Indeed he touched on that, but it's not that hard to explain.
Let us call the sum total of all money in the U.S. (we could use the world here, but let's keep i to the U.S. just for ease) = X = 10,000,000
Lets say the bank starts with 5,000,000, you start with 0, and everyone else starts with 5,000,000
Now, the bank loans you 1,000,000, so X = You + (bank-1,000,000) + everyone else. Now, you spend that 1,000,000 on something, so "everyone else" gets +1,000,000, and we're still all evens, namely
10,000,000 = 0 + 4,000,000 + 7,000,000
The next step occurs over time. Today, when you were given the million, there is only so many tangible and untangible things of value in the world. Laptops, cars, hours of peoples time (like a psychiatrist or something). Now some of these things expire, which
detracts from the total value of our sum (like the psychiatrists time, once your hour is up that valueable time is gone). However, some things, like a laptop or a car, don't expire. If the net value of all new things (nonexpired - expired) is positive, than our sum X will no longer = 10,000,000. The above equation becomes invalid, and becomes something more like this: 11,000,000 = 0 +4,000,000 + 7,000,000. (Note: these are simply values meant to show whats going on, and not exact.) Now, when it comes time for you to pay back the bank, where are you going to get that money? You have to work, or play the stock market, or hell, someone gives you a 1.1 million dollar gift. Look what happens to our equation.
11,000,000 = 1,100,000 + 4,000,000 + 5,900,000
Then, wheny you finally pay back the bank,
11,000,000 = 0 + 5,100,000 + 5,900,000.
As long as people continue to do their jobs, invent new things, make ipods and cars and steel and houses, there will not be some money that doesn't exist. Even if the sum WAS fixed, like such:
10,000,000 = 0 + 4,000,000 + 6,000,000
You still get the money to pay back the bank from other people.
10,000,000 = 1,100,000 + 4,000,000 + 4,900,000
Then
10,000,000 = 0 + 5,100,000 + 4,900,000
Another foul point in regards to the movie is its use of logos, pathos and ethos. If you take careful note of the tone of the speaker, his primary attribute is to play on your emotions. He is referencing things that may cause a strong emotional response in the audience: lies, deciet, betrayal, and scapegoating: the familiar government that we all have a bone to pick with due to red tape or social security benefits, or what have you. I think it also evident that he fails to correctly implement logic, skewing his phrases and omitting relevant facts to the situation to forge a compelling drama, rather than reveal the truth of any matter. That's really what the zeitgeist movie is all about: fooling people into thinking they're being fooled by someone else.
Had to remark on this line too... The guy says: "Do we on earth have enough resources and technological understanding to create a society of such abundance that everything we have now could be availabe without a price tag, and without the need for submission through employment? Yes, we do."
1). Bullshit
2). Back it up with some stats
3). Bullshit again
4). They failed to remark on the high likelihood that with such great abundance, people would become lazy and the society would break down, with no law or restraints to keep itself going
5). What's this "resource based economy" crap? First, it's not an economy if no one gets paid. Second, if no one gets paid, they either have to A). Use some sort of extreme socialization to provide incentives or B). Use guns, to get people to do the jobs that are needed. You can't just eliminate people from the world. You can't convert 100% heat into energy, entropy always increases, and machines break. How would this nonsense system stop some frolicing dumbass from wandering into a power plant and setting it nuclear on the whole city? This movie has earned it's label in my book...
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Feb 17 2009, 10:59 am by Vrael.
None.