The Rapacious Maw of Unionism Devours its Own Yet Again

[_Gadianton]

I used Volcker as an example to help people straighten out the right intuition between holding cash and holding investments, bad idea given how politically charged this place is, if it isn't helpful, I'm fine with dropping it. However one wishes to perceive the effects of monetary policy, I myself am forbidden to believe any such policies have much of an effect at all either way, Analytics is right. When money loses value, people trade it for capital investments, gold, or whatever. This is uncontroversial. If you think lowering interest rates signal pulling out investments into cash, you stand to make a hell of a lot of money as a day trader using counter market psychology.

I'm not saying inflation is good, but it's trivial to observe that when it happens, people get out of money, and into alternative investments.

[_Kevin Graham]

d.

[_Kevin Graham]

One might expect them to come to terms with economic reality, primarily for their own good and for the greater good of their wives and children.

And here is Droopy's problem (among many). He thinks he can state as a matter of fact that continuing to work for Hostess at reduced income is what's best for them and their families. But he doesn't know that at all. Like I said, he assumes this just so he can then attack them as idiots who care nothing about eating or supporting their families. But I know quite a few real life scenarios involving me and others, where risks were taken to negotiate a better deal with employment. I know of at least a dozen circumstances in which employees have the luxury to strike or press a lawsuit if they feel an employment contract has been breached, which don't involve life-death/eat-starve, situations. Many workers I know think about quitting on a daily basis because they can afford to, or because they found something better. Some people stick around with their companies only because they don't want to go through the hassle of switching insurance coverage.

Droopy seems to think employees provide no service worth negotiating, therefore they should, as Gad suggests, bow their head in submission and just take whatever scraps their employer throws at them. What a deluded worldview that is, especially for someone claiming to cherish free market principles. Ultimately Droopy's preaching of his political dogma reveals that he either doesn't understand those principles, or he just doesn't care about them like he pretends.

Again, he and bcspace attack the workers like good Right Wing robots they are, assuming they know enough of the facts and circumstances, when in reality they know nothing of these folks and their employment situations. People negotiate their services with employers all the time. Granted, Droopy has little to no experience with this, but the working class in America most certainly does.

And Hostess was obviously on the ropes long before this strike took effect. Again, demand is what drives business and demand has been down. Blame hostess for that, not the workers. Droopy cannot handle this economic axiom because it runs contrary to his preferred, outdated, well-refuted philosophy, where he gets to blame the working people instead.

[_Kevin Graham]

I used Volcker as an example to help people straighten out the right intuition between holding cash and holding investments, bad idea given how politically charged this place is, if it isn't helpful, I'm fine with dropping it. However one wishes to perceive the effects of monetary policy, I myself am forbidden to believe any such policies have much of an effect at all either way, Analytics is right. When money loses value, people trade it for capital investments, gold, or whatever. This is uncontroversial. If you think lowering interest rates signal pulling out investments into cash, you stand to make a hell of a lot of money as a day trader using counter market psychology.

I'm not saying inflation is good, but it's trivial to observe that when it happens, people get out of money, and into alternative investments.

Droopy has been told so many times that inflation is the boogeyman, he just accepts it uncritically as most things he reads from Heritage.

A few weeks ago I made a similar point to cinepro when he said inflation doesn't benefit those who are saving money since it loses its value. Well, yes, that's exactly right, so there is every incentive to trade up or invest it.

So what's the downside again? They don't know. They just know it has to be something horribly wrong because that's what they're told.

[Guest]

And here is Droopy's problem...

My main problem is that I post here at all or spend any time with the kinds of people who overwhelmingly inhabit this strange, Lovecraftian world.

He thinks he can state as a matter of fact that continuing to work for Hostess at reduced income is what's best for them and their families.

One would think that this would beat the heck out of unemployment.

But he doesn't know that at all. Like I said, he assumes this just so he can then attack them as idiots who care nothing about eating or supporting their families.

