What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
81 Comments
- tdbeith, on 06/18/2009, -0/+88Sucks to your ass-mar!
- Airbear007, on 06/18/2009, -0/+78But he isnt holding the Conch
- TobiasParker, on 06/18/2009, -0/+74The last frame should have just been Piggy under a Rock.
- isunktheship, on 06/18/2009, -1/+49congrats you have the literary level of mandatory reading for 6th graders.
- Santa34, on 06/18/2009, -0/+42Kill the pig,
Slit his throat,
Spill his blood. - GhostInAShell, on 06/18/2009, -6/+48*****, I was hoping I was the only literate person on Digg.
- dualityim, on 06/18/2009, -1/+22This is ridiculous. The manufacture of weapons at the macroeconomic level, like that of any good, depends on real input variables such as natural resources, labor, and technology, and not on nominal variables like the amount of bank notes in circulation. Ralph's fractional reserve banking system may have created more liquidity for the macroeconomy but should have no impact on their productivity in terms of manufacturing weapons.
- Narcism, on 06/18/2009, -0/+19PBF invented the one frame pause and then profanity in the last frame, you're right.
- BobTheTaco, on 06/18/2009, -0/+17"We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything."
- LtGenPanda, on 06/18/2009, -2/+17Mirror: http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/8130/lordofthef ...
- BoutDemCanes91, on 06/19/2009, -1/+10Buried for spelling civilized with an s, what the ***** brits, that doesn't even look good.
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -1/+10milhouse ate the cheetos
- uptwolait, on 06/18/2009, -2/+10That hits WAY too close to home.
- Airbear007, on 06/19/2009, -0/+7OH MY GOD THEY KILLED PIGGY!
- bstew22, on 06/19/2009, -0/+6HAHA! ECONOMY! IM DRINKING!
- markw351, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5Buried for the scientology.org banner ad
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5Don't kill hiiiiiiim!
- BrianD2, on 06/19/2009, -0/+5Firefox: Adblock Plus
- HEAVYisSPY, on 06/19/2009, -2/+7Islander (let's call him Atlas) comes up with a new technique for processing coconuts...it's labor intensive...but with the right knowhow a machine can be built to extract 20% more juice from the coconuts. Atlas estimates the project will take 1000 hours to complete, but once built will last for roughly 100 years. Even 50 years of extra resources, he decides, will make the task worthwhile.
Atlas begins work while the other islanders fritter and waste the moments that make up the dull day, and despite his best efforts he only convinces Ayn to join him in his efforts. Investing 500 hours each that they could have spent swinging in hammocks or collecting seashells, Atlas and Ayn perfect the device, and they extract 20% more material from their coconuts. The other islanders notice that Atlas and Ayn are in better shape than ever, and demand access to the machine. Atlas and Ayn remind them that they didn't contribute, and didn't come up with the idea, but offer to share their excess product for an exchange of goods and services.
The Islanders angrily refuse, and seize the machine, and make it available to all islanders free of charge. With far greater use, the machine breaks down in a mere 5 years, and Atlas and Ayn only receive a handful of extra rations for their monumental amount of labor.
Later that year, Isaac comes up a new idea for an even better machine, but then decides against it, realizing that it will be a fruitless waste of time.
Some time later, Alexander comes up with an idea for a levee to protect the island, but no one will share their extra rations for this protective service. Alexander is crestfallen and gives up on his idea.
Then an unusually large wave hits, and - without a levee - they all die.
The end. - rwbrinso, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5You're no good on a job like this.
- Latinbaseballer, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4so sad, but so true
- dman24752, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4They killed Piggy!!
- BigT383, on 06/19/2009, -0/+3...You Bastards?
- TaintBrush, on 06/18/2009, -1/+4Mirror in case:
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2685/firstdraft ... - D3koy, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3One of these days I'm going to get here fast enough to actually see the comic on their website, and not some mirror...
- LtGenPanda, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/8130/lordofthef ...
- BC200, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Dude, I've been pausing and saying "Dude, shut the ***** up, seriously." to people's dumb ideas for ages!
- Logrusmage, on 06/18/2009, -1/+4Because after all, the answer to bloated government is a government comittee.
- asskicker32, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Woah! Abstruse goose on the digg front page and still up!
- Poochyfud, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Didn't see that coming. Awesome! And thanks to the submitter for not ruining the joke like many do.
- dualityim, on 06/21/2009, -0/+2"Once we reach a near-post-scarcity society, I'll be happy to board the Enterprise with you. Right now it's a little unrealistic. That's all I'm arguing."
