the pros and cons to the movement, not preach how great their communist ideals are. I've said that several times on this thread, but I'll say it again. I may disagree with the Movement, but I represent them anyway for the sake of the whole picture. I shouldn't get crap for representing an opposing side, because without me, there wouldn't be a debate.

Tsuki wrote:There are far more jobs that a robot will be unable to accomplish better than a human, including medicine...

Actually, I beg to differ. Now we'll call that a horse and buggy, and the robots 50 years from now a gas-powered Chevy. Concerning the rest of the jobs listed, I'm not exactly sure what TZM envisioned, but I would guess the lawyer falls under the category of the 10% of jobs left.

Tsuki wrote:

Amadeus wrote:if all debt was erased, money would go out of circulation. Everyone would just hoard their precious wads and money would be useless. Why have money if you're not going to spend it? And spending is creating a debt to someone else.

I don't spend because I have debt; I spend because I want life necessities, conveniences, and noisy, shiny crap. If I had zero debt, I would spend more than I do now; my debt is preventing me from spending as much as I want to. And if I had a surplus, I'd be spending far, far more.
But your last (quoted) sentence really took me by surprise, because it's wrong by definition. If you compensate me for a service I provide, then we're even. There's no debt involved. You accrue debt when you don't spend but receive anyway. That's, like, the definition of debt: expected compensation that has not yet been given. Spending is providing that compensation.
In short, this whole quoted block is fucked. I'm not at all convinced that you understand how economics works, because what we have here is a total failure to understand the concept of transacting stuff you own. I've said some pretty stupid stuff in my history on these forums, but you ought to be embarrassed.

Firstly, there's no reason to be so rude. You can call my comment stupid, but please don't attack my person and tell me I should be ashamed/embarrassed. Merriam Webster defines debt primarily as "something owed". When you go to the store and buy something, you owe the store money, whether you pay it off immediately or not.

Tsuki wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Interesting fact: The only time the U.S government has not owed money was when Andrew Jackson shut down the National Reserve in the 1830s.

Didn't we have, like, a surplus under Clinton? And I'm not terribly good with history in general, but I'm sure it must've happened in years before him, too.

I'm not 100% sure. However, Zeitgeist Addendum: The Movie claims it to be true. I'd assume such a claim must have some backing as it is extremely easy to debunk otherwise.

Tsuki wrote:

Amadeus wrote:I don't think we should automatically assume that humans are all driven by materialism, a need for money and possessions.

The assumption is not automatic; it's something of a behavioral fact demonstrated continuously throughout human history.
People always want more than they have. There are very few people who are exceptions to this, and I expect that even those think the way they do because of some expectation of post-mortem reward for avoiding wealth (which, ironically, still fits the pattern of wanting more than you have). Even before stable and functional economic systems, our ancestors murdered each other for material goods. This behavior, which TZM calls "corrupt", has always been with us. While this may be challenging semantics, isn't it inaccurate to call corrupt something that, with respect to the way in which it is corrupt, has never been pure? If they said "morally deplorable," then fine, whatever. But calling us "corrupt" in an area in which we never lacked that "corruption" implies that they have unrealistic expectations for us.

TZM would claim this is because for most of human history, we've been raised to think that way. I'm no expert on human's innate behavior, but I think there's more motivators. At the most basic level, survival is the primary motivator, and I think at the highest level, happiness is. Now one has to decide what makes them happy, whether it is wealth or achievement or helping others. Personally, I'd shoot for the middle one myself, but I'm sure it's different for everyone.

Tsuki wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Look up the sources yourself.

Ouch. Bad form. Convention of debate is that you bring in evidence from your own sources. What you're suggesting is simply not how formal inquiry works.

