4 ms·

Unions were terrible for the Big Three auto companies, and they will be terrible for America's new rising commercial powers: Amazon and Tesla

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
This is the same strawman used to gut the US government of any commitment it ever had to any of the people it claims to serve. Terrible unions are terrible, just as terrible governments are terrible. Terrible cars are terrible. Terrible houses are terrible. Terrible schools are terrible. By maintaining these things instead of abandoning them, we can have good unions, good governments, good cars, good houses, and good schools. Repeat for everything in your life, if you want to keep it.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Of course relatively speaking, all of these things exist in a spectrum from good to bad. But at a higher level of analysis, some things are categorically poor solutions to certain problems. The problem of scarcity of rival, non-public goods is best addressed without regimenting the productive forces of the economy with one-size-fits-all solutions. Even with a perfectly free market, the challenge of addressing the complexities of the economy is daunting. We don't need to add restrictions on private property and contracting rights to those challenges.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    We don't need to add restrictions on private property and contracting rights to those challenges. The axiom "reject improvements if we don't need to do them" (whatever "need" means - we don't "need" to do anything) seems a poor guide. What if we want improvements? Or is this axiom just "reject restrictions"? What if those restictions make things better? Is this a kind of religious axiom; that it's morally right at some higher level to reject restrictions, even if they'd make things better? Does that apply to everything, or just economics?
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      Restrictions on voluntary interaction will not outperform unrestricted voluntary coordination. The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life. Interactions that don't make the circumstances of the two parties to the interaction better than they otherwise would be are not sustainable in a free market, while those that do, are selected for, and this is because both parties have a right to choose the best option available to them. A broad-based restriction is a one-size-fits-all-solution that will inevitably lead to less optimal outcomes in numerous cases. Society and economy are too complex to deal with based on broad over-simplifying generalizations about entire classes of interaction.
      - EliRivers 8y ago
        The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life. I understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash. Society and economy are too complex to deal with based on broad over-simplifying generalizations about entire classes of interaction. Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them?
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        I understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash. Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with any Nash work that discredits it. I know that game theory models show that the principle of First Possession (which many animals exhibit and which is the foundation of free market interaction) minimizes conflict, and moreover, that in a perfectly competitive free market, all interactions lead to Pareto Improvements. Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them? It's not a generalization. It's a conclusion based on inductive reasoning about the implications of the economic structure of reality, like people being self-interested, and companies that earn less revenue contracting while those that earn more expand. It's no different than believing that all life is subject to evolutionary forces.
lithos 8y ago
It's those "rising power's" fault for putting workers in a position where they think they gain more freedom with a 3rd party bureaucracy than without.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  It's not the bureaucracy that gives them more freedom. It's the power the law gives them to monopolize their employer's workforce at a particular facility, which let's them extract above-market concessions from their employer. Paying above market rates to a group of workers is not good for the industry, or the economy. American workers and consumers were better off when the US auto industry was growing without the undue burdens of unions, than when it was contracting due to those burdens. Detroit at one time had the highest income level of any city in the US. The success of the US auto industry was good for workers, as is the success of any industry, and industries are more successful when they are not burdened by unions. Likewise, American workers will be better off if Amazon and Tesla are globally competitive and are expanding their domestic facilities with their growing revenue, than if they stagnates, or becomes uncompetitive on the global stage, due to the high costs and inefficiencies of the collective bargaining agreements that were forced on them by ideologically inspired laws.

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago

This is the same strawman used to gut the US government of any commitment it ever had to any of the people it claims to serve. Terrible unions are terrible, just as terrible governments are terrible. Terrible cars are terrible. Terrible houses are terrible. Terrible schools are terrible. By maintaining these things instead of abandoning them, we can have good unions, good governments, good cars, good houses, and good schools. Repeat for everything in your life, if you want to keep it.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
Of course relatively speaking, all of these things exist in a spectrum from good to bad. But at a higher level of analysis, some things are categorically poor solutions to certain problems. The problem of scarcity of rival, non-public goods is best addressed without regimenting the productive forces of the economy with one-size-fits-all solutions. Even with a perfectly free market, the challenge of addressing the complexities of the economy is daunting. We don't need to add restrictions on private property and contracting rights to those challenges.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  We don't need to add restrictions on private property and contracting rights to those challenges. The axiom "reject improvements if we don't need to do them" (whatever "need" means - we don't "need" to do anything) seems a poor guide. What if we want improvements? Or is this axiom just "reject restrictions"? What if those restictions make things better? Is this a kind of religious axiom; that it's morally right at some higher level to reject restrictions, even if they'd make things better? Does that apply to everything, or just economics?
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Restrictions on voluntary interaction will not outperform unrestricted voluntary coordination. The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life. Interactions that don't make the circumstances of the two parties to the interaction better than they otherwise would be are not sustainable in a free market, while those that do, are selected for, and this is because both parties have a right to choose the best option available to them. A broad-based restriction is a one-size-fits-all-solution that will inevitably lead to less optimal outcomes in numerous cases. Society and economy are too complex to deal with based on broad over-simplifying generalizations about entire classes of interaction.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life. I understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash. Society and economy are too complex to deal with based on broad over-simplifying generalizations about entire classes of interaction. Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them?
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        I understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash. Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with any Nash work that discredits it. I know that game theory models show that the principle of First Possession (which many animals exhibit and which is the foundation of free market interaction) minimizes conflict, and moreover, that in a perfectly competitive free market, all interactions lead to Pareto Improvements. Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them? It's not a generalization. It's a conclusion based on inductive reasoning about the implications of the economic structure of reality, like people being self-interested, and companies that earn less revenue contracting while those that earn more expand. It's no different than believing that all life is subject to evolutionary forces.

lithos 8y ago

It's those "rising power's" fault for putting workers in a position where they think they gain more freedom with a 3rd party bureaucracy than without.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
It's not the bureaucracy that gives them more freedom. It's the power the law gives them to monopolize their employer's workforce at a particular facility, which let's them extract above-market concessions from their employer. Paying above market rates to a group of workers is not good for the industry, or the economy. American workers and consumers were better off when the US auto industry was growing without the undue burdens of unions, than when it was contracting due to those burdens. Detroit at one time had the highest income level of any city in the US. The success of the US auto industry was good for workers, as is the success of any industry, and industries are more successful when they are not burdened by unions. Likewise, American workers will be better off if Amazon and Tesla are globally competitive and are expanding their domestic facilities with their growing revenue, than if they stagnates, or becomes uncompetitive on the global stage, due to the high costs and inefficiencies of the collective bargaining agreements that were forced on them by ideologically inspired laws.