>Isn't a greedy rich bastard, but some dude that understand economics
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>Isn't a greedy rich bastard, but some dude that understand economics
>Isn't a greedy rich bastard, but some dude that understand economics
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
My favorite part is that his vault is canonically just full of the treasure he's found which is how he knows where every single coin came from. His actual money is invested all over the world and he gains his wealth by constantly reinvesting his money intelligently. He's like the total inverse of the traditional "greedy rich butthole" archetype.
>He's like the total inverse of the traditional "greedy rich butthole" archetype.
He's a banker who makes so much money in the USA alone that his taxes pay for 97% of military instalments in the USA, how the frick is that not the greedy rich butthole archetype? Plus how many times he is being proud of his "banker ancestry". The only reason he is not a stereotypical israelite is because he is a stereotypical scotsman.
>he treats his workers and companies much better than any modern day billionaire does.
he considers buying firewood for his workers in a wooden shack in motherfricking Alaska to be be splurging (he only did it because he just broke a billion dollars), and his secretary had to spend her entire first week salary on a single cup of coffee (which Scrooge then threw in her face). Jeff Bezos dreams of being able to treat his workers as bad as Scrooge does.
Those are only negative stereotypes if you believe wealth is inherently bad. He's very explicitly based on Andrew Carnegie (Scottish immigrant who became a business magnate), the 'israeli banker' trope didn't even exist in the US until after WW2 when all the European israelites came here to escape the destruction. Before then more Irish-Scots were bankers than israelites.
>Those are only negative stereotypes if you believe wealth is inherently bad.
It's not the stereotypes that matter, it's the fact that Scrooge is a goddamn butthole.
>canonically
have a nice day and/or actually read these comics before talking about them
No, he's rich, that means he's bad and all of his wealth should be confiscated and redistributed among the people.
And by "the people", I mean me. I'm a people.
Oops I accidentally everyone to forced labor camps.
Scrooge McDuck was literally invented to be a guy who was a greedy rich butthole and yet outside of the Christmas Carol spoof, he treats his workers and companies much better than any modern day billionaire does.
Well A Christmas Carol ends with Scrooge becoming a nice guy right? Maybe that just stuck.
Life and Times kind of shows the opposite, he was in a slump because he had compromised his long held principles to cheat an African tribe out of the their land to start a rubber plantation. His family abandoned him because of this.
The appearance of Donald and the Nephews helped to restore attitude.
>pays his workers, including his own family, just 30 cents an hour
IIRC he pays his workers (outside of gags) pretty well, at least enough that they have loyalty to him. He pays Donald a pittance, but he's family after all, plus Scrooge owns Donald's house and you know he'll never evict him
>at least enough that they have loyalty to him.
They don't have loyalty because of how much he pays them, they have loyalty because his industry runs the town and makes it possible for everything good in it to happen. Plus Scrooge invests in the silliest shit nonstop which makes the city look like a carnival whenever Scrooge things he can make an extra dollar (Scrooges bin has been shrunk down and enlarged, hit by a meteor, an artillery strike, been the epicenter of a volcano and an earthquake, attacked by world renowned super thiefs and supervillains, at one time he crowned himself King of California, it has a portcullis as the entrance, an acid pit in the foyer, genuine medieval armor, a cannon from the boer war, and diamonds and gold pieces the size of a basketball as DECORATION). People aren't loyal to him because of his wages, but because he makes the city a hell of a lot more interesting.
Also his taxes fund practically all of Duckburg. There was a story where he went bankrupt and Duckburg became a ghost town overnight, with the only people not living in the slums being Daisy who was a successful romance novel writer, the Beagles who ran the entire city police as a protection racket, and Gladstone who was Gladstone.
he's still greedy.
He quickly went from being an butthole that would repossess a pauper's washing machine over a penny to an easy catalyst for This Week's Adventure which lead to him becoming a leading figure. When the time came for him to lead a comic, he became more defined by his fear of loss than his need to gain and I feel the constant struggle made him more sympathetic.
The careful redefining of his character makes me wonder how Gladstone might have changed if he had been given his own book (something Barks mentioned he would have dreaded having to write).
Scrooge is named after Ebenezer Scrooge.
>he treats his workers and companies much better than any modern day billionaire does.
In Ducktales yes, in comics no.
And like his namesake, Scrooge McDuck’s problem isn’t really his wealth. His problem is that he’s spent his whole life in pursuit of fortune, neglecting the real fortune in front of his eyes: his family. The central theme that drives his entire story is that of a selfish, self-centered old man who is just now starting to realize that human relationships are something to take importantly.
Odds are this is exactly how the Marvel Scrooge comic will go.
He’s too protagonist now in America to pull this unless he has “good heart” to give away everything
Jason Aaron is writing him so Scrooge is going to shat on him just like he did for Thor, Punisher, Conan(but only a bit) ect
Stop simping for billionaires.
cope
Stop simping for billionaires.
