Topic: Economics
Response To Zeitgeist Addendum The Zeitgeist drama of course is no more than an eleventh-hour, pretended entry into the monetary reform arena. It will never be rightly exalted for....by mike montagne (PFMPE)
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
I was asked the other day to respond to the so called Zeitgeist Addendum.
The Zeitgeist drama of course is no more than an eleventh-hour, pretended entry into the monetary reform arena. It will never be rightly exalted for advancing the idea of a singular solution for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation and dispossession of industry, or inherent multiplication of debt into terminal debt. What does Zeitgeist even intend to accomplish? Zeitgeist does not even recognize the idea a privatized currency can and should be issued by the people, who are the real creditors wherever tokens intended to represent the value of their production are to convey their commerce.
Like anything else, the actual value of the Zeitgeist plea can be no greater than the degree to which it stresses effect and style over conclusive argument and solution. We cannot even rightly pretend to understand it points the way to solution, because Zeitgeist only affirms a few observations which were raised long ago, and because it concludes no further, conclusive understanding whatever from those observations. The initial version of Zeitgeist doesn't even address the nature of money moreso than to dig up the very superficial definitions which for so long have failed to serve us. But thus, building upon those flawed definitions as if flawed definitions are a fitting foundation for anything further, what can and does Zeitgeist introduce to the development of solution?
Both the so called Addendum and its previous version merely repeat research from decades earlier, which I myself presented on the contrary as a basis for developing the critical arguments of solution, and which of course require defining/ascertaining not only what "money" can and must represent, but exactly how any obfuscations of that necessary definition result in the present crisis.
In 1979, that work developed the thesis that any pretended monetary system based on interest-bearing debt ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and this thirty-year-old thesis itself and alone explains anything which Zeitgeist can complain about. Yet does Zeitgeist tie its complaints to this critical fault of the pretended monetary system? Absolutely not; and even if it did, it would only pretend further to be the author of the justification of that complaint.
But it is impossible then for Zeitgeist to certify any purported solution, because it doesn't even identify the cause of the problem it must solve.
Neither then does Zeitgeist build a decisive analysis of the same history. Likewise, it neither disproves mathematically perfected economy or recognizes whether there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt by interest. It neither identifies the role of real creditor, or the usurpation of that role to impose usury. Thus for all its mere drama, it only affirms that the consequences of that usurpation are offenses against us, but only to turn us somewhere other than solution, and only as the thesis of mathematically perfected economy far more clearly demonstrated thirty years ago. Why then does Zeitgeist jump into the way of solution?
Thus Zeitgeist merely splinters a critical movement from what it has to understand and where it has to go. It neither proves alternate solutions for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest; nor does it raise any fact of complaint which cannot be attributed to these injustices, and the need for actual solution.
I was asked nonetheless in particular to reply to the proposed, "resource-based" industrial system. I'm still wondering why. There isn't even a proposed method of transitioning to such a thing. There can't be, because there isn't even a substantial definition of it. The Zeitgeist drama comprises so many obvious faults and deficiencies that it no more warrants reply than viewing. The real question in my opinion is why watch this in lieu of studying solution?
Only because I was asked, did I watch the drama to its end, and so, do I give sufficient examples of its critical faults:
Since when for instance, is the monetary system "labor based"? It is based instead not only on debts subject to interest which can only multiply the sum of debt, but on intervention to pretend the role of creditor, that artificial multiplication of artificial debt is made the very instrument which multiplies exploitation into terminal exploitation.
But even if the monetary system were "labor based," what is the fault of reward for labor? Worse, what is the alternative? Reward without labor/effort? That proposed alternative is the very subversion which is responsible for what you have now.
Anyone who dreams we will ever or even should ever seek to simply eliminate repetitive tasks a thing which is impractical is merely glossing over the real issues with pretended intellectualism. If you have ever developed a product which is the pinnacle of its class, you have repeated *every* step in fact often enough to perfect them above all others. If you have built machines to do the work better than ever before, you know you will do far more untoward work on machineS than can ever be justified, if you don't first toil over every aspect of the process so that the first machine you will build will be as close to the ultimate as possible.
Repetition is not a fault of the monetary system, nor is repetition or other pathetic complaints of Zeitgeist responsible for the present crisis. Nor are these things what obstructs us from building the proposed trains of the future a thing many of us have envisioned and discussed for many years. The problem is the imposed monetary system, because only if you solve its intended faults do you free yourself to build whatever you determine. Why can't we do that now? Because the usurer, who merely usurps the role of creditor, determines where the money goes, and what "industry" (or obstruction of *other* industry) is to prevail.
Once they own that dominant process, all they have to do and all they want to do is sit on it, because it is accomplishing what men who do nothing want to accomplish.
The answer therefore is not to follow them, supposing we all can do nothing, or dedicating ever more effort to doing the least; supposing that repetitive tasks can simply be eliminated or must be eliminated or even that this is a new idea. It is no new idea, and it is not even germane to monetary solution, that we can build the most sophisticated wood-working machines which have ever been built producing perfect surfaces and steering down crooked bamboo strips, producing compound tapered bevels to tolerances of three ten-thousandths of an inch. We do this when and how we have to, if we can, and only if the monetary system does not obstruct us from doing so. If and whenever we do so however, mechanization follows in the wake of sufficient repetition and deliberation, so that in the building of one eventual machine to do the job right, we minimize work there as well.
