PDA

View Full Version : Adam Smith 1st, Abraham Lincoln 2nd


hcap
09-05-2011, 12:45 PM
Adam Smith:

The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V; emphasis added).

Abraham Lincoln:

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”(1861 Inaugural Address,)

.................................................. ....

How come neither had much to say about the Übermensch John Galt type wealth creators being first and much the superior to their underling anchor workers? Could it be perhaps, Smith and Lincoln were Marxists before there was a Marx?

How about if WorldNutDaily investigates?

mostpost
09-05-2011, 12:54 PM
Adam Smith:

The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V; emphasis added).

Abraham Lincoln:

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”(1861 Inaugural Address,)

.................................................. ....

How come neither had much to say about the Übermensch John Galt type wealth creators being first and much the superior to their underling anchor workers? Could it be perhaps, Smith and Lincoln were Marxists before there was a Marx?

How about if WorldNutDaily investigates?


I think it says everything that we have a Labor Day in this country and not a Capital Day. Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln got it absolutely correct.
Happy Labor Day.

edited to change "a lot" to "everything"

lsbets
09-05-2011, 01:02 PM
I know you've read about Atlas Shrugged on lefty blogs and therefore think you understand it, but your statement regarding John Galt shows you don't have a clue about it.

One of the great scenes in Atlas is Fransisco's money speech. Read it. I think you will be surprised how much of it you would agree with, and I doubt you would find any of it as horrible as you seem to think it is.

Here is a quote, seems similar to the quotes you put up, substituting the word effort for labor:

"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"

http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm

hcap
09-05-2011, 01:02 PM
mostpost, I suspect burger boy et.al will tell us we are delusional and commies. And we serve the Dem Mothership.

Happy Labor day

PS: workers of the world unite ;) ;)

lsbets
09-05-2011, 01:04 PM
I suspect burger boy et.al will tell us we are delusional and commies. And we serve the Dem Mothership.

Happy Labor day

PS: workers of the world unite ;) ;)

Nice deflection after being shown you don't have a clue about the reference you made. Typical.

mostpost
09-05-2011, 01:17 PM
Nice deflection after being shown you don't have a clue about the reference you made. Typical.

I doubt if Hcap even saw your post in as much as they were posted at the same time.

lsbets
09-05-2011, 01:19 PM
Another great quote from that speech which applies to today:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.

lsbets
09-05-2011, 01:21 PM
I doubt if Hcap even saw your post in as much as they were posted at the same time.

You are correct, but I doubt Hcap will read the link and admit he is wrong in his assumptions about Atlas. Kudos to him if he does, but I am not optimistic.

mostpost
09-05-2011, 01:27 PM
You are correct, but I doubt Hcap will read the link and admit he is wrong in his assumptions about Atlas. Kudos to him if he does, but I am not optimistic.

This could be a very interesting discussion. I glanced at your link, but unfortunately I must now get ready to attend a Labor Day barbecue. I will read it later and comment.

lsbets
09-05-2011, 02:18 PM
This could be a very interesting discussion. I glanced at your link, but unfortunately I must now get ready to attend a Labor Day barbecue. I will read it later and comment.

It could be. There are a lot of misconceptions regarding Atlas from the left and the right. Atlas condemns both collectivism and crony capitalism (oh yeah, religion too). The Wall Street gang who profit through corruption and graft would not have been heroes in John Galt's world, but neither would the politicians or bureaucrats who sold their influence and enacted policies which favored their friends and steered the economy off a cliff.

hcap
09-05-2011, 02:20 PM
Many on the left have a libertarian streak.
It is when Adam Smith is reduced to only a savage parody of Darwinian survival, and cruelty is glorified in pursuit of a free-market free of social regulations, that we get annoyed.

We had a taste of laissez faire during the rise of the Robber Barons. Unregulated capitalism, was heading into a primitive corporatocracy at the turn of the last century. Politicians were bought and sold to acquire land and railroad rights of way. With the same indifference to the individual as we have seen in Communist states. Railroads, mines, sweat shops, the meat packing industry were growing and exploiting all workers, and particularly children. Anything to make a buck labor practices became apparent. Men like TR coupled with the awaking of the public's awareness of cruel conditions, brought about the rise of a modern social conscience and legislation.

Whomever has unchecked power whether thru' concentrations of wealth or governmental control gets corrupted There must be a balance to tyranny of any sort.

Galtians tend to worship at the altar of the free market. Blinds them to the fact that Smith's 17th century noble concept which worked quite well when transparency and a lower concentrations of capitol/wealth existed, turns into Fascism when unchecked.

