what i'm not sure is about how much creditable zeitgeist films actually are. otherwise, i have no reference to what you're pointing out.

>>973

Its only about 10% of the currency that actually exist in the physical terms.

The way money creation works covered in the Zeitgeist films is very simple and correct in a sense but it's not exactly as evil as they make it out to be. The people over at The Venus Project do have good intentions, but their mindset is so narrow its frustrating to read

Its not like if it was such an unique situation.
I mean, wasn't money in the past just gold? Its not like if gold was really that useful beyond the value we decided to give it.
We decided it was worth something and now we've decided paper is equally valuable. Doesn't seem that different to me.

>>977
Totally agree with you on that. The Zeitgeist stuff is interesting and you can tell the makers had good intentions. But everything is so paranoid tinfoil haty that it falls flat on its face. The guys need to see Bullshit's episode about Big Brother and conspiracy theories and start to take things more easy.

>>979

Pretty much

I honestly support what they do and I'm excited for the next film

I always tell people "Watch the films with an open mind, take everything with a grain of salt. Think about it and take it easy."

Most laugh at the lack of citation and the oddness of the economic hitman and "EVERYONE IS EVIL", but they usually become more interesting in economics and politics as a whole

>>973
Yeah, this is real basic economics. Banks keep around 10 to 20 percent of your currency deposited as reserves available for withdrawal by anyone else, and the rest of it goes out as loans to other banks etc. Meanwhile you gain interest on the amount. It's called "wealth creation" and the modern world wouldn't be near where it is today without it.

Besides, how are numbers on a screen or a receipt any less real than numbers on a fancy piece of paper? As long as people accept both as money, there's no problem.

>Only a quantum of all the world's money actually exists in solid form, the rest only exists as fictional numbers in banks.

I think you mean exists as services being carried out.

The problem with your way of thinking is it doesn't account for how services rendered have become a larger part of the economy than goods. Goods have gotten exponentially easier to produce making them worth less and less as well.

The problem with the Zeitgeist movies is that they advocate the Venus Project which seems to have the inability to understand concepts like fixed costs or depreciation.

>>982
I don't think he necessary means "solid form" as in items sold in stores you can hold or touch.
I think what he means by that is how much money is actually backed by something, something that gives the money it's value, such as gold.
and or actual paper money with money only existing as 1s and 0s in computers.
Your or anyone's bank account can say they have $X,XXX, but the bank might not have that much on them.
The money you leave at banks doesn't just sit in the vault, they use it, they invest it and they only keep a fraction at each bank branch to cover for the people that want to make withdraws.
Imagine what would happen if everyone that had money at a certain bank all decided to withdraw everything in their accounts all at once on the same day, the bank would have to get "solid form" money from other places to cover this, they might start by asking for their other branches to send some over, but then what happens when people do it at the other branch, and the other and the other and all of them?
The bank would then have to get "solid form" money from somewhere, and in such a case, would probably start calling on loans.
The point is, there's more money in electronic form then there is in the world in "solid form" to back it up.

When people talk of a "service" economy what do they mean?

How do 'services" generate revenue?

How are they different from physical things, including software.

>>986
Services are just what they sound like. Someone working in the service sector provides a service. Barbers, cleaners, repairmen, IT people, lawyers, etc. Rich countries have many more service sector jobs by proportion than poor countries, which tend to rely more on agriculture, resource extraction (think mining) or manufacturing.

>>985
This isn't a problem as long as people have faith in the economy and don't all run to the back at the same time. Banks have a legally required minimum of reserves that under normal circumstances are well more than enough to cover the public's withdrawals.

Of course, if there's a run on the banks everything falls apart like you described. Just realize that fractional-reserve banking has been going on for hundreds of years and it's done a lot more good than ill for the world in terms of development.

>>989
Maybe, but it's happened before and can happen again.

gold has no inherent value
it only has as much value as we put into it
same can be applied to anything including pieces of pretty paper or imaginary money.

>Anyone else astounded over how the economic system we have today is still running?

The economic system is based on faith, rarely rational. In a sense, it's like religion. If people stop believing, it will crumble.

>Only a quantum of all the world's money actually exists in solid form, the rest only exists as fictional numbers in banks.

Based on this, I don't see what's so bad about it, as long there is that faith. The Fed likes to print money all the time without having the necessary solids to back it up. The market knows this and automatically anticipates it so that it never had that much of an impact on US economy, other than dollar depreciation.

>>991
Gold does have value because of it's unique, high quality physical properties you goddamn inbred, uneducated, illiterate buffoon.

Sorry, people who can't be bothered to even capitalize their letters just piss me off.

>>993
Damn it, brohnos, it keeps happening. Don't be so sensible, people can still argue an disagree while being civil.

Same thing happened on the Steam thread. You don't to resort to insults and ad hominem.

>>991
Gold has value because it's hard to find and doesn't grow on trees.
The paper money is printed on the other hand...

Let me ask you this, which is easier to counterfeit? paper money, or solid gold?

>>993
Take it easy. Anon up there is just confused about the difference between commodity money and fiat money. It's not like that's something they teach you in high school (although they really should.)

>>993
>Gold have unique, high quality physical properties
High quaity as in looks pretty? Gold is too soft to build durable things out of, so it can't be that.

>>998
It doesn't corrode, has high conductivity and all of its characteristics are linear, because it's pure and doesn't mix with other elements. So it's a very favored material in electronics and measuring gadgets. You dumb fuck.

Sorry for not taking it easy, I'm just so sick of these idiots all around the internet.

>>1000
wow, the thousand post... anyway:

the gadget argument isn't valid in retrospective (i mean, from ancient cultures to the half of XX century), and optical fiber was far more important to the matter (wich is mostly silicium dioxide). being a malleable noble metal (i.e. not being affected by acid) makes more sense, but gold isn't the only one amongst them (silver, platinum and palladium are fine too). certainly gold started to be used as bargaining chip (altough never in pure state) both by his durability and culturally asumed "beauty", by many cultures around the globe; but the concept of currency doesn't imply at all that the material the coin is made of should be rare or valuable in themself, but just the society to (subjectively) accept it as such...

also, pragmatically, gold isn't more valuable than food, water, a chair, or toilet paper: each thing's value can be only messured in function of their usefulness for certain purposes (Heidegger would say: as it can be zurhandenheit, or a tool/available/disposable thing inside an staff/equipment). so nothing is just precious (or useless) in itself. you shouldn't mad that easily (mostly around here).

>>986
>How do 'services" generate revenue?

Information, technology development, research, and even education. These all create wealth.

There's more to services than just serving fries guys.

Don't worry OP. When the debt finally reaches its limits, there will be a collapse of tyrannical rule never before seen. It's only a matter of time. Give or take ~10 years.

>>1027
>debt reaches limit
Is this after inflation halts?

>>1030
I think it'll be hyperinflation before that. Trust me, when hyperinflation sets in, there will be massive unrest, riots, looting etc. When it happened in my country, we barely survived it.

>>1027
US debt = Money US doesn't have to pay.

Seriously, I don't remember public debts ever having an impact on anything. It's just recent paranoia that wants us to believe it. People will talk about Greece's or Portugal's debt but have you seen Japan's debt (190% of GDP!), Italy, France or Belgium? Japanese government bonds sell like hot cakes.

>>1032
There have been a total of 6 major economic crises for the past 100 years thanks to that debt. Don't think that just because it has no immediate consequences, it won't have any for the future.

Those 12 trillion dollars of debt wont return themselves, you know.

I'll just be leaving this riiight here.

>>1031
What country is that?

On the bright side, once the currency is worthless you can use it as kindling to keep a fire going when all the services go out

>>1037

That's what the Germans did in the Weimar Republic as using bills was much cheaper than buying wood.

Controling inflation is much more importnant than controlling unemployment.

Okay, another economic question.
Do you think it's possible to avoid "1% of the people owns 99% of everything" in a free economy?

>>1037
>What country is that?

You've probably never heard of it and wouldn't really care if I told you. Let's just say, it's a former Soviet republic. But that aside for now.

>On the bright side, once the currency is worthless you can use it as kindling to keep a fire going when all the services go out

Been there, done that.

>>1039
I don't think so, Tim.

>>1039
Depends on what you mean by a free economy. You can try to balance wealth more with a progressive tax system. Countries with low income inequality usually have a lot of socialist economic policies in place (like say Sweden or some other European countries)

>>1040
is it Moldova?

I know i'm probably going to get a lot of grief for this
but I simply can not understand everyone's obsession with "equality"

>>1044

Me neither, as there's no such thing as equality in the first place. Same goes for justice. There are artifical terms humans forged but nature doesn't really care as it hasn't heard of either of them.

>>1045
Umm...well I wasn’t looking at this through a nihilistic point
It was more vested in pragmatism…

>>1039
Former workers who were simply the first to be there and do something (industrialisation, division of labour, standardize products) or workers who could exploit the system before regulations (Rothschild). Workers who had the good ideas as well.

All these people gained wealth and that wealth attracted more wealth, which is now passed on from generations to generations (and thanks to bankers, they don't have to pay inheritance taxes).

They control medias, financial markets, banks, industries. You can't take money from them unless they accept to give it or accept a progressive tax system. That or the economic and political situation of the country they live in quickly degrades (wars, dictatorships). For all that matters they could flee wherever they want and escape tax system.

A solution could be to gradually improve financial and educational wealth to lower classes. While giving more power to middle classes so that they can balance out upper classes.

>>1044
I think the movement for equality we've been seeing the past century is very important. Equality will make societies stronger as a whole.

Of course equality in terms of "everyone is the same, wears the same clothes, uses the same products, has the same house" is rather an unusual one and will never happen (it never happened under Soviet regime).

Under unequal societies, people will tend to have harsher face-offs, are far more individualistic. They need to work hard to have what upper classes possess (they TOO want to have PS3s and three cars), don't have time for community or educational purposes. Crime will also climb. Life as a whole becomes stressful because poorer classes have this constant fight against wealthier classes.

You need only look at more equal societies like Japan, Denmark, Luxembourg or Nothern European countries. A large part of population from these countries possesses a level of wealth that is deemed acceptable, thus there isn't that constant face-off like in countries such as Brazil, Russia or the United States. You can also look at some U.S. states like Vermont or Iowa. If the state is more egalitarian you will likely have less health problems and better education.

We don't need to be equal, we just need to reduce disparities.

>>1000
>>993
Get off your fucking period>>1031

>>1031
Argentina? here's a primer from a guy who lived through the country being bought up by cormporations, the IMF fucking the country up the ass, etc
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html

>>1039
no. a 'free market' inherently results in elites who gain money from ingenuity/sheer luck/manipulation/whatever and they tend to clique up

>>1044
Because we hate hierarchy & social stratification. Honestly, I -am- an anarchist so I take the equality/freedom aspect more serious

>>1047
>>You can't take money from them unless they accept to give it or accept a progressive tax system.
>>For all that matters they could flee wherever they want and escape tax system.

That's why Marx wanted a world revolution to take place removing that 'opt-out' for the ruling classes

>>1064
You are entitled to your ideology but doesn't it seem obvious that anarchism would have a hard time functioning? Functioning efficiently that is, human society would simply stagnate. Hierarchies are naturally created by humans without them even noticing it (the stronger, the smarter, the faster) and more often than not people simply don't respect the "right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" principle.

We tried communism, it didn't work. We tried anarchism, it didn't work. We tried feminism, it didn't work? (pun) Why people still cling to these ideas instead of seeking new ones, I don't understand.

>>1064
Anarchy cannot exist, because the literal meaning of archos/archia is leader. As >>1065 said, hierarchies will form independent of government.

Just because a government (a certain type of archos) is taken off the scene, it does not mean others will cease to exist as well. A lack of government will not make rich and powerful people go away. In fact, it might make it worse since poor people no longer have an entity to turn to when their rights are trampled upon.

Anarchists are a joke.

Power Vacuums are the single scariest and most violent things that can happen to a people. Look all throughout history.

Where my economics bros at?

Now that we know the US is virtually bankrupt (since 2009 actually), what do you think will happen? If the US economy ever crumbles, so will the rest of the world, of course including the Chinese economy since they're Americas biggest importer and most of their beautiful numbers are just hot air. The US is about to hit its debt limit (sth like 15.000 billion USD), this means they can't borrow any more money and will have to default on some loans. So what does the US do? It simply raises the debt limit. Magic. The world is about to step in deep shit and some analysts are already predicting a new stock market crash for late 2011-12.

Also something funny: the Fed and the Treasury are two pockets of the same money. The Fed prints money then buys Treasury bonds through Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs profits from money that doesn't exist. Magic.

