1. Questions about the production of money.
In the film, the original ten billion became ninety billion, but can the real amount of money be calculated like this? Although repeated loans and deposits increase the total amount of money, at the same time, the bank reserves are also increasing. In fact, isn't the currency that can actually enter the market as real and virtual currency for circulation is decreasing? If money does not enter the market and is not in circulation, will it also cause inflation? How did the constant deposits and loans produce money?
2. The bank does take out loans and feeds on interest. If, as mentioned in the movie, all currency is generated by loans, then it will not be able to be settled on the natural maturity date. But isn't the person (or institution) that borrowed the government in the first place? If the government can periodically increase its loans to the Federal Reserve based on the current average interest situation, increase the society's money supply, and transfer the money to those groups with the greatest pressure on loans, wouldn't this problem be solved? But it seems that the US government's deficit growth is much higher than the average interest rate, and it has not solved their cyclical economic crises? Is interest really the root cause of the economic crisis? In addition, it is obvious that it is unlikely that social loans will be due at the same time. Is it possible to continuously repay each other with different debts at different times to achieve a permanent, cyclical stability?
3. The film says that inflation is essentially an exploitation of the people. But if all the newly added money is distributed to the poor, according to the proportional theorem, isn’t the amount of money held by the poor in the money of the whole society increasing? Isn't this the effect of balancing the distribution of material wealth in society?
4. Does scarcity necessarily exist in capitalist society? Is scarcity the driving force behind the operation of capitalism? Marx thought that the capitalist mode of production would inevitably lead to exploitation and class contradictions, but later we developed this contradiction at least to a certain extent within the company, for example, through trade unions and other forms. At least everyone is dependent on each other. What about the scarcity of resources? Is this really the fundamental attribute of capitalism, is it hopeless? If this is the case, then why based on historical experience, most industries have a stage of over-expansion? It seems that the lack of supply can only be regarded as a characteristic of a monopoly economy, right? And it's still relatively inadequate, right? Excessive production and consumption will cause waste. Can't this also be regarded as the effect of the monetary system on production and material distribution? Is it really impossible for the monetary system to achieve efficient material distribution?
5. This question is seen in Ma Yuan's textbook. There are some relations. I also ask: Is competition really inevitable in a capitalist society? Even in a society where there is a comprehensive state monopoly, a thorough and comprehensive audit mechanism and a sophisticated and absolutely fair income distribution system formulated by the official authority of the competition?
6. It is said in the film that various high-tech ways of obtaining energy can completely liberate people from energy shortages. Then how can these technologies be popularized? How to maintain it? How much manpower and resources will it consume? Does the current society have this technological strength? In addition, we also know that in today's society where science and technology are the primary productive forces, all technologies are patented. Who owns the patents for these technologies? Can we still say that scientific patents are a legitimate social incentive mechanism at this time?
8. The various suggestions on actions mentioned in the film are indeed very practical and feasible. But when can we achieve the result of subverting the monetary system by doing so? As analyzed in the film, where there is currency circulation, there is debt and slavery. Where there is a company, there is profit and there is shortage and competition; but in this modern world, we cannot live without money. At the same time, we basically have all material production. All are carried out by the company, and the company uses technology monopoly to prevent others from intervening in the production chain. This is a system of self-promotion, self-regulation, self-circulation, and development. This is a closed chain. To break it, there must be a breakthrough. Where is the mouth? Really like the film said, propagate some viewpoints and theories that only a higher level of cultural literacy can understand, and without a professional background that cannot be thoroughly understood, can the problem be finally solved? Material existence determines social consciousness. People must rely on the production relations existing in the current society to develop themselves. This is inevitable, and the degree of change that can be made is very small, if one cannot master science and technology or political power. So how to solve this problem?
In fact, asking the back can't be regarded as a problem. Right to take notes...
View more about Zeitgeist: Addendum reviews