No billionaire ever tried to exterminate my village so he could collectivise the farmland
Stop simping for the Government
>he says as he votes for more regulations that only billionaires can circumvent, thus giving them a distinct competitive edge
Who's more greedy? Rich people or poor people?
Based and Duck pilled.
>Literally outright says that you shouldn't hold onto your wealth just for the sake of it and that paying your employees fair wages is better for the economy, which ends up circulating back to him anyway
Whack
That's because at the time basically all of the created wealth was reinvested into production and innovation, which made everyone wealthier and improved quality of life considerably.
If we take a period between the 20s and 50s when inflation added up to 400%, quality of life improved considerably and people's purchasing power actually went up despite all of the money creation.
People spent and it made everyone wealthier, because the money always made it's way back to the system and was used in beneficial ways.
Where as now if we look at a similar inflation, it's eroding the absolute shit out of purchasing power and quality of life, as the economies are completely finacialized and all money is just invested into the markets and speculating on housing.
Companies take debt so they can make stock buybacks to keep on driving the price up and fundamentals are barely a footnote regarding performance.
In short, money doesn't serve people anymore.
The entire Western world became a casino from the average Joe to the billionaire.
In the next financial cycle the healthiest economies are going to be places like Brazil, which are going to be future production powerhouses with real fundamentals, where the created debt is invested into productivity like West used to do +50 years ago.
Probably, but the current powers that be are moving heaven and earth to stop the cycle.
It won't work obviously, but it will do a lot of damage.
Scrooge McDuck was created before western society had been propagandised into spiting rich people purely for being rich. He was a measured and sympathetic portrayal of 19th century industrialists like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, miserly not out of raw greed but because they came from nothing and worked their whole lives to get where they are. But it didn't make them any less human or capable of love, it just meant they expected the same sort of work ethic from the people around them.
Because money was actually tied to a hard asset back then (gold), so you couldn't just inflate the value of it away to try and prop the economy up, and you also couldn't senselessly hoard it because it would lose its value the less of it was circulating. Disney even did a video on economics starring Scrooge to explain it in rudimentary terms. https://youtube.com/watch?v=p9d8l-Gkweg
>western society had been propagandised into spiting rich people purely for being rich.
That wasn't a question of propaganda but the fact that even with a college diploma you can only get a job at McDonalds, the middle class has been completely destroyed, inflation increased by 1000% but wages only barely increased in comparison, and all that money got sucked up by the ultra rich who now own 99.9999% of the money in the world.
>sympathetic portrayal of 19th century industrialists like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt
people like Rockefeller and globalist elites have been widely hated as far back as the 19th century. They were never sympathetic.
Left wingers did all of that, and then told you the rich did it so you would give them more power to ruin your life. They have been running this grift for a century and you keep falling for it even after fsggots like Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci explicitly told you what it was they were doing.
>accuse your enemy of what you yourself are doing so as to sow confusion
— Karl fricking Marx
>Rockefeller et al have been hated since the 19th century
By Marxists and Fascists, yes. Extreme political fringes of European politics until the leadup to WW2. Most normal people saw them as aspirational.
your enemy of what you yourself are doing so as to sow confusion
thats a goebbels quote you inbred
i mean he is a national SOCIALIST.
Goebbels never said that, redditor. He said that Germany's enemies were accusing Germany of doing that. And he was alluding to leftists in that quote.
And you're right, Marx didn't say it. Directly. The exact quote originates from Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky, and he was paraphrasing Antonio Gramsci's prison notebooks as he did so.
>The exact quote originates from Rules For Radicals
homie stop lying
https://archive.org/details/RulesForRadicals/page/n17/mode/1up
I've read it too, amigo
then you should know that quote you made up isn't in the book
It is, as well as a dozen other ideas that openly promote social subterfuge and deliberate double standards.
>It is
post the page
>19th century industrialists like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, miserly not out of raw greed but because they came from nothing and worked their whole lives to get where they are. But it didn't make them any less human or capable of love, it just meant they expected the same sort of work ethic from the people around them.
Now compare those (and honestly, that's already a very generous assesment of them) to guys like Gates and Buffett. And then compare guys like Gates and Buffett to the current crop like Bezos, Musk or Trump. Don't tell me those aren't "less human" and "less capable of love" or even basic compassion for their fellow man.
What about Rothschild, Soros and Rockefeller? Aren't they the richest people in the world?
>He was a measured and sympathetic portrayal of 19th century industrialists like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt
are you fricking high? No one has forgotten Rockefeller's early career. What the hell do they teach kids now in school?
>He was a measured and sympathetic portrayal of 19th century industrialists like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt,
M8 it was called the Gilded Age by its contemporaries as a direct criticism of people like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. Gilded as in "Gold-plated but peel it back a little and you'll see the ugliness underneath". The idea that early industrialists were looked upon kindly by the masses is a late 20th Century misconception.
