Editorials A-Z Navigation
Paul Conrad by Paul Conrad
Matt Davies by Matt Davies
About Jeff Danziger
Jeff Danziger provides a scathing international take on politics, finance, and everything else you aren’t allowed to discuss at the dinner table. Combining spot-on caricatures with razor-sharp writing, this feature will make you listen a little more closely to what they tell you on the news.
© 2009 Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (24) Jump to Comments Form
satipera4 said, 3 days ago
After economic dominance is lost, military and political dominance follows. The period of extraordinary USA dominance has been drawing to a close for a while and this is a good thing. Not that the USA has on the whole been bad, it has done some good things. It is just that monopolies of power are bad for most people.
Adora68 said, 3 days ago
Oh satipera4, you’re SO right. It was wonderful when Rome fell, too. I can’t wait for the return of the Dark Ages. The barbarians are at the gates and some people want to usher them in. sigh
parker said, 3 days ago
nihilism is alive and well.
waitaminit - it’s more like defeatism satip. nothing is drawing to a close - your post reminds me of the US signboards of the sixties “the end is near”.
international “dominance” as you call it (which is only a media construct in my opinion) is constantly in flux - that’s why it’s so exciting - and because the USA tends to be the most progressive, it may appear to be monopolistic.
even though bush unwittingly took a shot at decimating US growth, economy, military, international relationships, et.al to make it his own, he only had eight years and his incompetance caught up with him.
the way i see it, the glass is not half empty - it’s just beginning to fill up again.
ANandy said, 3 days ago
The US began losing monentum with Woodrow Wilson, when politicians learned they can buy the votes of some by promising benefits paid for by confiscating property from others by simply passing a law. The politics of division was learned, eventually exploited to the maximum by an empty suit with a “yes we can” mantra. The minions have no idea what “yes we can” really means.
Unlearned lessons from history continue to haunt us. An example, the unlearned lesson from Israel found in I Samuel Ch. 8. Now we want to have centralized health care because other nations have one, ignoring their many problems. One is reminded of ignorant children, “but that won’t happen to me” because we are just too smart. Wrong.
charliekane said, 3 days ago
Nandy:
Do you have indoor plumbing because most everyone else does, or because it is a good idea?
But, back to the ‘toon, after this gratuitous plug for Fareed Zakaria’s GPS: bleeep good news politics show!
Yesterday, in a discussion between economists Krugman and Taylor, it was posited that the increased saving rate by Americans is reducing the borrowing from China. Isn’t that amazing?
ANandy said, 3 days ago
Folks, charlie is one of those ignorant children of whom I spoke. “yes we can”. The increased savings by Americans is too little to late.
The idiot Congress will pay the enormous debt we’re incurring with incredibly inflated dollars but we continue to pile it on.
Buzzy-One said, 3 days ago
“Idiot” seem to be a favorite word here ‘bouts. It’s use is interesting.
parker said, 3 days ago
oh anandy - you’re gloomier than satipera
longtimecomicsfan said, 3 days ago
I seriously doubt if ANYONE has ever accused ANandy of being “just too smart.”
charliekane said, 3 days ago
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Nandy!
(ignurnt as opposed to idyit)
But back to the ‘toon:
To elaborate, the ‘toon, of course, is about debt to China, not health care. Just thought it was interesting that our rate of incurring debt to China was falling off as the personal savings rate increased.
The implication was that if individuals are responsible with their finances and save more, we keep more of our national debt “in house.”
Gladius said, 3 days ago
On top of everything else I’m curious as to why Wilson? One of the major historical criticisms of the Fed government during the Great Depression was the attitude that it wasn’t the government’s job to help people. You’d think that if Wilson had opened the floodgates of redistribution you would have seen some of it. The Progressive movement did see a change in attitude towards the poor but not not signifigantly in central government.
As a gratuitous and hopefully unecessary reminder the Great Depression was post Wilson.
Concerned_Human
said,
2 days ago
We have been borrowing from who ever will lend us money to pay for our military and our wars because we have been giving tax cuts to people who really do not need a tax cut at all.
I mean I feel for them because their taxes are more than my income BUT even after all the taxes they pay they still bring home a great deal more than 90+% of peoples base pay including any benefits.
It is all of our debt so the taxes should be used to pay for this debt. Everyone’s taxes should go up. Automobile fuel taxes in particular should go up to pay for the war in Iraq.
Those who say otherwise are Reganites who believe that debt doesn’t matter. Their kind has taken the debt from a meager 300 billion to many many trillions.
