Messages

Jimmy Carter was quite sincerely evangelical and Christian and was always very progressive. 

He's also a rabid anti-Semite whose virulently anti-Israel book in 2007 led to around fifteen of his own employees walking out on him, says it all really...

you do know that disagreeing with the actions of the state of Israel is not the same as being antisemitic right?

This.

Jimmy Carter was quite sincerely evangelical and Christian and was always very progressive. 

He's also a rabid anti-Semite whose virulently anti-Israel book in 2007 led to around fifteen of his own employees walking out on him, says it all really...

Oh fella please. He is not an rabid anti-semite. Please stop equating the likes of Jimmy Carter with the likes of Hitler. It serves no good end.

In posing this question I was, in hindsight, lazy and should have simply utilised the search button to trawl through all that had went before. Apologies guys if this represented tired old ground.

The question itself emerged from my own personal experience. I am 48 years old and hadn't read the prog in well over 30 years. I have fallen in love with it with all the zeal of a convert/prodigal. I loved that sense of  Britishness and innovation that I had to some degree considered long dead and noted on the Downthetubes forum that some of those invited to comment on 2000 AD's 35th had referred to making it more accessible to all ages.

Just read my first kingdom trade. I absolutely loved it. Is there a better comic book character than Gene the Hackman? A definite contender for my favourite slice of 2000AD so far.

Coming to 2000AD late was a great move on my part. Pure Gluttony with some great material.

I agree with everything Joe says about economics, the entitlement days are well and truly over, but I don't agree with all this dividing people into Left and Right camps.  Surely you can be a bit of both?  I'm politically Right Wing but socially Left Wing, if that makes sense!

That's part of what I was trying to say, There is no real left or right wing nor any other valid option, certainly not in the modern western political spectrum. Everything's reduced to a binary choice of extremes, the political establishment only exists by saying that an endles trajectory of perpetual progress and growth is inevitable and the only option, the opposition fringe say that complete and sudden collapse is the only thing upon us. Try to propose a third/ternary option, such as decline - which after all is what's happened to every past civilisation that's overshot its resource base, as ours has - and you can count on coming under fire from both sides. Such is our immovable and limited cutural/political landscape.

Good stuff Joseph. My left/right predicated query was an inadequate attempt to get a sense of where people were coming from.

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[14] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.  He sounds like a right idiot tbf.
Beaky I endorse the regulation you speak of-but is that compromising the libetarianism that you seem to champion elsewhere? You cite Canada but hasn't the likes of Sarah Palin and her right wing fellow tea party travellers labelled Canada as a socialist country.
Oh and good morning mate. I hope all is well and thanks for the debate. Its most enjoyable!

I never said Krugman was an idiot, Prodigal dude, he clearly is an intelligent man, but he is also a left-wing demagogue, and that bio was very revealing- London School of Economics, surprise surprise!  And having a fair and needed minimum amount of necessary regulation doesn't compromise my libertarian principles, it enhances them, it allows proper free trade to flourish (relatively) free of the cowboy capitalism that gives us free-marketeers a bad name.  And I've never heard Sarah Palin ever even mention Canada as a socialist country, maybe she was referencing the healthcare system there or something, I don't know, never heard her even mention Canada, so I'm in the dark on that one...

That bio is very revealing and contains an awful lot more than the London School of Economics Beaky. Also a demagogue? What is your definition of a demagogue?

The Sarah Palin thing about Canada? Her references to Canada as a socialist while at the same time being revealed to have availed of its "socialist" health care system in the past? Not that I would award credibility to anything described by Palin as socialist. Thatcher was probably a pinko subversive in that woman's reckoning.

Guys as an old newbie who has only been reading the prog since Christmas after an absence of some 30 years, the thought occurred to me as to how 2000AD maintains or seeks to expand its readership base. Since its material can be fairly adult, will the prog shed readers as age consumes us? How will 2000ad attract new young readers?

Welcome mate

Welcome mate. Relative newbie myself. This is a good place.

Alrighty, just let me put my flak jacket on first, now then, here goes (deep intake of breath)...

I think the Dredd trailer will be in July sometime bec- oh wait, wrong subject, woops, let me try that again (ahem) -

Firstly, regarding Krugman, you claim he's "one of the world's most respected and authoritative economists", by whose standard?  If you mean the liberal media, go figure, if you mean the London School of Economics crowd (an institution founded by Fabian Socialists with the expressed intent of replacing capitalism with socialism), then go figure, every economic strategy supported and advocated by the likes of Krugman and co (large-scale spending, more spending to overcome economic retraction, etc) have been unmitigated failures, yet the the British/Irish/American media at large still have him on, despite his atrocious track record on matters of economic and fiscal prudence... why don't they have someone who is GENUINELY an "authoritative" expert on such matters, someone like Thomas Sowell, but as he's an African-American conservative, he's tantamount to a child molester in the eyes of the 'lamestream' media...