That's the thing, I don't think you can.
Never heard of the Samson Option, goy?
Do it
How far does radioctive fallout travel?
Let's say, completely hypothetically, if nukes hit London and Birmingham how far away do I need to be to be safe?
Asking for a friend.
In an actual full-scale nuclear war there'd be so much nuclear ash blasted into the upper atmosphere that people living on a boat in the most remote part of the ocean would be dying of cancer within a year.
Yields haven't scaled with development. After Tsar Bomba, it was obvious that bigger bombs won't leave much of a strategic victory scenario for a hypothetical nuclear war, and while MAD keeps the peace, generally, it's a matter of WHEN, not IF it would fail. Nuclear missiles today use multiple warheads, but their yields are smaller both to fit more warheads onto the missile, and to maximize damage on target. To cripple the enemy without destroying the world. The problem with religious zealots getting the bomb isn't that they'd nuke Israel, but that they'd stockpile enough fissile material to make their own sundial device, then we're all fricked.
Not a matter of "strategic victory". Radius of destruction varies approximately as the cube root of the megatonnage.
Once a single bomb can destroy the largest city, a bigger bomb simply smashes the target into smaller and smaller debris.
Even in non-nuclear terms, "distributing" the energy is more efficient. That's why fuel-air bombs do more damage than a "conventional" weapon of the same explosive power.
Nah, that's not it. "Strategic victory" in a nuclear context has always been "being the last man standing". There are two main reasons why bigger bombs faded away and neither of them were because they were too destructive. First of all, the bigger bombs were massive. When people think of the Tsar Bomba they picture some Dr Strangelove scenario with something the size of Fat Man and Little Boy but the Tsar Bomba weighed 60,000lb and was 26 feet in length by 7 feet in diameter. Impressive but extremely impractical; they had to specially convert a Tu-95 to get the fricking thing in the air. Second reason, MIRVs. In a full exchange, saturation is the name of the game and MIRVs obsoleted interceptor-based BMD overnight.
And as a note, the US was fully capable of exceeding the Tsar Bomba. The Ripple designs (still completely classified to this day) tested in Operation Dominic were by far the most advanced and most efficient warheads ever produced and they were on track to hit a 50MT yield in a 6000lb package, which is a full order of magnitude more efficient than the Tsar Bomba while being 99.9% clean. Like many other things (such as the US proving that they could launch multiple LGM-30s from a C-5 just to flex at SALT I), they were shelved because developing them further would have backed the USSR into a corner.
Depends on your distance from the detonation, bomb yield, jetstream, general wind direction and speed, whether it's an air burst detonation, which wouldn't produce as much fallout as a ground detonation in a city, BUT would likely scatter ionized particles and radiation into the upper atmosphere, so regardless it'll be negligible so long as you're outside the country, but general cancer risk throughout the world would rise by about 2 percent.
>but general cancer risk throughout the world would rise by about 2 percent.
This is starting to sound like a plan. In Minecraft.
If precisely two nukes were dropped on London and Birmingham you'd just need to travel up the road a bit against the wind, the bulk of radiation would fall in a conical line in the direction of the wind about 200 miles away from the point of detonation. If London and Birmingham were nuked the implications of actual global thermonuclear war are pretty fricking high though so you'd be completely fricked in a place as densely-populated as the UK and even if you got to a remote place there'd be so much radioactive shit in the air that nuclear rain and snowfall would be hitting you literally wherever you lived.
Ducktales has pretty much successfully converted his image from shitty hyper-capitalist villain who can’t pay legal wages to kind-hearted good guy adventurer protagonist
He doesn’t care about wealth, he cares about gold specifically
Scrooge got hoes.
That explains why my dad likes Scrooge.
Scrooge's wealth is usually in incomputable units;
"cubic acres" or "so-and-so many fantasticatrillions"
But it's clear here.
$3.156e17 or $315,600,000,000,000,000 Over three hundred quintillion dollars.
I don't know the source but it looks like Carl Bark's work.
Which means it came out when a billion dollars was still worth something.
I think it was Barks that said that if you can put a real number to the amount of money Scrooge has, you grossly underestimate how rich he's supposed to be.
still is.
>Nintendo_Wii_U.png
how did you go from funny old scottish duck to nuclear warfare lol
>anonymous image board goes from comics and cartoons to anti-human/anti-semitic troll pushing for nuclear war
First time seeing Cinemaphile on the inside?
>hoarding paper money
He can’t understand economics that well.
Quackaroonie!
Capitalism has been detrimental to humanity as a whole.
But the concept of trading goods and services for captial has always existed.
To add to this: goods and services are the capital in question
What else should he be portray as?
One thing I like about Scrooge is that if you show yourself to be tenacious and resourceful, he will respect you.
Is this what rich people do when they don't pay taxes?
Wouldnt you swim in money if you could?