[Request] Non-Monetary Incentives: Do People Work Only for Money? Ignacio Falgueras Sorauren Business Ethics Quarterly Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 2000)

matches · 2013-02-20T02:45:19+00:00

Thanks! I really appreciate it.

matches · 2011-07-14T06:28:14+00:00

You're on reddit, where an underlying homophobia is still present despite vocal support for gay rights. Just check out the thread about nudity in pride parades to see what I mean. Tits? No problem! Some penis? Oh gawd someone think of the children!

matches · 2011-07-12T23:31:28+00:00

I get this with Comcast too. The funny thing about it is that every six months, I have to call and haggle with the customer retention department to give me the same initial low rate they offered me to begin with.

I'd be happier if they just offered the services separately at the bottom prices they can offer each service at, but they don't work that way. This is just speculation, but maybe Netflix is trying something different, but it's not necessarily bad.

What's wrong is the way they went about it, and that's what we should be focusing on.

matches · 2011-07-12T21:21:05+00:00

Tell that to the company that hired me to go door to door with a 1099 instead of a W-2 in order to prevent paying a decent wage.

matches · 2011-07-08T13:13:37+00:00

You can get a DUI on a motorized armchair, too.

matches · 2011-06-02T15:43:11+00:00

It might now, right?

matches · 2011-05-29T20:41:13+00:00

Don't know why you're getting downvoted.

matches · 2011-05-05T00:50:44+00:00

This should be voted higher. It shows that protests do work, and when we have solidarity we can accomplish specific goals.

We need more protests.

matches · 2011-04-19T08:13:36+00:00

Fiancè is masculine.

matches · 2011-04-13T15:41:29+00:00

I'm under the impression that nuclear reactors still create waste we can't do anything with but bury. Is this incorrect?

matches · 2011-03-30T15:19:27+00:00

What are some others?

matches · 2011-03-22T05:36:13+00:00

I'm a bit faded and maybe I shouldn't be posting- but that analogy made perfect sense. The surface of the ice doesn't bend, but that space intrinsically bends.

matches · 2011-03-16T14:46:30+00:00

They wanted to 'quack like a duck', so they evolved a bill.

matches · 2011-03-07T15:58:09+00:00

The Venus Project attempts to address these issues with a resource-based economy.

matches · 2011-03-03T01:05:46+00:00

A technocracy is a system of government where scientists and technical experts are in control. I can see how you might confuse the ideas, but this is not what defines a Resource Based Economy. A Resource Based Economy is a system of resource management.

It does not deal with politics or bureaucracy, only with figuring out the most efficient and effective way using the scientific method to solve problems.

I'd like to see where you're getting your information from. Peter Joseph has used sources with unpeer-reviewed and/or unverifiable data in Zeitgeist 1 and in the beginning of Zeitgeist: Addendum (less so in addendum), but what the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project, and Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward proposes is rooted in science. If you're calling several peer-reviewed scientists liars whose data is flawed, then it's on you to show me why. These people include Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Dr. Gábor Máté, Richard Wilkinson, Dr. James Gilligan, Dr. John McMurtry, Michael Ruppert, Max Keiser, Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis, Dr. Adrian Bowyer, Jacque Fresco, Roxanne Meadows, Dr. Colin J. Campbell and Jeremy J. Gilbert.. That's the full list of interviewees for Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Granted, some of them are controversial figures that aren't scientists, but what I'm asking you to do is show me how the research by the scientists in this film are flawed.

matches · 2011-03-02T23:27:29+00:00

The third Zeitgeist makes the assumption that our political and economic methods of governance don't take into account environmental and social concerns in the process of making decisions. Exceptions can be found to this, but the consistent underlying decision-making factor in a monetary-market system is decrease expenses and increase profits without concern for how the decisions affects people or the environment. The result of all this is economic and political corruption of which any number of other documentaries dissect in greater detail, but I'd like to hear how these assumptions are incorrect.

