ZeitGeist II - Please watch

[Zorak]

Firstly we need to abandon the artificial scarcity we endure at the moment. In a resource based economy, resources would be directly accessible, meaning that there wouldn't be any scarcity, so no competition for items available.

You've lost me already.

 

[edgray]

You've lost me already.

Imagine there's a massive harvest of a much needed crop.

At the same time, there's a recession, people have no work, people have no money.

In a monetary system, that harvest goes to waste because no one can afford to buy any of it. But the crop is still there, to be used. This happens all over the world.

In a resource based economy, the crop wouldn't be wasted at all.

 

[Zorak]

Imagine there's a massive harvest of a much needed crop.

At the same time, there's a recession, people have no work, people have no money.

In a monetary system, that harvest goes to waste because no one can afford to buy any of it. But the crop is still there, to be used. This happens all over the world.

In a resource based economy, the crop wouldn't be wasted at all.

Fiscal solvency is the same as resource solvency, a resource based economy would still suffer from the same liabilities that a fiscal one does. And over-harvesting is a massive liability to use that example.

 

[edgray]

Fiscal solvency is the same as resource solvency, a resource based economy would still suffer from the same liabilities that a fiscal one does. And over-harvesting is a massive liability to use that example.

No it's not the same thing. It opens up the potential for abundance, which any monetary system is directly against. There will no longer be the need to ask the question: is there enough money? It would simply be, is there enough resources? And the answer is always going to be yes for that, provided the resources are correctly managed.

 

[Zorak]

No it's not the same thing. It opens up the potential for abundance, which any monetary system is directly against. There will no longer be the need to ask the question: is there enough money? It would simply be, is there enough resources? And the answer is always going to be yes for that, provided the resources are correctly managed.

Abundance? lol, is that a spin on 'surplus' :24:

Resources are not infinite. I wouldn't suggest mentioning that again.

If we go to a resource based economy, I'm hoarding. Because I can tell you know that he who hoards the most, holds all the cards.

 

[edgray]

Abundance? lol, is that a spin on 'surplus' :24:

Resources are not infinite. I wouldn't suggest mentioning that again.

If we go to a resource based economy, I'm hoarding. Because I can tell you know that he who hoards the most, holds all the cards.

no. Abundance is producing everything in enough quantity to satisfy the needs of everyone.

Some resources are limited (fossil fuels, for example) others are as good as unlimited (our ability to grow food, for example, along with solar energy etc etc).

Hoarding in a resource based economy would be utterly pointless. You'd run out of room before you could keep resources from others. You wouldn't be holding any cards at all and you'd be laughed at for holding on to old ideals.

 

[Zorak]

no. Abundance is producing everything in enough quantity to satisfy the needs of everyone.

Some resources are limited (fossil fuels, for example) others are as good as unlimited (our ability to grow food, for example, along with solar energy etc etc).

Hoarding in a resource based economy would be utterly pointless. You'd run out of room before you could keep resources from others. You wouldn't be holding any cards at all and you'd be laughed at for holding on to old ideals.

So space is imporant in a resource based economy? Thus Prince Charles would be the most powerful man in Britain then.
Nonsense. And don't get me started on old ideals when it comes to a resource based economy, it's practically stone age!

 

[retro]

Some resources are limited (fossil fuels, for example) others are as good as unlimited (our ability to grow food, for example, along with solar energy etc etc).

The ability to grow food isn't unlimited... you're still limited by factors such as drought, soil quality, seed supply, water supply, etc.

 

[retro]

So, I've watched the first part of the video... first things first, the part about the Federal Reserve is pretty close to accurate. Though the claim that the Reserve It is unconstitutional, and a very scary institution that needs to be done away with. Of course, I knew that already, especially after reading End the Fed by Ron Paul. The part I don't agree with however is the myth that the fed doesn't create enough money to cover the the interest, thus keeping the world perpetually in debt. Go read The Creature from Jekyll Island, it pretty much exposes that as nothing more than a baseless myth. Ron Paul does the same thing in End the Fed.

I didn't realize that Civil War Greenbacks were interest free... oh wait, that's because they weren't. They were just as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve is today. They still wiped out the purchasing power of the citizens. It was the exact same thing as what the video just finished blasting in the previous section. Rather than the Federal Reserve issuing money out of thin air, the Federal Government did the same thing.

So far it seems like a video with enough facts mixed in (at the start anyway) to make it seem plausible... but there are significant flaws and falsities in the video so far.

 

[retro]

Another false statement... in the economic hit men section, the person being interviewed claimed that Jaime Roldós Aguilera won in a landslide election (not an exact quote, but that was the implication). When in actuality, Aguilera had to go to a run-off before he won the presidency. It's also claiming that the deaths of Aguilera and Omar Torrijos of Panama were indisputably assassinations. You can claim that it might be the case, but you can't claim it as fact in order to further your own agenda.

 

[retro]

I also love how Hugo Chavez is being painted as someone who just wanted to help his people, and so the CIA staged a coup against him. Riiight.

 

[Zorak]

The ability to grow food isn't unlimited... you're still limited by factors such as drought, soil quality, seed supply, water supply, etc.

I missed this, damn! A good point, I would only add that also farming is also an extremely land intensive process. It is certainly not unlimited, because it can take hundreds of years for land to become fertile again after farming, even when crop rotation is in effect. You could say, it's common hippy misconception. Groovy.

 

[retro]

I also love how Hugo Chavez is being painted as someone who just wanted to help his people, and so the CIA staged a coup against him. Riiight.

Similarly... did I really just hear that the reason we went into Iraq in 1991 was because Saddam couldn't be corrupted? Did I actually hear that? Wow. I'm actually more than a little dumbfounded. After going on and on about how the leaders of Ecuador and Panama couldn't be corrupted, we then put Saddam and Hugo Chavez in the same group as them? They're stretching really far on this one.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Similarly... did I really just hear that the reason we went into Iraq in 1991 was because Saddam couldn't be corrupted? Did I actually hear that? Wow. I'm actually more than a little dumbfounded. After going on and on about how the leaders of Ecuador and Panama couldn't be corrupted, we then put Saddam and Hugo Chavez in the same group as them? They're stretching really far on this one.

Well it is the confessions of a hitman....

 

[edgray]

So space is imporant in a resource based economy? Thus Prince Charles would be the most powerful man in Britain then.
Nonsense. And don't get me started on old ideals when it comes to a resource based economy, it's practically stone age!

Lol. Land would be owned by everyone, otherwise you end up in the same situation as you're in now.

A resource based economy is far from stone age.

The ability to grow food isn't unlimited... you're still limited by factors such as drought, soil quality, seed supply, water supply, etc.

It's as good as. Using technology - drought, soil quality etc can be overcome. The water supply can be better managed and the weather can be controlled 100% by farming indoors. There have been lots of proposals for this, one of my personal favourites is the idea of vertical farming: indoor vertical farms based in cities that would provide for the residents there.

All we need to do is apply technology and we can overcome, or work better in harmony with nature.

So, I've watched the first part of the video... first things first, the part about the Federal Reserve is pretty close to accurate. Though the claim that the Reserve It is unconstitutional, and a very scary institution that needs to be done away with. Of course, I knew that already, especially after reading End the Fed by Ron Paul. The part I don't agree with however is the myth that the fed doesn't create enough money to cover the the interest, thus keeping the world perpetually in debt. Go read The Creature from Jekyll Island, it pretty much exposes that as nothing more than a baseless myth. Ron Paul does the same thing in End the Fed.

Yeah I've looked a lot into fractional reserve banking, and that part of the film was spot on.

As for the interest being covered, I find it hard to believe that the fed, on creating say $10billion, creates a further 5% on top to cover the interest. Because they'd have to create a further 5% on the $90billion the fractional reserve system creates after that point.

This I'm trying to look into as much as possible.

One thing the film didn't take into account I noticed was the effect of interest earned on savings. Obviously that could itself cover the interest on the debt if it was of a sufficient amount. People are saving less these days, what with the cost of living rising and wages remaining stagnant.

I didn't realize that Civil War Greenbacks were interest free... oh wait, that's because they weren't. They were just as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve is today. They still wiped out the purchasing power of the citizens. It was the exact same thing as what the video just finished blasting in the previous section. Rather than the Federal Reserve issuing money out of thin air, the Federal Government did the same thing.

According to wikipedia:

Legal tender status guaranteed that creditors would have to accept the notes despite the fact that they were not backed by gold, bank deposits, or government reserves, and bore no interest. However, the First Legal Tender Act did not make the notes an unlimited legal tender as they could not be used by merchants to pay customs duties on imports and could not be used by the government to pay interest on its bonds.

I really need to look into this more to fully understand the implications of the green back.

So far it seems like a video with enough facts mixed in (at the start anyway) to make it seem plausible... but there are significant flaws and falsities in the video so far.

Aside from the omission of the effects of interest earned on savings, I think it has very few flaws.

Another false statement... in the economic hit men section, the person being interviewed claimed that Jaime Roldós Aguilera won in a landslide election (not an exact quote, but that was the implication). When in actuality, Aguilera had to go to a run-off before he won the presidency. It's also claiming that the deaths of Aguilera and Omar Torrijos of Panama were indisputably assassinations. You can claim that it might be the case, but you can't claim it as fact in order to further your own agenda.