Oh please, the site links were right in the topic. If you're curious, I'm not a slave to your every demands. You have a computer and a brain. Go find out yourself.
And of all people to lecture, Tsuki, you've called me stupid, told me I should be embarrassed for myself, and sworn at me. Not a big deal until you turn all hypocritical on me D:

Tsuki wrote:As for the wealthy people being wealthy... I hate to break it to ya, but money goes where it's deserved. For every rich family, there is someone in their history who deserved all that money by virtue of being able to acquire so goddamned much of it. Their children, and their children's children, deserve that money because it was given to them by their parents and parents' parents.
There is a difference between fair and equal. Paris Hilton, a totally unskilled and unremarkable individual, who would likely be prostituting herself for meth had she been born in different circumstances, is filthy friggin' rich. Her parents' decision to give her the money she has was not a choice you'd call equal, but it was a fair choice. If they wanted to give their daughter, whom they love dearly, their money, but they were forced instead to distribute it among the people, then that would be equal but unfair; it's their money, and they should decide where it goes.
It's natural to want the best for your children. If I'm able to give my son or daughter an advantage in the world because of how awesome I am, I'm damned well going to do it. It should therefore be totally unsurprising that there are people in this world who are wealthy without deserving it. It should also be obvious that this is still fair, no matter how unequal.
As a libertarian and advocate of independent, individual improvement, I hold fairness in higher regard than equality. I think it's silly when people think that believing all people are equal will magically make it so, and I'm offended when forced equality comes at the expense of fairness.

I'm a very passionate capitalism supporter, but I'll try to fairly represent TZM here. They won't force money out of people's hands and distribute it evenly to the people, rather they hope the lack of profit to be made will turn people towards more ethical decisions. Now on a personal level, I don't think that ideal is foolish or unfair. Not that I support a ban on money, but I do think profit has become such a motivator for businessmen that they don't act ethically anymore, if ever.

Tsuki wrote: I make more money than my friends because I worked for it. I have never done anything unethical for my paycheck. Fuck you.

Haha, nice form. The reason you don't have to be corrupt probably depends on your job. I may be able to more accurately represent TZM if you describe your career.

Tsuki wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Corruption is basically acting unethically to make money. So if a Walmart moves in to town and puts local business in the red because they can't compete that is corruption.

No, that's fair competition. Walmart is being awfully belligerent and insensitive, but they are playing by the rules. They'd only cross the line into "unfair" if they sent death squads to the Mom & Pops in the neighborhood. Walmart deservers their glorious golden riches because it was able to thrive as a small business and handle the pressure as it became a national chain. Forcing them to effectively give away their money (a choice in favor of equality) would be punishing them for their success (which is grossly unfair).

Merriam Webster puts corruption at "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". In this case, Walmart is impaired by the need for profit. TZM would believe that this is wrong.
Personally, as I said earlier, I avidly support the capitalist system. And it is definitely fair, Walmart has worked from it's humble beginnings to get where it is now, and all businesses have that same opportunity if they are managed well and market well.

Amadeus wrote:Please, please don't insult me as I attempt to accurately represent a side I don't support. I'm just trying to create a little debate here to exploit the pros and cons to the movement, not preach how great their communist ideals are. I've said that several times on this thread, but I'll say it again. I may disagree with the Movement, but I represent them anyway for the sake of the whole picture. I shouldn't get crap for representing an opposing side, because without me, there wouldn't be a debate.

He's not insulting you for supporting them. He's insulting you for making bad arguments. Important difference.

Also, there are many topics about which we are not currently debating, so excuse me if I don't feel indebted to you for deigning to converse. Besides, everyone knows that only the corrupt capitalist dogs feel indebted.

Amadeus wrote:I shouldn't get crap for representing an opposing side, because without me, there wouldn't be a debate.

If I started a debate here about the existence of gravity, I'd fully expect that my opinion be called idiotic, even if I was the only one keeping the debate alive because I'm the only one representing my side. And if I continue to argue what I don't believe, against overwhelming odds, "for the sake of the debate," doesn't that just make me a troll?

Amadeus wrote:Tsuki, you've called me stupid, told me I should be embarrassed for myself, and sworn at me.

