Who knew?

[madbaker]

Dilbert isn't as consistently funny as it used to be. Still worth reading, I think, but I rarely laugh out loud.
Sunday's strip, however, nailed it. I had no idea that Scott Adams was such an astute observer of international commerce.

What I'm reading: Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Comments

Well...

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

It's kind of misleading. Firstly, de-funding terrorists is not the sole or even primary good reason for buying a fuel-efficient car; the whole strip is predicated on a straw-man argument. Secondly, if the richest and most consumptive countries reduced their demand, the price of oil might fall, and the terrorists would end up less well funded (developing countries have less USD to buy oil with) - so Dogbert isn't even necessarily correct. Finally, remember that Dogbert is soulless and amoral. (Like capitalism.)

I'd say the message sent by fuel-effficient cars is: I choose to waste less of the stuff that the whole world runs on and which we are about to run short of, regardless of whether it makes economic sense for me personally.

Re: Well...

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I've personally heard people make the de-funding argument for buying a hybrid.

Re: Well...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

"Because that way, you're only supporting terrorism when you're going uphill." -- John Stewart

Re: Well...

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

*snork*!

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

What I'm reading: Neil Gaiman, American Gods

finishesd that a couple weeks ago and enjoyed it immensely :)

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I got it when it first came out. I watched Neverwhere again this weekend, so I was in a mood to re-read it.

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

I should check out neverwhere...I've been listening to Gaiman on audiblebooks. they're great for getting you through mindless data entry at work :)

Re: Well...

[blkeagl.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Neverwhere and American Gods are terrific!

I haven't seen the BBC production of Neverwhere yet. The book was awesomely good; I may have enjoyed it even more than AG.

Re: Well...

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

And if, by switching to more fuel-efficient cars, the US cut its oil consumption enough, wouldn't the price of oil go down? And if so, wouldn't that reduce the amount going to terrorists? (If not, then it means the price is inelastic. Market capitalists don't like to admit things like that.)

Not saying that is a valid case for paying the premium that hybrids command. But it's a flaw in Dogbert's reasoning; the fact that oil is a fungible commodity means its price should be susceptible to demand destruction by its largest consumer.

Also, if the motive is personal morals - Dilbert himself does not want to contribute money to terrorists - then it matters not that others will do so. By consuming less oil, Dilbert pays less to the terrorists. (If he buys a hybrid Prius, he contributes to the Japanese, who hunt whales. Sometimes you can't win.)

Never forget that Dogbert does not have your best interest at heart!

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I thought the TV series was better than the book.
I like the book immensely, but it over-explains some bits, especially at the ending where it weakens the effect. Although there are some plot twists that are transmitted obviously in the series that Gaiman corrected in the novelization.

Re: Well...

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

If everyone thought about it to the extent that you have, the cartoon wouldn't be funny. Or true.