>>3127

It's safe to say that unless your government can stop arguing like kids thanks to the partisan politics, your nation is headed not only for an unprecedented economic depression, but also a moral and ethical one. Everything either side attempts to propose is squashed by not only government, but corporations with billions upon billions invested in corporate lobbying, and think tanks which directly effect politics. The problem is that the system is designed to protect the rich (corporations) at the cost of every day people. Billions in bail-outs have done nothing to exacerbate the poverty and homelessness and the issues that follow that. Something grand needs to happen such as a collective shift in opinion. The American people need to take back the helm of their nation, not let a small powerful elite do the thinking. Only until recently has voter turn out in elections ever approached 50%.

The American foreign policy also kinda sucks, but that's sort of another issue. I'm critical that America prefers to take a stability over democracy approach to so many blighted, violent and war torn regions in the world simply to protect either economic interests or international politics.

>>3131
From the books I've read it seems the US is separated into two distinct sources of power. The visible one, a constitutional democracy with opposition forces and regulations, and then invisible one, even most Americans don't know about. The "deep state", influential intel agencies (CIA) and military complexes, banks and all sorts of financial organisations that operate under secret and aren't bound by any laws. They make use of lobbies and other means with private and often criminal interests in mind. Sometimes not even the President knows about it. We only know this because of the fuck-ups of some of these organisations.

With this in mind it seems obvious to me that the American people are not at fault. They are manipulated by the system just like we are and will be very soon with the European Union which is at the mercy of lobbies and whoever is ready to offer the most virtual money (hello Monsanto).

When I look at my country it's the exact same thing. The country is in a very bad economic shape and the politicians what are they doing? Engaging in futile discussions on who's party was right or wrong, who did what, who can be used as a scapegoat and other judicial affairs absolutely no one fucking cares. Most people have a really hard time meeting their ends or even eating for that matter but you will never hear that in the news where the world is beautiful and clean and there's only beautiful people and soccer games. Everything is perfect.

Also, an interesting video about Goldman and wheat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIigxAR6yM&t=15s

>>3132

It's known academically as "inverted totalitarianism" which has been used primarily to refer to the United States of America and its politics after World War 2 when the shape of geopolitics changed.

To quote who I believe was Sheldon Wolin, a political philisopher, "Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the Corporate State. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the Constitution while manipulating internal levers."

You are essentially free to do what they tell you so long as you don't break the rules. Isn't it warped that the US government has the authority to now secretly wire tap (telephone, internet) any citizen of the nation without having to get a warrant? Hardly the liberal and free values the United States once stood for.

>>3137
You want to run a global empire, you got to do it right. Of course, now that America has been falling out of that position for a while now, it doesn't mean we'll lose any of that increased security baggage. Just look at Britain.

Sometimes I wish I'd been born in some tiny, rich European country like Liechtenstein or Andorra. That must be a pretty sweet life.

>it seems obvious to me that the American people are not at fault.

the people get the government they deserve. half the people dont even bother voting.

>>3142
It's the system that's at fault. Even if American elections got 100% turnout every time, it wouldn't change the fact that the two-party system is rotten and stagnant. Just look at the fantastic progress our elected officials are making - constantly at odds with each other, deadlocked on almost every issue and engaging in multi-million dollar pissing contests with their rivals. The electoral system needs to be rebuilt to allow for more flexibility in government. Of course that will never happen, since the people who have to rewrite the laws only stand to lose by it.

>>3154>>3154
I hate parties. When the American Revolution first happened people were completely terrified and set against parties. There were NO parties until Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican party in 1790. When he did so he had to frame his political opponent Hamilton as the instigator of first plotting to make one himself so he could justify the creation as some sort of last resort because people were so against them.

TL;DR: Jefferson is a faggot.

I think there exist a number of deep-rooted 'technical issues' with the democratical model of government e.g the system will almost always become a two-party antagonism between a left wing moderate and a right wing moderate, simply because of the way it works.

>>3142

I don't bother voting most of the tie because I don't get around to checking out their beliefs/ideals/what they say they'll do. It's my personal opinion that if you can't be assed to do that yourself you shouldn't be voting, in which case a very small percentage of people should be voting. Nor should I since I don't bother to do it most of the time.