pretty well done, and sadly all too true
http://motherjones.com/media/2010/11/comic-book-slideshow/01
page nine makes a interesting point don’t you think
http://motherjones.com/media/2010/11/comic-book-slideshow/09
Nice!
:thumb:
No worries, corporate profits are back up to near record highs. Not by making a new bubble but by cutting “costs”. The free marketers keep rambling on … 
(Not sure how this pertains to design though.)
the bit on page 9 about folks going from being owners to just consumers…
Wow, I guess I never realized how liberal this forum was. Ever wonder what the “invisible hand” really is? Write this down: Its greed. However, its not the greed you’re thinking. Its the people who over leverage themselves with mortgages they can’t afford. Its the credit card junkie who must have the latest and greatest whatever. Its the guy who works at Walmart making payments on a $40,000 vehicle. I have entry level employees who own Iphones. I drove a crappy vehicle for 10 years while I built my business. Not one of my employees would be seen in a 10 year old rusty car. Now that I’m doing well, the government puts a target on my back by labeling me “rich”, and tells the country I need to pay more. Incidentally, I’ll go out on a limb and say that I probably pay more in taxes than most of you earn.
Most of you are being paid by “greedy capitalists”. How many of you are working in the design department of a government agency? Take a look at the very richest people this country has ever produced: Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many, many more. These people have helped millions of others. Their contributions have/will continue decades after they die. For every corrupt capitalist there must be 100 thieving, lying politicians (dem and rep). Ok, I’m done.
Its easy to look at one or two posts and make assumptions about the demographic of the forum, but that isn’t really fair. I think you’ll find an even mix on the boards here. (Check the Global Warming/Red Herring thread for example…)
yeah, you’re probably right. Had lots of coffee this morning.
he has some points, our society is based around over consumption RIGHT NOW. In many respects we are a land of 3 year old who want, want and will not be happy unless the wants are fulfilled. The wants don’t have to be products of value, or even well conceived or constructed as long as its new and just a little better than their peers. The bankers, and brokers that are pilloried in that cartoon are just the top level of the 3 year old’s, with huge wants and the opinion that their wants supersede all others. Some few of the Uber rich do take some of their massive incomes and do good with it, and the high tech world seems to be better by far than the industrial rich of the past (but Carnegie did a pretty good job in the end). To me its a battle between base human nature (I want want want) and a deeper appreciation for true value. In the end prince or pauper we all end up in the same place, recycled via a hole in the ground or vaporization.
Beanworks: You have to take a system level look at the problem to understand what is going on. Looking back at history, wages have stagnated at 1970’s level. However, a capitalist economy requires 3% yearly growth. On top of that, asset prices were driven up by other market forces. Therefore, the only way to propel this growth without redistributing wealth was for the lower and middle class to use debt to fuel the economy. It is not insignificant that in 1980, household debt including mortgages was $40k and in 2008 it was $130k (not sure if those figures are dollar adjusted, but best case, debt is 2x what it was in 1980).
Also, FDR devalued the dollar 40% early in his first administration in order to liberate some of this debt and make the economy more competitive. Due to international wealth being held mostly in dollars today, there is enormous pressure to keep the US from taking the same policy. Inflation is our only salvation.
Indeed he does. My comment was only directed at his Left leaning remark, that’s all. I’ve fixed my quote above.
I may be taking your statement the wrong way but if i was earning enough to be paying that much in taxes i probably wouldn’t have many complaints.
but i agree with the iphone statement… i still have a gen1 razr!
O rly? Sounds like you are jumping to conclusions.
Are you saying that for every person who was over-leveraged there wasn’t a “greedy capitalist” lending them the money, something that should not have been done in the first place? Are you saying that corporate profits aren’t currently at near record highs?
It is a two-way street and has little to do with being liberal or conservative.
O rly? Sounds like you are jumping to conclusions. Again. You don’t happen to look like this guy, do you?
Mr-914 nice try. I’m sure you got an “A” in economics. However, this kind of convoluted thinking, as impressive as it seems, really doesn’t reflect reality. Here goes: A man or woman provides goods or services to the world. The world either finds value in these goods/services or it doesn’t. The degree to which it finds value determines what the person will earn. The best, brightest, greediest, or most talented will rise to the top. Top athletes, pop stars, whatever, are not affected by any of the economic metrics you can conjure up.
Liberals find ways to place a claim on the individual’s value and in doing so demand redistributive solutions. This creates the convoluted reasoning by which personal wealth is confiscated. Example: Rush Limbaugh (or Howard Stern), love em or hate em, they provide a service that is very valuable. On the other hand we have NPR. they do NOT create enough value to be self sustaining (and don’t go on and on about it being commercial free. They accept any advertising money they can find i.e. George soros). So the NPR argument goes something like this: The world needs a balanced voice so the people must sponsor our efforts, therefore tax money must be confiscated for this noble cause. Of course the argument is much more sophisticated. Really, in a world with hundreds of unused cable channels and unlimited reach via the internet, is there really any reason to justify funding such a one-sided agenda?
