Cartoon for August 31, 2009
posted by Ted Rall at
12:01 AM
Animated Cartoon Archives
Monday, August 31, 2009
NEW RALLBLOG
EVENTS
- May 3, 2010 - Wright State University - Dayton OH
- May 7-8, 2010 - Ohioana Book Festival - Columbus OH
- June 16-19, 2010 - Association of American Editorial Cartoonists - Portland OR
- BOOK TED RALL FOR YOUR EVENT
BUY A CUSTOM-SIGNED COPY--BOOK SHIPS IMMEDIATELY!
RECENT BOOKS
TED RALL SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE
TED'S TWEETS
Previous Posts
- Cartoon for August 29, 2009
- Cartoon for August 27, 2009
- Ted Kennedy RIP
- NEW ANIMATION: E Stultus Unum
- SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Guns of August
- Next Animation: Town Hall Terror!
- After Six Years
- Cartoon for August 24, 2009
- Ted Rall Video Interview
- Cartoon for August 22, 2009
CONTACT
RSS
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
Links
- AAEC
- Asia Times
- Cartoonists with Attitude
- Common Dreams
- Crooks and Liars
- EurasiaNet
- NBM's Cartoonist Blog
- Greg Palast
- Rude Pundit
- Smirking Chimp
- Cole Smithey
- Paul Tullis (Plenty)
Cartoonists
- Kirk Anderson
- Jennifer Berman
- Justin Bilicki
- Ruben Bolling
- Matt Bors
- Clay Butler
- Steven Cloud
- Lloyd Dangle
- Jeff Danziger
- derf
- Barry Deutsch
- Tim Eagan
- Mark Fiore
- Ed Hall
- Keith Knight
- Tim Krieder
- Brian McFadden
- Stephanie McMillan
- Eric Millikin
- Kevin Moore
- Stephen Notley
- Joel Pett
- August J. Pollak
- Mikhaela Reid
- Ben Sargent
- Jim Siergey
- Andy Singer
- Abell Smith
- Jen Sorensen
- Scott Stantis
- R. Stevens
- Tak Toyoshima
- Tom Tomorrow
- J.P. Trostle
- Shannon Wheeler
- Signe Wilkinson
- Jason Yungbluth
U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
- Actual Unemployment Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
- Actual Inflation Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
31 Comments:
The answer is very simple. The question of specifically WHO is doing well is never in the public discourse. It's always "the economy." Individuals aren't discussed, unless they are interviewing people who are being laid off, etc. Never is it discussed or identified who specifically is doing just fine, or who's profits are growing, because that would give the rest of us a clear target to question how those people maintain wealth while so many millions continue to experience an inter generational decline in overall quality of life and sense of well being.
To do so is SOCIALIST, or COMMUNIST..to question why it's OK that a very small group ALWAYS makes out like bandits.
So the question is: In who's interest is it that anybody who questions outcomes of the current political and economic system called a socialist, communist -now a nazi for cripes sake!!!- or other popular bogeyman reference?
The answers are very clear, and yet there is an entire army of zombies waiting to pounce all over me for commenting at all.
Made me chuckle. The last panel kind of made me think of Pompeii. I wonder if some merchant schmuck said the same thing then. haha!
Careful, Ted! Most people don't see armageddon coming like us paranoids, conspiracy nuts and Veterans of recent wars (which still includes Vietnam, in case George H. W. (Fucking) Bush thinks Desert Storm made us put Vietnam "behind us." Ted, you're only enhancing the mainstream's label of your work as controversial when you picture armageddon. Regardless, the end IS close. VERY close. Don't bother repenting, folks of religious persuasion. There's no freaking GAHD! By the way, what is it with this generation? Every exclamation is "Oh, m' gahd!" It isn't Dick Cheney ranting out his ass that Obama has it all wrong. It isn't the lousy economy, corporate bailouts and a divided nation determined to destroy health care reform. The defining indicator that our country is about to expire, never to return to those good old days of yesteryear, is Walgreens Drug Stores setting up FULL HALLOWEEN DISPLAYS ON AUGUST 21st! Yes, fellow Americans, according to an American institution, the Walgreens Drug Store chain, we need a full TEN WEEKS to prepare for one night (if it doesn't rain) of buying and throwing away candy. And let's not forget the late Bill Hick's reminding us that Easter is about a huge rabbit leaving chocolate eggs for our children in the night. Has any politician ever warned America about its dependency of foreign sugar? Where's the Tylenol?