On the other hand capitalism has led to some of the greatest changes in human history. Small businesses are the backbone of free markets. I have a great respect for entrepreneurs willing to take chances. Had my own business and ran a manufacturing facility for another

Capitalism provides motivation and drive. Socialism, is public good oriented. I suspect that since WWII, the world has evolved into a mixed economy, because that is what works better than either pure socialism or pure capitalism.

Btw, Smith did warn against non transparency and concentration of wealth as a precaution to the proper application of the self correcting Invisible Hand

lsbets
09-05-2011, 02:31 PM
You seem to believe that free market = graft and corruption. The philosophy in Atlas despises anyone who earns their wealth by buying influence. The free market as sought in Atlas is one where the government sets basic rules to give all a chance to compete. Atlas is a defense of the honest man, who only wants the opportunity to give it his best shot without being crushed by those who use their power to limit his ability to succeed or by those who use their power to take what he has earned if he succeeds.

ElKabong
09-05-2011, 03:11 PM
Another great quote from that speech which applies to today:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.

Thank you for my new desktop background @ work. I'm going to paste this. Word for word this describes the current day problems.

Overlay
09-05-2011, 03:12 PM
Abraham Lincoln:

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”(1861 Inaugural Address,)
Minor correction: That quote was from Lincoln's first annual message to Congress (the State of the Union address) in December, 1861, not from his first inaugural address in March, 1861.

Tom
09-05-2011, 07:10 PM
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”(1861 Inaugural Address,)

Then why do labor unions prey on corporations?
You have organized labor - the be all and end all, why do they not just go about creating capital and eliminate the middleman?

mostpost
09-05-2011, 09:52 PM
Another great quote from that speech which applies to today:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.

Point by point:
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion

I don't understand. Does this refer to stock trading or trading of goods? I can't see that anyone is obliged to play the stock market, nor has anyone ever required me to trade my TV for someone's old suit.

when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing –
The speaker is confusing the right to produce with the need to control the methods and consequences of production. No one will say you can't produce dynamite. Someone will say you can't build your dynamite factory next to the High School. No one will say you can't produce automobiles. Someone will say you can't throw the unused paint in the river behind the factory.

It is also incorrect to say that the people who make these rules produce nothing. They produce a society where children don't have to go to school next to a dynamite factory and a society where we don't have to die from drinking water.

when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work

This is obviously a diatribe against the government and against politicians, but it could as easily apply Wall Street. Wall Street investors produce no goods. Their investments are based on someone's idea.

mostpost
09-05-2011, 10:18 PM
Then why do labor unions prey on corporations?
You have organized labor - the be all and end all, why do they not just go about creating capital and eliminate the middleman?

How is the weather there in opposite land. Unions prey on corporations? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If that is true they are doing a heck of a poor job of it.
In 2007 the top one percent controlled 42% of the nations wealth.
The bottom 80% controlled 7%.
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

There is even a neat graph for all you fans of Hcap.

lsbets
09-05-2011, 10:23 PM
You summed it up well. You don't understand. Your response was so bad, it has left me speechless. Wow. :bang: :bang:

Tom
09-05-2011, 11:40 PM
Nice dodge to me question, mostie.
Knew you had no good answer.

mostpost
09-06-2011, 12:05 AM
Nice dodge to me question, mostie.
Knew you had no good answer.

The same reason the guys with the capital don't create the product themselves.
They need each other. Something I understand, and you don't.

And you never explained how unions could be preying on corporations yet corporations have vastly more wealth than unions. Wealth which union members gave them.

Tom
09-06-2011, 12:12 AM
You are partially correct - unions prey on the workers.

Let's review"

A-Owners
B-Workers
C-Unions

Need owners
Need workers
No need unions

mostpost
09-06-2011, 12:15 AM
You summed it up well. You don't understand. Your response was so bad, it has left me speechless. Wow. :bang: :bang:

Well then explain it to me. Show me where we are under compulsion to trade. Tell me where a person is forbidden to manufacture a legal product. Tell me, if you dare, that graft is the exclusive province of politicians. It obviously can't be since they are receiving those payoffs from businessmen.

And this theory that Ann (watermelon) Rind is championing the cause of the honest businessman is not relevant. No matter how many honest men walk past the $100 bill I left on my porch, as soon as one dishonest man appears my $100 is gone. That is why we have regulations and that is why we have regulators.

lsbets
09-06-2011, 12:52 AM
And this theory that Ann (watermelon) Rind is championing the cause of the honest businessman is not relevant. No matter how many honest men walk past the $100 bill I left on my porch, as soon as one dishonest man appears my $100 is gone. That is why we have regulations and that is why we have regulators.

Its not the honest businessman, it is the honest man. Any man who works to the best of his ability and expects nothing but that which he has earned. Strange concept, huh?

That's not why we have regulations, that's why we have police. If someone steals from you they should go to jail. Duh.

Every business in this country - whether it be your landscaper or Apple, needs permission from the government on different levels and in different departments to do business. Every single one of them. Where I am, I had to deal with at least 10 different government agencies just to open a freakin neighborhood restaurant. Let's see - city health department, city building department, city fire marshal, city code enforcement, city police department, state comptroller, state attorney general, secretary of state, texas workforce commission, internal revenue service, federal department of labor, social security administration, homeland security. I think that's 13, and that is just off the top of my head. There might be a few others I've had to deal with. Once you kiss all the right asses you get permission to do business. Fail to do so and you are forbidden from engaging in an otherwise legal business.

Who said the graft comment is only directed towards politicians? You did because that is what you want it to say, but that is not what it says. Businessmen who earn their money by buying influence are held in just as much if not more contempt. One of the central storylines in Atlas is the established businessmen fighting for laws and regulations to eliminate their competition because they know they cannot compete with them in the marketplace.

hcap
09-06-2011, 06:31 AM
We hear constantly on this off topic board ftrom people like Tom and boxcar that what I termed "Übermensch John Galt type wealth creators" are the more important part of our economy. More so than labor. I answered that with quotes from Smith and Lincoln. Labor is considered the prime mover by both.

Hopefully on Labor Day, that message would be considered without assuming Smith and Lincoln are commies or Socialists. And that Labor should be at least be recognized as a partner and equal. That was my point.

Objectivism is a long discussion. I brought up examples of the failure of laissez faire capitalism. I pointed out that unchecked, capitalism can lead to fascism. I stand by that statement. The theoretical underpinnings of almost all economic systems are just that THEORETICAL. Galts' speech makes a fine case for individuals rights. The spirit of that speech is appealing. But in application to real world realities, comes up short.

Whether or not one accepts Evolution or religious ethical moral precepts, the connection to ones' fellow beings is real and long standing. Evolution shows a long term growth of social systems as having survival value for the individual. Religion shows compassion and ethos for ones neighbor. Both are ways to define a social contract. I see Objectivism carrying the "free hand" concept of Smith into human social relations. And just as in small scale 18th century communities, where the free hand was sort of self correcting, but fails in large scale economics, the Objectivist social code also comes up short in large groups. A social contract should reflect the groups' well being as well as the individuals. Before for instance, Social Security, the well being of our seniors was horrific. Why didn't the "conscience" of the private sector step in and by use of its " Social Free Hand" save them? There is a long history of a woeful lack of free hand conscience, and according to Objectivism, there would not even be a need for conscience, somehow it would take care of the greater good my just taking care of the individual. Did not happen. Medical care for seniors did not happen on it's own. Child poverty, was not a concern of the private sector.

The meat packing industry is an example of how both the private application of economic regulation, and more importantly SOCIAL regulation did not exist until Sinclair Lewis wrote "The Jungle" and stirred the social conscience. Private conscience does not concern itself with workers getting mangled by the manufacturing line

We all agree that for instance the social contract should include mutual support for a military. Mutual defense. The common good or wealth is then protected. In the same way, the construction of public highways protects the common good-and wealth. The difficulty in modern times is exactly how much government is enough? And that is the crux of the matter.

hcap
09-06-2011, 08:09 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-last-labor-day/2011/09/04/gIQA11Ob2J_story.html

"So it would take a brave man to point out that unions “grew up from the struggle of the workers — workers in general but especially the industrial workers — to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production,” or to insist that “the experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life.”

That’s what Pope John Paul II said (the italics are his) in the 1981 encyclical “Laborem Exercens.” Like Lincoln, John Paul repeatedly asserted “the priority of labor over capital.”

JBmadera
09-06-2011, 08:32 AM
The SEIU and APWU have Adam rolling over in his grave. Not a chance in H*LL he would have supported such abominations.

lsbets
09-06-2011, 08:32 AM
If you think that Boxcar somehow fits in with Rand in any way, you know even less about it than I thought.

BTW - you do realize that wasn't Galt's speech that I linked, don't you? Galt's speech is about 100 times longer.

Tom
09-06-2011, 08:55 AM
I admire good laborers, hcap - there is no need for a union to be a good worker. Ever watch the pace of the clods that man the front desk at most post offices, even when there is a large crowd there?

Proud of what you boy, Hoffa said yesterday in his speech?

hcap
09-06-2011, 09:19 AM
If you think that Boxcar somehow fits in with Rand in any way, you know even less about it than I thought.

Boxcar is close to Objectivism, but ignores Rand's ant-religious stance.