So there is a rule which all industrial entrepreneurs either follow or fail to follow which dictates when to build that machine: You build it when you can see you have a repetitive process; and when you have the necessary vision for the machine which establishes how much labor you will save over the need to do the intended work.
That's the balance of usual facts, not new facts, which give the machine the nod. There is no failure to realize this which prevents us from building the machine; the problems which prevent you from building the machine are necessary finances, and/or a monetary system which would deprive the prospective market of the ability to afford the product of the machine, even if you build it.
So then, if you really want to free labor from unnecessary repetitive tasks, and if you really want to free the whole of us of unnecessary labor in producing what we want or need, you eradicate whatever subversions of commercial trade and industrial development preclude this natural objective.
Until Zeitgeist or anyone else proves otherwise, the one effective manifestation of that necessary eradication is mathematically perfected economy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of mike montagne (PFMPE) only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. mike montagne (PFMPE) is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"mathematically perfected economy" is what the movie is about: an economy where people do what has to be done, not because they are scared into doing so, or because of the possible ROI, but because they can't act otherwise.
No worries, though: judging by the article above, this notion is so alien today that we are still safely stuck in the ego-based economy for a generation or two.
Behold! This may be the most obnoxiously written essay smitten with errors, and replete with lack of any references whatsoever, for which he criticizes his subject. Did I mention hypocritical?
The writer fails in all regards to at least interest his audience, give them clear direction as to where the story or 'report' is going, and leaves them exhausted of his literary pretending at the finale. His first error is so obvious, I couldn't believe it. Mike Montagne apparently doesn't understand the difference between documentary and drama.
It is only through tossing a figurative word salad that he covers up a horrific instance of misunderstanding and lack of logical coherence to his argument. It is obvious the writer has not presented a clear argument to his confused readers. While talking of theories and mathematics, this crank writer fails to provide one, yes one, reference of what he was talking about. What scientific theory were you referring to? What mathematical postulate did you say you mentioned? WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!!!
You didn't know, do not know, and will not ever know what point you were trying to make. This article was a waste of my time and, infinitely more so, my intellect.
This article is completely obnoxious, arrogant and embittered beyond logic. He says that repetition of a task hones ones skills at the task, implying that automated technology will restrict rather than liberate. Without automated technology that relieves people of repetitive tasks, we would not have an abundance of books, films and art for the public to enjoy.
This fool also presumes that the maker of Zeitgeist claims to be purporting original ideas. This is never claimed by the maker and in interviews he has specifically said that his work is a collection of other people's work. His information is not new, but that does not mean that his film is lacking in originality.
I object to this piece, not just on the grounds of how incorrect and presumptuous it is, but on how terribly written it is. Mike's rhetoric is the shambolic mess of one who is oblivious to aesthetics, sensation and empathy. I shudder to think how such a poor human being dresses.
I'll take only one affirmation in your article, but a very fondamental one . That claim that is what 's the fault of reward for labor. First , obviously this rewward is... money
Yes... money, but not the product itself of your actual work what should be you'r for the the rest of your life. Every things a every day worker craft or create should be is properties forever. But ...actualy in the real life you wil need only one copy of this creation or craft , then after that you should share your knowledge and your working abilities to obtains other goods and facilities. All thats in a common way to grow together in the benefice of each other without competitions and money. Yes will have to work a certain time but the humain intelligence and is working capabilities will lead us to an automatisation that gonna give us more free times to learn and becoming kind human between each other.We all humain are creative , born creative , remember when you were a child. Just open all the shcools to every ones without cash and just teach ushow to take care of automatisation. Yes, i a such world there gonna have those top scientists but there not gonna hold the power simply because there awesome peoples with big hearth.
Posted By: mike montagne
Date: 2008-12-27 22:48:58
Zeitghost,
Obviously, you don't even know what mathematically perfected economy™ is, as I am the original author, 1979, and as the late video doesn't even develop the arguments of cause on which you would build a solution. Like late pretender after late pretender, it raises a few consequences as if they might be cause, and ultimately asserts a "resource based" prescription for whatever, which is neither presented in any way that any intelligent person could appreciate it for solution -- much less mathematically perfected economy™, which is a singular integral solution for the categoric faults of 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible, and inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to the vital, obligated circulation.
MJ,
Even despite your immense intellect and appreciation for yourself, you fail to identify *one* of your asserted errors. For instance, what *is* the "resource based" industrial scheme; and what *is* the method of transitioning to it?
PM,
Sure. Well said, what? Why don't you point out one of those errors?
Niko Brain,
Ditto.
Fred,
Obviously, money is not your reward, for you can do nothing with it unless it is a token of wealth which is even redeemable consistently across time. There's only one way to guarantee even just that one essential property of money; and that is mathematically perfected economy™; so if in fact you can't dedicate yourself sufficiently to understanding that, you deny not only yourself just reward, but everyone else as well.
No one else here is going anywhere by the uncharted course of Zeitgeist either.
What a load of crap. Although he makes it obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about so I'm not worried about it. but it only shows how freaked people can get when presented with change.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