Anon, we have no dependency on foreign sugar, thanks to the embargo against Cuba. All of that candy has corn syrup in it, which is killing us all. I predict that in 20-30 years we will see a massive increase in the prevalence of liver disease.
The reason? High Fructose Corn Syrup is identified by your body as a poison, and sent to the liver for processing....just like alcohol. It's like we're all severe alcoholics....THAT is why Americans are so obese and unhealthy, picture what a person's body would look like if you simply took half the nutritional impacts of alcohol and applied them.
I pray every day for a dependency on foreign sugar....specifically . . .cane sugar.
I think they are saying the economy is doing OK because many companies after laying off gazillions of workers and working what is left of their labor force to death, they are starting to turn a profit which is in actuality is cost savings that is resulting in the shrinkage of the economy.
Even when the economy start to grow again, it will be jobless recovery because more jobs will be offshored and the resulting profits will not be shared with the workers but kept at the top.
So, we will see a steady decline in the living standards, the continuing errosion ot the middle class and chronic unemployment, but there will not be any collapse.
Aggie Dude,
Looks like we are on the same boat in respects to HFCS.
Said Aggie Dude:
Anon, we have no dependency on foreign sugar, thanks to the embargo against Cuba.
Well that, and punitive tariffs against other Latin American sugar producers and, last but not least, huge subsidies to Midwest corn farmers, thanks to the Department of Agriculture.
Greetings from mostly HFCS-free South America.
Agreed, Incitatus, very relevant. massive corn subsidies to midwest farmers have massive effects, not just on HFCS, but the issue of e.coli in cattle (who wouldn't have the problem if fed grass instead), corn based ethanol production, which was a stupid and costly adventure but some people got filthy rich, so I guess it's a success, and the overconsumptive use of water in the area because corn is a water intensive crop.
Corn subsidies and their tariff counterparts are examples of special interest lobbying to government (and government's collusion with big agribusiness) to secure insane profits at the expense of the health and welfare of individual citizens and the environment they live in.
One could look at every aspect of American life and see the same patterns of corporate fascism/feudalism at work -the collusion of large businesses with government to reduce risks to their ever increasing profit margins at the expense of the health and well being of citizens.
Any attempt to raise this issue, even to people who claim to actively engage as citizens, brings calls of "socialist" and now "nazi"
Careful Aggie. Saying the words "corporate fascism/feudalism" will send Incitatus into corp. apologist mode. To him, it seems the government can do no right, and the corporation can do no wrong...
Personally, I believe the corp. can do no right because it's mandated to seek profit (and the best way to do that is to externalize costs, i.e. shit on everybody.) The government, on the other hand, could theoretically be used for good--its mandate could be whatever we want it to be.
.THAT is why Americans are so obese and unhealthy
Have you looked at the pictures posted on your blog?I'm assuming you are the one named "Dave".
BTW when you move to Sacramento, you can see first hand what liberals have done to the state budget. When you are in the central valley, you can swing by some of the farms that had their water allocation reduced to zero and are being sacrificed to save a fish.
[S]ome of the farms that had their water allocation reduced to zero and are being sacrificed to save a fish.
So? I don't know the specifics of this example, but don't fish have a right to exist?
Sacramento is an arid area. It might make sense to let the fish keep their water--even if someone doesn't get to "make" money.
Said Aggie:
Any attempt to raise this issue, even to people who claim to actively engage as citizens, brings calls of "socialist" and now "nazi"
Aggie, there's nothing wrong with calling attention to this unholy alliance of big business with omnipresent government. And, of course, getting big business in bed with overpowering government is what Fascism was all about. Any sensible person should be able to see that, not the least people who, like me, believe the free market is the conduit to general prosperity and economic fairness.
Grouchy, aside from being very bad at second guessing folks you're very naive. Get over that "cost externalization" meme you got from indymedia and learn some real economics.
