Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
The golden calf by Shockowaffel The golden calf by Shockowaffel
We're already worshiping Mammon, so we might as well make it official.
All hail Mammon!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpookiesaurus4:
pookiesaurus4 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's interesting that you made this, because I drew Mammon the same way, but more like a minotaur
Reply
:iconyaninsalas:
YaninSalas Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Student General Artist
awesome!!! :D
Reply
:iconneridanixie:
NeridaNixie Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2014
I don't have a clue about what's going on here, but I love the artwork. :XD:
Reply
:iconfantasyfreag:
fantasyfreag Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2014
wounderful!^^
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
I think the new world order's burger franchise would love to use this symbol for their global corporate ruling agency logo:P


Nice work!
Reply
:iconwavingmonsterstudios:
WavingMonsterStudios Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2014  Professional General Artist
Love your style 
Reply
:iconb01nk:
B01NK Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I love the look of this piece! :love: Could be a nod to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, whose sun disc is always shown with cow horns
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
The professional businessman is the field agent of the army whose lieutenant-commander-in-chief is the scientist. The businessman carries scientific discoveries from the laboratory of the inventor to industrial plants, and transforms them into material products that fill men’s physical needs and expand the comfort of men’s existence. By creating a mass market, he makes these products available to every income level of society. By using machines, he increases the productivity of human labor, thus raising labor’s economic rewards. By organizing human effort into productive enterprises, he creates employment for men of countless professions. He is the great liberator who, in the short span of a century and a half, has released men from bondage to their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence, has released them from famines, from pestilences, from the stagnant hopelessness and terror in which most of mankind had lived in all the pre-capitalist centuries—and in which most of it still lives, in non-capitalist countries.

Is this, what you consider evil?

So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

Wealth does not grow in nature; it has to be produced by men. Nature gives us only the raw materials, but it is man’s mind that has to discover the knowledge of how to use them. It is man’s thinking and labor that transform the materials into food, clothing, shelter or television sets—into all the goods that men require for their survival, comfort and pleasure.

Behind every step of humanity’s long climb from the cave to New York City, there is the man who took that step for the first time—the man who discovered how to make a fire or a wheel or an airplane or an electric light.

When people refuse to consider the source of wealth, what they refuse to recognize is the fact that wealth is the product of man’s intellect, of his creative ability, fully as much as is art, science, philosophy or any other human value.

Citations:

The Meaning of Money Ayn Rand, “For The New Intellectual.”
The Money-Making Personality “The Objectivist Forum.”
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
The moment you use Ayn Rand as a resource is the moment you declare yourself retarded.
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Yawn. Notice those self-limited minds, intimidated by cogent discourse they have nothing to offer but ad hominem.
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
Yeah, because the thoughtless robot (you) writes book length responses entirely made up of parroted ideological nonsense. Brilliant!
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
On second pass, there is something amusing here I'd like to point out.

You post ad hominem - then you claim my lengthy response forced you to post ad hominem ...

So really, sickey-little-bear, who's the robot?
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
You're good at dodge ball, keep at it you can go pro one day
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Despite your persistent delusion: only you are in control of your mind and your hands, and only you are responsible for the ad hominem you posted.
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
Uh huh
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
And now, predictably, you lie.
Reply
:iconshockowaffel:
Shockowaffel Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013  Professional General Artist
I wouldnt go as far as to call money evil.
I was referring to the recklesss capitalism we see today, especially in the USA.
Speculating at the markets, manipulating prizes, short term profits, greed and little thought about the consequences.
So many only think about profits, lowering taxes for the rich and want to cut social help for the poor at the same time.
Doing so is one thing but calling yourself a christian is ridiculous.
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
Did you figure out :iconwilliam-black: has issues yet?:rofl:
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Yet again, more ad hominem.

If you ever have something resembling a thought, and can manage to express it in a cogent manner, let me know.
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

This is the explicit meaning of the term. So, when you say “reckless capitalism” … what specifically do you mean? Do you believe the recognition of individual rights to be “reckless?”

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. Ideally, in a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. IN such a society the value of a man’s labor is protected in that it cannot be seized by force. [Note the term “ideally,” this will be revisited shortly.]

“Greed” means the desire for the “unearned.”

What you refer to as “speculation at the market” is merely the process of finance – when a corporation wants to finance the costs of production or expansion they can only offer a “share” in the value of their corporation in exchange to secure the loan – the value of what they offer is determined by society at large, i.e. by the consumers who freely and without coercern buy their product – the value of a corporation is not set arbitrarily, it is not set by the corporation itself, nor is it set by any other group of corporations, it is set by an objective measure of the physical business transacted (the amount of products sold) by the corporation – so, in this regard there is nothing “unearned” involved. A “speculator” must put up his own money, i.e. meaning real physical capital and not “credit,” and he does so with full expectation he will be paid back in return, what he purchases is a “share” of the corporation he has invested in, a share is a promissory note, that his money, the money he has loaned, will be paid back with interest – in this situation, there is no possibility for “greed” to enter into the process as there is no mechanism by which “the unearned” can be obtained or exchanged.

I am not precisely certain what you mean when you say “manipulation of prizes” … My sense is that this might refer to “picking winners and losers” which is not a power (or authority) corporations or speculators possess – the action you refer to does not exist in the free market – only government possesses ability to operate in this manner.

As example: In the United States when insurance came into being government crafted regulation designed to shield insurance companies from competition (competition is what keeps prices at a level most consumers can afford, remember in a free society people vote with their dollars) and so these businesses were prohibited from competing across state lines – the long term result is prices skyrocketed, which is the result desired by those political factions who backed the scheme. It is notable that the “pretense” (i.e. the false or public front) of the “Affordable Healthcare Act” only deepens this problem – while it was touted (by the liberal progressive Left) as a means to provide healthcare for the poor – something which was not lacking, rich corporations and wealthy individuals, along with charitable institutions, donated monies which paid for the bulk of medical care delivered to the financially impoverished – its actual purpose is discernible in its structure: the ACA set up “market zones” where government chose which corporations could compete, and which corporations would be excluded or prohibited from competition – the prohibition of competition now extending to all medical goods manufacturers and service providers, the only possible result is that medical costs will spiral higher and higher – with the eventual result that the market will collapse, allowing Statist factions to establish complete control over the market – which is the agenda of the Statist. The “Housing Bubble” collapse was similarly engineered by Statist factions of the liberal/progressive/Left: here, under presumption that everyone should be able to purchase a home (regardless if they could pay for one or not) government forced banks to write loans for people who did not possess the capability of paying the money back – the manufacturers, builders, laborers, who all deserved compensation for their work, were to be paid – however banks were to be  held entirely at risk should the prospective homeowner fail to repay their debt. You will note, specifically here, the mere “desire” to own a home (not the need for shelter which low cost rental properties provided) was convoluted into a “right” and then a demand … presumably in service to those who could not afford to own a home – the “greed” here is the presumed desire of these individuals to possess something unearned. I say “presumed” because it is not those low wage earners who forced this action by government – it was the liberal/progressive/Left who promulgated the situation, and not the poor, who are only token representatives, badly used by the Left, in this issue.

To mitigate the terminal risk faced by banks, government directed that a false “market” be established where these toxic-loans were bought and sold, spreading the risk across many financial institutions - under the pretense that this exchange would generate market activity of sufficient value that the risks would be diminished – which of course could never work. So, as a last result, to offset the increasing economic strain, as millions, then tens of millions, and eventually hundreds of millions of homeowners defaulted on loans which never should have been written, and banks began to fail in mass, the government forced the prime-interest rates to be suspended and held artificially low, forced banks to remain open via legislation, and printed tons of money to off-set the economic loss  – to prevent the damage done to the finance market from collapsing the entire economy – if you recall the incident nearly collapsed the entire international monetary system – here, in both instances, the “poor” were badly used by Statists.

You say “So many only think about profits … “ and above that you write “… greed and little thought about the consequences ...”

As if this somehow impugns the morality of the inventor and producer. Large scale production of goods, at a profit, under conditions of a free market, only increases the numbers of goods available at a low price – which benefits everyone, especially the low wage earner and the poor. The benefits of high-level production under capitalism are not restricted to the wealthy.

An economy is not a Zero-Sum Game – as the Statists often mislead people to believe: Steve Jobs, at the age of 20, built a computer in his garage – the billions of dollars his corporation was later valued at did not exist when he was cobbling together components in his garage for what later became the desktop computer … and what he produced was not only a prototype machine, it was an idea which led to the production of a machine which could be replicated millions of times, a machine which could be improved and enhanced, and sold over, and over, and over again as technology driven by his invention spread through society, driving a market revolution in numerous industries, growing the value of the product as millions enjoyed the benefit of the product – and those technological enhancements now make scientific and medical instruments more powerful, and calculations by computers, coupled with observations by orbiting satellites (which include computer components) make crop yields higher, increasing abundance for all – is this the “consequence” you warn about?

The billions of dollars in wealth Steve Jobs generated over his lifetime did not exist when he built that first machine. He brought that wealth into existence by virtue of his sweat, his labor, and his creativity, and brought to the world the spin off evolution of an entire array of technologies which sprang from his invention- and this wave of technological innovation has benefitted hundreds of millions, if not billions of individuals, over the years.  

When goods are produced and sold value is created, delivered out from the raw (undeveloped) state of minerals, and plant life, and animals existing in the environment (if you have ever hunted, cleaned, gutted, and prepared your own meat, grown your own crops by hand, spun thread from fibers to craft your own clothing, or built your home out of trees you have felled and planed into lumber after digging up the iron to forge your own nails, hammer, and saw – you know the value mass production delivers to all) so, the money made by one man never takes away another man’s ability to earn money, and goods sold do not represent a “theft” of money – the purchaser retains the dollar value of the goods in the solid form of his purchase.  

In free market capitalism the value of goods is set by consumers – no corporation can charge more than the market will bear because consumers will simply take their dollars elsewhere – thus competition in the market directs corporations to produce the best goods for the lowest price – a free market is self-regulating in precisely this manner. In free market capitalism the value of every mans labor is protected – no one can seize or take by force the product of a man’s labor, forcing or sacrificing his life’s work to the benefit of others … others who have stolen, and not earned, the product of his labor.

Above I referred to the ideal condition of free market capitalism.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The United States is not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of Capitalism and Statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another.

Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws—no principles to limit the power of its government. The only principle of a mixed economy—which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged—is that no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system—or, more precisely, anti-system—breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting—and draining—the productive elements of the country.

A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another’s expense by an act of government—i.e., by force. In the absence of individual rights, in the absence of any moral or legal principles, a mixed economy’s only hope to preserve its precarious semblance of order, to restrain the savage, desperately rapacious groups it itself has created, and to prevent the legalized plunder from running over into plain, unlegalized looting of all by all—is compromise; compromise on everything and in every realm—material, spiritual, intellectual—so that no group would step over the line by demanding too much and topple the whole rotted structure. If the game is to continue, nothing can be permitted to remain firm, solid, absolute, untouchable; everything (and everyone) has to be fluid, flexible, indeterminate, approximate. By what standard are anyone’s actions to be guided? By the expediency of any immediate moment.

Today, you see political manipulators setting up new conflicts, such as ethnic minorities against the majority, the young against the old, the old against the middle, women against men, even welfare-recipients against the self-supporting. This fact can be clearly observed in the public speeches of the current president of the United States and his factional supporters.

In a controlled (or mixed) economy, a legislator’s job consists in sacrificing some men to others. No matter what choice he makes, no choice of this kind can be morally justified (and never has been). Proceeding from an immoral base, no decision of his can be honest or dishonest, just or unjust—these concepts are inapplicable. He becomes, therefore, an easy target for the promptings of any pressure group, any lobbyist, any influence-peddler, any manipulator—he has no standards by which to judge or to resist them. You do not know what hidden powers drive him or what he is doing. Neither does he.

Raising or lowering the taxes on the wealthy has literally nothing to do with helping the poor – the poor historically have received greater help from economic abundance, not the scarcity generated artificially by government intervention in the free market. In a robust economy revenues generated by charitable organizations are always higher – the best way to insure this state of affairs is to rally against government interference, to minimize government action and activity. Never, in any case, in modern history, where governments have acted to sacrifice some men to the needs of others has the result been uplifting, the poor suffer as much or more under fascist (government controlled industrial states) and suffer even more under dictatorial socialist and fascist systems – nowhere are the poor elevated by these systems. Where free market capitalism has eliminated slavery across most of the civilized world (the economics of slavery cannot compete with free market industry) and produced an abundance unseen in all recorded history prior to the industrial revolution.
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
What a wordy asshole.

"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force."

Laughable, really.
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
No surprise here, yet more ad hominem.

Why don't you try to startle me with your brilliance and attempt to explain why you find the statement laughable.
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
You're an ideological warrior, another day dreamer.


Yes, the NINA loans should never have been issued, but that WAS reckless and greedy. People were deceived and everyone paid the price.
It wasn't just the government making the situation possible, it was the lenders taking advantage of people.
But according to you....rights are only violated by force.......because you're a brainless zealot.
Reply
:iconwilliam-black:
William-Black Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Government enacted regulation forcing banks to lower lending standards.

Enacting a regulation is an act of force.

Regulation is law backed by threat of fines and imprisonment. This is nothing other than force.

Banks were forced, at regulatory gun-point, to write loans to  people who could not repay them.

Banks do not make money when people default on loan payments - they lose money. The very idea that banks took advantage of people is patently absurd - taking advantage of people would mean the banks had something to gain - they gained nothing and lost millions (billions eventually) the magnitude of the crisis nearly collapsed the economy.

Banks did not come up with this scheme, and they did not profit by it - the plan to badly use the finance industry in this manner originated with and was supported entirely by the liberal/progressive/Left. The legislators who wrote the regulations into law were entirely of the Left. 
Reply
:iconebolasparklebear:
EbolaSparkleBear Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2014
No, you lie. The banks that did not write risky loans did not get attacked by the government.
But that's a cute thing you tried there.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconblacktemplar:
blacktemplar Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013
booo, William-Black, boooo.... boooo
Reply
:iconstagsleap:
Stagsleap Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Powerful and thought-provoking! 
Reply
:iconjoeycoast:
JoeyCoast Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Professional General Artist
Such a meaningful peace, I love the design 
Reply
:iconkynamh:
Kynamh Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
This is gorgeous! Cool design.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 30, 2013
Image Size
186 KB
Resolution
527×700
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
4,710
Favourites
246 (who?)
Comments
30