12 thoughts on “Daily morning cartoon / meme roundup: Sometimes the best editorial cartoons are the ones that don’t try to be

  • Hello Scottie,

    I apologize for my seeming disengagement from our dialogue concerning democratic socialism and economics. I intend to formulate another reply when time permits me. Anyway, here is something that I recently read and soon posted to my site. Perhaps you will find it interesting (I know I did).

    https://onlookers.news/2021/03/22/dr-petersons-admonition-regarding-ideology/

    Also, you certainly share some hilarious cartoons!

    Hoping all is well for you and yours.

    Kindly,

    -Dylan

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Dylan. As I said I do not agree with Democratic Socialism as a form of economic policy. I believe in Social Democracy as a form of government and an economic platform. As you pointed out Social Democracies are a representative governments. I thank you for pointing it out because I had the word order reversed so that the form of government I was writing did not match what I wrote about that form of government. So instead of championing Democratic Socialism, I was instead championing Social Democracies.

      As for Democratic Socialism I don’t think you and I are that far apart in our views. You say it has not worked out well where tried, and I think I can not see how it can work properly. I just don’t think the examples you gave using the Soviet Union are Democratic Socialism.

      Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government. Democratic socialists reject most self-described socialist states and Marxism–Leninism.

      The Soviet Union was not a worker controlled in anyway as you correctly pointed out in your examples. You wrote how workers were assigned to jobs they did not want and had no control over. That is not Democratic socialism. I suspect it may qualify as communism but I would have to look it up. So I do not know of any Democratic socialism ever practiced, do you?

      As for being busy I really understand. I am just getting back to answering comments in a timely manner and doing more than one post a day. I hope things are going well for you. I will read your post, but not sure I will do so today. But a topic we might enjoy discussing is how much should the people be represented by government in a society? It seems to be a topic much discussed in different countries today including the US. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Scottie,

        I have noticed that unintentional consequences seem to inevitably follow from the implementation of interventionist policies. For example, many minimum wage laws which were devised to raise wages have indirectly caused unemployment. You see, the supply and demand mechanism ultimately determines prices (including the price of employing someone). The added costs to employ people, imposed by wage laws, must be necessarily incurred by someone. The possibility of such costs being somehow absorbed is unlikely since most firms generally operate very efficiently. To dispose of the extra costs, firms typically pass them on to consumers in the form of higher prices, eventually leading to less demand for the products or services produced by such firms. Less demand is responded to by reducing output, and reducing output implies a reduction of those employed :

        https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/13/minimum-wage-madness

        Whatever the system, whether democratic socialist, social democratic, socialist, communist, all tend to champion the erection of an interventionist type government.

        Anyway, I understand that I did not reply to all of your points. I intend to as soon as I have the opportunity.

        Perhaps you might consider reading the first volume of F.A Hayek’s “Law, Legislation, and Liberty” titled “rules and order.”

        link below :

        Click to access hayek-law-legislation-and-liberty.pdf

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dylan, I prefer not to get deeply involved in this conversation as I don’t have in-depth knowledge about the topic. However, this comment of yours: whether democratic socialist, social democratic, socialist, communist, all tend to champion the erection of an interventionist type government.

          Isn’t “government,” by its very nature, set up to maintain order within a society? If it cannot “intervene” it would seem there would/could be no societal order.

          From my understanding, the Republican creed is personal liberty, which is well and good. We all like to be able to live our lives as we choose. But if there is no governance, what kind of a society would we have?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Hello Nan,

            There is a difference between an interventionist government (that is, one that intervenes in the economic activities of individuals) and one that simply maintains order (law, rights, etc…)

            Liked by 1 person

            • Hello Dylan. I am so glad you and Nan replied to each other on this topic. I do have a lot I want to express on this subject but while I was ill the comment you posted Dylan dropped off my desktop reference, and I was going to try to do a search for it tomorrow in the WordPress comments. Your interaction with Nan put it back in the top of my comment list. Thanks, saved me a bunch of trouble. A quick look over your comment leads me to ask:

              Dylan can you give me an example of a government that simply maintains order and also doesn’t interfere in anyway with the economics of the country? I doubt such exists. Simply because Nan is correct, governing is making rules and that means stepping in, choosing who wins, who steps back, and who loses. If you make the rules, you set up the system.

