On Apr 16, 12:01 am, Howard Kveck <
[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <360c1fe3-deb3-4da1-9bcf-c83be2e80...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 11:47 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 9, 11:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1ba8216a-a0e0-44ff-92a0-5692b76aa...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 6, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <91880719-b596-44eb-b329-ed2511b37...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 5:49 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > You don't "completely agree" with policies using _tax money_ to
> > > > destroy production when people are hungry and desparate?
>
> > > What happens when the producers of those commodities go under? Who eats
> > > then?
>
> > Good grief -- who eats food products when they are destroyed? Who
> > will take me on an airplane ride if Airline X goes belly up? Perhaps
> > another carrier? Who will I buy a car from if Dodge isn't bailed
> > out? Perhaps another car manufacturer? In some magic way, some goods
> > and producers get special status, especially when they are up for
> > destruction.
>
> It was done because they feared that too many producers would go under - a bit
> different than having one of a small number (such as with Chrysler, for example). A
> corporation like Chrysler gets bailed out because of the fallout that would come from
> them tanking - employees losing their jobs mean they probably (heh) lose buying
> power. Plus suppliers not having anyone to sell to, etc.
You're assumming that any existing debt could not be restructured, or
that new producers would not step in after foreclosures and resales.
I don't see why (or why not), and so don't agree.
>
> > "The leftist's economic approach to an uncomfortably hot apartment is
> > to open the refrigerator door." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> "...and get a beer."
>
> > > > You know I don't take sides with business or any other side,
>
> > > Actually, I don't know that. Your comments about regulations tend to
> > > make one think that you are in favor of business - the concept that any and
> > > all regulation is antithetical to the market just doesn't really work for me,
> > > as business doesn't always do what it ought (it pollutes, sells medicine and
> > > products that doesn't work, etc...).
>
> > After all this time you are still confusing "a business or businesses"
> > with "the market." A business[wo]man is _not_ (in general) at all
> > wedded to free-market doctrine or actual free markets. A
> > business[wo]man might be the first to violate that principle, if it is
> > in his/her interest to do so.
>
> > I am against coercive intervention, with the exception of spillover
> > effects. To the extent a regulation _serves_ (not mere _claim_ to
> > serve by politician/lawmaker/lobbyist) a spillover purpose where
> > property rights are unclear and cannot be made clear, then a
> > regulation proposal has, at least, prima facie reasonableness.
>
> > I am for "enforcing contracts" -- in simple terms: the product has to
> > be what the seller said it was going to be, and the payment was what
> > the buyer said it was going to be. (It is a fact of reality that when
> > it comes to enforcing many "contracts," it isn't worth the recovery
> > costs.)
>
> Sure, I undersatnd that. I wasn't as clear in what I wrote as I should have been.
> I've seen many times when, without some degree of oversight (regulation), businesses
> will do what they can get away with, often to the detriment of the community,
> environment, market, etc. It isn't so much a "market" issue as a "human nature" issue.
You could say that about almost any human interaction, but property
rights and voluntary trade are not examples of social defects, but
success. Voluntary (peaceful) trade implicitly tells us that property
rights are a social meme as old as the hills. It is one aspect of
human (social) nature.
But on the other hand, "forcing" ([ab]use of power) isn't just about
"businesses." It is about government and individuals too. In fact,
"guvmint" and "business" are mere shorthand constructions for groups
of individuals working under certain institutional arrangements.
[Ab]use of power is a characteristic of humans too.
While I agree with you that a business (or anyone) may abuse a
relationship, I sometimes think you are a little too sanguine about
the potential and practice of guvmint abuse of power. The danger is
actually far greater for guvmint, as it stacks additional power onto
the already existing power problem of a group/institution.
To be more specific, I perceive that you think that the principle
problems of guvmint can be taken care of by "getting the right people
in there." While I think that can help, it is fraught with
intractable difficulties in democracies because "the electorate"
cannot know who the "right people are" due to very real and pragmatic
problems of knowledge. (Moreover, the "vote at the margin problem"
drives politician performance to minimal satisfaction.) This is why I
believe the power problem needs to be cut off at the knees by making
sure guvmint -- as an institutional arrangement -- simply has very
strict limits on its powers.
