Wow, this reads like some kind of anti-American communist propaganda.

Perfect. The simple truth.

We just need part two of this animated fairytale. The simple truths of a progressive, sustainable transformation.

Send it out to EVERYONE you know!

This is a cartoon.

I love the State the Obvious Game. Can I play, too?

This is a comment section.

#5
Cartoons tickle the senses among other things.

One point made in the cartoon was that rich guys move mfg overseas to get richer. David, I know you did not write the script for this cartoon, though you are capable of doing so. Perhaps you can tell me why mfg is moved overseas.

Davey @6,

Don't you already know? Do you disagree with the explanation in the cartoon?

Google "Sarah Palin outraged", you get over 6 million hits. Rightwingers are always "OUTRAGED". They have co-opted exclusive use of "OUTRAGED", they're always OUTRAGED.

D#7
I watched the cartoon again to see if I could find an explanation other than rich people get richer.

That is not the correct answer.

The cartoon explains very little except it gets it right about rich people paying off politicians...looking forward to the appointment of Ambassador Wintour.

How lucky am I...here is this piece by Medved:
http://www.thedailybeast...ast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Anyone, teacher or otherwise, who decided to show this "cartoon", depicting a "rich man" urinating on the "poor", to MY children, would be in serious trouble. Several friends and I have had great discussions regarding this video, but it is NOT for children, and anyone who suggests that it is, should question their own morals and ethics.

Of course, anyone who watches this video in its entirety will know that Fox's "outrage" is complete BS--not a single ounce of urine was spilled by any of the cartoon characters depicted here. The fact that Fox has to invent a controversy over this instead of questioning the video's actual content just goes to show how morally bankrupt the right has become. It's like the ACORN sting all over again, albeit on a smaller scale.

Davey Crocket @6, in one of the most disingenuous comments ever posted at The BRAD BLOG writes:

Perhaps you can tell me why mfg is moved overseas.

Could it possibly be, Mr. Crockett, that the billionaire class prefers paying slave wages of $2/day to Chinese workers as opposed to middle class wages ($25/hour) in the U.S.? Er, ever hear of maximizing profits by reducing the cost of production?

See, Next 'Giant Sucking Sound': U.S. Senate Leaders Reach Accord on Three New 'Free Trade' Agreements

Well, Davey, since you just cain't seem to figger it out for yerself ---

As Ernie mentioned, if a company can make even more money by shafting ordinary Americans and pay near-slave wages to poor people in other countries, they will! Especially when the Republicans in Congress help them avoid paying their US taxes. And don't forget the other fabulous outsourcing incentives for moving "mfg" overseas!

Remember, these legal tax havens mean they can avoid paying their share of US taxes, just like the cartoon says! And why not? The American middle class will shoulder the burden and costs of maintaining a stable society and provide the rich with a military, judicial system, and safe haven for billionaires any time they run into any trouble. This 'toon is an apt demonstration of 'trickle down' economics. Pennies from heaven, Davey. The rich will start creating jobs with those Bush tax cuts any day now...

Brett @11,

1. What are you talking about? I don't see any urinating in this cartoon.

2. Where do you see urinating in this cartoon?

3. Where did you get the idea there's urinating in this cartoon?

4. The closest thing to urinating in this cartoon is a fireman holding a fire hose with water shooting out of it fighting a fire. Do you understand the difference between urinating on people and using a fire hose with water shooting out of it to fight a fire?

I thought the confusion over urinating on people and using a fire hose to fight fires had been cleared up years ago.

You are correct, David Lasagna. Brett @11 made up the bogus "'rich man' urinating on the 'poor'" allegation from whole cloth.

It may well be an apt descriptor of what the one percent have done to the 99% over the past forty years, but it does not occur in this video.

Unlike John Tyler #1, whose comment/opinion contains the usual right wing drivel to the effect that anything that criticizes the scandalous manipulations of our oligarchs should be dismissed as "communist propaganda," Brett's comment violates one of the few rules Brad has adopted. He has knowingly posted disinformation.

EC#13

No, the answer is that you are not willing to pay $5000 for TV.

