It is truly an amazing thing that the MSM (main stream media) has covered the breakup of big labor so much over the last week without mention of how anti-American labor always has been. You're tempted to think that labor has become like a cancer that hasn't spread in so long that they have forgotten it really is potentially very dangerous. But, in truth, the Democratic MSM never regarded it as a cancer; instead to them it was and is an ideological ally and favored special interest group, despite having no American principles whatsoever.
Even since Karl Marx declared "workers of the world unite" there was a fear that the left would spread Communism to America through labor. The Democrats saw an opportunity to exploit the communist momentum. They saw the communist future, as they famously said, and they believed it worked, but communism had a very bad name among freedom loving Americans. So, while being very careful not to call it communism, they sought to organize labor with the promise of higher wages for less work through extortion. They quickly found Democratic allies in the gov't who were happy to legalize this economic extortion scheme and take, in return, the money and votes that would come with it. Like Marx, the Democrats pretended they were helping the little guy to earn a fair wage and reclaim his birthright with the elaborate communist scheme without the communist name.
America was brilliantly conceived of as a free country in which all economic transactions were voluntarily entered into by free people making their own choices to buy and sell. If you wanted a higher wage you had to persuade a person, who was free to say, "no," that he would benefit by paying you, a higher wage for your labor, or price for your goods and services. That usually meant you had to have more education, more skills, work more efficiently, work harder, and/or produce a better or cheaper product. That was the incentive mechanism of progress that got mankind from the stone age to the Space Shuttle and the Plasma TV.
A union seeks to reverse economic progress out of economic ignorance and Democratic exploitation. Instead of getting a higher wage by being worth a higher wage to a free employer, the union seeks to get it through extortion: "give it to me or I'll go on strike, and with my Democratic friends in Washington I'll make it illegal for you to fire me while I'm on strike." This has nothing whatsoever to do with economic progress. It is one part economic ignorance and one part the Democratic exploitation of labor for their money and votes. It is shameful, disgusting, and anti American.
In addition to teaching workers to get ahead by extortion rather than by contributing to economic progress, it doesn't work monetarily . If an employer is coerced into paying a higher wage he then has to raise prices in the exact amount of the higher wages in order to pay the higher wages to his workers. This means that consumers suffer a lower standard of living in order to pay the union a higher standard of living. It is perfectly impossible for the union scheme to have a net benefit to society. They, in effect, steal the money, with the help of Democrats, from poorer Americans who are often not in high wage unions and who never realize that their money is being stolen by unions, and Democrats who brazenly pretend to be the preternatural champions of the poor.
While the Democrats have legalized this domestic extortion, they have not been able, despite their best efforts, to prevent Americans from raising their standard of living by buying cheaper and better goods from overseas. This means that unionized American companies must close down and eliminate the union labor that made the higher priced, lower quality domestic goods. Unions therefore have destroyed major American industries, caused huge unemployment, not raised the general wage level, stolen from the poor, and deposited workers in the unemployment lines without a sense of how to contribute in a free country.
So what do Democratic unions do now after having destroyed many of America's key industries and after having created millions and millions of unemployed? Simple: they go to their Democratic friends in Washington and say: "make this insane extortion illegal before we do even more damage to America than we already have done." Surprise, as it turns out extortionists don't really care about damage. Now they want to organize service workers; especially gov't service workers, whose jobs are already too good and too expensive. An ad in the paper for a gov't job will often produce 100 times the number of applicants as a similar job in the private sector. The Democrats figure these jobs can't be exported overseas so easily, and so the rest of us will then have no choice but to submit to the higher taxes the union extortion may require. Prayfully, this will be the final dead end for labor given the absurdity of gov't allowing labor to organize against gov't, and this time, directly and obviously against taxpayers too.
Let us pray the Democrats are suddenly afflicted by a bout or morality or that the Republicans become so powerful as to illegalize the unions all by themselves, or, more conservatively, that recent divisions within labor render them even more impotent than globalization has. But, pray as we might, we can never expect the MSM to report the truth about labor.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

13 comments:
"America was brilliantly conceived of as a free country in which all economic transactions were voluntarily entered into by free people making their own choices to buy and sell."
does this right apply to other countries too, in the world you wish exised?
Because it would not fit with " after Gulf 1, during which we saved the world's oil supply"
are the people in iraq not free to sell their oil to whomever they want? Should they not be? Or is there a double standard, freedom for americans to do as they please and for the rest of the world to do as Americans please?
imagine a world without unions...
