The movie speed did not say that if they slowed down the bus would blow up. This guy needs to watch that movie. Otherwise everything else he stated here makes sense.
Digital money will be hackable by quantum computers, such as the "DWAVE ONE" made by dwave inc. Also, anonymous has proposed this digital money and they fully well know I am going to fight it until they make it quantum calculation proofed.
@Crailair Gold et al would be valued at the whim of speculators just as it is now. (Notice the affect speculators had on the price of oil and gas recently) They can cause the price to fall, buy it up, then cause the price to rise, selling it again. Plus, as soon as they enacted something like that, the price would artificially spike causing rapid deflation in goods and services. I would prefer something a little more stable.
I really was into this documentary... UNTILL...The last minute where the joyous music starts to play, when he's talking about how great and wonderful digital currency would be....
Digital currency is THEE ABSOLUTE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for nothing.this is disinformation and I want my hour back.
Peter schiff was right. That's all I gotta
Say is...BUY PHYSICAL SILVER/GOLD.
DO NOT PUT YOUR HARD EARND WEALTH, OR EVEN TRUST -ANYTHING- THAT REPRESENTS YO
It says a digital dollar cannot be in two places at once... why not? It's not real, just digital, so whoever is controlling the system or knows how to hack into it could manipulate it. Plus in the digital world lots of digital glitches can happen. I think returning to gold coins is the only option that works. If the government controlled it, at least we could vote out corrupt officials- at present, the Federal Reserve (never elected) runs our lives more than anyone or anything else.
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth. No gradual evolution from previous economic systems is possible, because there IS no previous economic system. Each interdependent piece must be materialized simultaneously and in perfect working order; otherwise the system will crash out before it ever gets off the ground.
What the author doesn't seem to understand is that Interest is the means by which monetary promises are limited, although there is a permanent state of debt, all individual debts are repaid. Increased growth can be techology rather than resource driven. Putting distribution of new money into government hands is a recipe for corruption that will make investment bankers look like saints.
I think the digital dollar is something that seems the best answer I've heard, TheMikeLorenzo comment only makes sense if there is a they, but there is no inherent need for someone to control the money aside from the owner of the dollar, in other words noone controls the internet, and AnnoyedDragon concern is odd, because I can assume, that he mostly likely has a bank account, having digital credit, and debit. the difference being unnoticeable, except to where it matters to our economy
The idea of government controlled money is good but it MUST BE ANONYMOUS, or we lose our liberty and privacy because there are a lot of facist people around.
I have no interest in the monstrosity that is digital money. The further we get away from the physical sense of money, the more opportunities for fraud and criminal activity there is.
No digital protection system that has ever been invented hasn't been cracked. Of course in the sort of world we live in; they wouldn't even need to crack it, that would be reserved for the common criminal. The elite criminals such as bankers would be given easy access at everyone's expense, as they are now.
A gold standard is most definitely not the answer, see The Money Masters for the best explanation I have come across.
The Money Masters also gives an excellent solution, a remedy that would actually work. But it involves government, and government is so corrupt that it will never happen.
So that leaves us with grassroots answers: local currencies, employment exchanges, self issued credit, and a resource-based economy. A resource-based economy is also the principle tenet of The Venus Project.
What a great educational video. It is so important for Americans to understand how our debt-based monetary system works, before it collapses. In addition to these videos, I found "Why we are so much in debt" on YouTube to be helpful.
gold & digital moeny is the same as money, it won't work. I say we barter. I'll trade some eggs for your carrots. Or how about NO one have more than another & everyone help out such as we all help out in the field & we all eat. or we all help with a barn raising & we all have a place to stay. Of course there's an exception with handicapped people so there's also a need for doctors, but eliminate all the pencil pushing jobs & lazy worthless people who create more garbage than help the earth.
... how did this series of videos which, up to this point, was wholly perceptive of the problem veer waaay off into left field? The "solution" is damned disappointing. Only commodity based currencies can work. How the creator of such an informative series about monetary issues could be so misguided as to a solution is beyond me. To suggest currency maintained by, presumably, _another_ private third party I can only pose the question, "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?"
basically what this guy's suggestion of a monetary system is one dependent on a world that has no currupted, greedy, or tyrannising arseholes. a world like that proberbly will never happen.
I think it's weird that the narrator talks about electronic transfers as being an easy way to debase, then goes on to talk about digital money being a valid answer to the problem. It seems to me, that a digital dollar could exist at 2 places, simultaneous where coin cannot.
Politicians making money out of thin air and then using that money to buy votes sounds almost as bad as the bankers doing it.
We're better off with a commodity based currency because commodity is the only TRUE representative of the labor required to produce a LIMITED resource.
@yakyakyak69 : you misunderstand the point. If the government were to "send" money out into the public in an open forum, then it would IMMEDIATELY and upon creation, decrease the value of the bill and increase the price of items. Money sending would actually be worthless to do, therefore taxes are introduced to reduce this spending. This is much better than banks promises over P+I that they do not actually have YET, and can never get, it's a ponsi scheme legal.
nothing digital is secure. ever. the proposal of digital money creates a very serious potential for fraudulant currency. additionally, i suspect this is groundwork for a foundation for RFID chips to be as modern "wallets" that will be proposed as thief proof. this is flawed as well in that no encryption is unbreakable. someone would mearly require a rf scanner and a working knowledge of programming script. i, for my part, say nay. gold for me please, or real resources.
my ONLY problem with this is that the solutions proposed are always fail proof. I think people forget that hingsight is always 20 20 and that everything in theory looks good. I'm not sure there really is a true and fail proof solution to ANYTHING be it political or monetary.
I like the comment make by the woman who was played by Jodie Foster in 'Contact" . She said, "Sometimes, I think we talk ourselves into thinking we know more than we know." Profound for an academic, really.
Technically, as the universe (or "multiverse" is infinite), it ain't true that natural resources are finite. We will keep on growing and going to wars and get resources from other planets and galaxies... so fuck these people who don't believe in growth!
Digital money will only put us under more control. If we do something they don't like, the ones that create the digital dollar can just shut it off if they wanted too.
@TheMikeLorenzo, that's exactly right. In fact that's exactly what the international banksters who call themselves the illuminati want: a cashless society. EVERYTHING will be tracked from A-Z in their new world order. They are destroying the global economy on PURPOSE in order to bring in world govt.
@TheMikeLorenzo, that's exactly what they want a CASHLESS SOCIETY. Where EVERYTHING you do/buy/sell is tracked. The SDR's or Special Drawing Rights is what they are going to suggest as a solution or a world govt through SDR's funded by CARBON TAXES! SAY NO TO CAP AND TRADE!!!!
@TheMikeLorenzo "Digital money will only put us under more control. If we do something they don't like, the ones that create the digital dollar can just shut it off if they wanted too."
Digital money based on government? Yes.
Digital money based on private interests? No. Reputation loss. The most reputable money wins.
You already use the dgital dollar dude. To have a proper job nowadays you need to have a bank account where ur salary will be paid to. If you default on whatever payment, the state can easily freeze ur accounts.
@TheMikeLorenzo digital money?? It's as if the elites, the powers that be (tptb) infiltrated the honest money movement, to pretend to be like us, and then suggest an idiotic idea of 'digital money'. Who would be control of that? THE POWERS THAT BE of course. And the govt could just TAKE your money, anytime they want. They say, "you owe this much in taxes" and BAM, they take it, you have no say so in the matter. Same with fines. I envision a system where cops can auto-steal your money in FINES.
@TheMikeLorenzo Havent you been listening? Money is mostly digital already. The digital money system would not be as easy to corrupt as you would think. You are stating something out of pure speculation and getting a bunch of thumbs up because stupid people agree with stupid comments. The fact of the matter is that monetary reform should and I hope will happen in the future, however, once more of our race becomes intelligent and open minded we will eventually move into a resource based economy.
Hmm, you have thought there'd be duscussion here concerning money and economic, yet instead I've walked into one of the internets favorite pointless activities: a debate on science vs religion.
@Yobachi2007 well if you can't trust money theres only science and religion... i kid i kid. I generally think people don't have the will or knowledge to start doing what is necessary so they look for something to blame and look for their next crutch to support them. The fact is this is an established process which has taken years to be put in place, money itself is not bad it is simply the greed that it creates, but when we live in a society driven on profits everyone wants a piece of the cake
Haven't seen part 8 yet, but toward the end of this one the subject of digital money comes up. Doesn't that sound a little scary, with all of the hacking going on in the world today!
You also stated that services are not needed to society, and that they cannot constitute something of any value. Is medicine not a service? Is it not science? I agree that nowadays, medicine has become altered, it is now in big part just another piece of the profit system, inheriting its unnatural competition, its defectiveness, its evilness (although it might seem a little stretched to go as far as saying that it is evil). Educations, on another side, can it be considered a tangible product?
