Unions stealing "occupy bostons" thunder

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism. As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.

-spence

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

Don't understand this paragraph.

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

Federal power does not have to be reduced, per se. It must be constrained to its constitutional limits. Within those limits, those enumerations, it is all powerful.

The most beneficial oversight would be that which constrains government to its proper role.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

There you go with the "all" thing again. Spectrums can be perceived in every aspect of existence, excepting the possibility of a basic unit of matter. That everything may be seen as existing on a spectrum is, in itself, a duh observation. Inferences and speculations may be inferred from such observation --but even those inferences and speculations can be on a spectrum. I assume there is a grand spectrum of spectrums--or various and even contradicting spectrums of spectrums, and maybe and infinite number of dimensions inhabiting the same space and the spectrums therein. As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

Don't understand this paragraph.

It was an attempt to deconstruct your vague somewhat amorphous even vaporously mystical paragraph:

"I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system {government and private} is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value."

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

If anything it was a stopgap measure. I agree though, the banks should have had more responsibility to the taxpayers aside from just paying back the loans.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.

By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.

Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

It was a reference to a focus on a tree rather than a forest.

As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.

That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.

Nobody is asserting that the Government should be the primary innovator to drive the market. The government sets conditions, regulates and for the many decades of Keynesian thinking has also rightly or wrongly tried to keep everything between the lines.

I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better. If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.

I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.

Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.

You've made a general thesis here, now what is your proof? What specific regulations and how do they increase our freedoms beyond what is garanteed in the Constitution?

By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.

In another thread you didn't trust States to regulate because they might do so too much in FAVOR of business, but here you argue that it is better for business to have Central regulation. Anyway, would it even be possible for States to have regulation on interstate commerce that would conflict with each other? Isn't that exactly one of the reasons the Constitution was written--to correct the problem of commercial warfare between the States? The Federal regulation of such warfare is CONSTITUTIONAL! States do have various regulations on business, and businesses which are national tend to adhere to the most stringent so they can be legal in all States. What is unconstitutional about the FDA is its unelected plenipotential power--executive, legislative, and judicial power, and one of the most damaging things beyond that is its overstrict regulation which distorts the market in favor of the richest businesses and artificially raises costs--massively in the case of drugs. This also creates a corrupt relationship between government and business with which "most people" are frustrated.

Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.

I don't know how black and white could work in a vacuum since white implies light reflecting on matter. The Constitution certainly is not a vacuum, nor is it in a vacuum. It is a framework for government based on nature, human nature, and allows for an actual humanity to govern itself.

I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.

Actually, no. It is the corruption of the market that would be destructive. PURE market forces dictate value to both buyer and seller. If one cheats, he distorts the transaction, and the aggregate of such cheating would destroy the market.

That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".

In the grand "spectrum" of our Constitutional history, we have a greater degree of socialism now than in the beginning. The "vector" has been in that direction and threatens to accelerate.

I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.

Since the Occupiers have not had a coherent statement of purpose, it's not possible to say. But many of the "spontaneous" demands (free education, forgiveness of all debt, etc.) rig in their favor.

I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better.

Better than what? Better than Federal minimal or strict behavior? What's better got to do with it? Each has its Constitutional domain.

If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.

The greatest "benefit" for the public that the Constitution grants is optimal personal freedom. If you believe that constricting that benefit in favor of some perceived temporary consumer benefit by creating a permanent judicial precedent to do so is a good and greater "benefit," that is a greater degree of socialism to which I don't agree.

I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.

Being settled by a majority of people in individual States is a far cry from the SCOTUS imposing a Federal mandate that is not in the Federal Constitutional domain.

Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.

-spence

A relativist speaking about the context of reality begs the question of which or whose reality? And if you don't apporve of "the fancy of academics" ruling from "some purist theoretical world," I would think, then, you would disapprove of SCOTUS rulings which are exactly that. They use academically inspired theories such as Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principle of Fairness, and Rule According to Higher Law, to get around the plain words in the Constitution. These are the fancy academic theories used to philosophically justify what are obviously unconstitutional decisions.

[Swimmer]

SOLDIERING to all of you non-union or used to be union, but are now administration types is the term your talking about but not using. In the army the lazy private never gets in trouble, and does nothing. Hence all the other privates see this occurring and ascend to the lazy guys sloth and uselessness. Now, none of them gets recognized outside of thier circle. That theory transfers to everyday, in or out of a union. Its use in private business as I found out in college courses never specifically mentioned unions as the place where soldiering occurs as opposed to non-union positions. But the term is little used even though its connotation and its practice is found in every type of workplace.

[Fishpart]

My oldest son went and worked today and got paid. When he came home I tried to shake him down for 25% to give to his siblings who didn't work today (even though at least one of them had an opportunity). I call his brother and sister "Occupy Livingroom". We also told him we have a progressive system in our house, so the more he makes the higher the % we take to give others who don't have "enough"...

Needless to say he was opposed to having the wealth that he intends on using to improve his standard of living confiscated, lesson complete.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

SOLDIERING to all of you non-union or used to be union, but our now administration types is the term your talking about but not using. In the army the lazy private never gets in trouble, and does nothing. Hence all the other privates see this occurring and ascend to the lazy guys sloth and uselessness. Now, none of them gets recognized outside of thier circle. That theory transfers to everyday, in or out of a union. Its use in private business as I found out in college courses never specifically mentioned unions as the place where soldiering occurs as opposed to non-union positions. But the term is little used even though its connotation and its practice is found in every type of workplace.

In essence, unions make it so that the better, harder workers must make up for the lazy bums because the lazy bums cannot be gotten rid of and the bums get the same scheduled raises as the hard workers. In businesses without unions, the lazy workers become unemployed and the hard workers are given raises relative to their performance.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

I think you stole this blather from an Obama telepromoter...maybe we've located the thief....


Steve Jobs was a pretty innovative thinker.....

HuffPo:

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform."