TheAgitator.com
Fisking Tom Tomorrow
Monday, July 28th, 2003
Goody. Let’s begin….
“The libertarian think tanks are truly adept at introducing completely ludicrous ideas into mainstream political discourse.”
Damn them! How dare these institutions of “thought” come swaggering into this town of bureaucrats and lifelong politicians and introduce ideas and such! Better to leave things be. Government does best when you just leave it alone. Don’t keep a watchful eye on it. Just leave it be. Feed it with tax dollars. It’ll be fine. Honest. Just look at the DOJ, for example!
“For instance, who would have ever thought the privatization of Social Security to be discussed as if it were actually a rational proposal?”
Probably the same people who recognize that the entire concept of “Social Security” is a fraud and a lie, a ponzi scheme that would be illegal if ever attempted in the private sector. Note how it’s called a “trust fund,” even though you have no say in what happens to the money after its taken from you, note how it’s called a “contribution,” even though you have no choice but to fork it over, note how it’s called a “retirement fund,” even though if you die before retirement, you can’t, for excample, pass on your “contribution” to your heirs.
The people who think privatizing Social Security is a “rational” idea are the same people who understand that the money you’re forced to pay over each paycheck is actually yours. It is private. The program was marketed that way. We’re just asking for some truth in marketing.
Well what makes more sense? The market always pays off in the long run!
This is meant to be sarcasm. But it’s true. There’s no 40 year period in the history of the stock market that has yielded worse returns than what you get from the Social Security program. That includes the Depression. That includes World War II. That includes the dot-com bust. Tomorrow’s trying to be funny here. If he’d look at the numbers, it’s his ignorance that’s laughable.
Just, um, try not to retire in a downturn.
True, you’d be a lot worse off if you’d retired in, say, 2001 than in 1999. But even if you had retired in 2001, you’d have invested for all your working life — 40+ years — meaning you’d still have garnered significantly more on your FICA taxes than you’d get back from the current system (1 to 4%, at best). About the only way anyone could have lost everything is if they’d entered the labor force during an uspwing, then retired five or six years later during a downswing.
So for the .00004% of the population who entered the workforce in 1998 at age 61, then retired in 2002 at age 65, yes, they’d have done worse off than with the current Social Security system. Good thing Tom Tomorrow’s looking out for those folks. And at everyone else’s expense.
“Not to mention the ongoing debate over school vouchers — which, proponents have recently taken to arguing, are necessary because the public school system actually constitutes a government monopoly“
Doesn’t it? And why is the left so hostile to private monopolies, which they say harm consumers (but at least rose out of competence and fair play, and not at the point of a gun), but are certain that government monopolies are benevolent and kind and always in the public interest?
The machinery of both are run by individuals — fallible, failing, self-interested individuals. The solution to any monopoly, prviate or public, is competition.
Damn those robber barons! Forcing us to pay for their schools whether we want to or not!
Again, a lame attempt of sacracsm that actually rings true. Why should parents who home school their kids pay for the schooling of the kids down the street? Why should any of us have to pay for public schools that aren’t subject to competition, where textbooks and curriculum are dictated by ideological teachers’ unions and school boards? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to direct the money we spend on education to those schools consistent with our values and principles?
Yes — of what possible benefit could the education of the next generation of Americans be to us
Bullshit on two levels. First, the leftist likes of Tom Tomorrow and his cohorts in the Boomer generation don’t give a rat’s ass about future generations. That’s why they’re passing on to us enormous deficits, costly entitlements (prescription drug benefits, for example), and refusing to allow us to grow our Social Security “contributions” for fear that it might, just might, force Boomers to work a year or two or more in the transition phase before getting their government checks.
Second, the very reason the school choice movement is gaining support among the poor and among advocates for the poor is because the public school system is failing. That is, the very reason vouchers are winning favor is because people care about the education of the next generation of Americans. Case in point: Washington, D.C. has one of the highest per-pupil spending ratios of any metro area in the country. It also has the most poorly educated students. The reason Mayor Anthony Williams and half the D.C. City Council have signed on to vouchers is that they’re fed up with a failing system (well, that and the fact that Congress bought them off with millions in other subsidies).