Services as commodities are still needed in society,at least for the present time,when science has not found a way to make all humans not require them.Science is just here to help humans satisfy their need for answers,driven from curiosity.Ingenuity is just the means by which society evolves in its quest to better itself.Again,I value the past,and how it managed to find solutions to past and present problems,however,I think we should not be limited to it.
We should continually strive to better society. Limiting ourselves to the most basic needs of life, I consider to be selfish. Selfish, in that we have an opportunity to evolve far beyond what less fortunate species have. Science should not be considered a "tool" of evil, by which man can dominate nature. Its main purpose was and should be that of improving human life and all life, for that matter.Also,your assertion that power has a tendency to become concentrated is something that I agree with.
I was not denying its centric nature.I was just stating that through science, maybe, humans can become free of domination.If all man are to become equal,in all that can constitute equality, dominance,I believe,is something inconceivable.Infinite expansion is not something that I stand by, albeit science, again, might prove me wrong.And regarding the digital money predicament, I agree with you,man will always have the tendency to break the system, however, I am waiting for a feasible solution.
I do not consider that science has anything dogmatic in it, as it is continually being improved (unlike ideologies and doctrines, for example, which remain rather "stiff" in comparison), altered, proven wrong, etc. I don not have faith in science because it promises NOW to solve our problems, I it is capable of solving them in the future, as its very essence is to improve and to be falsifiable in order to be accepted. Its volatility, its lack of boundaries and limits, as being drawn directly
from human intelligence and curiosity, is exactly why I believe in it. It is not something strict, fixated by rules, it cannot be accused of being dogmatic in essence, as it is continually renewing itself. Political or religious ideologies are not like this. They promise solutions, and then try to alter reality to suit its needs. They are self-fulfilling prophecies in essence. Science is not.
Anything man touches can be and will be perverted, corrupted, and bent to the man's personal point of view. The historical record is clear on this. The scientific method itself suggests that if the same result happens over and over, it will CONTINUE to happen over and over... therefore, science itself supports the conclusion that this perversion and corruption is inevitable.
Nothing dogmatic? How about Global Warming? How about the Big Bang? How about Vioxx (no, really, it's good for you!)? The list goes on, and isn't only modern science. Dogma enters science because of profit, and is unavoidable.
As I said,science does not hold theories as being the ultimate truth.They are used until something better,improved comes along.But at all times it is known that it stands on beliefs&ideas.There was no observation-based method of determining the existence of black holes,yet they were proven to be a reality.I fully agree with you that dogma enters science because of profit;and this is unavoidable.However,this is not the very basis of it.Perversion of science is real.Science as a perversion is not.
The only way science can make all men free of domination of other men is to divide us into self-contained life-supporting environments, where we don't have any direct contact with others of our species. Throughout the animal kingdom, dominance is a recurrent theme. Science cannot change nature, only work within it.
Science, like any other tool, is not "for evil" or "for good." It simply is a tool. How it is used is strictly up to the MEN who are using it. And therein lies the problem.
Note, I don't say Science has NO place... I simply don't ascribe to it any special weight; it is not a messiah... it has limits, just as all things do. The trick is accepting those limits.
Medicine, for centuries, was NOT a "service," meaning that it wasn't a means to profit. Doctors had "real jobs" that they engaged in, and produced something. Entertainment was much the same. Same with Education.
Specifically with Education, remember that for almost three centuries there was no public education system in North America, and we somehow managed to turn out individuals with the intellect and wherewithal to do the very sciences that you would point to.
Actually, it is simple math. The author of this video series is quite right that lending at interest is mathematically impossible to sustain. Thus, simply eliminating lending at interest (which Muslim Banks do, and interestingly they have proven to be immune to the current troubles) will solve the problem.
Concentration of power is inevitable; the US was established as a Republic (de-centralized), and in less than a century that was destroyed and the central government arose.
The author goes totally off the rails around 7:48. He makes a great case for how dangerous it is to create money by keystroke on a computer screen for the whole thing, and then suggests a solution being creating money as keystrokes on a computer screen. In other words, his solution to the problem IS the problem.
Brilliant, and just as misguided as the current system... because it IS the current system.
It seems to me that you have missed the point. The author does not refer to digital money in the form of "promises" by the bank (in essence, duplicate money), but as unique digital money (that cannot be multiplied by "promise"), and universal around the world, as to facilitate free trade. Unique digital money is not the problem; debt-backed digital money is.
So you think that digital money, created by keystrokes on a keyboard... can't be multiplied? Computers, by nature, are able to be altered... added, divided, multiplied... And when you're talking about billions of dollars, there's a lot of motive to do it.
The only things that are safe against such are real, physical objects that can't just be whipped up... This is why physical objects throughout time have been settled on for "money," whether they be seashells, giant stone wheels, or gold.
I agree with you, in that digital money can as easily be multiplied by hacking the system. However, physical money, i think, has its own limitation (it is hard to carry around and trade with, when large amounts of money are involved) that will hinder the natural and healthy evolution and expansion of the entire economy. Maybe the future (or even the present, as i am not able to say how secure our encryption systems are) will bring us a better solution than digital money. :)
Think about what you're saying: "Natural evolution and expansion" doesn't exist. That's the point of physical money! There is no "natural" expansion of a gold supply, it only grows to a finite limit and only through labor (which it represents). There is no "natural evolution" of an economy; such thinking is what caused the problem that we suffer under right now (money as debt). We don't need to look to the future, we only need basic math, logic, and the rules of the past to make it work.
When I said natural evolution and expansion of economy, i did not refer to it as being in direct link with the world's money supply (provided we do reach an agreement on what constitutes money), but in relationship to the trade of commodities. The economy expands and evolves as humans, through science and innovation, use the finite natural resources of the planet to find new ways of transforming them into commodities, and as society does evolve, re-transforms them continually, thus expanding.
Well, let me answer the first question: Money is merely a medium of exchange. An agreed-upon proxy for wealth, which itself is the combination of labor and product.
Secondly, what you describe as "expanding" is only evolution (or more cynically, repackaging). But evolution doesn't mean that the economy expands... far from it, in fact. The very fact of the finite world denies that anything can "expand" infinitely.
I do not consider to be "repackaging" taking an old product and making it better. And since I consider man's ingenuity vastly capable of being expansive, although not infinite, it can safely be assumed that there will always be something that needs to be improved. I did not state that the world economy (in essence, something man-made) can be infinite, as you tend to assume. The fact that commodities can be improved continually, is not the equal to the world economy expanding at infinity.
The earth is finite, yes? Of course it is. Therefore, everything that comes from it is also finite. You cannot make something infinite from something finite. If you can make the infinite from the finite, then you have solved perpetual motion (among other impossibilities).
this is not true. for instance in Australia, if we ask for a loan at the bank to purchase a car. We do not get the money in our accounts, it goes straight to the person of whom we are purchasing the car off. We only get the money in our account if it is a personal loan and not secured to a car. therefor incurring higher interest rates as there is no security for the money.
Yeah, I'm down with this analysis of money and banking, but the Venus Project is just too Scientology-WTF for me. What's next, the Institute for Humanity?
ill have to disagree there. scientology is still a religion. the venus project does nothing of the sort, just solve the worlds problems by technical means. and planing for the future, being a robust civilisation. just helping people, nothing is enforced or required of you.
Any system that includes the phrase "planning for the future" inevitably finds itself requireing enforcement and requirements in order for the "plan" to be made real.
'Venus Project' does not inspire confidence. From the site:
"The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant..."
... no understanding of ecology. The underlying problem of falling output is less energy availability. We are going to a lower-energy future.
im sorry but im having a hard time understanding the last part of your comment.. was sort of hoping you could elaborate. falling output, output of what... is what i guess is what im not getting.
so the total value of goods and services being produced. but total output is determined by the ammount of stuff we go through as consumers. the problem is that the materials economy is linear, so we are just trashing the planet for the sake of the economy. so is more energy really going to help or be harmful to us in the long run? i still get the feeling that ive missed your point lol.
The *figure* for GDP includes consumer spending. Actual production has nothing to do with consumption.
My point is simple: it doesn't matter whether you think more energy will be helpful or not, because we are not going to get it. The reason *true* output is falling is lack of energy, and energy will continue to decline.
Therefore the Venus Project's idea that you can base a future on 'abundance of plentiful resources' is false. You can only base it on an assumption of increasing scarcity.
You make an excellent point (now that I fully understand it lol). However I think you are basing The Venus Projects ideas in today's society, where energy is spent quite inefficiently, say for instance the arms industry and how much energy they spend, could be used for growing food or shelter for the entire planet. not to mention the resources that are used to make tanks ships planes missiles and so forth. note I don't have specific numbers but I think you might get the point I'm trying to make
Review that misuse. Resource shortage=war; oil and food shortages upcoming.
Planet maxed on food growth -- by unsustainable means. New methods=even less food. Shortage of resources =fighting over them. Read some history! These things happen, and people always shout, please don't fight! But they live over their means which causes the fighting.
