Marshall Ramsey by Marshall Ramsey

Marshall Ramsey

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ODon

    ODon said, over 2 years ago

    Customer participation is entirely optional.

  2. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Drop out of the consumer culture.

  3. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    Do you mean “You didn’t build that”?

  4. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    On a slightly more serious note, I find myself in a quandry. Caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, I’d like to see the economy pick up more, especially on the employment side, for all sorts of reasons too obvious to need explication. On the other hand, I worry that the kind of economy we have now is heading for environmental disaster. Somehow we have to figure out how to create a sustainable and prosperous economic system. And for the whole world, not just for us here in the First World. If you take the average energy use of someone in the US and multiply it by the total world population, you get a number that is not sustainable. I’m inclined to think that neither traditional capitalism nor traditional socialism can figure this out. We need an entirely new model.

  5. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Owning a tool you use, like a computer, is not the same as rushing out on Black Friday to buy things no one needs for people you don’t like with money you don’t have.

  6. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 2 years ago

    disgustedtaxpayer said, 5 minutes ago
    I’m a Free Enterprise conservative and I believe in private property and private business and the Profit goal, from farmers to manufacturers. But this cartoon points to the movement to erase Christ-mas from US culture….and sadly,
    Jolly Santa’s name can be rearranged to spell “Satan”….the enemy of God and of the Saviour Jesus that came to give himself as payment for mankind’s sins…..that the celebration of Christmas symbolizes.
    P.S. and Thanksgiving originally was a day to Thank the Lord God for His many blessings to Mankind and especially to the numbers of the persons in the Faith. Also the target of Satan.

  7. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    You could engage in serious discussion rather than just being snide.

  8. martens

    martens said, over 2 years ago


    He could, but he probably won’t. May I suggest, after looking at how things are going here on Gocomics editorials, that we refrain from engaging with those who will not or cannot engage and concentrate on responding only to those who will? this does not mean talking only with those of our political orientation, but it may mean talking with only those who are serious about such exchanges and not simply trying for points in some imaginary game.

  9. martens

    martens said, over 2 years ago


    BTW, nice avatar!

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    Little Lonecat in Slumberland.

  11. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 2 years ago


    “I’m a Free Enterprise conservative”

    Yeah, who also takes full advantage of Medicare. What a hypocrite you are.

    Whoops, I’m sorry…you assumed this other thread would just disappear…

    “P.S. and Thanksgiving originally was a day to Thank the Lord God”

    I’m pretty sure the Indians who saved your ancestors did not behave according to your fantasy…more likely they died because of it, hypocrite.

  12. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 2 years ago

    " But of course he likes the shiftless poor as they vote Democrat."

    Is this really true? Or are there a surprising number of “shiftless poor” who vote Republican against their own best interest, and shift what value they have to the top 1%?

  13. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, over 2 years ago

    I do believe the Republicans are very good at getting people to vote against their own best interest.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    Well, I won’t expect serious discussion from you, then.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    Of course you were being snide. If you care, my bedside book at the moment isn’t Erhlich, it’s “Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study”, by John Barton. I was never a fan of Ehrilch. That doesn’t mean that I have no concerns about population. The greater the population, the greater the load on the environment. I expect we will continue to find ways to keep going, but at what price? For instance, I don’t believe that we’ve hit peak oil, and I think there’s some reason to believe that we never will. On the one hand, that’s good, because running out of oil would cause problems, but on the other hand that’s bad, because burning oil is not good for the environment. My own hunch is that we will probably go for more nuclear power, with the attendant risks. Anyway, I think the Simon-Erhlich wager is silly, and not to the point I was making in the first place. Here’s a couple of quotes:

    Economists have noted that Ehrlich would likely have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period. Asset manager Jeremy Grantham wrote that if the Simon–Ehrlich wager had been for a longer period (from 1980 to 2011), then Simon would have lost on four of the five metals. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to “all of the most important commodities,” instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost “by a lot.” He concluded, "So, please “Cornucopians,” let’s not hear any more of the Ehrlich-Simon bet … Ehrlich’s argument was right (so far)."
    Setting aside the vagaries of market forces, can we continue to increase resource production and adapt to unprecedented environmental changes like global warming? Our past experience should give us some hope, but that hope should be greatly tempered by the realization that climate change is an unprecedented threat, and we really might not keep pace.
    Mr. Simon liked to argue that new problems prompt solutions that ultimately leave people better off than before. But we cannot surmount our challenges if we simply deny that they exist.
    Instead of using science as a resource for human betterment, conservatives who reject the evidence of human-caused global warming prevent the very creative problem-solving that Mr. Simon advocated. And if environmentalists like Mr. Ehrlich hadn’t urged action back in the 1970s, would all that creativity have been channeled into the cleaner air and water that we enjoy today?
    We face choices about our future direction. As Mr. Ehrlich and many other environmental scientists have documented, by pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we put things we value and love in danger, from the coral reefs to the Jersey Shore, from homes threatened by wildfire to farms endangered by drought.
    And even if Mr. Simon is right that humans can adapt and prosper on this rapidly changing planet, we have to ask ourselves whether the risks and inequalities of this change are desirable.
    Ultimately, humanity’s course will be determined less by iron laws of nature or by unbounded market powers, Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Simon’s dueling lodestars, and more by the social and political choices that we make. Neither biology nor economics can substitute for the deeper ethical question: what kind of world do we want to live in?
    Paul Sabin is an associate professor of American history at Yale and the author of “The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble Over Earth’s Future.”

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).