If I remember rightly he mentioned just an impressive election victory. Again, from wikipedia:

I also love how Hugo Chavez is being painted as someone who just wanted to help his people, and so the CIA staged a coup against him. Riiight.

Well this has been well documented in many other places. Of course the CIA wanted him out, like the other presidents they assassinated. The CIA want pro-US leaders, people like Noriega, ordinarily brutal dictators who are easy to corrupt. That's why they hate Chavez - he won't play ball.

I missed this, damn! A good point, I would only add that also farming is also an extremely land intensive process. It is certainly not unlimited, because it can take hundreds of years for land to become fertile again after farming, even when crop rotation is in effect. You could say, it's common hippy misconception. Groovy.

Answered above.

Similarly... did I really just hear that the reason we went into Iraq in 1991 was because Saddam couldn't be corrupted? Did I actually hear that? Wow. I'm actually more than a little dumbfounded. After going on and on about how the leaders of Ecuador and Panama couldn't be corrupted, we then put Saddam and Hugo Chavez in the same group as them? They're stretching really far on this one.

I don't see the same stretch here I'm afraid. Irrelevant of how it's worded, his story fits perfectly with what happened and is still happening in the Middle East. Look at how it's actually played out - it's fits a little too snuggly to be coincidence.

 

[edgray]

This guy has done a great little video on why he's supporting the movement. Sums it up quite nicely, if in a slightly dull mono-tonal delivery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EPWtRv6Ak

 

[edgray]

Interesting to follow this movie on YouTube. They keep removing it as people upload it, without any reason given.

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

Why are they so keen to censor this film?

 

[Meirionnydd]

Well this has been well documented in many other places. Of course the CIA wanted him out, like the other presidents they assassinated. The CIA want pro-US leaders, people like Noriega, ordinarily brutal dictators who are easy to corrupt. That's why they hate Chavez - he won't play ball.

Although I am pretty sure Chavez is a corrupt ruler with authoritarian tendencies, his cliche anti-US stance does do a good job of distracting the people of Venezuela from the countries endemic social problems, such as widespread poverty and one of the highest crime rates in the western world. Problems, which I might add, his 'socialist' government has failed to rectify or circumvent since he took power from the rich and powerful oligarchs (now replaced by the boligarchs) over a decade ago.

Anyway, didn't the first movie call the 9/11 attacks an 'inside job', with the US government using the resulting fallout to prosecute war in the Middle East to the benefit of the "international bankers"?

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

One of the featured videos they have is some 4-5 minute religious piece of shit trying to describe why Zeitgeist is a hoax. Pfft, does anyone see what I mean by corporations trying to cover everything up? To me the video was absolute garbage anyway, just proved the author (of the hoax video) was a stupid dickhead (sorry, I'm moody).

 

[edgray]

Although I am pretty sure Chavez is a corrupt ruler with authoritarian tendencies, his cliche anti-US stance does do a good job of distracting the people of Venezuela from the countries endemic social problems, such as widespread poverty and one of the highest crime rates in the western world. Problems, which I might add, his 'socialist' government has failed to rectify or circumvent since he took power from the rich and powerful oligarchs (now replaced by the boligarchs) over a decade ago.

Why are you sure? I should point out that ANYTHING you read about him in the MSM is a complete lie. The first coup that removed him from office was staged. His wiki page is interesting, and shows why he is anti US (and no, it's not at all "cliched", it's quite justified given what the US & IMF do to countries like Venezuela.)

A career military officer, Chávez orchestrated a failed 1992 coup d'état against President Carlos Andrés Pérez, after the Pérez government dramatically cut social spending under guidance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and ordered the violent repression of protests against the cuts in a crackdown known as El Caracazo. Subsequently, he founded the the left-wing Fifth Republic Movement. Chávez's current party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), had 5.7 million members as of 2007,[2] making it the largest political group in Venezuela.[3] The International Labor Organization of the United Nations expressed concern over voters being pressured to join the party.[4]

The poverty endured in Venezuela is because of the US, the IMF and World Bank and the sanctions they impose (like destroying countries social systems) on countries that don't play ball with them. The country is still impoverished, but they now have health care as a guaranteed right, an improving social services sector, poverty is on the decline and generally the country is improving.

Read something like http://venezuelanalysis.com/indicators if you want to learn more than the propaganda that's fed to you by your mainstream media, who have a vested interest in building hate towards Chavez.

Anyway, didn't the first movie call the 9/11 attacks an 'inside job', with the US government using the resulting fallout to prosecute war in the Middle East to the benefit of the "international bankers"?

From what I've heard about it, I believe it did.