Rough ride ahead. 'Venus Project' plans huge engineering developments; to pay for them you need wealth; US is practically bankrupt = low output.
Don't BUY a jetski: rent it! Don't "BUY" a wife, rent one... for about an hour. Ditto housing, cars, etc. All these ites go down in value over time anyway, along with the money to rent them! What does NOT go down over time is the INTEREST on the money to rent them. Or... you can go out in the woods with your seeds and solar panels and live in a cave! Just bring your inflatable date with ya, so you don't get tempted to come back into the human cesspool!
Here, let's put it all this way, equilibrium comes when some schmuck American (I am one: an American, but not a schmuck) is NOT capable of buying...a jetski ON A WHIM and, because of the unavailability, finds him or herself O.K. with this fact. It's not the people that are greedy by nature, but the instigators that peddle product our way all the fucking time on the television. Being born neutral, we aren't ever sure what we want, but will know what we need. And need is the true measure of money.
Ummm, I don't trust digital money at all. If we did that, then we transfer the power from the bankers to the computer hackers. Not smart if you ask me.
Simple. You eliminate services which are totally irrelevant to maintaining and improving society (which is 85% of current jobs), and you let the people who really have important jobs (mainly scientists) do what they do because they like doing it and they recognize the importance of it. Remember, most jobs are monetary jobs. Eliminate the monetary system, and you eliminate meaningless monetary jobs.
They're not really freeloaders if you understand the social structure. I guess I should clarify my position on this. It's called the Venus Project. Check out the website. In a VP-like society, everyone contributes to society in some way - just not in the way that people do today. The thing is, most people don't actually contribute anything to society today; they merely perpetuate the monetary system, which does nothing to actually improve anything. All it does is maintain social stratification.
Alright, I've flipped through the Venus Project website for the last hour and a half and watched a documentary on it. It seems like a good idea. All I have to say is this. Do it on a small scale first. See what works.
Great, I'm glad to know that you support the idea. If you want to contribute ideas, feel free to join the forum. To access the forum, go to the Zeitgeist Movement website (which is the activist branch of the Venus Project), and you'll find Forum under the Communicate drop-down menu.
Also, I highly recommend watching the film called Zeitgeist: Addendum. It is viewable on Google Video. It explains the philosophy behind the Venus Project, and problems with current society in general.
You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. I was not referring to the original "Zeitgeist the Movie," which is the only one which anyone has even *attempted* to debunk - and even then, they only focused on the religious aspect, which is a very small aspect, unrelated to the main ends of the movement.
I, however, was referring to the second, much more important film, entitled "Zeitgeist: Addendum." This film systematically, factually criticizes the monetary system.
The "important jobs" do not include science, and hasn't since around the 1600s. Scientists are not something that really maintains or improves society any longer; probably because of the profit motive, but then again, like art... science only really is do-able over the long term when there is a patron, which of course only engenders the profit motive.
The "really important" jobs are those that produce something, whether it be clothing, food, or whatever. "Service economy" is an oxymoron.
What you're saying may be descriptive, but it is not prescriptive. In an intelligent society, science should be valued above everything else.
But in reality, science is the most important aspect of the man species. Without science, there would be no business, no economy. Science is the method by which we have attained all the resources and technologies which drive modern society. We owe everything to science. I think you should show a little more appreciation.
Anytime someone says that anything should be "valued above all else," they have made a mistake in logic and have become dogmatic (ironic, really). Science, in and of itself, will not feed me. Science may find better ways of producing food, but just sitting around thinking doesn't fill anyone's belly. Without science there still would be business and economy (simple barter). Science is not a god. Science is a tool; it can be used to improve man or tear him down. It is a tool, nothing more.
My statement was dogmatic only to the extent that it was worded a certain way. Anyway, if there is one acceptable dogma, I would say it's for science.
Science is a tool, and it's the tool upon which human life is based. Without science (and adequately advanced brains to use it), the human species would be no better than the lower species on the planet. Due to our advanced forebrains, we have reasoning and abstracting abilities. It is for that reason alone that we are the dominant species.
Science is NOT the tool on which human life is based. There was human life before there was science... ironically, science allows us to know this by studying the fossil record.
And the so-called lower species are, in fact, our betters. You don't see ants lying their soldiers into wars, or wolves poisoning their packmates.
Do not make the mistake of equating "dominant" with "better." A strong man can dominate his peers, but is not necessarily their better.
I am not denying that life cannot exist without science. That would be absurd. However, comparing human civilization, and indeed, human nature (that of being inquisitive), with other species, on the terms that these species do not wage wars or kill others of the same(or other) species, is a bit incomplete. Again, i did not state that science is the very essence of life, nor is it a tool on which human life is based. The inquisitive nature of the human species is what drives science.
It may be true that wars are not waged by other species, or even violence towards fellow members of the same species, is something uncommon in nature, although, it is not totally unnatural. The quest for being "dominant" in nature is very much present at all levels. The fact that man found a means of improving the natural odds, and becoming dominant, through science, is again, not unnatural. It is evolution. Many other species fight for dominance, some even waging wars (some apes, for example).
You said that human life was based on science. If that is not equivalent to saying that it is the essence of human life or that we cannot live without it, I'm failing to see the difference.
And other species are inquisitive too. Pretty much all mammals are problem solvers.
To say that "all mammals are problem solvers" is misleading at best and inaccurate at worst. I have a text book on cognitive psychology in front of me right now which has a whole chapter on why human problem solving is uniquely distinct from all of the lower primates. Neuroscience has shown that our forebrains are particularly advanced. No other species comes close in this area of the brain. Sorry, there's just no evidence to support your claim.
You're using science in far too narrow a sense. Science is the method by which we acquire knowledge about nature. In that sense, even barter requires science, as does everything else about uniquely human life. Also, science is part of the process of putting food in your belly. If producing food was actually done by technicians (applied scientists), there would be fewer starving people in the world. So the problem seems to be that we need *more* science, and a greater societal value for it.
Incorrect. Our senses are how we acquire information about nature. Science is a tool, a construct, by which we organize what we have gathered with our senses.
And "applied science" is an oxymoron. Science is the evaluation and categorization of information... nothing more. "Applied science" is a phrase invented by those who didn't like the simple fact that science is not a "product" but a "service" and wanted to be accorded the same importance as the "real" jobs of the world.
Saying that "services" are of no real importance to society, as they do not "feed" or "clothe" you, is exaggerated at best. Also, regarding science as being unimportant (since ~1600s), i think this is in disregard to the sheer benefits that technology (the fruit of science)brings to our daily lives and our society. Talking about a "world economy",that is to be unified for the benefit of all, without respect to the monumental complexity that such a system would pose, is far from being realistic.
National borders serve the same purpose as watertight doors on ships. Any talk of a "world economy" denies the simple scientific fact that such barriers and impediments are necessary for the good of the whole; so that when something happens (and it will), the entire ship doesn't sink.
Name me one "service" (strictly service mind you) that we simply cannot live without, and your claim that they are important to society might be able to hold water.
Gold's value is as a medium of exchange. What the medium is is irrelevant really (gold, seashells, stones)... what matters is that it provides a means that we can get what we need without trading what we don't. A farmer doesn't have to barter for furs if he wants fish from the fisherman and the fisherman wants fur; the farmer sells his product for the medium of exchange, then takes that to the fisherman to get fish.
On a side note: I would say the defining criterion of dogma is "lack of openness to other alternatives." Give me a rational reason why society should not value science above all else.
The defining criteria of dogma is being accepted as fact and authoritative as prima facie, rather than supported by fact.
One rational reason why society should not value ANYTHING above all else... MAN HIMSELF. Man can corrupt, pervert, twist, alter, fabricate, and bend anything to his own personal, political, financial, religious, or social leanings... and therefore, NOTHING that man touches can be treasured above all else, being held dogmatically authoritative.
Okay, fine. I agree that we should not be dogmatic about anything. But technically, everyone values something above all else. When I say "above all else" I simply mean "as the highest priority." You might have interpreted that differently. And there is evidence for science being valuable, more so than any ideology for sure.
The idea that murdering another human being is wrong turns up in just about every ideology... but no scientific rationale or experiment confirms it. By your own standard, that means that the idea that life has value (hence, murder being "wrong") should be secondary to whatever dictates science has.
I fail to see how I even suggested the value of life as being "secondary to whatever dictates science has". I previously stated that science's main purpose is that to help better man and society.
You wrote that science is more valuable than any ideology. I simply showed you that you were incorrect.
And Science's purpose is not necessarily to better man and society any more than a shovel is. Like all tools, it can be used that way, or it can be used to bring man down. In and of itself, science is a tool, and therefore it cannot be said that it's "main purpose" is anything specific.
Science can be seen as a tool, although one that continually evolves(for good or for bad). But when I say "main purpose" I refer to what every tool had been made to do. As a hammer might have originally been made for "hammering" nails, so is science(or at least technology, the "fruit" of science) "meant" to better us. That it has become perverted, is undeniable, but there is still the possibility of it used, by man, for good.
You've now turned this into a debate about ethics...great. This could take a while.
First of all, I align with moral particularism that no moral principles hold uniformly, and every unique circumstance requires unique moral investigation. There are no rules about morality - not even "don't kill." If you'd like an example, looks up Williams' paradox of deontology.
What does this mean for science? If all moral claims reduce to pragmatic claims, science CAN tell us what is right.
But in the case of the killing, you reframed the debate into "killing" instead of "murder." A logical fallacy is in the assumption of equality between the two.
And my point is that moral claims CANNOT be reduced to pragmatic claims. It can be pragmatic to murder... but it can never be moral.
I am unfamiliar with Williams, but the simple fact is that in the world there are those things that are right, those things that are wrong, and those things that are neither. Science is neither.
Murder is just a legal concept. In objective reality, there is no difference between killing and murder. Even if there is, you can frame it however you want - that will not change my position on ethics. If science does not deal with moral facts, then moral facts do not exist. If moral facts do exist, then they become manifested in natural facts, and science does deal with them.
Murder is not only a legal concept, it is an objective one; the difference between murder and killing is intent. A meteor can kill, but only a man can murder. There are a great many things that science does not deal with that exist. Therefore, your reasoning is faulty. Without referring to ephemeral concepts such as soul or emotion, we can prove this by asking what "one" is. The very concept of "one" cannot be described scientifically, only mathematically.
I consider looking back at previous means of trade(more specifically,what constitutes money)as being no more than a source of inspiration.Barter becomes simply absurd,when up-scaled to cover the world economy( even with a"medium of exchange"commonly agreed on),by the inherited limitations that it presents(size,weight,etc.).The gold standard (or even gold as medium of trade, for that matter) is of no better use, when more than 70% of the gold supply of the world is already in (few) private hands.
I do not consider science to be "a God",as it might seem.I simply consider that the past solutions presented limitations and flaws that should indeed be looked upon,however,returning to already,proven to be,defective solutions is not the way to go.This is where,hopefully,man's ingenuity,through science and technology,can achieve more that the past could,and thus progressing.The past means of trade were not meant to be applied on a global scale where commodities greatly vary in value and price.
To sum up,digital money(secured in the best way that man can)might still not be the perfect medium of trade.However,given what the past had to offer,and what the present limitations are,i think this is the next logical step to take(of course,after the current monetary system has undergone thorough reform).This debate is clearly not suited for You Tube,and I clearly cannot be considered any authority in this field;albeit i still consider the complexity of the world's economy to be undeniable.
However, setting that aside, digital money by its very nature cannot be trusted to the degree that you would see it done. Man cannot secure the digital environment; but nature itself secures any physical medium (because it is finite by definition).
The gold standard (and indeed all other systems of money that relied on physical medium) were not proven to be defective. Such thinking is simply denial of the basic facts of our world (specifically, the finite nature of it).
And again, global trade works fine... Goods vary widely in value and price even in a small scale (for instance, a cattle farmer is unlikely to think that manure is valuable to him, while a farmer might find it very much so). A "global economy" however, is foolishness.
Forgetting for a moment how absurd a "world economy" is, you are correct. Money is needed as a medium of exchange in order to simplify trade.
And the nature of money (whatever it is) is to become concentrated in a few hands; this is the nature of man. It doesn't matter if it's gold, rocks, seashells, or digital dollars... man will seek to collect as much to himself as he can and so your point is moot.
What if the gov't falsly accused you for something? or holds a grudge for some reason (David Icke. search him)? Electronic money is the easiest way to control the masses. Go to the shop and you buy a cake with your Credit Card. Computer says "No way Jose". fair enough, you've still got your cash. But what when there is no cash? what then? You're absolutely screwed.
Solution = Digital money? LOL! Instantaneous increase in hacking. If it's made by men, it can be exploited by men.
The incentive "money=gain" will only equal to more cheating = more inequality = same system. Maybe if we taught every child to contribute to society without looking for gain, and in return offer them for free the basic needs of life, education, food, housing, etc - People might just be impressed and want to do more for the society.
Who in the world would want digital money? How are private transactions to be performed? How can I loan my buddy money or buy and sell used goods at a flea market or classified ads? What about black market things like not paying sales tax or even prostitution and the like? What about privacy matters? What if I spend some of my money on my mistress and my wife sees it on our digital bank log? Digital money is the worst idea in the history of the world.
bitcoin seems like what they are describing at 8:00
nlucctw2 3 weeks ago
The movie speed did not say that if they slowed down the bus would blow up. This guy needs to watch that movie. Otherwise everything else he stated here makes sense.
nlucctw2 3 weeks ago
ron paul!
JustJoeKane 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
4:19
FrankiePoker 4 months ago
Digital money will be hackable by quantum computers, such as the "DWAVE ONE" made by dwave inc. Also, anonymous has proposed this digital money and they fully well know I am going to fight it until they make it quantum calculation proofed.
xtofury 6 months ago
GIVE ME QUANTUM COMPUTER-PROOFED MONEY.
xtofury 6 months ago
Don't listen to this nonsense about digital currency.
BUY AND HOLD PHYSICAL GOLD SILVER PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM.
Don't listen to this nonsense. Just look at the charts and the proof is in the pudding.
Crailair 11 months ago
@Crailair Gold et al would be valued at the whim of speculators just as it is now. (Notice the affect speculators had on the price of oil and gas recently) They can cause the price to fall, buy it up, then cause the price to rise, selling it again. Plus, as soon as they enacted something like that, the price would artificially spike causing rapid deflation in goods and services. I would prefer something a little more stable.
FSUSW15009 7 months ago
continued; YOUR HARD EARND WEALTH, OR EVEN TRUST -ANYTHING- THAT REPRESENTS YOUR LIFE IN CYBERSPACE.
It's too easy to maipulate.
Crailair 11 months ago
Wow.
I really was into this documentary... UNTILL...The last minute where the joyous music starts to play, when he's talking about how great and wonderful digital currency would be....
Digital currency is THEE ABSOLUTE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for nothing.this is disinformation and I want my hour back.
Peter schiff was right. That's all I gotta
Say is...BUY PHYSICAL SILVER/GOLD.
DO NOT PUT YOUR HARD EARND WEALTH, OR EVEN TRUST -ANYTHING- THAT REPRESENTS YO
Crailair 11 months ago
@Crailair
the digital system COULD work IF people that were in control of it WERE HONEST. That is what he's saying, but that's a BIG "IF".
and people who have that control will be tempted & greed will destroy the system as all systems are destroyed by it.
hunter4hire 11 months ago
It says a digital dollar cannot be in two places at once... why not? It's not real, just digital, so whoever is controlling the system or knows how to hack into it could manipulate it. Plus in the digital world lots of digital glitches can happen. I think returning to gold coins is the only option that works. If the government controlled it, at least we could vote out corrupt officials- at present, the Federal Reserve (never elected) runs our lives more than anyone or anything else.
salvadaXgracia 1 year ago
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth. No gradual evolution from previous economic systems is possible, because there IS no previous economic system. Each interdependent piece must be materialized simultaneously and in perfect working order; otherwise the system will crash out before it ever gets off the ground.
CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri
justicetrooper 1 year ago
debt as money part 2...was a waste....they hit nail on head in pt1..in this one it was rambling and opinions...
trufiend138 1 year ago
why does a bank have to explain in loan contract where it gets its money from that it is loaning you?? hardly fraudulent...
trufiend138 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Кредит 17%. М МО. Без справок и поручителей. Консалтинг 25%. Другие варианты. (495)2200660 2200660@mail.ru
tiblon1 1 year ago
Money is already digital...
axeld93 1 year ago
digital money ? are you serious? That would be the ULTIMATE form of control over the common man by whoever manages and runs the system.
fullfist 1 year ago
What the author doesn't seem to understand is that Interest is the means by which monetary promises are limited, although there is a permanent state of debt, all individual debts are repaid. Increased growth can be techology rather than resource driven. Putting distribution of new money into government hands is a recipe for corruption that will make investment bankers look like saints.
TheBDASays 1 year ago
Whoever CONTROLS digital money CONTROLS US
CASH is and always be KING
CASH = FREEDOM
2JOHNNYT 1 year ago
I think the digital dollar is something that seems the best answer I've heard, TheMikeLorenzo comment only makes sense if there is a they, but there is no inherent need for someone to control the money aside from the owner of the dollar, in other words noone controls the internet, and AnnoyedDragon concern is odd, because I can assume, that he mostly likely has a bank account, having digital credit, and debit. the difference being unnoticeable, except to where it matters to our economy
mycollegeshirt 1 year ago
The idea of government controlled money is good but it MUST BE ANONYMOUS, or we lose our liberty and privacy because there are a lot of facist people around.
Also PRIVATE USURY MUST BE BANNED.
smartass270 1 year ago
I have no interest in the monstrosity that is digital money. The further we get away from the physical sense of money, the more opportunities for fraud and criminal activity there is.