> > > As I said, your focus is entirely on FDR - I asserted that the policies of
> > > people *like* him and other progressives and progressive organizations (like
> > > unions) helped form the basis of what we now know as the middle class. Did
> > > American industry and business not do well during the time frame I mentioned?
> > > I'd say it did.
>
> > If you are saying capitalism and creativity are remarkably resiliant,
> > even in the face of excessive statism, then sure. As part of human
> > nature, it is organic and tends to find a way around statism (an
> > obstacle), resorting even to the black market, if necessary.
>
> > People find a way to succeed in spite of The State, not because of
> > it. It just takes time to find workarounds and absorb the losses
> > generated by The State. That is why it took so long to get around
> > Hoover and FDR. And we note that FDR's "brain trust" was out for the
> > war -- he needed savvy businessmen to run his war machine. The stupid
> > brain-trust never came back to the measure they influenced FDR's first
> > two admins. That is another reason for the eventual upturn.
>
> > Productivity advances occur because of individual creativity. The
> > only way you can say The State is conducive to prosperity (free value
> > judgements) is in an relative manner. Not all States are created
> > equal.
>
> I think that you're ignoring that as worker's wages increased, they spent more
> money and that, in turn, helped industry.
Why not just print money and give everyone a job?
If business can simply define the worker incomes as it wants to,
within the legal limits, how come I am not getting paid the mandated
minimum wage?
> > > The WPA was set up to assure that a reasonably representative percentage
> > > of blacks were hired - the NAACP seem to think that it was done properly (from
> > > their magazine 'Opportunity' in '39):
>
> > > "It is to the eternal credit of the administrative officers of the WPA
> > > that discrimination on various projects because of race has been kept to a
> > > minimum and that in almost every community Negroes have been given a chance to
> > > participate in the work program. In the South, as might have been expected, this
> > > participation has been limited, and differential wages on the basis of race
> > > have been more or less effectively established; but in the northern communities,
> > > particularly in the urban centers, the Negro has been afforded his first real
> > > opportunity for employment in white-collar occupations..."
>
> > Powell quotes Bernstein:
>
> > "Because of the NRA, wages in the South's largest industry, textiles,
> > increased by almost 70 percent in five months. Employers responded to
> > such massive wage increases by investing in mechanization and
> > dismissing their unskilled workers... Southern industrialists called
> > for the government to set a reduced minimum wage for African Americans
> > to preserve their companies' competitiveness and their workers' jobs;
> > with some merit, they accused northern industrialists of supporting a
> > relatively high wage scale to retard the flight of low-wage industries
> > to the South." -- David E. Bernstein,_Only One Place of Redress:
> > African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from
> > Reconstruction to the New Deal_,(Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press,
> > 2001), pp. 86, 87, 88, 89.
>
> > In reference to Bernstein, Powell writes:
> > "Some 500,000 black workers were estimated to have lost their jobs
> > because of the NRA minimum wage law." -- Powell, FDR's Folly, pp.
> > 118-119
>
> > Powell quoting the NAACP's publication the /Crisis/ (November 1934):
> > "Daily the problem of what to do about union labor or even about a
> > chance to work, confronts the Negro workers of the country... .
> > Seeking to avail itself of the powers granted under section 7A of the
> > NRA, union labor strategy seems to be to form a union in a given
> > plant, strike to obtain the right to bargain with the employees as the
> > sole representative of labor, and then to close the union to black
> > workers, effectively cutting them off from employment."
>
> > Powell writes (p.119):
> > "Out of a reported 2.25 million union members in 1933, only about 2
> > percent were blacks. Despite their differences on other issues, Booker
> > T. Washington, W E. B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of
> > compulsory unionism."
>
> > And there is more, none of it anything you wish to hear.
>
> Well, I'm already aware of that aspect of some of the unions, so it isn't that
> surprising. Again, I don't agree with many aspects of what happened, but I do think
> that there was a lot of benefits to what happened. Some took longer to benefit
> certain groups, like blacks. Of course, '33 was a low ebb point for union membership
> anyway. I believe the percentages of blacks in unions did rise to something closer to
> the nominal population percentage of blacks during the '40s and '50s. I'd have to
> look up the numbers. And, again, the wage increases among union members are often
> reflected in the wages of non-union employees in similar jobs.
I am not against unions, per se. If folks want to freely collude,
that is their business.
