Since I posted Zeitgeist, the Movie here and admitted I kinda liked it, I feel obligated to include the sequel. Zeitgeist: Addendum was released (also free of charge to all) in 2008, and this one, too, got the Best Feature Activist Spirit Award.
But I would rather disagree. In the first part of the movie, the process of money creation is described in detail. The second part is basically a long interview with John Perkins who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – a wildly controversial and criticized book. And it goes downhill from there. Then The Venus Project is described, as a possible solution to all humanity’s troubles.
The Venus Project is basically a utopia, a society where all energy problems are solved with geothermal energy, there’s no money since energy is abundant. They call it “resource based society”. I fail to see how it’s different from communist utopia, with no money or markets/buying/selling so avidly described by some Soviet science fiction writers. Supposedly, if it wasn’t for corrupt oil companies, financiers and politicians, we all could live in such heaven, since we already have the technology to build it.
I got interested in this Venus Project. I surfed their website in search of answers. How are they going to distribute resources however big they are? What about geothermal power disadvantages? Its net energy? They claim there’ll be no crime – what about latest findings of cognitive science on the nature of violence? Well, as I suspected: nothing. The whole website looks like a pretty glossy paper advertisement brochure. Looks like a fine futurology/design experiment, nothing serious. How can you put it in a documentary? And talk about it as a “solution”?
I’ve always been wary of conspirologists, and the more I live the “warier” I become. Here’s the video:
Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders is an independent documentary film by James Scurlock that chronicles abusive practices in the credit card industry. The film got the Special Jury Prize award at the South by Southwest Film Festival. This film isn’t available online, but I would highly recommend renting a DVD. For those who have Netflix subscription, it is currently available for instant play free of charge. It’s not really about the current economic crisis, or the credit crunch, or the national debt. It’s more about such facts as that most of the profit for credit card companies comes in form of fees and interest from those who pay late, or even eventually can’t pay at all.
The following video is James Scurlock giving a talk at Google about his movie. That took place on April 23, 2007.
This is a “shareware”, 30-minute version of I.O.U.S.A. – 2008 documentary by Patrick Creadon. The movie concentrates on national debt, and also discusses money creation process on which I posted earlier. It paints a picture of 4 deficits:
and then goes into details about each one. Very nicely made.
This pretty famous documentary was released free online in June 2007. Its main three topics are religion, the attack of 9/11 and the Federal Reserve bank, and views presented are rather conspirological. It won Best Feature Documentary at Activist Awards in 2007.
Although I am not a great fun of conspiracy theories, I must admit watching it was rather entertaining, so here it is:
Этот достаточно известный документальный фильм был выложен для просмотра бесплатно в июне 2007-го. В нем обсуждаются три темы: религия, террористическая атака на США 11 сентября, и Федеральный Резервная Система США, причем в довольно конспирологическом ключе. Фильм получил награду “Лучший Документальный Фильм” на церемонии Activist Awards в 2007 году.
Несмотря на то, что я критично отношусь к всевозможным “теориям заговора”, должен признать, что фильм смотреть было довольно интересно. Вот русскоязычная версия фильма на Google Video:
People rarely stop to think how money is created in modern economies. Most people think that money is created by governments. Even after watching this and a couple of similar videos I had a weak grasp on the issue. Only after giving it some thought I finally got it.
Most money is created by banks when they loan it. In essence, whenever a bank gives you a mortgage, it creates money which is added to the overall money supply and gives it to you, thus collecting interest on the money that it (nor any one else) never had, since it simply never existed before.
Here’s a line of thinking that helped me cope with it – imagine person A deposits $1000 cash into his bank account. The bank now lends this $1000 to person B. Person B deposits it in the same bank (it really doesn’t matter but it’s easier to follow this way). Now the bank yet again has $1000 on its hands, which can be lent to person C. Now we have 3 people each with a $1000 bank account which can be used to buy stuff. Granted, all this debt will have to be paid off some day, but for the moment, we’ve created additional $2000 of “money” that has purchasing power, effectively diluting the existing money and decreasing its purchasing power by 66%.
The source of the trouble is that these bank accounts are nothing but bank obligations not backed by real cash. Whenever you’re writing a check to somebody, you’re paying this person with your bank’s obligation to pay you. Obligations with purchasing power can infinitely dilute money supply and render all money worthless. To understand that, imagine you and I will loan each other a thousand dollars which we don’t have. So, you have an IOU for $1k and I have another. This is a transaction which have zero effect, until we actually start using these IOU to buy apples in a grocery store. If it’s accepted (as bank checks are), we have just created money that never existed before.
As described, the process can go on forever. In actuality, fractional reserve banking system puts some limits in place. Banks can only lend every 9 dollars out of 10 dollars of there assets which means that depositing $1 cash in the bank can create only $10 worth of money in the economy. Although additionally, when Federal Reserve “prints” and deposits $1 onto bank’s assets, it can become $9 of new loans. So, it total, every $1 printed by Federal reserve can expand into $90 dollars with actual purchasing power in form of bank loans.
This is how it works, and gold-standard money would not change that. In order to change that we should make it impossible for obligations not backed by cash to have any purchasing power. Which would mean that the money your checking accounts would not be lent to anybody and keep sitting in the bank (so you would probably pay for this privelege), and your saving accounts would not be so easily withdrawable (how can you withdraw money that has been given to somebody else?).
Everyone sub-consciously knows banks do not lend money. When you draw on your savings account, the bank doesn’t tell you you can’t do this because it has lent the money to somebody else. Mark Mansfield
According to my limited understanding, Austrian School of Economics argues for this approach which would result in constant monetary supply and a slow rate of deflation, instead of permanent inflation. Which would be totally fine since they argue that only monetary deflation hurts economies, while deflation caused by increased productivity does not.
This 4 episodes BBC documentary explores the influence of Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis on PR, marketing industries and, later, politics. It tracks the emergence and shaping of the new “consumer citizen”, and how individualism affected elections in US and Great Britain. Won 2 and nominated for 4 best documentary awards.