              Anyway I love the discussion, but I have to head off to bed. I will pick this up in the morning. Best wishes to both of you. Hugs

              Like

              • Hello Scottie,

                In his book “Law, Legislation, and Liberty” Friedrich Hayek makes a distinction between two types of order. The first type arises spontaneously and the second is deliberately designed. Spontaneous order is exhibited in the behavioral patterns, values, and cultures of different groups. Deliberate design, on the other hand, is displayed in domains such as public law and welfare programs, where much effort is directed to generate particular results.

                This is my attempt to formulate a summary of his argument concerning the sources of order. If you would like to better understand my position then you might consider reading pp. 36-48 of : https://libsa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/hayek-law-legislation-and-liberty.pdf

                Liked by 1 person

                • Hello Dylan. I read the article you linked to and also your own idea of what the man said. It is Gooby gook that means nothing as far as systems of government and how they are implemented. We have to deal with what we are, we are animal primates with a thin veneer of civilization over about 200,000 years of ling in social communities and still trying to contain millions of years of instincts.

                  I don’t want to get into tearing down each of his statements because he is one of those that wants to sound profound but real says nothing. Simple rules arise out of complexity he writes? Simple rules can arise out of children decided on how to play a simple game, so his statement makes no sense in the real world.

                  Here is the question we have to answer, what extent of government control is best. In the US there are two forces that fight for control of the country, government and business. Business would like total control so they can maximize profit at the expense of everything else. Government is supposed to balance the needs of business and the needs of the people. The scale of how much control each has differs from country to country.

                  We can see in just looking around us governments that intervene to restrict business have higher ratings / levels worldwide in everything from happiness of the people, to education achievements, even life expectancy. If the way the US is doing things is the best way you would expect the US to have the highest levels and ratings. We are not number one. Simply looking around shows this. That is what is frustrating about the discussion, it is only a matter to look at what other countries are doing to see the truth. The disinformation being put out to maintain a failing status quo is staggering.

                  I want to address the points you stated above that I have not answered because they are incorrect and need to be addressed. The old folk wisdom was that raising wages caused employers to cut workers, demanding more work from few workers, or cut workers by switching to automation. This is simply not true. First of all employers rarely take less profit so as their costs rise they are always seeking to cut costs. Automation has been wiping out jobs in the US for centuries and as Andrew Yang predicted will soon wipe out nearly 80 percent of the job market in the US. Any time a job can be done by machine cheaper and faster than a human employers change to it. Machines need to rest or breaks. Even warehouse workers will soon be gone as Boston Dynamics has made a robot for that also. Our world should be using every labor-saving device possible to give humans the time to do more and better things that struggling for survival. Lets get to the Jetsons age, the Star Trek period where people do not need employment to live but explore life for its positive aspects. Lets face it other countries have managed to give their workers four and three day work weeks and still have a higher quality of life than the US. Workers in other countries get months of vacation time, higher wages, family leave, childcare, and so much more. Why does the US worker need to work to exhaustion, working two or three jobs, and having no time for bathroom breaks so that they either wear adult diapers or pee in bottles?

                  In a 2013 report, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, the Center for Economic and Policy Research spotlighted two recent meta-studies analyzing the extensive research conducted since the early 1990s; they conclude that “the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms’ overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers.” The Center report explores varied means of adjustment by employers such as increased worker productivity and diminished wage gap between lower and higher paid employees, noting, “But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers.”

                  More recent studies on states and cities with higher minimum wages by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Integrity Florida and others cited below continue to show that actual minimum wage increases have not caused job loss.

