The only problem about quoting Andrew Ryan is the plot of the game he's in (BioShock for those unfamiliar) reveals him to be a paranoid, delusional man destroyed by his own idealism.

There's no problem there at all. Ideas stand strongly on their own, unhindered by the feeble trappings of the men who dream them.

So... when someone's ideals lead them to horrible failure, that doesn't at least cast a shadow on those ideals?

Ideas =/= Ideals.

*Yes, be careful to mention it's Bush you are about to bash, otherwise people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, since nothing has really changed.

i like where this is going, please continue

Hey, if you included tha army between the rich and the peasants, you'd have a George Grosz cartoon!

The modern limited liability corporation is good at some things. Optimizing for the long term does not head up the list unless outside force is applied in some way. Basic tragedy-of-the-commons stuff. Despite the very real problems with governments, if you want them to check the power of corporations, they have to be able to impose meaningful consequences on the corporations. Right now, they're having some trouble doing that, and so we're basically back to the tail end of the 19th century, where businessfolk could basically buy the regulation that they pleased.


Also, the comic has an interesting presentation: looking forward to more of this.

Modded up (wish I could). You say things I believe to be true, therefore you make sense. But it's hard to ignore (without impressive mental gymnastics) the evidence of who lawmakers consider to be their REAL constituents (any established large corporation who can offer long-term bribery, basically).

If yoou are afraid of Bush's links with big buisness, then you must shit your pants on a minute-by-minute basis looking at Obama's cabinate and close 'political' connections.

BUT IT'S STILL THE BEST IN THE WORLD*



*pending further disasters caused by laziness and irresponsibility.

That's not exactly saying much.

Ok I´m waiting now I´m interested :D

One small suggestion, if I may? "George Bush" should either be George A or George W, since both of them are formers. Otherwise I see nothing wrong.

Reading up on your Noam Chomsky much? :)

Are you?

You had to note its bush since nothing much has changed before or after he was in office. Im fairly convinced they are all the same no matter what party you label them

Folks who believe in free trade - as in free and unfettered- were some of the first to scream for a bailout when the recession came. Corporations hid the burgeoning recession by "releasing" overseas hires (persons hired to work on IT and other service vocations in overseas centers) - go and look it up. Reported the loss in revenue in three major overseas (Indian) IT labor firms in the Wall Street Journal. The companies that specialize in overseas labor were hurting worse and worse for /three years/ leading up to this recession.

We were, to put it bluntly, exporting unemployment.

Now, the fallout that killed investment banks and ruined fortunes is not an aberration - it is exactly what one would expect from a completely unfettered market. It is the dark side to the excesses and rampant profit-taking: the incalculable risk that takes an entire society down with it.

It's not much of a utopia if all the laws and armies that protect your vast revenues fall apart and leave you with anarchy.

Not everyone who was in favor of free trade was on the bailout bandwagon, most Libertarians advocate free-market economics and were also against the bailouts since they represent a perversion of the market. In a truely free market there is freedom to succeed wildly, and to fail horribly. The Bailouts create what is called a 'Moral Hazard' in a market economy since ordinarily under such conditions imprudent companies can have record profits before crashing and burning while prudent companies putter along fair to middlin', with the Bailouts the imprudent companies have their record profits 'insured' by taxpayer money while the prudent companies get left so far back in the dust the become irrelevant. The obvious message is 'don't invest prudently, put it all on black and roll them bones.'

Wanna see radical? Check out this manga: https://www.onemanga.com/Akumetsu

Highschool student gets fed up with corporate fatcats and such, so he grabs an axe and starts hackin and preaching (much better than I'm making it sound)

politics? Why not. Still entertaining.

Reminds me of those old political cartoons, the kind we see less and less of today.

[clapclapclap] Brillient sir. I totally agree.

- Shado

Down with the Corporate Fatcats! Long live the Proletariat! Let's kill off all the Bourgeois and build a Socialist Paradise, like the Soviets did!


...Oh, wait.

Go Karno go!!! Accept no substitute!!

Fucking Monsanto. Did you see this? http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105
"The World According To Monsanto. But now I've just read that even this version is censored! I have to find the DVD for myself.

Quite on point, with far too many people willing to let that go on rather than stop voting in 'business as usual'.

So far this isn't radical, it's just common sense for anyone who's looked into such things.

So you don't like corporations, and your conclusion is to like government, there very entity that makes those corporations possible?