UPDATE: *Season One, Two DVD Set now available. Help support future episodes: http://www.cultureindecline.com/#order Please help support this Free Media Proj…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Tags Culture decline Economics Episode Joseph Peter
Check Also
The Right Attitude for Entrepreneurship
What’s the right attitude for Entrepreneurship? This serial entrepreneur might be your angel in disguise! …
Thanks Peter! Accountability is the key…
What I don’t see is an counterargument to the reasoning that if resources
were to decline, the price in itself would progressively rise and therefore
drive a transition to alternative resources. In this sense it IS inherent
to the pricing mechanism, at least to SOME extent… to say anything
different is nothing but insane. But sure, maybe the scarcity of a resource
is ignored during some period when there’s so much of it that no body
really cares… but that in itself isn’t a guarantee that the scarcity of
the resource in the end won’t be accounted for.
I feel like Joseph was pranked by some billionaire with a huge donation
along with the feigned desire stated to see some humor injected into the
program… Although maybe they’re all like this? About to find out, they’re
still good.
Louie is my hero.
4/10
Culture in Decline | Episode #2 “Economics 101” by Peter Joseph
“You see, at the core of the economic calculation problem is really the
argument that we are completely irrational, that we can’t possibly be
organized in a way that is structurally efficient.. we’re too insane
essentially. Therefore we have to a general economic anarchy to organize
our society and there’s no other way around it…. BULLSHIT!”
Amazing episode. Now for the rest :D
Actually drugs aren’t allowed to be advertised on television anywhere in
the Western world other than the United States that I know of.
Ipoop. Greatest idea ever
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mr-ArtAtrocity/176370552453459?ref=br_tf
>Macroeconomics
Yup…mostly useless.
>Microeconomics
Mostly common sense.
When I first saw this and the Zeitgeist movies (about 7 weeks ago now), I
couldn’t help but agree with much of the criticism and all the proposed
reasons and conclusions seemed to make good sense – yet many of the
subjects were indeed out of my knowledge spectrum, and this made me very
much at unease.
Right after watching Zeitgeist: Moving Forward I felt so intimidated, not
only because of the extremely radical paradigm shift – but because I
suddenly felt a huge burden on myself to prove this enormous amount of
claims the film made.
Recently, however, I studied what might be translated to “history of
science philosophy”, and found things like positivism and guys like Popper
and Kuhn.
Positivism generally said that science should be as objective as possible,
and that we should prove everything through evidence, while Popper put
forward the idea that everything we conclude is always subjective (to be
square: because even if we have a billion tests that proves something, we
cannot be sure that it will hold true for an infinity of cases).
Therefore the most significant progress of science comes from *disproving*theories, because if a theory doesn’t hold up in all claimed areas, then
it’s surely wrong. It’s important to mention, of course, that he also
recognized that only falsifiable theories have value. Otherwise any
superstition could be claimed valid.
Generally it has put some mental pressure off of me since I’ve realized
that I’ll never achieve an objective view. I’ve just recognized that in
order to learn and adapt my knowledge, I’ll have to learn to distinguish my
concrete life experiences from my convictions and beliefs, and always be
able to question them openly. That way, I’ll be as prepared as possible for
future paradigm shifts, as new experiences unfold.
Anyway, I enjoyed this series. It has its flaws – and sometimes I feel like
it becomes a little too humorous and a little too less broadly informative
– but you still did a great job, and I hope that I’ll have researched
enough to back up all the claims TZM’s making, one day, and make my own
understanding, based on evidence I actually know of, firsthand.
I hope “The Zeitgeist Movement Defined” book will help speed up this
process, and simplify much of the confusion. Sometimes I feel like Peter
Joseph doesn’t go deep enough himself, and there probably is reasons for
that (beyond that nobody’s perfect), but overall I know that advocates of
TZM know a lot more in many subjects than I do, so I hope they’ll be able
to break it down, into an as objective and neutral way as possible.
For example, I hope that they will stick to their own advocating of logical
reasoning and actually draw lines between their own opinions, what they
have actually experienced and what they are told from other sources. For
one, I enjoyed Federico Pistono’s humility in “Robots Will Steal Your Job,
But That’s OK”, and I hope a similar one will be in this book.
Good luck, and thank you for all the effort you’ve put into this. May we
see a better future before the point of no return.
Love the theme song <3!
I believe Peter does not really understand what dynamic Pareto efficiency
implies.
Where is the evidence for a “barter” system in the neolithic? a far as I am
aware, some of the first evidences’ of ‘economy’ is in writings pertaining
indebtedness; as such, is it not logical to ascertain that the history of
economy IS the history of debt?
does he have to dress and look like a Satanist as he judges humanity. its
hard to get people to listen and the look dose turn ppl off. that fact that
he only wears black make him look a little too particular