No digital protection system that has ever been invented hasn't been cracked. Of course in the sort of world we live in; they wouldn't even need to crack it, that would be reserved for the common criminal. The elite criminals such as bankers would be given easy access at everyone's expense, as they are now.
AnnoyedDragon 1 year ago
Too bad the bank owns the United states and its people.
likpit 1 year ago
A gold standard is most definitely not the answer, see The Money Masters for the best explanation I have come across.
The Money Masters also gives an excellent solution, a remedy that would actually work. But it involves government, and government is so corrupt that it will never happen.
So that leaves us with grassroots answers: local currencies, employment exchanges, self issued credit, and a resource-based economy. A resource-based economy is also the principle tenet of The Venus Project.
QuentinQuark 1 year ago
The answer: The Venus Project
QuentinQuark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a great educational video. It is so important for Americans to understand how our debt-based monetary system works, before it collapses. In addition to these videos, I found "Why we are so much in debt" on YouTube to be helpful.
69vmac 1 year ago
Digital money is NOT the solution!
WeAreWakingUp 1 year ago
Just bring out the mark of the beast. Stupid ass.
TripleAgent83 1 year ago
gold & digital moeny is the same as money, it won't work. I say we barter. I'll trade some eggs for your carrots. Or how about NO one have more than another & everyone help out such as we all help out in the field & we all eat. or we all help with a barn raising & we all have a place to stay. Of course there's an exception with handicapped people so there's also a need for doctors, but eliminate all the pencil pushing jobs & lazy worthless people who create more garbage than help the earth.
MrAubery 1 year ago 4
@MrAubery COMMUNIST!!! KILL HIM!!!lol
5amdma 1 year ago
Violations #1 and #2 are a joke. #3 is not an impossible contract.
Banks do lend existing money. What a joke.
jimmyrtle 1 year ago
... how did this series of videos which, up to this point, was wholly perceptive of the problem veer waaay off into left field? The "solution" is damned disappointing. Only commodity based currencies can work. How the creator of such an informative series about monetary issues could be so misguided as to a solution is beyond me. To suggest currency maintained by, presumably, _another_ private third party I can only pose the question, "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?"
fermisparadox 1 year ago
@fermisparadox That is, a currency created out of thin air and maintained by a private third party.
fermisparadox 1 year ago
The digital money assumes that the operators/managers of the system wouldn't abuse their power in the same way the banks have.
britishjohn04 1 year ago
PAPER MONEY =TOILET PAPER!
delyparker777 1 year ago
basically what this guy's suggestion of a monetary system is one dependent on a world that has no currupted, greedy, or tyrannising arseholes. a world like that proberbly will never happen.
theboiljulia 1 year ago
@theboiljulia Correct - he's right in the diagnosis, but wrong on the cure.
RicoRichmond 1 year ago
how about going the american way and sue? the public against the monetary system for fraut.
Shaireece 1 year ago
@Shaireece What're you going to sue for... money?
mooniusss 1 year ago
is the solution to this buying gold and silver?
Nautilus987 1 year ago
The solution to private central banking is public central banking.
LucVNO 1 year ago
a metorite that would slice and dice earth in two pieces is the solution.
ThoughtCriminal912 1 year ago
I think it's weird that the narrator talks about electronic transfers as being an easy way to debase, then goes on to talk about digital money being a valid answer to the problem. It seems to me, that a digital dollar could exist at 2 places, simultaneous where coin cannot.
PandoraLeigh 1 year ago
Politicians making money out of thin air and then using that money to buy votes sounds almost as bad as the bankers doing it.
We're better off with a commodity based currency because commodity is the only TRUE representative of the labor required to produce a LIMITED resource.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
@yakyakyak69 : you misunderstand the point. If the government were to "send" money out into the public in an open forum, then it would IMMEDIATELY and upon creation, decrease the value of the bill and increase the price of items. Money sending would actually be worthless to do, therefore taxes are introduced to reduce this spending. This is much better than banks promises over P+I that they do not actually have YET, and can never get, it's a ponsi scheme legal.
sabriath 1 year ago
nothing digital is secure. ever. the proposal of digital money creates a very serious potential for fraudulant currency. additionally, i suspect this is groundwork for a foundation for RFID chips to be as modern "wallets" that will be proposed as thief proof. this is flawed as well in that no encryption is unbreakable. someone would mearly require a rf scanner and a working knowledge of programming script. i, for my part, say nay. gold for me please, or real resources.
gideon001 2 years ago
my ONLY problem with this is that the solutions proposed are always fail proof. I think people forget that hingsight is always 20 20 and that everything in theory looks good. I'm not sure there really is a true and fail proof solution to ANYTHING be it political or monetary.
freddiefernandez 2 years ago
I like the comment make by the woman who was played by Jodie Foster in 'Contact" . She said, "Sometimes, I think we talk ourselves into thinking we know more than we know." Profound for an academic, really.
jimsrf 2 years ago
Technically, as the universe (or "multiverse" is infinite), it ain't true that natural resources are finite. We will keep on growing and going to wars and get resources from other planets and galaxies... so fuck these people who don't believe in growth!
gbrummel 2 years ago
How do you travel to other galaxies when you have no resources to do so?
CyberAthletethefirst 2 years ago
we're still here on earth, and we got a REAL problem here, NOW.
gideon001 2 years ago
The universe contains finite matter. You fail thermodynamics 101.
garethw14 2 years ago
Maybe this universe... but there are infinite universes in the multiverse. So...
gbrummel 1 year ago
*facepalm*
garethw14 1 year ago
Digital money will only put us under more control. If we do something they don't like, the ones that create the digital dollar can just shut it off if they wanted too.
TheMikeLorenzo 2 years ago 39
@TheMikeLorenzo, that's exactly right. In fact that's exactly what the international banksters who call themselves the illuminati want: a cashless society. EVERYTHING will be tracked from A-Z in their new world order. They are destroying the global economy on PURPOSE in order to bring in world govt.
delyparker777 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo, that's exactly what they want a CASHLESS SOCIETY. Where EVERYTHING you do/buy/sell is tracked. The SDR's or Special Drawing Rights is what they are going to suggest as a solution or a world govt through SDR's funded by CARBON TAXES! SAY NO TO CAP AND TRADE!!!!
delyparker777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMikeLorenzo "Digital money will only put us under more control. If we do something they don't like, the ones that create the digital dollar can just shut it off if they wanted too."
Digital money based on government? Yes.
Digital money based on private interests? No. Reputation loss. The most reputable money wins.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo
They already do this anyway. The state can easily freeze ur accounts!
DJorgeSoares 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo
You already use the dgital dollar dude. To have a proper job nowadays you need to have a bank account where ur salary will be paid to. If you default on whatever payment, the state can easily freeze ur accounts.
DJorgeSoares 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo digital money?? It's as if the elites, the powers that be (tptb) infiltrated the honest money movement, to pretend to be like us, and then suggest an idiotic idea of 'digital money'. Who would be control of that? THE POWERS THAT BE of course. And the govt could just TAKE your money, anytime they want. They say, "you owe this much in taxes" and BAM, they take it, you have no say so in the matter. Same with fines. I envision a system where cops can auto-steal your money in FINES.
Chrome585 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo Well there IS the government, which is supposed to be an avatar of the people due to democracy...
axeld93 1 year ago
@TheMikeLorenzo Havent you been listening? Money is mostly digital already. The digital money system would not be as easy to corrupt as you would think. You are stating something out of pure speculation and getting a bunch of thumbs up because stupid people agree with stupid comments. The fact of the matter is that monetary reform should and I hope will happen in the future, however, once more of our race becomes intelligent and open minded we will eventually move into a resource based economy.
Meeks861 10 months ago
if paper money is worthless, just use ur debit card
KripDrip 8 months ago
Hmm, you have thought there'd be duscussion here concerning money and economic, yet instead I've walked into one of the internets favorite pointless activities: a debate on science vs religion.
WTF!
Yobachi2007 2 years ago 26
@Yobachi2007 noob =)
bbuuggzz 1 year ago
@Yobachi2007 well if you can't trust money theres only science and religion... i kid i kid. I generally think people don't have the will or knowledge to start doing what is necessary so they look for something to blame and look for their next crutch to support them. The fact is this is an established process which has taken years to be put in place, money itself is not bad it is simply the greed that it creates, but when we live in a society driven on profits everyone wants a piece of the cake
magambe 10 months ago
Haven't seen part 8 yet, but toward the end of this one the subject of digital money comes up. Doesn't that sound a little scary, with all of the hacking going on in the world today!
bozzojoe 2 years ago
Yea, that was exactly whot i thought.
I think its even less secure since hackers from anyware in the world could:
1 shut it down (a terrorist attack that could destroy a compeet economie whith a few steps)
2 make money out of thin air whitout any laws (worse then whith banks) and disepair in annonymity , so they cant be tracked down.
And an outher thing is that we would become depended of the internet and elektronics in an almost every way.