Hold on -- you don't have these ideas. I thought you said that nice and early on. You brought up a body of people who had some ideas and asked what we thought. I said that those ideas are stupid, and that they sound like ideas stupid people would have. Why are you insulted if they're not your ideas?
When I get on a roll, I find it easier to refer to the argument I'm addressing in the second person. I'm sorry if this is confusing; it's technically a mistake on my part. My apologies if it came across as ad hominem.

Amadeus wrote:Actually, I beg to differ. Now we'll call that a horse and buggy, and the robots 50 years from now a gas-powered Chevy. Concerning the rest of the jobs listed, I'm not exactly sure what TZM envisioned, but I would guess the lawyer falls under the category of the 10% of jobs left.

What you've got there, buddy, is a piece of hi-tech surgery equipment for use by a human.
Nothing short of profoundly robust artificial intelligence will be able to diagnose, prescribe, set, stitch, or cut like a human doctor can. That is one profession that will not be worrying about automation before robot apocalypse becomes a legitimate threat.

Amadeus wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:I don't spend because I have debt; I spend because I want life necessities, conveniences, and noisy, shiny crap. If I had zero debt, I would spend more than I do now; my debt is preventing me from spending as much as I want to. And if I had a surplus, I'd be spending far, far more.
But your last (quoted) sentence really took me by surprise, because it's wrong by definition. If you compensate me for a service I provide, then we're even. There's no debt involved. You accrue debt when you don't spend but receive anyway. That's, like, the definition of debt: expected compensation that has not yet been given. Spending is providing that compensation.

Merriam Webster defines debt primarily as "something owed". When you go to the store and buy something, you owe the store money, whether you pay it off immediately or not.

Okay, really? The only argument you have here is that there's a fleeting instant of debt between the transfering of goods and the payment, depending upon the order.
If the goods are technically transfered to you before you hand over the payment, you have a debt to the store. You immediately satisfy that debt by paying for your merchandise.
If the moment of transfer comes after you've given your payment, then for a split second, the store owes YOU goods valued in the amount you've just paid them. Then they satisfy their debt to you immediately by giving you an exact combination of goods whose value adds up to the amount you've given them.
Otherwise, when you bring credit cards into the mix, you start talking semantics. When you get a credit card, you're asking someone to spend on your behalf if you pay them back later with interest. But the point of TZM was, as you said, "money creates debt," which I'm arguing against because the money I get from working alleviates my debt (more specifically, I use portions of it for that purpose). And the ultimate point is that "money creates debt" is stupid. Agreements between people create debt, even as a social contract; clearly there's an existing framework for debts which resources such as money put to use. But getting rid of money won't get rid of obligations for providing services which are equivalent to those received.
I realize I'm starting to ramble, so here's an example:
I use credit cards. When I "spend" with a credit card, I owe the company. Spending creates this debt. (My first objection here would be that I don't have to use credit cards, and therefore I'm free to not create debt when I spend.)
Let's say all money is incinerated and people are forbidden from bartering. I plan a vacation and ask my neighbor to watch my dog. My neighbor agrees, but expects me to do him a favor in return. The concept of a debt has not disappeared, and there will still be tension and drama revolving around it.

Amadeus wrote:The reason you don't have to be corrupt probably depends on your job. I may be able to more accurately represent TZM if you describe your career.

I do academic computer science research for the Navy. Most of it is programming. You know, nerd shit.

Amadeus wrote:Merriam Webster puts corruption at "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". In this case, Walmart is impaired by the need for profit. TZM would believe that this is wrong.

Corruption entails some negative deviation from a "pure" state. Benevolence and equality are not characteristics of the quintessential business.
You could consider in the special case of Walmart that its values revolve around drawing in more profit for itself and its employees while providing goods at low costs to its buyers. Nearby business that don't accomplish this as well as Walmart does could be considered collateral damage. It does not make sense to blame Walmart for the failure of inferior businesses, because it is not responsible for them.
...and Walmart certainly doesn't seem very impaired by its practices. ;)

SlappyMcGee wrote:

Atilla wrote:...how do they expect to get rid off 90% of jobs? Do they think the need to build and maintain infrastructure, grow food, produce goods and so on will just magically stop if they get rid of money?

Not to mention that even if you did get rid of money, people would start bartering goods and services instead. Money is just a way of keeping track of who has done who a favour, without the need to carry around half a dozen chickens, or to ask the hairdresser to call in his favour with the artist who will in turn call a favour from the farmer so's you can get food for fixing the hairdresser's computer.

In Star Trek, the system could be entirely moneyless because of replicators. Having an infinite amount (Well, they had replicator "blocks", but they seemed relatively easy to come by on everything but Voyager.) of simple resources means that things are valued for the skill and effort they take to construct. This means skill and effort still have their rewards, but we're no longer on a who-possess-what-decides-their-power system that plagued Earth during our time.

I must note that the world of Star Trek is not, in fact, moneyless. The television series and films never show the use of money, because in some ways Roddenberry wanted to depict a utopian future free of such concerns. However, Roddenberry and many other writers conceded that a system of currency does, in fact, exist in the Federation. Roddenberry expressed the opinion that due to human nature there is simply no effective way to eliminate capitalism. Starfleet is, like present-day equivalents, funded by taxation and private donors, and possibly the licensing of their discoveries (this is never discussed in canon, but is depicted in some novels). While this is never discussed in canon, it is presumed that other coalitions and races have similar currency systems.

I think that TZM's plan is fundamentally flawed. While I believe that humans tend to have good intentions, I think that we can not trust that all humans, or even a significant portion, will have a sufficient understanding of their negative effects. We are blinded by our own desires - which you may be tempted to label as greed, but that gives them a negative connotation that I think shouldn't exist. This leads to actions driven only by one's own gain, which often have a negative effect on the whole. Money is not the root cause for this, and indeed money is a component of a system that helps to drive people towards good. I think that the abolition of capitalism would not bring about any kind of general moral awakening, I think it would make many people more inclined to abuse the system and their position in it.

We're all blinded by our desires, both for personal gain and for gain for the whole. Many are blind to reality because of a strong desire for a social or moral ideal. Some of these people created The Zeitgeist Movement.

Amadeus knows nothing about neuroscience wrote:TZM would claim this is because for most of human history, we've been raised to think that way.

I once argued with a Randian (read: nutcase) who said that the altruism circuit in the human brain was a learned behavior. In reality, not only are chimpanzees and bonobos occasionally altruistic, they love to collect things. The human "need more stuff" mentality is a pretty basic one.

Amadeus wrote:The Zeitgeist Movement emphasizes the fact that technology will soon replace human's jobs and take care of work. And resources, they propose, will be in such abundance artificially that it will be similar to the Star Trek Slappy describes, except run by technology.

We don't have such technology. We are nowhere near having such technology, certainly not for at least 30 years. Windows ate my post (serves me right for using it) about why we won't have such technology any time soon, so I'll just say this: nobody cares to have such technology. People are not interested more computation, but better communication. The Next Big Things are twitter and 4chan, not nVidia's personal supercomputers. And after the communication revolution is over, it'll probably be something else that doesn't even exist yet. Trying to predict technological progress is wasted effort.

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:I shouldn't get crap for representing an opposing side, because without me, there wouldn't be a debate.

If I started a debate here about the existence of gravity, I'd fully expect that my opinion be called idiotic, even if I was the only one keeping the debate alive because I'm the only one representing my side. And if I continue to argue what I don't believe, against overwhelming odds, "for the sake of the debate," doesn't that just make me a troll?

Oh come now. There's a difference between arguing a proven fact and the morality/plausibility of a socialist utopia.

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Tsuki, you've called me stupid, told me I should be embarrassed for myself, and sworn at me.