Tomorrow ties “caring about the next generation” to “caring about the public schools.” The two needn’t be tied. And in fact, the two aren’t compatible on the same plane at the same time.
“And — this is absolutely true — I recently ran across a column by an unabashed free-marketer decrying our system of public roads as an example of creeping socialism”
Well, notice that Tomorrow doesn’t cite the author. I could find lots of particularly dumb points made by leftists too (many by Tom Tomorrow), lump them in with mainstream “progressive” thinking, and try to taint the whole Democrat party in the process.
As for roads, sure, in an ideal libertarian society roads would be privately owned. Why? Because they’d then be built in areas where they’re most useful, not near states, cities and businesses who exerted the most influence on government when they were built. We’d probably have less traffic and fewer accidents, too.
But I don’t think public roads are “creeping socialism.” In fact, I think the opposite is happening. More and more states are turning to “HOT” lanes, lanes that enable you to zip to work traffic-free if you’re willing to pay a fee. Egalitarians scream bloody murder — “Why should the rich get a faster commute?”
They forget, of course, that as wealthy people pay their way out of the gridlocked lanes, the gridlocked lanes will have fewer cars, meaning everybody gets a faster commute.
Whatever the case, public roads are here to stay. It’s not a libertarian battle worth fighting, and I think it’s telling that Tomorrow doesn’t reveal his “source.” My guess? It was some LP hack in a bar.
The national forests belong to all Americans, including those who own logging companies!
Tragedy of the commons. If forests are “publicly” owned, there’s incentive for logging companies to cut down every tree — else the competing logging company will first. Give logging companies private ownership of forests, and there’s incentive to be sure that there’s always a bounty of trees, otherwise said logging company goes out of business.
No libertarian would ever argue that the forests “belong to all Americans.” We’d argue that the forests belong to, well, whoever owns them. And that person ought to be free to do with his own property what he pleases.
Public ownership breeds waste and neglect. Private ownership induces care and responsibility. Think of public versus private housing. Public versus private bathrooms. Public versus private swimming pools. You name it. Think of how you treated apartments you rented in your young adult days versus how you treated that first home you bought. We take care of the things we own. We’re more careless with things other people own.
“If the founding fathers had wanted auto emissions standards — they’d have put them in the Constitution!
Not phrased quite right. Should read: “If the founding fathers had wanted auto emissions standards (or any federal interference with local commerce), they’d have given the federal government the authority to meddle as such via the Constitution.”
But they didn’t. Sorry, Tom.
It’s funny how leftists like Tomorrow can take such an originalist reading of the Constitution on those issues they’re keen on (like the Bill of Rights, minus the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments), but be so willing to overlook those provisions inconsistent with the leftist to-do list.
This is a weak, weak effort. There are arguable logical holes and legitimate, reasonable gripes with libertarianism. Tomorrow managed to construct a four-panel catoon that didn’t address any of them.
a bit over-sensitive aint ya?
its just a cartoon
Excellent deconstruction!
I would add one thing, though.
There is no reason why the 2001 retiree would have to be materially worse off than the 1999 retiree.
If both had been following a prudent retirement investment plan, several years prior to their planned retirement they would have been transferring assets from higher-earning, but riskier, investments (like growth stocks) to lower-earning, but safer, investments (like bonds).
That strategy protects you from the onset of a market downturn right before retirement.
On the other hand, if they are jaw-droppingly stupid (think about certain Enron employees) and leave their entire lifesavings in the stock of one company right up until the day they plan to retire, they risk getting a royal reaming if the stock market tanks right at retirement time.
Geez, you really believe the stuff you write, huh?
Just out of curiosity, how did the logging companies acquire ownership of those forests in the first place? I’ll give you a hint, they were once public land.
Gee, and how did it become public land?
I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t donated to the government by kind-hearted property owners.
Why is it that propaganda is always in cartoon form???