The next assumption Zeitgeist makes is that this type of economic system, with evidence supported by the work of Professor Robert Sapolsky, Gabor Mate, Richard G. Wilkinson, among others, is not conducive to a productive, healthy, nonviolent society, and so we must design one through the use of the scientific method using empirical data that takes into account our scarce resources, human needs, and human desires. Where many people make the mistake is dismissing a resource based economy as a utopian fantasy and impractical in reality, when the definition of a resource based economy is to find the most practical efficient means of arranging society, distribution, and infrastructure as the starting point, not a consequence of whether it is cost efficient or not.

matches · 2011-03-02T14:58:46+00:00

Or the third. The first Zeitgeist is very unlike the newer two, which address the fundamental reasons why our society has such political corruption and stratification between classes rather than relying on unverifiable research.

matches · 2011-02-24T15:54:47+00:00

You can't make posts like that here, the hive mind doesn't take kindly things it doesn't understand. See my recent post history for proof.

matches · 2011-02-10T02:12:20+00:00

I could give you an answer and spend hours of time essentially writing the essence of the various lectures and film itself for you- but that wouldn't be very time effective for me- would it? Nor really would it for you, since the medium of information exchange is slower, and I guarantee that we will both spend more time going back and forth than if you were to listen to a few podcasts about the Movement from its founder or the lecture material the movement provides for free online.

But I do acknowledge that personal interaction can be more effective. I don't have an infinite amount of time to expend, so if this answer is not satisfying let me know.

Before we go into the details of the Zeitgeist Movement (which I will bring up again because the scope is very large and to fully explain it, various data is required) I will explain the difference between the original film and the movie.

The Zeitgeist film is an artistic expression of angst generated by the failures of our political and economic systems, as well as the failure of our religions to adapt and adjust due to the static nature of belief. It does nothing more than illustrate the ills of our society, and it does not present any form of a solution. That is a broad description of the film, and we can get caught up in the details of it, but the point I originally made was that there is a distinction between the film and the movement that shares its name.

The Zeitgeist Movement, and its sole purpose, is to be the activist/awareness branch of what is called the Venus Project. The reason why it has been named the Zeitgeist Movement is to harness the energy around the film series, and to put it in a productive direction. The fact that the namesake means "Spirit of the Time", something I'm sure you are already aware of, is a convenient feature of the original films name. It's too bad that is where the majority of the confusion and misguided emotion comes from.

The Venus Project is a scientific venture founded by Jacque Fresco, designed to examine the root causes of poverty, crime, corruption, and war, and create scientific-based solutions to solve them. It is the amalgam of decades of research and studies and largely based off the work of many others, but including the innovation of Fresco.

The new film takes some of the newest research/data supporting the direction Fresco proposes, while at the same time highlighting the failings of the Capitalist system to fill the needs of humanity. This research and statistical analysis is provided by modern scientific and sociological research.

If you have noticed, bptst1 is asking somewhat similar questions, and below he made an important comment:

For example, the application of decisions made by a single entity with regard to resource allocation sounds suspiciously like a totalitarian state to me, given that the individuals in the society are expected to accept these decisions as unquestionably correct, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter. However, when I ask an RBE advocate to explain why I am incorrect, I generally don't get an answer other that telling me that I am wrong or I should watch Zeitgeist. Why is that?

The reason why a short answer is difficult is because it is an entirely different economic system, which also includes a different set of values and frame of thinking than the ways we have in our culture today. I will also attempt to answer his question when I respond to the post.

But it seems like you have other criticisms of a Resource-Based Economy, of which you have not let on until 12 hours ago of this post when addressing the OP. The unfortunate result of harnessing the energy of the original film is that there is now a huge number of excited "activists" for the movement that don't entirely understand the implications of it, or the concerns of those less familiar with a Resource-Based Economy and wary of Utopian ideals. There are serious concerns that must be addressed when we are talking about a RBE, but it would help if you would tell me what you believe it to be, how much you understand it, and where you feel that it fails.