Hold on -- you don't have these ideas. I thought you said that nice and early on. You brought up a body of people who had some ideas and asked what we thought. I said that those ideas are stupid, and that they sound like ideas stupid people would have. Why are you insulted if they're not your ideas?
When I get on a roll, I find it easier to refer to the argument I'm addressing in the second person. I'm sorry if this is confusing; it's technically a mistake on my part. My apologies if it came across as ad hominem.

I was under the impression that you were calling me stupid for my approach to the argument rather than my position I was arguing. Apparently that's not what you intended, but it's how it came off for me.

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Actually, I beg to differ. Now we'll call that a horse and buggy, and the robots 50 years from now a gas-powered Chevy. Concerning the rest of the jobs listed, I'm not exactly sure what TZM envisioned, but I would guess the lawyer falls under the category of the 10% of jobs left.

What you've got there, buddy, is a piece of hi-tech surgery equipment for use by a human.
Nothing short of profoundly robust artificial intelligence will be able to diagnose, prescribe, set, stitch, or cut like a human doctor can. That is one profession that will not be worrying about automation before robot apocalypse becomes a legitimate threat.

They said we'd never get to the moon either. There definitely is a roof to technology's capabilities, but I don't think it stops at stitches and health diagnostics. Many of today's advanced diseases are found and tested by MRIs and other technologies, and the diseases they diagnose would be very difficult to find and diagnose without machines.

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:I don't spend because I have debt; I spend because I want life necessities, conveniences, and noisy, shiny crap. If I had zero debt, I would spend more than I do now; my debt is preventing me from spending as much as I want to. And if I had a surplus, I'd be spending far, far more.
But your last (quoted) sentence really took me by surprise, because it's wrong by definition. If you compensate me for a service I provide, then we're even. There's no debt involved. You accrue debt when you don't spend but receive anyway. That's, like, the definition of debt: expected compensation that has not yet been given. Spending is providing that compensation.

Merriam Webster defines debt primarily as "something owed". When you go to the store and buy something, you owe the store money, whether you pay it off immediately or not.

Okay, really? The only argument you have here is that there's a fleeting instant of debt between the transfering of goods and the payment, depending upon the order.
If the goods are technically transfered to you before you hand over the payment, you have a debt to the store. You immediately satisfy that debt by paying for your merchandise.
If the moment of transfer comes after you've given your payment, then for a split second, the store owes YOU goods valued in the amount you've just paid them. Then they satisfy their debt to you immediately by giving you an exact combination of goods whose value adds up to the amount you've given them.
Otherwise, when you bring credit cards into the mix, you start talking semantics. When you get a credit card, you're asking someone to spend on your behalf if you pay them back later with interest. But the point of TZM was, as you said, "money creates debt," which I'm arguing against because the money I get from working alleviates my debt (more specifically, I use portions of it for that purpose). And the ultimate point is that "money creates debt" is stupid. Agreements between people create debt, even as a social contract; clearly there's an existing framework for debts which resources such as money put to use. But getting rid of money won't get rid of obligations for providing services which are equivalent to those received.
I realize I'm starting to ramble, so here's an example:
I use credit cards. When I "spend" with a credit card, I owe the company. Spending creates this debt. (My first objection here would be that I don't have to use credit cards, and therefore I'm free to not create debt when I spend.)
Let's say all money is incinerated and people are forbidden from bartering. I plan a vacation and ask my neighbor to watch my dog. My neighbor agrees, but expects me to do him a favor in return. The concept of a debt has not disappeared, and there will still be tension and drama revolving around it.

Yeah, labor debts will always exist. I'm not sure what TZM has envisioned in that area.

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:The reason you don't have to be corrupt probably depends on your job. I may be able to more accurately represent TZM if you describe your career.

I do academic computer science research for the Navy. Most of it is programming. You know, nerd shit.

Haha, of all organizations, you're saying the military isn't corrupt?

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:Merriam Webster puts corruption at "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". In this case, Walmart is impaired by the need for profit. TZM would believe that this is wrong.