The problem is that, if we wait until we've achieved post-scarcity to change our economic system, we may never get there. After two productive revolutions, the industrial revolution and the information revolution, we in the postindustrial era enjoy productivity levels unimaginable in the agrarian era. But where do our extra productivity go? A lot of that goes to expensive advertising campaigns, to building extravagant yachts for one person's exclusive use, or to researching new kinds of makeup; productivity that could have gone towards ensuring better equality, providing the weakest members of society with food and health care, or researching even better productive technologies. This is a direct result of the competitive system in place. This is a problem that advanced societies all grapple with: as higher productivity makes society more and more rich and plentiful, do we stay with the system that got us there, or do we transition into a new system made possible by our plentifulness that addresses some of humanity's loftier concerns? Capitalist accumulation is a self-perpetuating force. It takes society or cataclysmatic crisis to alter the course of the economic superstructure. - blindmonkey, on 06/19/2009, -0/+2You bastards!
- mjk340, on 06/19/2009, -0/+2The Fed decides which bank gets the new notes they print, and the bank decides which corporation is worthy of their loan. Basically they loot from the people through devaluation and divert the funds to industries that would not survive without a cartel in charge.
The number of bank notes in circulation is irrelevant as you have stated, but the direction by which the money is infused in the economy does have an impact on what is produced. - mjk340, on 06/19/2009, -0/+2Well, while everyone was spending their days building shelter, searching for food, and trading necessities, the Federal Reserve could have been diluting the value of all of their hard work by printing money and giving it directly to the weapons manufacturers.
- dualityim, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2""produces the coconut machine in exchange for somebody who likes to build shelter"
That's capitalism."
No, it's not. The engineer built the machine because that's what he enjoys doing. He did not build it for its exchange value. To him the machine is not an alien object with which he can barter for other goods or exchange for currency. It is an objectification of his labor and of his being. Others people may labor and build objects, such as shelters, for the same reasons, and these goods are allocated amongst the people because the people recognize that each person need certain goods and services. They act in such a way in solidarity. They are not producing alien objects as wage laborers in order to exchange their labor for its value. They are producing for the sake of producing. - CaptainCool53, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Atlas created the machine and put in all the labor only to deny its use to everybody? How about Islander Steve who invents a similar machine, not for greed, but because he's the engineer type and enjoys constructing? He does what he likes to do and produces the coconut machine in exchange for somebody who likes to build shelter and somebody who likes to make clothing rendering their services.
- dualityim, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2"Human nature demonstrates that the latter types far outnumber the former. 50 million years of cooperation has nothing on 3 billion years of competition...it's what we are."
This is the fundamental error with the libertarian logic. The justification for the minimal state is based on vast assumptions about human nature that no one knows for certain if they are true. Why is it justified for a state to collect taxes to provide for law enforcement, but not justified to collect taxes to provide those who were not born with great intellect with a decent standard of living? The assumption is that humans by nature would kill and steal from each other if given the chance, but won't care about equality. The evidence for such "laws" of human nature are flimsy at best. And just because humans have acted in a certain way in the past in order to survive doesn't indicate that humans are by nature a certain way. As society, technology, and productivity levels develop the focus and goal of human life also changes. There's no evidence to suggest that living in a society of equality and of solidarity between men and women is not also a part of human nature. - CaptainCool53, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Atlas created the machine and put in all the labor only to deny its use to everybody? How about Islander Steve who invents a similar machine, not for greed, but because he's the engineer type and enjoys constructing? He does what he likes to do and produces the coconut machine in exchange for somebody who likes to build shelter and somebody who likes to make clothing rendering their services.
- shauncullen, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1HAHA! IM DRINKING ALSO! TO DRINKING! AND ECONOMY!
- shauncullen, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1Made me cry. Seriously.
- CaptainCool53, on 06/23/2009, -0/+1"if you think Anarchy mixed with voluntary socialism would work in a broad scale, then you've seriously misjudged human nature."
Based solely on the last 6,000 or so years, I'd say you were right. But human nature exists only for the preservation of the species. If you think capitalism and human nature are compatible, or complement each other, then you need to examine both concepts a little more closely. Capitalism IS NOT sustainable. I'll use an allegory presented by Daniel Quinn to attempt to illustrate: A guy builds a flying machine and leaps off a cliff with it, attempting to fly. Below him is the wreckage of countless other flying machines which failed and caused their operators to careen to the ground. My machine is different, he tells himself, so it's bound to work where the others have failed. The machine begins to function, however the ground is quickly approaching as gravity takes its hold. No problem, he tells himself, I'll just flip the machine into high power and I'll succeed where the others did not. Still the ground is approaching faster and faster as the machine operator and his machine lose altitude. Unfazed, the machine operator marvels at his apparent success. I'm still in the sky, he tells himself. I've succeeded where all the others have failed. Eventually this machine operator will hit the ground as the others did, but not before he completely exhausts his resources in an attempt to counteract the unstoppable force of gravity. And all the while he'll congratulate himself for his success in flying.