A single sunburst can destroy all these.
wybo2 2 years ago
You also stated that services are not needed to society, and that they cannot constitute something of any value. Is medicine not a service? Is it not science? I agree that nowadays, medicine has become altered, it is now in big part just another piece of the profit system, inheriting its unnatural competition, its defectiveness, its evilness (although it might seem a little stretched to go as far as saying that it is evil). Educations, on another side, can it be considered a tangible product?
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
Services as commodities are still needed in society,at least for the present time,when science has not found a way to make all humans not require them.Science is just here to help humans satisfy their need for answers,driven from curiosity.Ingenuity is just the means by which society evolves in its quest to better itself.Again,I value the past,and how it managed to find solutions to past and present problems,however,I think we should not be limited to it.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
We should continually strive to better society. Limiting ourselves to the most basic needs of life, I consider to be selfish. Selfish, in that we have an opportunity to evolve far beyond what less fortunate species have. Science should not be considered a "tool" of evil, by which man can dominate nature. Its main purpose was and should be that of improving human life and all life, for that matter.Also,your assertion that power has a tendency to become concentrated is something that I agree with.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
I was not denying its centric nature.I was just stating that through science, maybe, humans can become free of domination.If all man are to become equal,in all that can constitute equality, dominance,I believe,is something inconceivable.Infinite expansion is not something that I stand by, albeit science, again, might prove me wrong.And regarding the digital money predicament, I agree with you,man will always have the tendency to break the system, however, I am waiting for a feasible solution.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
I do not consider that science has anything dogmatic in it, as it is continually being improved (unlike ideologies and doctrines, for example, which remain rather "stiff" in comparison), altered, proven wrong, etc. I don not have faith in science because it promises NOW to solve our problems, I it is capable of solving them in the future, as its very essence is to improve and to be falsifiable in order to be accepted. Its volatility, its lack of boundaries and limits, as being drawn directly
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
from human intelligence and curiosity, is exactly why I believe in it. It is not something strict, fixated by rules, it cannot be accused of being dogmatic in essence, as it is continually renewing itself. Political or religious ideologies are not like this. They promise solutions, and then try to alter reality to suit its needs. They are self-fulfilling prophecies in essence. Science is not.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
Anything man touches can be and will be perverted, corrupted, and bent to the man's personal point of view. The historical record is clear on this. The scientific method itself suggests that if the same result happens over and over, it will CONTINUE to happen over and over... therefore, science itself supports the conclusion that this perversion and corruption is inevitable.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Nothing dogmatic? How about Global Warming? How about the Big Bang? How about Vioxx (no, really, it's good for you!)? The list goes on, and isn't only modern science. Dogma enters science because of profit, and is unavoidable.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
As I said,science does not hold theories as being the ultimate truth.They are used until something better,improved comes along.But at all times it is known that it stands on beliefs&ideas.There was no observation-based method of determining the existence of black holes,yet they were proven to be a reality.I fully agree with you that dogma enters science because of profit;and this is unavoidable.However,this is not the very basis of it.Perversion of science is real.Science as a perversion is not.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
The only way science can make all men free of domination of other men is to divide us into self-contained life-supporting environments, where we don't have any direct contact with others of our species. Throughout the animal kingdom, dominance is a recurrent theme. Science cannot change nature, only work within it.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Science, like any other tool, is not "for evil" or "for good." It simply is a tool. How it is used is strictly up to the MEN who are using it. And therein lies the problem.
Note, I don't say Science has NO place... I simply don't ascribe to it any special weight; it is not a messiah... it has limits, just as all things do. The trick is accepting those limits.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Medicine, for centuries, was NOT a "service," meaning that it wasn't a means to profit. Doctors had "real jobs" that they engaged in, and produced something. Entertainment was much the same. Same with Education.
Specifically with Education, remember that for almost three centuries there was no public education system in North America, and we somehow managed to turn out individuals with the intellect and wherewithal to do the very sciences that you would point to.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Actually, it is simple math. The author of this video series is quite right that lending at interest is mathematically impossible to sustain. Thus, simply eliminating lending at interest (which Muslim Banks do, and interestingly they have proven to be immune to the current troubles) will solve the problem.
Concentration of power is inevitable; the US was established as a Republic (de-centralized), and in less than a century that was destroyed and the central government arose.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
The author goes totally off the rails around 7:48. He makes a great case for how dangerous it is to create money by keystroke on a computer screen for the whole thing, and then suggests a solution being creating money as keystrokes on a computer screen. In other words, his solution to the problem IS the problem.
Brilliant, and just as misguided as the current system... because it IS the current system.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
It seems to me that you have missed the point. The author does not refer to digital money in the form of "promises" by the bank (in essence, duplicate money), but as unique digital money (that cannot be multiplied by "promise"), and universal around the world, as to facilitate free trade. Unique digital money is not the problem; debt-backed digital money is.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
So you think that digital money, created by keystrokes on a keyboard... can't be multiplied? Computers, by nature, are able to be altered... added, divided, multiplied... And when you're talking about billions of dollars, there's a lot of motive to do it.
The only things that are safe against such are real, physical objects that can't just be whipped up... This is why physical objects throughout time have been settled on for "money," whether they be seashells, giant stone wheels, or gold.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
I agree with you, in that digital money can as easily be multiplied by hacking the system. However, physical money, i think, has its own limitation (it is hard to carry around and trade with, when large amounts of money are involved) that will hinder the natural and healthy evolution and expansion of the entire economy. Maybe the future (or even the present, as i am not able to say how secure our encryption systems are) will bring us a better solution than digital money. :)
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
Think about what you're saying: "Natural evolution and expansion" doesn't exist. That's the point of physical money! There is no "natural" expansion of a gold supply, it only grows to a finite limit and only through labor (which it represents). There is no "natural evolution" of an economy; such thinking is what caused the problem that we suffer under right now (money as debt). We don't need to look to the future, we only need basic math, logic, and the rules of the past to make it work.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
When I said natural evolution and expansion of economy, i did not refer to it as being in direct link with the world's money supply (provided we do reach an agreement on what constitutes money), but in relationship to the trade of commodities. The economy expands and evolves as humans, through science and innovation, use the finite natural resources of the planet to find new ways of transforming them into commodities, and as society does evolve, re-transforms them continually, thus expanding.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
Well, let me answer the first question: Money is merely a medium of exchange. An agreed-upon proxy for wealth, which itself is the combination of labor and product.
Secondly, what you describe as "expanding" is only evolution (or more cynically, repackaging). But evolution doesn't mean that the economy expands... far from it, in fact. The very fact of the finite world denies that anything can "expand" infinitely.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
I do not consider to be "repackaging" taking an old product and making it better. And since I consider man's ingenuity vastly capable of being expansive, although not infinite, it can safely be assumed that there will always be something that needs to be improved. I did not state that the world economy (in essence, something man-made) can be infinite, as you tend to assume. The fact that commodities can be improved continually, is not the equal to the world economy expanding at infinity.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
The earth is finite, yes? Of course it is. Therefore, everything that comes from it is also finite. You cannot make something infinite from something finite. If you can make the infinite from the finite, then you have solved perpetual motion (among other impossibilities).
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
this is not true. for instance in Australia, if we ask for a loan at the bank to purchase a car. We do not get the money in our accounts, it goes straight to the person of whom we are purchasing the car off. We only get the money in our account if it is a personal loan and not secured to a car. therefor incurring higher interest rates as there is no security for the money.
davidgrayden 2 years ago
That said, there is a great idea here for debt-free money. And it trumps the gold standard argument.
etzel33 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm down with this analysis of money and banking, but the Venus Project is just too Scientology-WTF for me. What's next, the Institute for Humanity?
etzel33 2 years ago
ill have to disagree there. scientology is still a religion. the venus project does nothing of the sort, just solve the worlds problems by technical means. and planing for the future, being a robust civilisation. just helping people, nothing is enforced or required of you.
fulmetalmage 2 years ago
Any system that includes the phrase "planning for the future" inevitably finds itself requireing enforcement and requirements in order for the "plan" to be made real.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
'Venus Project' does not inspire confidence. From the site:
"The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant..."
... no understanding of ecology. The underlying problem of falling output is less energy availability. We are going to a lower-energy future.
fourplusseven 2 years ago
im sorry but im having a hard time understanding the last part of your comment.. was sort of hoping you could elaborate. falling output, output of what... is what i guess is what im not getting.
fulmetalmage 2 years ago
Output of the economy.
fourplusseven 2 years ago
so the total value of goods and services being produced. but total output is determined by the ammount of stuff we go through as consumers. the problem is that the materials economy is linear, so we are just trashing the planet for the sake of the economy. so is more energy really going to help or be harmful to us in the long run? i still get the feeling that ive missed your point lol.
fulmetalmage 2 years ago
The *figure* for GDP includes consumer spending. Actual production has nothing to do with consumption.
