• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It basically invalidates her whole ideology and utterly discredits her. I’ll take it as a win.

          • adroit balloon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            i don’t know if i’d go that far-- maybe just that she died a sad hypocrite. but it does undermine her credibility quite a bit. i’d say that anyone with even a basic education in economics could totally discredit her, though.

            from what I remember reading, she not only was never really good with money, but she was also a bit out of it in her final years, so her husband was managing her/their finances. he had been receiving and depositing her social security checks for years (and possibly some medicare benefits), but she wasn’t actually aware of it. IIRC, it came out later when he was interviewed about her.

    • fedfedfedd
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should kill people that invest in new machines? I dont get it.

      • ethan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are 6 other panels in that comic that provide context

        • fedfedfedd
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah im grasping the concept. What about you?

          • ethan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well the concept isn’t “kill people who invest in machines” so between that and the part where you literally said you didn’t “get it” I’m guessing you aren’t actually grasping anything.

  • RickRussell_CA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course, how this would actually work:

    Workers: “What do we get?”

    AR: “Well, half of you are fired, the other half keep working just as hard.”

    <later>

    AR: “What’s with the guillotine?”

    Workers: “We’re acting in our rational self-interest.”

    AR: “I see.”

    AR: <to the fired workers> “They’re the reason you can’t get a job. If they didn’t form a UNION to keep you OUT, you’d be doing just fine! And I can’t fire THEM, thanks to the UNION.”

    AR: <to the employed workers> “Well, I’d love to give you more time off, but I can’t, because those MOOCHERS over there are freeloading on the system, and I gotta pay outrageous taxes for their welfare because THEY DON’T WORK.”

    Media: “Let’s talk to two experts in the labor field.”

    Expert 1: “Oh, the problem is definitely abusive, bloated unions and exclusive contracts.”

    Expert 2: “Oh, the problem is definitely freeloading welfare queens.”

    Workers: <try to push each other into the guillotine>

    AR: Flies away in her golden private jet, “MUHAHAHAHAHA!”