For those of you keeping score:
Machine operator = capitalists
flying machine = capitalism
gravity = human nature
flying = living sustainably
Humor me by assuming that human nature exists for the purpose of preserving our species, and then tell me how a system that, again, INEVITABLY results in so much starvation and death, and that results in 95% of the world's population to be classified as third world could possible be compatible with human nature. - dualityim, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1"Sure, but is your logic also flawed because you assume the opposite?
I don't claim anything with absolute certainty, but it's reasonably clear that a lot of what we do stems from acting in our own self interest."
True, we do much out of self-interest. But we also do much out of other concerns. Can you say that humans don't care about democracy, equality, solidarity? And if nonmaterial concerns such as these are also pursued by man, then why is only the minimal state justified? If private enterprise can't address some of these concerns, then isn't it justified for the government to provide for them, just as it is justified for the government to provide for public services in the libertarian theory?
Furthermore, libertarianism is a conservative, if not reactionary, force. I won't deny that the minimal state may be an efficient system during the industrial era. But as productivity and wealth continues to increase into and past the industrial era, we can observe more sides of the human nature that do not show up as much when resources and goods are more scarce. People become more concerned about leisure, equality, and their fellow men. It makes sense to allow society and government to develop along with our shifting values, rather than hold onto a fixed system justified by circumstances that may become outdated. - dualityim, on 06/19/2009, -0/+1I find it strange that you allude to Ayn Rand in an argument for the need of government to provide for public services and intellectual property protection.
- CaptainCool53, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1Forcing people to compete leads, INEVITABLY, to people losing. That's fine in a soccer game, but when you're competing for food and shelter, how can anybody possible advocate a system that, when it's working at its best, still forces a percent of the population to starve and freeze?
The guy who likes to fly stunt planes, under the system I advocate, would be able to, assuming he contributes his fair share of work to the society, thereby allowing the stunt plane builder to provide him with the equipment without having to worry about his own survival. People in OUR society work, literally, most of their lives to put food on the table. Does it actually take that long to go out and obtain food? No, but we suffer from the delusion that we as a society need to constantly fuel the capitalist machine in order to provide for ourselves and our families. If you disentangle what actually matters (obtaining the food and distributing it) from all the ***** (advertising, marketing, adding filler to stretch the producer's dollar, pumping it full of sugar to make it addictive to the kids, selling it to the supermarkets, selling it to the consumers), it doesn't require a 40 hour work week to feed a society. The stunt plane guy could devote the majority of his life to stunt plane flying and a few hours a day to obtaining food.
"In a socialist society, one of two things would happen:
1) You would continue underperforming at your job, not contributing optimally to society and hurting the economy as a whole
2) The state would choose a new occupation for you
Either way you look at it, something takes a hit, either the economy or your personal liberty."
I'm really not arguing socialism. There is no need for a government within this economic system. I've heard it referred to as anarcho-communism or Neotribalism (although that's sort of on a larger scale with this system as the base foundation). I describe it as collective self interest. Anyway, let's say our stunt pilot is, for lack of a better term, an idiot-savant, and is only able to fly a plane and do nothing else. In our society, he either starves or is caught in one of our weak socialist safety nets (welfare). Perhaps his existence constitutes a net loss for the productivity of the society (in both yours and mine), but in mine he won't be turned away from a hospital for basic medical care because he can't show an insurance card. - ArvinJA, on 06/19/2009, -0/+1Then you are a road socialist. :)
- HEAVYisSPY, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1What I find most interesting is we've had a 20 post discussion without any name-calling. I think that's a first on digg. ;)
- greenroom628, on 06/18/2009, -2/+3aaaaand down...
mirror? - ArvinJA, on 06/19/2009, -1/+2Audit the the fed! Scratch that, ABOLISH THE FED! Scratch that too... ABOLISH GOVERNMENT!
- dualityim, on 06/19/2009, -0/+1The Fed doesn't give notes to banks. New notes are sold on the open market in exchange for treasury bonds. The Fed may infuse banks with cash through the discount lending window but that's only an emergency measure for banks facing a liquidity crisis, and they are expected to repay the loan.
The point about the Fed looting from the people through devaluation of currency is valid, but that's just the inflation tax. - dualityim, on 06/19/2009, -0/+1Who said bloated government was the problem in the first place?
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