                  In the 2015 report, Minimum Wage Policy and the Resulting Effect on Employment, the research institute Integrity Florida observes, “Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, which raise employers’ cost, generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers’ pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, creating higher demand, which in turn requires hiring more workers. The higher wage may make it easier to attract applicants and results in less turnover of workers, lowering costs of employers.” They report, “Our examination of employment statistics in states found no evidence of employment loss in states that have increased the minimum wage and more evidence that suggests employment increases faster when there is an increase in the minimum wage.”

                  https://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

                  https://equitablegrowth.org/research-shows-raising-the-minimum-wage-does-not-spell-job-loss/

                  Policymakers opposed to raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 per hour have long argued it would lead to significant job losses. Some of those same opponents will now likely use a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the proposed minimum wage legislation currently before Congress to argue against passing it.

                  Their claims — and to a large degree, CBO’s analysis — are rooted in flawed theoretical foundations and outdated research. Sophisticated research methods from multiple studies show no job losses, or virtually none, result from raising the minimum wage. These studies also draw from previously unavailable empirical methods, which CBO did not fully account for in its own analysis.


                  Despite Congress’ inaction, 24 states and the District of Columbia have increased their minimum wage since 2009, when the last federal increase occurred. This has provided an opportunity for researchers to conduct modern, sophisticated empirical analyses to determine the specific impact of these increases on wages, incomes over time and employment. Specifically, researchers have compared individuals over time in states, cities and counties that have increased their minimum wage to those who have not been exposed to a minimum wage increase. Now we can move past guesses about how individuals or businesses might react to policy changes and observe how they actually behave.

                  In the largest and perhaps most important recent study in 2018, researchers examined six U.S. cities, all of which have minimum wage levels above $10 per hour. The study, which focuses on the food industry because of its high proportion of minimum-wage or near-minimum wage workers, found that low-income workers’ earnings rose significantly following an increase in the minimum wage. In those cities, they observed between a 0.3 percent decrease to a 1.1 percent increase in food industry jobs. This stands in contrast to the CBO finding that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would cost 1.3 million jobs.

                  In other words, the research finds there is quite a bit of room for wages to rise without causing significant job losses. One reason for this may be monopsony power, where wages are suppressed to a lower level than the value workers contribute, and which employers are able to exploit throughout much of the U.S. economy. Perhaps in part because of this, workers over the past few decades have been receiving a smaller and smaller share of national income. In the case of monopsony, statutorily increased wages correct for a lack of competition.

                  Now to be fair I did find articles that claim there would be job loss, but each one was older than the ones that show there wouldn’t be. The thing is the old ways have fallen aside. I would like to explain why a higher minimum wage means more money for businesses.

                  The flow of money is called churn. The money churns the economy as it moves from person to person. If people have money to spend at the lower levels, they spend it on items they want and need. This causes demand for both product and the people to build, transport, stock, sell, and everything needed to provide the item. That causes employment and other jobs. That causes money for owners of businesses again at all levels. If you stop the people at the lower level from having money to spend such as we were last year, you tank the economy by stopping the churn or flow of money. That is why economist were arguing for the government to give people money. It was not because they wanted to make people feel good. The fact was the first stimulus only kept the stock market high ( not the economy ) because the government gave money to businesses which bought back their own stock increasing dividends, but there was no demand or churn of money to prop it up. By the end of last year the FED could no longer prop businesses up needing a supply of money to the people again to keep the stock market going and the economy starting again. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

            • Hello Dylan. I want to add my thanks for your liking the cartoons I post each morning. I would be interested in your view on them as you feel you want to add your voice. I think it would be grand to see how you interpret the cartoons vs some of the more liberal members of my viewers. Be well, best wishes. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

        • Hello Dylan. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. The spouse and I have been ill with a stomach bug since Tues, with vomiting and explosive diarrhea. I am feeling better today and hope to be able to answer your comment and the other comments waiting for reasponce tomorrow. Be well. Hugs

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.