What about my objections to the self correcting nature of Objectivism? Do you believe in the long run that if Rand's philosophy was adopted strictly as stated, no social safety nets would be required? That without social nets individuals will be self sufficient enough to not need any help? Or are you saying Darwinian survival of the fittest theory applies and things will sort themselves out.

hcap
09-06-2011, 09:32 AM
I admire good laborers, hcap - there is no need for a union to be a good worker. Ever watch the pace of the clods that man the front desk at most post offices, even when there is a large crowd there?

Proud of what you boy, Hoffa said yesterday in his speech?Tom, I have observed first hand manufacturing from the workers point of vuew and managements point of view. There are good workers and bad. After a while, management unable to motivate the poor worker has no choice but to let him/her go. For the most part, a company usually has a pool of new workers to choose from. If a good worker works for a lousy company, his choices are not as simple. Particularly in today's' labor market. Unions and collective bargaining historically have leveled the playing field. Adam Smith recognized this way before current day unions exited. Back then they were guilds

BTW, are you saying that yes, labor and management are equal partners

hcap
09-06-2011, 09:56 AM
Although the film footage is does not correspond with early history of unions, the facts are correct. Pay special attention to the section on child labor.

GZkq7d4lyrw

Explain how Objectivism would have solved the problem of child labor

lsbets
09-06-2011, 10:07 AM
You still won't come back to the point of my original response, which is the quote I put up is very similar to the ones you did, and the assumptions you made in your post were incorrect. Just admit you were wrong in your assumption and that you didn't understand the reference you were making.

You and Box are so similar its almost frightening. Opposite sides of the same coin.

hcap
09-06-2011, 10:25 AM
I have gone over my objections in detail. If my original Galt remark offends you, I will retract it as a result of being misinformed. Why don't you explain to us in your own words how my objections to what I understand (perhaps mistakenly) as Objectivism, is incorrect. Surely those same questions in terms of dealing with things like safety nets and child labor and polluting water and air, have been asked before of proponents of Rand. And no, boxcar is one of yours. Sorry he has given you such a bad rap

turninforhome10
09-06-2011, 10:41 AM
Ricardo is much tighter on this than Smith



The Iron Law of Wages

Exceprt from Ricardo's The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

In the natural advance of society, the wages of labour will have a tendency to fall, as far as they are regulated by supply and demand; for the supply of labourers will continue to increase at the same rate, while the demand for them will increase at a slower rate... I say that, under these circumstances,
wages would fall if they were regulated only by the supply and demand of labourers; but we must not forget that wages are also regulated by the prices of the commodities on which they are expended.

As population increases, these necessaries will be constantly rising in price, because more labour will be necessary to produce them. If, then, the money wages of labour should fall, while every commodity on which the wages of labour were expended rose, the labourer would be doubly affected, and would be soon totally deprived of subsistence... These, then, are the laws by which
wages are regulated, and by which the happiness of far the greatest part of every community is governed. Like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature.

The clear and direct tendency of the poor laws is in direct opposition to those obvious principles: it is not, as the legislature benevolently intended, to amend the condition of the poor, but to deteriorate the condition of both poor and rich; instead of making the poor rich, they are calculated to make the
rich poor; and while the present laws are in force, it is quite in the natural order of things that the fund for the maintenance of the poor should progressively increase till it has absorbed all the net revenue of the country, or at least so much of it as the state shall leave to us, after satisfying its own never-failing demands for the public expenditure.

Tom
09-06-2011, 10:44 AM
Tom, I have observed first hand manufacturing from the workers point of vuew and managements point of view. There are good workers and bad. After a while, management unable to motivate the poor worker has no choice but to let him/her go. For the most part, a company usually has a pool of new workers to choose from. If a good worker works for a lousy company, his choices are not as simple. Particularly in today's' labor market. Unions and collective bargaining historically have leveled the playing field. Adam Smith recognized this way before current day unions exited. Back then they were guilds

BTW, are you saying that yes, labor and management are equal partners

I have experienced labor/management first hand, too, as a manager. I did not own the company. I did not own stock in it. I did not make the top level decisions. Did I consider myself an equal partner? Hell no! I was an employee - with a job to do and responsibilities for which I received a paycheck. There were countless of people out there who could have done my job. I kept on my toes and made myself valuable so that I could keep it.
I received no OT pay, I was expected to work as long as it took to get the job done.

Why does the guy running the press, with far less value to the company than me think he should be an equal partner when he contribute less than the owners and less than me?????

And if you think we could just fire bad workers, think again. The union ALWAYS sided with the employee, no matter what the offense of how many times it happened. ALWAYS.

Owners and workers are not close to being equal partners. Not by a long shot. To think that is ignorance of reality.

Tom
09-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Although the film footage is does not correspond with early history of unions, the facts are correct. Pay special attention to the section on child labor.

Bush, child labor...where have you been hiding under a rock?
Get with the times, hcap - deal with today.

