The Zeitgeist Movement [UKH+] (3/8)

Rapid improvements in automation, AI (artificial intelligence), and resource management provide the opportunity for us to envision new models of economics. This talk will look at some important questions that arise:

*) How does the monetary system actually operate, and what are its consequences upon society?

*) What are the consequences of increasing displacement of human labour by machines?

*) Are monetary incentives necessary to spur product development?

*) What prospects are there to transition to more rational systems for allocating resources and pursuing technological innovation?

*) Is an economy without money feasible?

Since its foundation just over a year ago, the growing popularity of the Zeitgeist Movement is raising the visibility of questions like these. Anyone interested in radical ideas about the future of human society is invited to take part in a wide-ranging debate on these topics, led by Ben McLeish.

About the speaker:

Ben McLeish is one of the principal organisers of the Zeitgeist Movement in the UK, and is an accomplished speaker and presenter. He is a graduate of the University of Warwick, where he studied English, Literary and Cultural Theory.

This lecture was recorded on 5th June 2010 at the UKH+ meeting. For information on further meetings please see:
http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• zeitgeist
• venus
• project

[Yippie101]

Burn the money Zeitgeist Forward & post it to youtube protest drive. Example: search ' Zeitgeist Forward Burning Money Protest Ed 1st '. What's a few minutes and some currency for a good cause? It's also a good pschological & spiritual break from this commercialism/materialism conditioning idolatry infecting us all. Burning some currency is good for the soul. The future is NOW.

[chronius9]

Now I will show the miracle, that capitalism is eficient in resources usage, but not in commodities. It forces to use a lot less material for same product as in non profit system. USSR did mined 8 times more Iron ore than USA, but inefficiencies and lack need of resource saving led that steel amount during Cold war was near the same. Even more after some storm in Black sea it was normal that oil rigs would be damaged and oil spilled...

[sachamm]

@hypernation2007 You have mistaken their assertions, then. Lent money is not longer available to the lender, simple as that.

I don't know what the value of JPM's derivative portfolio has anything to do with anything, but, yes, that sucked. Derivatives are far more risky than regular investments, and there were many companies in the late 2000's that were suckered in to taking huge risks in derivatives without even knowing it. The bailout debacle that followed had nothing to do with FR banking.

[hypernation2007]

@sachamm Not my assertion. It is the assertion of the banking system, it's directors and major economists. I didn't just make this up.

JP Morgan's notional value of its derivatives was over $70 trillion in 2008. When that bubble of fantasy bursts, guess who loses out - it won't be the banks. Just like the 29 crash, and every crash that followed it, the bankers will do just fine.

At what point do we admit that the global deficit is just one massive joke?

[sachamm]

@hypernation2007 I think we have the crux of the issue right here. Is it your assertion that when a bank lends you money, that they give you "credit" and still have access to the same money they lent you?

This is incorrect. Money lent is no longer available to the lender.

[hypernation2007]

@sachamm Banks don't have "services" - they have loans. Loans whose notional value they do not possess to begin with.

You have a pile of money - yet by "lending" it to me, what you do ninstead of actually lending me your money is to extend "credit" - once I pay you back with interest, you will have your original money plus all the loan, plus interest. See? It is "lending" that is used so misleadingly. Money will not leave your account. Modern Money Mechanics states this explicitly.

[sachamm]

@hypernation2007 Yes, derivatives are fair. Yes, speculation is fair. No, not fair that people are starving, but not a money problem. Yes, making money on money is fair: if I have a pile of money, I can enjoy it all on hookers and blow, or I can lend it out to you. If I lend it to you, I don't have any hookers and blow. What are you going to offer me to make me want to lend my money to you instead of spending it on hookers and blow?

I guess I don't know the secret of a "range of services".

[hypernation2007]

@sachamm I didn't suggest that banks make money "on a range of services" (by the way, have you considered what that phrase actually means?)

Fair? Are derivatives fair? Are deliberate speculations aimed at deflating an entire currency fair? Is it fair that most people in the world are starving or not served by the system? Is making money off the fact that you have money fair? No contribution to society, merely profitting off debt. It is not good enough - it is corrupt and generates poverty.

[sachamm]

@hypernation2007 Banks, like everyone else, make money _on_money_ by charging interest. The fact that banks offer a range of services and make money on those services is not at issue here.

No one is arguing that money wasn't created out of thin air at some point: that is the very nature of fiat currency. The question is the nature of the system: is it fair or no? The answer is: yes, it is fair. Not perfect, nor even perfectly fair, but as close to fair as we have even had before.

[hypernation2007]

@sachamm Banks do not make money solely on interest, in fact it;s a tiny fraction of modern banking earnings. The Wikipedia article you quoted demonstrates the same as my table does - money is created by leveraging new money from existing money (which was invented in the first place) - the more this happens, the more people go into debt - the people at the furthest edges of the borrowing cycle are left holding the bag when the pyramid collapses, just like in a ponzi scheme.