tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19387347.post2968503919676725957..comments2024-03-19T06:14:23.325-04:00Comments on Kleefeld on Comics: The Most Expensive Ten Cent Comic Ever!?!Sean Kleefeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10492399469370737192noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19387347.post-86938218270038413632010-02-12T16:20:38.232-05:002010-02-12T16:20:38.232-05:00Wow, brutal. Who cares what you think about the sa...Wow, brutal. Who cares what you think about the sale of the book? Seriously? What donate the money to some 3rd world country instead and let their corrupt Govt' steal it from them? That's what investors do right? That's what preserves history as well right? Who do you work for Cheney?<br /><br />Man that was a lousy article. Try writing for the bubblegum jokes next time. This one was funny enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19387347.post-71789175276766406062010-02-11T15:51:10.195-05:002010-02-11T15:51:10.195-05:00Well, as regards income inequality, by all means. ...Well, as regards income inequality, by all means. THERE's something I'll heartily endorse being PO'd about. :-)Matt Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19387347.post-23005916336272117922010-02-11T15:40:50.732-05:002010-02-11T15:40:50.732-05:00The impending sale itself doesn't piss off me ...The impending sale itself doesn't piss off me so much; it's the overall conditions of our society that allow the vast gap between the extremely wealthy and everybody else. I'm not mad so much that rich people are out there; it's that the rich people out there are so much insanely richer than everyone else. 99% of American households net $200,000 or less annually. The remaining 1% net somewhere north of $1,000,000 annually. <br /><br />It's possible that someone in one of the lower tiers of income is bidding on this comic, but -- as you pointed out -- it's more likely a millionaire in that 1% range. This sale just serves to highlight the problem to me, and that's why I find it upsetting.Sean Kleefeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10492399469370737192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19387347.post-32617749332783736532010-02-11T14:14:14.551-05:002010-02-11T14:14:14.551-05:00Dang, dude; and I thought I was embittered.
I dun...Dang, dude; and I thought I was embittered.<br /><br />I dunno. I'm mad about a lot of things right now, but I really don't see how some (I'm guessing) multi-millionaire deciding to pass on Detective #27 makes the world better, or even feel like it.<br /><br />Huge bonuses paid out in the industry which helped screw things over in the first place, by companies which are still in business only thanks to bailouts paid for with your and my tax dollars... yeah, I think this would be a good time to put a hold on that.<br /><br />In general, though, I don't see why the people who do have money should just sit on it. Won't that simply exacerbate our problems? <br /><br />Granted that the purchase of one copy of Detective #27 isn't likely to create many jobs (unless the seller uses the proceeds to start or expand a business, perhaps), but where does one draw the line at spending which is just profligate and "unnecessary," vs. spending that's permissible? And wouldn't it be better in any event for those with cash to not worry about such questions, given that whatever they're spending on will at best do some good and at worst do little harm?<br /><br />Some things are just really expensive, like a Picasso. Or like this comic book. Whether their prices seem justified or not, that's what they cost; I just can't see why those who happen to have them should, for the duration of a recession, be required to either keep them off the market or to accept far-below-market prices for them.Matt Khttp://edgeofspace.net/alchemynoreply@blogger.com