Corruption entails some negative deviation from a "pure" state. Benevolence and equality are not characteristics of the quintessential business.
You could consider in the special case of Walmart that its values revolve around drawing in more profit for itself and its employees while providing goods at low costs to its buyers. Nearby business that don't accomplish this as well as Walmart does could be considered collateral damage. It does not make sense to blame Walmart for the failure of inferior businesses, because it is not responsible for them.
...and Walmart certainly doesn't seem very impaired by its practices. ;)

I left out a critical word, I intended it to read "Walmart is morally impaired by it's need for profit". As for profit going toward's employees, they're mainly payed minimum wage. Many foreign countries don't have minimum wages, or they aren't enforced, meaning many of Walmart's factories maximize profit by paying workers in sweat shops extremely low paychecks, think mere dollars a day. And that by definition, is corrupt.
Now I personally don't think Walmart is to blame for it's success in our capitalist nation, they've done it fairly and following the rules. Does that mean they shouldn't pay foreign workers a fair price? No, but all legal endeavors in the United States are fair, since anyone can practice them.

sycthe wrote:

Amadeus wrote: The Zeitgeist Movement emphasizes the fact that technology will soon replace human's jobs and take care of work. And resources, they propose, will be in such abundance artificially that it will be similar to the Star Trek Slappy describes, except run by technology.

We don't have such technology. We are nowhere near having such technology, certainly not for at least 30 years. Windows ate my post (serves me right for using it) about why we won't have such technology any time soon, so I'll just say this: nobody cares to have such technology. People are not interested more computation, but better communication. The Next Big Things are twitter and 4chan, not nVidia's personal supercomputers. And after the communication revolution is over, it'll probably be something else that doesn't even exist yet. Trying to predict technological progress is wasted effort.

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..

Shit, anyone ever hear the phrase, "money buys happiness"?

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. I am in full support of this movement. Here's why!

A) You won't need to work because you don't need any kind of nourishment. Machines that create nourishment will manufacture and maintain themselves, using lasers, and we won't need them anyway, because the world will be perfect. Everything in the world will be just like it was before money was invented in the first place: free!

B) There won't be any pollution. Without people using products of any kind and being constantly naked, there won't be any trash or smoke. Smoking will be against the law. The corporations who thrive by providing food, services, and pleasure to people and jobs to workers will all collapse under their own evil weight, without money to yearn for. The earth is constantly making energy and we don't even have to lift a finger for Mother Nature to cram delicious apricots into our expectant mouths and cradle our ballsacks tenderly. All we have to do is stop trying to dig into her sensual surface, drilling deep into her oily insides, to rape out what she's willing to provide for us consensually.

C) Poor people. There's no money and nobody has a job, so the machines that are producing food out of nowhere will rise up against their greedy farmer captors and plow everything and everyone in sight, then materialize some extra corn from Star Trek gadgets just for good measure. Consider this: tap water and air are essentially free nowadays. That's why it doesn't cost a company any money to put it into lengthy pipes, clean out all the shit, and deliver it to your faucet. They should be doing this for me for free, but they're greedy bastards. It's silly to charge for that.

What if food could be grown and harvested from a field, driven to a grocery store, and made available to everyone for free? Businesses are essentially artificially creating demand by charging $1 for a bag of corn chips grown in Mexico, pounded out by hand in Arizona, delivered by truck to Maine, and stocked in a store just down the street from us. We could do all of that ourselves, for free, in the time that it takes to earn $1 from work. Goddamn work. I'm so lazy, why should I have to work to be hand-delivered corn chips!



Oops, I just accidentally earned $4 doing nothing, from the comfort of my home. I'mma burn this filthy, green Satan-paper, hop the next burro to south of the border, and make me some Doritos.

Amadeus wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:I shouldn't get crap for representing an opposing side, because without me, there wouldn't be a debate.

If I started a debate here about the existence of gravity, I'd fully expect that my opinion be called idiotic, even if I was the only one keeping the debate alive because I'm the only one representing my side. And if I continue to argue what I don't believe, against overwhelming odds, "for the sake of the debate," doesn't that just make me a troll?