A few thousand people over the country have decision power on the wages of around 90% of the workers.
the workers have no way to get organised to make their demands heard.
the employers are organized, they know each other and meet each other socially at clubs, golf games, etc...
Of course those clubs and organisations are "select" and ask exorbitant entry fees so that only the "correct" (rich) people can enter.
Said employers , having no reason to dislike each other, all agree between them to lower wages, delocalise, and so on, in order to accrue their personnal profits.
Since there are no labor unions, who is to stop them?
And why would the few thousand employers care about the millions employees? it's not as if they knew any after all.
So in this context, we have a few milions virtual slaves and a few thousand millionnaire overlords.
Organized, lobbying overlords, able to change the laws in their profit.
Why should the powerful ones the only ones able to get orgnised? Is not the point of democracy to try and make the GREATER NUMBER happy?
Or did I miss something and america has suddently become an oligarchy (those with the money, have the power)?
Cause that would explain a lot of things
and by the way, if you are so against name calling, refrain insulting people in your posts
french student said... imagine a world without unions...
********it been that kind of world more and more over the last 50 years so its not too hard to imagine is it?
A few thousand people over the country have decision power on the wages of around 90% of the workers.
******that's insane, wages are a price that is determined by supply and demand just llike any other price. This is econ 101
the workers have no way to get organised to make their demands heard.
*****you mean they have no way to threaten and extort money??
the employers are organized, they know each other and meet each other socially at clubs, golf games, etc...
********workers don't go fishing together???
Of course those clubs and organisations are "select" and ask exorbitant entry fees so that only the "correct" (rich) people can enter.
*******so what???
Said employers , having no reason to dislike each other, all agree between them to lower wages, delocalise, and so on, in order to accrue their personnal profits.
******thats against the law. If you or any attorney general could prove it you could run for President. Also, don't forget, global supply and demand determine price of goods and services and wages. Econ 101-page one day one.
Since there are no labor unions, who is to stop them?
*******supply and demand silly
And why would the few thousand employers care about the millions employees? it's not as if they knew any after all.
********supply and demand silly
So in this context, we have a few milions virtual slaves and a few thousand millionnaire overlords.
********there are few unions now compared to 50 years ago and living standards are higher than ever. Plasma TVs, cell phones, computers, houses, and SUV's. There are more than ever and they have come as unions have declined. Isn't thinking fun??
Organized, lobbying overlords, able to change the laws in their profit.
*******except for supply and demand
Why should the powerful ones the only ones able to get orgnised? Is not the point of democracy to try and make the GREATER NUMBER happy?
*********yes that is why we need to get rid of unions
Or did I miss something and america has suddently become an oligarchy (those with the money, have the power)?
********you missed econ 101 page one day one
Cause that would explain a lot of things
and by the way, if you are so against name calling, refrain insulting people in your posts
******you have to admit that you deserve it
listen. The "invisible hand of the market", supply and demand, is a cornerstone of your argumentation.
However, the capitalist model is but a model. Like all models, it calls for premises.
I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but here are two.
The information flows freely and instantly.
Changes in the production system can be done instantly and without cost.
Firts one: patents. There is a special crime (whose english name I do not know) for those who use infomation they shouldn't have had to speculate.
second: clearly this is not the case. Companies must invest millions to be viable. Machines have a life span. Changing anything takes time. On the worker's side, acquiring new skills takes time, impoductive (in terms of money) time.
The capitalist model is a MODEL. Real life does not match models. Maybe you should have stuck till economy 102.
. The "invisible hand of the market", supply and demand, is a cornerstone of your argumentation.
*********exactly
However, the capitalist model is but a model. Like all models, it calls for premises.
I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but here are two.
The information flows freely and instantly.
Changes in the production system can be done instantly and without cost.
*******you're half right
Firts one: patents. There is a special crime (whose english name I do not know) for those who use infomation they shouldn't have had to speculate.
********so??
second: clearly this is not the case.
*******you forgot to say what "this" is??
Companies must invest millions to be viable.
*******or start in your house as Bill Gates did?????
Machines have a life span. Changing anything takes time.
********so???
On the worker's side, acquiring new skills takes time, impoductive (in terms of money) time.
*********so???
The capitalist model is a MODEL.
*******so???
Real life does not match models. Maybe you should have stuck till economy 102.