As far as my standards for both crony and free-market capitalism, the former is when government effectively hot-wires the system by picking winners and losers by handing out contracts, subsidies, and general all-round goodies to their donors and benefactors, instead of the latter option which is letting the market forces of genuine supply-and-demand determine what works and is most effective, free of outright and direct political influence, a bit crude and rough outlines there, but just to get my point across...

Lady Thatcher certainly made mistakes in her administration (the Anglo-Irish Agreement easily the worst one), but her economic record stands by itself, what was Britain's economic health like in 1979 and what was it in 1990 when she stepped aside (after being knifed in the back by her cabinet, the b**tards!), and, lastly (no cheering in the aisles there), do I feel government has long held back industrialists and financiers with "damned state intervention", the answer is no, you need SOME amount of regulation to prevent exploitation and/or fraud, a good example being Canada, who were spared the worst of the credit crunch as they had strict banking regulations on the buying and selling of junk bonds and reckless mortgage-backed securities, so that proved to be a good thing, certainly for them.

Phew, I think that clears that up, I'm knackered now, please be gentle with the responses guys, I bleed easily ...

First paragraph of something as accessible as wiki ought to refute your labelling of Krugamn as only a "boiler-plate demagogue" Beaky

Paul Robin Krugman ( /ˈkruːɡmən/;[6] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics) for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps and currency crises. He is the 17th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[14] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.

He sounds like a right idiot tbf.

Beaky I endorse the regulation you speak of-but is that compromising the libetarianism that you seem to champion elsewhere? You cite Canada but hasn't the likes of Sarah Palin and her right wing fellow tea party travellers labelled Canada as a socialist country.

Oh and good morning mate. I hope all is well and thanks for the debate. Its most enjoyable!

[Beaky]

I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

Beaky; can you point to a single example where the operations of the free market have been allowed unlimited free play? Haven't the sterling efforts of industrialists and financiers always (in your view) been frustrated by some damned state intervention? Doesn't that make your your argument effectively unfalsifiable?

You're comparing your Platonic ideal of capitalism with the messy reality of how the financial and corporate sectors, monetary policy, and international trade have actually been demonstrated to interact in the real world we all have to co-exist in.

I'd second The Prodigal's encomium regarding your courage, your strength and your indefatiguability in continually contributing to debates where you know you're going to take considerable flack. As I said before, the purpose of exposing yourself to views different to your own is to force you to rethink and reformulate what can sometimes be lazily entrenched positions. Cheers for keeping us all on our toes, Beaky.

Great post.

If it means getting the re-launch right I'll gladly take the delay. I love STRIP and really want it to be a success

Seconded!!

Yup. Love Strip and want to see it right up there.

http://stripcomicmagazineuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/strip-magazine-to-re-launch-in.html

High street launch now re-scheduled to September. Issue 5 now due to issue next month.

Beaky you refer to crony capitalism and juxtaposition it witha seemingly more pure and laudable version of it. What are the distinguishing features of each and how would you prevent the emergence of the crony version?

Don't mean to sound antagonistic Beaky. It's a good debate and thanks for some good saturday morning exchange.

If we'd voted No it could not legally have applied to Ireland because it requires a change in the constitution. The treaty will put austerity rules into Irish law both binding and permanent. Europe will have final say on how we spend our budgets- mostly paying the debt of European banks.

Welcome to the joys of losing your sovereign independence after gaining it back, Joe dude...

Krugman's identification of the push for austerity owing more to ideology than a commitment to reducing the UK's deficit rings true. Osbourne's rhetoric doesn't obscure the long standing desire of those in his party (and many in the last Labour government) to subject every aspect of ordinary peoples' lives to the vagaries of the free market.

And the problem with that is...?  The notion of social justice is all well and admirable (and as Christians, we have a duty to help those less fortunate), but you have to get the money from somewhere, and Krugman is just a boilerplate demagogue who - like the entire Democratic party - don't want ANY cuts to welfare entitlements, I think Lady Thatcher said it best; "the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of everyone else's money", I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

Beaky No offence but when you describe one of the world's most respected and authoritative economists as a boiler plate demagogue (and then go on to extoll the virtues of Margaret Thatcher) then I am afraid I find myself wondering where you are coming from.