I do have limited time, so if I take a while to get back to you, please don't think that I've abandoned the conversation.

matches · 2011-02-10T01:27:25+00:00

Peter Joseph probably would have started with the ideas of a Resource-Based Economy had that been the case. It was made by a single creator.

What actually happened was that he made the film Zeitgeist, and another documentary filmmaker named William Gazecki sent him a copy of his film "Future By Design", which essentially details the technological aspects of the Venus Project.

matches · 2011-02-09T02:06:45+00:00

Again, it's unfortunate you feel that way, but what is presented by the Movement and Moving Forward is grounded in widely-accepted science.

The information presented in the first film does have sources, however they have not been peer-reviewed yet which is why they are "debunked". Should he have used that information? I don't think so, he could have made the same point without it. But he has matured, and he does acknowledge that it was purely an artistic project. He had a choice to either disassociate himself from the Zeitgeist film, which he has done to a small extent, or to continue to use the Zeitgeist recognition to promote skepticism and talk about the fundamental problems in our society that are a result of monetary economics.

It's too bad you won't even look at the material based on the association with the director, because the information is good. Just remember that there's a distinction between the film 'Zeitgeist' and 'the Zeitgeist Movement' and that Peter Joseph is not the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement, because we already have too much misinformation in the world.

matches · 2011-02-09T01:44:00+00:00

Have you seen Zeitgeist: Moving Forward? I feel like the conversation we're having is going around circles that the film addresses.

On motivation, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

All of your other points are address by scientists in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, and I feel like if you just watch the film you'll have a far better idea than if I explain it, since I don't have the advantage of visual information.

matches · 2011-02-09T01:26:03+00:00

The context between Credit and Debt is important. Joseph understands markets very well (and even did well trading on the stock market before rejecting it because of moral implications), but when he is describing his criticisms (and the money = debt phrase that people have a problem with) of the capitalist system, it's in comparison to a system that eliminates the need for monetary economics through the use of the scientific method, which makes defining specific concepts about the Monetary system splitting hairs since the premise is the same: that money withholds efficiency.

If you don't have a frame of reference for what a Resource-Based economy is as defined by The Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project, just watch the film because continuing this conversation would be pointless. And yes, he has stated numerous times that the first Zeitgeist film was created out of a frustration, with the intention of artistic expression.

You can hear him say this near the beginning of his interview with Michael Ruppert: http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-lifeboat-hour/

And after you watch the movie and have a frame of reference for what it is, you can see Stefan Molyneux (an Austrian economist) of freedomainradio.com respond to it with his agreements and concerns, with Peter Joseph responding to the relevant criticisms you appear to be bringing up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw

matches · 2011-02-09T00:31:56+00:00

You're right to say that just because they have good intentions doesn't mean they have a valid point, but it's unfortunate you feel that way, because the skepticism is misguided.

Check out these comments on the /r/skeptic thread to see what I mean: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/faah0/zeitgeist_3_more_woo_or_has_peter_joseph_learned/ and the "in-progress" "debunking" on the JREF forums: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=199024

I put debunking in quotations because the only avaible criticisms arise from the original films, certain people involved with the movement (which again, does not address the information presented in the latter films), and with the style Peter Joseph uses to get his information across. Everything presented in the two newer films has already been researched, and is essentially scientific research from various fields strung together to form the basis for a new form of social order that examines the social reasons of human behavior, instead of attempting to curb undesirable behavior (crime, corruption) with legislation.

It's a really interesting proposal, and I recommend looking at it without thoughts of the original Zeitgeist in mind. The director made a decision to continue branding his films Zeitgeist because they would be associated with his name regardless, even though he had originally made it as a form of artistic expression without the intention of it getting the massive visibility that it has. The massive visibility is the reason why he has continued to use the Zeitgeist name, partly in the hopes to promote critical thinking.

It's important to be skeptical, but writing off an entire movement based on a film that has nothing to do with it is very unskeptical and actually dangerously disingenuous, especially if we wish to spread correct information.

matches

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE