Topic: Zeitgeist movement (Read 1398 times)
I have seen the movie on netflix. The dude is an engineer genius, but a social catastrophe. It maybe because I have no clue in architecture or urban development. His city are like what you see in the movie Logan's Run: perfect, beautiful, having sex all day, as long as there was a cap on population control.
When you see the city models there are no room for kindergarten, for kids to play. Actually I don't remember any children, only adults and couple with amazing smiles in his drawing concepts.
He is an engineer and that is why his city looks like a giant gear with people working and functioning like smaller gear.
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
Than make that argument, explain why he is wrong. Don't insult his effort with a response like "bitcoin is peoples new god"
Sorry that anyone feels offended when I say that profit driven socio economical driven systems are no longer needed
I don't feel offended. I do how ever feel like you are failing the turing test. This will be the last time I check in on this thread. Good day.
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
Than make that argument, explain why he is wrong. Don't insult his effort with a response like "bitcoin is peoples new god"
Sorry that anyone feels offended when I say that profit driven socio economical driven systems are no longer needed
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
Than make that argument, explain why he is wrong. Don't insult his effort with a response like "bitcoin is peoples new god"
Labor sh
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
Than make that argument, explain why he is wrong. Don't insult his effort with a response like "bitcoin is peoples new god"
Quote
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
Obviously it is not completely communist in nature. If you read Marx, one of the main points is that he sees human labor as a resource.
This would be one of the biggest inconsistencies with the 'resource based economy' model. What if you need more than one person to design something or to work on a project? The human labor cannot be available to everyone because it would mean that the human would become a slave to whatever the vision is at that time.
The idea of the website about how the US built 90000 aircraft when they didn't have money, but lots of resources, is true. What is forgotten is the human labor that they used and how they did that. The war and fear and autocracy that instilled people to sacrifice their labor to build the aircraft is forgotten. How about the thousands who wanted to do something else, but felt compelled to work for the war game?
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
He called the zeitgeist movement communism...
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
carlton writes that beautiful and insightful response for you and this is your reply? its becoming clear to me why you have the position that you have.
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
bitcoin is peoples new god
The Zeitgeist economics are odd, they try to imply that they can completely eliminate subjective value, which is clearly a nonsense. As stated further up, the analysis stages earlier on in the series are better than the economic solutions, but even there, it's mostly a patchwork of other people's research.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
If I can credit the series with any longevity value, it's that watching it "woke me up" (in a way that catching Alex Jones never would have). I found myself, like many others, not 100% accepting what Zeitgeist says, but it catalysed me into researching the issues myself. And I ended up picking up bitcoin along the way, so it did it's "wake up" job pretty well. Still agree with many parts; the John Perkins section, 9/11, emergent nature of reality/knowledge, origins of religion (although I'd already heard that stuff before zeitgeist anyway, and there's a whole lot more to it that's a pretty important part of that picture, Zeitgeist lazily stuck to the Jordan Maxwell view exclusively).
But communism (or whatever you choose to call it) is not the answer. It would be, if we had infinite resources (or as good as infinite). There really would be no need for money under those circumstances.
I don't expect much agreement from a bitcoin forum
Who cares about agreement? Valid arguments are what matter.I agree with this valid argument.
I don't expect much agreement from a bitcoin forum
Who cares about agreement? Valid arguments are what matter.
I don't expect much agreement from a bitcoin forum
I like the political views, I don't like the economic views.
They do a decent job articulating many of the problems that face our society today though i don't think they offer particularly realistic solutions.
The main problem with their proposed solutions is they fail to account for the importance of price in rationally allocating scarce resources. This is an easy mistake to make. To most people price is just what walmart decides to charge and it seems almost arbitrary at times, but its so so so much more than that.
Price is what allows billions of autonomous individuals making decentralized decisions to coordinate in such a way as to allow for multi stage production processes with out any one of the individuals ever comprehending more than their own specific role in the process. The owner of the company that rents chain saws is not renting chainsaws with the intention of aiding in the production of a house on 123 doe run. The fact that the house is built out of the plans that were made out of a pencil that was made out of the wood that came from the tree that chopped down by his chainsaw is purely incidental to him. He simply looks at the price of chainsaws and the price of renting a chainsaw and calculates whether he thinks he can make a profit, but he none the less unwittingly assists in the building of that house by doing so. That is how price organizes the chatotic and decentralized knowledge of billions of individuals into such a beautiful order. There is no substitute for this. The central planner can not rationally allocate resources in the same way that price does because he has no means by which to capture the decentralized knowledge of billions of individuals. This is what adam smith referred to as the invisible hand.
RBE proponents propose to use surveys and computer algorithms to emulate the function of price in a market economy but it simply can not work. Surveys without price provide no mechanism by which to account for opportunity costs. suppose i asked you, would you rather have an airplane or a new pair of shoes. Which would you be more likely to chose? Suppose i asked a slightly different question, you which you would rather buy an airplane or a new pair of shoes. The answer may still be an airplane but think about how much more realistic of an option the shoes have become. This is precisely because the difference in prices between these two options has communicated and even more important internalized the opportunity costs of cosing the the former over the latter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
The main problem with their proposed solutions is they fail to account for the importance of price in rationally allocating scarce resources. This is an easy mistake to make. To most people price is just what walmart decides to charge and it seems almost arbitrary at times, but its so so so much more than that.
Price is what allows billions of autonomous individuals making decentralized decisions to coordinate in such a way as to allow for multi stage production processes with out any one of the individuals ever comprehending more than their own specific role in the process. The owner of the company that rents chain saws is not renting chainsaws with the intention of aiding in the production of a house on 123 doe run. The fact that the house is built out of the plans that were made out of a pencil that was made out of the wood that came from the tree that chopped down by his chainsaw is purely incidental to him. He simply looks at the price of chainsaws and the price of renting a chainsaw and calculates whether he thinks he can make a profit, but he none the less unwittingly assists in the building of that house by doing so. That is how price organizes the chatotic and decentralized knowledge of billions of individuals into such a beautiful order. There is no substitute for this. The central planner can not rationally allocate resources in the same way that price does because he has no means by which to capture the decentralized knowledge of billions of individuals. This is what adam smith referred to as the invisible hand.
RBE proponents propose to use surveys and computer algorithms to emulate the function of price in a market economy but it simply can not work. Surveys without price provide no mechanism by which to account for opportunity costs. suppose i asked you, would you rather have an airplane or a new pair of shoes. Which would you be more likely to chose? Suppose i asked a slightly different question, you which you would rather buy an airplane or a new pair of shoes. The answer may still be an airplane but think about how much more realistic of an option the shoes have become. This is precisely because the difference in prices between these two options has communicated and even more important internalized the opportunity costs of cosing the the former over the latter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
Really eye opening perspective. Highly recommend
Jump to: