We're gonna need a bigger boat

And in the instances where the fisherman decides to take the capitalist up on the idea, they quickly find that the capitalist is the one selling the boats and fishing gear and the one who buys the fish, and before too long none of the fishermen in the area can afford to eat the fish they catch anymore.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof ...be careful...!
...you know too much...! ;-)

"I caught all the fish I need for the day" - that phrase can be understood in two ways. Lots of people seem to think fisherman says he got only enough to get him through that day.
I have story from my own experience. I like cutting trees (mostly so forests won't be to thick and remaining trees grow fat), I work for ~2 hours per day. I also got asked question why I dont work more and earn more. My answer same as fisherman. 2 hours = 50euros profit at the very least. My living /spending expenses never reach more than 15 euros. That leaves me with 10k extra each year. So I say "I cut all the trees for they day" and do whatever I want for the rest. Be it more cutting, sleeping, drinking or whatever I want...

@MiskisM This is the best way of thinking about it. He's made enough to cover ends meet as well as comfort.

In fact, because of the person wanting to make even more, they've made it that much harder for the original fishermen to simply fish for their needs and a little extra.
Now instead they have to work for someone making even less ends meet who also makes a helluva lot more than they do, and promotes overfishing because excess is the name of the game in industry where you don't know how much will sell.

Not only did the business man choose a round about path of being able to finally relax, he also ruined everything for literally everyone else.

Industry doesn't have to be that way, but when the motivation is aggressive expansion for the sake of excess product and profit, it becomes a problem.

You are very lucky to be able to do what you do. 2 hours of work, doing something you think is also important to do and making more than enough to live off of, I'm sure lots of us would totally go for that if it was available.

@MiskisM That's exactly how I understood the comic

@MiskisM Your life seem so cool ! I'm a bit jealous...

It's an old story, but it always leaves out what happens to the fisherman's family if he doesn't catch enough the next day, or if there's a medical emergency, or if his kids want to pursue an education.

It's important to remember that the only importance money has is that it enables the things that are important. Health is more important than money, but you aren't going to be healthy without paying for medical care and a varied diet. Family is more important than money, except it's extremely hard to keep a family together without the most basic of necessities, to say nothing of the actual financial cost of raising a kid these days. Self respect is important, but it's a lot easier to respect yourself when you have enough money that you have the option of not doing something you'd rather not do. Love is incredibly important, but curiously, love seems to be more difficult without money.

@CorruptUser you are assuming "what I need" means "bare minimum", maybe the fisherman's "what I need" includes a margin allowing him to save up for rainy days? It's also worth noting that fish spoils easily & preserving it takes time and money, meaning you can't really fish multiple days' worth in a day "just in case" with any regularity.

Then we come to the sustainability, producing extra for the sake of being able to produce even more extra isn't sustainable & it has been proven time and time again that people who increase their work load so they can hire people so they can get even more work done (which to a business owner only increases the work load & if they hire others to do the work for them they need to expand even more to make enough money to pay for others to do all the work, and even then they need to keep an eye on their employees because if something happens it's the business owner who's on the hook), aren't exactly the happiest people in the world, so in case of a fishing empire, this vicious cycle is all but guaranteed to wreak havoc on the fish populations which over time means being forced to downsize the business which is never fun to anyone, and by the time the downsizing starts the fisherman who started it all is probably burned out & may not have a penny more in his pockets afterwards than he had before he got the bright idea to start expanding his business.

'@Tsuhna' Of course that's a possibility, it's called risk. But it can pay off tremendously well.

And most Entrepreneurs only go into a business that they themselves would relatively enjoy and slowly expand their business and profits and demand go up. I think what you're describing is someone who doesn't know what they're doing and rushes things

@LogicMeister which part of "unsustainable" managed to escape you? My post was made in the context of this comic, namely the most likely result of following Suit's advice to the letter; decimated fish population, burned out fisherman, scaled-down or even bankrupt company & not a penny more to show for all the wasted time, effort, money and especially fish.

'@Tsuhna' interesting how you think that fisherman could just catch as much as he wanted as fast as he wanted. Even assuming no constraints like logistics or limitations of national economic zones, didn't you know that industrial fishing was increasingly regulated starting from at least 1936?

@comrade_Comrade and since when has anyone cared about those regulations? Iceland and UK almost went to war at least three times in 20th century over the fact that UK fishers were fishing in Iceland's national economic zone to the point of strangulating Iceland's domestic fishing industry, at least two of those times were *after* 1936 & these days people are defending the Somali pirates on the grounds of British and/or other Western fishers fishing the Somali coast empty.

'@Tsuhna' remind me how Cod Wars ended. Regarding Somalia, you should have noticed the distinct lack of government that can enforce any sort of licensing in it's territorial waters. Nice argument in favor of having an actual navy, I suppose.

Meanwhile, doesn't look like fish farms' business is threatened by illegal overfishing in territorial waters of failed states.

@comrade_Comrade fish farms have their own, completely different & in a way far worse problems.

@CorruptUser


The fisherman clearly lives in a country with a well funded social safety net, which includes healthcare and education funding, so those aren't an issue.

@CrypticMirror But those things are paid from taxes, and you can't pay taxes if you just catch enough fish for yourself.

@CrypticMirror Are we really going to have an argument about healthcare when this has nothing to do with the base material ? ^^

@CorruptUser
Lol in almost every western country in the world, except America.

- If he doesn't catch enough the next day: The government provides welfare.
- If there's a medical emergency: The government provides free healthcare.
- If his kids want to pursue an education: The government provides free education.

@lll111lll

Except in the story I've seen, the fisherman is in Brazil, which isn't known for a generous welfare system. And in the western countries that are not America, and also the country that is America, the rents/property tax and income tax/VAT are high enough that the fisherman is already busting his ass just to make ends meet even without spending on the frivolous things.

I mean, sure we all could give up new cellphones, keep our clothes until even patches won't keep them together, only heat our homes to 55F in the winter and forgo AC in all but the most extreme of times, not bother with television and cable bills, take public transportation instead of owning a car, etc, but even then a blue collar worker such as a fisherman would still need to work 15-20 hours a week WITHOUT kids to feed.

@CorruptUser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral
Though obviously the story doesn't depict an actual situation : fishing is a hard job that has crappy wages and as much as it is a useful job, I wouldn't want to do that for a living.
BUT that really is besides the point. The point of the story is to show that pursuing money for money is just a vain thing (which is exactly what the business man is doing).

Also from a realistic point of view the crappy situation in which fishermen (and really most workers) currently are is mostly due to those people wanting to earn more and more every day and squeezing every penny they can out of everybody they know (and even from the people they don't know) so it can become so. Bottom line is : the world would be a better place without businessmen and entrepreneurs...

@CorruptUser "And in the western countries that are not America the rents/property tax and income tax/VAT are high enough that the fisherman is already busting his ass just to make ends meet even without spending on the frivolous things"
Nope, America is cheaper than Finland & wages are higher, yet somehow Americans whose cost of living is lower & "low wages" are double what would be paid here, Americans pay more taxes than I do & still need to pay out the nose for even the most basic health care, the truth is USA isn't taxing the people any less than the "communist utopias" you guys always rant about, what USA *IS* doing that the rest of the world isn't is force the people to pay for their own health care & brainwash the people into believing that laws guaranteeing everyone eligibility to health insurance is evil.

@Tsuhna and @CorruptUser America spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined (https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison); and this doesn't even include their militarized coast guards, or militarized police forces. If America just spent its tax dollars in a way that benefited their population; their Government could lower taxes, and provide all these free "communist" things to their population. But what would I know, I'm Australian, I don't understand "FREEDOM!!!".

@lll111lll I'm not sure this is a very good argument. As much as it may seem that the USA are devoting to military expenses, it's still a meager 3,2% of their GDP. It's a little bit more than the average military nation but not that much (Saudi Arabia or Russia spend more on military than the US for example while UK or France are around 2%). I'm not saying it's a good thing they spend that much money on Military, but still I don't think this is the number one problem of USA (it may be a big problem for the rest of the world though...).

@Isdaril Their Defence budget was just an example, as I said "If America just spent its tax dollars in a way that benefited their population". I don't know where you got your figures from, but their Defence accounts for around 20% of their entire Federal Budget (https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer/agency). Their Defence budget does not help Americans, in fact it hinders them, as they then have to spend a further 3,5% of their budget on injured veterans (DVA).

@lll111lll I got my figures from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. Federal budget and GDP are different things, don't forget USA is a federal state and local states are in charge of most of the budget devoted to education, healthcare... The federal state is mostly in charge of defense so it's not really a surprise to see that a big part of its budget is devoted to military.
But don't think I don't agree with you, I was just saying that though the american spendings on military might seem extravagant when compared to other countries, it was mostly due to the fact that USA's GDP is really big compared to other countries and was an easy scapegoat which doesn't mean I would defend them spending that much on military nor not spending on important things like healthcare or education.

Also I always find it a little unsettling when champions of capitalism and liberalism like Sweden or Germany are critical of USA's healthcare situation while completely supporting the EU which has been pushing Europe in that same ultra-liberal direction for decades now (austerity and all that Jazz). I guess we have it a little better over europe, but don't brag too much, it's going to get way worse in the near future...

@lll111lll

Much of that spending is on behalf of the NATO countries that don't put in their treaty-obligated amounts. The US would still be a huge spender, but somewhat less if the other NATO countries picked up the slack. Similarly, the US military is Japan's military; the US is treaty bound to defend Japan from external threats in exchange for Japan no longer having complete control over their own foreign policy, seeing as said foreign policy was "enslave, rape, and/or murder every last group of people who can't resist the might of Imperial Japan".

Furthermore, spending isn't the same as power. While due to globalization boots are more or less the same price everywhere, it's far more expensive to fill those boots with American feet than Chinese feet. It can cost the US tens of thousand dollars just to train a mechanic, to say nothing of someone that requires extreme amounts of training such as a SEAL or fighter pilot, or even just a sniper.

@CorruptUser Of course, it is NATOs fault and not the fault of your corrupt politicians who get kickbacks from Defence industries. If other countries, don't meet their obligated amounts, why should America? NATO does not really benefit the US, it benefits other NATO countries.

Other NATO countries (in Europe) are logistically very easy to attack. Unless Canada, or Mexico are attacking the Continental US, it would be a logistical nightmare. The country in question would need a massive NAVY, meaning the only country who could realistically sustain any attack against the US, Russia (Yes, China's Navy is not large enough).

As you said China could amass a large army cheaply, and they could march through other NATO countries, (once again that is a detriment to them not the US), but how are they going to get to the US? They need a huge NAVY.

I'm not even going to comment on your racist comments about the Japanese raping people, instead I suggest you read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

@lll111lll To be fair, imperial Japan did atrocious things during WW2. I believe they were on par with NAZI germany in that matter (and that is not a little thing to say).
There is a wikipedia page devoted to japanese war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes). You might want to check this one too if you feel like puking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

@lll111lll

1) Yes, the MIC is a problem, but it's been a problem since long before the US existed.
2) If China can't invade the US, it can't invade Europe. It's not going to have the capability of marching tens of millions of troops through a half dozen countries without pissing them off so badly that the supply chains are under constant attack. If an attack occurs, it's by sea.
3) China doesn't need a navy to invade, it needs a navy to protect the invasion. It needs transport and cargo ships, of which it has a flotilla. But once a first strike occurs, the US navy and airforce will make short work of both the Chinese navy and transport capabilities, and any soldiers stuck in California are going to have a very bad time.
4) Funny that you mention D-K, considering that you apparently know absolutely nothing about the Pacific theater of WWII. I would suggest you read "The Rape of Nanking", or just google "Comfort Women".

@CorruptUser "China doesn't need a navy to invade"... "it needs a navy to protect the invasion".... Sooooooo it Needs a Navy for the invasion, just like I said. You are admitting I am right.

"It needs transport and cargo ships"... What do you think most Navy ships comprise of? Why do you think most countries have / have had during war times "Merchant Navies"? Why do you think the 'East India Trading Company' had one of the most powerful militaries during its time? I'll let you in on a little secret, it is because you need a lot of transport and cargo ships in a successful Navy. You are admitting I am right.

"But once a first strike occurs, the US ... will make short work of ... the Chinese *NAVY*"... Why? Because their Navy is not big enough, as I have already stated. Once again, you are admitting I am right.

"you apparently know absolutely nothing about the Pacific theater of WWII"... I have not even mentioned the Pacific Theater of WWII, so how you came to that conclusion is a mystery. Unless you are basing it on me refusing to respond to your racist comments. In particular that it was 'Japanese foreign policy to Rape'. While I am sure many of them did this; I'm also sure many Americans, Australians, Canadians, English, etc. also did. You must remember that history is written by the victors, and even the victors said that it was common, but not that it was their 'foreign policy'.

I see the issue here, I am arguing with a retard, say whatever nonsense comeback you will, I'm done arguing with you, and won't respond.

It'd be nice to be the fisherman. Sadly, today's world is setup to force you to work more. It's probably only a matter of time before commercial fishermen are able to sell their fish for cheaper and in great quantities, forcing the fisherman to work more or worse yet to work for the commercial fishermen. After the area is overfished, they'll have to work overtime for short spans of time when the government opens the fishery for the season and may still have to get another job during winter.

@Steeeve That's already how it works now in the industry.
That is the reason why, more than ever, the consumer has a massive responsability in what he buys.
"Just don't buy it so it doesn't sell."
The problem is about those products that you can't not buy, and about the amount of information needed to make a proper choice.
It's the reason why you hope to have a higher level of quality control in your country.

'@MagicRooster' Or even FINDING the right product.

I want a product that comes in two forms, soy-based and almond-based. The almond-based is more wasteful and currently destroying California. The almond-based one has completely overtaken shelf space at the market and I can't even FIND the soy-based one most days of the week. What do I do?

@boring7 "What do I do?"

Drink real milk?

@Tarmaque what if theyre vegan tho

@SchrodySweden Shrivel up and die, for all of me. Neither nut milk nor cow's milk (or any animal milk) is necessary for any diet. It's almost possible to live on potatoes and cow's milk, if you eat something in addition with some vitamin C in it. However there are a million other diets that work too. Inuits live on a diet of almost entirely fish and seal meat. That's a lot easier to live on than a vegan diet. Veganism is not a survival strategy, it is a religion. (Most of the most healthy diets in the world include significant amounts of seafood.)

@Tarmaque "Shrivel up and die, for all of me" Pfp checks out

@MagicRooster Thinking that you can solve that problem by appealing to the consumers while everywhere role models are having the best house, the best boats, the best everything is just naïve. What the world needs is a dramatic change throughout all of society not just conveniently putting the blame on people because they are not consuming the right way... Sure before undergoing that dramatic change, people need to be aware that they are going to have less, that they won't be able to get whatever they want whenever they want. BUT this is not by blaming consumers that you'll get that change. It's like everything in society is made to make people over-consume (plastic everywhere in mass distribution, labeling of products poorly made to identify how it's been made and how you should recycle it, planned obsolescence, publicity and role models that push everyone to work more in order to consume more, no real scientific guidelines on what you should really do on a personnal level to make things better for the world...) but you are trying to blame the guy who just does what everything in society pushes him to do.
Even at a political level, PIB and growth are emphasized as the most important things to preserve. But this is just hypocritical: if people were really going to stop consuming, it wouldn't matter what enterprises do, PIB would fall and growth would stop. Thinking things will change because most consumers would sudenly change their ways while nothing is done about the rest is at best naïve, at worse hypocritical (as the comrade Jean Luc would say)

There was this spanish orange juice tycoon. When asked about the origin of his fortune, he told that when young and very hungry he was given two oranges. He peeled both, and while eating the first a tourist bought the second, peeled one. So he bought two more, peeled and sold them, and so on. "Then, that's how you became so wealthy, right?" "Hell no, I won 50 MM euros at the lottery last year. Lousy oranges just soiled my shirts"

Oh, I actually know this one.

The business man works hard and looks for all sorts of ways to maximize his money and earnings, spending more time away from his family and getting stressed from not having time to pursue his hobbies or enjoy his life. The "lazy" man does what he needs to do for the interim and enjoys his free time while living a low stress life.

Yes, there are merits and downsides to both positions, and the moral of the story is to find a happy balance that allows you to make more while still being able to enjoy your life. Because really, what good is all the money in the world if you don't have time to spend or enjoy it until you're in old age?

@Sorflakne "Balance" is not really the moral that transpired in this drawing though. Nor does it seem to be the moral of the original story. In this drawing the moral seems more to be why are you postponing the search of happiness by doing something you don't like but everybody else is telling you will bring you happiness rather than searching for hapiness now. The fisherman really does seem to be the rational guy and the business man the irrational one.
Also it seems to me it's underlined by a clear cut criticism against the liberal doctrine and productivism in general.

@Isdaril The story also often ignores that someone that only fish just enough to get by usually doesn't have much leeway if anything unexpected happens. If you fish more than you need to and sell the rest, you get a reserve of hard cash that can be used to get other things and to tide you over during unforeseen expenses/bad fishing season.

@Ocadioan As many others have already explained, "fishing enough for the day" is pretty vague and can mean that you are taking that leeway into account (and it does in the original story).
Also the businessman is not telling him to fish more so that he can have a reserve in case something goes wrong, he's telling him to work more because he believes this is what makes you happy: working a lot to start a company that will make you own lots of things. Because he believes you have to suffer before being happy, you can't be happy (retire) without suffering (working your ass off). This is a very christian (protestant) way of seeing the world and that is what this story makes fun of.

The original source for this is a 1963 short story by Heinrich Böll titled Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral.

@EdPalmer

This framing, yes.

As noted in that article, there are earlier versions going back at least as far as Plutarch.

Anyone wonder when the businessman expects you to stop? Borrow money, buy bigger boat. Fish. Sell fish. Make payments on boat, hire more fisherman for you boat, keep fishing.

Eventually you will crash the fishery. Then you declare bankruptcy and only the businessman (who buys the fish and sells the boats) has anything left.

@wumpus The first thing that came to mind for me is that it's just a description of every idle game ever. But yeah, unwise investing will eventually lead to much unnecessary suffering, for the investor and many others.

I often question today's idea of success.
For some reason its consider crazy to like and want just a simple life. Its automatically associated with poor or lazy. But that's wrong. A simple life means you are happy with out luxury items. You found out what you want and need to be happy, and don't want anything more because you don't see the need for it, and trying to get more its pointless/tiring for you.
We live life in such a rush, work so hard, and often realise too late „Oh, I'm not happy with how I spend so many years doing X. I wish I would had enjoyed the simple things more often."
Not saying its wrong to want more in life course. But I do think our current view of a simple life is wrong.
Success should not be based on how many things you own. It should be based on how happy you are with your life.

"Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism"-Max Weber