Why not just print money and give everyone a job?
> > > Besides, if the New Deal policies were so racist, why did the African
> > > American community move en mass from the Republican party to the Democratic
> > > party after '32?
>
> > Why people do things not in their own interest is an eternal mystery.
>
> Well, maybe they don't think it was quite so against their own interests as you do.
>
> > Take me for example, I am posting to rbr.
>
> (heh...)
>
> > The democrats are good at campaign promises to steal for special
> > interest groups, maybe better than republicans. Who knows? Who
> > cares? Is this any different than any of the other characteristic
> > defects of democracy?
>
> > > > > People were able to move out of cramped urban settings and buy homes.
> > > > > The level
> > > > > of comfort the average worker had was far in excess of anything he'd
> > > > > ever
> > > > > experienced before.
>
> > > > What a bunch of nonsense.
>
> > > What was the percentage of home ownership prior to the Depression,
> > > compared to, say, post WWII? By comfort, I mean things like owning cars and the
> > > like. Like it or not, it happened.
>
> > You made the claim. Present the data from colonial times to the
> > present. Let's see the trend. Let's look at the inflation adjusted
> > prices of the items over that time too.
>
> > And why is home ownership a particular metric of merit in this case?
>
> I think it's a good metric because it demonstrates better buying power for
> workers. To move to a suburb where the house was, one pretty much needed a car, so
> that too demonstrates more buying power. As for me presenting data, I hate to say it
> but I just don't have the time to look it up. Sorry...
I think the entire "middle class" grouping is suspect. We need a new
Marxist class description: Producer Class and Parasite Class. {laughs}
Look how the Parasite Class, whom you've bucketed to "middle class" is
doing:
_America's Richest Counties_, by Matt Woolsey
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/22/counties-rich-income-forbeslife-cx_mw_0122realestate.html
>
> > Moreover, you'd need to prove that it was a result of guvmint creating
> > prosperity, iow, the guvmint is the reason for productivity gains. Or
> > conversely, you could say that more people owned homes even though the
> > pie was the same size. And if you say that is because of guvmint,
> > you're just saying the guvmint did an old fashioned stick-em-up. I'm
> > sure that would not bother you in the least.
>
> I don't credit the govt. for the majority of it. There were surges in union
> membership in the '10s (and not just in the US - it also happened in many western
> nations in the '10s and '30s with similar results).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
>
> > The "middle class" is vague. It is code for growth of government.
>
> Oh. And here I thought it was a band.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Class_(band)
>
> I guess if you want to find a way to disprove an argument, you can always simply
> define a term so that it only has meaning in a way that disproves the argument.
Yes, I think the grouping is suspect. But beyond that, some idea that
income distribution _ought_ to be this or that is nothing more than
value judgement. (Just like what GDP growth "ought to be." Just like
what CPI changes "ought to be.")
> > > > > What TK said elsewhere is dead wrong - the New Deal did not make people
> > > > > think they had a right to the wealth of others. It helped people get a
> > > > > fair wage for the work they did.
>
> > > > Tom's right. You're wrong.
>
> > > Sadly, no.
>
> > "Fair Wage" translation: guvmint coercion.
>
> I think of it as the opposite: if the govt. isn't doing the bidding of business
> (such as forcing workers back on the job and deporting those who were activists),
> workers can get a better negotiating position and, hence better wages and benefits.
Again, there should be no such forcing. We don't need to argue about
things we agree on.
But I would add that while I am not at all against the worker
collusion that unions represent (as long as membership is voluntary),
a privately owned business should not be forced to bargain with a
union any more than the workers should be forced to work.
> > > Seeing the desparate state of people in a bad situation as an opportunity to
> > > experiment with free market theories is, in my opinion, an example of lack of
> > > conscience.
>
> > Milton Friedman was not president of Chili. At least he wasn't to my
> > knowledge.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Greg. I'm not saying Friedman was personally responsible for
> the things that happened in Chile. But he is known to have spoken glowingly about the
> "Miracle of Chile". It wasn't him but a group of his proteges that helped set
> economic policy for Pinochet. Here's a good write up on it:
>
> http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2/
> ________________
> "In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile's
> unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization,
> unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.
>
> "In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year
> "President" Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a
> miracle.