You boy Ovomit allows trade with China, who uses child labor - why not do something constructive and whine about HIM, in effect, supporting child slave labor. Get back to me when you get that one fixed. Oh yeah, Cina pollutes far more than we do, so kill two birds with one stone and get that fixed as well.

lsbets
09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
I have gone over my objections in detail. If my original Galt remark offends you, I will retract it as a result of being misinformed. Why don't you explain to us in your own words how my objections to what I understand (perhaps mistakenly) as Objectivism, is incorrect. Surely those same questions in terms of dealing with things like safety nets and child labor and polluting water and air, have been asked before of proponents of Rand. And no, boxcar is one of yours. Sorry he has given you such a bad rap

I'm not a hardcore Objectivist, so I'm not the one to go into detail about every position they tend to take. I can only speak for myself (which I guess would be a pretty objectivist position, individual vs. group). But I showed you clearly with Fransisco's money speech, how you were misinformed.

I happen to believe we need a pretty basic safety net, and tend to fall where Hayek did on that point, but problems arise when the so called safety net creates a disincentive to work.

Libertarian thought in general believes issues of pollution can best be handled with strong property rights and without the need for a government bureaucracy to handle it.

Child labor? Where? Here? Everywhere? We have made a strong effort to eliminate child labor around the world through regulation, and guess what has happened? In most of the world children work because it is necessary to help support the family. Developing countries (where the economic contribution of children is needed) who have been forced by us and others to outlaw child labor, have seen an increase in children working in the underground economy in areas such as prostitution. While it might feel good to say that we helped outlaw child labor in some countries, the results are not so good. As an economy develops, there is less need (on the part of the families) to have children start working at a young age. The market handles it pretty well over time.

Atlas presents a Utopian ideal. I don't think anyone would argue that the world Galt fought for is possible to achieve in reality.

Boxcar and you? You guys are the opposite sides of the same coin. Its been pointed out to you before, and just about everyone realizes it. You are both closed minded ideologues.

turninforhome10
09-06-2011, 11:17 AM
After posting about Ricardo and looking into child labor laws all roads lead to the Progressive movement for the early 20th century. They helped to develop many reforms for labor and corruption. Examples Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
Republican and Democrat respectively.
How in the hell did the Progressives get from Roosevelt and Wilson to Bernie Sanders?

Tom
09-06-2011, 11:23 AM
More workers are not in a union than are.
They seem to do alright.

Yet the prez and vice prez are not advocating any jobs for them unless they join unions.

The prez is bought and paid for.

And it is not Americans he represents.

Tom
09-06-2011, 11:37 AM
Funny how the union boys are quick to demand taxing the "rich" to fix the economy, but drag their feet and cry like babies when it comes time for them to share the sacrifice, when they are the "rich" compared to normal American workers.

hcap
09-06-2011, 01:46 PM
Tom'

I said this "BTW, are you saying that yes, labor and management are equal partners?"

You said "Why does the guy running the press, with far less value to the company than me think he should be an equal partner when he contribute less than the owners and less than me?????
I did not say that.

Obviously the janitor or cleaning lady are not of equal monetary value as the designer or engineer, to a company.

I said management as one entity and labor as another. Individually almost all actors in a company may be replaced. But if I spend 2 years training an unskilled worker to do a highly involved job, teaching a craft, it becomes more and more costly and difficult to start fom scratch. More education and experience always boosts desirability, and that is the way it should be. The worker has a chance to better himself. And hopefully will be rewarded for his efforts

I ran a shop that required skilled craftsman. Custom fabrication is based on learned skills that machinery can not replace. Atypical. Not all of industry however does custom items. Most run a variation on the production line and workers can be trained in less time and replaced more easily.

It has tons of value to those workers to unionize. They would be fools not to.

hcap
09-06-2011, 01:57 PM
After posting about Ricardo and looking into child labor laws all roads lead to the Progressive movement for the early 20th century. They helped to develop many reforms for labor and corruption. Examples Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
Republican and Democrat respectively.
How in the hell did the Progressives get from Roosevelt and Wilson to Bernie Sanders?

Although I disagree with you on Sanders, yes, the progressive moment led to major changes in the workplace. And it was a reaction to abuses by the captains of industry. To carry that thought further, Communism was also a reaction to abuses rampant with the rise of the Industrial revolution and the concentration of wealth.

Tom
09-06-2011, 02:22 PM
But if I spend 2 years training an unskilled worker to do a highly involved job, teaching a craft, it becomes more and more costly and difficult to start fom scratch. More education and experience always boosts desirability, and that is the way it should be. The worker has a chance to better himself. And hopefully will be rewarded for his efforts

Guys like CJD are skilled workers. Most UAW workers are not. Most could be be replaced almost transparently. Union membership also boosts complacency and a desire to coast by. I've seen far more of that than the other. Workers and management alike are NOT equal partners with owners. Never will be.

If you need a union to stand up for you, you don't have much to offer.

rastajenk
09-06-2011, 02:48 PM
I don't see anything in the original Smith and Lincoln quotes that suggests a collective approach to labor.

Tom
09-06-2011, 03:06 PM
Most labor is not unionized. Yet the prez and vice idiot speak only about union labor. Sad that the first Black President was not man enough to represent everyone. Would have nice to have elected one up to the whole job.

hcap
09-06-2011, 03:11 PM
I'm not a hardcore Objectivist, so I'm not the one to go into detail about every position they tend to take. I can only speak for myself (which I guess would be a pretty objectivist position, individual vs. group). But I showed you clearly with Fransisco's money speech, how you were misinformed.

I went back and read most of it. I was not misinformed. I went thru' my own libertarian stage. Had friends who were Ayn Rand proponents. Much of what I know is due to long discussions with them and yes some current lefty blogs and articles

I happen to believe we need a pretty basic safety net, and tend to fall where Hayek did on that point, but problems arise when the so called safety net creates a disincentive to work.

Refresh my memory. Hayek? What was his take?.... I don't believe the downside of safety nets outweigh their benefits

Libertarian thought in general believes issues of pollution can best be handled with strong property rights and without the need for a government bureaucracy to handle it.

I totally disagree. Government is needed especially in these kind of matters and recent history has demonstrated this. From Love Canal, Valley of the Drums and countless super fund sites. Closely related are matters pertaining to food and drugs. Thalidomide, tobacco, the list goes on.

Child labor? Where? Here? Everywhere? We have made a strong effort to eliminate child labor around the world through regulation, and guess what has happened? In most of the world children work because it is necessary to help support the family. Developing countries (where the economic contribution of children is needed) who have been forced by us and others to outlaw child labor, have seen an increase in children working in the underground economy in areas such as prostitution. While it might feel good to say that we helped outlaw child labor in some countries, the results are not so good. As an economy develops, there is less need (on the part of the families) to have children start working at a young age. The market handles it pretty well over time.

You can not justify child labor as as economic tool. It may be other developing countries fall into it, but failing to stop does not mean it should be acceptable. We stopped it here because people were motivated by conscience to affect change. And that is my point. Social conscience is fairly powerful and can move the political will to legislate. That is why we have SS and Medicare. What would pass for equivalents under Rand. I assume private accounts.


Atlas presents a Utopian ideal. I don't think anyone would argue that the world Galt fought for is possible to achieve in reality.

No argument, and an egalitarian Utopian Social Democracy as well

Boxcar and you? You guys are the opposite sides of the same coin. Its been pointed out to you before, and just about everyone realizes it. You are both closed minded ideologues.

Absolute nonsense. He agrees with you on every economic issue and most political. He of course is the religious right on steroids and therefore not a Randian. He is 2nd cousin to Ayn Rand by means of economics.

However, I agree with him neither on economics, politics, culture or belief. He also is anti science. Another issue where he and I are opposed. Because I take a scientific view on Climate Change and argue my case in detail and with energy does not is any stretch of the imagination make me his flip side.

NJ Stinks
09-06-2011, 03:41 PM
Because I take a scientific view on Climate Change and argue my case in detail and with energy does not is any stretch of the imagination make me his flip side.

Of course not. Isbets is grabbing at straws here. Trying to equate you two is an exaggeration of immense proportions. :rolleyes:

hcap
09-06-2011, 03:57 PM
Of course not. Isbets is grabbing at straws here. Trying to equate you two is an exaggeration of immense proportions. :rolleyes:There is one thing I would bet that box and I do agree is nonsense. And that is the STATEMENT by lsbets that box and I are alike. :bang:

Unfortunately when box reads it, he might develop some health issues.

lsbets
09-06-2011, 04:16 PM
You take a religious view on climate change, not a scientific one. You are as much a fundamentalist as Boxcar is, only you substitute climate change for Jesus. No surprise that NJ can't see that, he's not much of a thinker.

lsbets
09-06-2011, 04:21 PM
So you read it and can say with a straight face that you do not think what I posted is in complete agreement with the quotes you posted? Of course you think your quotes pertain to labor unions. Oy. Sounds like some other guy who quotes the bible all the time when it suits him, whether or not he understands it.

Face it cap - you don't see things as the way they are, you see things as you want them to be.

boxcar
09-06-2011, 05:13 PM
Of course not. Isbets is grabbing at straws here. Trying to equate you two is an exaggeration of immense proportions. :rolleyes:

Thank you! Of course, Hcap represents the extreme left-wing ideology. I don't even come close to the extremism of the Wrights of this world, or to bible-thumpin' neo-Nazis, or to Legalists. or to the advocates of a national theocracy who comprise many fundamentalists groups, or to those who believe all social activities/recreations are taboo, or to those who hold to the literal interpretation of every word of the bible, etc., etc.