Iab, Extra credit for the “Office Space” reference.
yup, guess I am a born again waldenite 
Oh as to “pay more taxes than you make in a year” guess that would depend on the year, I made some very nice change from a few licensed patents in the 80’s and 90’s. Oh let keep the land of the mcmansion because after all you NEED 3000 square feet just for yourself after all a 800 sf closet is just, well criminal. Ok ya I know nothing quite like a “born again” whore, or reformed smoker but you know when its all said and done its not the things that we own in life that are of true value, its the experiences, and memories that have real value at the end.
Again with the silly liberal sterotypes.
It is very interesting that you acknowledge “the world” needs to find value in goods and services. “The world” runs in a society, without it, we would all be hunters and gatherers. There are costs associated with a society: infrastructure, defense, education, etc. Without those things, there would be no society, you and I would be throwing rocks at squirrels for our next meal. What seems to fall on deaf ears that “the top” benefits the most from society and stands the most to lose if society goes away. So to use a capitalist (Yay capitalism! - Austin Powers) analogy, the person most vested in a venture is the person who will sacrifice the most for it. Rush and Howard certainly benefited from society, they shouldn’t pay for that service? Are you a communist?
And what about PBS? 30 years ago, if two guys with thick Bosten accents came up to you and pitched an idea about filming them while they fixed toilets and a leaking roof, you would have laughed them out the door. PBS didn’t because they don’t bow to the altar of the almighty dollar. And because of “redistributing” wealth to the benefit of society (PBS), there are at least 2 networks (diy & HGTV) and dozens of design/remodeling shows that are for-profit.
Zippy, this quote is very interesting and speaks nicely to my point. The only word you saw fit to capitalize is “NEED”. Who said anything about need? It seems to indicate that perhaps someone else should dictate what I need. If you want to go build a cabin by a pond why should anyone else determine if thats what you need? It sounds like you’ve developed a personal philosophy through your life journey and thats great. If I earn the money, shouldn’t I be the only arbiter who weighs in on the decision? After Bill Gates spends $50million on charities should anyone have anything to say about his 50,000sqft house? And what if he chooses not to give a dime to charity? Then should someone step in and tell him what he “needs” to do with his money? If you answer “yes” you’ve got a big problem; who decides? Any way you slice it somebody is going to determine where the money goes. So the only question left is; Do you let the guy who created the wealth choose where/if to spend the money or do you let some politician, special interest, or government agency?
Iab, yep, everyone should pay to be in a civilized society. But I pay alot already. I don’t use any more police protection, national defense, or highway access than anybody else. The government is always expanding their role, and thats where the problem is. Did you know that Finland recently proclaimed that broadband internet is a basic human right? What next? We already pay +65% of our income for some sort of tax. When is it enough? In fact, thats a question I’d like an answer to. How much of a person’s wealth is “enough”?
you should be able to spend your legally earned or acquired money in any manner you deem fit as so long as it does not negatively impact upon your neighbors. My point is very simple, and its fundamental, people buy to satisfy a emotional need, to project a image to others with out very much due consideration. Warren Buffet makes billions, but look at the house and car he drives speaks of a strong “id” to me.
Incorrect.
Greater wealth and greater assets require greater protection and greater resources to create and sustain the wealth. Shipping 50,000 widgets requires more use of infrastructure than shipping 50 widgets. Fighting a fire at a 50,000 sq ft home requires more resources than fighting a fire at a 500 sq ft home. Greater wealth can only be accomplished by receiving greater value from society.
Sounds like you want all the value of society but you aren’t willing to pay for it. Don’t you think the more value you obtain from anything, the more you should pay? Isn’t that capitalism at its finest? Or do you think you should get something for free?
-
65+%? I don’t think I pay over 40% in the highest taxed state in North America (Quebec). If everyone in Michigan is paying 65%, I really don’t know where it is going.
-
I would flunk most economic classes, of course, they all missed this crisis.
-
I wasn’t trying to attack you, I’m just saying take a systemic look at things. Running a consultancy of 12 guys does not scale to a country of 300 million.
Moreover, there are two sides to everything. Capital needs labor just as much as labor needs capital. Just as workers can strike, capital can discipline labor by lay-offs, off-shoring and investments in technology. From the perspective of the owner, this is reducing over-head and increasing productivity, of course. For the labor, it means increasing fear of losing their job or the willingness to take whatever they can get.
The same with credit. Consumers borrowed more than they could spend (over-leveraged), but the banks did the same. The banks didn’t have more money to lend in 2007 than in 1987, but they lent more. They took as much risk as the consumer and in the end, both suffered (although the consumer bail-out hasn’t happened).