>
> "Pinochet did not destroy Chile's economy all alone. It took nine years of hard
> work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman's
> trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished
> the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension
> system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public
> employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.
>
> "Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a
> giant leap forward ... into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics
> Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped
> 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass
> littered the laboratory floor. Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of
> Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan's State Department
> issued a report concluding, "Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management."
> Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, "The Miracle of Chile." Friedman's
> sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet's Chile was, "a showcase of
> what supply-side economics can do.""
> ________________
>
> > >http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
>
> > Great. Explode a myth that does not exist except in the mind of Naomi
> > and others who love myth and lore.
>
> > 1. Set up the strawman.
> > 2. Knock the strawman down.
> > 3. Pretend you made an argument.
>
> > From your link:
> > "In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global
> > free market triumphed democratically."
>
> > So you see the review is silly in the very first sentence. Capitalism
> > has no relationship with democracy. A free market does not take votes
> > on the trade relations between two (or more) private consenting
> > parties. On the other hand, I agree that democracy tends to destroy
> > freedom (free markets are a natural incidence of freedom).
>
> > Where do you get this junk and why would you read past the first
> > sentence?
>
> I can't say I've ever considered buying a book based on the apparent sanity (or
> lack thereof) of Amazon reviewers. I've read more than just the one sentence blurb
> (which I agree is a bit sensationalistic). There's much more to it than you're
> assuming, Greg.
Dude, I'm a lot more likely to read what Krugman says about Friedman
than Palast and Klein. In fact I have.
With regard to Friedman, I told you explicitly and early on in this
thread that I did not ascribe to the so-called (Friedmanite)
monetarist response to the Great Depression. So why we are now
talking about Friedman and Chili, which I know basically nothing about
is really beyond me. But just for amusement...
In the Amazon reviews of Palast's book, "Manual" claims to be Chilean:
http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...ageNumber=5&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
Milton Friedman and his economics, March 2, 2004
By Manuel (New York, NY) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About
Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters (Paperback)
"I saw this book sitting on my roommates table and decided to flip
through it. First thing I looked at was to see if there was a section
about Chile. Not surprisingly, there was one. After reading the couple
of pages he wrote about the Chile, I felt like flying to London to
kill the author. But instead, I settled with just letting everyone
know about the outrageous lies that he writes. Although I have not
read the rest of the book, just reading this section let me know about
the stupidity and ignorance of the author. If you have read this
section you will be fed with lies such as that Milton Friedman and the
Chicago Boys produced a catastrophic economy in Chile...hmmm...that's
a little hard to believe considering that Chile has the highest GDP
(per capita) in South America, is the 20th most competitive economy in
the world, and has the highest standard of living in Latin America. He
also tells you how great the communist years were, which in reality
were characterized by immense poverty, protest, corruption. The lies
continue in each paragraph. Although I'm not pro or against any
government in my home country of Chile, this book is an insult to it's
people, and I have taken it very personally."
---------------------
But the point is, I do agree with Friedman on the basic points that it
is best for people to be free, and that money matters. While a true
agreement, it is too simplistic and basic to be usable for
argumentation, which is why I like it for the purpose of closing this
thing out. Do you believe people should be free and that money
matters? Do you hate the children? {laughs}
I can't pretend that I know some sort of optimum state of affairs when
it comes to governance. A good and comprehensive understanding is so
difficult to come by. But I do feel that the size and power of our
current federal and state governments need to be curtailed.
> > > > A defense of FDR is untenable. A person who defends FDR is short on
> > > > both reasoning and facts, but on the other hand, high on beliefs.
>
> > > > FDR was evil. Know it.
>
> > > As they say: YMMV. I, and many others, disagree with you.
>
> > Yeah -- FREE STUFF for your vote!!!!
>
> > These are not issues where you get to choose truth as a matter of
> > political platform. These are issues regarding how the world works,
> > despite what a politician wishes to sell you. You believe them at
> > your own and your neighbor's peril.
>
> > I waste my time in political talk in a bike racing newsgroup.
> > Therefore, you should not listen to me.
>
> Well, we both do that. As for listening to you, well, I obviously don't agree with
> many of your perspectives but I do pay attention.
I'm just saying be a little skeptical about what can be accomplished
by command. I actually doubt we are far off in "what we would like to
see." The differences lie in what we think can actually be
accomplished and the means to the ends.
