<p>[ZEITGEIST:</a> MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011 - YouTube](<a href=“ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011 - YouTube”>ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011 - YouTube)
[“Zeitgeist:</a> Moving Forward”](<a href=“http://zeitgeistmovingforward.com/]"Zeitgeist:”>http://zeitgeistmovingforward.com/)</p>
<p>Well now that I’ve read the entire thread I can see that you have. Why do you care how much money someone is able to make from their profession? You have equal opportunity to achieve just as much as anyone else. Maybe your time would be better spent attempting to further your aquirement of currency and less complaining about the existence of people more successful than yourself ;)</p>
<p>Uncle, do you honestly believe that as long as you work hard you can become a millionaire? I doubt that you will even break 3 million in your entire lifetime.</p>
<p>I don’t really think you know enough about me to make an assumption such as that. To answer your question, you musn’t take my statement out of context. If you want to make multiple millions of dollars a year, your best bet would be to pick a job that can grant you that type of monetary compensation and then from there, it is only hard work and perhaps a bit of natural talent that can take you to the level to be hired for such a profession. How do you think athletes get so good at whatever event they compete in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not true and it is the reason that there is no perfect economic system. People are not equal. All people have different strengths and different weaknesses but some people have more strengths and less weaknesses than others. I know kids that are crazy smart and I know kids that are incredible athletes and I know amazing artists. I also know a few kids that are like insanely perfect at all 3. I also know kids that are dumb, nonathletic, and can’t draw a picture to save their life. I know kids that are all three of those things too. The athletic, smart kids are probably going to have more opportunities than the idiots. Living in a capitalist society, what’s probably going to happen is in ten years a lot of the dumb kids are probably still going to be making less than $10 an hour while the really talented kids are pulling six figures. Is it fair that some people are just more talented than others? No, but our economic system is based on people being better at certain tasks.</p>
<p>Uncle, before I make any further comments, let me get this straight. Do you intend to be a millionaire?</p>
<p>But at least we’re all unique.</p>
<p>I don’t agree that anyone can become a millionaire by working hard alone. It requires luck and intrinsic ability. Connections can help too. But no one needs to be a millionaire.</p>
<p>Exactly ^. No one NEEDS to be a millionaire, but it’s the people who ARE that are creating such disparity in the world’s economy today</p>
<p>My intentions after finishing my education are to find a job that I enjoy and hopefully make enough money to provide myself with a luxurious life. The exact amount of money I make in the adult world is not important to me at this moment. @notanengineer, I see you on that in respect to your comment about people having different strengths. However, I think one would be naive to think that one person is terrible and unable to be successful at every lucrative job/skill</p>
<p>@Reedan, I wasn’t angry, I was just surprised at how naive and idealisitc your post was.</p>
<p>if it weren’t for millionaire we wouldn’t be on this forum right now.</p>
<p>After having read this post thouroughly, I can rebut every point made by Reedan.</p>
<p>First of all, your OP was astonishingly naive. I will reiterate myself; by implementing the basic economic theory of supply and demand it is clear that singers, rappers, and athletes are in short supply and in high demand. How many people exist in the world who have the potential to compete in the olympics or have both looks and talent? Also, the general public in their superficial ways just love celebrities---- Hence the high demand for them.</p>
<p>Secondly, certain aspects of your arguement revolve around a very vague issue; why do people with greater potential receive more opportunities in life? The answer to that quesion lies in science; natural selection, survival of the fittest- whatever you wish to call it, is the root cause for the existance of individuals with a variety of abilities. Smart people, rich people and athletic people tend to reproduce with people similar to them. Notice how many Hollywood celebrities marry each other.</p>
<p>In general, in todays world we live under a merit based system, hence people are judged by their performance. Therefore, more productive workers earn more and less productive workers earn less. This all depends on the workers level of education, leadership abilities etc. Garbage men and sewage workers may get paid more due to their unpleasant working conditions, and anesthesiologists have high wages because of the risk factor and level skill required by their occupation.</p>
<p>However, under a communist ideaology workers are arbitarily allocated positions, and are all given the same wages. Market forces do not determine how what and for whom to produce; rather the central governing body allocates recources. As I have already pointed out, misallocation of recources and unsatisfied labour were the main cause behind the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even countries like China which operate under a communist ideaology, embrace western capitalism. Much of China’s economy operates under the market economic system including the method by which it allocates recources. </p>
<p>Although I disagree with capitalism due to low provision of merit goods and high provision of demerit goods. Most economies today are mixed therefore there are government policies in place which prevent market failure due to capitalism.</p>
<p>I admit that documentaries like Zeitergiest do have their merits. However, you should watch them with an open mind; clearly you have been influenced by it. Also i’d like to point out that Zeitergiest does not condemn capitalism, it actually speaks out against the “sytem” present within the united states. It states that the religious, political and economics institutions control the lives of the unthinking majority (Americans), and render their lives meaningless. Many countries in the world utilise certain aspects of the capitalist ideaology and are getting along just fine.</p>
<p>I do agree with you statement about the top 2% controlling 40% of the worlds recources. However reverting to communism is not the best way to combat inequality. Regressive taxation policies, minimum wage laws, and government spending are three of many policies a government can use to bridge the income gap.</p>
<p>Although a communist system like that envisioned by Karl Marx has the potential to work, as many people in this thread have stated humans are intrinsically greedy. Your communist “utopia” will never come to fruition.</p>
<p>Oh and i’m quite sure your vision of a communist state does not even compare with Karl Marx’s. His idea was actually quite feasible. Under Stalin’s rule, the Svoiet Union forgot it’s Marxist roots and instead embraced Stalin’s new policies (this may have contributed to it’s downfall). Your arguements for communism are elementary at best.</p>
<p>Uhhhh this thread makes me want to bang my head on the desk in front of me…
Reedan you argument is a joke. Youv’e been side tracked multiple times and have consistently contradicted yourself.</p>
<p>Oh btw Reedan I want to go to Ivy League schools because apparently the food is awesome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no. But it’s a nice idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking of naive idealism…</p>
<p>I’m sure it’s the pleasant working conditions of sweatshops that drive down the wages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not arbitrarily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no governing body.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With their massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, the USSR certainly did have plenty of recourses to choose from. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand how someone can type out this sentence without becoming so distraught with their extreme cognitive dissonance that they bang their head against a wall until they pass out. It’s truly impressive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, regarding this condescending statement I have quoted above; have you even looked up the wages of garbage men, sewage workers, or other workers who experience hazardous conditions everyday? Well if you had then you would have noticed that while their wages do no match those of Wall Street bankers, they are in fact significantly higher than those of your average factory or office worker. Also, sweatshops don’t really fall under the category of unpleasant working space so I don’t know where that came from. Wait, maybe I didn’t make my self clear enough, by unpleasant I meant working environments that would pose a risk to health or cause injury. I thought with my referral to sewage workers and garbage men would have made that clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Off course not arbitrarily (it was just a figure of speech) ! It may as well have been ! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Communist countries do not have a governing body. A primary characteristic of a planned economy is that resources are allocated by the public sector i.e. the government. If communist countries do not have a government then what the hell do they have ?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry I fail to see how having a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, could possibly prevent the “misallocation of resources”. I was referring stuff like food and clothing; not nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again it was simply a figure of speech, do I really have to put everything in the most literal terms possible before you can understand it? I meant that China has allowed western influences to enter it’s market, it is no longer a perfect communist state. They also trade (if not freely) with the rest of the world. Normally socialist countries do not open up their border to foreign ideologies.</p>
<p>Why do you attempt to rebut my argument if you have no idea what your talking about. Using big words and possessing a haughty manner typical of CC does not give you any sort of scholarly authority.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union Collapsed because there was too much military spending, their economy basically stagnated. Alcoholism and drug abuse was rampant regardless of economics reforms made by Gorbachev, and workers were unproductive. The on going war in Afghanistan and the Chernobyl disaster also contributed significantly to the violent uprising felt by eastern Europe. And soon a revolution to rival the one that created the USSR itself erupted and the weakened Soviet government collapsed. The USSR’s system was not reflective of the original Marxist and Leninist ideologies, rather it had been changed to a Stalinist system, which effectively removed all power from the people. One of the main pillars on which communism is based.</p>
<p>So please correct my if I’m wrong. Although it was systematic process which bought down the Soviet Union, it was predominately the unsatisfied people of Russia that had the final say. The primary factors that lead to it’s collapse were whether you believe the missallocation of resources, and the absence of the price mechanism.</p>
<p>If you still disagree with me, why don’t you provide some reasoning to say why you disagree.</p>
<p>Socialist countries don’t open their borders up? Well, someone tell that to Norway, and Sweden, and Spain, and most of Europe, to boot. They’re going to be so embarrassed when they learn they’ve been doing it wrong this whole time.</p>
<p>@Withnail</p>
<p>lol i’m sorry to disappoint you but none of the countries you have listed are officially socialist. Although those countries have a few socialist policies in place, they have not officially declared themselves socialist. By socialist I mean conservative countries that do not open their borders to international trade (one of the many characteristics of a socialist country). One such example was India (they are no longer), they did not receive any imports from outside and even had their own car brand, the Ambassador. Eventually they had a shortage of food and had to open their borders to international trade.</p>
<p>If you want socialist countries look Cuba, North Korea, Bangladesh, Syria etc.</p>
<p>Get educated mate. Peace xx.</p>
<p>My goal was to point out China as an exception: A socialist or communist country that has if tentatively opened it’s markets to the western world.</p>