Radley, that was outstanding. Tom Tomorrow’s cartoons are more than just humor. He’s trying to promote his Leftist ideas. What you did was give him one hell of a counterattack.
” First, the leftist likes of Tom Tomorrow and his cohorts in the Boomer generation don’t give a rat’s ass about future generations. That’s why they’re passing on to us enormous deficits”
Bush is a leftist?
Clinton balanced the budget. Bush is the one making sure we’ll have deficits for the forseeable future.
Sean writes : “He’s trying to promote his Leftist ideas. What you did was give him one hell of a counterattack.”
Oh please. Let’s not get overexcited. Leave that for the Republican Youth brownshirts. It’s a weblog post about a cartoon, not a cavalry charge.
I have no problem with truly witty cartoons from a leftist perspective. The problem with Tom Tommorrow, most of the time, is that it is simply a poorly written political editorial with pictures. The advantage, of course, is that when anyone actually addresses the actual arguments made, or lack thereof, they are accused of lacking a sense of humor for taking a cartoon too seriously.
Why should Tom Tomorrow be immune to criticism? Look at the actual cartoon: examine the words-to-picture ratio. If Radley had spruced up his fisking with some poorly drawn imitation of stock 50’s era cartoons, would his argument be that much more appealing?
Fisking Tom Tomorrow
Radley Balko rips apart a cartoon on libertarian ideas. Great effort.
Late Night Reading
Radley Balko fisks Tom Tomorrow. Both the Whiskey Bar and The Voice Unheard are serving fried rice. At Armed and Dangerous, Eric Raymond, slices and dices Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Robert at Conundrum defines democracy at i…
“…there’s incentive to be sure that there’s always a bounty of trees, otherwise said logging company goes out of business.”
It would only take one quarter of otherwise poor results to see the bring the end to said forest. The constant pressure for short-term results is always somehow over-looked by these arguments.
I stopped reading your post right after your first “rebuttal” about libertarian think tanks. You, like everyone else, twist and turn what was said to suit your argument. I didn’t read anything from the cartoon that libertarian think tanks were bad. Tomorrow was critical of the ideas coming from them. There is a difference.
Again, I am not surprised by your reaction. It’s not the first time you spin what’s said by others to support your one sided and arrogant point of view. But, then again, everyone does that don’t they?
Scared Stiff you seem to ignore the ability of the market to actually rid the marketplace of those companies unable to balance short term profit motive with long term stability. Yes, companies may seek large profits in the near term, and this may lead to some forrest loss. The point of the market mechanism is to hand over the responsibility of said lands to those most adapt to manage such lands, and if they are not able to manage those lands efficiently - and this includes balancing short and long term considerations - then they go bankrupt. See Enron, Global Crossing, and many other coporations that are no longer around. Of course when governments organizations screw up (i.e. when forresters burn their own forests down), they don’t go out of business, they get a larger increase in the budget line.
If privatizing Social Security were such a rational proposal people would have elected politicians who would have privatized it. Either the privatization crowd are imbeciles at marketing or there are serious problems with the proposal.
Has anyone done a breakdown of returns for different periods?
Yes Claude, because if it one thing the American public is known for, it is electing the politicians with the most rational proposals.
All sarcaism aside, if you were at all right, there would be no reason to do anything anymore - because if it was at all rational, it would have already been done. Now that you mention it though, that’s not half bad. Let’s stop passing laws.
Claude-
The other possibility is that there is a group of people that do not want to privatize social security because they would like to keep a strangle hold on the funds and the people. So maybe they have been more adept at marketing a scare them til they shit their pants and vote to keep the status quo, but I could be mistaken.
There are retired people out there who actually think that they will not receive SS checks if they privatize it. (I know some.)
BTW- There is NO 40 year period that you could lose money in the market, including investing the day before the crash in 1929.
Social Security is a dole for current retirees and a tax on current workers pays for it. That we have tapped it in the past to meet current, unrelated expeditures surely helps to expose this fact…. Apparently we the people want such a thing though we seem to derive comfort from calling it things that it is not.
