Q: “… Unions?” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/q-unions/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:39:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265699136424292353
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Q: “… Unions?”
Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.
-
Q: “… Unions?”
Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.
-
More on Guilds
More on Guilds https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/more-on-guilds/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:36:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265698279569981441
-
More on Guilds
Oct 12, 2019, 8:18 PM Guilds limited access, all but eliminated competition and preserved quality, which prevented optimum market pricing in exchange for optimum benefit to workers – because transport costs for goods were higher than local premium prices. So it’s more of an question of eliminating labor arbitrage. Now, other issues were important in the era because tools cost quite a bit, and it prevented the privatization of these tools. And they were also like guarantees of weights and measures in that Guild members found guilty of cheating on the public would be fined or banned from the guild. One of the policies I want to enforce is right-to-repair which will drive out the cheap goods, drive up prices and durability of goods, ending the disposable, and closing our competitive difference with japan and germany.
-
More on Guilds
Oct 12, 2019, 8:18 PM Guilds limited access, all but eliminated competition and preserved quality, which prevented optimum market pricing in exchange for optimum benefit to workers – because transport costs for goods were higher than local premium prices. So it’s more of an question of eliminating labor arbitrage. Now, other issues were important in the era because tools cost quite a bit, and it prevented the privatization of these tools. And they were also like guarantees of weights and measures in that Guild members found guilty of cheating on the public would be fined or banned from the guild. One of the policies I want to enforce is right-to-repair which will drive out the cheap goods, drive up prices and durability of goods, ending the disposable, and closing our competitive difference with japan and germany.
-
All money is a share in a particular economy
All money is a share in a particular economy. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/all-money-is-a-share-in-a-particular-economy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:19:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265694125321576451
-
All money is a share in a particular economy.
Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).
-
All money is a share in a particular economy.
Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).
-
Never Attribute to The Moral What Is Merely Self Interest
Oct 17, 2019, 11:35 AM (slavery) Slavery existed because of labor required for farming. It ended i) because the labor required for farming first reduced by western agrarian innovation, then ii) was eliminated by western innovation, and iii) because western finance, accounting, and taxation technology made customers provide higher returns than slavery. ie: capitalism(markets) produce incentives that slavery cannot match. People are not moral. They are practical. They just make excuses to virtue signal wealth, and the elimination of slavery was an excuse to signal wealth. Never assume people are ‘good’. They are always selfish. In almost every case, from the jewish ban on max of six years, to the pre-modern period, to the modern, to the reason governments banned slavery so that they could tax these individuals, or prevent such accumulation of wealth under slavery that competitors to the state could emerge in colonies. Same for the American civil war. It was so that the western territories did not fall under the political leadership of the south and preserve slavery, which would have left the south in control of the continent, isolating the industrial north.