Best post you made in years. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

mostpost
09-06-2011, 05:24 PM
Its not the honest businessman, it is the honest man. Any man who works to the best of his ability and expects nothing but that which he has earned. Strange concept, huh?
That sounds fair, but who decides what he has earned. Both the laborer and the business owner have ideas of value that are biased by their own views. The only way to determine the value of a worker is by negotiation among equals. All of you conservatives keep telling me that a single worker is not as valuable to the business as the owner. If this is true than the worker can not negotiate with the owner on an equal basis. He can not receive a fair wage.
Depending on the circumstances the worker may need a union to represent him.

That's not why we have regulations, that's why we have police. If someone steals from you they should go to jail. Duh.

We have regulations so the police know what to enforce. Regulations are formulated by society to protect society.

Every business in this country - whether it be your landscaper or Apple, needs permission from the government on different levels and in different departments to do business. Every single one of them. Where I am, I had to deal with at least 10 different government agencies just to open a freakin neighborhood restaurant. Let's see - city health department, city building department, city fire marshal, city code enforcement, city police department, state comptroller, state attorney general, secretary of state, texas workforce commission, internal revenue service, federal department of labor, social security administration, homeland security. I think that's 13, and that is just off the top of my head. There might be a few others I've had to deal with. Once you kiss all the right asses you get permission to do business. Fail to do so and you are forbidden from engaging in an otherwise legal business.
I can see why all of those departments would have a legitimate interest in your business. The city health department needs to know if their are vermin in your restaurant. The building Department needs to know if stoves are vented properly. The fire marshall needs to know if you have fire extinguishers and clearly marked escape routes. Many of the departments you listed are responsible for certain regulations which were passed to insure the safety of your customers and employees. They were passed because before they existed customers and employees were not necessarily safe. Others like the IRS the state comptroller and social security are necessary so that you fulfill your tax and social security obligation.

Who said the graft comment is only directed towards politicians? You did because that is what you want it to say, but that is not what it says. Businessmen who earn their money by buying influence are held in just as much if not more contempt. One of the central storylines in Atlas is the established businessmen fighting for laws and regulations to eliminate their competition because they know they cannot compete with them in the marketplace.
You say this and yet you support the kind of laissez-faire capitalism that allows Walmart to undercut competitors and dictate to suppliers.

mostpost
09-06-2011, 05:46 PM
And if you think we could just fire bad workers, think again. The union ALWAYS sided with the employee, no matter what the offense of how many times it happened. ALWAYS.

That is what the union is supposed to do. Just as a lawyer is supposed to defend his client, even if he knows the client is guilty. Either that or ask to be removed from the case.

I just can not believe that your company could never fire workers. on the other hand, knowing your draconian nature I have to wonder what you consider a firing offense.

The Post Office unions are pretty strong, or at least they were, but I remember several firings of employees at my small office. The union will defend you, but there comes a time when the union can do nothing. As for the individual union members, I will cover for a worker who shows up slightly inebriated, but if it happens consistently or if he presents a danger to himself or others I will inform my supervisor. Or if someone is slacking off while I and others are working, I may make an off hand comment to the effect of "Has anyone seen so and so"?

NJ Stinks
09-06-2011, 05:53 PM
No surprise that NJ can't see that, he's not much of a thinker.

And Nobets lands a solid right to the reeling NJ!

"Stop the fight," shouts a fan with no bets. ;)

bigmack
09-06-2011, 05:54 PM
I will cover for a worker who shows up slightly inebriated, but if it happens consistently or if he presents a danger to himself or others I will inform my supervisor. Or if someone is slacking off while I and others are working, I may make an off hand comment to the effect of "Has anyone seen so and so"?
Bless you. We've come a long way from child labor. :rolleyes:

PW1: "Hey look, Frank is half in the bag. He's throwing all those zip codes in the wrong bin."

PW2: "Leave him alone, he's slightly inebriated."

hcap
09-06-2011, 07:00 PM
You take a religious view on climate change, not a scientific one. You are as much a fundamentalist as Boxcar is, only you substitute climate change for Jesus. No surprise that NJ can't see that, he's not much of a thinker.I expected a bit more from you. You loose on points and resort to distraction. No wonder box buys into your sour economics created by a misanthrope for other misanthropes.

hcap
09-06-2011, 07:15 PM
So you read it and can say with a straight face that you do not think what I posted is in complete agreement with the quotes you posted? Of course you think your quotes pertain to labor unions. Oy. Sounds like some other guy who quotes the bible all the time when it suits him, whether or not he understands it.

Face it cap - you don't see things as the way they are, you see things as you want them to be.The quotes I posted refer specifically to labor. One from a great President and another who had a pretty good grasp on capitalism and it's built in weaknesses. I may not agree totally with Adam Smith, but Ayn Rand ain't no Adam Smith. But be that as it may, and perhaps I will admit there is some similarities, we continued. I asked you about details. You did not volunteer much. It is apparent you cannot explain Objectivism much better than boxcar. I thought we were having an interesting discussion. Asking you about specifics, I honestly thought "ok, at least he is honest in what he is saying, it could be interesting", and then you brought the discussion down to silliness

Inspector Javert, you have returned :)

hcap
09-06-2011, 07:19 PM
Thank you! Of course, Hcap represents the extreme left-wing ideology. I don't even come close to the extremism of the Wrights of this world, or to bible-thumpin' neo-Nazis, or to Legalists. or to the advocates of a national theocracy who comprise many fundamentalists groups, or to those who believe all social activities/recreations are taboo, or to those who hold to the literal interpretation of every word of the bible, etc., etc.

Best post you made in years. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

So you finally showed. I just thought I would quote you for some MORE comic relief. Hope you don't mind :)

hcap
09-06-2011, 07:53 PM
Bless you. We've come a long way from child labor. :rolleyes:

PW1: "Hey look, Frank is half in the bag. He's throwing all those zip codes in the wrong bin."

PW2: "Leave him alone, he's slightly inebriated."Go play with the other children.
The adults are talking grown up stuff

johnhannibalsmith
09-06-2011, 09:45 PM
That is what the union is supposed to do. Just as a lawyer is supposed to defend his client, even if he knows the client is guilty. ...

Hypothetical...

You are working your fool ass off at work, doing it all straight and solid, despite being a card carrying member. You are assistant to the assistant to the Postmaster Commandante or whatever.

The assistant to the postmaster Commandante, your direct superior, is a piece of crap. Poor worker, poor attitude.

His workload shifts to your workload. Despite reprimand after reprimand and poor performances, he's got you by a dozen years on the job. His workload shifts to becoming your workload, but he still gets the title and the pay.

The people that represent YOU are making sure that your life is miserable and that you are overworked and underpaid.

Don't think I'd want to hire the attorney that would throw me under the bus to spare the guilty person from conviction.

Not that I strictly oppose unions, but I hated your metaphor thing there.

Tom
09-06-2011, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by mostpost
That is what the union is supposed to do. Just as a lawyer is supposed to defend his client, even if he knows the client is guilty. ...


What kind of a fool believes this?
You don't think this costs money and cause prices to rise to cover the miserable lazy union a-holes????

You have zero integrity, mostie - zero.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:50 AM
Hypothetical...

You are working your fool ass off at work, doing it all straight and solid, despite being a card carrying member. You are assistant to the assistant to the Postmaster Commandante or whatever.

The assistant to the postmaster Commandante, your direct superior, is a piece of crap. Poor worker, poor attitude.

His workload shifts to your workload. Despite reprimand after reprimand and poor performances, he's got you by a dozen years on the job. His workload shifts to becoming your workload, but he still gets the title and the pay.

The people that represent YOU are making sure that your life is miserable and that you are overworked and underpaid.
You seem to think that my attitude is no one should be fired. Not true. My point is everyone has a right to present his side of the story. The union does that. Also you can not tell me that no one was ever fired unjustly. Unions try to prevent that.

Don't think I'd want to hire the attorney that would throw me under the bus to spare the guilty person from conviction.
This one confuses me. The defendant's (he's not guilty until after the trial) attorney is legally obligated to represent his client to the best of his ability. If he "throws you under the bus you can get your own attorney who will be obligated to defend you. This is why it is a bad idea for two people charged for the same crime to have the same lawyer.

Not that I strictly oppose unions, but I hated your metaphor thing there.

The metaphor was not that bad, but some of the stuff after that in that post did not come off as intended. Wish I had a mulligan.

johnhannibalsmith
09-07-2011, 11:49 AM
The metaphor was not that bad, but some of the stuff after that in that post did not come off as intended. Wish I had a mulligan.

Let me see if I can convince you why it was pretty bad since I didn't get the point across.

A defense attorney would not represent the victim as well as the alleged perpetrator.

In the context of what was being discussed, you lose sight of the difference in the two roles. A distinct difference. A Union purports to represent ALL of the members and that includes those adversely affected by another member of that Union. That sort of relationship in an advocate representing in a courtroom does not exist.

I understand that the role is a difficult one, I've known some folks caught between that rock and a hard place - but too often the brass forgets about the rights of paying Union members that aren't causing problems requiring that same Union's representation.