I'm sure they do. However, class envy and a sense of entitlement - the sine qua non of union ideology - tends to create a militant sense of right when it comes to employment and work, and a self-destructive hostility to scapegoats who are on the cutting edge of economic realities and must therefore be the bearers of bad news, on occasion.

But I know quite a few real life scenarios involving me and others, where risks were taken to negotiate a better deal with employment. I know of at least a dozen circumstances in which employees have the luxury to strike or press a lawsuit if they feel an employment contract has been breached, which don't involve life-death/eat-starve, situations. Many workers I know think about quitting on a daily basis because they can afford to, or because they found something better. Some people stick around with their companies only because they don't want to go through the hassle of switching insurance coverage.

That's all very nice, but uh...and?

Droopy seems to think employees provide no service worth negotiating,

CFR's don't have to be honored here, but it would be nice if you could point out where I've ever suggested anything of the kind. You must actually be stark, barking mad Graham, when you make statements like this about your ideological enemies that are not even remotely connected to reality, and expect credibility in return.

Again, he and bcspace attack the workers like good Right Wing robots they are,

I snipped the other blah blah only to move on to some more.

And Hostess was obviously on the ropes long before this strike took effect.

Not according to any serious analysis I've read thus far

Again, demand is what drives business and demand has been down. Blame hostess for that, not the workers.

Take the needle out of your arm, Graham, and shake out the cobwebs. I provided links to serious analysis, including to one of the CEOs. Demand was down for some time and profit margins have been tiny for decades, and none of this had anything to do with the actual destruction of the company. That could have been avoided.

Droopy cannot handle this economic axiom because it runs contrary to his preferred, outdated, well-refuted philosophy, where he gets to blame the working people instead.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But then, neither do you, so we are both on the same caboose.

[_Gadianton]

They don't need to. The vast majority of decisions made in a truly free market environment must be made within the context of serving one's fellow human beings"

No, the assumption of free-market capitalism is that people are amoral. The great teacher of the left, you, is the one who believes market players should be taught to serve their fellow human beings. I'm thinking now of the folks on the Wall Street trading floor striving to serve their fellow man the best they can. It's a fun thought.

It cannot be the case that "the benefit of the group" (whatever that is) will not be realized, and at lower prices, higher quality, and wider variety, under such circumstances.

No, the idea is that people following their own self-interest will result in the optimal benefit of the group, not that people are out to serve the group first and foremost and only act selfishly in those cases where the group will be benefited. The idea is that self-interest is held in check by self-interest, not by one's caring for the group benefit. Comte would love to hear you say that the world needs indoctrination itself with caring for and serving the group.

If it were true that self-interest always worked because people are enlightened, and hold the regard of the group first in their mind, backing off on greed when the benefit for others isn't realized, then Thomas Sowell wouldn't argue, contrary to you, that there are many examples of market failures, such as in the case of mudflaps. People don't buy mudflaps because they don't have a vested interest in them, the benefit of the group means little, and there is no way to pit self-interest against self-interest to achieve optimal outcome (as in the case of collusion). You are right about one thing, however, if people were altruistic, then there would be no market failures, because people would act for the benefit of the group when the route of selfishness fails to obtain. But in that case, there would be no need for a market that pits self-interest against self-interest.

You're so blinded by tea-party Christian dogma that you're imagining a world of small quaint shops ran by good Christians and living the pure gospel as the epitome of free-market capitalism. But that's why you're so wrong. Free Market capitalism is so appealing not because it works for good Christians with the good of their fellow man close to heart, but because it works for the lowest common denominator.

I love listening to you right-wing fanatics preach, though. "If only this immoral generation would rise and repent, and take upon them the name of Christ, then the free-market system would work!"

[_Droopy]

No, the assumption of free-market capitalism is that people are amoral.

Pure bosh. The primary assumption of free-market theory, at least in its modern form, is that human beings are rationally self-interested. Both moral, immoral, and amoral people participate in free-market economic relations, but the market itself takes no account of their personal morality unless it impinges within the realm of business ethics, in which case civil and criminal courts exist to deal with that state of affairs, should it arise.

The great teacher of the left, you, is the one who believes market players should be taught to serve their fellow human beings.

Actually, its Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt etc., and none of them ever claimed that humans should be taught to serve their fellow man. They would all most likely say that that is the province of the family, religion, and philosophy. Cattallactically speaking, in a free-market environment, they cannot help but do so, regardless of their own personal morality or immorality (unless their immorality leads them to ply drugs in the schoolyard or run guns to gang members) if they want to survive in that market and make a living.

It cannot be the case that "the benefit of the group" (whatever that is) will not be realized, and at lower prices, higher quality, and wider variety, under such circumstances.

No, the idea is that people following their own self-interest will result in the optimal benefit of the group...

Which is another way of saying exactly what I just said above. Thanks.

The problem, Gad, is that, save for extremely rudimentary elements of economic and physical survival and safety, there is no such thing as a "common good." economically speaking. It was the genius of classical liberalism to finally understand and take that insight seriously.

The idea is that self-interest is held in check by self-interest, not by one's caring for the group benefit.

Which is what I've essentially been arguing but not quite. The interests of each individual within the group, and because of this, the group, are best served in an environment of rational, personal self-interest that is free to seek its own best interests in an economically open environment. The group - the collective itself - has no "interest."

Comte would love to hear you say that the world needs indoctrination itself with caring for and serving the group.

Are you building strawmen for a reason or is this just a kind of intellectual tic?

You are clearly utterly ignorant of both Comte and my own philosophy, which makes me wonder if you even read these posts or if your just winging it.

If it were true that self-interest always worked because people are enlightened,

I've never said this. They are self-interested; they want to feed their families, pay their mortgage, send their kids of college, and live a reasonable comfortable, secure life.

and hold the regard of the group first in their mind,

Only you're saying this, not me.

You're so blinded by tea-party Christian dogma that you're imagining a world of small quaint shops ran by good Christians and living the pure gospel as the epitome of free-market capitalism. But that's why you're so wrong.

Continue fantasizing, Gad, you're in good company around here.

Free Market capitalism is so appealing not because it works for good Christians with the good of their fellow man close to heart, but because it works for the lowest common denominator.

You're strawman is now complete. Anyone got a match?

[_Gadianton]

If inflation benefits debtors then it's obviously at the expense of creditors. If I'm in the business of loaning people money, and they're paying me back less money than I loaned them, then obviously, that hurts me. When a government spends more than it makes, there's a huge temptation to create inflation in order "pay back" some of that debt for free, at the expense of its creditors, it's citizens. So inflation is very evil when you look at it this way.

But that's looking at the situation in a vacuum. A liberal who believes in Keynes should not disagree with anything I said above, but will hold the belief that the economy can get stuck below full output and that creating money will dislodge the obstruction, leading the economy back to full health. On this view, inflation happens in the money creation process, and this could still be regarded as bad, but that's the pain from surgery, to get back to full health. Of course, this is only true if Keynesian economics is true.

Then for someone like me who accepts rational expectations as true, we have to distinguish between expected and unexpected inflation. As long as inflation is predictable, affected parties will make their adjustments prior to the inflation such as to nullify the effects. Unanticipated inflation, however, will still be good or bad, depending upon who you are.

[_Gadianton]

at least in its modern form, is that human beings are rationally self-interested.

Yet, you believe the employees at the Twinkie factory are irrational. So long as you condemn huge sweeps of Americans for making irrational decisions in regards to their own employment, spending, or whatever, you're calling into question the foundation of the market.

[_MeDotOrg]

"The Rapacious Maw of Unionism Devours its Own Yet Again."

Irrespective of content, sometimes you just have to stand back and admire Droopy's headlines as works of art. They are like early skyscrapers, soaring and ornate structures of filigree and iron, towering over the prosaic hovels of proletarian wordsmiths. There's a grandiloquence, an ability to lift the mundane to oratorical heights not seen since the headlines of William Randolph Hearst, or the inside of Donald Trump's ego.