On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:08:24PM -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 22:45 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > If it weren't for the ability of the American free market economy to
> > innovate (and improve productivity), the U.S. would have become Mexico
> > long ago.
>
> Well, I would argue it's more than that. Mexico, let alone many other
> countries, allowed themselves to be ruled by the military. If there is
> one, clear difference between the United States and _any_ other nation
> on the planet ... our military has _always_ answered to a civilian
> leader and _never_ done otherwise even once.
>
> Our forefathers were absolutely brilliant on this and many other things.
>
I agree about our forefathers, but I don't think the military is
Mexico's problem. And they're just an example of the kind of country the
United States could have been without the free market economy.
> > Tax cuts inevitably produce improved growth, productivity and
> > investment for obvious reasons.
>
> Especially income tax cuts. The overwhelming majority of discretionary
> income is recycled into non-liquid investments -- it doesn't
> discriminate based if ten people make $60,000 or on person makes
> $600,000, the same dollar can do the same amount of good for our
> economy.
>
> Which is really what gets to me. People are so obsessed with "fair" (a
> concept that leads to socialism) and what's "good" for them that they
> forget it's really about what's _good_ for _all_ of us (i.e., our
> economy).
>
> > Implementation. American unionized wrench-twiddlers get paid far more
> > than they're worth, with no real penalty for slow or poor quality
> > production. Who cares if I make a crappy car? The union says you can't
> > fire me, and you have to pay me five times as much as the guy who flips
> > burgers, even though what I do is only about twice as difficult.
>
> Unions are a perfect example of the concept of a public commons turned
> into communism. Remember, the concept of socialism is only about 175
> years old, and people still don't get the idea that you can't force
> something that is even supposed "great" on someone else if they don't
> want it.
>
> People created unions to counter-balance abusive employers. It was a
> common good created by _individual_ choice. People choose to work
> together if they wanted, to get what they wanted.
>
> Soon people though unions were so good that everyone should have to join
> them. So it was no longer about individual choice, but mandate. They
> lobbied and got "community rights." Now the balance was upset in favor
> of unions.
>
> So then the employers lobbied back to restrict the "community rights" of
> unions, which created even more mandates, restrictions, etc... And now
> we have a continuing lobbying effort of unions against business, lots of
> waste, a total loss of what everything was all about.
>
> Unions _only_ work when there is _individual_ choice, when people choose
> to freely assemble. That's why these types of unions work in a
> capitalist-democracy, because it's about individual choice and right to
> assembly.
>
> But when unions are mandated and people are forced to join, because
> someone things they know better for you, and the resulting "community
> rights" aka "communism" results, _everyone_ loses their individualism
> and soverenty and it becomes about lobby and special interest. And
> sadly enough, it hurts the original purpose of the union the most.
>
I'd say unions were a response to a failure of government. The
government should have stepped in prevent robber-barons from abusing
employees. They didn't, so people banded together. It worked, but like
so many other things, they didn't end when their usefulness was
outlived. Now they set up a built-in management-worker conflict that
costs every unionized company far more than it would for them to
just treat their employees fairly/properly. Of course, that would mean
that assembly line workers would get paid a lot less and have fewer
benefits, and things like cars would also cost a lot less.
A union wouldn't work very well if it were "individual choice". Imagine
a strike where have the workers keep working. Or half the place decided
it didn't want to be in the union. The guys at the Post Office bitch
about this no end. Because Florida is a right-to-work state, you don't
have to belong to the union to work at the Post Office. But the Post
Office (and the union) has to treat you as though you do. So even though
you don't pay union dues, you can file grievances and such, just like
the union guys. And they have to deal with them the same way.
<snip>
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:00:48 EDT