Peter Joseph's documentary, 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' cites a long list of social and economic problems and then in end proposes that the great solution to all these problems is more technological automation. In other words, rather than suggesting even a single socioeconomic reform, the filmmaker claims that the best way to solve all of our economic and social problems is by simply using technology to exponentially increase unemployment. I'm not sure whether Peter Joseph is trying to be conniving, is just plain stupid, or is simply like so many other Americans who are far too fixated on the next computer gadget and irreparably brainwashed with simple-minded and delusional ideologies to come up with any genuine social and economic advances. In any case, while much of the critique in 'Zeitgeist' is valid and even undeniable, it ultimately proves to be nothing more than a 2 1/2 hour infomercial.

So, so sorry, I can't tell you if I agree with the premise of this movie or not. I couldn't, I just could not continue, so I don't know if telling you that if the movie is pathetic is a spoiler or not, maybe that was the point.You can prove quite simply that negative equals positive or that up is down or whatever contradicting premise you wish, simple or complex. You can just bend it or you can turn 90 degrees or 180 degrees or you can go back to where you started. Rhetoric is rhetoric. I am afraid I could not bare to stick with this movie long enough to see what the double talk concluded. It was too much of an insult to even low intelligence.It seemed an attempt to say, If I generally agree with most of your points? Am I supposed to agree with your premise? or your conclusion? Don't think, just agree. I've been down that road far far to many times in my life. I don't care if I agree with them or I disagree with them, this is not to me a means of intelligent conversation, or even a one sided conversation.I remember when I was still very very young, I didn't care anyway, but John Birchers use to do this. I still don't know what they were proving, but it was so simple I had far more fun turning their logic around against them.Well watch this if you are part of a flock of sheep, if you must.

With films like this, the time seems to fly by, and it doesn't seem like over 2 and a half hours has gone by at all! We start with an analysis of the "Monetary Market" which dissects the short-sighted quick-profit at the expense of earth's resources paradigm we currently exist in. It stresses the suffering caused to all sorts of people around the world, especially because so many people profit from the sale of money itself, which puts nothing back into the world, and allows very unscrupulous people to profit and exist in consummate luxury, whilst the resources of third world countries are raped and the people made to suffer. It then describes other problems looming up like the shortage of oil by 2050, and how nothing is being done about it because of the myopic nature of the current business model. It goes on to elucidate a far better way forward for mankind, with a society based on the proper management of earth's resources, a common sense approach to understanding that we all need water, food, shelter, clothing and love! It then creates such a society with our current technologies, in a model form and demonstrates its function. An excellent, all-embracing film and one which will leave you with your sentiments aligned to Peter Joseph's, hoping, willing and urging the changes to happen.

True premises (with some exceptions)+ False conclusions = INVALID argument This is the dream material of a teacher trying to exemplify logic traps and intellectual manipulation. The Single Effect Logic Trap is frequently used but a trained eye can identify many other traps.The leftist bias is overt and overwhelming neighbouring partisanship.All history teachings are ignored with the insolence that only true ignorance can spawn, however, I suspect is actually a fake ignorance.The high score is testimony of today's education level and a good measure of time dedicated to reading in our society.Just to be clear: I am not wealthy myself and I agree that extreme inequality is "toxic" for a society. I also agree that the society values and goals need a profound reevaluation, which is probably a perennial truth regardless of the societal paradigms of the moment.