No I meant someone who had gotten in huge trouble from the police for it.

Or, you could just give an example of someone who hides a lof of cash at home. I'd be happy with their address, where they hide it, and what time of the day they aren't at home.

I doubt if it would do any good to stash your money at home. It would only make matters worse by taking money out of circulataion.

Oh ..and I'll take out one or two disrespectful statements. I do get a bit too fired up when I watch those types of shows.

Quote:


It's OK Oceanz, I won't give you a hard time. I hope that you're feeling better today. You deserve to feel great every day.

OK. I was wondering if anybody had watched the second "Zeitgeist" movie/doco. and was looking for thoughts and opinions. If nobody has watched it, or doesn't intend to, then that's fine. I haven't even got a problem with threads moving on to different subjects, but I would've liked to at least start off by discussing the movie.

I can't really sum it up in 20 words or less, but I'll try to give an impartial view of it.
To be critical, I'd say that it's a bit boring, a bit too idealogical, nothing that I haven't seen before, there's quite a bit of movie making involved, and I don't know much about the people who provide their POV's or (so-called) facts.


On the flip side: Considering that the movie has been in the making since before the U.S. sub-prime crsis, some may call it prophetic. But of course there's nothing at all prophetic about it, it's merely realistic. We were talking about the very same things on Cracker since before the sub-prime crisis.
The movie, however, takes our discussions a step further into what one might call "planned obsolescence".

We've all heard the doomsayers, the communists, etc. talking about the folly of capitalism.
I've heard economists on the radio saying things like: "Oh..this may have exposed a fatal flaw in capitalism."  
And what is that fatal flaw? The fatal flaw is that capitalism is merely a pyramid scheme which always requires non-existent money and poor people to be created in order to survive. That may be OK for a period, however, when we reach what we may have reached now, ie: Countries cannot even afford to pay the interest on their foreign debts, the fatal flaws are exposed.
The non-existent money that the U.S. has pumped into their banking system will provide  9 x that amount for their economy. When you consider the 500+ banking companies in the U.S., the potential for loan approvals is staggering.
So the question is, can this "pyramid scheme" keep going regardless of not even being able to keep up with foreign debt interest payments? Have we reached saturation point for capitalism?

The show then goes on to talk about things like the "venus project". It's very idealogical, but who knows? If we reach for the stars, we may be at least make it to the moon.
Religious people will no doubt find a lot of the movie to be confronting, however, it's only putting on the screen that of which a lot of people (probably the majority) already think; realise religion for what it is, take the good stuff from it, and then move on to beyond the eras of their writings.
The movie's POV has a dislike for the "institutions" of religion, not religious followers or their perception of what God may be.
It would seem pretty silly to say, "that person is religious, or an atheist, so nothing they have to say is worthwhile". But some people do.



So, if you happen to watch the show sometime (maybe a rainy Sunday arvo when all that's on TV is an old gladiator movie), I'd like to hear some comments.

Not saying I dislike capitalism, but in the most pure sense of the word, capitalism is a system set up for failure from the word go.

It is impossible for capitalism to succeed.

The problem is people who study economics are generally robots and useless at being abstract. I have close family with economics degrees. They are unable to make anything better.

yes, you could say capitalism is an unachievable/self defeating goal.
And capitalism with a social conscience is an oxymoron.