*******would I have learned that Communism is a better or more model system???
PM
no, but you'd have learnt that there are no absolutes. In fact, the communist system failed because of that mistake: they tried to apply a model without regard for real-world constraints. (that and the fact that the model starts from the assumption that men are altruist. On the other hand, the capitalist model starts from the point that all men are rationnal and see only the profits on the short term. Not a better premise in my opinion)
french student said... no, but you'd have learnt that there are no absolutes.
*******did someone say there were absolutes???
In fact, the communist system failed because of that mistake: they tried to apply a model without regard for real-world constraints.
*********too stupid, communism was tried in many ways in many times by many people and all it did was kill and impoverish people.
(that and the fact that the model starts from the assumption that men are altruist.
*******what model??? you forgot to say???
On the other hand, the capitalist model starts from the point that all men are rationnal and see only the profits on the short term. Not a better premise in my opinion)
********you understand capitalism as well as you understand communism which is to say not at all!
8:16 PM
8:16 PM
Ted said...
french student said... no, but you'd have learnt that there are no absolutes.
*******did someone say there were absolutes???
_______
I have been showing in the previous posts that you try to apply the capitalist model absolutely, this is what I meant when I talked about absolutes. I think I was clear enough but then, I am beginning to think I may have to speak in four, two-syllabes, word sentences for you to understand me. For someone who claime he is smarter than mme, i find it diappointing.
In fact, the communist system failed because of that mistake: they tried to apply a model without regard for real-world constraints.
*********too stupid, communism was tried in many ways in many times by many people and all it did was kill and impoverish people.
_________
yes, but why?? read on to find out
(that and the fact that the model starts from the assumption that men are altruist.
*******what model??? you forgot to say???
_______
the communist model, thought that was obvious.
On the other hand, the capitalist model starts from the point that all men are rationnal and see only the profits on the short term. Not a better premise in my opinion)
********you understand capitalism as well as you understand communism which is to say not at all!
________
authority argument: when you cannot refute, just shout you are right and the other is wrong/stupid/etc... This is the least effective way to convince people. You did not convince me.
Try again.
8:16 PM
I have been showing in the previous posts that you try to apply the capitalist model absolutely, this is what I meant when I talked about absolutes. I think I was clear enough but then, I am beginning to think I may have to speak in four, two-syllabes, word sentences for you to understand me. For someone who claime he is smarter than mme, i find it diappointing.
*******do you have an example of the absolutes you talk about??
(that and the fact that the model starts from the assumption that men are altruist.
*******what model??? you forgot to say???
_______
the communist model, thought that was obvious.
*******the communist model did not assume all men are altruist, but so what.
On the other hand, the capitalist model starts from the point that all men are rationnal and see only the profits on the short term. Not a better premise in my opinion)
********you understand capitalism as well as you understand communism which is to say not at all!
________
authority argument: when you cannot refute, just shout you are right and the other is wrong/stupid/etc... This is the least effective way to convince people. You did not convince me.
Try again.
********dummy if communism or capitalism started from one point there would not be 1000 versions of each- too stupid
"*******the communist model did not assume all men are altruist, but so what."
it assumed that people were naturally eager to work for the common good without immediate reward. That is the whole basis of communism. It is a social theory before it is an economic one.
"********dummy if communism or capitalism started from one point there would not be 1000 versions of each- too stupid"
well, there are variations, but the core assumption is the same. let's make an analogy you will understand.
There are cars and bikes. Cars can be Chevrolets, GMs, porshes, etc... They are still cars, with four wheels and a motor.
there is communism and capitalism. you can apply capitalism as the US does, as France does, etc.... but it still has the basics of capitalism, among which are the assumption that all men are guided by reason and want short-term profit.
"********dummy if communism or capitalism started from one point there would not be 1000 versions of each- too stupid"
well, there are variations, but the core assumption is the same. let's make an analogy you will understand.
******it so nice to learn from a failing student
There are cars and bikes. Cars can be Chevrolets, GMs, porshes, etc... They are still cars, with four wheels and a motor.
there is communism and capitalism. you can apply capitalism as the US does, as France does, etc.... but it still has the basics of capitalism, among which are the assumption that all men are guided by reason and want short-term profit.
********too stupid, in econ, 101 the call the US economy a mixed economy, i.e., it has elements of both.
both what? I don't see how what you say invalidates what I say. Moreover, I refrain from calling you names so please do the same.
french student said... both what?
******no idea what your subject is??
I don't see how what you say invalidates what I say.
*******no idea what your subject is- you forgot to say??
Moreover, I refrain from calling you names so please do the same.
********put you deserve it I'm afraid although I do hope you are learning
Post a Comment