A more critical question is not whether we would all be better off it the funds were invested in the market (and while the past is a rough guide for the future, it is no guarantee), rather it is: If we were to abolish SS, would Americans save for their retirement (by voluntarily putting something aside and investing in the market) or would we all have Jet Skis? Perhaps the existence of SS encourages us to have one of the lowest savings rates on the planet and in its abscence we would save more — or maybe we would simply spend the difference.
Let people opt out of the system … or at least have a say in how their own funds are invested if we the people still see some need to force savings for the public good…. But I would not allow the government to choose private managers (egads!) for a host of reasons….
I enjoy Tom Tomorrow even if I don’t usually agree with him. It’s fun to hear ideologically driven non-sense — isn’t that why we read blogs?
Nice work Radley.
Great job, Radley, and long overdue. As someone notes above, Tomorrow’s addle-brained ideas usually get a free pass because he’s a cartoonist. (I’m appalled by the first comment in this thread, which accuses you of “over-sensitivity” and rings off with the insightful “it’s just a cartoon”. Yikes.) My only quibble is with your characterization of this cartoon as a “weak, weak effort.” I don’t think it’s any worse than Tomorrow’s usual stuff.
I’ve never been much of a fan of Mr. Tomorrow. I’m a big fan of sarcasm, but not when the reasoning behind it sucks. It’s almost like living with your dad again, back when he hated the music you listened to.
Tim, you must have missed the “Patriotism Foundation - Rationalizing Greed since 1999″ in the last panel or the subtle inclusion of a smoky industrial plant in the third. Tom certainly does not like libertarian organizations; they go against practically everything he and his supporters believe in.
According to the last panel, that cartoon was copyrighted in 2000. Fisking a three year-old brainless cartoon? I’d set my sights a little higher next time.
WHAT or WHO the hell is Tom Tommorrow?
Is this crap actually published somewhere? I guess I’m O.O.T.L.
I exchanged a couple emails with Tom before this Iraq war: In one cartoon, he had put libertarians in the same pro-war camp as the neocons. This was before Stand Down! and other blogs articulated the libertarian case against war better than I, but it’s my impression he’s genuinely curious about differing viewpoints.
Of course, what he does with that information can be something else entirely.
Sorry but “BTW- There is NO 40 year period that you could lose money in the market, including investing the day before the crash in 1929.” just doesn’t work.
For example, to match the market you have to have a portfolio that mirrors the market as a whole. In practice that is impossible with less than $100,000. Then there are the transaction costs - the transaction costs are the real killers.
There would also be political pressure to intervene in the markets. Look at how Greenspan is artificially keeping interest rates low. It just might work - until Bush gets reelected. Then that bubble will burst.
Sorry folks, no free lunch means no free lunch.
Claude:
Actually you can buy into an S&P500 index fund for around a thousand or so. Most index funds have very low fees (transaction costs) as well.
I would add that one should consider any period of returns in REAL (post inflation) terms. Using that as a measure, then there have been very long periods of very poor returns in the stock market.
“I would add that one should consider any period of returns in REAL (post inflation) terms….”
But then the same measure must be applied to SS returns as they are now.
Except when Social Security means Free Lunch… like those first retirees who made no contributions into the SS system but were lucky enough to get benefits.
No free lunch means you’ll pay for it later… as in I’ll pay for it when I retire (but get nothing in return).
P.S. I’m 22 y.o.
Logical holes in Libertarianism?
Scared Stiff:
No. As I said earlier, SS contributions are in no way an investment, they are a tax. The return to the individual so taxed is the payments he/she receives in the future. This so happens to be adjusted over the years largely in line with (or even better than) inflation. The return on the SS “fund” has no bearing on the return to the retiree…. really, the way to make the most from it is to live longer….
July 19, 2000 is the date that cartoon was published in the American Prospect. Why the sudden fury?
Tomorrow is ignorant and profoundly unfunny. I saw this cartoon a while back and just shook my head at the idiocy of it… thanks for the dissection.