My point is simple: it doesn't matter whether you think more energy will be helpful or not, because we are not going to get it. The reason *true* output is falling is lack of energy, and energy will continue to decline.
Therefore the Venus Project's idea that you can base a future on 'abundance of plentiful resources' is false. You can only base it on an assumption of increasing scarcity.
fourplusseven 2 years ago
You make an excellent point (now that I fully understand it lol). However I think you are basing The Venus Projects ideas in today's society, where energy is spent quite inefficiently, say for instance the arms industry and how much energy they spend, could be used for growing food or shelter for the entire planet. not to mention the resources that are used to make tanks ships planes missiles and so forth. note I don't have specific numbers but I think you might get the point I'm trying to make
fulmetalmage 2 years ago
Review that misuse. Resource shortage=war; oil and food shortages upcoming.
Planet maxed on food growth -- by unsustainable means. New methods=even less food. Shortage of resources =fighting over them. Read some history! These things happen, and people always shout, please don't fight! But they live over their means which causes the fighting.
Rough ride ahead. 'Venus Project' plans huge engineering developments; to pay for them you need wealth; US is practically bankrupt = low output.
fourplusseven 2 years ago
Erm.... is anyone like me who is into the alternative media or conspiracy media now suspicious because this guy is promoting a cashless society?
LuqmanNaq 2 years ago
Just bring your inflatable date with ya"
Don't forget your punture repair kit.
thaitanium12 2 years ago
Don't BUY a jetski: rent it! Don't "BUY" a wife, rent one... for about an hour. Ditto housing, cars, etc. All these ites go down in value over time anyway, along with the money to rent them! What does NOT go down over time is the INTEREST on the money to rent them. Or... you can go out in the woods with your seeds and solar panels and live in a cave! Just bring your inflatable date with ya, so you don't get tempted to come back into the human cesspool!
RCEbooks 2 years ago
Good part of the video here. Digital money (in addition to cash in your wallet) is a feasible solution.
LeCommensale 2 years ago
Here, let's put it all this way, equilibrium comes when some schmuck American (I am one: an American, but not a schmuck) is NOT capable of buying...a jetski ON A WHIM and, because of the unavailability, finds him or herself O.K. with this fact. It's not the people that are greedy by nature, but the instigators that peddle product our way all the fucking time on the television. Being born neutral, we aren't ever sure what we want, but will know what we need. And need is the true measure of money.
ScorpiusIncorruptus 2 years ago
Ummm, I don't trust digital money at all. If we did that, then we transfer the power from the bankers to the computer hackers. Not smart if you ask me.
fightforyourrights9 2 years ago
Its already digital. Computer hackers should already be able to give themselves money.
Keeban3 2 years ago
This movie fails to present a third alternative, abolish money altogether. Check out another movie called Zeitgeist Addendum if you haven't already.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
GO VENUS PROJECT YEAH!!!!!
oreolvrsshane1987 2 years ago
How could you have a system where people do services for other peoples services without money?
Keeban3 2 years ago
Simple. You eliminate services which are totally irrelevant to maintaining and improving society (which is 85% of current jobs), and you let the people who really have important jobs (mainly scientists) do what they do because they like doing it and they recognize the importance of it. Remember, most jobs are monetary jobs. Eliminate the monetary system, and you eliminate meaningless monetary jobs.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
You think that the 15% of people who work would be willing to let the freeloaders do that?
Keeban3 2 years ago
They're not really freeloaders if you understand the social structure. I guess I should clarify my position on this. It's called the Venus Project. Check out the website. In a VP-like society, everyone contributes to society in some way - just not in the way that people do today. The thing is, most people don't actually contribute anything to society today; they merely perpetuate the monetary system, which does nothing to actually improve anything. All it does is maintain social stratification.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Alright, I've flipped through the Venus Project website for the last hour and a half and watched a documentary on it. It seems like a good idea. All I have to say is this. Do it on a small scale first. See what works.
Keeban3 2 years ago 4
Great, I'm glad to know that you support the idea. If you want to contribute ideas, feel free to join the forum. To access the forum, go to the Zeitgeist Movement website (which is the activist branch of the Venus Project), and you'll find Forum under the Communicate drop-down menu.
Also, I highly recommend watching the film called Zeitgeist: Addendum. It is viewable on Google Video. It explains the philosophy behind the Venus Project, and problems with current society in general.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
the Zeitgeist was a terrible film, it was also debunked 90% of it was complete bullshit
getsillly 2 years ago
You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. I was not referring to the original "Zeitgeist the Movie," which is the only one which anyone has even *attempted* to debunk - and even then, they only focused on the religious aspect, which is a very small aspect, unrelated to the main ends of the movement.
I, however, was referring to the second, much more important film, entitled "Zeitgeist: Addendum." This film systematically, factually criticizes the monetary system.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
can you please validate your claim by providing evidence. 3 points will do
fulmetalmage 2 years ago
that's ridiculously simplistic, the Venus Project is fucking bullshit.
luke666808g 2 years ago
The "important jobs" do not include science, and hasn't since around the 1600s. Scientists are not something that really maintains or improves society any longer; probably because of the profit motive, but then again, like art... science only really is do-able over the long term when there is a patron, which of course only engenders the profit motive.
The "really important" jobs are those that produce something, whether it be clothing, food, or whatever. "Service economy" is an oxymoron.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
What you're saying may be descriptive, but it is not prescriptive. In an intelligent society, science should be valued above everything else.
But in reality, science is the most important aspect of the man species. Without science, there would be no business, no economy. Science is the method by which we have attained all the resources and technologies which drive modern society. We owe everything to science. I think you should show a little more appreciation.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Anytime someone says that anything should be "valued above all else," they have made a mistake in logic and have become dogmatic (ironic, really). Science, in and of itself, will not feed me. Science may find better ways of producing food, but just sitting around thinking doesn't fill anyone's belly. Without science there still would be business and economy (simple barter). Science is not a god. Science is a tool; it can be used to improve man or tear him down. It is a tool, nothing more.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
My statement was dogmatic only to the extent that it was worded a certain way. Anyway, if there is one acceptable dogma, I would say it's for science.
Science is a tool, and it's the tool upon which human life is based. Without science (and adequately advanced brains to use it), the human species would be no better than the lower species on the planet. Due to our advanced forebrains, we have reasoning and abstracting abilities. It is for that reason alone that we are the dominant species.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Science is NOT the tool on which human life is based. There was human life before there was science... ironically, science allows us to know this by studying the fossil record.
And the so-called lower species are, in fact, our betters. You don't see ants lying their soldiers into wars, or wolves poisoning their packmates.
Do not make the mistake of equating "dominant" with "better." A strong man can dominate his peers, but is not necessarily their better.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
I am not denying that life cannot exist without science. That would be absurd. However, comparing human civilization, and indeed, human nature (that of being inquisitive), with other species, on the terms that these species do not wage wars or kill others of the same(or other) species, is a bit incomplete. Again, i did not state that science is the very essence of life, nor is it a tool on which human life is based. The inquisitive nature of the human species is what drives science.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
It may be true that wars are not waged by other species, or even violence towards fellow members of the same species, is something uncommon in nature, although, it is not totally unnatural. The quest for being "dominant" in nature is very much present at all levels. The fact that man found a means of improving the natural odds, and becoming dominant, through science, is again, not unnatural. It is evolution. Many other species fight for dominance, some even waging wars (some apes, for example).
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
No, man took dominance as an excuse to kill one another... then when the enlightened mind asked "why," the need for the lies comes up.
In the animal kingdom, it is uncommon for dominance to result in death... further, it is uncommon for dominance issues to be more than one-on-one.
With science, we found really cool ways to take the dominance issue as an excuse and let one man kill millions! Aint it cool?
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
You said that human life was based on science. If that is not equivalent to saying that it is the essence of human life or that we cannot live without it, I'm failing to see the difference.
And other species are inquisitive too. Pretty much all mammals are problem solvers.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
To say that "all mammals are problem solvers" is misleading at best and inaccurate at worst. I have a text book on cognitive psychology in front of me right now which has a whole chapter on why human problem solving is uniquely distinct from all of the lower primates. Neuroscience has shown that our forebrains are particularly advanced. No other species comes close in this area of the brain. Sorry, there's just no evidence to support your claim.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
You're using science in far too narrow a sense. Science is the method by which we acquire knowledge about nature. In that sense, even barter requires science, as does everything else about uniquely human life. Also, science is part of the process of putting food in your belly. If producing food was actually done by technicians (applied scientists), there would be fewer starving people in the world. So the problem seems to be that we need *more* science, and a greater societal value for it.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Incorrect. Our senses are how we acquire information about nature. Science is a tool, a construct, by which we organize what we have gathered with our senses.