Grouchy,
I can give you infinite number of examples of corporations/businesses doing good by producing products people want and providing jobs. Government agencies function by stealing money from productive people and piss it away into a dark hole (see social security) Your precious government cannot do anything right.
Give me an example of a corporation "producing products people want and providing jobs," and I'll probably find a government subsidy backing it up. As alluded to by Aggie, we're living under a system of corporate fascism/feudalism.
So you're into "real economics," Incitatus? The abstract kind that has no bearing on physical reality? (You love to knock the idea of cost externalization without refuting any facts. Go see http://www.storyofstuff.com and explain to me what's wrong with this simple and straightforward analysis of the economy.)
Ah Grouchy, now you've changed the argument. If we are going to talk (again) about corporate welfare, I have never supported it. Do you even know what Facism is? I think I understand why you are where you are economically.
Grouchy, every sensible person should agree that subsidies have no place in a free and fair (and they both go together) economy. You certainly won't hear a peep from me in favor of 'em.
Now, since you're so fond of the notion of cost externalization, please enlighten as to how it only benefits corporations (if by that you mean, publicly-traded, stock-issuing, limited liability companies) and not just any private business. Or, for that matter, a state-run business like Government Motors.
Fascism is the collusion of a totalitarian state and private corporate interests. That's what Italy and Germany were. Nationalism and racist, populist jingoism are surface features, but corporate/capitalist economic systems build the structure.
Read Roger Griffin's The Nature of Fascism if you want to know what fascism is.
Incitatus seems to understand this. But then he goes off on some strange bit about the "the free market" being a "conduit to general prosperity and economic fairness."
There is no "free market," and there never has been. And I'd hardly call the relatively unregulated markets of the 19th and early 20th centuries times of "general prosperity and economic fairness."
Grouchy, every sensible person should agree that subsidies have no place in a free and fair (and they both go together) economy. You certainly won't hear a peep from me in favor of 'em.
Now, since you're so fond of the notion of cost externalization, please enlighten as to how it only benefits corporations (if by that you mean, publicly-traded, stock-issuing, limited liability companies) and not just any private business. Or, for that matter, a state-run business like Government Motors.
Cost externalization doesn't just help corporations, but I single them out because they are mandated to make as large a profit as possible (only enjoyed by their stock holders) and they operate in secrecy. They are often totalitarian organizations and non-share holders have no control over their actions. Since they seek to maximize short term profit, they're not so worried about the mess they make--often the government is left to clean it up. What you have in the US is a government/corporate system where the corporation takes all the spoils, and the government/general population absorbs the system's cost externalization.
Our government is fucked-up (largely because of corp. influence), but it could theoretically function democratically to effect policies that would be in the interest of the general good. (Look at Western Europe.)
This can not be said of the corporation. By nature it is designed to enrich a minority at the expense of society as a whole.
Grouchy,
"--" is not proper punctuation
There should be a comma after "By nature"
"Short term" should be "short-term"
Wrong again.
"--" is proper punctuation. Blogger doesn't support the em dash on my platform.
When an actual em dash is unavailable, a double hyphen-minus ("--") may be used.
You look like a moron when you keep correcting my grammar--and keep getting it wrong. (There. I used the double hyphen-minus as an em dash again.)
Ah yes, I forgot the old "when Blogger doesn't support the em dash on my platform, -- may be used instead" rule. I'm sure that rule was in my 8th grade English class.
PS, I'm in my 30's and make more ;)
I forgot, "There." is not a complete sentence.
I'm done, Troll.
Troll is not capitalized. Unless of course your "platform" doesn't support small t's in a sentence with three words, a coma and an apostrophe and the word is German.
There is no "free market," and there never has been.
That might be true, in the absolute sense, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for that goal. The argument that "there has never been true socialism" doesn't seem to deter socialists from trying to steer us into that misguided direction, for instance.
That might be true, in the absolute sense, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for that goal. The argument that "there has never been true socialism" doesn't seem to deter socialists from trying to steer us into that misguided direction, for instance.
True. But social democracy does exist. I just read about Denmark's government in a book called Travel as a Political Act.
Denmark has high tax rates, but they expect and receive excellent social services. By almost every measure, they enjoy a better quality of life than Americans, and polls consistently say they're "happier" (though I must confess that I'm a little skeptical about any poll's ability to measure "happiness").