We live in a global economy.

Consumers demand value and companies price products based upon the product's perceived value. If a product is too expensive for the value derived (or there is competition that delivers the same value at a lower price) then the consumer will not buy it.

I suppose the premise of the cartoon is that the greedy rich guy sells a TV made in USA for $5000 and it costs him $3000 to make it (he pockets $2000). Then he discovers that he can have it made in China for $100 so he starts making it in China and makes a gazillion $$. The consumer keeps on paying $5000. Theoretically that could happen for a short period of time until competitive forces drive the price down--competitive forces both within and outside USA. This happens very fast actually (ignoring barriers like protected intellectual property or trade secrets, etc.)

If the border of our great country were closed--i.e., we were a closed system, then wages and product costs would reach equilibrium. People would still get rich and people would still get poor. There would be a populated middle class. This assumes a free market of course.

This is how it works...the way it has always worked. If you have a problem with it, blame yourself not the rich guy. He is probably no richer or poorer as a result of offshoring.

Regarding offshoring. Consider semiconductors for example. Most semiconductors are manufactured overseas. Many (probably most) are sold overseas to OEMs. Some of those products are shipped back to USA (like your TV), but many products are sold overseas...never coming to our shore. Companies set up entities in other countries so that they dont have to pay US taxes on products built and sold elsewhere. (There are other reasons companies set up offshore entities as well but I dont want to get off topic.) They have to do that to be competitive with non-US companies.

Anyway, the stupid little cartoon is propaganda and assumes that the viewer was educated by the public school system or not educated at all (roughly equivalent).

The reason rich people have more money than poor people is that (on average) they are smarter (ignoring either tail of the bell curve). There are other factors like ambition, dedication to hard work, etc. Granted, just because Warren Buffet has a zillion times more money than you does not mean he is a zillion times smarter than you. That is kinda what I mean by the tails of the curve. So, should we just go take his money and spread it around? While we are at it, lets go get Michael Moore's money, etc.

And what do you have against Chinese people anyway?

Lame response, Davey Crocket @17.

First, the American people did not suffer from high prices prior to the great betrayal that was NAFTA and the other so called free trade agreements. Indeed, in the 50's and 60's, when the gap between rich and poor isn't a fraction of what it is today, a gallon of regular gas was priced at 27 cents. Working class wages went a whole lot further back at that time then they do now even under Wal-Mart's "Always low prices."

Your "rich people are smarter" routine is simply a restatement of 19th Century pseudo scientific social Darwinism. It is belied by historical reality.

Take the Gilded Age. The first class of billionaires acquired wealth only because of a combination of inheritance and massive governmental subsidies.

This was especially true for the railroads, which received millions of acres of public lands from Congress. Instead of companies investing their own funds, railroads were given vast tracks of public lands, the private sale of which could be used to finance construction.

The enormous tracks of land, ranging from 6 to 40 miles from either side of the tracks, produced monopolies over both land and resources. The amount of public land gifted to the railroads far exceeded the amount of property required to cover the cost of construction.

Major slices of those formally public lands wound up in the hands of dozens of corporations that, as the result of “illegal transfers, now maintain some of the largest holdings of coal, oil and gas, gold, and real estate” in the U.S.

The origins of the oily Koch brothers' fortune can be tied back to those original railroad grants.

Rich people get richer because the game is stacked in their favor, courtesy of the best politicians, and courts, money can buy.

But nice try, Davey. Your fact-free, right wing mumblings are always amusing.

Davey Crocket @ 17 said:

The reason rich people have more money than poor people is that (on average) they are smarter (ignoring either tail of the bell curve).

I have seen no evidence to support that. None. Of the anecdotal evidence I've seen, the opposite appears to be true. So, got any actual evidence to support your claim? Or is it straight out of your ass, like most of the shit you leave here?

DC @ 17,

If you're interested in stretching your brain beyond your ahistorical worldview, I recommend Howard Zinn's "Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology". And as pertains to this discussion, chapter 7-- Economic Justice: The American Class System. It nicely expands on Ernie's answer to you.