And "applied science" is an oxymoron. Science is the evaluation and categorization of information... nothing more. "Applied science" is a phrase invented by those who didn't like the simple fact that science is not a "product" but a "service" and wanted to be accorded the same importance as the "real" jobs of the world.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Saying that "services" are of no real importance to society, as they do not "feed" or "clothe" you, is exaggerated at best. Also, regarding science as being unimportant (since ~1600s), i think this is in disregard to the sheer benefits that technology (the fruit of science)brings to our daily lives and our society. Talking about a "world economy",that is to be unified for the benefit of all, without respect to the monumental complexity that such a system would pose, is far from being realistic.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
National borders serve the same purpose as watertight doors on ships. Any talk of a "world economy" denies the simple scientific fact that such barriers and impediments are necessary for the good of the whole; so that when something happens (and it will), the entire ship doesn't sink.
Name me one "service" (strictly service mind you) that we simply cannot live without, and your claim that they are important to society might be able to hold water.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm with ZG on this one...
Gold is not valuable; like they've said, you can't eat, drink, or provide warmth with "tangeable" currency.
ScorpiusIncorruptus 2 years ago 3
Gold's value is as a medium of exchange. What the medium is is irrelevant really (gold, seashells, stones)... what matters is that it provides a means that we can get what we need without trading what we don't. A farmer doesn't have to barter for furs if he wants fish from the fisherman and the fisherman wants fur; the farmer sells his product for the medium of exchange, then takes that to the fisherman to get fish.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Yeah, but I suppose that the way to correct any of this is to make money in proportion what what we use it to trade.
ScorpiusIncorruptus 2 years ago
On a side note: I would say the defining criterion of dogma is "lack of openness to other alternatives." Give me a rational reason why society should not value science above all else.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
The defining criteria of dogma is being accepted as fact and authoritative as prima facie, rather than supported by fact.
One rational reason why society should not value ANYTHING above all else... MAN HIMSELF. Man can corrupt, pervert, twist, alter, fabricate, and bend anything to his own personal, political, financial, religious, or social leanings... and therefore, NOTHING that man touches can be treasured above all else, being held dogmatically authoritative.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Okay, fine. I agree that we should not be dogmatic about anything. But technically, everyone values something above all else. When I say "above all else" I simply mean "as the highest priority." You might have interpreted that differently. And there is evidence for science being valuable, more so than any ideology for sure.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Ok, let's try an experiment.
The idea that murdering another human being is wrong turns up in just about every ideology... but no scientific rationale or experiment confirms it. By your own standard, that means that the idea that life has value (hence, murder being "wrong") should be secondary to whatever dictates science has.
Sounds like something Dr. Manhattan might say.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
I fail to see how I even suggested the value of life as being "secondary to whatever dictates science has". I previously stated that science's main purpose is that to help better man and society.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
You wrote that science is more valuable than any ideology. I simply showed you that you were incorrect.
And Science's purpose is not necessarily to better man and society any more than a shovel is. Like all tools, it can be used that way, or it can be used to bring man down. In and of itself, science is a tool, and therefore it cannot be said that it's "main purpose" is anything specific.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Science can be seen as a tool, although one that continually evolves(for good or for bad). But when I say "main purpose" I refer to what every tool had been made to do. As a hammer might have originally been made for "hammering" nails, so is science(or at least technology, the "fruit" of science) "meant" to better us. That it has become perverted, is undeniable, but there is still the possibility of it used, by man, for good.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
pardon the mistakes I made. it quite late where I come from. :)
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
You've now turned this into a debate about ethics...great. This could take a while.
First of all, I align with moral particularism that no moral principles hold uniformly, and every unique circumstance requires unique moral investigation. There are no rules about morality - not even "don't kill." If you'd like an example, looks up Williams' paradox of deontology.
What does this mean for science? If all moral claims reduce to pragmatic claims, science CAN tell us what is right.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
But in the case of the killing, you reframed the debate into "killing" instead of "murder." A logical fallacy is in the assumption of equality between the two.
And my point is that moral claims CANNOT be reduced to pragmatic claims. It can be pragmatic to murder... but it can never be moral.
I am unfamiliar with Williams, but the simple fact is that in the world there are those things that are right, those things that are wrong, and those things that are neither. Science is neither.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Murder is just a legal concept. In objective reality, there is no difference between killing and murder. Even if there is, you can frame it however you want - that will not change my position on ethics. If science does not deal with moral facts, then moral facts do not exist. If moral facts do exist, then they become manifested in natural facts, and science does deal with them.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Murder is not only a legal concept, it is an objective one; the difference between murder and killing is intent. A meteor can kill, but only a man can murder. There are a great many things that science does not deal with that exist. Therefore, your reasoning is faulty. Without referring to ephemeral concepts such as soul or emotion, we can prove this by asking what "one" is. The very concept of "one" cannot be described scientifically, only mathematically.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Mathematics is science. Emotion is a neurochemical process. Souls are a fantasy concept. Anything else?
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
I consider looking back at previous means of trade(more specifically,what constitutes money)as being no more than a source of inspiration.Barter becomes simply absurd,when up-scaled to cover the world economy( even with a"medium of exchange"commonly agreed on),by the inherited limitations that it presents(size,weight,etc.).The gold standard (or even gold as medium of trade, for that matter) is of no better use, when more than 70% of the gold supply of the world is already in (few) private hands.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
I do not consider science to be "a God",as it might seem.I simply consider that the past solutions presented limitations and flaws that should indeed be looked upon,however,returning to already,proven to be,defective solutions is not the way to go.This is where,hopefully,man's ingenuity,through science and technology,can achieve more that the past could,and thus progressing.The past means of trade were not meant to be applied on a global scale where commodities greatly vary in value and price.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
To sum up,digital money(secured in the best way that man can)might still not be the perfect medium of trade.However,given what the past had to offer,and what the present limitations are,i think this is the next logical step to take(of course,after the current monetary system has undergone thorough reform).This debate is clearly not suited for You Tube,and I clearly cannot be considered any authority in this field;albeit i still consider the complexity of the world's economy to be undeniable.
BibanuXXL 2 years ago
There is no "world economy."
However, setting that aside, digital money by its very nature cannot be trusted to the degree that you would see it done. Man cannot secure the digital environment; but nature itself secures any physical medium (because it is finite by definition).
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
The gold standard (and indeed all other systems of money that relied on physical medium) were not proven to be defective. Such thinking is simply denial of the basic facts of our world (specifically, the finite nature of it).
And again, global trade works fine... Goods vary widely in value and price even in a small scale (for instance, a cattle farmer is unlikely to think that manure is valuable to him, while a farmer might find it very much so). A "global economy" however, is foolishness.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
Forgetting for a moment how absurd a "world economy" is, you are correct. Money is needed as a medium of exchange in order to simplify trade.
And the nature of money (whatever it is) is to become concentrated in a few hands; this is the nature of man. It doesn't matter if it's gold, rocks, seashells, or digital dollars... man will seek to collect as much to himself as he can and so your point is moot.
ShadesOfKnight 2 years ago
watch money as debt 1
LuqmanNaq 2 years ago
What if the gov't falsly accused you for something? or holds a grudge for some reason (David Icke. search him)? Electronic money is the easiest way to control the masses. Go to the shop and you buy a cake with your Credit Card. Computer says "No way Jose". fair enough, you've still got your cash. But what when there is no cash? what then? You're absolutely screwed.
therealmetroidmaniac 2 years ago 4
move to cash and no longer borrow from a bank that does not have the money,. THEY ARE NOTHING BUT A MIDDLE MAN LENDING MONEY THEY DO NOT HAVE!
TheLivingDeadOne 2 years ago
also watdh some of the project camelot videos.
garden333 2 years ago
Thats why banks are so afraid of people saving money instead of spend ing it,. but CARS fixed that didnt it,. more debt,.
TheLivingDeadOne 2 years ago
digital money? that's weird...i'd swear Money As Debt just got hacked...
boodogradly 2 years ago 5
Solution = Digital money? LOL! Instantaneous increase in hacking. If it's made by men, it can be exploited by men.
The incentive "money=gain" will only equal to more cheating = more inequality = same system. Maybe if we taught every child to contribute to society without looking for gain, and in return offer them for free the basic needs of life, education, food, housing, etc - People might just be impressed and want to do more for the society.
Just saying
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago 4
@TheInvaderBN The gift economy.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
Who in the world would want digital money? How are private transactions to be performed? How can I loan my buddy money or buy and sell used goods at a flea market or classified ads? What about black market things like not paying sales tax or even prostitution and the like? What about privacy matters? What if I spend some of my money on my mistress and my wife sees it on our digital bank log? Digital money is the worst idea in the history of the world.
christo930 2 years ago 4
No shit. What am I to do when I want some weed? Buy my dealer a video game or something?
hatcakefloss 2 years ago 5
Yeah and what if you wanna buy some crack or heroin,how will you buy killos of coke,.christo930. YOU HAVE ALOT OF SECRETS, your name is an oximoron,.
TheLivingDeadOne 2 years ago
Loss of financial privacy is not a good thing, no matter how you slice it. Are you for digital money?
Why is my name an oxymoron?
christo930 2 years ago