Some leftists call themselves "Social Anarchists," and see a path to eventual anarchism through socialist reform. It's interesting to note that Denmark tolerates Christiania, arguably the world's largest and most successful anarchist commune.* Maybe the Danes are on to something.
But, Incitatus, what exactly do you mean by the "free market," an anarchist commune like Christiania? Or do you mean a world full of unregulated corporations? (The latter sounds like hell to me.)
You spend a lot of time defending corporations (which wouldn't exist without governments anyway), and I've never heard a "free marketeer" articulate a comprehensible vision of what their imaginary world would look like. Too often it just sounds like they've got a good scam that they know could be better if only "the government" would get off their back...
-----------------
*Anarchist commune: I just realized how quickly one might call such a phrase an oxymoron. But I think this is revelatory about the popular notion of "anarchism." The truth is, we're wired to be social animals, and any type of society we form will have to involve some degree of cooperation--even if it's as base as one group's pooling of resources to oppress another group...
grouchy, you will find this is where incitatus stops responding.
Said Grouchy:
But, Incitatus, what exactly do you mean by the "free market," an anarchist commune like Christiania? Or do you mean a world full of unregulated corporations? (The latter sounds like hell to me.)
An anarchist commune would be perfectly fine in a free society, provided you don't force me to live or work in one.
Said Angelo:
grouchy, you will find this is where incitatus stops responding.
Oops, I did it again!
I'd say Angelo remains correct, Incitatus. This is the point where you stop engaging. Your vague reply ignores my challenge to hear a positive (and plausible) vision of the "free market."
I'm actually much more pragmatic and open-minded than you might think. (The appeal of this forum is the chance to indulge [and exorcise] a desire to dogmatically spar with those who hold different ideas.)
But I do remain opposed to free market ideology--it fails to hold together as a coherent idea, and my real-world experience leads me to suspect its professional proponents are flim-flam artists.
I'd say Angelo remains correct, Incitatus. This is the point where you stop engaging. Your vague reply ignores my challenge to hear a positive (and plausible) vision of the "free market."
Engage I will, then, real life be damned. I repeat I have no "vision", because I don't have a neatly laid out plan of how the world should function. Historically, this has always led to bloodshed and tyranny. I do wish for a society where people are free to trade in the manner and terms they see fit, free from interference from an overbearing third-party. The legal system should, of course, provide for punishing fraud and coercion in these interactions. I don't think that in a society like this people would be swathed in brotherly love, though. I'm no Utopian.
I value liberty much more than equality. Actually, I don't care much for equality, except equality in the eyes of the law, blind justice and all that jazz.
I'm actually much more pragmatic and open-minded than you might think. (The appeal of this forum is the chance to indulge [and exorcise] a desire to dogmatically spar with those who hold different ideas.)
A pragmatic and open-minded person would hardly use a term like "surplus value", which should have been relegated to the proverbial trash can of history.
But I do remain opposed to free market ideology--it fails to hold together as a coherent idea, and my real-world experience leads me to suspect its professional proponents are flim-flam artists.
Was Ludwig von Mises a flim-flam artist? Was Friedrich Hayeck one? The free market idea (not ideology: those thinkers restricted themselves to economic thinking, not whole concepts of how the world is or should be) is very simple to understand: people should be able to trade freely, if they're not scamming or extorting the other party. We can debate nuances and subtleties such as "information asymmetry" or whether a truely free market is attainable. But that's not how you come out, more often than not: you sound like a bona fide Bolshevik militant straight from the 30s.
Your real-world experience seems also to be at odds with your naive description of what life working for a large corporation is like. It also doesn't square with your professed admiration for the Western Europe social democracies. You do know that in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands there are large corporations that hold their stockholders interests very dearly, don't you? You do know that there are rich people that send their kids to private schools in those places too, right?
Now, how's that for an engagement?
I just wrote a long reply to all your points, but I've deleted it and decided to replace it with this:
Our differences arise from our core values. Unlike you, I value liberty as well as equality. If I have to accept the idea that the two are opposing forces, then I say that the two must be balanced.
This seems to be an impasse that we're not going to overcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home