Oh come now. There's a difference between arguing a proven fact and the morality/plausibility of a socialist utopia.

Let me amend that in a way in which my implication holds:
If I start a debate in which I'm alone in arguing a position that even I don't believe "for the sake of the debate," doesn't that just make me a troll?

Amadeus wrote:Many of today's advanced diseases are found and tested by MRIs and other technologies, and the diseases they diagnose would be very difficult to find and diagnose without machines.

1. Think of a machine that might replace a human doctor.
2. Does this machine still require a human to operate it? If so, go to 3. If not, go to 4.
3. You have failed to come up with a machine that might replace a human. Go back to step 1.
4. You have a point.

You haven't hit #4 yet.

Amadeus wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:

Amadeus wrote:The reason you don't have to be corrupt probably depends on your job. I may be able to more accurately represent TZM if you describe your career.

I do academic computer science research for the Navy. Most of it is programming. You know, nerd shit.

Haha, of all organizations, you're saying the military isn't corrupt?

I make more money than my friends because I worked for it. I have never done anything unethical for my paycheck. Fuck you.

Amadeus wrote:I left out a critical word, I intended it to read "Walmart is morally impaired by it's need for profit". As for profit going toward's employees, they're mainly payed minimum wage. Many foreign countries don't have minimum wages, or they aren't enforced, meaning many of Walmart's factories maximize profit by paying workers in sweat shops extremely low paychecks, think mere dollars a day. And that by definition, is corrupt.

Paying many of these workers minimum wage by American standards would destabilize foreign economies. You're blaming them for failing to incite civil unrest worldwide?
Obviously, I'm not convinced that Walmart does what it does for these reasons, but the fact is that being benevolent and being a business are completely unrelated. Even fair and equal competition does not mix well with benevolence. You're expecting private businesses to act against any interests they could have.

Amadeus wrote: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..

Actually, this is known in Economics 101 (which I got a B in, like, a year ago :p) as "keeping an economy stable," or as I prefer to think about it, "not crashing and burning out of ignorance."
If a desired resource is less available, yes, its cost is higher. But if it becomes so widely available that it's worth nothing, then no one will produce it anymore.
If there is too little of it, others will be encouraged to make it; more will be produced.
If there is too much of it, the producers will no longer be profitting from it and will stop producing it; less will be produced.
There is naturally some middle ground here, which is more or less an agreed-upon value for the good, which is only as plentiful as it needs to be to meet demand. People store their overproduced goods in warehouses because they don't want to crash the entire goddamned market. Yes, they're doing it so they don't go bankrupt, but only because not going bankrupt depends on how fairly they do business.

blue_tetris wrote: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?

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

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.

That's... incredibly wrong. Say x is sales cost per unit, y is manufacturing cost per unit, n_s is the number of goods sold, and n_p is the number of goods produced.
Profit = n_s*x - n_p*y. If a corporation makes prices too high, n_s plummets and profits go down. There is a balance to be found here, and in economics it's called equilibrium. When prices reach equilibrium, supply matches demand and there is zero waste; it's the most effective market possible. Most markets reach equilibrium without too much intervention. Exceptions are things like the stock market, which are filled with speculation and hella other complicated shit. Point is, most prices are not controlled by corporations, but by the markets themselves.

True, your equation is much more accurate; for the sake of simplicity I used the equation I used. There are two major elements, among many. that allow X to go up without n_s dropping, and that's necessity combined with monopolization. Diamonds are an excellent example of this. Although they're no actually necessary for survival or happiness (which are as previously determined, the main human initiatives), but De Beers has sold them through advertisement and scarcity so that they have become a necessity for multiple occasions, such as weddings, anniversaries, and jewelry gifts. Combine that with their monopolization and they are able to create artificial scarcity by limiting the number of diamonds sold, and voila, X goes up, n_s stays the same, and profit is maximized. This form of corruption (unethically selling diamonds for more than they are worth) is what TZM is against.