ANandy said, 2 days ago
Concerned_Human, change your ID. You are an insult to real humans.
Concerned_Human
said,
2 days ago
You are correct ANandy , I am not a human !
I just look like one to a large extent.
It seems that humans like yourself seem to believe that if we cut tax revenue the governments revenue will increase by some magical formula of more spending or some other such rubbish.
RUBBISH !
NoFearPup said, 2 days ago
It seems to me , by cutting taxes, the Reaganites capitalized on pent up American industrial and economic power, creating more markets and growth, and subsequently were able to collect more revenue from that growth for government use. Was that working during the Bush years? Would it work now? Do we have any resources to capitalize on now that aren’t being used now? I don’t know. I’m for looking into the issue with an open mind, but I am not necessarily for pushing speculative policies for the sake of protecting one political party - which it appears the Dems are doing. Where is the debate and transparency we were promised?
Gladius said, 2 days ago
The Reagon economic policies resulted in a Temporary boost to the economy. Bush Sr. paid for it with the economic downturn when he couldn’t live up to his ‘Read my Lips no new taxes.” There are several accomplishments that I think Reagan should be remembered for; his domestic economics are not among them.
NoFearPup said, 1 day ago
Who’s economics should we emulate; and why doesn’t Obama do it, Gladius?
Gladius said, 1 day ago
What policies we should follow and what are politically possible are far distant.
Concerned_Human
said,
1 day ago
I will say it really started with Pres. Nixon who took us off the gold standard.
Pres. Carter inherited double digit inflation because the dollar was not pegged to gold and we had the debt of the Vietnam war that was being collected on.
Pres. Regan 1st campaigned saying how bad a 300 billion dollar debt was but by the next election cycle (NOT EVEN 4 YEARS LATTER) was saying how little over a trillion dollar debt was.
Talk about being two face flip flop !
If there wasn’t any economic grow from the trillions of dollars he borrowed and spent it would have been a miracle.
Gladius said, 1 day ago
The size of the current world economy can’t be handled by the Gold Standard. I’m not the best person to Explain it but talk to an economist about money supply.
Concerned_Human
said,
1 day ago
The size of the current world economy is inflated because we are not on a/the gold standard.
The US economy took a big hit when the price of gasoline doubled from about 40 cents to about 80 cents,.
You could buy a very nice very large house in a very nice neighborhood in Washington DC for less than 100 thousand A whole lot of money back then, A typical home might go for 35-40 thousand in a very good neighborhood.
Some of you believe the world is less than 10 thousand years old. Believing does not make it true.
Gladius said, 1 day ago
I find the use of the word inflated misleading. Inflated implies oversized. The world market must grow if poorer countries are going to improve their quality of life. Of course, if you believe one can only improve at the expense of others then futher discussion is a waste of time. The world market cannot continue to grow if it is fettered by an outdated monetary policy which was questioned long before Nixon.
Concerned_Human
said,
about 6 hours ago
To Gladius >
I see your point of possible confusion on your part but I tried to give examples of what was meant by inflated.
Prices in the economy are inflated ( over priced , in excess of a truer value, et. al.)
These prices are inflated because the dollar has no pegged value. That is to say if those who print money want more money all they have to do is print it.
When the USA was on the gold standard those people had to secure something(gold or silver) to back the currency up. Maybe not 100% for what ever reason but there had to be enough to cover a run on the bank so to speak.
Today the dollars value is imaginary. it is possible that with very little or no notice the value of the dollar could drop and double digit inflation take over. Much like what happened after Nixon took us off the gold standard. The difference then was that the USA was a strong manufacturing country and people wanted stuff made in the USA.
Now we make less and there is less farm land so if something happened and our currency lost value the USA would have a lot less leverage.
Cheney/Bush administration should be convicted of war crimes and hanged.
Gladius said, about 5 hours ago
The price of gold varies due to supply and demand. Therefore the value of your money still varies. Since you have your money pegged to gold you can never have more money in print than your Country has in gold reserves. Not world reserves. This lack of monetary funds puts huge crimps in economic growth. Many people can’t get loans because there isn’t enough money in the system. Your currency worth STILL varies and you don’t have enough of it. As it is, the country makes the decision as to whether or not to print money and what effect it will have. Even with the current economic crisis inflation is not a serious problem. Many countries are worried about deflation which can be much more painful to average person. Since you won’t listen to me, please ask an economist about money supply.