Well in the so-called "developed world" what happens is that a hundred such guys come and rob you, but this time legally or a big guy comes and crushes your stand, because you are harming his trademark "Bag of rise Inc." There are a lot of things in the east you don't and may never understand. Just because they are different, doesn't mean your way is better.
The comic is funny though.
Dear Boyan Yurukov,
I hear you. Sometimes there is a tendency to assume the Privileged North is better than the Majority World, when it's not the case. I don't think this comic was trying to make that point though. On the contrary, the point here is how messed up the market forces the Privileged North imposes on the majority world are. That AK-47 certainly wasn't made in the Majority World.
Glad to have you hear. Hope to see you again in the future.
Who says this happens int he third world? This happens just as frequently here in America as it does other countries. How often on the news do you hear about someone robbing a convenience store or gas station? If they could afford a gun and bullets, they easily could have afforded food instead, but they use one to acquire the other. Unfortunately it should be the other way around, where the person trades in the gun for cash so he can buy food.
Very true. That's a big part of what this blog tries to do. Connect the Majority World with the Privileged North. Please check out the front page and subscribe to the feed if your interested.
If your stand says "Bag of rise" then you deserve your stand to be crushed and you be forced to repeat the 3rd grade.
Where does it say "bag of rise"?
Debbie, nope. A gun purchased legally in the USA costs much more than a bag of rice. Not less. Here in the USA if this type transaction occurs, i.e., your store robbery you mentioned, the gun was almost always stolen too.
In the 3rd world, the guy would be executed. In the USA,we have liberals who are sympathetic to the poor criminal and we can barely keep them in jail since it is obviously societies fault somehow that the criminal is a criminal.
I don't know about the last part of your comment Troy,
The U.S. imprisons more of it's population than any other country in the world, and you want to incarcerate more people? How about taking on the root causes of crime?
The majority of the world has one major problem.. the western world.
The west has vastly superior economic ability which puts the majority at a disadvantage. When you have two trade partners and one is disadvantaged there is an imbalance of power which only increases the disadvantage between the two.
The phrase it takes money to make money is apropos here. The majority is lacking leverage to balance the economic imbalance and conflict occurs. There is no need for the conflict however if we became separated economically. The west would no longer gain advantage as quickly because of the lack of a trade partner, and the majority would gradually catch up economically. This solution is not feasible because of one small detail.
The west controls arms trading and the tools of war and has no interest in losing a trade partner and allowing the imbalance of power to shrink. The west is aggressive and if economic force is not enough to control the actions of the majority world it resorts to violence.
The significance of the comic to this effect is that the west can sell its goods to the majority at any price it chooses as long as there is a demand.
There will always be a demand for weapons because the truth about power and ownership is that the ability to control assets rests in the ability to prevent others from taking them by force. The state of nature really never left the human race, we just cover it with society and government to make it seem less harsh to the oblivious.
If one with little asset has a disproportionate amount of force available compared to the economic caste they are in, violence ensues to re-balance that power.
Crime in the united states is no different. People commit crime because crime is the path of least resistance to achieve a goal.
African Americans are overall disadvantaged in the united states due to social isolation both imposed and self induced. This isolation leads to economic hardship which puts that group at a disadvantage which they are just beginning to reverse. That long standing disadvantage leads us to the imbalance of prison populations within the US.
We can see the same reflected on a global scale, the west controls the most assets and gives little to no protection of the majority of the world.
To be honest I see one possible solution to these problems that is being tested how inside the US. African Americans were given protection and potential to rise above their previous economic/social caste because they were given citizenship.
A global scale government were absolute sovereignty laid with a completely representative body proportionate to population would allow protections to be afforded on a grander scale to those who are currently disadvantaged compared to the west. It would require the west to relinquish complete control over assets on a governmental scale and the majority of the world to recognize the authority of the global government.
Rome was a good example of how this might be done, allow cultural groups sovereignty over their prospective territories concerning local law and rights within their "borders" while imposing global law which would offer protection to everyone and potentially eradicate the need for violence between different social groups to balance power.
Also unlikely in the current world view, but complete globalization of government is inevitable. The west gains the benefit of stable non violent trading partners essentially adding to the overall economy and the majority receives the physical needs such as protection and goods that they need as well as the power of a vote in a democratic world government.
The problem is not governments or societies. It is not the "americans" that want to suppress the majority, it is the elite of the west that want to suppress the rest of the world simply to retain their individual power. The richest men in the world gain from conflict and problems.
Simply put, if no one had need of weapons they could not profit, if no one was disadvantaged they could not gain more advantage, so therefore they have no reason to relinquish the control they possess so it is in their best interest to keep the majority repressed.
I'm not sure how true these statistics are but I'm fairly certain they are somewhat accurate..
* The [richest 1% of Americans] now own more than the bottom 90% [of Americans].
* The top 10% [of Americans] own 71% of all private wealth.
* Over 86 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds, including pensions, was held by the top 10 percent of households. In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock.
* Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the bottom 40% of U.S. households.
* In the 22 years between 1976 and 1998, the share of the nation's private wealth held by the top 1% nearly doubled, going from 22% to 38%.
* In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals in the "Forbes 400" owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.
Other capitalistic countries including China and Russia share similar statistics.
The concentration of wealth is going to continue to increase as long as we allow conflict and refuse to unite under one call for all of humanity.
who cares about any of it??
A lot of people care, xx. You care enough to comment :).
First of all thank you for taking the time to write this lengthy response. This is precisely the sort of dialog that we encourage on this blog.
I think a lot of your sentiments come from the same place that mine do, and I think at least one of our writers, yave begnet, would agree with you on the need for a global government.
First thing I'll say is that while I agree with where you coming from in your economic assessment of trade, it's important to say that you have to contend with one major economic theory, that of comparitive advantage. Arguments can be made against comparative advantage but it's important to acknowledge it as an economic principle if you're going to argue for the need for isolationism.
For me the issue of global government is not so important as how we are going to "unite under one call for all of humanity" as you put it. It's going to take a lot of work to get people to that point. I think one of the biggest barriers to getting people to unite under that call is the inequity that exists between nations, and the belief that the interests of one citizen should be put before the interests of another.
I think treating migrants with respect and organizing for migrants is a key step in the direction of getting people to a point where they can unite under one call for humanity.
Amusing cartoon. Though in America bottled water, a necessity for some places, costs more than gas last time I checked. =P
That's another market force that's out of wack.
It's just a comic, it's meant too be funny. You are ruining it by analyzing it. Please kindly get a life all of you.
well it seems that this comic is not for you krazykellen. most comics have lots more than comedy to offer. even cartoons like family guy have more than just comedy. so why don't you get a life and stop JUST LAUGHING... but also THINK once in a while.
If you you look at the worlds richest men :
# Warren Buffett
# Carlos Slim Helu
# William Gates III
# Lakshmi Mittal
# Mukesh Ambani
# Anil Ambani
# Ingvar Kamprad
# KP Singh
# Oleg Deripaska
# Karl Albrecht
# Li Ka-shing
# Sheldon Adelson
# Bernard Arnault
# Lawrence Ellison
# Roman Abramovich
# Theo Albrecht
# Liliane Bettencourt
# Alexei Mordashov
# Prince Alwaleed
# Mikhail Fridman
how many of those names are american?
Spout your liberal mantras but it is all bull.
anyone arguing over the political relevancy of this (really average, barely noteworthy) comic is seriously fucking retarded.
take it out to the play ground you indignant six year olds.
Cody, I agree with part of what you said. In order to reach that trade-off where the powerful feel secure and the rest have equal opportunities, the existing international political system needs to change. What exactly that would look like isn't clear. One option would formally look much like the current arrangement, with sovereignty split among nations, but the key difference being that those nations would be composed of globally conscious citizens who interact with each other in ways that benefit the whole. I think this is the scenario Kyle has in mind, and it might look kind of like modern Europe.
The second scenario is one more like you described and one I feel is probably necessary to reach world stability and equality--an international political system where sovereignty is formally allocated on a global level--a global democracy--and where the national state no longer has a monopoly on violence, but instead that is handled at a supranational level. This would look a lot like Europe in 20-30 years, I believe, once they get their common security and foreign policy together.
Right now sovereignty only truly exists for people who have the good fortune to live in wealthy and powerful countries.
I part from your analysis in laying the blame at the feet of a few wealthy elite. All Americans benefit from our military--the one that dwarfs all the other militaries on the planet combined--and we collectively are the wealthiest country on the planet.
At any rate, I believe that either of the scenarios above would require a significant revision of the modern conception of citizenship in the U.S. That is basically why I am involved in this project.
This page contains a single entry by kyledeb published on June 1, 2008 11:10 PM.
List of Environmental Laws Chertoff is Violating to Build the Border Wall was the previous entry in this blog.
C&L Highlights Max and the Marginalized is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.