Some of the comments on this board are pretty inane too. Here’s one:
“Bush is a leftist?
Clinton balanced the budget. Bush is the one making sure we’ll have deficits for the forseeable future.”
First of all, everyone knows that the only Clinton “balanced the budget” due to the enormous windfall of income and capital gains taxes he got during stock market bubble.
Second, to portray Bush as “the one” driving up the deficits is absurd. Have you heard of the legislative branch?
I’m all for criticizing Bush on the deficit, but can we try to be rational about it?
I’ve Never Seen This Much Stupidity Crammed Into Four Panels
Radley Balko does the dirty work here. This cartoon is just jaw-droppingly stupid. There’s not one intelligent word in…
I’ve Never Seen This Much Stupidity Crammed Into Four Panels
Radley Balko does the dirty work here. This cartoon is just jaw-droppingly stupid. There’s not one intelligent word in…
Claude, “For example, to match the market you have to have a portfolio that mirrors the market as a whole. In practice that is impossible with less than $100,000. Then there are the transaction costs - the transaction costs are the real killers.”
Are you for real? If you’re really as smart as you think you are, you would know that no matter how big (or small) a retirement portfolio you had, you would never invest in individual stocks as an individual investor. The beauty of privatizing SS is having a choice of what to invest in, yes, but these would consist of aggressive and conservative funds, not individual stocks. You can easily diversify enough in nearly any fund(besides those stupid pink slips) to maintain risk repellant. You could start out your forty year work life investing in mainly stock, move to mortgages and eventually mostly bonds.
Frank has it right. If you were invested in primarily government bonds and overseas currency, you could have retired within weeks after the crash and maintained a entiltement larger than that which you put in. Likewise, if you had just started shortly before the crash, you could have easily gained your money back and more in pure stock before 1960. If you were in bonds and then shifted to stock, you could have even done much better than that.
I’ve Never Seen This Much Stupidity Crammed Into Four Panels
Radley Balko does the dirty work here. This cartoon is just jaw-droppingly stupid. There’s not one intelligent word in any…
Taking on Tomorrow
Fellow libertarian Radley Balko fisks a recent four-panel where Tom Tomorrow makes a feeble attack on libertarian ideas. Check out…
Second, to portray Bush as “the one” driving up the deficits is absurd. Have you heard of the legislative branch?–
DAMN those Democrats in control of both houses of Congress for the past ten years! DAMN THEM TO HEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL!!!!
For those of you who still think Social Security should be a private venture, have you not read the business and want ad sections of your local papers in the last 3 years? I know 3 years ago many of my baby boomer friends were talking about early retirement and now many of them are wondering if retirement is possible. Just remember there are alot of wealthy folks just waiting for the day the government says go ahead and dump your Social Security into the markets. They will be standing with there hands out and a huge profit taking smile on their faces. I wonder how long before the stock you bought on Tuesday at 20 and by Thursday it’s worth 10 will make it back to 20?
I know I enjoyed the glorious surpluses, which only drove up the national debt to the tune of $18 billion dollars in the great surplus year of 2000.
Almost as much as my 1993 middle-class income tax cut.
“Bush is a leftist?
Clinton balanced the budget. Bush is the one making sure we’ll have deficits for the forseeable future.”
Sorry, you are wrong here. The Republican congress balanced the budget. Clinton just signed the bill. As I remeber it, Clinton accepted their balanced budgets very unwillingly.
“If privatizing Social Security were such a rational proposal people would have elected politicians who would have privatized it. Either the privatization crowd are imbeciles at marketing or there are serious problems with the proposal.”
Well, one thing is for sure. The current system is a miserable failure.
Matthew Menefee writes: “Sorry, you are wrong here. The Republican congress balanced the budget. Clinton just signed the bill. As I remeber it, Clinton accepted their balanced budgets very unwillingly.”
And now we’ve got a Republican congress and a Republican President, and deficits out the ass.
Hm. Maybe it has something to do with the tax increase Clinton put through, as opposed to the insane tax cuts Bush has put through?